Geotechnical Site Investigations For Underground Projects

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from
XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please
use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution.
Volume 2
Washington, D.C. 1984

National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS

Subcommittee on Geotechnical Site Investigations
U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology
Underground Projects
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

Abstracts of Case Histories and Computer-Based Data Management System
Geotechnical Site Investigations for
i
About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the original typesetting files. Page breaks are true
ii
NOTICE: 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 consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy 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 Council 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 scientific 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 Sciences.
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 Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, and U.S. Geological 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
PREFACE iii
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 Technology (1974, 1978) has issued recommendations addressing certain aspects of underground
construction that contribute to its high risk and high cost. However, underground construction continues to be
expensive, with project costs rising rapidly and often significantly exceeding the preconstruction estimate.
The escalation in costs is incompatible with the most advantageous use of the subsurface at a time when the
desirability of constructing underground rather than surface facilities is becoming increasingly apparent. The emphasis
on developing underground construction to suit a variety of purposes is expanding with our needs to conserve surface
space as our population grows; conserve energy required for heating and cooling; provide refuge from, and mitigate
the effects of, both natural and man-made hazards; provide economical storage for food, water, and strategic goods;
provide safe disposal of toxic and radioactive wastes; and provide for subsurface energy-production 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 desirable 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 among the most
complicated and are particularly sensitive to geotechnical considerations because the construction environment both
affects and responds to the design and construction processes, and ultimately the operation
U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology. 1974. Better Contracting for Underground Construction. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy of Sciences, 143 pp.
U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology. 1978. Better Management of Major Underground Construction Projects.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 151 pp.
PREFACE iv
of the completed facility. Therefore, an adequate and reliable determination of subsurface conditions is essential to
every phase of the project and, as a consequence, is a significant factor in the final cost.
The basic objective of this study is to recommend ways of planning and conducting more effective geotechnical
site investigation programs. In turn, the results of the study are expected to provide a fundamental contribution to a
series of wider objectives: advancements in underground construction technology, improvements 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 permit in-
depth study of a large number of these projects, their respective site investigation programs, and the construction
problems and unanticipated costs, or lack thereof, as a means of determining the nature and signififance of the
relationship between investigation programs and project problems and costs.
Basically, the study consisted of four main tasks, as follows:
• 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 relate 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 construction.
• The case history data and additional information from the personal experiences of subcommittee members
were evaluated and conclusions 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 future retrieval the pertinent site investigation
and construction case history data.
As the study progressed, it became apparent that although there exist a large number of projects from which to
choose, obtaining complete data on any one project is extremely difficult. No one source contained 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
proprietary or was simply not available due to unresolved claims litigation. Due to these constraints, 87 of the original
100 case histories were deemed sufficiently complete to be included in the final compilation of data presented herein.
PREFACE v
The subcommittee's method of collecting and compiling mined tunnel data, including the basic 15-page data
form, are explained in considerable detail in Volume 1, Appendix C. It should be recognized that the need for brevity
in any printed form has the potential to produce distortion, as a short answer may not explain the shadings or nuances
of a particular situation. This problem was generally compensated for in the 15-page data forms by adding
explanations in parentheses and footnotes. This form became the primary record of all data collected for each project
studied and provided the information extracted for the summary matrixes (Plates 1 and 2) in Volume 1 and the case-
history abstracts and computer retrieval system presented in this volume.
The reader should understand that for general knowledge of the 87 projects reported as case histories, a study of
the matrixes will suffice for quick correlation. For a more thorough understanding of particular projects, it will be
necessary to research the abstracts, which are themselves more general than the original data forms.
PREFACE
vi
CONTENTS vii
Contents
ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 1

United States Projects
Mass Transit 6
Railroad 62
Water Conveyance, Flood Control, Dam Diversion 64
Sewage/Wastewater 126
Storm Water Detention 144
Nuclear Plant Cooling 152
Hydropower 154
Canadian Projects
Mass Transit 162
Water Conveyance 168
Sewage 170
Deep Shafts
Hydropower 174
Radioactive Waste Storage 176
Mine Access 178
COMPUTER-BASED DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 181

File Definition Program 192
Format Program 196
Searching Session for Cases with Squeezing Ground 209
Searching Session for Cases in Mixed Face 226
Self-Help Guide 238
CONTENTS
viii
Abstracts of Case Histories
The abstracts of the 87 case histories presented herein were prepared from the 15-page data form that was the
subcommittee's basic means of compiling and recording information on every project selected for study. Therefore, the
reader may find it useful to refer to Appendix C (Volume 1), which discusses the data form in detail. Many of the
explanations in Appendix C apply to the abstracts and are not repeated here. Additional items requiring further
clarification are listed below in the order in which they appear in the abstracts.
Tunnel Construction Costs

Refers only to the cost of excavating and permanently supporting the mined (or sunk or raised) opening under
study. Total project costs are given later.
“Changes” Awarded: refers only to cost overruns actually paid, rather than to all that were requested.
Tunnel Data
Type(s) and Length(s): as taken from final construction records, which may not always match original design
documents.
Depth, crown to water table: a plus (+) sign indicates the water table is above the crown and a minus (−) sign that
it is below the crown.
Geology:
Soil quality--described as cohesive or granular. If cohesive, whether very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff
or hard. If granular, whether cemented or uncemented and then whether very loose, loose, medium dense, dense, or
very dense. (Note: for a rock tunnel not particularly affected by the overlying soil, the soil units are not described.)
Rock quality--described as weathered or unweathered, massive/ thick bedded or foliated/thin bedded, jointing
(close, moderate, wide spacing) or no jointing, shear zones or no shear zones, faulting or no faulting.
Site Exploration
Borehole tests: a dash preceding the name of a test means the actual number performed could not be determined.
Lab tests: explanation applies as for borehole tests.
Construction
Problems Encountered: listed according to six specific categories and then described with key words/phrases.
Unstable ground--blocky or slabby, running, flowing, squeezing, swelling, spalling (bursts).
Hazardous environmental factors--noxious fluids, existing utilities or structures, high temperature, gas.
Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs--hard or abrasive, mucking, soft bottom, face fall-out, gripper instability,
roof slabbing, pressure binding.
Soft-ground methods--surface subsidence (minor = 0-3 in.; moderate = 3-6 in.; major = greater than 6 in.), face
instability, water inflow (operating nuisance, large quantity, high pressure), obstructions (boulders, piles, etc.), material
hardness, steering.
Compressed air--blowouts, fire.
Other problems were sometimes added as a category because interviewers discovered a few that would not fit the
6 categories and 20 key words/phrases described above.
Subsurface-Related Extra Payments

Tabulates monies requested as opposed to monies awarded.
Descriptions and Amounts: follows approximately the same categories and key words/phrases as in “Problems
Encountered,” above.
Remarks
Briefly describes the remainder of the items which make up the total project and the total costs involved. In
addition, this section summarizes any other salient facts that do not fit into the rigid, abstract format yet are necessary
for a true understanding of the project as a whole.
ORGANIZATION SCHEME
The order in which the abstracts are presented matches the arrangement used for Plate 1. The overall scheme
separates U.S. projects, Canadian projects, and deep shafts. Within those major units, the abstracts are organized
according to type (or purpose) of project and then grouped by owner. To assist the reader in researching the abstracts,
the scheme is outlined below and lists the page numbers pertaining to the respective owners.
U.S. PROJECTS
Mass transit
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), pp. 6-11.
Mission Line, Contract 1M0011

Mission Line, Contract 1M0031
Market Street Line, Contract 1S0022
Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System (BRRTS), pp. 12-21.

Bolton Hills
Laurens Street
Lexington Market
Mondawmin Line North
Mondawmin Line South
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), pp. 22-27.
Red Line, Contract 091-105
Red Line, Contract 091-106
Porter Square
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), pp. 28-29.
Peachtree Center
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA), pp. 30-33.
Buffalo Light Rail, Section C-11
Buffalo Light Rail, Section C-31
New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), pp. 34-49.
Route 131-A, Section 1
Route 131-A, Sections 2 and 3
Route 131-A, Section 4
Route 131-A, Section 5A
Route 131-A, Section 5B
Route 131-D, Section 5
Route 131-D, Section 8
Route 133, Section 2
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), pp. 50-61.
Section A-9a
Section A-11a
Section A-11c, Medical Center Station
Section C-4
Section F-1b
Section G-2
Railroad
Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR), pp. 62-63.
Bonneville 2nd Powerhouse
Water Conveyance, Flood Control, Dam Diversion

Bureau of Reclamation (BuRec), pp. 64-99.
Alpine Aqueduct, Section 1

Bacon No. 2
Boustead
Buckskin Mountains
Burnt Mountain and Agua Fria
Carter and Mormon
Cunningham
Dolores
Hades and Rhodes
Hunter, Completion Contract
Navajo Route 44
Navajo No. 5
Pacheco, Reach 2
Santa Clara
South Fork and Chapman
Stillwater, Initial Contract
Stillwater, Completion Contract
Sugar Pine Diversion
California Department of Water Resources (CWR), pp. 100-109.
Angeles
Carley V. Porter
Castaic Dam Diversion
San Bernardino
Tehachapi 1, 2, and 3
Corps of Engineers (COE), pp. 110-115.
North Fork Outlet
Park River Auxiliary
Skiatook Outlet
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), pp. 116-121.
Newhall and Balboa Inlets
San Fernando
Tonner 1 and 2
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), pp. 122-125.
Bi-County, East Main
Bi-County, West Main
Sewage/Wastewater
San Francisco Clean Water Program (SFCWP), pp. 126-129.
North Shores Outfalls, N-1
North Shores Outfalls, N-2
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMBD), pp. 130-137.
Hampton Avenue
Northeast Relief, Contract 287
New York City, Department of Environmental Protection (NYDEP), pp. 138-139.
Red Hook Interceptor
Rochester Pure Waters District (RPWD), pp. 140-143.
Cross Irondequoit Interceptor
Genesee Valley Interceptor
Storm Water Detention

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC), pp. 144-151.

Contract 72-049-2H
Contract 73-160-2H
Contract 73-162-2H (Part 3)
Contract 75-123-2H
Nuclear Plant Cooling

Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSCNH), pp. 152-153.
Seabrook Station
Hydropower
California Department of Water Resources (CWR), pp. 154-155.
Edward Hyatt Powerhouse
Northeast Utilities (NU), pp. 156-157.
Northfield Mountain
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), pp. 158-159.
Kerckhoff No. 2
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), pp. 160-161.
Loon Lake Powerhouse
CANADIAN PROJECTS
Mass Transit
Bureau de Transport Metropolitain (BTM), pp. 162-163.
Montreal Metro Line No. 5
Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), pp. 164-167.
Spadina Subway
Yonge Subway
Water Conveyance
Toronto Metropolitan Works Department (TMW), pp. 168-169.
Easterly Filtration Intake
Sewage
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OME), pp. 170-173.
York-Durham Sewage, Contract 85
York-Durham Sewage, Contract 86
DEEP SHAFTS
Hydropower
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), pp. 174-175.
Look Lake Penstock
Radioactive Waste Storage

Department of Energy (DOE), pp. 176-177.
Exploratory Shaft, WIPP
Mine Access
Brunswick Mining and Smelting Corp., Ltd. (BMS), pp.. 178-179.
Brunswick Shaft No. 3
BART MISSION LINE, CONTRACT 1MOO11
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: 23rd Street to 16th Street, San Francisco, California
PURPOSE: Running lines for subway system
OWNER: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
DESIGNER: Parsons, Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel (JV)
CONTRACTOR: Kiewit-Traylor (JV)
CONSTRUCTION START: February 19, 1968
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 20, 1969
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of completed tunnel
TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
ESTIMATED TOTAL: No information
BID TOTAL: $8,043,356
“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 125,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $8,168,356 (includes all claims and modifications)
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 7,756 lin ft Total length = 7,756 lin ft
LAYOUT: Twin parallel tubes
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 18 ft 0 in. diameter
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 254 sq ft
DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 32 lin ft
minimum = 22 lin ft
Crown to water table--maximum = +20 lin ft
minimum = +10 lin ft
GEOLOGY: Soil--1st Unit
Identification/Type: sand and silty sand
Quality: granular
uncemented
dense to very dense
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: clayey sand
Quality: granular
uncemented
medium dense to dense
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: silty clay
Quality: cohesive
hard
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: pinnacles of severely weathered clayey sandstone, shale and chert

Quality: weathered
thin bedded
jointing (no information)
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BORINGS: Total number = 9
Total length = 515 lin ft
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests
- Advance rates recorded
LAB TESTS: 17 Unconfined compression tests on soil samples
6 Sieve analyses
2 Atterberg limits tests
3 Mechanical analyses
2 Specific gravity tests
2 Consolidation tests
11 Unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests
1 Drained triaxial test

- Natural moisture tests
- Dry density tests
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: None
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground TBM (Caldwell) with compressed air
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wide
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wide
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 105 lin ft
Average = 56 lin ft
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Groundwater inflow
--operating nuisance
Mechanical problems, rock and TBMs
--mucking (muckbound; lost 3 hrs/wk average)
Soft ground methods
--surface subsidence (degree not known)
SUBSURFACE-RELATED EXTRA PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS,
ETC.)
DESCRIPTIONS AND AMOUNTS
No descriptions available
TOTAL = $253,692
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a concrete box crossover structure, 2
ventilation structures, 4 tunnel cross passages, relocation and construction of utilities, surface improvements, and other
related work. The total contract price as estimated was $14,165,856; the low bid was $12,734,618 and the final total
contract cost was $12,876,916. These figures are affected by the fact that the owner supplied the tunnel liner segments.
Some information is missing because of the difficulty with follow-up interviews. Contact with the contractor was
never made. Although contact was made with the owner, he had trouble providing some data because no one was left
with personal knowledge of the project, and records were extremely difficult to obtain from inactive files.
BART MISSION LINE, CONTRACT 1MOO31
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: 24th Street to Randell Street, San Francisco, California
CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen, Perini, Brown & Root (JV)
CONSTRUCTION START: October 8, 1968
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 30, 1969
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit priced per lin ft of completed tunnel
BID TOTAL: $9,376,130
“CHANGES” AWARDED: No information (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
AS COMPLETED TOTAL: No information (includes all claims and modifications)
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 8,754 lin ft
Mixed face = 271 lin ft Total length = 9,025 lin ft
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 18 ft 1-1/2 in. diameter
minimum = 21 lin ft
Identification/Type: sandy clay alluvium with interbedded sand layers
Quality: cohesive
stiff to hard
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: soft metasandstone
Quality: weathered
bedded
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
Total length = 1,596 lin ft

- Water observation wells (in half of the borings)
LAB TESTS: 18 Unconsolidated undrained triaxial compression tests
11 Unconfined compression tests on soil samples
2 Unconfined compression tests on rock core
3 Permeability tests
77 Unit weights
1 Drained triaxial test
77 Natural moisture content tests
- Specific gravity tests
- Shrink/swell potential tests
- Moisture-density relations tests
- Sieve analyses
- Atterberg limits tests
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground TBM (Memco), with 33% under 10 psi compressed air
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wide (welded together)
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wide (welded together)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Left line tunnel--maximum = 102.5 lin ft
average = 34 lin ft
Right line tunnel--maximum = 75 lin ft
average = 35 lin ft
--operating nuisance (only a minor problem)
Soft ground methods
--pressure binding
Compressed air
--no blowouts
--no fire
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a vent shaft, pumping station, 4 cross
passages, underpinning of structures, utility work, paving of tunnel invert, and other related work. The total contract
price as estimated was $14,594,050 and as bid was $11,679,460. These figures are affected by the fact that the owner
supplied the tunnel liner segments. The as completed final costs and detailed information on overruns were not
available because of difficulties with follow-up interviews. Although contact was made with the owner, he had trouble
in providing some data because no one was left with personal knowledge of the project, and records were extremely
difficult to obtain from inactive files. However, contact was also made with the contractor and feedback from him
indicates there were no significant claims and that all disputes were resolved at job level. This would seem to indicate
at least some minor cost overruns due to unexpected subsurface conditions.
BART MARKET STREET LINE, CONTRACT 1S0022
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: 8th Street to 15th Street, San Francisco, California
CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen, Brown & Root, Perini (JV)
CONSTRUCTION START: August 13, 1967
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: August 13, 1968
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit priced per lin ft of completed tunnel
BID TOTAL: $14,961,220
“CHANGES” AWARDED: None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 30 lin ft
Identification/Type: sand with interbedded silty sand, clayey sand, and sandy clay
Quality: granular
cemented (slightly in places)
dense to very dense
SITE EXPLORATION
- Water observation wells in a few borings
LAB TESTS: 9 Unconfined compression tests on soil
4 Sieve analyses
2 Unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests

3 Drained triaxial tests
- Natural mositure tests
- Dry density tests
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground TBM (Memco), mostly in compressed air
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wide (welded together)
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Steel liner segments, 30 in. wide (welded together)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Left tunnel line--maximum = 72.5 lin ft
average = 26 lin ft
Right tunnel line--maximum = 82.5 lin ft
average = 40 lin ft
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground

--running ground (required dewatering until compressed air system was installed to control running)
Groundwater inflow
--operating nuisance (caused running condition until compressed air was installed)
--face fallout (95 cu yd cave-in)
Soft ground methods
--face instability (until compressed air installed)
--water inflow (even under compressed air, water leaked into tunnel around shield, at the invert, and through
cracks in the liner)
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included ventilation and pump shaft structures,
cross passages, mechanical and electrical work, and other related items. The total contract price as estimated was
$20,341,517 and as bid was $17,763,825. These figures are affected by the fact that the owner supplied the tunnel liner
segments. The as completed final costs and detailed information on overruns were not available because of difficulties
with followup interviews. Although contact was made with the owner, he had trouble in providing some data because
no one was left with personal knowledge of the project and records were extremely difficult to obtain from inactive
files. However, contact was also made with the contractor and feedback from him indicates there were no significant
claims. It is still possible there were some minor cost overruns due to unexpected subsurface conditions.
BOLTON HILL TUNNELS
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Baltimore, Maryland
PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway system
OWNER: Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System, Maryland Department of Transportation
DESIGNER: Bechtel Inc.
CONTRACTOR: Fruin-Colnon Corporation
CONSTRUCTION START: August 22, 1977
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 9, 1979
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including lining
ESTIMATED TOTAL: $35,183,497
BID TOTAL: $29,112,730
“CHANGES” AWARDED: In litigation (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not available (includes all claims and modifications)
TUNNEL DATA
Mixed face = 1,200 lin ft Total length = 11,230 lin ft
LAYOUT: Twin single-track tubes
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 48 lin ft
minimum = −5 lin ft
Identification/Type: fine to coarse sand, trace silt
Quality: granular
uncemented
very compact
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: silty clay and clay pockets
Quality: cohesive
hard
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: residual silty sand and sandy silt (saprolite)
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: biotite hornblende gneiss with pegmatite intrusion
Quality: weathered
foliated
jointing, close to moderate spacing
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests in cased boreholes
1 Constant head test in cased borehole
2 Pumping tests in 2 pump test wells
LAB TESTS: - Unconfined compression tests
- Triaxial tests
- Consolidation tests
- Sieve analysis tests

- Natural moisture contents tests
- Slaking tests on a “unit block” of soil
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: A shaft at station entrance, approximately 7 ft by 7 ft by 27 ft deep
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--shield driven under compressed air (12 psi max)
Mixed face--drill-and-blast (rock in invert)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--metallic liner plates
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--metallic liner plates
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Shield--maximum = 48 lin ft
Overall--average = 17.6 lin ft
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Soft ground methods
--obstructions (hard rock in invert requiring drill-and-blast)
ETC.)
Obstructions = $3,200,000
TOTAL = $3,200,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels discussed above, this contract also included 5 mined cross passages, 8 tunnel
interface structures, above ground work, restoration, compaction grouting, and an instrumentation program. The total
contract price as estimated was $44,715,777, and as bid was $41,658,000. Claims for encountering hard rock in the
soft ground tunnels are unsettled as of this writing. Borings were too far from the claim area to detect the high rock
condition.
LAURENS STREET TUNNELS
GENERAL INFORMATION
DESIGNER: Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton
CONTRACTOR: Granite Construction Company
CONSTRUCTION START: March 29, 1979
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: March 26, 1980
BID TOTAL: $13,617,000
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 340 lin ft
Mixed face = 140 lin ft
Rock = 4,726 lin ft Total length = 5,206 lin ft
SHAPE(S): Soft ground--horseshoe
Mixed face--horseshoe
Rock--horseshoe
SIZE(S): Soft ground--22 ft 4-1/2 in. high by 18 ft 8 in. wide
Mixed face--19 ft 2-3/4 in. high by 16 ft 3 in. wide
Rock--19 ft 2-3/4 in. high by 16 ft 3 in. wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Soft ground--390 sq ft
Mixed face--264 sq ft
Rock--264 sq ft
minimum = 52 lin ft
minimum = +9 lin ft
Identification/Type: residual silty sands and sandy silt (saprolite)
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: granite gneiss
Quality: weathered
massive
shear zones, common
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: foliated gneiss
Quality: weathered
foliated
shear zones, common
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
- Water pressure tests using packers
LAB TESTS: 15 Unconfined compression tests on rock core

- Triaxial compression tests on soil
- Consolidation tests on soil
-Aggregate hardness tests (weighted average of the hardness of the various mineral components of the rock)
- Unit weight of rock cores
- Grain size analysis on soil
- Atterberg limits tests on soil
- Natural moisture contents tests on soil
- X-ray analysis of clay minerals in gouge material
- Modal analysis (thin sections cut from core specimens)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--heading and bench and hand mining
Mixed face--drill-and-blast and hand mining
Rock--drill-and-blast
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--ribs, liner plates, and spiling
Mixed face--ribs, liner plates, and spiling
Rock--ribs, rock bolts, and crown bars
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 20 in. thick
Mixed face--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 20 in. thick
Rock--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Rock--maximum = 32 lin ft
Overall--average = 6.3 lin ft
--running ground (2 runs in mixed face)
--excessive overbreak (in rock and mixed face)
ETC.)
Excessive overbreak in mixed face = $ 80,000
Excessive overbreak in rock = $1,000,000
TOTAL = $1,080,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels discussed above, this contract also included a cut-and-cover station, shafts, cross
passages, and restoration. The total contract price as estaimted was $37,401,000; as bid was $36,283,000 and as
completed was $39,040,000. Claims for overbreak were not pursued further by the contractor after denial by the owner.
LEXINGTON MARKET TUNNELS
GENERAL INFORMATION
DESIGNER: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc.
CONTRACTOR: Traylor Bros., Morrison-Knudsen, Grow Tunneling (JV)
CONSTRUCTION START: September 1978
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: April 1979
BID TOTAL: $11,568,130
TUNNEL DATA
Mixed face = 40 lin ft Total length = 3,120 lin ft
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 44 lin ft
minimum = +2 lin ft
Identification/Type: fine to coarse sand, trace silt
Quality: granular
uncemented
very compact
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: silt and clay layers (generally less than 3 ft thick)
Quality: cohesive
hard
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: residual silty sands and sandy silts (saprolite)
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: biotite-hornblende gneiss
Quality: weathered
foliated
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: - One-dimensional swell tests
- Unconfined compression tests
- Grain size analysis
- Natural moisture content tests

- Grout injection tests (laboratory)
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: No
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--shield (Robbins) with compressed air (6 psi average; 12 psi maximum)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--None
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--steel liner plate in one tube; precast concrete liner panels in the other tube
average = 24 lin ft
--running (one 12 cu yd run at face)
Soft ground methods
--obstructions (hard rock in invert)
ETC.)
Obstructions = $250,000
TOTAL = $250,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels discussed above, this contract also included a large construction shaft,
dewatering, compaction grouting, building demolition, and 2 mined cross passages. The total contract price as
estimated was $21,900,485; as bid was $17,514,970 and as completed was $18,114,534. Precast concrete liner
segments were used experimentally in 1,500 lin ft of tunnel.
MONDAWMIN LINE NORTH
GENERAL INFORMATION
DESIGNER: Singstad, Kehart, November & Hurka
CONTRACTOR: Clevecon, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION START: November 1977
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: April 1979
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including the final lining
BID TOTAL: $10,313,225
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 6,316 lin ft Total length = 6,316 lin ft
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
SIZE(S): 17 ft 9 in. high by 16 ft 3 in. wide
minimum = 58 lin ft
GEOLOGY: Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: amphibolite
Quality: weathered
massive
shear zones, common
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: quartz plagioclase gneiss
Quality: weathered
foliated
shear zones, common
no faulting
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: tremolite gneiss

Quality: weathered
massive
shear zones, common
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests
- Rising head tests
- Water pressure tests
- Aggregate hardness tests
- Slaking tests on rock
- Modal analysis (thin sections for rock identification)

- Unconfined compression tests on soil
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Ribs with blocking and lagging, and rock bolts
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thick
Average = 12 lin ft
--blocky (occasional rockfalls)
--excessive overbreak
ETC.)
Excessive overbreak = $408,693
TOTAL = $408,693
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels discussed above, this contract also included a shaft and a section of cut-and-cover
tunnel. The total contract price as estimated was $21,480,808; as bid was $22,646,035 and as completed was
$23,629,569. There were 5 outstanding claims at settlement that were settled with a lump sum; only one of these
claims was geology related. The settlement amount for this claim was apportioned, based on a percentage of the
original asking amount of this claim and the original asking amount of all claims.
MONDAWMIN LINE SOUTH
GENERAL INFORMATION
CONSTRUCTION START: July 1978
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 1979
BID TOTAL: $11,877,810
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
minimum = 48 lin ft
Quality: weathered
foliated
shear zones, common
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: quartz plagioclase gneiss and schist
Quality: weathered
foliated
shear zones, common
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION

BOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests in cased borings
- Rising head tests
- Water pressure tests
- Aggregate hardness of rock
- Slaking tests on rock
- Modal analysis (thin sections for rock identification)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Ribs and blocking with lagging, and rock bolts
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Drill-and-blast--maximum = 30 lin ft
Overall--average = 20 lin ft
--blocky (occasional rock falls)
ETC.)
Excessive overbreak = $493,413
TOTAL = $493,413
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels discussed above, this contract also included a vent shaft, mined cross passages,
relocation and support of utilities, and other above-ground work. The total contract price as estimated was
$19,279,031; as bid was $19,518,746 and as completed was $18,659,141. There were 4 outstanding claims at
settlement that were settled with a lump sum. Only one of these claims was geology related. The settlement amount for
this claim was apportioned, based on a percentage of the original asking amount of this claim and the original asking
amount of all claims.
RED LINE EXTENSION, CONTRACT 091-105
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Between Porter and Harvard Squares, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
OWNER: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
DESIGNER: Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc.
CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen, J.F. White and Mergentime (JV)
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 4, 1981
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of excavation and per unit of lining components
BID TOTAL: $25,046,700
“CHANGES” AWARDED: Not available (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
Mixed face = 1,720 lin ft
SHAPE(S): Soft ground--circular
Mixed face and rock--horseshoe
SIZE(S): Soft ground--23 ft 6 in. diameter
Mixed face and rock--21 ft 2 in. high by 21 ft 10 in. wide
Mixed face and rock--352 sq ft
minimum = 28 lin ft
Identification/Type: glacial till (mixture of sand, gravel, silt and clay)
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: bedded silty argillite
Quality: unweathered
thick bedded
no shear zones
faulting, minor
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: igneous dikes and sills (with diabase and andesite)
Quality: weathered
massive
no shear zones
faulting, minor
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 46 Water pressure tests in rock with packers
57 Field permeability tests in soil
2 Test wells with pump tests
- Oriented coring runs
LAB TESTS: 24 Unconfined compression tests on rock
16 Shore hardness tests
15 Schmidt hardness tests
14 Tabor abrasion tests

10 Total hardness tests
32 Rock density tests
- Wet-dry durability (slake) tests on rock
- Petrographic examinations on rock
7 Density tests on soil
- Unconfined compression/Torvane/vane shear tests on soil
- Moisture/Atterberg limits/sieve analysis tests
- Quality (chemical concentration) tests on water
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for rock depth
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--Shields (2 Elgood Mayo)
Mixed face--Shields (2) and drill-and-blast and backhoe
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--ribs and lagging
Mixed face--ribs and lagging
Rock--steel ribs and rock bolts
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--cast-in-place concrete, 18 in. thick
Mixed face--cast-in-place concrete, 18 in. thick
Rock--cast-in-place concrete, 17 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Soft ground--maximum = 48 lin ft
average = 13.4 lin ft
Rock--average = 5.5 lin ft
--blocky, slabby
--running
--flowing
Groundwater inflow
Soft ground methods
--minor surface subsidence
--face instability
--water inflow (operating nuisance)
ETC.)
Blocky, slabby, unstable ground = $ 3,800,000
Running, flowing unstable ground; groundwater inflow; face instability; surface subsidence = $14,700,000
TOTAL = $18,500,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included five mined cross passages,
two vent shafts, muck hauling by rail, and remedial work at an abandoned city dump to receive muck. The total
contract was estimated at $55,395,920 and the low bid was $47,478,600. Actual final costs cannot yet be reported. The
owner does not wish to prejudice litigation in adjacent sections by revealing amounts settled in Contract 091-105. The
claims were settled through negotiation rather than litigation.
RED LINE EXTENSION, CONTRACT 091-106
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Between Porter and Davis Squares, Cambridge, Massachusetts
DESIGNER: Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc.
CONTRACTOR: Perini Corporation
CONSTRUCTION START: April 4, 1979
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 9, 1980
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of excavation and per unit of lining components
BID TOTAL: $14,182,800
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Mixed face = 484 lin ft
SHAPE(S): Mixed face--circular
Rock--horseshoe
SIZE(S): Mixed face--23 ft 6 in. diameter
Rock--21 ft 1-1/2 in. high by 21 ft 6 in. wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Mixed face--434 sq ft
Rock--352 sq ft
minimum = 32 lin ft
Identification/Type: glacial till (mixture of sand, gravel, silt and clay)
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: marine silty clay (Boston blue clay)
Quality: cohesive
medium stiff to very stiff
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: bedded silty argillite
thick bedded
no shear zones
faulting, minor
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: igneous dikes (with diabase and felsite)
Quality: weathered
massive
no shear zones
faulting, minor
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 45 Water pressure tests with packers
9 Borehole permeability tests in soil
1 Pumping test in test well

20 Schmidt hardness tests
18 Tabor abrasion tests
16 Total hardness tests
- Wet-dry durability (slake) tests on rock
- Petrographic examinations on rock
33 Density tests on soil
- Unconfined compression/Torvane/vane shear tests on soil
- Moisture/Atterberg limits/sieve analysis tests
- Consolidation tests on clay
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for rock depth
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Mixed face--backhoe and drill-and-blast
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Mixed face--ribs and cribbing plus crown bars and spiling
Rock--ribs and rock bolts
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Mixed face--cast-in-place concrete, 18 in. thick
Rock--cast-in-place concrete, 17 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Mixed face--maximum = 4 lin ft
Rock--maximum = 36 lin ft
--squeezing ground
Soft ground methods
--face instability
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included four mined cross passages
and two shafts. The total contract was estimated at $30,304,160; the low bid was $24,384,050 and the actual final cost
was $23,546,070. Cost underruns were mostly due to use of less ground support than anticipated in bidding documents.
RED LINE EXTENSION, PORTER SQUARE STATION, CONTRACT 091-303
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Porter Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts
PURPOSE: Passenger station for subway system
DESIGNER: Cambridge Seven Associates Inc.
CONTRACTOR: Slattery-MacLean (joint venture)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation and per unit of lining components
BID TOTAL: $21,045,650
“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ None (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 490 lin ft Total length = 490 lin ft
LAYOUT: Large underground chamber
SHAPE(S): Split level horseshoe
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 2,360 sq ft
minimum = 64 lin ft
Identification/Type: bedded silty argeilite
thick bedded
jointing, moderate to wide spacing
no shear zones
faulting, minor
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: igneous dikes (with andesite and basalt)
massive
jointing, wide spacing
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION

BOREHOLE TESTS: 3 Boreholes where oriented coring performed
47 Borehole permeability tests
6 Pumping tests (in conjunction with inspection shaft)
- Overcoring tests (in pilot tunnel)
16 Rebound hardness tests
16 Abrasion hardness tests
- Gradation tests on soil
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: One inspection shaft, 36 in. diameter, 111.5 ft deep
One pilot tunnel, 12 ft by 12 ft (length of station)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: One blast vibration test in conjunction with inspection shaft
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (3-stage excavation)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs, rock bolts, and 3 stages of shotcrete
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Shotcrete above and 4th stage (minimum total thickness, 15 in.)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 12 lin ft (per day per stage)
Average = 5 lin ft (per day per stage)
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of major consequence
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined station vault and crossover tunnel described above, the total contract included
miscellaneous surface work, an open-cut mezzanine structure, entrance ways, and architectural, electrical, and
mechanical work. The total contract was estimated at $36,969,138; the low bid was $43,887,900; and the actual final
cost was $44,877,854. The site investigation was unusually thorough and probably cost in the neighborhood of
$2,000,000 in 1976-78 dollars. This undoubtedly accounts for the fact that there were so few problems with
unexpected subsurface conditions.
PEACHTREE CENTER STATION AND SUBWAY TUNNELS (CONTRACT CN-120)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Marietta Street to Mills Street, Atlanta, Georgia
PURPOSE: Running tunnels and station structure for subway system
OWNER: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
DESIGNER: Singstad, Kehart, November & Hurka; PB/T; Parsons Brinckerhoff; DeLeuw Cather
CONTRACTOR: Horn-Fruin Colnon (JV)
CONSTRUCTION START: January 19, 1978
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit prices for excavation and support items for the tunnels and station
BID TOTAL: $23,621,507
TUNNEL DATA
Rock--tunnel = 2,490 lin ft
station chamber = 770 lin ft Total length = 5,177 lin ft
LAYOUT: Parallel single-track tunnels with station
SHAPE(S): Soft ground and mixed face--circular
Rock--horseshoe
Station--horseshoe
SIZE(S): Soft ground and mixed face--20 ft diameter
Rock--18 ft 9 in. high by 18 ft 9 in. wide
Station--42 ft high by 60 ft wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Soft ground and mixed face--314 sq ft
Rock--356 sq ft
Station--2,450 sq ft
minimum = 36 lin ft
Identification/Type: residual-micaceous silty sands
Quality: granular
uncemented
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: decomposed metamorphic rock

Quality: weathered
foliated
jointing, moderate spacing
shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: interbedded biotite, amphibole, and granitic gneisses
Quality: weathered
foliated
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 5 Oriented integral coring tests
- Standard penetration tests
- Single and double packer tests

- Variable head permeability tests
20 Triaxial tests on soil samples
19 Rebound and abrasion hardness tests
- Petrographic examination of rock core
- Rock resistivity tests
- Soil classification tests
- Moisture content of soil samples
- Direct shear tests on rock joints
- X-ray difraction of joint filling materials
- Chemical testing of groundwater
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: A 900-ft long (5 ft high and 9 ft to 14 ft wide) pilot tunnel
through crown of station; overcoring, flatjack testing, and MPBXs in pilot tunnel
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--shield with compressed air
Mixed face--shield with compressed air
Rock--drill-and-blast with specified multiple heading and bench sequence in station
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--none
Mixed face--none
Rock--rock bolts in tunnels and station
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--liner plates
Mixed face--liner plates
Rock--cast-in-place concrete (12 in. thick) or shotcrete (4 in. thick)
Station arch--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 2 ft 11 in. to 3 ft 6 in. thick
Station walls--none or reinforced cast-in-place concrete (9 in. thick) or shotcrete (4 in. thick)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Soft ground or mixed face--maximum = 12.5 lin ft
Rock (tunnels)--maximum = 7 lin ft
--blocky, slabby (overbreak requiring additional support)
ETC.)
Blocky, slabby (overbreak requiring additional support) = $1,000,000
TOTAL = $1,000,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels and station described above, the total contract also included cut-and-cover
portions, vents, shafts, entrance ways, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was estimated at
$43,764,000 and the low bid was $42,500,000. Total final costs were not available.
BUFFALO LIGHT RAIL RAPID TRANSIT SECTION C-11 (Contract 1C0011)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Ferry to Amherst Streets, Buffalo, New York
OWNER: Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
DESIGNER: Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc.
CONTRACTOR: Fruin-Colnon, Traylor Bros. and Onyx Construction (JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation, separate unit price per unit of lining component
BID TOTAL: $28,650,062
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 268.8 sq ft
minimum = 18 lin ft
Identification/Type: solutioned dolostone and dolomitic limestone (Bertie formation)
thin bedded
no shear zones
faulting, minor
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Packer tests on rock
1 Pump test with observation wells
- Methane gas tests
262 Point load tests
- Total hardness and fracture toughness studies (by Cornell University)

- X-ray diffraction of rock samples
- Groundwater tests for pH and coliform bacteria
- Clay/shale content, acidity and iron sulfide tests on rock samples
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: One inspection shaft, 36 in. diameter, 62 ft deep
SURFACE MAPPING: Yes
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBMs (Robbins 186-206 and 186-207)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts (8 ft long), with ribs in limited areas
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Robbins 186-207--average = 77.9 lin ft
Robbins 186-206--average = 68.5 lin ft
Combined TBMs--average = 74.8 lin ft

--slabby (rock fallout at quarter arch points)
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity
--mucking (mud from solution cavities clogged mucking system)
--hard rock
ETC.)
Mucking (solution cavities, delays)
Hard rock = ±$8,000,000
TOTAL = ±$8,000,000
REMARKS
In addition to the TBM mined tunnels described above, the total contract also included three subway stations, a
water discharge pipeline, and a TBM recovery shaft. The total contract was estimated at $46,427,160 and the low bid
was $38,949,800. Final cost was not available, because claims were in litigation at the time of this study.
BUFFALO LIGHT RAIL RAPID TRANSIT SECTION C-31 (Contract 1C0031)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Amherst Street to South Campus Station, Buffalo, New York
OWNER: Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
DESIGNER: Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc.
CONTRACTOR: S&M Constructors, McHugh Construction, Kenny Construction Company (JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation, separate unit price per unit of lining components
ESTIMATED TOTAL: Not available
BID TOTAL: $17,741,935 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
“CHANGES” AWARDED: In litigation
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
SIZE(S): Inbound--18 ft 6 in. diameter (7,600 lin ft)
Outbound--18 ft 7 in. diameter (7,297 lin ft)
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Inbound--268.8 sq ft
Outbound--271.1 sq ft
minimum = 22 lin ft
Identification/Type: solutioned dolostone and dolomitic limestone (Bertie formation)
thin bedded
no shear zones
faulting, minor
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Packer tests on rock
1 Pump test in exploration shaft (with observation wells)
207 Point load tests on rock core

- Groundwater tests for pH and coliform bacteria
- X-ray diffraction of rock samples
- Acidity, clay/shale content and iron sulfide tests on rock samples
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: One inspection shaft, 36 in. diameter, 62 ft deep
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 185-178-1 and 181-182)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts (8 ft long), with ribs in some areas
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Robbins 185-178--average = 52.4 lin ft
Robbins 181-182--average = 56.0 lin ft

--slabby (rock fallout at quarter arch points)
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity
--mucking (mud from solution cavities clogged mucking system)
ETC.)
Mucking (muck filled solution cavities) = ±$6,000,000
TOTAL = ±$6,000,000
REMARKS
In addition to the TBM mined tunnels described above, the total contract also included two subway stations,
installation of dewatering pipelines, three shafts, and a TBM recovery shaft. No engineer's estimate was available for
the contract, but the low bid for the total contract was $35,381,213. The final contract cost was not available due to
litigation concerning claims.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-A, SECTION 1
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: East 63rd and York (Manhattan) to 41st and Vernon (Queens)
PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway and railroad
OWNER: New York City Transit Authority
DESIGNER: New York City Transit Authority
CONTRACTOR: Peter Kiewit & Sons, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Slattery Associates (JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining
components
BID TOTAL: $17,231,500
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock--running tunnel = 882 lin ft
station = 596 lin ft Total length = 1,478 lin ft (includes transition through backfill concrete)
LAYOUT: Single four-track tunnel
SHAPE(S): Running tunnel--horseshoe
Station--large chamber
SIZE(S): Running tunnel--44 ft high by 40 ft wide
Station--43 to 75 ft high by 42 to 60 ft wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Running tunnel--±1,580 sq ft
Station--1,660 to 3,540 sq ft
minimum = 47 lin ft
Identification/Type: granodiorite gneiss
foliated
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: None

LAB TESTS: Not available
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast, top heading and bench
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets, rock bolts
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 2.5 ft thick (minimum)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Running tunnel--maximum = 22 lin ft
Station tunnel--average = 2.4 lin ft
--blocky, slabby (excessive overbreak)
Groundwater inflow

ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included sunken tube construction below the
East River, 2 ventilation/emergency shafts, and other related work. The total contract price as estimated was
$80,985,266; as bid was $69,480,920 and as completed was $75,742,756. There were no geology related claims in the
tunnels for this project. There were claims in a shaft excavation on Welfare Island where rock moved inward up to 10
in. on the east wall of the shaft due to high in-situ stresses.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-A, SECTIONS 2 and 3
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: E. 63rd Street and 5th Avenue to W. 58th Street at 7th and 6th, Manhattan
PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway
CONTRACTOR: Central Park Constructors (JV)
CONSTRUCTION START: May 7, 1971
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 1976
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate prices per unit of lining components
BID TOTAL: $13,787,800
“CHANGES” AWARDED: Claims pending (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single two- and four-track tunnels
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
SIZE(S): Two tracks--16 ft high by 36 ft wide
Four tracks--40 ft high by 96 ft wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 544 to 3,648 sq ft
minimum = 26 lin ft
Identification/Type: mica schist
Quality: weathered
foliated
shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: hornblende schist
Quality: weathered
foliated
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: None
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast, top heading and bench
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets, rock bolts, timber support, and liner plates
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 16 to 24 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Top heading (tunnel width by 19 to 21 ft high)--maximum = 14 lin ft
average = 6 lin ft
Top heading (junction area)--average = 0.5 lin ft
Low rock profile (claim area)--average = 1 lin ft

--blocky, slabby (cave-in)
--mucking
--face fall-out
Soft, weathered or decomposed rock
ETC.)
Decomposed rock in rock tunnel = $9,200,000
TOTAL = $9,200,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included cut-and-cover construction, a
substation, and other related work. The total contract price as estimated was $37,321,454 and as bid was $33,873,696.
Claims for $9,200,000 are pending so completed costs are not available. The total contract price not including these
claims was $40,961,800. The claim area is in New York's Central Park, where access to obtain borings had been
denied. The claim might have been avoided if borings had been made in the area.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-A, SECTION 4
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: 5th Avenue to Park Avenue along E. 63rd Street, Manhattan
PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway
CONTRACTOR: McLean, Grove & Company; Grove, Shepard, Wilson, Kruge, Inc.; Grow Tunneling
Corporation (JV)
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: December 1977
components
BID TOTAL: $40,897,590
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single four-track tube (with crossover lines)
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe and double arch
SIZE(S): 37 ft high by 41 to 68 ft wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Horseshoe--±1,400 sq ft
Double arch--±2,350 sq ft
minimum = 46 lin ft
Identification/Type: mica schist with pegmatite intrusions
foliated
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 1 Double packer test in fault zone
LAB TESTS: 3 Unconfined compression tests

3 Schmidt rebound tests
3 Modified Taber abrasion tests
2 Impact toughness tests
29 Total hardness tests (by TBM manufacturer)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, up to 5 ft thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 8 lin ft (3 shifts)
Average = 2.5 lin ft (3 shifts)
--blocky, slabby (excessive overbreak and extra support in fault zone)
Groundwater inflow
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES
bid was $54,252,215 and as completed was $55,893,000. This contract was advertised twice and had only two bidders.
39
passageways, an equipment room, and other related work. The total contract price as estimated was $34,186,470; as
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a ventilation shaft, emergency
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-A, SECTION 5A
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Park Avenue to 3rd Avenue, along E. 63rd Street, Manhattan
PURPOSE: Running tunnel for subway
CONTRACTOR: Schiavone Construction Company, Impresit Girola Lodiani, Inc., Thomas Crimmins
Contracting Company (JV)
components
BID TOTAL: $67,545,200
“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 1,300,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single four-track tunnel
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
SIZE(S): 38 to 46 ft high by 43 to 56 ft wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 1,672 sq ft to 2,464 sq ft
minimum = 69 lin ft
Identification/Type: mica schist with intruded pegmatite dikes
Quality: weathered
foliated
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: 1 Unconfined compression test
1 Density test
1 Shore sclerscope hardness test

1 Schmidt hardness test
1 Modified Taber abrasion test
1 Rock abrasiveness test
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (full face, except for multiple drifts in fault zones)
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 2 to 5 ft thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 7 lin ft (2 shifts)
Average = 2 lin ft (not including fault zones)
--blocky, slabby (rock falls and extra support at two fault zones)

ETC.)
Blocky, slabby (fault zones) $ Unknown
REMARKS
In addition to the mined running tunnel described above, the total contract included a station, entrance ways,
shafts, underpinning of structures, and other related work. The total contract price as estimated was $149,025,596, and
as bid was $154,286,300. Claims on this project (other than for tunnels) have not been settled as of this writing. The
estimated total completion cost is $160,500,000. Additional exploration might have detected fault zones which caused
the major claim.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-A, SECTION 5B
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Third Avenue to FDR Drive, along E. 63rd Street, Manhattan
PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subway and railroad system
CONTRACTOR: Schiavone Construction Company, Impresit Girola Lodiani, Inc., Thomas Crimmins
Contracting Company (JV)
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: October 1982
components
BID TOTAL: $119,370,250
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 2,420 lin ft alignment (tunnel length not possible to determine due to
complex configuration)
LAYOUT: Four parallel tubes; five-track large chamber and various combinations
SHAPE(S): Circular (TBM bores), horseshoe, and flared sections
SIZE(S): Circular--20 ft 2 in. to 22 ft 0 in. diameter
Horseshoe--40 to 80 ft high by 27 to 79 ft wide
Flared section--21 ft high by 21 to 58 ft wide
minimum = 61 lin ft
Identification/Type: mica schist with pegmatite intrusions
foliated
shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: blocky, decomposed schist and fault gouge
Quality: weathered
foliated
jointing, close spacing
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
9 Density tests
1 Shore scleroscope hardness test
1 Schmidt rebound hardness test
1 Modified Taber abrasions test
1 Rock abrasiveness test
2 Impact toughness test
- Petrographic analyses of rock cores
SURFACE MAPPING: No

CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 200-220) supplemented by drill-and-blast
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets, rock bolts, shotcrete
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 2 to 5 ft thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM--maximum = 87 lin ft (3 shifts)
average = 23 lin ft (3 shifts)
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Localized soft ground
--highly weathered fault zones (required extra support)
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
This contract involved a total of 6 subway and 2 railroad tracks converging and diverging along the alignment.
The project consists of extremely complex tunnel sections, constructed mainly as 4 parallel TBM bores (2 upper and 2
lower). Using drill-and-blast methods, the TBM bores were enlarged in places into flared sections and large chambers.
In addition to the mined tunnels discussed here, the contract also included 2 shafts and other related work. The total
contract cost as estimated was $250,847,873, and as bid was $185,825,022. The estimated total completion cost is
$186,745,000; project completion is expected in May 1984.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-D, SECTION 5
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Borough of Queens, New York, New York
DESIGNER: Corddry Carpenter Dietz & Zack
CONTRACTOR: MacLean-Grove and Company, Inc
CONSTRUCTION START: November 10, 1975
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: September 24, 1976
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of tunnel excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining
components
BID TOTAL: $4,386,520
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 327 lin ft Total length = 327 lin ft
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 23 lin ft
Crown to water table--water table below invert
Identification/Type: sand and gravel with occasional boulders
Quality: granular
uncemented
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: None
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Shield (make and model unknown)

PRIMARY SUPPORT: Cast iron liner plates
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 13-1/2 in. thick
Average = 71 lin ft
--running ground
Soft ground methods
--face instability
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
was $20,724,286; as bid was $24,810,955 and as completed was $24,792,447.

45
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included cut-and-cover box construction,
support structures for existing facilities, underpinning, and other related work. The total contract price as estimated
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 131-D, SECTION 8
GENERAL INFORMATION
CONTRACTOR: Schiavone Construction Company, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION START: September 21, 1981
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of tunnel excavation and per ton of precast concrete liner
BID TOTAL: $22,578,750
“CHANGES” AWARDED: Not settled (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 15 lin ft
Crown to water table--unknown
Identification/Type: fine to coarse sand and gravel, with occasional boulders and some silt
Quality: granular
uncemented
medium dense to very dense
SITE EXPLORATION
Total length - 1,321 lin ft
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration
LAB TESTS: - Unknown
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Shield (make and model unknown)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Precast concrete panels

PERMANENT SUPPORT: Precast, segmented, reinforced concrete liner panels, 9 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 17.5 lin ft
Average = 14.0 lin ft
--flowing ground
Soft ground methods
--face instability

ETC.)
Unknown $ Unknown
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a cut-and-cover fan room and
ventilation structure, a pump room, and underpinning and support of existing structures and utilites. The total contract
price as estimated was $40,495,407, and as bid was $35,278,627. Claims on this project have not been settled. The
total as completed contract price, not including outstanding claims, was $35,280,000. One claim for cracks in the
concrete liner for about $1,000,000 was submitted, but no details on this claim are available.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY ROUTE 133, SECTION 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
DESIGNER: Singstand, Kehart, November & Hurka
CONTRACTOR: Schiavone Construction Company, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION START: March 1977
components
BID TOTAL: $21,053,000
AS COMPLETED TOTAL: 21,025,800 (includes all claims and modifications)
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 24 lin ft
Crown to water table--unknown
Identification/Type: fine to coarse sand and gravel, with occasional boulders
Quality: granular
uncemented
medium dense to very dense
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: None
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Shields (2, makes and models unknown)

PRIMARY SUPPORT: Liner plates
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 37.5 lin ft
--large quantity (required deep dewatering wells)

ETC.)
Groundwater inflow
--deep dewatering wells $ Unknown
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a 150-ft long fan chamber and
ventilation superstructure (all of which is cut-and-cover), a chemical grouting program, and underpinning and support
of existing structures. The total contract price as estimated was $30,010,424; as bid was $27,358,688 and as completed
was $27,098,000.
WASHINGTON METRO SECTION A-9a
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant, Washington, D.C.
OWNER: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
DESIGNER: Parsons Associates (The Ralph M. Parsons Company)
CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen & Associates
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: November 8, 1976
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of single-track tunnel
BID TOTAL: $24,993,500
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 82 lin ft
Identification/Type: decomposed rock (saprolite), fine sandy silt to medium sand
Quality: cohesive to granular
hard or very compact
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: quartz-diorite gneiss
massive
shear zones, occasional
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: gabbro gneiss
massive

no faulting
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: quartz-mica schist-to-gneiss
Quality: weathered (badly in one area)
foliated
shear zones, common
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
75 Falling head tests in observation wells and boreholes
2 Borehole photography runs
- Corrosion potential tests of groundwater (pH, resistivity, concentrations of SO4, Cl, CO3)

SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 191-161) plus drill-and blast in a short section of bad ground
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts in 63% of tunnels, with ribs in local bad ground areas
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM--maximum = 125 lin ft
average = 60 lin ft
--running ground (1 chimney to surface)
Groundwater inflow
--face fallout
ETC.)
Face fallout and running ground = $7,000,000
TOTAL = $7,000,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included 6 fan and vent shafts, a
tiebreaker station, and a pilot tunnel for a future passenger station. The total contract was estimated at $33,293,520 and
the low bid was $34,931,600. The actual final cost was $36,950,201, with almost 98 percent of the overrun stemming
from the tunnel changed condition claim. The claim resulted in litigation, but settlement was achieved before it
actually came to trial.
WASHINGTON METRO SECTION A-11a
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Bethesda, Maryland (Rockville Route)
DESIGNER: Mathews-Chatelain-Beall
CONTRACTOR: J.F. Shea Company, Arlington, Virginia
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit priced per lin ft of tunnel excavation including support
BID TOTAL: $23,331,580
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 40 lin ft
Identification/Type: quartz diorite gneiss
massive
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: quartz mica schist to gneiss
foliated
shear zones, common
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION

BOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests with packers
- Falling head tests
- TBM drillability tests (abrasion testing by P.J. Tarkoy and E.J. Cording)
- Specific gravity of rock cores
- Direct shears on clay gouge, rock in shear zones
- Corrosion testing of water (pH, CO3, SO4, CL)
- Resistivity
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES : None
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 191-161)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts for 75% of length, ribs for 25%

Average = 47 lin ft
--blocky/slabby (2 cave-ins)
Groundwater inflow
--material hardness
ETC.)
Hard rock and groundwater slowing TBM = $3,412,000
Cave-ins = $1,460,000
TOTAL = $4,872,100
REMARKS
In addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included 7 fan and vent shafts, a pilot
tunnel for a future passenger sation, a portal structure, some cut-and-cover, and miscellaneous surface work. The total
contract was estimated at $55,526,175; the low bid was $52,296,583 and the actual final cost was $50,987,139. The
underruns were due to liquidated damages and back charges, and the elimination of 1,434 lin ft of mined tunnel. On
the tunnel claims, papers were filed for litigation but settlement was reached prior to hearing.
WASHINGTON METRO, MEDICAL CENTER STATION (SECTION A-11c)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Bethesda, Maryland (Rockville Route)
PURPOSE: Station structure for subway system
DESIGNER: Mathews-Chatelain-Beal
CONTRACTOR: Peter Kiewit & Sons Company
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 1980
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of station excavation including final support
BID TOTAL: $11,571,500
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Large underground chamber
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
SIZE(S): 43 ft high by 59 ft wide
minimum = 80 lin ft
Identification/Type: quartz diorite gneiss
weakly foliated
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests using packers
LAB TESTS: 45 Unconfined compression tests on rock cores
- Specific gravity of rock cores
- Detailed petrographic examinations of thin sections taken from rock cores

EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: One 774-ft long pilot tunnel through crown
Two 20-ft diameter running tunnels prebored by TBM through station length
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and ribs, plus 2 stages of shotcrete
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Rock bolts and ribs, plus 3rd stage of shotcrete (8 in. total thickness)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 2.5 lin ft
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any consequence
SUBSURFACE-RELATED PAYMENTS REQUESTED FOR “CHANGES” (MODS, CLAIMS, ETC.)

None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined station vault and mined portion of entrance described above, the total contract included 2
shafts, the cut-and-cover portion of the entrance, miscellaneous surface work, and some internal structures. The total
contract was estimated at $22,675,810; the low bid was $21,474,003 and the actual final cost was $22,046,558. Prior to
bid, the rock was mapped in a pilot tunnel and 2 running tunnels pre-excavated through the station length. Medical
Center bedrock was the soundest of Metro's 11 rock station locations, and the tunnels did not warn of any hazardous
areas because there were none. Although the presence of the pilot and pre-excavated tunnels may have helped elicit
responsible bids, it was ultimately the soundness of the rock that contributed most to avoidance of claims and overruns.
WASHINGTON METRO SECTION C-4
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Under Potomac River and Northwest Quadrant, Washington, D.C.
DESIGNER: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas
CONTRACTOR: Shea, Ball, S&M (JV)
CONSTRUCTION START: November 1972 (shield tunnels)
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: August 1973 (shield tunnels)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices for excavation and support items
BID TOTAL: $15,649,372
TUNNEL DATA
Mixed face--horseshoe and circular
Rock--horseshoe
SIZE(S): Soft ground--20 ft 6 in. diameter
Mixed face--19 ft 8 in. diamater
Rock--19 ft 8 in. high by 19 ft 8 in. wide
Mixed face--304 sq ft
Rock--322 sq ft
minimum = 12 lin ft
Crown to water table--maximum = +65 lin f
Identification/Type: fine to coarse sand with boulders
Quality: granular
uncemented
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: clayey silt (silty clay layers)
Quality: cohesive medium stiff to stiff

Rock--1st Unit
Quality: weathered
foliated
jointing, close to wide spacing
shear zones, common
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests using packers
LAB TESTS: 72 Unconfined compression tests on rock cores
6 TBM drillability tests (sonic pulse velocity, abrasion hardness, rebound and Shore hardness) on rock cores
6 Moh's hardness tests on rock
- Atterberg limits tests on soil
- Sieve analysis tests on soil
- Natural moisture tests on soil

- Triaxial tests on soil
- Consolidation tests on soil
- Direct shear tests on soil
Corrosion testing of water (SO4, CL, CO3, pH, and electrical resistivity)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--Shield (Elgood Mayo)
Mixed face--drill-and-blast, hand and mechanical mining
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--ribs and lagging
Mixed face--ribs and lagging, spiling
Rock--ribs and blocking, crown bars
average = 13 lin ft
--running (earth tunnel)
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity (2 floods)
Soft ground methods
--obstruction (high rock in soft ground tunnel invert)
ETC.)
High rock (in soft ground tunnel) = $ 1,187,200
Overrun in ribs (rock and mixed face) = $ 2,503,815
Shotcrete deletion = $ 2,362,891
Rock bolt deletion = $ 116,200
Change to reinforced cast-in-place concrete liner = $ 6,150,000
Miscellaneous steel overrun (rock and mixed face) = $ 448,268
TOTAL = $12,768,374
REMARKS
In addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included 3 shafts, a mid-Potomac
River pumping station, and a substation. The total contract was estimated at $26,930,647; the low bid was $23,397,053
and the actual final cost was $32,009,752. The tunnel claim situation was extremely complex, entailing a total of more
than 30 claims filed, many of them related directly or indirectly to geological conditions. At the time of construction,
U.S. contractors had only limited experience with the mostly shotcrete and rock bolt support design shown. The C-4
contractor installed large numbers of steel ribs on 2-ft centers, for which he asked payment. The extra ribs vastly
complicated the use of rock bolts, shotcrete and miscellaneous steel, and made necessary an unanticipated switch to a
reinforced cast-in-place concrete liner. Many of the claims were filed for litigation, but all were settled prior to hearing.
WASHINGTON METRO SECTION F-1b
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Northwest quadrant, Washington, D.C.
DESIGNER: Corddry Carpenter Dietz & Zack
CONTRACTOR: Dravo Corporation
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including support items
ESTIMATED TOTAL: $ 7,504,600
BID TOTAL: $ 9,943,150
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 20.7 ft diameter
minimum = 33 lin ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: fine to medium sand
Quality: granular
uncemented
dense
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: silty clay
Quality: cohesive
medium stiff
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: plastic clay
Quality: cohesive
hard
SITE EXPLORATION

BOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests in observation wells
LAB TESTS: - Consolidation tests
- U.U. triaxial tests
- Unconfined compression tests
- Atterburg limits tests
- Sieve analysis tests
- Corrosion testing of water (includes pH, resistivity, CL, SO4, CO3)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Shields (Milwaukee Boiler and Elgood Mayo)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Ribs and lagging
Average = 15 lin ft

--runing
--squeezing
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity
Soft ground methods
--material hardness (very hard cretaceous soils slowed progress)
--moderate to minor surface subsidence
ETC.)
North tunnel claim (squeezing and running ground) = $1,740,275
South tunnel claim (hard ground in invert) = $2,222,523
TOTAL = $3,962,798
REMARKS
In addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included several shafts, a cut-and-
cover passenger station, some cut-and-cover running tunnel, extensive underpinning, and miscellaneous surface work.
The total contract was estimated at $26,610,528; the low bid was $28,566,317 and the actual final cost was
$34,938,261. The owner paid no money on the south tunnel claim because the courts decided against the contractor.
The north tunnel claim was primarily an offshoot of extensive settlement damage to streets, utilities and buildings, and
the contractor recovered 23 percent of the amount asked. In addition, $4,429,000 was paid by the owner's wrap-up
insurance for repair work.
WASHINGTON METRO SECTION G-2
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Northeast quadrant of Washington, D.C.
DESIGNER: Corddry, Carpenter, Dietz & Zack
CONTRACTOR: Healy-Ball-Greenfield (JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of earth tunnel and lining
BID TOTAL: $18,226,940
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 27 lin ft
Identification/Type: fine to medium sand, some silt
Quality: granular
uncemented
dense to very dense
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: plastic clay
Quality: cohesive
hard
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: silty fine-to-medium sand lenses
Quality: granular
cemented
SITE EXPLORATION

BOREHOLE TESTS: 32 Falling head tests in cased boreholes and observation wells
12 Triaxial compression tests
1 Direct shear test
- Water content tests
- Corrosion potential of soil and water (pH, resistivity, concentrations of SO4, Cl, CO3)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Shields (1 Memco, 1 Zokor)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Ribs and lagging

ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 100 lin ft (fastest shield)
Average = 18 lin ft (both shields)
--face instability
--water inflow (large quantity)
--flowing ground
--obstructions (hard cemented sand lenses)
ETC.)
Face instability/water/flowing ground = $22,188,566
Obstructions = $ 940,848
TOTAL = $23,129,414
REMARKS
In addition to the mined running tunnels described above, the total contract included a cut-and-cover passenger
station, 3 shafts, and other miscellaneous features. The total contract was estimated at $49,587,227; the low bid was
$42,266,620 and the actual final cost was $48,555,357. For the tunnels, the obstructions claim was not seriously
challenged by the owner, and extras were paid as sandstone lenses were encountered. The larger claim was challenged
and litigation begun, but settlement was achieved before a final decision was handed down. The figure settled on was
$3,777,463, and it was part of a three-contract closeout settlement in which this contractor recovered ±$7,000,000
from claims totaling ±$50,000,000.
BONNEVILLE SECOND POWERHOUSE RAILROAD TUNNEL
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Portland, Oregon
PURPOSE: Transportation, railroad relocation
OWNER: Burlington Northern Railroad
DESIGNER: Portland District, Corps of Engineers
CONSTRUCTION START: June 1, 1976
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation, plus units of support materials
ESTIMATED TOTAL: $5,834,261 (see notation under Remarks, below)
BID TOTAL: $7,246,650
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Mixed face = 1,338 lin ft Total length - 1,338 lin ft
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S) : Horseshoe with straight sides
SIZE(S): 35.9 ft high by 24.3 ft wide
minimum = 28 lin ft
Identification/Type: slide debris--silty sand with gravel and large blocks of sandstone, siltstone and basalt
Quality: granular
uncemented
loose to dense
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 1 Pump test
- Permeability (laboratory) tests
- Dry density tests
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Pilot tunnel in crown for entire 1,338-ft length (served as drain
during construction)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for depths to rock

CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Heading and bench, drill-and-blast
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets, rock bolts, and shotcrete
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Top heading--average = 14.8 lin ft
Bench--average = 21.4 lin ft
--squeezing (minor)
--running (minor)
Groundwater inflow

ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 2 portal excavations and retaining
structures at the portals. The total contract was estimated at $8,636,558; the low bid was $10,410,610 and the actual
final cost was $12,172,226. It should be noted that the engineer's estimate did not include profit. Extra costs in the final
amounts were related primarily to furnishing additional support for various portions of the tunnel. In spite of adverse
tunneling conditions through a large landslide deposit, the project was completed with few problems, a circumstance
apparently attributable to (a) a thorough site investigation, including a full-length pilot tunnel, and (b) favorable
drought conditions at the time of work, which minimized groundwater problems.
ALPINE AQUEDUCT, SECTION 1
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: North central Utah
PURPOSE: Water conveyance
OWNER: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
DESIGNER: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
CONTRACTOR: W.J. Lewis Corporation
components
BID TOTAL: $1,343,865
TUNNEL DATA
Rock = 1,743 lin ft Total length = 1,825
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe (modified)
SIZE(S): 10 ft 4 in. to 10 ft 10 in. high by 10 ft 4 in. to 10 ft 10 in. wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 79.5 to 90.5 sq ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: silty sand and gravel (talus)
Quality: granular
uncemented
loose to dense
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: limestone
Quality: unweathhered
thin bedded
jointing, moderate to close spacing
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION

BOREHOLE TESTS: - Water observation wells
LAB TESTS: None indicated in data received
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: 21 resistivity lines
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--hand mining
Rock--drill-and-blast (full face)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--steel ribs and liner plate
Rock--steel ribs, rock bolts
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 14 to 18 in. thick
Rock--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 14 to 18 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Rock--maximum = 50 lin ft
Entire tunnel--average = ±34 lin ft
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None of any significance

ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included about 3,660 ft of water pipeline, 2
portal structures, and several access roads. The total contract was estimated at $3,099,995 and the low bid was
$2,861,157. Final contract costs were not available for this study, but there were no significant construction problems
and no claims.
BACON TUNNEL NO. 2, SPEC. NO. DC-7206
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: South of Coulee City, Washington
CONTRACTOR: Guy F. Atkinson Company
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd for excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining
components
BID TOTAL: $21,769,460
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe (modified circular)
SIZE(S): 30.5 ft high by 30.5 ft wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 926 sq ft (average)
minimum = 116 lin ft
Identification/Type: basalt (highly vesicular in places)
massive
no shear zones
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identifiation/Type: sandstone and claystone (weak and soil-like in places)
Quality: weathered
thin bedded
jointing, moderate to wide spacaing
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: 20 Unconfined compression on rock
20 Specific gravity
14 Porosity
- Expansion tests
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None, but Bacon No. 1 about 400 ft away on parallel alignment
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (top heading)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs with rock bolts and some shotcrete
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Top heading--maximum = 73 lin ft
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Support failure (wallplate ledge slid into tunnel, failing 118-ft section of rib-
supported tunnel)
Soil-like zones within hard rock (required additional supports)
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included a 1,030 ft long siphon and
modifications to an existing canal. The total contract was estimated at $38,046,980; the low bid was $32,401,243 and
the actual final cost was $37,369,776. Most of the tunnel-related cost overruns were for additional support items. This
tunnel was parallel to and about 400 ft away from Tunnel No. 1 and conditions were well known and well documented.
BOUSTEAD TUNNEL, SPEC. DC-6277
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Leadville, Colorado
CONTRACTOR: Smith-Quad (JV), subcontractor to DBA (JV)
components.
BID TOTAL: $8,737,165
“CHANGES” AWARDED: $5,053,909 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S) : Horseshoe
SIZE(S) : 12 ft 1 in. high by 12 ft 1 in. wide
DEPTHS: Crown to surface--maximum = 2,050 lin ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
Crown to water table--maximum = +70 lin ft (approximately)
Identification/Type: granite and granite gneiss
foliated
shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: phyllite and biotite schist
foliated
shear zones
faulting
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: granodiorite and diorite
massive
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: None
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for depth to rock and to help locate faults
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (full face)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: None, generally; some steel sets and/or rock bolts
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 5-1/2 in. thick (minimum)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = not available
--squeezing (in shear zone caused support collapse)
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity and high pressure
ETC.)
Groundwater inflow (large quantity) and squeezing $12,204,985
TOTAL $12,204,985
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included construction of the Chapman and
South Fork tunnels (studied as separate projects), 2 siphons, several stream diversions, road improvements, tunnel
access roads, and other appurtenant structures. The total contract was estimated at $14,328,074; the low bid was
$17,556,167 and the final total cost was $25,288,523. The tunnel was constructed above El. 10,000, which severely
affected both exploration and construction work. It is believed to be one of the first U.S. tunnels to encounter a
significant “groundwater dam,” caused by a 150-ft thick (about) impervious fault gouge. Most of the overrun in total
contract costs is believed to be for additional steel supports. The tunnel subcontractor had just completed the adjacent
Homestake tunnel, which went smoothly; he may have assumed Boustead would be similar. However, Homestake was
oriented north-south, while Boustead was east-west, across the strike of regional faulting.
BUCKSKIN MOUNTAINS TUNNEL, SPEC. NO. DC-7096
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Parker, Arizona
CONTRACTOR: J.F. Shea Company, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION START: April 1976
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 1979
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation with separate unit prices for furnishing and
installing liner segments
BID TOTAL: $47,268,690
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S) : 430.7 sq ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
minimum = below invert
Identification/Type: andesite (vesicular in places) flows and intrusive dikes (columnar jointing in places)
Quality: weathered
massive
no shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: poorly to well cemented agglomerate and tuff (inflow deposits interbedded with andesite
flows)
thick bedded
no jointing
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: - Unconfined compression
- Specific gravity
- Porosity
- Percent water absorption
- Triaxial shear
- Petrographic analysis
- Modulus of elasticity
- Poisson's ratio
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Gravity survey to locate intrusive bodies
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Precast concrete segments
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Precast concrete segments
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Entire tunnel--maximum = 150 lin ft
minimum = 51 lin ft
1,300 ft long blocky rock/overbreak (claim) area--average = 7.4 lin ft
--blocky (large blocks with no standup time)
--running (raveling caused chimney near fault)
--mucking (large blocks of face fallout blocked conveyor)
--soft bottom
--face fallout
ETC.)
Blocky rock, face fallout, soft bottom = $6,919,401
Running (raveling at faults) = $ 848,853
TOTAL = $7,767,802
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included a 17 mile access road, a 4,200 ft
open channel aqueduct, two portal excavations, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was estimated at
$53,804,499; the low bid was $58,256,638 and the final cost was $65,613,963. The final cost amount ignores a
pending dispute over interest on the claim settlement. The major claim resulted from a failure to recognize open,
smooth joints in “crudely columnar jointed” andesite which resulted in immediate fallout of large joint blocks onto the
TBM in one 1,300 ft reach. This condition caused about 8 months of greatly reduced progress and necessitated
modification of the TBM and the precast concrete segments.
BURNT MOUNTAIN AND AGUA FRIA TUNNELS
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Phoenix, Arizona
CONTRACTOR: Shank-Artukovich (JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation and unit price for materials used.
BID TOTAL: $10,230,835
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 2,730 lin ft (Burnt Mt.)
3,686 ft (Agua Fria) Total length = 6,416 lin ft
LAYOUT: Single tube
SIZE(S): 22 ft 10 in. to 23 ft 4 in. (both height and width)
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 430 to 468 sq ft
minimum = 100 1in ft
Crown to water table--dry
Identification/Type: interlayered andesite, basalt, volcanic breccia, and tuff (Burnt Mt.)
Quality: weathered, in a few places
thin to thick bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: slakey, poorly cemented sandstone and conglomerate (east end of Agua Fria)
thick bedded
no shear zones
faulting
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: precambrian granite (west end of Agua Fria)

Quality: weathered
massive
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
- Porosity
- Sonic pulse veolocity
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None, but horizontal borings made
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and blast (top heading and bench)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Ribs (W6 by 20) at maximum 6 ft centers
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Agua Fria tunnel--maximum = 72 lin ft
minimum = 50 lin ft
Burnt Mt. tunnel--average = 35 lin ft
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: None
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
This project consists of 2 tunnels (about 30 miles apart) with identical design but in different geologic terrains. In
addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included a rockfill embankment, the portal
excavations, miscellaneous surface work, and some electrical and mechanical work. The total contract was estimated at
$14,913,160; the low bid was $14,469,295 and the actual final cost was $15,350,368. The contract was considered an
“ideal job” by the contractor. Long horizontal borings were used to explore the Burnt Mt. tunnel alignment.
CARTER AND MORMON TUNNELS, SPEC NO. DC–7224
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: 30 miles east of Basalt, Colorado
CONTRACTOR: EBY and Company (JV)
components
BID TOTAL: $4,201,536
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 2,832 lin ft (Carter)
7,374 ft (Mormon) Total length = 10,206 lin ft
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
minimum = 10 lin ft
Crown to water table--insufficient data
Identification/Type: granite and biotite gneiss
foliated
shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 1 Water pressure test with packers
- Petrographic analysis

GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Sesimic refraction, for depth to rock near portals
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: None, generally; (in selected areas, rock bolts and shotcrete and/or steel ribs)
PERMANENT SUPPORT: None, generally (cast-in-place concrete at portals and where ribs used)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Carter--maximum = 47 lin ft
minimum = 21 lin ft
Mormon--average = 35 lin ft
--blocky, slabby (a few rock falls)

ETC.)
None
REMARKS
This project included 2 separate tunnel segments separated by a creek valley crossing. In addition to the 2 mined
tunnels described, the total contract also included 6 diversion structures, 3 conduits, access road construction, and an
operations building. The total contract was estimated at $10,427,239; the low bid was $8,491,918 and the actual final
cost was $9,550,381. The overrun in total cost was not related to the tunnels.
CUNNINGHAM TUNNEL, SPEC NO. DC-7024
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: 30 miles east of Basalt, Colorado
CONTRACTOR: Harrison-Western Corporation
components
BID TOTAL: $5,771,360
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock--15,082 lin ft Total length = 15,082 lin ft
LAYOUT: Single tube
minimum = 0 lin ft
Crown to water table--not available
Identification/Type: granite porphyry
massive
shear zones
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: biotite gneiss
foliated
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION

LAB TESTS: 28 Unconfined compression
- Porosity
28 Specific gravity
- Poisson's ratio
- Percent water absorption
- Petrographic analysis of rock samples
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction for depth to rock near portal
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: None (80%); steel sets, rock bolts and/or shotcrete (20%)
PERMANENT SUPPORT: None (76%); shotcrete (24%)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 31.6 lin ft (3 shifts)

--spalling (3 minor roof fallouts due to stress relief)
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included an embankment and culvert for a
creek crossing, two portal excavations, and a 1/2-mile access road. The total contract was bid at $8,015,894; the low
bid was $6,823,062 and the actual final cost was $6,859,357. The project was good hard-rock tunneling with minimal
water problems.
DOLORES TUNNEL, SPEC. NO. 4D-C7498
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Cortez, Colorado
CONTRACTOR: Ohbayashi-Gumi, Ltd.
BID TOTAL: $ 5,229,172
AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Not complete (includes all claims and modifications)
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 11 ft 9 in. to 12 ft 7 in. diameter
minimum = 20 lin ft
minimum = +8 lin ft
Identification/Type: variably cemented, quartzose sandstone with interbeds of shale, conglomerate, impure coal
and bentonite (Dakota formation)
Quality: weathered
thick bedded
shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: silty sandstone with interbeds of siltstone and slakey carbonaceous shale (Morrison formation)
thick bedded
shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 12 Water observation wells
6 Gas samples
LAB TESTS: 28 Unconfined compressions tests
15 Triaxial shear tests
10 Free swell (shale) tests
2 Organic content (carbonaceous shale) tests
12 Wetting tests
- Petrographic analysis of core samples
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Resistivity profile along alignment
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: 60% Roadheader (Mitsui-Miike) with 40% drill-and-blast in harder rock
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel sets with crown lagging, rock bolts and shotcrete
Average = 35 lin ft
--squeezing (some in sheared shale)
--roof slabbing (some overbreak in shale)
Miscellaneous
--air slaking of shale
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a 2,100 ft-long canal section,
construction of 4,500 lin ft of access road, a gate chamber, a stilling basin, a gate shaft, and miscellaneous surface
work. The total contract was estimated at $17,437,975 and the low bid was $11,686,890. The mined tunnel is currently
excavated and lined, but consolidation grouting remains to be done. Various other contract items not directly related to
the tunnel also remain to be completed. So far, there are no major geology related claims and few problems have been
experienced, probably due to lack of significant groundwater inflow.
HADES AND RHODES TUNNELS, SPEC. NO. DC-7421
1.GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Duchesne, Utah
CONTRACTOR: Harrison-Western Corporation
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: November 1981
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of finished tunnel with separate unit prices for pressure grouting
BID TOTAL: $27,908,413
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 22,149 lin ft (Hades)
4,110 lin ft (Rhodes) Total length = 26,259 lin ft
LAYOUT: Two single tubes (separated by a valley)
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: solutioned, crystalline limestone interbedded with hard sandstone and limey shale
thin bedded to massive
no shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: weak calcareous shale with interbedded siltstone and sandstone
thin bedded
no shear zones
faulting
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: swelling black shale
thin bedded
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head tests with packers
- Water observation wells
36 Porosity tests
33 Elastic modulus and Poisson's ratio tests
2 Expansion and uplift tests (shale)

36 Water absorption tests
36 Ultrasonic velocity tests
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Surface resistivity
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs, rock bolts
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 86 lin ft
--blocky, slabby
--flowing (mud flows from solution channels)
--running (one 50-ft reach in sandstone)
--squeezing
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity (6,000 to 8,000 gpm total)
ETC.)
Groundwater inflow (large quantity) = $1,380,086
TOTAL CLAIMS PAID = $1,380,086
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract also included a stream diversion, portal
excavations, intake structures, access roads and other surface work. The total contract was estimated at $35,494,430;
the low bid was $34,681,703. Final contract cost, estimated at 99% completion stage, is $34,611,894. Five areas of
mud-filled solution cavities were encountered which yielded large flows of groundwater for extended periods. A
change was negotiated which awarded the above claim amount to the contractor while deleting all pressure grouting.
This agreemenet actually resulted in a net decrease in tunnel cost. It is also noted that the contractor's bid appeard to be
“front loaded,” as many of the unit prices for surface work were 2 to 10 times the engineer's estimate.
HUNTER TUNNEL, COMPLETION (SPEC. NO. DC-7134)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Aspen, Colorado
CONTRACTOR: Perini Corporation
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd for excavation plus separate unit prices for support and lining
components
BID TOTAL: $10,016,330
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
SIZE(S): 10 ft 2 in. wide by 10 ft 5 in. high
minimum = 20 lin ft
Crown to water table--maximum = unknown
minimum = +7 lin ft
Identification/Type: granite gneiss
massive to weakly foliated
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: - Moh's hardness
Other tests performed but information not available
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None, except data avilable from adjacent Hunter I

GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and blast (full face)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs, rock bolts, shotcrete
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete (none in some areas)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 38 lin ft (estimated for entire tunnel)
--blocky, slabby (one cave-in and several rock falls also necessitated additional steel support)
Groundwater inflow
---large quantity

ETC.)
Blocky, slabby--extra support = $3,332,005
TOTAL = $3,332,005
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included rehabilitation of 4.5 miles of
existing tunnel, two access shafts, three diversion dams, and other surface work. The total contract was estimated at
$13,636,856; the low bid was $14,791,162 and total final contract cost was $19,701,492. Much of the cost overrun was
due to additional steel support.
NAVAJO ROUTE 44 ROAD CROSSING
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Farmington, New Mexico
CONTRACTOR: Vinnell Corporation
CONSTRUCTION START: 1972
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: 1972
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining
components
ESTIMATED TOTAL: $570,675
BID TOTAL: $696,114
AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $670,187 (includes all claims and modifications)
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
minimum = 3 lin ft
Crown to water table--water table below invert
Identification/Type: Interbedded, weakly cemented sandstone, shale and siltstone
thin bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: None
SURFACE MAPPING: No

CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Not known
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs and shotcrete
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Not known
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
apparently went smoothly, although few records are available to document this assertion.
85
canal, several siphons, and other surface work. The total contract was estimated at $16,059,003; the low bid was
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a substantial length of concrete lined
$14,753,240 and the final contract cost was $15,563,261. The tunnel was a relatively minor part of the total project and
NAVAJO TUNNEL NO. 5
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Farmington, New Mexico
CONTRACTOR: Gates & Fox Company, Inc.
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support components
BID TOTAL: $3,843,880
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 13 ft diameter
minimum = 57 lin ft
Crown to water table--water table below tunnel invert
Identification/Type: flat bedded, poorly cemented sandstone
thick bedded
no shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: flat bedded, weakly cemented clayey siltstone
thick bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION

LAB TESTS: None
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Gamma-ray logs in 5 boreholes
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM, soft rock type (Scott wheel excavator)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Celtite resin rock bolts with few steel ribs and some shotcrete
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 8 in. thick (minimum)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 167 lin ft (in two shifts)
Average = 84.5 lin ft (in two shifts)
--blocky, slabby (shale roof fallout)
--hard, abrasive (gravel broke cutter teeth)
--roof slabbing

ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included about 13 miles of canal, several
pumping stations, two portal excavations, and various other surface work. The total contract was estimated at
$11,550,995; the low bid was $11,982,253 and the actual final cost was $12,362,173. Shales were potentially swelling
types, but dry heading prevented such problems.
PACHECO TUNNEL, REACH 2 (SPEC. NO. DC-7355)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Gilroy, California
CONTRACTOR: Guy F. Atkinson Company
components
BID TOTAL: $49,753,520
“CHANGES” AWARDED: Not settled (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Mixed face and rock = 27,585 lin ft Total length = 27,585 lin ft (undifferentiated)
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
SIZE(S): 12 ft 8 in. wide by 12 ft 8 in. high
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: melange of metagraywacke, metashale and phyllonite
Quality: weathered
twin bedded
shear zones (highly sheared)
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
1 Falling head test
3 Bailing tests
2 Pumping tests
LAB TESTS: 16 Unconfined compression

16 Specific gravity
16 Modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio
16 Percent absorption
16 Porosity
- Petrographic examination of rock cores
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None, but Pacheco Reach 1 adjacent to project
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: 28 electrical resistivity lines
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs, spiling with precast concrete subinvert
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 53 lin ft (for entire tunnel)

--blocky, slabby (excessive overbreak and several cave-ins)
--running (one occasion)
--squeezing, swelling
Hazardous environmental factors
--gas
ETC.)
Gas (reclassification by California OSHA) = $1,329,955
Swelling ground = $1,445,061
TOTAL = $2,775,016
REMARKS
This contract included only the underground portion of the work; all other work including protals was included in
other contracts. Therefore, costs presented herein represent total contract costs. The claim involving gas resulted from
reclassifiation of the tunnel from “potentially gassy” to “gassy” by California OSHA, and the merits of the claim were
not disputed by the owner. The merits of the swelling ground claim were initially disputed, because the owner believed
squeezing was occurring, not swelling, and the contractor had been forewarned of squeezing ground conditions. The
claims were not fully resolved at the time of this study.
SANTA CLARA TUNNEL, SPEC NO. 2D-C7462
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Southeast of San Jose, California
CONTRACTOR: Shank-Artukovich (JV)
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: Not available
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu m for excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining
components
BID TOTAL: $7,658,897
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: interbedded shales, siltstones, and sandstones
Quality: weathered
thin bedded
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Packer water pressure tests
3 Direct shear tests
10 Porosity tests

10 Modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio tests
12 Wetting tests for slaking characteristics
- Uplift expansion tests
- Petrographic examination of rock cores
14 Ultrasonic velocity tests
- Soluble sulfate content determination tests
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Exploratory trenches near portals
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey near portals for rock depths
Gamma-gamma, natural gamma, and neutron logs in 3 boreholes
Acoustic log in 1 borehole
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Caldwell)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs with spiling
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Not available

--blocky, slabby
--squeezing
--running
Groundwater inflow
ETC. )
Running ground = $ Not available
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 2 portal excavations, a box
culvert, and access road construction. The total contract was estimated at $11,187,894 and the low bid was $9,233,432.
Final costs were not available because claims are still under negotiation. The section of tunnel where a claim resulted
consisted of sheared rock where water caused running, squeezing, and caving.
SOUTH FORK AND CHAPMAN TUNNELS, SPEC. DC-6277
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Leadville, Colorado
CONTRACTOR: DBA joint venture (Winston Bros., Foley Bros., et al.)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation plus separate unit prices for support and lining
components
BID TOTAL: $5,982,255
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 16,250 lin ft (South Fork)
14,600 lin ft (Chapman) Total length = 30,850 lin ft
LAYOUT: Two single tubes (separated by a valley)
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
SIZE(S): South Fork--9 ft 3 in. high by 9 ft 3 in. wide
Chapman--8 ft 2 in. high by 8 ft 2 in. wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): South Fork--67.9 sq ft
Chapman--52.8 sq ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: granite and granite gneiss
foliated
shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: phyllite and biotite schist
foliated

shear zones
faulting
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: granodiorite and diorite
massive
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 2 Falling head permeability tests
- Water pressure tests with packers in 1 borehole
LAB TESTS: None
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction for depth to rock and to help locate faults
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs, rock bolts (unsupported in some areas)
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 3-1/2 to 4-1/2 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Chapman tunnel--maximum = 52 lin ft
South Fork tunnel--average = 23.2 lin ft
--squeezing (fault gouge)
--blocky, slabby (9 to 17% overbreak)
--spalling (rock bursts)
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity
ETC.)
Squeezing, blocky, spalling, large quantity groundwater inflow = $3,248,711
TOTAL = $3,248,711
REMARKS
In addition to the 2 mined tunnels described above, the total contract also included construction of the Boustead
tunnel (studied as a separate project), 2 siphons, several stream diversions, road improvements, tunnel access roads,
and other appurtenant structures. The total contract was estimated at $14,328,074; the low bid was $17,556,167 and the
final total cost was $25,288,523. Much of the cost overrun was for additional steel supports. The above listed claim
was dropped as part of a negotiated settlement of $5,053,909 for the Boustead (Divide) tunnel.
STILLWATER TUNNEL, INITIAL CONTRACT (SPEC. NO. DC-7246)
GENERAL INFORMATION
CONTRACTOR: Harrison-Western/Cowper (JV)
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: May 1979 (terminated by government)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation plus separate units for support and lining
components
ESTIMATED TOTAL: $30,663,890*
BID TOTAL: $26,418,540* *Based on complete 42,398 lin ft of planned tunnel
TUNNEL DATA
Rock = 13,332 lin ft Total length (completed) = 13,819 lin ft
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Soft ground--horseshoe (modified circular)
Rock--horseshoe (drill-and-blast)
circular (TBM)
SIZE(S): Soft ground--10 ft 8 in. high by 10 ft 8 in. wide
Rock--10 ft 4 in. high by 10 ft 4 in. wide (drill-and-blast)
9 ft 7 in. diameter (TBM)
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Soft ground--93.6 sq ft
Rock--93.6 sq ft (drill-and-blast)
72.0 sq ft (TBM)
minimum = 0 lin ft
Crown to water table--maximum = +1,000 lin ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: boulders and cobbles with silty sand (frozen talus)
Quality: granular
cemented (ice)
loose to dense
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: slakey, swelling argillite
Quality: weathered
thin bedded
shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: slakey and swelling shale (red pine)
thin bedded
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BORINGS: Total number = 18 (borings concentrated near portals; about 32,000 ft of alignment unexplored)
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Falling head permeability tests in talus only
LAB TESTS: 10 Unconfined compression tests on shale

6 Triaxial shear tests
- Scratch hardness tests
6 Tensile strength tests
- Wetting and free swell tests
- Petrographic analyses
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--machine excavation and hand mining (487 ft)
Rock--drill-and-blast (6,104 ft)--1 Robbins 92-192 TBM (7,228 ft)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--steel ribs and steel liner plate
Rock--steel ribs (drill-and-blast)
precast concrete segments, 5 in. thick (TBM)
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete
Rock--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete (drill-and-blast)
precast concrete segments (TBM)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Soft ground--average = 9.6 lin ft
Rock--average = 27.4 lin ft (drill-and-blast)
maximum = 115 lin ft (TBM)
--squeezing (near fault zone caused repeated TBM binding)
groundwater inflow
ETC.)
Squeezing and TBM pressure binding = $ not available
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 2 portal excavations, a portal
structure, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract, which included 42,398 ft planned tunnel length, was
estimated at $31,006,566, and the low bid was $27,825,678. The project was designed with several options, including
all drill-and-blast with conventional cast-in-place concrete lining, TBM mined with precast concrete segments, and
various combinations of the 2 methods. Most bidders, including the low bidder, chose an option which included about
6,100 ft of drill-and-blast, with the remainder to be mined with a TBM using precast liner segments. On approaching
an unrecognized major fault, the TBM was stopped at least 14 times by heavy squeezing ground. The project was
terminated for the convenience of the government after less than one third of the project was completed, to allow time
for additional exploration and reevaluation of the tunnel design and construction methods. The completion contract is
described separately. Final contract costs were not available at the time of this study, but termination expenses
included purchase of the stalled TBM and all lining and support materials and equipment stored at the site.
STILLWATER TUNNEL, COMPLETION CONTRACT
GENERAL INFORMATION
CONTRACTOR: Traylor Bros., Inc./Fruin-Colnon (JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Fixed price incentive, firm target contract
BID TOTAL: See Remarks, below
AS COMPLETED TOTAL: See Remarks, below (includes all claims and modifications)
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Rock = 28,579 lin ft Total length = 28,579
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 10 ft 0 in. to 10 ft 6 in. diameter
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 79 sq ft to 87 sq ft
minimum = 1,000 lin ft
minimum = unknown
Identification/Type: slakey and swelling shale (red pine)
thin bedded
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
6 Triaxial compression tests
16 Point load (strength index, Is) tests
6 Tensile strength tests

6 Uplift (expansion) tests
- Free swell tests
4 Pulse velocity tests
18 Modulus of elasticity determinations
4 Poisson's ratio determinations
- Petrographic analyses
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Initial contractor excavated an additional 151-ft long, 13-ft
diameter reach of tunnel for mapping, instrumentation, and horizontal borings.
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBMs (Robbins 93-203 and a modified 92-192)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Mostly steel ribs (some friction rock stabilizers with roof pans)
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Mostly precast concrete segments, 13-1/2 in. thick; some unreinforced cast-in-place
concrete, 15 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM 93-203--maximum = 227 lin ft

minimum = 135 lin ft (excluding a 9-week shutdown)
TBM 92-192 (modified)--maximum = 103 lin ft
minimum = 30 lin ft
--squeezing and raveling
ETC.)
None (specifically prohibited by the terms of this special contract)
REMARKS
This contract is a follow-on to the Stillwater Initial Contract (described separately) which was terminated when
the TBM became stuck in faulted, squeezing ground after only 13,819 ft of the planned 42,398-ft tunnel had been
excavated. In addition to the mined tunnel described, the Still-water Completion Contract included instrumentation,
remining of the initial tunnel invert near the inlet portal, and maintenance and cleanup work in previously mined
portions. Stillwater Completion was a negotiated contract, with the successful offeror inheriting the original
contractor's stockpiled materials and the TBM, which had to be modified. The prices negotiated between the owner
and new contractor were as follows:
MINED TUNNEL TOTAL CONTRACT
(a) Contractor's Target Cost 100% $26,393,634 $30,540,800
(b) Target Profit 13.1 % of (a) $ 3,457,491 $ 4,000,800
(c) Target Price sum of (a) + (b) $29,851,125 $34,541,600
(d) Price Ceiling 118.7% of (c) $35,433,285 $41,000,900
The tunnel holed through on September 14, 1983, and as of December 15, 1983, $26,391,016 of the total contract
had been billed. It will be another year before all of the actual final costs are known. The Completion Contract appears
to have gone smoothly, thanks in large part to a knowledge of the Initial Contract construction experiences and the
additional geotechnical information developed after that failed venture.
SUGAR PINE DAM DIVERSION TUNNEL, SPEC. NO. DC-7360
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Forest Hill, California
CONTRACTOR: Auburn Constructors (G. H. Ball and G. F. Atkinson, JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu m for excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining
components
BID TOTAL: $2,438,760
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
SIZE(S): 12 ft 9 in. to 13 ft 5 in. wide by 12 ft 9 in. to 13 ft 5 in. high
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 118 sq ft (typical)
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: amphibolite intruded by diorite dikes
foliated
shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BORINGS: Total number = 4 lin ft
- Falling head permeability tests
LAB TESTS: None indicated

GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for depth to rock
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill and blast (full face)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs and/or rock bolts
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 to 15 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 1.31 lin ft (2 shifts)
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
at $14,999,710 and the low bid was $19,104,480. The final contract cost was not available.
99
structures, surface roadway work including a bridge, and the tunnel portal structures. The total contract was estimated
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a rockfill dam and appurtenant
ANGELES TUNNEL
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Los Angeles County, California
OWNER: California Department of Water Resources
DESIGNER: California Department of Water Resources
CONTRACTOR: Shea, Kaiser, Lockheed and Healy, (JV)
components
BID TOTAL: $75,363,320
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular (modified at springline)
minimum = 0 lin ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: Interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and shale
thin bedded
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 4 Analysis of gas samples for methane
- Moh's hardness tests
- Modulus of elasticity tests
- Tensile strength tests

EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: A 750-ft long test adit
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey in one area
E-logs of 5 boreholes
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (top heading)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs above springline, gunite in invert
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 15 in. thick; steel liner near portals
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Total of five headings--maximum = 176 lin ft
Per heading in entire tunnel--average = 27.5 lin ft
in sandstone--average = 28.5 lin ft
in siltstone--average = 24.5 lin ft
in fault gouge--average = 17.0 lin ft

--blocky, slabby (overbreak near fault zones and 1 cave-in)
--squeezing (minor in fault gouge and some invert heave)
Groundwater inflow
--gas
ETC.)
Unstable ground
--blocky, slabby (cave-in) = $317,022
Groundwater inflow (after heavy rain) = $275,966
TOTAL = $592,988
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a deep surge chamber, a cast-in-place
concrete pipe section, 3 access adits, road work, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was estimated at
$97,624,370; the low bid was $95,039,650 and the final contract cost was $105,565,117. Cost overruns were due
primarily to additional support steel required and extension of steel liner at portals due to poorer quality rock than
anticipated.
CARLEY V. PORTER TUNNEL
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California
CONTRACTOR: Dravo Coproration, G.F. Atkinson Company, and S.J. Groves (JV)
components
BID TOTAL: $32,848,600
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 0 lin ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: altered granite (severely crushed)
Quality: weathered
massive
shear zones (severely sheared)
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: poorly indurated siltstone and claystone
Quality: weathered
thin bedded
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Rock core only
LAB TESTS: - Unconfined compression tests on rock
- Natural density tests
- Modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio
- Slaking tests
- Swelling potential tests
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: A 600-ft test adit and a 3,688-ft pilot tunnel
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey
E-logs of 4 borings
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Shields (2 Memco) with drill-and-blast as needed
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel liner plate with steel sets and gunite as needed
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 39 lin ft (one heading)

Average = 19.5 lin ft (both headings)
--blocky, slabby (major collapse took 5 months to remine)
--running
--squeezing
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity
--pressure binding (squeezing ground caused stuck shield, resulting in its structural collapse)
Soft ground methods
--steering (failed to maintain specified alignment)
ETC.)
Pressure binding (shield collapse) = $3,039,868
Running and squeezing = $4,830,233
Steering, alignment problems (owner) = $ (300,000)
TOTAL = $7,570,101 (net)
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included one portal excavation, construction of
access roadways, and some pipeline work. The total contract was estimated at $42,321,830; the low bid was
$33,788,800 and the actual cost was $48,316,215. Most of the cost overrun was additional steel support due to a
change from steel ribs to heavy continuous liner plate. This project had very difficult ground conditions not well suited
to current tunneling technology. As-built geologic mapping of the tunnel indicated faults at an average spacing of 11 ft
along the entire tunnel length.
CASTAIC DAM DIVERSION TUNNEL
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Los Angeles, California
CONTRACTOR: Peter Kiewit Sons Company
CONSTRUCTION START: July 7, 1966
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd of excavation with separate unit prices for support items
BID TOTAL: $5,778,350
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular (modified)
SIZE(S): 23 ft 9-1/2 in. diameter for 1,650 lin ft
33 ft 0 in. diameter for 1,950 lin ft
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 535 sq ft (for 1,650-ft length)
877 sq ft (for 1,950-ft length)
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: sandstone
thick bedded (massive)
shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: slakey, compaction shale with thin interbeds of sandstone
thin bedded
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: Not available
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: One 243-ft long test adit, 7 ft wide by 8-1/2 ft high (nearby for
dam abutment)
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for depth to rock
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Top heading and bench (top heading by drill-and-blast; bench by ripping)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs with liner plate lagging
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Top heading--maximum = 28 lin ft

average = 16 lin ft
--blocky, slabby (caused 1 cave-in, excessive overbreak)
--squeezing
ETC.)
Unstable ground
--blocky, slabby (remining of cave-in) = $749,377
TOTAL = $749,377
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included an inlet portal structure, a
concrete lined channel, and a stilling basin. The total contract was estimated at $9,151,949; the low bid was $8,580,940
and actual final cost was $12,896,281. Most of the cost overrun was for additional steel support. The cause of the cave-
in was never determined, but may have been related to open joints in an anticline causing rapid roof fallout.
SAN BERNARDINO TUNNEL
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near San Bernardino, California
DESIGNER: California Departmenet of Water Resources
components
BID TOTAL: $12,873,655
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = unknown
Identification/Type: granodiorite and granite gneiss
Quality: weathered
foliated
shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: marble
foliated (in places)
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Joint continuity tests between boreholes
- Direct shear tests
44 Specific gravity tests on soil
- Sieve analyses
- Moisture content tests
- Poisson's ratio tests
14 Tensile strength tests on rock
44 Water absorption tests
E-logs in 2 holes
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs with spiling and invert struts in places
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 22.6 lin ft
--blocky, slabby (up to 200% overbreak)
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 600 lin ft of open approach channel,
an intake tower, a surge chamber, access road construction, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was
estimated at $18,783,744; the low bid was $21,205,956 and the actual final contract cost was $24,902,072. Cost
overruns were due primarily to extra steel support required.
TEHACHAPI TUNNELS 1, 2, and 3
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Lebec (Kern County), California
CONTRACTOR: Granite-Gates & Fox-Gordon H. Ball (JV)
components
BID TOTAL: $21,853,950
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tubes
minimum = 0 lin ft
minimum = unknown
Identification/Type: schist
Quality: weathered
foliated
shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: diorite gneiss
foliated
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: Unknown
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: A 350-ft long adit at Tunnel No. 3 portal
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast (full face, top heading, and heading-and-bench)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs with timber lagging, rock bolts and shotcrete
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Tunnel No. 1--average = 26.6 lin ft
Tunnel No. 2--average = 25.6 lin ft
Tunnel No. 3--average = 12.9 lin ft

--running (Tunnel No. 3)
--squeezing (clay gouge in fault zones in Tunnel No. 3)
--blocky, slabby (cave-in in Tunnel No. 1)
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity (Tunnel No. 3)
ETC.)
Unstable ground
--running and squeezing (Tunnel No. 3) = $2,364,040
TOTAL = $2,364,040
REMARKS
This project consisted of 3 separate tunnels connected by valley crossings. In addition to the mined tunnels
described above, the total contract included several siphon structures, embankment fills, roadway construction, and the
portal excavations. The total contract was estimated at $30,820,789; the low bid was $29,394,648 and the final contract
cost was $30,433,674. The major claim resulted from a “bad ground” condition in the vicinity of a fault zone. The fault
zone was anticipated, but apparently the severity of the ground conditions was not.
NORTH FORK LAKE OUTLET WORKS
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: On the San Gabriel River, 3-1/2 miles west of Georgetown, Texas
PURPOSE: Water conveyance, outlet works for dam
OWNER: Fort Worth District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DESIGNER: Freese, Nichols and Endress
CONTRACTOR: H.B. Zachery Company
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: February 14, 1975
components
ESTIMATED TOTAL: $ 700,905
BID TOTAL: $1,066,958
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 60 lin ft
minimum = +6 lin ft
Identification/Type: flat lying cretaceous limestone with shale interbeds (moderately hard to hard)
no shear zones
faulting, minor
SITE EXPLORATION
- Natural dry density tests
- Moisture content of rock cores
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: E-logs in 4 borings
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: None except near portals where ribs and rock bolts were used
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: No information

ETC.)
No information = $ Unknown
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract also included a control room, a stilling basin,
an intake structure, and approach walls. The total contract price was estimated at $2,202,240; the low bid was
$2,876,951 and the actual final cost was $2,981,301. There was no interview conducted for this tunnel project, but no
significant problems were indicated in a final foundation report.
PARK RIVER AUXILIARY TUNNEL
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Hartford, Connecticut
PURPOSE: Water conveyance (flood control)
OWNER: New England Division, Corps of Engineers
DESIGNER: Corps of Engineers
CONTRACTOR: Roger J. Au & Son, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: July 2, 1981
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of completed tunnel including lining
BID TOTAL: $17,022,400
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 76 lin ft
Identification/Type: interbedded shale, siltsone, and sandstone
thick bedded
jointing, moderate to close
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: diabase and aphanite dikes
massive
jointing, close
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION

BOREHOLE TESTS: 32 Borehole photography
- Water pressure tests with packers
- Pumping tests
- Sonic pulse velocity tests
- Direct shear tests on rock joints
- Slaking tests
- Swelling tests
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey (entire route)
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 240)
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Precast concrete segments

Average = 29 lin ft
--squeezing (fault gouge)
Groundwater inflow
--pressure binding (minor)
ETC.)
Pressure binding (fault zone) = $530,196
TOTAL = $530,196
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included intake and outlet structures, utility
relocations, instrumentation, exploration during construction, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was
estimated at $24,759,815; the low bid was $23,248,185 and the actual final cost was $24,457,493. The two faults were
identified by pre-bid investigations, but squeezing and pressure binding were more severe in one zone than was
anticipated.
SKIATOOK LAKE OUTLET WORKS
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Hominy Creek, Oklahoma
PURPOSE: Water conveyance, outlet works for dam
OWNER: Tulsa District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
DESIGNER: Tulsa District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CONSTRUCTION START: No information
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: No information
components
BID TOTAL: $4,771,710
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe (with invert pipe channel)
SIZE(S): 18 ft 6 in. to 19 ft 4 in. high by 13 ft 10 in. to 14 ft 10 in. wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 207.5 sq ft (average B-line)
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: moderately hard shale and hard limestone with coal seams
thin bedded
no shear zones
faulting, minor
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: None indicated
SURFACE MAPPING: No

CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts in crown, shotcrete from crown to springline, ribs at ends of tunnel
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: No information

ETC.)
No information
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included an outlet works, dam spillway and
embankment, an intake structure, transition monolith, stilling basin, and 2 portals. The total contract price was
estimated at $21,985,610 and the low bid was $22,632,101. Neither actual final costs, claim information, nor
construction history were obtained for this project. No interviews were conducted and information contained herein
was derived mainly from pre-bid contract documents and available geotechnical data.
NEWHALL AND BALBOA INLET TUNNELS, CONTRACT NO. 730
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Los Angeles County, California
OWNER: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
DESIGNER: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
CONTRACTOR: L.E. Dixon Company, Arundel Corporation, MacDonald & Kruse, Peter Kiewit Sons (JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices for excavation and support; excavation priced per cu yd
BID TOTAL: $29,383,690
AS COMPLETED TOTAL: ±$25,920,370 (includes all claims and modifications)
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Newhall--circular
Balboa--horseshoe
SIZE(S): No information
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): No information
minimum = 20 lin ft
Identification/Type: poorly cemented sandstone and conglomerate (Saugus formation)
thick bedded
no shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: well cemented sandstone and conglomerate with thin interbeds of siltstone and mudstone
(Pico formation)
thick bedded
no shear zones
faulting
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: soft to moderately hard mudstone, siltstone, and silty sandstone (Towsley formation)
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 3 Pump tests in 3 different test wells
LAB TESTS: None
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Two 7-ft by 9-ft shafts, 150 ft deep with 4-ft by 6-ft, 150-ft-long
bottom drifts
Three plate load tests conducted in drifts

GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: E-logs in 3 test wells
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: No information
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel supports, timber, gunite, and liner plates
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete with steel cylinder inner liner in low overburden area
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Hazardous environmental factors
--gas
ETC.)
No information $ Unknown
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included 2 shafts, 2 portals, and miscellaneous
surface work. The total contract price as estimated was unavailable for this study. The total contract price as bid was
$30,773,630 and as completed was $30,306,109. No interviews were conducted for this project; the data were obtained
strictly from the prebid documents, the geotechnical reports, and the final payment voucher. There were some claims
on the project which were settled for a compromise amount of $192,500, but the nature of the claims is not known.
SAN FERNANDO TUNNEL
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Los Angeles, California
CONTRACTOR: Lockheed Shipbuilding and Construction Company
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: November 1975
CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices per lin ft for tunnel excavation and for support
BID TOTAL: $17,611,674
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground = 26,732 Total length = 26,732 lin ft
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 22 ft 0 in. excavated diameter
minimum = 35 lin ft
Identification/Type: recent alluvial sands and clays with occasional boulders
Quality: granular
cemented in places
very dense
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: interbedded sandstone and shales, poorly cemented
Quality: weathered
thin bedded
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Pump tests performed in 4 test wells

LAB TESTS: None
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Three 140-ft-deep vertical shafts from 54 in. in diameter to 9 ft 4
in. by 6 ft 10 in.
One shaft had a 29-ft-long horizontal adit at bottom
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: 2-1/2 miles of seismic refraction survey
E-logs in 8 borings
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Digger shield (Robbins); soft ground excavation methods used throughout the soft ground
and soft rock tunnel
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Mostly unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 1 ft 6 in. to 1 ft 10 in. thick

--blocky, slabby (only minor problem)
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity (expected)
--gas (explosion killed 17 men and caused a 2-year delay)
ETC.)
Gas, (explosion and delay) = $ Unknown
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a gate shaft and structure, portal
excavations, transition tunnel sections, and minor surface work. The total contract price as estimated was
approximately $25,000,000 and as bid was $19,346,800. The total as completed contract price was $27,251,799. A
major gas explosion occurred in this tunnel after about 77 percent completion which killed 17 of the heading crew;
only one survived. The explosion delayed the project for 27 months and resulted in litigation, which found the
contractor negligent in his safety procedures. The potential for gassy conditions was well-documented by the site
investigation reports.
TONNER TUNNELS NO. 1 and NO. 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Brea, California
CONTRACT FORMAT: Lump sum per each tunnel
BID TOTAL: $10,149,365
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 10 ft 3 in. (A-line diameter)
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Unknown
minimum = 5 lin ft
Identification/Type: moderately hard to hard sandstone with softer siltstone and shale
thick bedded
jointing, wide spacing (except near faults)
no shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: siltstone and shale with bentonite beds and concretions
thin bedded
jointing, wide spacing (except near faults)
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION

LAB TESTS: None
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Exploratory trench excavated near south portal to explore for
recent faulting
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: No information
PRIMARY SUPPORT: No information
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Prestressed concrete pipe (6-1/2 in. thick), backfilled with concrete
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Hazardous environmental factors
--gas (expected)

ETC.)
No information $ Unknown
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, the total contract included 3 portal excavations and
miscellaneous surface work. The total contract price as estimated was not avilable for this study. The total contract
price as bid was $15,034,331 and as completed was $15,798,392. No interviews were conducted for this project; the
data presented were derived strictly from the prebid documents, the geotechnical reports, and the final payment
voucher. There were major claims on the project, but the nature of the problems that caused the claims is not known.
BI-COUNTY WATER TUNNEL, EAST MAIN
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Montgomery and Prince Georges counties, Maryland
OWNER: Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
DESIGNER: A.A. Mathews Division, CRS Group Engineers
CONTRACTOR: Armco, Inc.
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation and final lining
BID TOTAL: $20,291,500
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 10 lin ft
Identification/Type: Quartz-mica schist-to-gneiss
foliated
jointing, generally moderate to wide spacing
shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests
LAB TESTS: 7 Total drillability hardness tests (includes unconfined compression, rebound and abrasion hardness)
- Rock density tests
- Corrosion potential of groundwater (includes pH, specific conductance, concentrations of SO4 and Cl.)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for top of rock
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Jarva Mark 12), with drill-and-blast for tail and starter tunnels
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Generally none (only local rock bolts and partial ribs)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Drill-and-blast--average = 10.13 lin ft (for 385 ft)
TBM--maximum = 145 lin ft (for 17,665 ft)
average = 50 lin ft (for 17,665 ft)
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
DESCRIPTION AND AMOUNTS
estimated at $24,299,400; the low bid was $22,241,300 and the actual final cost was $22,334,341.
123
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included six shafts, miscellaneous surface
work, and installation of 60-in.-diameter and 90-in.-diameter water mains in open trenches. The total contract was
BI-COUNTY WATER TUNNEL, WEST MAIN
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Montgomery County, Maryland
OWNER: Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
DESIGNER: A.A. Mathews Division, CRS Group Engineers
CONTRACTOR: Clevecon, Inc. (open shop subsidiary of S&M)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation and per lin ft of final lining
BID TOTAL: $14,321,800
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 80 lin ft
foliated
jointing, generally moderate to wide spacing
shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
Total length = 3,069
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Water pressure tests
LAB TESTS: 7 Total drillability hardness tests (includes unconfined compression, rebound, abrasion hardness)
- Rock density tests
- Corrosion potential of groundwater (includes pH, specific conductance, concentrations of SO4 and Cl)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey for top of rock
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Jarva Mark 12)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Generally none (only local rock bolts and steel straps)
Average = 78 lin ft
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
$21,223,040 and the actual final cost was $21,378,761.

125
and 4,000 ft of water main installed in open trenches. The total contract was estimated at $24,504,972; the low bid was
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 4 shafts, miscellaneous surface work,
NORTH SHORE OUTFALLS CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, CONTRACT N-1
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: San Francisco (Ft. Mason area), California
PURPOSE: Wastewater conveyance
OWNER: San Francisco Clean Water Program, City and County of San Francisco
DESIGNER: Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco
CONTRACTOR: Ohbayashi-OAC (JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices per lin ft of tunnel excavation and for support
BID TOTAL: $7,320,740
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft Ground = 700 lin ft
Mixed face = 300 lin ft
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 15 lin ft
Identification/Type: uniform fine sand (dune sand)
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: sandy clay (residual)
Quality: cohesive
stiff to hard
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: shale melange with interbedded graywacke, siltstone, and shale
Quality: weathered
thin bedded

no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Torvane shear tests
- Penetrometer tests
LAB TESTS: 2 Direct shear tests on soil
58 Unconfined compression tests on rock
3 Permeability tests on soil
- Dry density tests
- Sieve analyses

SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--shield with road header (700 ft)
Mixed face--shield with road header (300 ft)
Rock--road header (3,352 ft); blasting in 10% of length
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--ribs with wood lagging
Mixed face--ribs with wood lagging
Rock--ribs with wood lagging
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Shale melange (without graywacke or sandstone)--maximum = 60 lin ft
Entire project--average = 30 lin ft
--running ground (in dune sand)
--blocky rock (large overbreak where blasting was used)
Groundwater inflow
Soft ground methods
--face instability with running ground
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included an open-cut section, a concrete
connection structure, a portal adit, and various utility and surface restoration work. The total contract was estimated at
$11,473,396 and the low bid was $9,909,298. The actual total contract final cost was not provided, but it was more
than bid due to the addition of about 200 lin ft of tunnel to the contract. Although the ground conditions are described
primarily as rock, soft rock methods were used for excavation.
NORTH SHORES OUTFALLS CONSOLIDATION PROJECT, CONTRACT N-2
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: San Francisco (Fisherman's Wharf area), California
PURPOSE: Wasterwater conveyance
OWNER: San Francisco Clean Water Program, City and County of San Francisco
DESIGNER: Department of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco
CONTRACTOR: Ohbayashi-OAC (JV)
CONSTRUCTION START: October 1979
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft including excavation support and final lining
BID TOTAL: $ 9,167,110
AS COMPLETED TOTAL: $ 9,008,000 (includes all claims and modifications)
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 30 lin ft
Identification/Type: bay mud (silts and clays)
Quality: cohesive
very soft
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: uniform fine sand (dune sand)
Quality: granular
uncemented
medium dense
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 17 Penetrometer tests
3 Rising head pump tests
- Vane shear tests

- Dames & Moore modified standard penetration tests
LAB TESTS: 48 Direct shear tests
10 Triaxial tests
6 Lab shear tests (Vane)
3 Unconfined rock compression tests
2 Permeability tests
- Sieve analyses
5 Chemical analyses for heavy metals and oil/grease
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Earth pressure balance shield
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Liner plate
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Reinforced cast-in-place concrete
Average = 30 lin ft
--obstructions (timber piles)
ETC.)
Obstructions (timber piles) = $50,000
TOTAL = $50,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included a portal structure, a connection
structure, and various surface utility and pavement work. The total contract was estimated at $18,162,994 and the low
bid was $12,738,590. The actual total contract final cost was not available due to litigation unrelated to the
construction of the tunnel. This project is believed to be the first use of an earth pressure balance (EPB) shield in the
United States, which resulted in considerable cost savings to the owner over conventional tunneling methods.
HAMPTON AVENUE SEWER, CONTRACT 939-3
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: North central Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
PURPOSE: Sewage conveyance
OWNER: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
DESIGNER: J.C. Zimmerman Engineering Corporation (for CH2M Hill, Inc.)
CONTRACTOR: Walsh Construction Company (of Illinois)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of unclassified tunnel excavation and initial support with separate
unit prices for linings
BID TOTAL: Not available
“CHANGES” AWARDED: $164,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
Rock = 300 lin ft Total length = 6,530 lin ft
LAYOUT: Single tube
Mixed face and rock--horseshoe
SIZE(S): Soft ground--8 ft 10 in. (excavated diameter)
Mixed face and rock--unknown
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Soft ground--62.5 sq ft
Mixed face and rock--69.0 sq ft (assumed)
minimum = 33 lin ft
Identification/Type: silty clay till with interbedded water bearing sand and silt layers, and random cobbles and
boulders
Quality: cohesive
very stiff to hard
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: vuggy limestone
Quality: weathered
thin bedded

no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
4 Piezometer tests
LAB TESTS: 14 Point load tensile strenth tests on rock
- Dry density tests
- Sieve analyses
- Natural moisture content tests on all soil samples
5 Unconfined compression tests on soil
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--TBM (Lovat)
Mixed face--drill-and-blast and hand mining under horseshoe-shaped shield
Rock--drill-and-blast under horseshoe-shaped shield
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--steel sets and wood lagging
Mixed face--steel sets and wood lagging
Rock--steel sets and wood lagging
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground, mixed face, and rock--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 12 in. thick
(for 3,730 lin ft) and precast concrete pipe grouted in place (for 2,800 lin ft)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 100 lin ft (in soft ground with TBM)
Average = 26 lin ft (based on working days, 2 headings at times)
--running (3 locations in soil)
--swelling or squeezing (caused support deflection)
Groundwater inflow
--noxious fluid (gasoline)
Soft ground methods
--surface subsidence (major at 2 locations, and related to running ground)
ETC.)
Surface subsidence/running ground = $ Not known
Noxious fluid (gasoline) = $ 143,000
TOTAL = $ Not known
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 5 manholes, connections to
existing sewers, restoration and relocation of existing utilities, and other related work. The total contract was estimated
at $7,415,500; the low bid was $6,721,767 and the total completed contract cost was $6,987,169. The surface
subsidence claim was stated to be related to fill around an existing sewer pipe, which allegedly ran and caused surface
subsidence. It was not possible to break out the mined tunnel costs from the total project costs because no bid
tabulations were made available.
NORTHEAST SIDE RELIEF SEWER, EAST BRANCH (CONTRACT 287)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
DESIGNER: CH2M Hill, Jenny Engineering, Delon Hampton
CONTRACTOR: Kenny Construction Company
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of soft ground, mixed face, or rock tunnel excavation with separate
unit price per lin ft for all necessary support
BID TOTAL: $ 9,320,405
“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ −395,025 (credit to owner)
TUNNEL DATA
Rock = 595 lin ft Total length = 10,749 lin ft
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe, modified
Circular
SIZE(S): Horseshoe--9 ft 2 in. high by 9 ft 2 in. wide
Circular--9 ft 2 in. diameter
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Hoseshoe--74 sq ft (assumed)
Circular--66.5 sq ft
minimum = 25 lin ft
minimum = +5 lin ft
Identification/Type: silty clay (glacial till) with sand and gravel layers
Quality: cohesive
very stiff to hard
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: sand and silt (glacial till) with boulders and cobbles
Quality: granular
uncemented
dense to very dense
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: dolomitic limestone with porous and shaley layers (solutioned in places)
Quality: weathered
thin bedded
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
11 Menard pressuremeter tests
LAB TESTS: 1 Unconfined compression test
1 Undrained triaxial test
1 Undrained consolidation test
45 Grain size distribution tests

SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--TBM (Lovat)
Mixed face--hand mined with some drill-and-blast
Rock--hand mined with drill-and-blast
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--ribs and wood lagging
Mixed face--ribs and wood lagging
Rock--ribs and wood lagging
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 14 in. thick (minimum)
Mixed face--reinforced cast-in-place concrete
Rock--reinforced cast-in-place concrete
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 165 lin ft (soft ground)
Average = 40 lin ft for entire project (one 10-hr. shift/day, sometimes 2 headings at once)
--running (in water bearing sands in till)
Groundwater inflow
--noxious fluid (gasoline from leaky tanks)
Soft ground methods
--surface subsidence (major in a few places)
--obstructions (anticipated boulders)
Compressed air
--planned, but not used
ETC.)
Deletion of compressed air (owner credit) = $ Not known
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 100 lin ft of 72-in. jacked pipe,
647 lin ft of open-cut pipe installation, a 346-lin-ft river crossing, 15 shafts, and 19 manholes. The total contract was
estimated at $18,346,000; the low bid was $13,887,805 and the final total contract price was $12,913,984. The cost
reductions generally resulted from better than anticipated tunneling conditions and credits to the owner from
contractorinitiated design changes, including deletion of compressed air and lighter initial tunnel support. The project
was completed about 8 months ahead of schedule.
NORTHEAST SIDE RELIEF SEWER, EAST BRANCH (CONTRACT 288)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Northeast Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
DESIGNER: CH2M Hill, Jenny Engineering, Delon Hampton
CONTRACTOR: Michels Pipe Line Construction, Inc.
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including initial support with separate unit
price per lin ft for final lining
BID TOTAL: $11,973,382
“CHANGES” AWARDED: $ 150,000 est. (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
TYPE(S) AND LENGTH(S): Soft ground
Mixed face
Rock Total length = 12,921 lin ft (breakdown not available, but mostly soft ground)
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 30 lin ft
Identification/Type: sand and silt (glacial till) with cobbles and boulders
Quality: granular
uncemented
dense to very dense
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: silt and clay (glacial till) with sand and gravel lenses
Quality: cohesive
very stiff to hard
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: vuggy dolomitic limestone with clay seams
Quality: weathered
thin bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
- Menard pressuremeter tests
LAB TESTS: - Unconfined compressive strength on soil
- Undrained triaxial shear tests on soil
- Density tests
- Sieve analyses
- Pocket penetrometer tests on clay soils
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--TBM (modified MEMCO)
Mixed face--digger shield (Zukor) with drill-and-blast
Rock--digger shield (Zukor) with drill-and-blast
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--precast concrete segments or jacked pipe (±2,000 ft)
Mixed face--precast concrete segments
Rock--precast concrete segments
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground--reinforced cast-in-place concrete, 6 in. thick minimum (except 1,100 ft
precast concrete segments)
Mixed face--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 6 in. thick
Rock--unreinforced cast-in-place concrete, 6 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 91 lin ft (in one shift of three)
Average = 35 lin ft (per day with some days more than 1 heading)
--running (one 200 cu yd run)
Soft ground methods
--obstructions (boulders)
--steering
Rock in invert
ETC.)
Rock in invert = $250,000+
TOTAL = $250,000+
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 5 shafts, 12 manholes, a flow
monitoring system, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was estimated at $15,951,000; the low bid was
$14,022,157 and the final total contract cost was $13,901,752. The final cost underrun, in spite of the claim, resulted
from credits to the owner for allowing pipe jacking for 2,000 ft of alignment and an alignment change.
NORTHEAST SIDE RELIEF SEWER, NORTH BRANCH (CONTRACT 289)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Northeast Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
DESIGNER: Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendorff
CONTRACTOR: W.J. Lazynski, Inc.
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft of tunnel excavation including initial support, with separate unit
price for final lining
BID TOTAL: $ 9,986,402
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe (modified circular
Circular
SIZE(S): Horseshoe--unknown
Circular--9 ft 5 in. diameter
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Horseshoe--72 sq ft (assumed)
Circular--69.5 sq ft
minimum = 27 lin ft
Identification/Type: sand and silt (glacial till) with cobbles and boulders
Quality: granular
uncemented
dense to very dense
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: silt and clayey silt (glacial till) with sand and gravel lenses
Quality: cohesive
very stiff to hard
Rock--1st Unit
Identification/Type: vuggy dolomitic limestone with clay seams
Quality: weathered
thin bedded
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
3 Double packer water pressure tests
25 Piezometer tests
- Menard pressuremeter tests
LAB TESTS: 1 Triaxial compresseion test
4 Unconfined compression tests on soil
- Density tests
- Sieve analyses
- Pocket penetrometer tests (all cohesive soils)
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground--TBM (Decker) and 2 shields
Mixed face--TBM or shield, plus drill-and-blast as needed
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Soft ground--steel ribs and wood lagging
Mixed face--steel ribs and wood lagging
Rock--rock bolts
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Soft ground, mixed face, and rock--precast concrete pipe concreted in place
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Soft ground TBM--maximum = 64 lin ft (1 shift/day)
Entire project--average = 32 lin ft (1 to 2 shifts/day)
--large quantity
Soft ground methods
--surface subsidence (major in one area)
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 15 manholes, diversion and flow
monitoring systems, and relocation of some existing utilities. The total contract was estimated at $13,808,982; the low
bid was $10,974,402 and the final contract cost was $10,996,179. A large quantity of groundwater inflow resulted
from a buried stream deposit and stalled the soft ground TBM. The TBM was removed and work continued with a
shield and hand mining. The surface subsidence was claimed to be due to water infiltration from boreholes drilled for
instrumentation.
RED HOOK INTERCEPTOR SEWER
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Brooklyn, New York
OWNER: Department of Environmental Protection, City of New York
DESIGNER: Department of Environmental Protection, City of New York
CONTRACTOR: Grow Tunneling, MacLean-Grove, Morrison-Knudsen, Peter Kiewit, & Catapano (JV)
TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (see notation under Remarks, below)
BID TOTAL: $52,283,285
“CHANGES” AWARDED: 935,999 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 12 lin ft
minimum = +2 lin ft
Identification/Type: fine to medium sand with gravel (outwash sand)
Quality: granular
uncemented
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: fill (predominantly clean sands)
Quality: granular
uncemented
loose to dense
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: bouldery sand and gravel (pockets of glacial till)
Quality: granular
uncemented
dense to very dense
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: None
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS None
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Excavator shield (Robbins 1095-160Z) with <18 psi compressed air
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Heavy steel liner plate

PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Harzardous environmental factors
--noxious fluid (hazardous waste in soils and groundwater)
--existing utilities
--gas
Soft ground methods
--face instability (required full face breasting)
--obstructions (boulders, piles, and timber cribs)
--steering (many tight radius curves)
Compressed air
--blowouts
ETC.)
Noxious fluids = $ 477,000
Obstructions--boulders = $ 640,000
Obstructions--timber cribs = $ 297,000
Obstructions--timber piles = $ 89,000
TOTAL = $1,503,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract also included 8 manhole structures, 9 regulator
structures, 4 diversion and tide gate structures, about 2,500 lin ft of open-cut pipeline, and underpinning of 43 existing
structures along the route. The total contract was estimated at $55,733,229 and the low bid was $61,862,009. Final
total contract cost was not provided. All claims were resolved during construction as change orders, which
undoubtedly kept these costs to a minimum. The tabulated “tunnel construction costs” actually include about $3.5
million for a shaft excavation, various manholes, miscellaneous concrete, backfill, and restoration that were not
separable with documentation available.
CROSS IRONDEQUOIT INTERCEPTOR, CONTRACT NO. II-C-1A
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Irondequoit, New York
OWNER: Rochester Pure Waters District, Monroe County, New York
DESIGNER: Teetor-Dobbins
CONTRACTOR: Greenfield, Ferrera, and Healy (JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: One unit price per lin ft for tunnel excavation and support
BID TOTAL: $28,760,000
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 35 lin ft
Identification/Type: friable calcareous sandstone, siltstone, shale, and limestone sequence
thin bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: None
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Refraction seismic survey for top of bedrock

CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (no information on machine type)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts
PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: No information

ETC.)
No information
REMARKS
In addition to the TBM mined rock tunnel described above, the total contract included a 600 lin ft section of 12 ft
(I.D.) rock, mixed face, and soft ground tunnel, cut-and-cover construction, 6 shafts, drop connections, and other
related work. The total contract price as estimated was $33,818,350 and as bid was $37,385,000. Damage to the
concrete liner due to sulfate attack has delayed operation of the tunnel. A program of monitoring the condition of the
liner and of reconstructed or repaired test sections was recommended in 1977. All information included for this tunnel
was obtained from prebid documents; no interview was conducted with either the owner or contractor.
GENESEE VALLEY INTERCEPTOR SOUTHWEST, CONTRACT C-36-715
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Rochester, New York
PURPOSE: Sanitary sewer and storm water sewer
OWNER: Rochester Pure Waters District, Monroe County, New York
DESIGNER: Erdman Anthony Associates
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: No Information
CONTRACT FORMAT: One unit price per lin ft for tunnel excavation and support
BID TOTAL: $10,081,200
“CHANGES” AWARDED: Unknown (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
AS COMPLETED TOTAL: Unknown (includes all claims and modifications)
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 21 lin ft
minimum = +4 lin ft
Identification/Type: moderately hard to hard dolomite with occasional shale partings and mineralized solution
cavities
thin bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
- In-situ stress tests by overcoring
30 Confined compression tests on rock core
2 Flexural strength tests on rock core

- Rock hardness tests
SURFACE MAPPING: NO
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Refraction seismic investigation for rock depth
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 181-122), with two 100-ft-long drill-and-blast starter tunnels
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs or rock bolts with wire mesh and steel strapping
--blocky, slabby (rock fallout in crown and along joints and seams believed to be due in part to high horizontal in-
situ stresses)
--spalling

ETC.)
No information
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 3 shafts, 7 drop connections, 1 side
flow weir chamber, and 13,000 lin ft of 18- to 84-in. diameter gravity interceptor installed in open cut. The total
contract price as estimated was $23,276,451 and as bid was $19,699,719. No final cost or claims information is
reported because no interview was conducted with either owner or contractor.
TUNNEL AND RESERVOIR PLAN, CONTRACT 72-049-2H
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Chicago and Wilmette, Illinois
PURPOSE: Storm water detention and conveyance
OWNER: Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
DESIGNER: Harza Engineering Company
CONTRACTOR: Kenny, Paschen, S&M (JV)
BID TOTAL: $34,590,480
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 30 ft 0 in. diameter for 27,762 lin ft
22 ft 0 in. diameter for 23,862 lin ft
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 707 sq ft (27,762-ft length)
380 sq ft (23,862-ft length)
Identification/Type: dolomite, with chert and shale partings
thick bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: 56 Borehole pressure tests
16 Abrasion tests on rock

122 Porosity determinations on rock
9 Permeability tests on rock
2 Dynamic modulus determination tests on rock
27 Static modulus determination tests on rock
20 Wetting and drying tests on rock
113 Moisture content and specific gravity tests on rock
10 Petrographic analyses
5 Chemical analyses on rock to determine reaction with sewage
(Note: Tests from 34 soil borings at drop shaft locations are not tabulated)

SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Surface seismic for top of rock, specific formations, aquifers
Borehole seismic for modulus, porosity, and specific gravity
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBMs (Jarva; one 30-ft 1-in. diameter for 27,762 lin ft and one 22-ft 1-in. diameter for
23,862 lin ft)
Drill-and-blast (116 lin ft)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Some unreinforced cast-in-place concrete (in scattered zones of bad ground)
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: 30-ft diameter tunnel--maximum = 167 lin ft
average = 55 lin ft
22-ft diameter tunnel--maximum = 173 lin ft
average = 68 lin ft
--squeezing (soft clay seams)
ETC.)
Squeezing ground (soft clay seams) = $1,359,315
TOTAL = $1,359,315
REMARKS
In addition to the two lengths of mined tunnel described above, the total contract included two 32-ft diameter
main shafts, 32 drop shafts with diameters ranging between 6 ft and 8 ft, and assorted shaft drifts. The total contract
was estimated at $65,529,302; the low bid was $63,140,480 and the actual final cost as of September 1983 appears to
be $63,077,429. However, this “final” figure includes an apparent $1,422,362 underrun which really is money the
owner is presently holding back for uncompleted work and may change by the time of final contract signoff. The
dispute is over additional concrete to compensate for overshooting the rock in some shaft adits.
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: 59th Street to Central Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen, Kenny, Paschen, S&M (JV)
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: July 19, 1980
BID TOTAL: $46,028,275
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
thick bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
1 Wetting and drying test on rock

18 Moisutre content and specific gravity tests on rock
2 Chemical analyses on rock to determine reaction with sewage

SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Surface seismic for top of rock, specific formations, and aquifers
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 353-197 for 17,744 lin ft)
Drill-and-blast (for 1,060 lin ft)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and friction rock stabilizers
average = 61 lin ft

ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included gate equipment, a 27-ft diameter
construction shaft, and 8 drop shafts with diameters ranging between 4 ft and 17 ft. The total contract was estimated at
$81,000,000; the low bid was $86,493,975 and the actual final cost was $83,530,628. The underruns represent
elimination of stubs for future tunnels and also contract unit cost items, mostly grout and rock bolts, not used because
the ground was too competent to need them.
TUNNEL AND RESERVOIR PLAN, CONTRACT 73-162-2H (PART 3)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Chicago, Illinois
CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen & Paschen (JV)
BID TOTAL: $ 9,322,400
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 35 ft 4 in. diameter; 18 ft 0 in. diameter; 15 ft 0 in. diameter
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 980 sq ft; 255 sq ft; 177 sq ft
thick bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Borehole pressure tests
10 Split cylinder tests on rock
14 Young's modulus determinations on rock
14 Poisson's ratio determinations onrock
2 Atterberg limit determinations on soil

15 Moisture content determinations on soil
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 353-191, 35 ft 4 in. diameter, for 17,750 lin ft)
Drill-and-blast (for 4,714 lin ft)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and friction rock stabilizers

average = 62 lin ft
Drill-and-blast--average = 42 lin ft
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the 3 lengths of mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 5 shafts, 2 underground
chambers, and 5 intersections and crossovers with existing tunnels. The total contract was estimated at $32,480,416;
low bid was $28,012,400 and the actual final cost was $25,834,931. The underruns represent contract unit cost items,
mostly grout and rock bolts, not used because the ground was too competent to need them.
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Ogden Avenue to Addison Street, Chicago, Illinois,
CONTRACTOR: Ball, Healy, Horn (JV)
BID TOTAL: $51,324,410
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
thick bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
51 Porosity determination tests on rock

4 Wetting and drying tests on rock
51 Moisture content and specific gravity tests on rock

SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 324)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts installed randomly
Average = 65 lin ft

ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included a 25-ft diameter construction shaft and
18 drop shafts with diameters ranging between 4 ft and 13 ft. The total contract was estimated at $90,000,000; the low
bid was $85,205,910 and the actual final cost was $85,151,605. The underrun represents a minor percentage of
contract unit cost items not used.
SEABROOK STATION CIRCULATING WATER TUNNELS
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Seabrook, New Hampshire
PURPOSE: Cooling water system for nuclear power plant
OWNER: Public Service Company of New Hampshire
DESIGNER: United Engineers
CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen Company
CONTRACT FORMAT: Cost plus with incentive fee for meeting target date (with owner supplying materials and
much of the heavy equipment)
BID TOTAL: $49,526,000 (contractor fee only)
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Parallel tubes (90-ft centers) for 9,000 ft then bifurcating to 2,800 ft separation
SHAPE(S): Circular (primarily)
Identification/Type: metasedimentary impure quartzite
massive, fairly
no shear zones
faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: plutonic diorite intrusions
massive (very)
jointing, very wide spacing
no shear zones
faulting, minor
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: diabase dikes
Quality: weathered (minor hydrothermal alteration)
blocky structure (joints parallel to contacts)
no shear zones
faulting
4th Unit
Identification/Type: mixed diorite and metasedimentaries
massive
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Stress relief tests by overcoring

1 Pumping test
LAB TESTS: - Salinity determinations on water sampled in pumping test
8 Unconfined compression tests on rock core
- University of Illinois hardness tests for TBM penetration rate estimates
- Dry unit weight of rock cores
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction and reflection surveys
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBMs (Robbins 212-173 and -174) except for ±900 lin ft of drill-and-blast development
tunnel in each heading)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs and rock bolts
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Intake tunnel (TBM)--maximum = 106 lin ft
Discharge tunnel (TBM)--average = 30.3 lin ft
--noxious fluid (highly saline water)
ETC.)
Highly saline water inflow = $ No information
REMARKS
The bid total for the mined tunnels described above is given in 1977 dollars, contractor fee only, with materials
and much of the heavy equipment supplied by the owner. Much of the cooling water tunnels were constructed beneath
the Atlantic Ocean. In addition to the mined tunnels, the total contract included vertical intake and discharge structures
and a number of shafts, some on land and some in the ocean. The engineer's estimate for the total contract is unknown
because the owner has not released the information. The total contract low bid was $66,034,000 (given on the same
basis as the tunnels). Actual final costs are not yet available because litigation over a changed condition claim is still in
progress.
EDWARD HYATT POWERHOUSE
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Oroville (Butte County), California
PURPOSE: Power
CONTRACTOR: McNamara-Fuller (JV)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per cu yd for excavation with separate unit prices for support and lining
components
ESTIMATED TOTAL: $ 7,166,097
BID TOTAL: $ 5,990,163
“CHANGES” AWARDED: $16,300,000 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Large chamber
SHAPE(S): Straignt sides with arched roof
SIZE(S): 139 ft high by 71 ft wide
massive
shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - In-situ stress by overcoring
- Diametrical jacking tests in adit
- Flatjack tests in adits
LAB TESTS: - Modulus of elasticity

EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Two exploratory drifts and a number of cross drifts totaling
about 780 lin ft
SURFACE MAPPING: No
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction survey in general area to determine top of rock
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and shotcrete with wire mesh
PERMANENT SUPPORT: None
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Average = 0.67 lin ft for 203 cu yd/day for entire chamber)
--blocky, slabby (resulting in excessive overbreak from blasting)

ETC.)
Unstable ground
--blocky, slabby = $14,073,427
TOTAL = $14,073,427
REMARKS
In addition to the mined powerhouse chamber described above, the total contract included penstock tunnels, a
diversion tunnel, a tailrace tunnel, an access tunnel, an intake structure, and various structural and mechanical work.
The engineer's estimate for the entire contract was $20,592,461; the low bid was $18,366,780 and the final cost was
$42,414,628. Although the accuracy or adequacy of the geologic site investigations was not questioned, the
interpretation resulted in a design which was claimed to be impossible to construct. Nine years of litigation in court
resulted in a $16,300,000 award to the contractor, which was essentially the amount claimed plus some interest.
NORTHFIELD MOUNTAIN PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Northfield, Massachusetts
PURPOSE: Electric power generation
OWNER: Northeast Utilities
DESIGNER: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
CONTRACTOR: Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: June 1972
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit prices for excavation and various support items
BID TOTAL: $27,730,000
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Large chamber and multiple tunnels
SHAPE(S): Circular and horseshoe
SIZE(S): Circular--15 to 34 ft diameter
Horseshoe--17 ft 4 in. high by 16 ft 8 in. wide to 143 ft high by 70 ft wide
minimum = 0 lin ft
Crown to water table--too variable to summarize
Identification/Type: intermixed granite gneiss and biotite schist, with quartzite and pegmatite layers
foliated
shear zones, minor
faulting, minor
SITE EXPLORATION
- Young's modulus, Poisson's ratio tests
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic refraction for top of rock

CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts, shotcrete, and occasional steel ribs
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete and steel liners in some water passages
Average = 29 lin ft
--spalling, rock bursts

ETC.)
Rock bursts from high in-situ stress = $6,660,000
TOTAL = $6,660,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels and chamber described above, the total contract included a vent shaft, a pressure
shaft, 4 surge shafts, a tailrace canal, a reservoir, and other miscellaneous items. The costs reported are supposed to be
for mining only, but they may not have been adjusted to exclude all non-mining costs, such as shafts that were sunk or
raised. (This point could not be clarified by a follow-up interview with the owner due to lack of time remaining for
study completion.) Cost overruns were due to rock bursts and excessive overbreak stemming from high in-situ stresses
heretofore unexpected in this area. Had they been expected, prebid testing might have defined the problem in advance
to result in better construction planning.
KERCKHOFF NO. 2 POWER TUNNEL
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Fresno, California
PURPOSE: Power (pumped storage)
OWNER: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
DESIGNER: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
CONTRACTOR: Auburn Constructors (Ball & Atkinson, JV)
BID TOTAL: No information
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
Identification/Type: granodiorite
massive
shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
- Hydrofracturing stress tests
- Moh's hardness tests
- Pulse veolocity tests

EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: None, but existing parallel tunnel (Kerckhoff #1) inspected
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Surface seismic refraction for depth to rock
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM (Robbins 243 for 21,615 lin ft)
Drill-and-blast (for 434 lin ft)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: None
PERMANENT SUPPORT: None
average = 65 lin ft
--large quantity (at times)
--hard, abrasive rock

ETC. )
No description available = $ Unknown
REMARKS
In addition to the mined power tunnel described above, the total contract included the powerhouse chamber,
penstock, access adits, surge chamber, intake structure, and various site, electrical, and mechanical work. The low bid
for the total contract was approximately $65,000,000; no information was available on the engineer's estimate or actual
final costs or on any costs or estimates associated with the mined power tunnel. A subsurface-related changed
condition claim was filed for the power tunnel, but nothing is known about disputes in the rest of the contract.
LOON LAKE HYDROPOWER PROJECT (INVITATION 2247)
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: E1 Dorado County, California
PURPOSE: Power
OWNER: Sacramento Municipal Utility District
DESIGNER: Bechtel Corporation
CONTRACTOR: Walsh Construction Company
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft or per cu yd for excavation with separate unit prices for support
components
BID TOTAL: $9,323,260
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Large chamber with penstock, access tunnel, and tailrace
SHAPE(S): Penstock (transition and horizontal)--circular and horseshoe
Access shaft--modified horseshoe
Machine hall--arched roof chamber
Tailrace tunnel--modified horseshoe
SIZE(S): Penstock--13 to 14 ft diameter
Access shaft--17 ft high by 17 ft wide
Machine hall--110 ft high by 75 ft wide
Tailrace tunnel--18 ft high by 18 ft wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Penstock--133 to 175 sq ft
Access shaft--258 sq ft
Machine hall--8,146 sq ft
Tailrace tunnel--289 sq ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
minimum = no data
Identification/Type: granite, diorite, and granodiorite
massive
shear zones
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: basalt dikes
Quality: weathered
massive
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - NX core
- Groundwater flows observed
- Elastic modulus tests
- Poisson's ratio tests
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: 9-ft-diameter shaft at penstock with 8 ft by 8 ft exploratory adit
into machine hall

CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: None, or rock bolts
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Machine hall and tailrace--none
Penstock--concrete and steel
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Access shaft--average = 4.7 lin ft (est.)
Machine hall--average = 0.4 lin ft (or 121 cu yd/day, est.)
Tailrace tunnel--average = 55.7 lin ft (est.)
--blocky (in a few areas)
Groundwater inflow
Alignment problems (in inclined access shaft)
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
This contract included all necessary excavation and initial support for the Loon Lake machine hall, tailrace tunnel,
access shaft, and penstock. The vertical penstock shaft is described as a separate project for this study. The total
contract also included a power line, 4 miles of access road, and various portal excavations. The total contract was bid
at $10,372,410 and the actual final cost was $11,210,027. No engineer's estimate is available. The overrun on the total
contract was from extra work not associated with underground construction. The underrun on underground
construction was from various support and contingency items not used.
MONTREAL METRO LINE NO. 5, CONTRACT NO. 210
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
PURPOSE: Running tunnel for subway system
OWNER: Montreal Urban Corporation, Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation
DESIGNER: Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation
CONTRACTOR: Walsh and Brais, Inc.
CONTRACT FORMAT: One unit price for each section of tunnel which includes excavation, primary and
secondary support
BID TOTAL: $10,958,581
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Horseshoe
SIZE(S): 23.6 ft to 24.3 ft high by 26.6 ft wide
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): Varies from 455.6 to 468.5 sq ft
minimum = 15 lin ft
Identification/Type: horizontally bedded limestone with thin beds of shale
Quality: weathered
thin bedded
no shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: - Groundwater tested for sulfate
- Groundwater tested for pH
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts, with shotcrete and ribs in limited areas
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete, 13.7 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Maximum = 70 lin ft (two headings)
Average = 17 lin ft (total length ÷ total working days)
--blocky, slabby (fault zones required extra primary support)
--face fallout/roof slabbing (2 cave-ins, fault zones required extra primary support)

ETC.)
Roof slabbing (use of ribs instead of rock bolts) = $6,754
TOTAL = $6,754
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, this contract also included 3 stations and 4 ventilation shafts.
There was no formal engineer's estimate prepared. The total contract price as bid was $16,920,643.60 and as
completed was $17,885,643.60. (Note that all costs are in 1979-81 Canadian dollars.) Overbreak was rather large on
this project, due partly to the flat lying and thinly bedded rock and to the length of rounds used by the contractor when
blasting. The owner felt that methods to contol overbreak would result in much slower progress. Overbreak averaged 1
ft in the tunnel walls and up to about 5 ft in the haunches. The estimated excavation volume including overbreak was
160,000 cu yd.
SPADINA SUBWAY, CONTRACT NO. A6-1
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
OWNER: Toronto Transit Commission
DESIGNER: Toronto Transit Commission and Hatch & Associates
CONTRACTOR: Robert McAlpine Ltd.
CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices for support and per lin ft of tunnel excavation
BID TOTAL: $4,091,164
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 25 lin ft
minimum = + 3 lin ft
Identification/Type:
Quality: cohesive
hard
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: clay till
Quality: cohesive
hard
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: sand till
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
SITE EXPLORATION

13 Water observation wells
3 Bi-level water observation wells
69 Natural density tests
158 Gradation tests
627 Moisture content tests
interglacial varved clay
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Inspection shaft, 36 to 48 in. diameter
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Shields (2 McAlpine) with 4 to 14 psi compressed air (for 200 to 300 ft)
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Cast iron and precast concrete segments
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Mixture of cast iron and precast concrete panels

Average = 12 lin ft (overall, per shield)
--running ground
Groundwater inflow
Soft ground methods
--groundwater inflow (operating nuisance)
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, this contract also included 172 lin ft of cutand-cover box
construction and 1 mined cross passage. The engineer's estimate for the total contract was $6,500,000; the low bid was
$5,569,194 and the actual final cost was $7,194,000. (Note that all costs are in Canadian dollars.) Progress was limited
to 12 ft/day by union policies, which apparently restricted the contractor in scheduling work and in production
capabilities.
YONGE SUBWAY, NORTH EXTENSION (CONTRACT NO. Y-6)
GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSE: Running tunnels for subways
OWNER: Toronto Transit Commission
DESIGNER: Hatch & Associates
CONTRACTOR: S. McNally and Sons, Ltd.
CONTRACT FORMAT: Separate unit prices for support and per lin ft of excavation
BID TOTAL: $6,191,412
TUNNEL DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 17 ft 6 in. diameter for 10,252 lin ft
21 ft 0 in. diameter for 314 lin ft
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 240 sq ft (10,252 ft length)
346 sq ft (314 ft length)
minimum = 29 lin ft
Identification/Type: interglacial sandy silt
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: silt till
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: interglacial sand
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
SITE EXPLORATION
- Sniffer (gas monitoring) tests in some borings
LAB TESTS: - Natural density tests
- Gradation tests
- Hydrometer tests
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Shields (2) with 60% in compressed air (10 psi average, 20 psi maximum) and 40% in free
air
PRIMARY SUPPORT: None in main tunnels; timber in access tunnel
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Mixture of cast iron and precast concrete liner panels
Average = 12 lin ft (per shield, per day, not including access shaft)
--running sand
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity
--noxious fluid (gasoline from abandoned service station)
Soft ground methods
--water inflow (large quantity)
--face instability (increased compressed air usage)
ETC.)
Face instability (compressed air usage) = $423,224
TOTAL = $423,224
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, this contract also included two 24-ft diameter access shafts and
support and restoration of existing facilities. The total contract price as estimated was not available for this study. The
total contract price as bid was $6,983,028 and as completed was $7,104,824. (Note that all costs are in 1970-73
Canadian dollars.) Groundwater control and running sand were the only real geological problems on the project.
Progress was limited to 12 ft/day by union policies, which apparently restricted the contractor in scheduling work and
in production capabilities.
EASTERLY FILTRATION PLANT INTAKE TUNNEL, CONTRACT W-13-73
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Lake Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
OWNER: Department of Works, Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto
DESIGNER: Albery, Pullerits, Dickson and Associates
CONTRACTOR: Schwenger Construction, Ltd.
CONSTRUCTION START: Early 1974
CONTRACT FORMAT: Lump sum with unit prices for changes in the work
BID TOTAL: $3,605,115
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
minimum = 60 lin ft
Identification/Type: horizontally bedded, calcite cemented fissle shale with interbedded limestone
thin bedded
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Packer tests
- Gas tests (in borehole above water level)
LAB TESTS: - None for rock samples
- Groundwater tested for gas
- Air drawn from boreholes tested in lab for gas

SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: TBM, and at least 800 ft drill-and-blast
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts, wire mesh, and shotcrete
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Cast-in-place concrete (with wire mesh in arch), 9 in. thick
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Unknown
--blocky, slabby (overbreak at quarter arch points)
--spalling

ETC.)
Blocky, slabby, spalling (high in-situ stresses) = $500,000
TOTAL = $500,000
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnels described above, this project also included a pumphouse, 22-ft and 14-ft diameter
shafts, and other site work. The total contract price was estimated at $6,213,020; the low bid was $6,144,172 and the
actual final cost was $5,839,649. (Note that all costs are in 1974-79 Canadian dollars.) Schwenger Construction Ltd.
went bankrupt during construction and was replaced by another contractor, who completed the work under the
performance bond.
YORK-DURHAM SEWAGE SYSTEM, CONTRACT NO. 85
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Toronto, Canada
OWNER: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
DESIGNER: M.M. Dillon Ltd.
CONTRACTOR: S. McNally & Sons Ltd.
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: July 1980
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin m of tunnel including temporary and final support
BID TOTAL: $3,888,213
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 96 in. diameter
minimum = 20 lin ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: clayey silt (till)
Quality: cohesive
hard
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: interglacial sand
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: interglacial silt
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
SITE EXPLORATION

BOREHOLE TESTS: - Vane shear tests
LAB TESTS: 8 Undrained triaxial compression tests
91 Grain size distribution curves
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground TBM (Lovat) with one 200-ft length requiring 6 psi compressed air
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs and timber lagging
Average = 68 lin ft

--running (silt)
Groundwater inflow
--high pressure
Soft ground methods
--steering
ETC.)
Obstructions (boulders in invert) = $5,595
TOTAL = $5,595
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included about 300 ft of open-cut excavation, a
flume chamber, 3 vent shafts, and miscellaneous surface work. The total contract was estimated at $4,300,000; the low
bid was $4,266,379 and the actual final cost was $4,153,076. (Note that all costs are in 1979-80 Canadian dollars.) The
underrun was due to not using all contingency items included in the bid schedule.
YORK-DURHAM SEWAGE SYSTEM, CONTRACT NO. 86
GENERAL INFORMATION
OWNER: Ontario Ministry of the Environment
DESIGNER: M.M. Dillon Ltd.
CONTRACTOR: S. McNally & Sons Ltd.
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 1981
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin m of tunnel including temporary and final support
BID TOTAL: $4,145,400
TUNNEL DATA
LAYOUT: Single tube
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 96 in. diameter for 10,072 lin ft
154 in. diameter for 98 lin ft
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 50.3 sq ft (10,072 ft length)
133 sq ft (98 ft length)
minimum = 40 lin ft
minimum = 0 lin ft
Identification/Type: interglacial sand and silt
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: interglacial silty sand and gravel
Quality: granular
uncemented
very dense
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: clayey silt till
Quality: cohesive
hard
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Vane shear tests
LAB TESTS: 3 Undrained triaxial compression tests
89 Grain size distribution tests
SURFACE MAPPING: No
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Soft ground TBM (Lovat) in 96-in. diameter tunnel; hand mining in 154-in. diameter section
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Steel ribs and wood lagging
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: TBM--average = 82 lin ft

--running ground
Groundwater inflow
--operating nuisance to large quantity
Soft ground methods
ETC.)
Obstructions (boulders in invert) = $9,228
TOTAL = $9,228
REMARKS
In addition to the mined tunnel described above, the total contract included 359 ft of open-cut excavation and 5
manholes. The total contract was estimated at $5,400,000; the low bid was $4,630,700 and the final contract cost was
$4,480,729. (Note that all costs are in 1979-80 Canadian dollars.) The underrun was due to not using various
contingency bid items.
LOON LAKE PENSTOCK SHAFT
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: El Dorado County, California
PURPOSE: Power
OWNER: Sacramento Municipal Utility District
DESIGNER: Bechtel Corporation
CONTRACTOR: Pilot shaft--Gates & Fox, Inc.
Enlargement--Walsh Construction Company
Lining--Dravo Corporation
CONSTRUCTION START: August 1965
CONTRACT FORMAT: Unit price per lin ft for initial excavation and enlargement with separate unit prices for
support and lining components
SHAFT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
BID TOTAL: $1,934,714
“CHANGES” AWARDED : $ 86,127 (unforeseen subsurface conditions only)
SHAFT DATA
TYPE(S) AND DEPTH(S): Rock = 1,225 lin ft Total depth = 1,225 lin ft
LAYOUT: Single vertical shaft
SHAPE(S): Circular
SIZE(S): 9 ft 4 in. to 14 ft diameter
EXCAVATED FACE AREA(S): 68 to 154 sq ft
DEPTHS: Bottom to surface--maximum = 1,225 lin ft
Bottom to water table--maximum = +1,200 lin ft (approximately)
Identification/Type: granodiorite
foliated, faintly
shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
LAB TESTS: None
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Shaft was initiated as a 9-ft-diameter exploratory shaft

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Yes (but not prior to construction)
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Drill-and-blast for pilot shaft, then enlargement by slashing
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and wire mesh
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Not available
--blocky, slabby (in a few places)
Groundwater inflow
--large quantity
--high pressure

ETC.)
Groundwater inflow (extra work for grouting) = $86,127
TOTAL = $86,127
REMARKS
The Loon Lake Penstock shaft is part of a large hydropower project and was constructed as a part of three
separate contracts. The shaft was initially driven as a 9-ft-diameter exploratory shaft, using drill-and-blast methods, as
a part of the exploration program for the total project. The exploratory shaft was later slashed to its final size by
another contractor and then lined by a third contractor. The remainder of the overall project is described in a separate
abstract of the Loon Lake Hydropower Project.
EXPLORATORY SHAFT, WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Near Carlsbad, New Mexico
PURPOSE: Nuclear waste storage
OWNER: U.S. Department of Energy
DESIGNER: Bechtel National, Inc.
CONTRACTOR: Challenger Drilling (subcontractor)
CONTRACT FORMAT: Cost-plus
BID TOTAL: $7,419,705
SHAFT DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
Bottom to water table--not applicable
Identification/Type: siltstone interbedded with sandstone and mudstone (Dewey Lake formation)
shear zones, minor
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: anhydrite interbedded with dolomite and mudstone (Rustler formation)
massive
jointing, moderate to close spacing (healed)
no shear zones
no faulting
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: halite and polyhalite with interbeds of anhydrite (Salado formation)
massive
jointing, none
no shear zones
no faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BOREHOLE TESTS: - Permeability tests (type not known)
- Triaxial shear tests
- Tensile strength tests
- Percent porosity tests
- Permeability (laboratory)
- Secant modulus of elasticity tests
- Resistivity tests
- Thermal conductivity tests
- Creep tests (salt)
GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES: Seismic reflection (shallow and deep)
Resistivity
Magnetic survey
Gravity survey
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Down-hole drilling
PRIMARY SUPPORT: None (brine filled during drilling)
PERMANENT SUPPORT: Steel liner for top 850 ft only
ADVANCE RATE PER DAY: Sandstone and siltstone--maximum = 25 lin ft
Salt--maximum = 65 lin ft
Entire shaft--average = 18.5 lin ft
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
In addition to the drilled shaft described above, the total contract also included a 6-ft-diameter ventilation shaft,
surface development work, and geophysical logging of both shafts. Fenix & Scisson performed this contract on a cost-
plus basis as an extension of an existing contract with the Department of Energy. (The firm had already been involved
in the exploration work at the site and was quite familiar with the geology.) Fenix & Scisson served in the role of
general contractor and subcontracted most of the work. They estimated the total contract at $10,207,109. The sum of
the subcontracts (generally obtained by competitive bid, plus overhead and markup) was $10,361,071 and the final
contract cost was $10,113,904.
Due to the purpose of this project, the site and surrounding region were extensively investigated for nearly 10
years, using both traditional drilling methods and nearly every applicable geophysical method. Although only 2
borings are indicated on the abstract as applicable to this shaft, a total of 84 boreholes were available within 5 miles of
the site. The number of borings on the actual site was deliberately kept to a minimum to avoid damaging the integrity
of the potential repository. The exploratory shaft was constructed as planned, with no significant surprises.
BRUNSWICK SHAFT NO. 3
GENERAL INFORMATION
LOCATION: Bathurst, New Brunswick, Canada
PURPOSE: Metal mine shaft
OWNER: Brunswick Mining & Smelting Corporation Ltd
DESIGNER: V.B. Cook Company Ltd.
CONTRACTOR: J.S. Redpath Ltd.
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: January 1978
CONTRACT FORMAT: Target cost plus fixed fee with bonus/penalty incentive
BID TOTAL: $8,647,285 (see notation under Remarks, below)
SHAFT DATA
SHAPE(S): Circular
Bottom to water table--maximum = +3,680 lin ft
Identification/Type: quartz eye schist
foliated
no shear zones
no faulting
2nd Unit
Identification/Type: crystal tuff
massive
jointing, wide spacaing
no shear zones
no faulting
3rd Unit
Identification/Type: graphite schist
foliated
shear zones
faulting
SITE EXPLORATION
BORINGS: Total number = 12 (drilled horizontally or inclined from mine workings)
EXPLORATORY SHAFTS/PILOT TUNNELS: Adjacent underground mine workings available for observation
(no cost to shaft contract); no other site exploration information made available to bidders
CONSTRUCTION
METHOD(S) USED: Raise bore and slash
PRIMARY SUPPORT: Rock bolts and wire mesh mostly, with immediate cast-in-place concrete in graphite schist

Average overall = 5.7 lin ft
Average in graphite schist = 3.5 lin ft
--running (in graphite schist)
ETC.)
None
REMARKS
The builder of this project was expected to work out most of the design/construction details, and financial
arrangements were negotiated from a winning proposal rather than a low bid. In addition to the raise bored and slashed
shaft decribed above, the total contract included a separate 7-ft-diameter 3,300-ft-deep “borehole” shaft, 6 mine
developemnt laterals, and a 13-ft-high by 18-ft-wide ramp excavated from the 2,880-ft level to the 4,300-ft level. The
total contract cost plus fee was negotiated at $18,038,062, but finally came in at $20,753,546 (Canadian dollars). All
costs are affected by the fact that the owner provided the head frame, shaft steel, pipe, rock bolts, wire mesh, water
rings, compressed air, water, power, sewerage, surface preparation, and concrete. Due to deteriorating metal markets,
the shaft was stopped at the 3,700-ft level rather than the 4,525-ft design depth. This 825-ft curtailment resulted in a
savings of perhaps $400,000 in the cost of the shaft itself. The increase in overall actual costs over the original target is
attributable to escalation and some post-bid increases in scope of work. Almost 99 percent of the shaft excavation went
smoothly in sound rock, with severe construction problems arising (as expected) only in the 43-ft exposure of very soft
graphite schist between the 3,510-ft and 3,553-ft depths.
180
Computer-Based Data Management System
It was apparent at the outset of the effort to collect tunnel case history data that the amount of information likely
to be compiled would reach substantial proportions. This posed several problems:
• How could one sort through the masses of data to distinguish relationships between the key variables?
• How could the data be stored in an efficient format so that future records could be added easily?
• What system could be used so that key items from the case histories would be transportable?
To respond to these issues it was decided to develop a computer file version of the data and to link this with a
program which could be used to sort the information based on a set of key words. This report describes how these
problems were solved and provides illustrations of the use of the final computer-based data management system for the
tunnel case history data.
There were three elements to the task at hand. First, a format had to be developed for the case history data which
was suitable for the computer. Second, each case history had to be condensed into the computer style format and
entered into the computer data file. Finally, a system had to be located which could easily manipulate the data file
using a maximum number of possible key words.
COMPUTER FORMAT FOR CASE HISTORY DATA

The format for the case history data was worked out between personnel at Virginia Tech (Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University) and key members of the team working at the subcommittee level for the U.S. National
Committee on Tunneling Technology. The objectives of the format are in some ways contradictory. On the one hand it
is desirable to have as much information as possible stored on each case history. On the other hand, too large a data
base defeats the purpose of the computer file because it becomes unwieldy. Thus, it was necessary to compromise and
include, in as succinct a fashion as possible, the information believed to characterize most completely the key
parameters for each case history. Further, the format had to be designed to be compatible with the data management
program described later herein.
Table 1 lists all of the elements of the computer case history format (termed a “file definition”). A complete
listing comprises 67 elements, although only rarely would all of them be used for any one case history. However, it is
important to note that multiple sets of elements can be used for certain key items, such as the descriptions for geology.
Thus, if the tunnel encountered five rock types, then data for all five conditions are entered. Similarly for tunneling
conditions and execution parameters, multiple listings may be used because in any given tunnel it is possible that a
variety of conditions are encountered and methods of execution vary accordingly.
The descriptors for the format are generally very brief. Where appropriate, a single number is used; for example,
tunnel length or advance rates are parameters handled nicely by a single number. Other cases are characterized by a
single word, often in the form of a “yes” or “no” answer. Where more than two alternatives exist for text descriptions,
there is typically a prescribed set of words from which one must be chosen. For example, if a tunnel is in sand, the
sand is alternatively described as one of the following: very loose, loose, medium, dense, very dense. As will be seen
subsequently, when entering data into the system, the control program provides interactive instructions to the user
which specifically define the alternatives one can apply for the descriptors.
An example of a computer data file is given in Table 2, with the data representing the Laurens Street tunnels of
the Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System (BRRTS). This is an instructive case because several types of ground were
encountered and tunneling conditions varied from soft ground to mixed face to hard rock. After the basic physical
characteristics of the tunnel are defined, the specifics concerning the work in each type of tunnel environment are
documented. In this instance, the descriptors for tunnel environment are filled out for three different conditions,
providing a reasonably complete (albeit condensed) picture of the tunneling project. In a similar manner, the geologic
conditions often require multiple listings. Three units are described for the Laurens Street tunnels, but there is no limit
on the number one can use. Separate sets of descriptors are also employed for the execution category, providing further
definition of the work in the three tunnel environments. This allows an accounting of alternative forms of tunneling
methods and support schemes.
Following the entries for the execution category, a series of categories of problems are considered. These include
possible problems with the nature of the soil or rock, water, hazardous elements, and tunneling methods. Finally, the
cost data for the project is summarized by a series of numerical entries including estimated, bid, and total cost; percent
of overrun; cost of exploration; and claims data.
It should be noted that the final form of the case history format was arrived at only after a series of iterations.
Many individuals contributed to this effort. Initially, the format was formulated based on guidelines developed as an
outgrowth of efforts of the
TABLE 1 Elements Composing the File Definition

STRUCTURE ELEMENT NAME ELEMENT TYPE
Project number Integer
Project name Text
Physical-Characteristics: Number-of-Tubes Integer
Tunnel-Length Decimal
Max-Overburden Decimal
Min-Overburden Decimal
Max-Groundwater-Level Decimal
Min-Groundwater-Level Decimal
Tunnel-Condition: Type-of-Ground Word selection
Length Decimal
Tunnel-Shape Word selection
Tunnel-Height Decimal
Tunnel-Width Decimal
Face-Area Decimal
Exploration: Number-of-Boreholes Integer
Borehole-Length Decimal
Geology: Unit-Number Integer
Identification Text
Weathered Yes/No
Massive-Thickbedded Yes/No
Foliated-Thinbedded Yes/No
Jointedness Word selection
Shear-Zones Yes/No
Faulting Yes/No
Max-Strength Decimal
Min-Strength Decimal
Relative-Density Word selection
Consistency Word selection
Execution: Excavation Word selection
Construction-Method Text
Max-Advance-Rate Decimal
Av-Advance-Rate Decimal
Primary-Supports Text
Soil/Rock Problems: Blocky-Slabby Yes/No
Running Yes/No
Flowing Yes/No
Squeezing Yes/No
Swelling Yes/No
Spalling Yes/No
Hazard-Environmental Problems: Noxious-Fluid Yes/No

Existing-Utilities Yes/No
High-Temperature Yes/No
Gas Yes/No
Excavation-Problems: Hard-Abrasive Yes/No
Mucking-Problems Yes/No
TBM-Problems Soft-Bottom Yes/No
Face-Fall-Out Yes/No
Gripper-Instability Yes/No
Roof-Instability Yes/No
Press-Binding Yes/No
Shield-Problems Boulders Yes/No
Compressed-Air-Problems: Blow-Outs Yes/No
Surface-Settlements Yes/No
Fire Yes/No
Costs: Estimated-Cost Text
Bid-Cost Decimal
Total-Cost Decimal
Percent-overrun Decimal
Exploration-Cost Decimal
Unit-Quantities: Claim Text
Claim-Settled Decimal
Tunnel-Price Decimal
Exploration Decimal
Unit-Borehole Decimal
Unit-Claims Decimal
Unit-Settled-Claims Decimal
COMPUTER-BASED DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
184
USNC/TT's Subcommittee on Research. Members of the case history project team then modified this base to be
more consistent with the type of data being obtained in this study. This version was computerized and used for a
number of the first data sets that were available. After a review of results by the project team, further improvements
were suggested and implemented. Following several additional rounds of this process, the final format was derived as
is described herein.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CASE HISTORY FORMATS

The first step in the implementation process involved condensing each case history file down to the computer
format. This effort was facilitated by adopting the abstract form of the case history documentation. The abstract form
was patterned to approximately match the computer file. Once the case histories were reduced to abstract form, it was
a relatively easy matter to extract the needed data for the computer format.
To enter the data into the computer, it was necessary to develop a file definition and a format program. These
programs are designed to be an integral part of the larger data management program described later herein. The file
definition program is interactive and is designed for a user to sit at a terminal to enter the case history data. The
program, presented in Section 1, basically consists of a set of instructions for the user, explicitly stating how the case
history data are to be entered. For example, the first statement asks the user to enter the number to be assigned to the
project as well as a text description of the project name or identification. Referring to the Laurens Street sample project
in Table 2, examples of entries of this type are seen.
Subsequent to the project identification, the program sequentially leads the user through the data entries for the
entire format. At each stage a specific entry is requested by means of a direct statement. Any special characteristics
required for the entry are described in the data request to the user. Thus, the user is told if the entry should be
numerical, yes/no, a choice from a specific set of descriptors, or an open text description. In the case of numbers, the
user is told which types of units are appropriate.
Following the entire process of data entry results in a completed case history. Note that the program is unfailingly
polite. After each request it will wait as long as the user desires for a response; also, it consistently says “please”
before each request.
The second program written specifically for implementation of the tunnel case history data file is listed in
Section 2. This is the format program, and it is used to display the case history information back to the user after it has
all been entered. The format program also serves as the listing tool following searches using the data management
program. An example of the output of the format program is provided in Table 2 for the Laurens Street tunnels.
CASE HISTORY DATA FILE

Using the file definition program, 87 case histories have been entered into the computer file. The data are
complete insofar as the information available would allow. In some instances, specific items were not obtained during
the course of the data collection process. Should an item not be available, a listing of the data file will simply not show
anything for that particular line.
The original data file is being kept at Virginia Tech on several duplicate computer tapes. It is readily transportable
in tape form or as a paper listing. Should future case history data be provided, it can easily be added as needed. Also,
the data file can be manipulated so as to adjust project numbers in an alternative fashion if desired. At present, the
project numbers in the computer file are consistent with the order in which the abstracts are presented in this volume.
DATA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

One of the principal tasks of this research effort was to develop a data management tool to allow the user to select
only a certain subset of the case histories which are pertinent to a specific task. Further, it was considered desirable to
have this operation capable of ranking the subset according to some key parameter. Thus, one might choose to seek out
the case histories involving mixed-face tunnel conditions and rank them in the listing according to percent of cost
overrun.
To review the options to accomplish this goal, a study was made of how similar problems are handled in the area
of information science. It rapidly became obvious that the tunnel data subset presented a unique situation. First, each
tunnel case history is characterized by a large quantity of information whereas in library science, where computer
searches are common, a book is characterized by a title, author, publisher, and date. However, each tunnel case history
has 67 elements, and some of these are listed in multiple fashion. Second, as to key words, it is possible that any one of
the 67 elements stored for the case history could conceivably be useful as a search parameter. Thus, potentially a very
large number of key words would be required.
The unique aspects of the tunnel case history situation posed a need for a particularly powerful data management
system. Discussions with experts in the field led to consideration of a copyrighted program known as SPIRES
(Stanford Public Information Retrieval System). Developed at Stanford University in the 1970s, SPIRES is used
extensively (nationally and internationally) for a multitude of purposes. It has been purchased by most major
universities and is made available to the university community at large. SPIRES was brought to Virginia Tech in 1981,
and regular courses are held to acquaint users with the operation procedures.
DESCRIPTION OF SPIRES
SPIRES is a large program, requiring approximately 2 megabytes of computer memory. It is designed to handle
all types of data efficiently, from numerical values found in administrative and scientific data to lengthy, textual values
such as bibliographic data. SPIRES is available in three different modes:
• the online mode, which is optimized for searching and data updating;
• the batch mode, which is used normally during non-prime shifts for large searches and reports;
• the host language interface mode, through which batch programs in PL/I, COBOL, or other languages may
directly access to SPIRES files.
In SPIRES each collection of data, called a data base, is described by a file definition program. With the file
definition program in hand, SPIRES can be used to:
• select case histories specified by the users as meeting certain criteria, e.g., having mixed-face conditions,
longer than “x” feet, greater than “y” percent cost overrun;
• list all, or part, of a data subset;
• rank a data subset according to any identified parameter. Printing information from SPIRES is done via the
format program described previously.
USE OF SPIRES IN THE PROJECT

The primary value of SPIRES was achieved during the course of the project. In a number of cases the
subcommittee requested listings of the projects according to certain formats. With the system in hand and running on
the computer, these requests could be accommodated quickly. Listings were provided ranked by project number,
percent cost overrun, and projects with water problems.
EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF SPIRES

To illustrate the use of the data management system, the following descriptions are provided for two different
cases. The data file for the examples consists of the 87 case histories for the project (84 tunnels and 3 shafts).
In the first example, it is assumed that the user desires to isolate the case histories in which problems with
squeezing ground were indicated. The actual set of instructions and computer responses that the user sees on the
terminal as the searching session is carried out are shown in Table 3. From these transactions it can be seen that
working with the SPIRES system requires very little to activate and complete the desired process.
The following is an explanation for each step shown in Table 3.
• Entering SPIRES from the ready mode of CMS is done by typing the command “SPIRES.”
• In SPIRES, the command “select tunnel4” gives access to the subfile that contains the data file on 87 projects.
• The command “show subfile size” displays the total number of records (tunnel or shaft projects) stored in the
computer (87).
• The command “cms 3270” eliminates the assignation of the character (@), which is the delete character under
CMS. (This character will be used in the searching process.)
• The command “for subfile where (rock-p@squeez=yes) or (soil-p@squeez=yes)” selects all the projects that
had a problem of squeezing rock or squeezing soil.
• The command “sho keys all” displays the project numbers of the 16 cases selected.
• The command “sequence project-number (a)” ranks the 16 cases selected according to the project number in
ascending order.
(Note: any numerical parameter in the data file can be used for this ranking.)
• The last commands allow to display and print the active file which contains the results of the searching session.
A printout of the results of the SPIRES session is given in Section 3. As required, all of the projects selected had
either soil or rock squeezing problems.
The second example is designed to select the tunnel projects that have a length of excavation in mixed-face
conditions of more than 200 ft. The session goes through the steps shown in Table 4 and can be described as follows:
• Enter SPIRES from CMS as in the first example.

• Select the subfile “tunnel4” as in the first example.
• Search for the tunnel projects which have a mixed-face excavation for a length greater than 200 ft by typing
the command “for subfile where type-ground=mixed-face and @length>200.”
• The command “sho keys all” allows the project numbers selected to be displayed on the screen.
The last part of this session is similar to the last part of the first session. The results are displayed and then
printed, again arbitrarily using project numbers as a ranking parameter. A printout of the results of this SPIRES session
is given in Section 4.
GENERAL USE OF SPIRES

A self-help guide is given in Section 5 to guide a user through the basic procedure of initiating use of the SPIRES
system with the tunnel case history information. After SPIRES is called into the computer memory, the two satellite
programs for file definition and formatting must be compiled within SPIRES. If the user has been working frequently
with SPIRES, the satellite programs already would have been stored within SPIRES and simply activated through the
commands shown in Section 5. Instructions are also given in Section 5 as to how to add the complete case history data
file, or add to the data file.
TABLE 3 SPIRES Session No. 1

R;
spires
-WELCOME TO SPIRES-3 . . . IF IN TROUBLE, TRY ‘HELP'
−>
select tunnel4
−>
show subfile size
-The subfile has 87 Records
−>
cms 3270
−>
for subfile where (rock-p@squeez=yes) or (soil-p@squeez=yes)
+>
sho keys all
10
27
29
32
37
42
43
44
45
46
48
50
52
54
71
+>
stack all
-STACK : 16 RECORDS
+>
sequence project-number (a)
-STACK: 16 RECORDS
+>
set format display
+>
in active clear type
+>
cms browse active file

+>
print active file
Notes: Lines starting by −, −>, and +> are generated by the computer. A printout of this session is given in Section 3.
TABLE 4 SPIRES Session No. 2

R;
spires
−>
select tunnel4
−>
cms 3270
−>
for subfile where type-ground=mixed face and @length 200
+>
sho keys all
2
4
9
10
12
26
29
61
64
+>
stack all
-STACK: 9 RECORDS
+>
set format display
+>
sequence project-number (a)
-STACK: 9 RECORDS
+>
in active clear type
+>
cms browse active file
+>
print active file
Notes: Lines starting by −, −>, and +> are generated by the computer. A printout of this session is given in Section 4.
Any computer center which leases SPIRES also has a number of detailed user's manuals on file. These manuals
should be consulted before using the system.
The SPIRES system is leased from Stanford University currently (1984) for $5,000 per year for academic
institutions and $50,000 per year for others. As noted earlier, SPIRES is already available at many universities, and
usually personnel have been trained in its use.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objectives of this subtask of the case history study were to develop a computerized version of the case history
and to provide a means of searching the data on as general a basis as possible. The work in volved several phases.
First, a succinct format had to be created which could completely describe the case histories. The format had to
characterize key variables in terms of single numbers or short, concise text. After a series of iterations with other
members of the research team, a final format was selected which uses 67 items to define each case history. Some of the
67 items allow for multiple entries to account for multiple ground conditions and tunneling procedures.
Next, the basic interview results for each case history had to be taken and condensed to fit the computer case
history format. This was facilitated when the abstract versions of the case histories were prepared, because the abstract
itself used a form similar to that of the computer format.
With the data in hand, the computer system had to be formulated to systematize the massive amount of
information at hand and manipulate it as needed for the project. The requirements of the project presented a challenge
because each case history was characterized by such a large number of parameters (67), and it was desirable to be able
to search the file using any one as a key word. The widely used data management program SPIRES was selected based
on the recommendations of authorities in the information science area. In addition to its ideal characteristics to perform
the required work, SPIRES was available to the researchers through the Virginia Tech Computing Center at no cost to
the project.
To implement SPIRES for the project, two satellite programs had to be written. The first is designed to define the
files or provide an interactive means to input the data for the case histories. The second program serves to provide an
output format for the data.
The SPIRES and satellite programs functioned well. Using them, a computerized data file following the desired
format was created for all 87 case histories collected for the project. Also, manipulative searches of the data file were
performed using a variety of key words, and the data was ranked according to a range of parameters.
The system proved to be readily usable and holds considerable potential for further study of the data. Moreover,
case history data can easily be added as it becomes available.
SECTION 1 FILE DEFINITION PROGRAM

SUBFILE TUNNEL4
REQUIRED
KEY PROJECT-NUMBER,PRO-NUM/INTEGER/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE AS + AN INTEGER
NUMBER'/INDEX
ELEMENT PROJECT-NAME,PRO-NAME/TEXT/OCCURRENCE=1
OPTIONAL
ELEMENT PHYSICAL-CHARACT,PH-CH/STRUCTURE/OCCURRENCE=1
ELEMENT NUMBER-OF-TUBES,NUM-TUBES/INTEGER/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY ONE + INTEGER'/
SINGLE
ELEMENT TUNNEL-LENGTH,TUN-LGTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY + ONE DECIMAL
NUMBER IN FOOT'/SINGLE
ELEMENT OVERBURD-MAX,O-MAX/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE MAXIMUM +
OVERBURDEN IN FOOT'/SINGLE
ELEMENT OVERBURD-MIN,O-MIN/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE MINIMUM +
OVERBURDEN IN FOOT'/SINGLE
ELEMENT GROUNDW-MAX,G-MA/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE MAXIMUM +
GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN FOOT .USING SIGN PLUS FOR ABOVE THE + CROWN AND SIGN MINUS
FOR BELOW'/SINGLE
ELEMENT GROUNDW-MIN,G-MI/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE MINIMUM +
GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN FOOT .USING SIGN PLUS FOR ABOVE THE + CROWN AND SIGN MINUS
FOR BELOW'/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT TUNNEL-CONDITION,T-COND/STRUCTURE/OCCURRENCE=3
ELEMENT TYPE-GROUND,T-GD/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE ROCK,SOFT-GROUND, MIXED+ FACE/MSG
‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER ROCK,SOFT-GROUND OR MIXED+ FACE'/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT LENGTH,LGTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY ONE DECIMAL + NUMBER IN
FOOT'/SINGLE
ELEMENT TUNNEL-SHAPE,TUN-SHAPE/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE CIRCULAR,HORSESHOE, +
RECTANGULAR,SQUARE,OTHER/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER CIRCULAR,OR + HORSESHOE,OR
RECTANGULAR,OR SQUARE,OR OTHER'/SINGLE
ELEMENT TUNNEL-HEIGHT,TUN-HEIGHT/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY + ONE DECIMAL
ELEMENT TUNNEL-WIDTH,TUN-WIDTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY + ONE DECIMAL
ELEMENT FACE-AREA,F-A/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONLY ONE DECIMAL + NUMBER IN
SQ. FOOT'/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT EXPLORATION,EXPLO/STRUCTURE/OCCURRENCE=1
ELEMENT BOREHOLE-NUMBER,BORE-NUM/INTEGER/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONE + INTEGER ONLY'/
SINGLE
ELEMENT BOREHOLE-LENGTH,BORE-LGTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONE + DECIMAL

VALUE IN FOOT'/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT GEOLOGY,GEO/STRUCTURE/OCCURRENCE=4
ELEMENT UNIT-NUMBER,UT-NUM/INTEGER/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONE INTEGER ONLY + '/SINGLE
ELEMENT IDENTIFICATION,ID/TEXT/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT WEATHERED,WTD/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/SINGLE
ELEMENT MASSIVE-THICKBED, M-THICK-BEDDED/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES + OR NO'/SINGLE
ELEMENT FOLIATED-THINBED,F-THIN-BEDDED/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR + NO'/SINGLE
ELEMENT JOINTEDNESS,JOINT/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE CLOSE,MODERATE,WIDE/MSG +
‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER CLOSE,MODERATE,OR WIDE'/OCCURRENCE=2
ELEMENT SHEAR-ZONES,S-Z/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/SINGLE
ELEMENT FAULTING,FAU/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/SINGLE
ELEMENT MAX-STRENGTH,MA-SGTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + MAXIMUM VALUE
OF THE UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH MEASURED + ON THE INTACT ROCK AND
EXPRESSED IN PSI'/OCCURRENCE =1
ELEMENT MIN-STRENGTH,MI-SGTH/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + MINIMUM VALUE OF
THE UNCONFINED COMPRESSION STRENGTH MEASURED + ON THE INTACT ROCK AND
EXPRESSED IN PSI'/OCCURRENCE=1
ELEMENT RELATIVE DENSITY,REL-DENS/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE VERY-LOOSE, +
LOOSE,MEDIUM,DENSE,VERY-DENSE/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER VERY+
LOOSE,LOOSE,MEDIUM,DENSE,VERY-DENSE'/OCCURRENCE=2
ELEMENT CONSISTENCY,CONS/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE VERY-SOFT,SOFT,FIRM,STIFF + VERY-
STIFF,HARD/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER VERY-SOFT,SOFT,FIRM + STIFF,VERY-STIFF OR HARD'/
OCCURRENCE=2
END
ELEMENT EXECUTION,EXEC/STRUCTURE/OCCURRENCE=4
ELEMENT EXCAVATION,EX/CAPITALIZE/INCLUDE ROCK,SOFT-GROUND,MIXED-FACE/ + MSG
‘PLEASE,ENTER EITHER ROCK,SOFT-GROUND, OR MIXED-FACE'/ + SINGLE
ELEMENT CONSTRUC-METH,CONS-METH/TEXT/INDEX/OCCURRENCE=2
ELEMENT MAX-ADV-RATE,MA-A-R/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + MAXIMUM ADVANCE
RATE IN FOOT PER DAY'/SINGLE
ELEMENT AVE-ADV-RATE,AV-A-R-/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + AVERAGE ADVANCE
RATE IN FOOT PER DAY'/SINGLE
ELEMENT PRIMARY-SUPPORTS,P-S/TEXT/OCCURRENCE=4
END
ELEMENT SOIL-PROBLEMS,SOIL-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLE
ELEMENT BLOCKY-SLABBY,BLOC-SLAB/YESNO/MSG/ ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT RUNNING,RUN/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT FLOWING,FLOW/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT SQUEEZING,SQUEEZ/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/ + SINGLE
ELEMENT SWELLING,SWELL/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT SPALLING,SPALL/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT ROCK-PROBLEMS,ROCK-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLE
ELEMENT BLOCKY-SLABBY,BLOC-SLAB/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT RUNNING,RUN/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT FLOWING,FLOW/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT SQUEEZING,SQUEEZ/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/ + SINGLE
ELEMENT SWELLING,SWELL/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT SPALLING,SPALL/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT WATER-PROBLEMS,W-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLE
ELEMENT WATER-INFLOW,W-INFL/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT OPERAT-NUISANCE,OP-NUIS/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM,H-E-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLE
ELEMENT NOXIOUS-FLUID,NOX-F/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT EXISTING-UTILITY,EX-UT/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT HIGH-TEMPERATURE,HIGH-TEMP/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO + '/INDEX/
SINGLE
ELEMENT GAS,G/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT CLEAN-PROBLEMS,C-PROB/STRUCTURE/SINGLE
ELEMENT HARD-ABRASIVE,H-AB/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/ + SINGLE
ELEMENT MUCKING,MUCK/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT TBM-PROBLEMS,T-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLE
ELEMENT SOFT-BOTTOM,S-BOT/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/ + SINGLE
ELEMENT FACE-FALL-OUT,F-F-OUT/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT GRIPPER-INSTAB,GRIP-INS/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT ROOF-INSTAB,R-INS/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/ + SINGLE
ELEMENT PRESS-BINDING,P-BIND/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/+ INDEX/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT SHIELD-PROBLEMS,S-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLE
ELEMENT BOULDER,BOU/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT COMP-AIR-PROBLEM,C-A-P/STRUCTURE/SINGLE
ELEMENT BLOW-OUTS,B-O/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT SURFACE-SETTLEM, S-SET/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/ + INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT FIRE,F/YESNO/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER YES OR NO'/INDEX/SINGLE
END
ELEMENT COSTS,CO/STRUCTURE/SINGLE
ELEMENT ESTIMATED-COST,EST-COST/TEXT/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL FORM
OR NA IF NOT AVAILABLE'/SINGLE
ELEMENT BID-COST,B-COST/DECIMAL 12.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL FORM'/
INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT TOTAL-COST,T-COST/DECIMAL 12.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL
FORM'/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT PERCENT-OVERRUN,P-OVERRUN/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + VALUE IN
DECIMAL FORM'/INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT EXPLORATION-COST,EXPLO-COST/DECIMAL 12.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER + THE VALUE IN
END
ELEMENT UNIT-QUANTITIES,U-Q/STRUCTURE/SINGLE
ELEMENT CLAIM,CL/TEXT/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN DECIMAL FORM OR + NA IF NOT
AVAILABLE'/SINGLE
ELEMENT CLAIM-SETTLED,CL-SET/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE + IN DECIMAL
FORM'/SINGLE
ELEMENT TUNNEL,TUN/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL FORM'/INDEX/
SINGLE
ELEMENT EXPLORATION,EXPLO/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL
FORM'/SINGLE
ELEMENT UNIT-BOREHOLE,U-BORE/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER ONE + DECIMAL VALUE IN
FOOT PER FOOT'/SINGLE
ELEMENT UNIT-CLAIMS,U-CL/DECIMAL/10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE VALUE IN + DECIMAL FORM'/
INDEX/SINGLE
ELEMENT UNIT-SETT-CLAIMS,U-SET-CL/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER THE + VALUE IN
ELEMENT UNIT-SETT-CLAIM2,U-SET-C2/DECIMAL 10.2/MSG ‘PLEASE,ENTER + PERCENTAGE AS THE
RATIO OF SETTLED CLAIMS PER TUNNEL BID'/ + INDEX/SINGLE
END
END
SECTION 2 FORMAT PROGRAM

ID=TUNEL:FORMAT
FILE=TUNEL:TUNNEL4
RECORD-NAME=RECO1
FRAME-ID=GOAL;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT
FRAME-DIM=200,100;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=PROJECT-NUMBER:
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘PROJECT NUMBER:';
TSTART =X+1,1;
START =*,31;
PUTDATA:
LABEL=PROJECT-NAME;
GETELEM:
TITLE=‘PROJECT NAME';
TSTART=X+1,1;
MARGINS=31,70;
MAXROWS=3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;
IND-STRUCTURE=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;
IND-FRAME=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘PHYSICAL CHARACT:';
TSTART=10,1;
LABEL=TUNNEL-CONDITION;
IND-STRUCTURE=TUNNEL-CONDITION;
IND-FRAME=TUNNEL-CONDITION;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘TUNNEL CONDITION:';
TSTART=X=1,1;
LOOP=2;
LABEL=EXPLORATION;
IND-STRUCTURE=EXPLORATION;
IND-FRAME=EXPLORATION;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘GROUND EXPLORATION:';
TSTART=X+1,1;
LABEL=GEOLOGY;
IND-STRUCTURE=GEOLOGY;
IND-FRAME=GEOLOGY;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘GEOLOGY:';
TSTART=X+1,1;
LOOP=3;
LABEL=EXECUTION;
IND-STRUCTURE=EXECUTION;
IND-FRAME=EXECUTION;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘EXECUTION:';
TSTART=X=1,1;
LOOP=3;
LABEL=SOIL-PROBLEMS;
IND-STRUCTURE=SOIL-PROBLEMS;
IND-FRAME=SOIL-PROBLEMS;
DEFAULT-‘ ';
TITLE=‘UNSTAB. SOIL PROB.:';
TSTART=X+1,1;
LABEL=ROCK PROBLEMS;
IND-STRUCTURE=ROCK-PROBLEMS;
IND-FRAME=ROCK-PROBLEMS;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘UNSTAB. ROCK PROB.:';
TSTART=X=1,1;
LABEL=WATER-PRBLEMS;
IND-STRUCTURE=WATER-PRBLEMS;
IND-FRAME=WATER-PRBLEMS';
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘WATER PROBLEMS:';
TSTART=X=1,1;
LABEL=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;
IND-STRUCTURE=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;
IND-FRAME=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘HAZARD. ENVIR. PROBLEMS:';
TSTART=X+1,1;
LABEL=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;
IND-STRUCTURE=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;
IND-FRAME=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘COMMON PROBLEMS:';
TSTART=X+1,1;
LABEL=TBM-PROBLEMS;
IND-STRUCTURE=TBM-PROBLEMS;
IND-FRAME=TBM-PROBLEMS;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘TBM-PROBLEMS:';
TSTART=X+1,1;
LABEL=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;
IND-STRUCTURE=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;
IND-FRAME=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=“SHIELD-PROBLEMS:'; LABEL=OVERBURD-MIN;
TSTART=X+1,1; GETELEM;
LABEL=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM; TITLE=‘MINIMUM OVERBURDEN: FT';
IND-STRUCTURE=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM; TSTART=X,3;
IND-FRAME=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM; START=*,31,;
DEFAULT=‘ '; PUTDATA;
TITLE=‘COMP AIR PROBLEMS:'; LABEL=GROUNDW-MAX;
TSTART=X+1,1; GETELEM;
LABEL=COSTS; TITLE=‘MAX. GROUNDWATER POS.:FT';
IND-STRUCTURE=COSTS; TSTART=X,3;
IND-FRAME=COSTS; START=*,31;
DEFAULT=‘ '; PUTDATA;
TITLE=‘COSTS:';
TSTART=X+1,1;
LABEL=UNIT-QUANTITIES;
IND-STRUCTURE=UNIT-QUANTITIES;
IND-FRAME=UNIT-QUANTITIES;
DEFAULT=‘ ';
TITLE=‘UNIT QUANTITIES:';
TSTART=X+1,1;
FRAME-ID=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=NUMBER-OF-TUBES;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘NUMBER OF TUBES:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=TUNNEL LENGTH;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘TUNNEL LENGTH:'; FT';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=OVERBURD-MAX:
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘MINIMUM OVERBURDEN: FT';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=GROUNDW-MIN;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘MIN. GROUNDWATER POS.:FT';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
FRAME-ID=TUNNEL-CONDITION;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=TUNNEL-CONDITION;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=TYPE-GROUND;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘TYPE OF GROUND:';
TSTART=X=1,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=LENGTH;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘LENGTH, FT:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=TUNNEL-SHAPE;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘TUNNEL SHAPE:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=TUNNEL-HEIGHT;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘TUNNEL HEIGHT: FT';

TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=TUNNEL-WIDTH;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘TUNNEL WIDTH: FT';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=FACE-AREA;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘FACE AREA: SQUARE FT';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA:
LABEL=FRAME-ID=EXPLORATION;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=EXPLORATION; LABEL=FOLIATED-THINBED;
USAGE=DISPLAY; GETELEM;
LABEL=BOREHOLE-NUMBER; TITLE=‘FOLIATED,THIN BED.:';
GETELEM; TSTART=X,3;
TITLE=‘BOREHOLE NUMBER:'; START=*,31;
TSTART=X,3; PUTDATA;
START=*,31; LABEL=JOINTEDNESS;
PUTDATA; GETELEM;
LABEL=BOREHOLE-LENGTH; TITLE=‘JOINTEDNESS:';
TITLE=‘BOREHOLE LENGTH: FT'; START=*,31;
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
FRAME-ID=GEOLOGY;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=GEOLOGY;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=UNIT-NUMBER;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘UNIT NUMBER:';
TSTART=X+1,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=IDENTIFICATION:
GETELEM;
TITLE==‘IDENTIFICATION:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=WEATHERED;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘WEATHERED ROCK:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA:
LABEL=MASSIVE-THICKBED;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘MASSIVE,THICK BED.:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
PUTDATA;
LOOP=1;
LABEL=SHEAR-ZONES;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘SHEAR ZONES:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=FAULTING;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘FAULTING:';
TSTART-X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=MAX-STRENGTH;
GETELEM:
TITLE=MAXIMUM STRENGTH: PSI';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=MIN-STRENGTH;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘MINIMUM STRENGTH: PSI';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=RELATIVE-DENSITY;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘RELATIVE DENSITY:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LOOP=1;
LABEL=CONSISTENCY;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘CONSISTENCY:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LOOP=1;
FRAME-ID=EXECUTION;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=EXECUTION;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=EXCAVATION;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘EXCAVATION COND.:';
TSTART=X+1,3 PUTDATA;
START=*,31; LABEL=FLOWING;
PUTDATA; GETELEM;
LABEL=CONSTRUC-METH.; TITLE=‘FLOWING SOIL:';
TITLE=‘CONSTRUCTION METHOD:'; START=*,31;
TSTART=X,3; PUTDATA;
START=*,31; LABEL=SQUEEZING;
PUTDATA; GETELEM;
LOOP=1; TITLE=‘SQUEEZING SOIL:';
LABEL=MAX-ADV-RATE
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘MAX. ADV. RATE: FT/DAY';
TSTART=X,6;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=AVE-ADV-RATE;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘AV. ADV. RATE: FT/DAY';
TSTART=X,6;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=PRIMARY-SUPPORTS;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘PRIMARY SUPPORTS:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LOOP=3;
FRAME-ID=SOIL-PROBLEMS;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=SOIL-PROBLEMS;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=BLOCKY-SLABBY;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘BLOCKY SLABBY:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=RUNNING;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘RUNNING SOIL:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=SWELLING;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘SWELLING SOIL:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=SPALLING;
GETELEM:
TITLE=‘SPALLING SOIL:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA:
FRAME-ID=ROCK-PROBLEMS;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=ROCK-PROBLEMS;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=BLOCKY-SLABBY;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘BLOCKY SLABBY:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=RUNNING;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘RUNNING ROCK:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=FLOWING;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘FLOWING ROCK:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=SQUEEZING;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘SQUEEZING ROCK:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=SWELLING;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘SWELLING ROCK:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31; TSTART=X,3;
PUTDATA; START=*,31;
LABEL=SPALLING; PUTDATA;
GETELEM; LABEL=GAS;
TITLE=‘SPALLING ROCK:'; GETELEM;
TSTART=X,3; TITLE=‘GAS:';
START=*,31; TSTART=X,3;
PUTDATA; START=*,31;
FRAME-ID=WATER-PRBLEMS; PUTDATA;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT; FRAME-ID=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;
SUBTREE=WATER-PRBLEMS; DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
USAGE=DISPLAY; SUBTREE=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;
LABEL=WATER-INFLOW; USAGE=DISPLAY;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘WATER INFLOW:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=OPERAT-NUISANCE;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘NUISANCE:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
FRAME-ID=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=NOXIOUS-FLUID;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘NOXIOUS FLUID:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=EXISTING-UTILITY;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘EXISTING UTILITY:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=HIGH-TEMPERATURE;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘HIGH TEMPERATURE:';
LABEL=HARD-ABRASIVE;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘HARD ABRASIVE:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=MUCKING;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘MUCKING:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA:
FRAME-ID=TBM-PROBLEMS;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=TBM-PROBLEMS;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=SOFT-BOTTOM;
GETELEM:
TITLE=‘SOFT BOTTOM:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=FACE-FALL-OUT;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘FACE FALL OUT:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=GRIPPER-INSTAB;
GETELEM;
TITLE=GRIPPER:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=ROOF-INSTAB;
GETELEM:
TITLE=‘ROOF INSTABILITY:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=PRESS-BINDING;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘PRESS BINDING:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
FRAME-ID=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=SHIELD-PROBLEMS; START=*,31;
USAGE=DISPLAY; PUTDATA;
LABEL=BOULDER; LABEL=TOTAL-COST;
GETELEM; GETELEM;
TITLE=‘OBSTRUCTIONS:'; TITLE=‘TOTAL COST: $';
TSTART=X,3; TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31; START=*,31;
PUTDATA; PUTDATA;
FRAME-ID=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=BLOW-OUTS;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘BLOW-OUT:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=SURFACE-SETTLEM;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘SURFACE SETTLEMENT:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=FIRE;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘FIRE:';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
FRAME-ID=COSTS;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=COSTS;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=ESTIMATED-COST;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘ESTIMATED COST: $';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=BID-COST;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘BID COST: $';
TSTART=X,3;
LABEL=PERCENT-OVERRUN;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘PERCENT OVERRUN: %';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=EXPLORATION-COST;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘EXPLORATION COST: $';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
FRAME-ID=UNIT-QUANTITIES;
DIRECTION=OUTPUT;
SUBTREE=UNIT-QUANTITIES;
USAGE=DISPLAY;
LABEL=CLAIM;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘TOTAL CLAIMS: $';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=CLAIM-SETTLED;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘CLAIM SETTLEMENT: $';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=TUNNEL;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘TUNNEL PRICE: $/CU.YD';

TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=EXPLORATION;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘EXPLOR. PRICE: $/CU.YD';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=UNIT-BOREHOLE;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘UNIT BOREHOLE: FT/FT';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=UNIT-CLAIMS;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘CLAIM: $/CU.YD';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=UNIT-SETT-CLAIMS;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘UNIT SET. CLAIMS:$/CU.YD';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
LABEL=UNIT-SETT-CLAIM2;
GETELEM;
TITLE=‘UNIT SET. CLAIMS: %';
TSTART=X,3;
START=*,31;
PUTDATA;
FORMAT-ID=DISPLAY;
FRAME=UNIT-QUANTITIES;
FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT;
FRAME=COSTS;
FRAME=COMP-AIR-PROBLEM;
FRAME=SHIELD-PROBLEMS;
FRAME=TBM-PROBLEMS;
FRAME=CLEAN-PROBLEMS;
FRAME=HAZ-ENVI-PROBLEM;
FRAME=WATER-PRBLEMS;
FRAME=ROCK-PROBLEMS;
FRAME=SOIL-PROBLEMS;
FRAME=EXECUTION;
FRAME=GEOLOGY;
FRAME=EXPLORATION;
FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT:
FRAME=TUNNEL-CONDITIONS:
FRAME=PHYSICAL-CHARACT;
FRAME-TYPE=INDIRECT:
FRAME=GOAL;
FRAME-TYPE=DATA
SECTION 3 RESULTS OF SEARCHING SESSION FOR CASES WITH SQUEEZING GROUND

209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
SECTION 4
RESULTS OF SEARCHING SESSION FOR CASES IN MIXED FACE
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
SECTION 5 SELF-HELP GUIDE

This section goes through some of the basic procedures of initiating use of the SPIRES system with the project
case history information. The first session allows to enter in SPIRES while in CMS. The subsequent sessions, 2
through 7, are generated while in SPIRES.
The lines starting with −, −>, +>, :−>, *, and ? are generated by the computer. The remarks in parentheses and
the notes accompanying each session are not generated during the computer sessions. They are comments added to
explain or clarify the sessions.
1. To get into SPIRES from CMS

R;
spires
−>
2. To compile or recompile the File Definition Program
−>
copy tunnel4 file a input file a
−>
enter file definer
*ENTERING FILE DEFINER
:−>
set active input file a
:−>
input active quiet
:−>
set active output file a
:−>
generate
-OK to CLEAR ?
yes
:−>
select filedef
:−>
add (program added for the first time)
or
addupd (program has been added previously but has been subjected to changes and needs to be updated)
:−>
spicomp
-WELCOME TO SPICOMP
?
compile tunel:tunnel4 (program compiled for the first time)
or
recompile tunel:tunnel4 (program already compiled but needs to be recompiled because it has been
subjected to changes)
-File Definition Compiled

spires (allows to go back to SPIRES)
−>
Note: “tunnel4 file a” is a CMS file which contains the File Definition Program, the listing for which is given in Section 1;
“tunel:tunnel4” is the user identification of the File Definition Program.
A SPIRES user wishing to compile the File Definition Program received on a tape would follow exactly the same
procedure as given above. The user would first create a CMS file named “tunnel4 file a” in the session containing the
File Definition Program and would follow step by step the session to have the File Definition Program compiled.
Every time a change is made to the File Definition Program through that CMS file, the File Definition Program
must be recompiled according to the preceding procedure.
3. To add the Format Program to the existing SPIRES formats

−>
copy from file a input file a
−>
set active input file a
−>
select formats
−>
add (program added for the first time)
or
addupd (program has been added previously but has been subjected to changes and needs to be updated)
−>
call spicomp
-WELCOME TO SPICOMP
?
format tunel:format
-Format compiled
spires (allows to return to SPIRES)
−>
Note: “form file a” is a CMS file which contains the Format Program, the listing of which is given in Section 2;
“tunel;format” is the user identification of the Format Program.
A SPIRES user wishing to compile the Format Program received on a tape would follow exactly the same
procedure given above. The user would first create a CMS file named “form file a” in the session containing the
Format Program and would follow step by step the session to have the Format Program compiled.
Every time a change is made to the Format Program through that CMS file, the Format Program must be
recompiled according to the preceding procedure.
4. To add or merge a record using the format $prompt

−>
select tunnel4
−>
set format $prompt
−>
add (if a record is to be added)
or
merge (if a record is to be merged)
Note: “tunnel4” is the name of the subfile which contains the tunnel records. As mentioned previously, 87 records have been
stored in the computer. These records have been added or merged according to the procedure given above. To get out of
$prompt format during the process of adding or merging a record and to disregard at the same time the data entered for that
particular record, type /x” and hit return.
Any record which has been added or merged according to the procedure given above must be processed following
the procedure under 5, below.
5. To process records entered with the $prompt format

−>
spibild
-WELCOME TO SPIBILD
?
process tunnel4
Note: “tunnel4” is the subfile name.
6. To process records which are in a CMS file

−>
call spibild
?
use tunnel4 alldata a
?
batch tunnel4
Note: “tunnel4 alldata a” is the file name, file type, and file mode of the CMS file which contains the records to process. This
procedure allows to process large series of records which have been generally merged in the CMs file “tunnel4 alldata a.”
A SPIRES user wishing to add a series of records received on a tape would follow the same procedure as given
above. The user would first create a CMS file named “tunnel4 alldata a” in the session containing all the records to be
added and would follow step by step the session to have the series of records added and processed at the same time.
−>
−>
−>
remove 36
select tunnel4
7. To remove a record which has been processed
number 36 with all the data it contains from the file where all the records have been stored.
Note: “tunnel4” is the name of the subfile which contains the tunnel records. The preceding session will erase the project-
241

Geotechnical Site Investigations For Underground Projects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Geotechnical Site Investigations For Underground Projects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Site Investigations For Underground Projects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from

Washington, D.C. 1984

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 1

COMPUTER-BASED DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 181

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 1

Abstracts of Case Histories

Tunnel Construction Costs

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 2

Subsurface-Related Extra Payments

Mission Line, Contract 1M0011

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 3

Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System (BRRTS), pp. 12-21.

Water Conveyance, Flood Control, Dam Diversion

Alpine Aqueduct, Section 1

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 4

Storm Water Detention

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago (MSDGC), pp. 144-151.

Nuclear Plant Cooling

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 5

Look Lake Penstock

Radioactive Waste Storage

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 6

BART MISSION LINE, CONTRACT 1MOO11

Identification/Type: pinnacles of severely weathered clayey sandstone, shale and chert

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 7

1 Drained triaxial test

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 8

BART MISSION LINE, CONTRACT 1MOO31

BOREHOLE TESTS: - Standard penetration tests

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 9

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 10

BART MARKET STREET LINE, CONTRACT 1S0022

2 Unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 11

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED: Unstable ground

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 12

BOLTON HILL TUNNELS

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 13

- Atterberg limits tests

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 14

LAURENS STREET TUNNELS

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 15

LAB TESTS: 15 Unconfined compression tests on rock core

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 16

LEXINGTON MARKET TUNNELS

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 17

- Natural moisture content tests

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 18

MONDAWMIN LINE NORTH

Identification/Type: tremolite gneiss

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 19

- Grain size analysis

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 20

MONDAWMIN LINE SOUTH

BORINGS: Total number = 44

ABSTRACTS OF CASE HISTORIES 21