Reader Service Number 1 - Tunnel Business Magazine(Colorado School of Mines). Reader Service Number...

Reader Service Number 1

TBM: Tunnel Business Magazine (ISSN 1553-2917) is published six times peryear. Copyright 2007, Benjamin Media Inc., P.O. Box 190, Peninsula, OH 44264.USA All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced ortransmitted by any means without written permission from the publisher. Oneyear subscription rates: complimentary in the United States and Canada, and $69in other foreign countries. Single copy rate: $10. Subscriptions and classifiedadvertising should be addressed to the Peninsula office. Postmaster return form1579 to TBM: Tunnel Business Magazine, P.O. Box 190, Peninsula, OH 44264.USA

ColumnsEditor’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

View from the Hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

My Turn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

DepartmentsBusiness Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

CONTENTSCONTENTSAugust 2007

27

14

Cover StoryUp and Under Canadian Contigent Explores Market Issues 14TBM gathered leading experts from across Canada to find out what is drivingthe tunneling market north of the border.

FeaturesKiller Contract Clauses 18Contracts are the glue that holds the design and construction industry together,but they can spell doom if they are improperly orchestrated. Summarized arewhat to look for before signing on the dotted line.

By Dave Corkum

Visualization for Underground Construction 24In recent years, underground construction professionals have used visualizationtools to tell their stories for public relations, proposals and dispute resolution.

By Craig Shimahara

Air Flow for Water Power Project 27Choosing the right ventilation system is key for any tunneling project, particularly when it is the largest rock bore in the world.

Q&A With Brenda Bohlke 28An interview with the newest chair of the Underground ConstructionAssociation of SME.

Brightwater: Building a Watertight Design 30The Wastewater Treatment Division at King County, Wash., was reaching theend of its existing capacity. As a result, a new treatment system was needed toallow continued growth and and control overflows.

By Jeremy Johnson and Joe Clare

Using Colloidal Silica for Ground Stabilization &Groundwater Control 34An essential key construction requirement of the Arrowhead East and West tunnels was to protect the groundwater resources during construction. Thisarticle focuses on a recent experience of adverse conditions and how this sectionwas successfully pre-treated and mined through.

By Knut F. Garshol

Tunnel Business Magazine4 August 2007


Successful RETC Reinforces Strong Tunneling Demand

The Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) held June 10-13in Toronto, was further evidence of the strong demand for tunneling in NorthAmerica and around the world. RETC drew more than 1,300 people, one oflargest turnouts in the history of the event, which dates back to 1972. Thiswas on the heels of the World Tunnel Congress held in Prague in May, whichattracted more than 1,200 attendees, including representatives from 43 of the52 member nations.

This year was the first time that RETC ventured outside the United States,so the strong turnout was especially encouraging for event organizer SME.“Toronto reinforced that RETC is the premier North American conference forprofessionals in the underground construction industries,” said Dave Kanagy,SME executive director. “With more than 1,300 attendees and 124 exhibitors,RETC continues to thrive. We are excitied to continue the professional devel-opment opportunities in 2008 with NAT (the North American Tunneling con-ference) in San Francisco, and in 2009 with RETC in Las Vegas.”

Each year we at TBM use the RETC or NAT platform to host an industryroundtable. This year it made sense to focus on the Canadian market, so wegathered experts from a cross-section of the industry to shed light on the topic.We were pleased to have join us Garry Stevenson, president of the TunnelingAssociation of Canada, as well as Marco Giorelli of Lovat, Steve Skelhorn ofMcNally, Frank Polichiccio of the City of Edmonton, Andy Bertolo of theToronto Transit Commission, and Boro Lukajic, a past president of TAC andconsultant to MWH.

Many of the themes raised during the roundtable echoed those being heardin the United States. There is a strong demand across the market segments—transit, sewer, drainage, hydro. Additionally, contracting practices, fundingand a shortage of qualified personnel were discussed as areas that mayadversely affect the market. A recapof the roundtable appears in thisissue beginning on page 14.

Additionally, we used the RETCplatform to convene the TBMEditorial Advisory Board. The boardplays an important role for the maga-zine as a sounding board and aninvaluable resource for contacts,ideas and articles. The board com-prises experts from across the coun-try covering all facets of the industry,including owners, engineers, contrac-tors, suppliers and academicians.Many thanks go out to these fine indi-viduals for their efforts.

Regards,

James W. RushEditor

Editorial Council

EDITORIAL & ADVERTISING OFFICES1770 Main St., P.O. Box 190 Peninsula, OH 44264 USA

Ph: (330) 467-7588 • Fax: (330) 468-2289 Internet home page: http://www.tunnelingonline.com

e-mail: [email protected]

EDITOR’S MESSAGEEDITOR’S MESSAGE

Bernard P. KrzysPublisher

Robert D. KrzysAssociate Publisher

James W. RushEditor

Nick ZubkoAssociate Editor

Sharon M. BuenoKatherine Fulton

Keith GribbinsBrad Kramer

Jason MorganContributing Staff Editors

W.M. ConleyCreative Director

Edward A. HaneySenior Graphic Designer

Sarah E. HayesChris Slogar

Elizabeth C. StullGraphic Designers

Kelly DadichMarketing Manager

Dan SiskoGreg Thompson

Regional Sales Representatives

Alexis R. TarbetCirculation Manager

ChairmanGary Brierley, P.E.Brierley Associates, Denver

Randy Essex, P.E.Hatch Mott MacDonaldRockville, Md.

Roberto GonzalezIzquierdoMoldequipo InternacionalTepotzotlan, Mexico

Dr. Levent Ozdemir, P.E.Colorado School of MinesGolden, Colo.

Bob PondFrontier-KemperEvansville, Ind.

George YoggyGCS LLCAllentown, Pa.

William H. EdgertonJacobs AssociatesSan Francisco

Joe GildnerSound TransitSeattle

Boro LukajicConsulting EngineerMississauga, Ont.

Dru DesaiDMJM+HARRISBaltimore

Ted BuddKenny ConstructionWheeling, Ill.

David CaidenArupNew York, N.Y.

Rick Switalski, P.E.NEORSDCleveland, Ohio

MEMBER

Editorial Advisory Board members present at theJune meeting included (from left) David Caiden(Arup), Rick Switalski (NEORSD), Dick Sage(Sound Transit, filling in for Joe Gildner), GeorgeYoggy (GSC), Gary Brierley (Brierley Associates),Bill Edgerton (Jacobs Associates), Boro Lukajic(MWH), Jim Rush (TBM) and Levent Ozdemir(Colorado School of Mines).


Business Briefs

Toronto Hosts RETCThe Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC),

North America’s largest tunneling event, attracted more than1,330 people to the Sheraton Centre in Toronto, Canada, June 10-13. RETC was established as a biennial event in 1991 and hasbeen increasing in popularity over the years. This was the firstRETC held outside the United States and attracted representatives from more than 30 countries.

RETC features a host of technical presentations covering thelatest techniques, technologies and practices from across the tunneling world. More than 100 technical presentations weregiven in topic areas such as Design and Planning of UndergroundProjects, Difficult Ground Conditions, Innovations inUnderground Construction, New and Future Projects and more.There was also a track dedicated to tunneling in Canada.

In addition to the technical sessions, the exhibit hall featured companies offering goods and services from around theworld — from tunnel boring machines to engineering services.

Highlights of the show included keynote speakers HarjitDhillon, joint venture manager of Aecon Constructors in Toronto,and Hockey Hall of Famer Darryl Sittler. Dhillon discussed hisrole in the Nathpa Jhakri Hydroelectric project in the Indianstate of Himachal Pradesh, which required tunnelng in theHimalayas and included a number of difficult conditions. Sittlershared his experiences both on and off the ice, which included arole as a special consultant to the president of the Toronto MapleLeafs, as well as a marketing and community consultant.

The next big tunneling show for North America is NorthAmerican Tunneling (NAT) 2008, which is scheduled for June 7-11 at the Hyatt Regency in San Francisco.

RETC 2007 was chaired by Ted Budd of Kenny Constructionwith Don Hilton, consultant, serving as vice chair. RETC 2009 willbe held June 14-17 in Las Vegas. RETC is organized by theUnderground Construction Association of SME.

Bennett/Staheli Engineers Establish Two Consulting Firms

After 12 years and more than 250 trenchless design projects successfully completed by Bennett/Staheli Engineers, the twoprincipals, Kimberlie Staheli, PhD, PE, and David Bennett, PhD,PE, have decided to establish separate firms to better serve existing and new clients.

Kimberlie Staheli has founded Staheli Trenchless Consultants(STC) Inc., 126 NW Canal St, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98107.Telephone number is (206) 633-0213. David Bennett’s new firm isBennett Trenchless Engineers (BTE), with offices at 90 BlueRavine Rd., Suite 165, Folsom, CA, 95630 and Vaiden, MS.Telephone numbers are (916) 294-0095 and (916) 768-8906.

Both Bennett and Staheli and their respective firms are dedicated to providing the same high level of client service fortrenchless design and construction management and specialtyinspection. The transition will be seamless and essentially invisible to its clients.

Both Staheli and Bennett are proud of the accomplishmentsand excellent reputation of Bennett/Staheli Engineers, and bothlook forward to new challenges while providing five-star servicethrough their respective new firms.

Staheli Trenchless Consultants staff includes: KimberlieStaheli, PhD, P.E., Principal Engineer; Michelle Ramos, P.E., GE,Senior Project Engineer; Eric Buer, Associate Geologist; SteveChristy, Senior Construction Inspector; and Tina Davenport,Operations Manager.

Bennett Trenchless Engineers staff includes: David Bennett,PhD, PE, Principal Engineer; Matthew Wallin, PE, SeniorProject Engineer; Kathryn Wallin, Engineering Assistant; MaryAsperger, Associate Engineer; and Karen Currie, AdministrativeAssistant.

AMEC to Provide Geotechnical Serviceson Multi-state Railroad Tunnel

AMEC, a international project management and servicescompany, has been selected by STV/Ralph WhiteheadAssociates to provide geotechnical engineering services for the$150 million Norfolk Southern Railway tunnels enlargementproject in the “Heartland Corridor” states of Virginia, WestVirginia, Kentucky and Ohio.

Twenty-eight tunnels are to be enlarged vertically to enabledouble-stacking of containers on rail cars. The tunnels range inlength from 174 to 3,302 ft.

Currently trains must take an alternate route that is 200miles longer if they are double-stacked. It is anticipated thatdouble-stacking on the “Heartland Corridor” will reduce trucktraffic, thereby improving highway safety and air quality. Theoverall construction period is estimated to take three years.

AMEC will conduct a peer review of tunnel design andconstruction documents and then provide a team for tunnelinspection and construction management services. AMEC’sgeotechnical unit in Nashville, Tenn., has a 20-year historyof working for Norfolk Southern Railway and has per-formed numerous geotechnical engineering and tunnelrehabilitation projects.

In addition to the tunnel modifications, the constructionmanagement team will be responsible for other elements of theHeartland Corridor project, including modification of seventhrough truss bridges, lowering of tracks at three overheadbridges, modification of nine slide-detection fences and raisingof three sets of overhead wires.

Construction activities will be performed while maintainingrail traffic along this heavy-tonnage route.

The exhibit hall, which features companies from around the world, is one of the highlights of RETC.

Lawsuit Against SAK DroppedSAK Construction LLC announced that Insituform

Technologies Inc. dropped its lawsuit against SAK, ThomasKalishman, Jerry Shaw and Robert Affholder.

Jerry Shaw, president of SAK, stated that “SAK can nowaggressively move forward with its mission to become the leadingprovider of trenchless technologies to the pipeline rehabilitationmarket as well as a leading tunneling contractor.

“We see significant opportunities for acompany that focuses on customers,employees and partners. These were thevalues that built this industry, and SAKplans to reestablish them.”

SAK also announced that Affholder willbecome a shareholder in the company inthe near future. Affholder was namedTrenchless Technology’s Person of theYear in 1996 and brings more than 40 yearsof experience in the trenchless pipelinerehabilitation and tunneling industries.

Sound Transit, UWAnnounce Agreement forUniversity Link Light RailExpansion

Sound Transit and the University ofWashington have announced a proposedagreement to extend light rail to the UW'sSeattle campus and the surrounding area.The agreement frames the details of astrong partnership between Sound Transitand the University and clears a major hur-dle for securing a $750 million federalgrant needed to start building the exten-sion as soon as late 2008.

The Federal Transit Administration hasgiven the University Link project its high-est-possible ranking in the FTA’s competi-tive New Starts program based on itsmajor public benefits.

University Link will add an estimated70,000 riders a day to the Link light railline between downtown Seattle and Sea-Tac International Airport that is nowabout 70 percent complete and on scheduleto open in 2009.

The $1.6 billion University Link projectwould be funded by the federal grant andexisting local tax dollars. Fifty miles of further light rail expansions are proposedas part of the Roads & Transit ballot measure that will go to voters inNovember 2007, including service toNorthgate, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace,

Lynnwood, Alderwood, 164th Street/Ash Way, Mercer Island,Bellevue, Redmond, Des Moines, Federal Way, Fife and Tacoma.

The proposed agreement establishes an interim terminus forLink light rail at the University of Washington Station locatednear Husky Stadium and the UW Medical Center. In addition, itsupports Sound Transit’s construction plans for tunneling opera-tions running south from UW to Capitol Hill.


Tunnel Business Magazine 9August 2007


Hayward Baker Appoints New Chief Engineers

Hayward Baker Inc., North America’s leading geotechnicalcontractor, announced that Edward J. Garbin, Ph.D, P.E., has been named chief engineer for Hayward Baker’s SouthernRegion Tampa, Fla., office. As chief engineer, Garbin leads

the design of specialty geotechnical systems,research and development involving new and existing technologies, as well as designand implementation of instrumentation andload testing.

In addition, the company Hayward Bakerannounced the promotion of Dennis W.Boehm, to chief engineer for the company’scentral region. In his new responsibilities,Boehm is in charge of design and estimating

for a variety of ground modification projects. He is based out ofthe company’s Gulf Coast Area Office in Houston.

Prior to joining Hayward Baker, Garbin was a geotechnicalengineering manager and drilling manager for UniversalEngineering Sciences in Tampa, Fla. He hasheld positions with Applied FoundationTesting Inc. and McClymont & RakEngineers, as well as serving as adjunct pro-fessor at the University of South Florida inTampa. Garbin holds B.S. and M.S. degrees incivil engineering from the University of SouthFlorida, as well as a Ph.D degree from thesame institution with a concentration in geot-echnical engineering.

Commenting on the appointment of Garbin, George Grisham,president, stated, “As our business grows we are constantly insearch of new talent to help us maintain our place as the indus-try leader. In an area as active as our southern region, Ed’sskills set and drive for innovation are extremely valuable assets.We are very pleased to welcome Ed Garbin to Hayward Baker.”

Boehm has nearly 20 years of engineering design, supervi-sion and onsite project management experience, and has beenwith Hayward Baker since 1990. Until his most recent promo-tion, he served as an area manager for the company’s centralregion where he was involved in many noteworthy ground mod-ification initiatives including projects performed for HoustonInternational Airport, Corpus Christi Naval Air Station,Cottonwood Power in Beaumont, Tex., and Kraft Foods inRussellville, Ark. Prior to joining Hayward Baker in 1990,Boehm worked for PRESCON Corp. in the heavy constructionindustry. He holds a B.S. degree in civil engineering from TexasA&M University.

Bryce to Head Manitowoc Crane CAREManitowoc Crane Group announced that

Larry Bryce, vice president of strategic plan-ning and business development, has been pro-moted to executive vice president, ManitowocCrane CARE, effective July 1. He will reportto Eric Etchart, MCG president.

Bryce joined the Manitowoc Crane Group in2004 as vice president of worldwide marketing.Previously, he had served as worldwide sales

manager for John Deere Power Systems and as director of global

business development for Square D, Schneider North America.Bryce succeeds Larry Weyers, who is now heading up MCG’sAmericas region.

Etchart said that Bryce will build on the already strong repu-tation of the Crane CARE division. “Thanks to the achievementsof Larry Weyers and his team over the past few years, LarryBryce will inherit as solid customer care organization,” saysEtchart. “I know that Larry will keep the focus on the key strate-gic initiatives in order the more firmly establish Crane CARE asa key differentiator in the crane industry.”

Bryce holds a master’s of business administration fromNorthwestern University and a bachelor of science degree fromOklahoma State University.

McAllister to Lead GZA’s Portsmouth Office

GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc., a leadingenvironmental and geotechnical consultingfirm, announced that Gary R. McAllister,P.E., will lead the company’s newly createdNew Hampshire office located at 155 FleetStreet in downtown Portsmouth.

McAllister is senior project manager forGZA GeoEnvironmental and a registeredprofessional engineer with more than 17years experience in engineering, fieldinspection, project management, logistics and operations inthe consulting industry. He has provided geotechnical, envi-ronmental, construction and civil consulting for the generalbuilding, environmental, industrial, transportation, manu-facturing and energy industries throughout New England,Mid-Atlantic, Southeast states and Florida.

McAllister earned a bachelor of science degree in civilengineering and a master of science degree in civil engi-neering with a geotechnical emphasis from the Universityof Maine. He holds professional engineering licenses inMaine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,Georgia, North Carolina and Florida. McAllister is anactive member of the American Society of Civil Engineersand is Director of Membership for the Society of AmericanMilitary Engineers.

Sbarro Joins DGI-Menard as Project Engineer

Carmin Sbarro has joined DGI-Menard, ground improve-ment specialists, as a project engineer. In this role, Sbarro is

responsible for sales and engineering sup-port both in the office and in the field; sup-porting operations management, projectmanagement, sales, and estimating; as wellas performing design engineering, submittalpreparation, field data analysis and presen-tations. In the field she will be executing andreporting full scale load tests and establish-ing quality records and procedures for CMC installations.

Sbarro received a BS in civil and environmental engineeringfrom the University of Pittsburgh and is completing her MS ingeotechnical engineering from the University of Pittsburgh.

McAllister

Sbarro

Boehm

Bryce

Garbin

People



Global

Endless LLP, the Yorkshire, U.K.-based buyout and turnaround fund, has backed a management buyout of the heavy engineering businessDavyMarkham Ltd. The investment willunderpin the company’s turnaround andenable DavyMarkham to re-establishitself as a world-leading brand in theheavy engineering market.

Endless has supported Kevin Parkinand Duncan Hay, who have been actingas interim managing director and interim financial director, respectively,and who now take permanent positions onthe board.

Kevin Parkin, managing eirector ofDavyMarkham Ltd., commented:“DavyMarkham has been through a sig-nificant turnaround over the last 18months and we have been supported allthe way by our skilled and dedicatedworkforce. The investment and strategicsupport from Endless will allow the busi-ness to grow from strength to strength.This is great news for both the employeesof Davy Markham and South Yorkshire ingeneral, and Duncan and I are pleased tobe part of it.”

In recent years the combined group hassupplied large infrastructure products toprestigious projects such as the ThamesBarrier, the Channel Tunnel, theMillennium Bridge and Heathrow'sTerminal Five. Davy and Markham havea strong history in the South Yorkshirearea, with both companies originating inthe 1830s. They came together in a merg-er in 1997. DavyMarkham now benefitsfrom a worldwide customer base, workingclosely with its neighbours SheffieldForgemasters and Siemens VAI to ensureSheffield remains at the centre of globalheavy engineering expertise.

The £14 million-turnover companyemploys 170 people in Sheffield and thereare plans both to recruit more employeesand launch an apprenticeship scheme toprotect and develop skill levels for thefuture of the business and the region.

Endless is in the early stages of plans tocomplement its investment, injectingadditional funding into the DavyMarkhamsite by developing a new industrial park, afurther boost to the Sheffield area.

Endless – backed Buyout of Davy Markham Heralds New Era For Engineering Group

(left-right) Kevin Parkin, managing director DavyMarkham, Chris Clegg, investment director Endless LLP,Don Gray, director Ingram Forrest Corporate Finance, Duncan Hay, finance director DavyMarkham.


Global

Christopher Clegg, investment director at Endless, who ledthe deal, commented: “We are delighted to back such a tal-ented management team in Kevin and Duncan and a work-force which has shown real commitment in a difficult phase forthe company. DavyMarkham represents a huge opportunitywith demand for heavy engineering excellence growing by theday. This investment highlights our commitment to SouthYorkshire and to traditional industries that often find raisingfinance difficult.”

Endless was advised by Ingram Forrest and AddleshawGoddard. Management was advised by Nabarro. Bank ofScotland provided banking facilities.

Robbins Double Shield TBMWill Chisel Through SiberianPermafrost

A 4.3-m (14.1-ft) diameter Robbins Double Shield TBM willbrave extreme weather in Siberia beginning in December 2007.In permafrost conditions, the TBM will bore a 2.5-km (1.6-mile)long water drainage tunnel that will be for a new rail tunnel inKraznoyarsk Territory, Eastern Siberia, Russia.

Robbins signed the contract with Bamtonnelstroy on Feb. 6,2007 for the TBM, backup, cutters, spare parts and a completeset of rolling stock including muck cars, locomotives and segmentcars. In addition, Robbins will also provide 19-in. cutters foranother TBM that will begin boring the main rail tunnel this fall.

The equipment will be used for the Mansky Tunnel Project,part of the existing Kraznoyarskaya Railroad owned by JSCRussian Railways connecting Kraznoyarsk Territory andIrkutsk Province.The new rail tunnel will parallel the existingMansky tunnel, built in 1965, in order to accommodateincreased freight traffic between the regions.

The water tunnel will run parallel to the 2.5-km (1.6-mile) longmain rail tunnel and will transfer water on a 0.8 percent grade toa water treatment plant before it is sent into the nearby ManaRiver. Tunnel lining will consist of continuously erected concretesegments in a five-piece-plus-key arrangement as well as shot-crete to provide support to portions of the tunnel, which is locat-ed in a known seismic zone.

Both the water drainage tunnel and the main rail tunnel willbe excavated in a complex mix of hornfels, breccia, pegmatite,sandstone, mudstone, gneiss and granite with up to 47 percentfree quartz. Preliminary sample tests have revealed widelyvarying rock strengths, from to 20 to 398 MPa (2,900 to 57,700psi) UCS. The Robbins TBM will also have to traverse 655 m(2,150 ft) of completely unstable rock sections containing a mix-ture of clay, sandstone, breccia and detritus loam, and mayencounter water inflows up to 25 cubic m (6,600 gal) per hour.

In order to successfully excavate the difficult ground,Robbins designed the Double Shield to bore in all of theexpected conditions. The Double Shield design makes themachine ideal for boring in conditions involving groundwaterand broken ground, since lining is concurrently erected withTBM advance. Pea gravel and grout backfilling systems willalso be located on the backup to backfill the annulus behindsegments and ensure a watertight tunnel lining. Muck willbe transported from the site using 8 cubic m (10 cubic yd)capacity muck cars towed by three 15-metric ton (16.5-U.S.ton) locomotives.

The TBM will be built in the Robbins China manufacturingfacility in Shanghai, from components manufactured andidesigned in both Robbins’ U.S. and China facilities. The buildwill take approximately six months and the progressive sched-ule calls for the TBM to arrive onsite in September 2007 beforethe onset of the Siberian winter. Both Robbins andBamtonnelstroy anticipate finishing the 2.5-km (1.6-mile) longtunnel by June 2008.

A Robbins TBM will excavate a 2.5 km (1.6 mile) long water drainage tunnel, which will transfer treated water into the nearby Mana River.


The View from the Hole

My co-workers would tell youthat I am pretty hard to fool. I’vebeen to see the elephant, rode thetiger and shot trouble from Butteto Bisbee. Why, some days I don’teven trust me! If there were aNobel Prize for skeptics, I’d haveretired the trophy years ago. Idon’t always imagine the worst inpeople, but as Mrs. Bob says, weall have our good faults and ourbad faults.

In real life, SOB works for aheavy civil and mining contractor,an endeavor wherein the best youcan do in the long run is to be rightslightly more than half of the time.Crow is a meal on which I haveoften dined, and I’ve had it pre-pared broiled, baked, raw, friedand fricasseed, served on finechina and linen and in heapingquantities off soggy paper plates.So I have no reluctance in confess-ing to you loyal readers that partof my last column was mistaken, inerror, and (there is no other way tosay it) possibly wrong.

A note to my editor came along,and I shall quote it in an abbrevi-ated, highly edited, subjectiveway.

“I just read ‘The Truth Shall SetYou Free’ in the June issue of TBMmagazine. I couldn’t help but feel thatit misses the point. You could havefocused attention on new methodsand equipment developed in the tun-neling sector that could be applied tothe old problems of coal mine shaftand slope sinking. The coal sector is asmall, difficult and exasperating por-tion of the overall underground con-struction business, but our nation’sdependence on coal is absolute foranother century at least.

“I also worked for Frontier-Kemper during the period you dis-cuss. You were part of the leader-ship Frontier-Kemper provided inimproving slope sinking methods

and safety. I suspect that is whyyou were asked to speak to thecoal industry. In 1974, on a seriesof coal projects in Kentucky,Frontier-Kemper introduced ideasborrowed from the hard rock sideof the mining business. Ideas likehoist-assisted rubber tired dieselhaulage. Jumbos and platformswere developed to handle pipe andsteel sets and rock bolting.

“The good news is that thechanges Frontier-Kemper institut-ed worked and continue to work.The bad news for the industry is

that, despite of all of the techno-logical advances in the under-ground excavation sector, therehave been few significant improve-ments for coal mine development.”

The writer, John Kyffin, workedfor us during summers while inschool at Colorado School ofMines. He is now an operating offi-cial with Peabody Coal.

Now, if you would indulge me apersonal bit. If you attended theRETC Banquet, you know that Ireceived the UndergroundConstruction Association of SME’sLifetime Achievement Award. I hadto miss the RETC this time, the

second one I’ve missed since theybegan in 1972. Had I been presentto accept, I’d have said somethinglike this:

“I’ve been involved with mining,shaft sinking and tunneling forupward of 48 years, ever since myafter-high school job as a flunky atBoulder County Colorado tung-sten mine in 1959. At the first tun-nel I worked on, we were usingEimco 105s to muck and a some-what primitive jumbo withGardner-Denver D79s. Everybodywas on gyppo, and if things wentwell it was a better job than thegovernor had. Got fired andrehired several times, which wasmy boss’s way of being emphatic.But the bug had bit, and I’ve hadthe tunnel disease ever since.

“What did I learn in all this time?It’s people. All people. It’s tough,unforgiving work, at every level,from the wet, cold and dirty minerblowing out lifters, to the CEO play-ing ‘You Bet Your Company’ everytime he signs a bid or a contract. Itis not as profitable as many imag-ine, and the risks often far outweighthe rewards. This work is a calling,not just a job. I can tell you that myfailures in this work have been minealone, and they are more numerousthan I want to contemplate. My suc-cesses have been achieved with thehelp and encouragement of others,my family first among them, andbelong to them as much as to me.I’ve gotten to know and work withmany of the industry’s giants. I’veworked for and with some awesomepeople, mostly those at the sharpend. This award belongs to themand I accept it on their behalf.Thank You.”

Sweet Old Bob

Bob Pond is vice president of Frontier KemperConstructors Inc., Evansville, Ind.

Crow – The Complete Food

“Thiswork is acalling,not just a job.”

by Bob Pond

Each year, Tunnel Business Magazine gathers lead-ers within the tunneling industry for a roundtablediscussion focusing on the state of the industry.

The purpose is simple — to explore current issuesaffecting the industry, present it to our readers andstimulate dialogue.

To coincide with the Rapid Excavation and TunnelingConference (RETC) in Toronto, we invited leaders fromaround the country to delve into the Canadian tunnelingmarket. The participants represented contractors, engi-neers, owners and suppliers.

The roundtable was held June 12 at the SheratonCentre in downtown Toronto. Joining us were:

• Marco Giorelli, P.Eng., Vice President-Projects,Lovat

• Garry Stevenson, M.Eng., P.Eng., P.Geo., Principaland Geotechnical Manager, Klohn Crippen Berger;President-Tunnelling Association of Canada (TAC)

• Frank Policicchio, C.E.T., General Supervisor-Tunnel Construction, City of Edmonton

• Andy Bertolo, P.Eng., Chief Project Manager-Spadina Subway Extension, Toronto TransitCommission

• Steve Skelhorn, McNally• Boro Lukajic, Senior Consultant to MWH; Past

President-TAC

TBM: What is the state of the tunneling market inCanada? Is it growing? What is driving or limiting thegrowth? What areas are seeing the most activity?Sewer? Water? Transit? Lukajic: Overall, tunneling activities in Canada appearto be on the increase. Currently, the greatest number oftunneling projects are in sewage system and water sup-ply. Thus, in Canada, by far the majority of tunnels arerepresented by the mundane municipal infrastructurerequired in every city and almost every major town.Extensions to the existing subway and commuter railsystems will involve significant tunnel works. In thelong run, the outlook for Canada looks good. Programssuch as municipal infrastructure development, watertreatment facilities and new combined storm-sewagewill require tunnels. The focus will also be on trans-portation links between new suburban areas and bigcities. Cleaning beaches and revitalizing our water-fronts is another priority. In the hydropower sector, afew major sites are being studied by BC Hydro,Newfoundland Hydro and Hydro Quebec.Giorelli: For us, a way to measure how much businessis the number of how many TBMs we sell in Canada,and it’s been better lately than in the past. At themoment, we have five new TBMs working in Canada.It’s definitely been busier than in the past. As far asToronto, the big upcoming work will be the expansion to


UP AND UNDER

Canadian Contingent Explores Market Issues

the Spadina line, which will be 9kilometers times two. Vancouver hasalso seen some work because of thewinter Olympics. One of the tunnelsthey have been talking about for awhile, but seems to be on the shelf,is the second tunnel under the St.Clair Tunnel from Windsor toDetroit. Stevenson: In the west we’re seeingprojects being driven by energy. Inthe last few years, our governmenthas stepped out of the energy busi-ness. There are two tunnels underway and another in planning thatwe’re involved with — a major pro-ject if it goes that is 10 meters indiameter and up to 16 kilometerslong. People are thinking grand inthe way of energy in the west.Actually, I think it’s the same way inQuebec, where they just seem to rollyear after year with another hydro-electric project or two, almostinvariably involving tunnels — diver-sion tunnels and long delivery tun-nels. There is a little bit of transitwork in the Vancouver area now, butwe seem to get mired politically inthe west on our transit expansion.We’re just slowly seeing environ-mental issues — pushes for CSOs,for more treatment on sewerage —so, there is at least planning underway from the regional water dis-tricts on those types of projects now. Policicchio: In Edmonton, or inAlberta in general, most of our pro-jects are drainage projects — CSOprojects, storage tunnels. It’s all dri-ven by the new development of landand the influx of people. Edmontonis going through a growth spurt, sothere’s a demand for sewerageworks and also a few water projects.There really isn’t much transit workright now. There are talks aboutfuture extensions of transit linenorth of Edmonton, so there mightbe some tunneling along with that.One big project we are working onnow is a river crossing project thatwill bring more combined stormwa-ter to the sewage treatment plant.We are growing in terms of the tun-neling projects over the last fewyears. The trend is that there will bequite a few more on the books in thenext five years.

Bertolo: The Toronto TransitCommission carries about 1.4 mil-lion people per day. About 600,000 —700,000 are on the subway. We havean aggressive program in the next20 years to expand the subway sys-tem. We have committed funding toexpand the subway system by 8.6kilometers. It’s a $2.1 billion projectthat is going to extend the Spadinasubway two stations to the northand into another municipality. If allgoes well, we will start in threeyears. There’s engineering to bedone and environmental assessmentto be approved. On top of that, wehave a $4 billion expansion of ourLRT lines, which includes some tun-neling and some excavated rights ofway. That’s approved, but whether itgoes through or not is a question ofpolitics — that can be pretty volatileso we’re not sure whether that isgoing to happen. The tunnels will bemost probably done with tunnel bor-ing machines with EPB technologyand soil conditioning. We’ve hadsome success doing that on previousjobs. There are still arrangementsthat need to be worked out, but wehave the seed money for engineer-ing and we should be off and run-ning next year. Skelhorn: From our point of view,the state of the tunneling market inCanada is very busy and is steadilygrowing. We’ve got three brand newtunnel boring machines in theground and we’ve also got anotherone of our own machines under-ground as well, so four of our fivemachines are under way in Canada.So it’s certainly busy right now.What’s driving the tunnels we’redoing are sewers, service tunnelsfor sewers. There is a huge amountof development going on right nowand all this development needs utili-ties and sewer systems. Right now,we have been working for about 10years in York Region, which is justnorth of the city on what is really anenhancement of the existing sewersystem — the YDS system. Thereare a lot of tunnels in the worksthere and that is going to continue.What limits the market are themunicipalities again. They have setplans, master plans for development


Andy Bertolo

Frank Polichiccio

Garry Stevenson

Marco Giorelli

Steve Skelhorn

Boro Lukajic

that they can do in certain stages. So in a way it’s proba-bly a better way to do it, where you let one tunnel everythree years rather than 10 tunnels altogether. The tran-sit tunnels we’ll look at when they come out, but they tendto be the exception rather than the rule. We wereinvolved with the last subway expansion in Edmonton,but it could be another 10 or 20 years before anotherexpansion comes about. But as a tunneling company,we’re looking for sustained work and the bread and but-ter of our work is the sewer tunnels and smaller diameterwork — the day to day stuff that’s going to continue. Oneof the big changes we’ve seen is the environmental issues.In Ontario, it used to be that a soft ground tunnel wouldbe a rib-and-lagging type tunnel with dewatering as aconstruction method. That’s pretty much turned com-pletely around the last few years becauseof environmental concerns over dewater-ing and discharge of water, so now thesewer tunnels are almost exclusivelyspecified as EPB tunnels with a segmen-tal lining and no or limited dewatering toreduce environment impact during theconstruction. That’s a big push right now.And the way government is dealing withthe projects has changed. It used to bethat they would sort of police the job, butnow they’re involved from the EA processall the way through the contractingprocess. It’s a very different role.Stevenson: We face the same. It’s more ofa coordinated effort from the differentlevels of government — the municipal,provincial and federal. One of these threeentities will be the representative, but allthree are involved. We’re finding thatafter several projects there are peoplethat are comfortable working with eachother and they’re communicating moreup front. To a certain extent, it’s cutting down the timeneeded for these environmental approvals and the ener-gy companies are more comfortable putting together aplan that will go through than they were three years ago. TBM: What innovations are being used in Canada ascompared to the rest of the world? Are owners receptiveto the use of new technologies? Is Canada a technologyexporter or importer?Skelhorn: Because tunneling is such a specialized indus-try, it’s pretty much a worldwide market. Things that arehappening in other countries you get to know about veryquickly so there’s a huge transfer of technologies allaround the world. I don’t think there is anything specificversus anywhere else, except it depends on the workloadand what’s going ahead at that particular time. What dri-ves technology is a challenging job or a different type ofjob — such as the Niagara Tunnel or the Seymour-Capilano job — that is unlike anything that has been doneanywhere else in the world. The other thing about tech-nology is whether owners are receptive to these newtechnologies. To us is appears that some owners are over-

ly optimistic to new technologies, by that they’re specify-ing more and more things to be on TBMs and to be with-in the tunnel, things that from a contractor’s point of vieware not really necessary to get the tunnel built. It’s justbells and whistles. The problem with all of these is thatthey start getting in the way. You may have 200 safe-guards built into a machine that cause little problems allthe way along. They’re intended to stop one event, butthe sum of all the little points could actually be worsethan that one event. Giorelli: It’s more of a generic problem; it’s not just aproblem in Canada. The owners are seeking the best qual-ity possible, and sometimes, maybe based on experience,they cannot rely on the performance of the contractors.So they’re trying to make this thing sort of automatic. It’s

something that we’ve seen worldwide,where the machines are getting toosophisticated for the objective. The objec-tive is the tunnel, not the machine. Sothere has to be a proper balance of thebells and whistles and the actual practi-cality of the machine, because productioncan be limited by some of these things.But that is not a Canadian problem; it’san overall worldwide problem. I’m notaware of any particular technology thateither hasn’t been used in Canada orwhose innovation has been in Canada. Inthe Western world each country is, interms of technology, pretty much at thesame level. Stevenson: Also we’re seeing companiesthat are coming into the market andbringing their technologies. For exam-ple, at Niagara there is an Austrian firmleading the project and within stone’sthrow of downtown Vancouver, we have aGerman, an American and an Italian

company working on tunnels. They’re all bringing intheir own technology and some of their methodology, if itcan be adapted to the local labor scene. It’s not justthrough a machine, but it’s also through so many otherthings. We’re staying right on top of the technology. Giorelli: Canada actually has a few top-notch designersthat actually export tunnel designs to other countries,which not everybody has. Bertolo: From an owner’s standpoint, we don’t pre-scribe tunnel boring in our contracts every year, so wefall behind. We don’t know what’s out there since thelast tunnel boring machine we used. In our case, we pur-chased TBMs more than 10 years ago and subsequentlysold them, expecting that new machines would be intro-duced with greater performance and greater efficiencythat would help offset the cost of a new machine. Now 15years later we either have to procure or specify amachine, and we don’t have the expert knowledge. Wehave to get up the learning curve very fast, so we haveto rely on advice. Sometimes the advice is good andsometimes it isn’t.


“From our

point of view,

the state of

the tunneling

market in

Canada is

very busy and

is steadily

growing”

Skelhorn: What’s unique with a tun-nel boring machine is that it is one ofthe few pieces of equipment that isspecified for a job. It’s almost, to acertain degree, like if you’re gettingready-mixed concrete and you’respecifying what color the trucks aregoing to be. The specifications are sodetailed now that it forms a majorpart of the specification. That makesa lot of sense if the owner is buyingthe machine, but even when they’renot buying, which is the majority ofcases, the specifications remain thesame. So in essence what they’re say-ing is that you have to drive a tunnel,but imposed on that are conditionsthat have to be bolted on the machine.As a contractor, we have the knowl-edge to drive that tunnel, and wewouldn’t necessarily put them onthere. And a lot of these are technolo-gies that have been grabbed fromvarious places. The relative benefit ofa lot of these innovations is question-able, but what it does do is drive thecost up. It’s a risk managementdevice, and I suppose that’s the wayit’s thought of by the owners, but itbecomes so highly prescriptive thatthere’s hardly any room for the con-tractor to make any decisions. Policicchio: We’re a little different inthe whole mix, because we’re the ownerand the contractor, so we go in knowingwhat we want and specify it that way.We know what we need for our pro-jects, and try to go the bare bone routeand not make it too high-tech. Skelhorn: What happens is the spec-ifications are passed down from con-tract to contract and are added on toas technologies are advanced, soyou’re seeing specifications that are200 pages long that include every-thing from what was good technology10 years ago and might not be need-ed anymore right up to the moderntechnology. It makes the machinevery complicated. And I don’t thinkthat it’s specific to Canada, it’s hap-pening worldwide. Probably Frank’smachines in Edmonton are just right.Policicchio: Oh, for sure. They meetour needs. There are some thingsthat someone in senior managementwants and we provide it, but basicallyit’s for our own needs and they per-form quite well.

Bertolo: You’ll find a tendencyamong owners to specify the latesttechnology because they simply donot know how critical that element is.They don’t have the experience or theexpertise. And when you look at thecost of the machine versus the cost oftunneling, it’s not that much. Whenyou have a $500 million tunnelingcontract, the cost of the machinecould be about $30 million — that’sless than 10 percent — so an owner isnot that concerned about addinganother item that’s going to costanother $100,000. That’s a lot ofmoney, but relative to the overall costof the project it’s not that much. Sothat’s an issue for owners like our-selves that have a big project every10 years or so. Skelhorn: There is a positive ele-ment to it as well. There are somethings that are specified on a machine

by owners that we as a contractorwouldn’t necessarily put on themachine, but it turns out to be quite agood innovation. So it is technologythat is pushed onto us that is veryuseful. We find some of these devicesthat are used now work quite well forus and actually improve the perfor-mance of that machine. Most peopledon’t like change; they’re used to acertain way, so when they see some-thing new come out, we really don’twant to use it. But it’s specified, soyou have to give it a go and you mayfind it works pretty well. That’s how alot of development comes about.TBM: Contracting practices are an issue in some parts of the world.How is the Canadian marketapproaching new contracting meth-ods like design-build, etc.? What isthe view toward geotechnical base-line reports and DRBs?



Giorelli: Canada was a forerunner of the pre-procure-ment of TBMs — not only on the Sheppard Line but alsoin Sarnia. It’s really an English method where the ownerof the tunnel goes out and picks the technology. The rea-sons for that, and cost wasn’t one of them…it was mostlyrelated to quality and time saving and at the end of theday the quality of construction was high as a result ofthese different approaches and contracting practices. Iwould say overall, there’s no fear to use new approachesif they make sense. Lukajic: Ever-increasing demands continue to arise forthe revitalization of urban centers and much-neededimprovement of our outdated transportation systems. Wetherefore foresee the emergence of new forms of financ-ing for civil projects, such as joint initiatives by the publicand private sectors to allow execution of these much-needed projects in a more timely fashion.Stevenson: In the west, the public-private partnershipshave really been embraced by our government — it seemsto be the new “in” thing on large infrastructure. On theother hand, in the energy industry, the private developersneed a firm price for the comfort of their lenders. Theywant to see a fixed price contract. There’s an example ofa tunnel under way where there’s virtually no investiga-tion. It’s about 4 kilometers of tunnel with a fixed-pricecontract and the contractor is taking on all the geotechni-cal risks. It happens to be in a terrain that’s fairly wellknown, and the contractor has done several tunnels in thistype of ground, but we’re seeing more and more wherethe contractor is taking on the greater risk in a generallyfixed-price contract. Policicchio: We have a different slant on it because webasically do all of our tunneling in house. But some of thedrainage work that is put out for tender is not always lowprice. A certain percentage is given to the price, then apercentage is given to schedule. So there are criteriaspelled out, and that’s worked well on certain projects.Pretty much all the drainage tunneling is done in house.We have the machines, and all the projects are designedfor our size machines. We also do our own in house design.We hire certain geotechnical engineers and some of thelocal consultants for some of the design, but a lot of it isdone internally. It’s something that started in Edmontonover 50 years ago just because of a need. There wasnobody locally to do the work and there was a number ofprojects. It started in late 40s and 50s, and in the boomtime in the 60s and 70s more and more equipment wasprocured and we just kept up with it. Now we’re doingwork for the private sector. We don’t actually bid projectsbut people will come to us for prices and we’ll give them aprice and do the work for them. It’s a little unique.Bertolo: We are deciding how we are going to move for-ward with regard to our contracting approach. We lookedat the Canada Line and the Niagara Tunnel and inter-viewed contractors, but they are both different situationsfrom us. We’re extending an existing line and it has to beintegrated into the existing system, so there no conces-sion or public-private partnership potential there. Wehave always done things the old-fashioned way by design-

bid-build; we are looking at design-build, but we don’thave a defined philosophy or standard contracting docu-ments yet. We are actually putting out a $20 million job asa design-build trial so that we have a place to start learn-ing about the process.Stevenson: We’ve design-build jobs, both as the contrac-tor’s designer and as the owner’s engineer, including tun-nels. One thing we found on the hydroelectric side is that,if you go out for a bridge using design-build, everythingcan be designed based on the bridge code, but in manytunnel applications, there’s not a code that tells you whatyour end product is going to be. So what we find is thatyou need to think carefully about what your end productis. Is it covered by codes, and where it is not, how pre-scriptive are you going to be? In a design-build, are yougoing to have anything about what the TBMs should do?Are you going to cover safety aspects or are you justgoing to say it’s precast liner and let the designer provideyou with the rest? So, at least from our experience, youneed to think carefully about how prescriptive you’ll be inwhen using design-build.Skelhorn: We have two tunnel contracts under way forthe same owner. One of them is design-build, the otherone is conventional bid. It’s the same owner, basically thesame size tunnels and same size tunnel machines. So theyare similar projects using a completely different procure-ment philosophy. The risk share is basically the same. Forus, design-build is a bit different, but it’s also somewhateasier and fast tracked — you’re able to get things movingquicker because you don’t have middle parties to gothrough. But once the contracts are up and running,there’s not a huge amount of difference to us. TBM: What lessons can the rest of the world learn fromthe Canadian market?Policicchio: I come from the point of view that the own-ers can be doing a lot of the work, because we are able todo it. It might not work for every owner, but it works wellfor us. It’s been a long haul, building up the expertise andequipment and the mentality of city forces working likecontractors. But I think that’s one thing that could betransferred around, and other owners could start it in


small baby steps, not jump right into it. When I lookaround, I see a lot of owner, designer, contractor con-flict — big time. In some cases, you even hear about theowners being the enemy. But in our case as an ownerand contractor doing the work, we’re all trying to getto the end goal. It might work better to have the ownerdo some of the work and sub out more as a partner-ship, rather than this conflict all the time. Skelhorn: I think different forms of contracts canachieve as well where it is a partnership and every-body is on the same team — almost like a joint venturebetween the owner and the contractor. That’s usedquite extensively in Europe right now. Bertolo: In the transit business, you expand every 10years. Unfortunately, that’s not the right way to do it— it should be a continuous orderly expansion of thesystem, but that’s just not how it happens in the realworld. So every 10 years, we have a pile of money toexpand the system. Then you need a TBM you haven’tneeded in five years. Conceivably we could train peo-ple and get that going, but what do you do the otherfive years with machines that are now going to beobsolete? Then we have people waiting by their lock-ers for five years for the next job, or we have them dosomething else. It just doesn’t work. Stevenson: We’re seeing just what the rest of theworld is seeing. We’ve got consultants who workworld wide, contractors from around the world now,and suppliers who are supplying around the world,sometimes much more than in Canada. We’re seeing a wide range of contracting practices, so we’re not unique, but in touch with the current practicesand technologies.Lukajic: Recently, Toronto Transit Commissionlaunched a research program to develop technology,such as spray-on liner, to prevent spalling of con-crete. Tunnel projects are in the making for environ-mentally friendly energy saving cooling systems. Infact, water intake tunnels are being constructed todraw the lake water to cool down office buildings indowntown Toronto.Skelhorn: One thing about Canada is even thoughthere is a relatively small population there is a hugeknowledge base here. You’ve got consultants with theknowledge, you’ve got contractors and manufacturers,and part of that may be because of the ground conditions. We’re got ground conditions covering anytype imaginable and at some point someone has wanted to put a tunnel through it. So that drives technology and has resulted in a huge amount of people here with a lot of knowledge in tunnels, almost disproportionate to the population.Bertolo: We may be a little slow on the way we do ourcontracting work. It would be good to have a continu-ous influx of people from everywhere in the worldbecause that is how you get an exchange of technologyand learn how to do new things properly. We also suf-fered through a recession in the late 90’s and many ofthe engineers left to find work and didn’t come back.



Contracts are the glue that holds the design and con-struction industry together. Owners, designers, primecontractors, subcontractors, sureties, insurers and spe-cialty subconsultants each posses a unique resource,skill or ability that must be integrated for the successfulexecution of a construction project.

This orchestration of the various parties is donethrough contracts. A contract, of course, is nothingmore than an agreement between two parties manifest-ing an offer and unconditional acceptance of that offer toperform a certain service or work. Unlike a plain oldpromise, however, that contract carries with it theunderstanding by both parties that if one party does notperform in accordance with the contractual terms andconditions, then the courts will step in to enforce thatagreement. In most jurisdictions, a statute of fraudsrequires that construction contracts for real propertymust be in writing to be enforceable. The commercialaspects of that agreement are found in a section of thecontract referred to as the “general conditions,” “termsand conditions,” “general requirements,” or, moreeuphemistically, the “boilerplate.”

To the uninitiated, this very small type, awkwardlyworded, poorly punctuated, and overly paragraphedboilerplate makes little sense. Those that have beenthrough the fire, however, recognize the significance ofthe difference between a comma or a period, or the useof the conjunction “and” as opposed to “or.” These boil-erplate contractual provisions spell out in great detailthe rights and responsibilities between the two partiesto the contract. It is of no use to complain about the one-sidedness or unfairness of these contract provisionsafter the agreement has been signed — in the absenceof extraordinary circumstances, the courts will enforcethose terms and condition exactly as written.

Certain contract provisions in the heavy civil con-struction industry are recognized as being one-sidedand unfair, yet still find their way into the agreementsbetween sophisticated owners, contractors and designprofessionals. This article explores four of these provi-sions that should be at the top of any industry execu-

tive’s checklist when deciding whether to enter into aparticular contractual agreement.

Unusually harsh or one-sided terms and conditionspromulgated by the party soliciting the service or workshould cause those executives to ask themselveswhether this is the type of owner or contractor that theywant to work for and be bound to for the duration of theproject. This question is particularly serious for theunderground construction industry, where owners areoften infrequent procurers of underground design andconstruction projects. Unfamiliar with the undergroundconstruction industry, these owners seem more willingto consider their procurement as an isolated, singletransaction as compared to the continuing relationshipsestablished for their bread-and-butter design and con-struction projects.

Standard of CareEngineers entering into a contract with an owner to

develop a design and prepare drawings and specifica-tions are well aware that they must fulfill their contrac-tual obligations for deliverables in a timely manner andcomply with regulatory law governing their professionand the final project’s design. They are also aware thatthey must perform their services in compliance with anapplicable “professional standard of care.” This stan-dard of care recognizes that perfection is not the metricby which the design professional’s services will be mea-sured. A generalized articulation of the standard of careis: “that level of care exercised by similarly situated pro-fessionals of similar training and also practicing in theindustry in the area.” This long recognized standard ofcare acknowledges that the design professional per-forms its work in an environment of uncertainty andcannot possibly account for all potential eventualities orcircumstances that might arise during the developmentof the design and that the engineer is constantly calledupon to weigh alternatives and exercise its judgment inpreparing its work product.

Owners utilizing the engineer’s design and workproduct in procuring and contracting with a construc-


By David Corkum

Killer Contract ClausesWhat to Look for Before You Sign on the Dotted Line

tion contractor, on the other hand, are obligated to pro-vide that construction contractor with perfect docu-ments, (the so-called Spearin Doctrine). This gapbetween a reasonable level of care required of the designprofessional and the perfection required of the ownerinfuriates some owners. (“Why should I have to pay forthe errors of my designer?”)

There is a rising trend in owner organizations acrossthe country seeking to obligate the design professionalsto perform their work in accordance with “the highestlevel of care,” which is a heightened standard that ownersbelieve will entitle them to pass each and every contrac-tor error or omission claim through to the design profes-sional. The problem for the design professional, especial-ly those dealing in underground projects, is that thishighest level of care standard may be unachievable. Thisis particularly true when the error or omission is viewedwith the benefit of hindsight. Not only is it unachievable,but in all likelihood it is also uninsurable. Professional lia-bility policies cover the design professional for its negli-gence, defined as a failure to comply with the standard ofcare of the average similarly situated design profession-al, not with the highest level of care. This uninsurabilityis bad news for the owners as well in that the only practi-cable source of funding for a particular error may beunavailable.

Owners are quick to point out that they are willing topay for the best engineering services and thus they

should be allowed to demand this higher standard of care,yet their competitively driven designer selection processstill carries price as a determinative factor. A betterapproach to heightening the quality of design services isassuring the designers have adequate time and budget toperform their services, requiring (and paying for) inde-pendent peer review, or by the owner’s engagement of anindependent board of consultants to independentlyreview and comment on the designer’s work product.

Differing Site ConditionsThis seemingly logical, theoretically simple and mar-

velously equitable risk allocation provision has becomeindusty’s “boogeyman under the bed.” Contractors com-plain that owners do not administer the provision fairly.Owners complain that contractors unfairly leverage bor-derline DSC situations to cover up what would otherwisebe contractor inefficiencies or productivity problems. Theengineers recognize that any time a significant dollarvalue dispute turns on the language it drafted for specifi-cations or geotechnical reports. it could become a targetfor the cost recovery initiative of the frustrated party inthe underlying dispute.

Some owners have attempted to eliminate the differingsite conditions clause completely, reasoning that it is theirprerogative to draft a tight contract according to whichthey will enjoy price certainty for their project at the costof paying the contractor’s contingency amount for an



unencountered condition. Other owners seek to curtailor condition DSC recovery to limited circumstances ormagnitude of disruption. This assignment of subsurfacerisk to the construction contractor is acceptable andcommon in the vertical construction or building indus-try. In all but a very few select cases, however, it is aninappropriate approach for underground constructionprojects.

A responsible construction contractor bidding thework and attempting to include contingencies to coverthe range of the potential differing site conditions thatwould impact his cost to perform the work would soonplace his bid outside the competitive range. Indeed, allother things being equal, the low bidder for the projectwill likely be the contractor with the least experience,least imagination or otherwise willing to accept thegreatest risk. While this transfer of risk may look goodto the owner at the initial stages of the project, thatview will change upon encountering the differing siteconditions. The owner’s comfort in relying on its bullet-proof contractual risk allocation of the DSC will quick-ly turn to distress if the contractor’s attempt to dealwith that DSC begins to threaten abutting propertyowners, or if contractor insolvency or inability tofinance dealing with the DSC begins to threateningproject completion.

The obvious consequence of completely eliminatingthe DSC clause is that the owner will probably limit thecontractors bidding the work to those contractors look-ing to break into the industry, with little or no experi-ence, capability and expertise. The more desirable con-tractors will simply not bid the work.

No Damage for Delay ClauseTime is money. On a complex underground construc-

tion project, where 25 to 30 percent of a contractor’sdaily operating costs can be indirect labor costs, themoney is significant. Nevertheless, no damages fordelays clauses have proliferated throughout the coun-try. Owners contend that the clause is the embodimentof risk sharing for those risks beyond the control ofeither party: the contractor bears the risk of itsincreased costs, and the owner bears the delay associat-ed with that risk. For certain risks, those usually termed“force majeure” or acts of god, this risk sharing appor-tionment makes sense. The apportionment becomesunfair when the owner attempts to apply the provisionto issues that it is in a better position to at least influ-ence if not downright control.

The no damage for delay provision becomes flatlyonerous when the owner attempts to pass the risk of itsown inefficiency or inability to timely perform its oblig-ations on to the contractor. Perhaps the most egregiousexample is where Contractor A on a multiple prime con-struction project is delayed by Contractor B, an ele-ment of whose work Contractor A is dependant upon forfurther progress.

Owners across the country are finding that for longdelays amounting to significant additional incurred

costs, contractors are pushing back and litigatingdenied delayed claims. Courts appear more than willingto find circumstances and reasons to not enforce theclause especially in those circumstances where ownersare seeking exculpation of itself for its own inefficiencyand misadministration. Just like when an owner refusesto include a differing site condition clause, an ownercould easily be faced with a situation where it has paid ahigher price for the work by requiring contractors toinclude a contingency for the no damage for delay clauseand then paying for that delay a second time if its clauseis found to be unenforceable by the courts.

Payment ProvisionsIn many ways, subcontractors on a construction pro-

ject are like the free end of a rope being whipped aboutin the wind. Subcontractors are generally required andbound by all of the provisions in the general conditionsbetween the owner and general contractor. On top ofthose sit the terms and conditions between the con-tractor and its subcontractor. Certain conditional pay-ment provisions, such as “pay when paid” or its nasti-er brother “pay if paid” clauses present significanthardships to subcontractors. The general contractor’srationalization for including such clauses is that it is amatter of cash flow. The general contractors rightlyargue that they are not in the business of financing thework and that unless and until they have paymentfrom the owner from which to pay their subcontrac-tors, they should not be called upon to front the moneyfor their subcontractors. Subcontractors are typicallywilling to go along with this argument up to a point.

When the failure of an owner to pay for an item ofwork is because of a failing or deficiency of the gener-al contractor or one of its other subcontractors, thatsubcontractor who performed adequately is much lesswilling to wait for its payment. Many subcontractorsare simply incapabable of waiting and carrying on thework. With regard to the risk of absolute nonpayment,in accordance with a paid if paid clause, general con-tractors typically say they are looking for their subs toshare the risk of owner nonpayment with them. If theowner nonpayment is because of less than satisfactoryperformance by the subcontractor, then the clausemakes sense. However, if nonpayment is because ofowner financial problems or malfeasance having to dowith other non-subcontractor related issues on theproject, why should the subcontractor bear the burdenof nonpayment? The general contractor is in a muchbetter position to influence owner payment, and toinvestigate the owner’s ability to pay in advance ofcalling out the subcontractor. While payment bondsand statutory subcontractor payment requirements, ifavailable, offer some level of protection, the subcon-tractor may not survive long enough to avail itself tothese protections.

David Corkum is a partner with Donovan Hatem LLP in Boston, a firmthat specializes in construction law. He can be reached [email protected].



Public RelationsVisualization tools offer an effective means

to educate and cultivate awareness for allmanner of construction related issues.Renderings and animations are often used to describe how an un-built project will look like or function once it iscompleted — they can help people visualizemany aspects of future construction. This isespecially important when a project orprocess is very complicated or controversial.A good animation can effectively clarifyissues and assuage fears, especially forunderground projects in which the majorityof the public does not understand and willnever really see.

The Santa Clara Valley TransportationAuthority (VTA) in northern Californiarecently commissioned an animation tohelp inform the public about some of the construction methods used for the Bay Area Rapid Transit extension. Animation showing tunnel boring machine in operation

for Underground Visualization is the art of storytelling though the use of computer graphics. In

the underground construction industry, the stories can be anything from how anEPB shield works; to what are the unique qualifications of a short listed company; or exactly why the completion of a tunnel took nine months longer thanscheduled. Any concept or argument that needs promotion or clarification is ultimately a story that can be visualized effectively with computer graphics.

The most common visualization tools are known as renderings and animations.Renderings are highly realistic digital illustrations, and animations (also calledvirtual tours or 3D fly-throughs) are essentially movies, often created with thesame techniques used to produce the special effects seen throughout the entertainment industry. In recent years, underground construction professionalshave tapped into the power of these tools to tell their stories in at least threeareas: public relations, proposals and dispute resolution.

The animation showed a cross section of a TBMand illustrated some of its key components andprocesses, such as themovement of earththrough the plenum andconveyor screw, the opera-tion of thrust jacks, ringsegment construction andapplication of cementgrout. It was the hope ofthe VTA to highlight theseprocesses in order to educate and raise publicinterest in a vital but virtually unknown form ofconstruction. Their story:You won’t fear it if youunderstand it.

ProposalsFor interviews and proposals, visualization tools can

differentiate a company from the field of competitionby demonstrating its qualifications in a fresh and com-pelling presentation. While there is certainly no digi-tal gimmick that can replace the value of real-worldexperience and wisdom, today’s computer graphicscan be used to articulate that experience with strikingclarity and memorable impact. For example, if a con-tractor wanted to demonstrate its experience buildingconcrete liners, it could show an animation that beginswith a giant cross section of earth to dramaticallyillustrate the scope of a past project. The animationcould then highlight unique problem-solving or sched-ule-saving innovations exhibited at any point of thejob, before a seamless fade into video of the complet-ed tunnel. Expository graphics or a professionalvoice-over can be added if needed, but either way thisanimation would offer a more complete story of thecontractor’s contribution to the success of the project.

Hatch Mott MacDonald recently developed an ani-mation to be used during interviews. The animationwas similar to the VTA presentation mentioned abovein that it sought to explain how a TBM operates. In addition to conveying intimate knowledge and exper-tise, the animation provided HMM a practical alterna-tive to the cumbersome and travel-weary physicalTBM models of the past. Their story: We know thisstuff, and we have the latest tools to show it.

Dispute ResolutionVisualization is particularly effective during arbi-

tration where dueling arguments on a claim canexacerbate an already complicated matter. Clear,concise renderings and animations can cut throughthe labyrinth and strengthen an argument by simpli-fying it. Computer graphics are also important inlegal matters because of their ubiquity in popularmedia. Audiences have come to expect digital graph-


Animation showing concept of permeability in soil

Construction By Craig Shimahara


ics to support concepts and theories on everythingfrom the Discovery Channel to CSI. But the realadvantage that visualization brings to dispute reso-lution is its unique storytelling ability. The ideabehind an argument can be told in a multi-dimen-sional approach by using motion, graphics, photog-raphy, sound and interactivity. These multi-mediapresentations simply offer a richer, layered experi-ence that reaches out on a number of levels.Consequently, they have usurped PowerPoint theway PowerPoint usurped the traditional slide show.

In 2001, MW commissioned an extensive series ofanimations for an extremely complicated claimargued in the International Chamber of Commerce(ICC). The presentation was divided into two parts:the first gave an overview of the basic issues andcontext of the claim; the second delineated the argu-ments on behalf of MW. The presentations wereclear and concise and took advantage of virtuallyevery form of media to make its arguments.Ultimately, these presentations helped garner amajor settlement for MW, in addition to payment ofattorney’s fees. Their story: We performed our ser-vices correctly, and here’s exactly why.

DrawbacksThe production of renderings and animations can

be an exciting process to participate in. There is akind of magic that takes place when an idea is seenfor the first time in realistic 3D graphics months oreven years before the project will be realized.

However, good visualization necessarily starts with aclear vision of what needs to be said. If the originalstory is not well formed, it is often difficult to produce an effective set of graphics without consid-erable time and effort. Communication with the principals involved is of the utmost importance. Thewhole point of visualization is to better communicate.If the key players (i.e., owner, contractor, attorney,etc.) are not kept in the loop or closely aligned, it will be a challenge to deliver a clear message.

Nonetheless, a good visualiza-tion studio should be able to sift through internal politics andpersonalities in order to graspthe salient concepts and sculptthem into a clear and compellingstory.

ConclusionVisualization is a story that

elucidates science. If the sci-ence is good, chances are thestory will be good — and goodstorytelling is a critical elementto success in any arena. Today’stechnology gives undergroundconstruction professionals thetools to illustrate virtually anything that can be imagined.However, the most importantfactor to any story will alwaysbe the experience, knowledgeand wisdom of those in the field.

Craig Shimahara is president ofShimahara Illustration in Santa Monica,Calif.


Animation showing cross section of alignment


In September 2006, the world's largest hard rockTBM began cutting a 10.4km tunnel under the worldfamous Canadian city of Niagara Falls.

This landmark hydroelectric project, which, after com-pletion in 2009, will add 1.6 billion KWh (sufficient forthe needs of 700,000 people) to the annual capacity ofOntario Power Generation, is being built by Europeanconstruction giant Strabag AG of Austria.

Routed to draw 500 cu meters per second from theupper Niagara River to the Sir Adam Beck PowerStations at Queenston, the new $600 million (CAN) tun-nel, which with a 12.7-m finished diameter is one of thelargest in North America, will run parallel to two existingwater supply tunnels but at a much lower depth of 140 m.

Big Becky, the 14.4-m diameter Robbins TBM builtto Strabag AG's specification, was assembled on site toreduce overall construction costs and meet the pro-ject's tight delivery schedule. Incorporating Robbins'floating gripper design, the 2,000- ton machine witheighty-five 500-mm cutters, is powered by a 4,725-kW

variable frequency drive system,expandable to 5,040-kW. The machine'saverage daily advance rate, operating24 hours, is expected to be 10 to 15 m.

The geology is mostly QueenstonShale, overlain by limestone, dolostone,abrasive sandstone and mudstone withmost of the rock in the 10 to 180 MParange. By the time the project closes,some 1.3 million cu meters of shale willhave been extracted for future use byOntario's brick industry.

With targets to meet, a Strabag pri-ority is the health and safety of the 350project employees. Accidents meandelays so, along with good visibility andaudibility, optimum in-tunnel air quali-ty is essential for efficient and incident-free working.

Having worked with Protan on manytunnel projects, Strabag has alreadytaken delivery of two containerstotalling 5,500 m of Protan's high-qual-ity Ventiflex ventilation ducting.

Manufactured entirely in-house andsubject to stringent quality control,Protan's Ventiflex has established a namefor itself for robust construction, consis-tent air delivery, energy-efficiency andexcellent post-project value -- attributesthat appeal to both project managers andfinance managers and making Ventiflexincreasingly the ventilation ducting of

choice in mines and tunnels across the world.For the Niagara Tunnel, Strabag has specified a total

of 10.400m of 2600mm dia fire resistant Ventiflex duct-ing. Zipped couplings join the 150m lengths and, tomeet Strabag's exacting site requirements, Protan hasincreased the number of integral suspension eyes to900mm intervals.

According to Strabag’s project manager, ErnstGschnitzer, Ventiflex was a natural choice for theNiagara Tunnel, having used the ducting on many pre-vious Strabag projects, Ventiflex has earned a namefor competitiveness and qualify.

For ultimate efficiency, Ventiflex has been teamedwith a 1,600-mm diameter Cogemacoustic 2x355 Kw,double-stage fan capable of delivering 80 cu meters persecond at 6,000 Pa.

At the end of the project, the Ventiflex will be takendown and inspected before packaging either for trans-fer to a further project or for resale.

For more information, visit http://www.protan.com.

Air Flow for Water Power Project

The Niagara Tunnel, being driven by a Robbins TBM for Ontario Power Generation in Canada,is utilizing Protan’s Ventiflex system.

The tunneling industry in the United States is boomingwith major works under way and in the planning stagesacross the country, from large-scale transit projects tosewer and water tunnels. But there are also obstacles thatmust be met to ensure that these projects move forward.

Front and center in all this is the UndergroundConstruction Association of SME (UCA). As the leadingU.S. association focused on the tunneling industry, UCAwill play a role in how the industry moves forward. To getan insight into what UCA will be doing, TBM sat down withnewly installed UCA chair Brenda Bohlke, president ofMyers Bohlke Enterprise LLC in Great Falls, Va. Here’swhat she had to say:

What is your background in the underground construc-tion industry? What unique perspectives do you bring tothe association? I have taken a circuitous route to underground business —starting in geological engineering and spending a few yearsin offshore marine geology and engineering, and eventual-ly falling under the spell of the underground while at theUniversity of California at Berkeley. My attraction to work-ing in tunneling comes from the fact that no two tunnels areever the same and that Mother Nature likes to put new cir-cumstances to test your wits and geologic understandingalong. The fact that new methods are evolving all the timemakes it all the more challenging.

Time spent working on Capitol Hill as a CongressionalFellow and working on the planning side of major trans-portation projects has given me a broader view of what isneeded to get a big project past the planning stages —which is an area where I think UCA and our members canplay an important role.

How do you view the role of an industry association?How does it benefit its members? How does it benefit theindustry at large? An industry association and more importantly, its mem-bers, represent the body of knowledge for the under-ground. UCA and SME provide the convenient vehicle tomanage and disseminate necessary information, importantpractices and risk management specific to undergroundprojects. The industry association also provides the meansto promote our expertise to the existing and prospectiveowners, as well as provide internal networking.

What are the most important issues facing the industry today? What role does the association play in addressing those issues?Perhaps the biggest challenge we are facing now is a short-age of qualified people. As a result, education and trainingare programs need to be a top priority of the association.We must attract young minds and talent to our industry atan early age, given the current and growing demand forunderground projects. Just looking at demands in waterand sewage projects alone, we are approaching a crisis dueto lack of experienced and trained construction workers.On the front end, there are too few universities with a prop-er curriculum for design and construction professionals.

We are planning to take a hard look at what we can do inthe short term and longer term to provide training andeducation through the SME, to collaborate with universi-ties in hopes that they are willing to work with us and todraw on our membership to serve as instructors and visiting professors.

For the longer term, we need to reach deep into theyounger generations, K-12, to demonstrate the careeropportunities as well as the beneficial consequences to soci-ety of underground space development, and in the simplestof terms advertise that this is a fascinating career.

We also need to keep the existing workforce apprised oflatest developments in materials, methods, machinery,guidance systems, power, advances in remote operationsand improved safety — whether we are building bigger orgoing small. We need to show the young prospective talentthe excitement in what we do every day as a matterof course.

How can the association work with owners in planningand building successful underground structures?We must convince public owners the balance of payments,and the benefits of going underground provide a viablesolution that does not have to be feared. I would like ourmembers to represent the consensus of the industry andpresent a united voice on big picture issues as we have overthe years through our various guideline documents, standson International Risk Code, contracting practices, GBRsand the like. We can do a lot to impart our confidence in ourachievements under the umbrella of the UCA to that ofpotential owners so they can have confidence in the longterm returns for underground development and adjust


their thinking during the early evaluation period tocompare the benefits of underground development.Currently, it seems that owners and public agenciestake much of their information from news articles. Iwould like UCA to be the source on anything to do withthe underground.

We need to convince public owners that a tunnel hasdifferent risks but not necessarily more risk than sur-face and elevated projects through urban and suburbanenvirons. And we need to communicate lessons learnedand experience gained with the advances in new tech-nology that has made construction underground a safer,less risky business than is portrayed in the press andpublic media through the celebration of our successfulworldwide underground projects that go unnoticed.

Do you have any “pet projects” that you would like tocomplete in your term? I am focusing on creating our image, setting up strate-gic goals and increasing the level and number of wayswe communicate with our members.

At RETC, I was approached by a large number of peo-ple who have offered ideas and expressed their desire tobe involved. I hope to take advantage of this enthusiasmand draw the members into working technical commit-tees. If someone has as an idea, I promise to give it air-time with the board. In the very near term we plan torebuild the image and reputation throughout our indus-try and to improve the levels of par-ticipation of our individual and corpo-rate membership.

As mentioned, we need to developeducation and training, but I thinkwe also need to promote the under-ground industry successes and buildUCA’s reputation as the repository ofinformation related to tunneling andunderground planning, risk manage-ment, design, construction method-ologies, cost estimating and schedul-ing, as well as case histories. Oneway to achieve this is to establish areference of standard practices forall phases of underground spacedevelopment from planning anddesign through to construction.

How do you see the relationshipbetween the association with its corein civil construction and SME, whichhas historically been a mininggroup? What challenges and oppor-tunities does this present?I see few challenges now that we areto be a division with our own logo,vision and mission. There is muchoverlap and I think that the civilunderground industry helps toexpand the horizons of the mining

business just as we benefit from the stability and infra-structure and expansive size of the mining industry. TheSME organization and the staff are professionals withexperience in managing industry groups of similarinterests. We want to make sure the old members andnew members will understand the benefits of workingwithin the SME organization where we have the flexibil-ity to address our interest and leverage where we over-lap with the parent organizations. It is a win-win for all.

What techniques or practices are used elsewherethat can or should be applied to the U.S. market?What can other areas learn from us? How can UCAplay a role in this?There is much to be gained by the exchange of ideas,practices and methods among the various countriesworldwide, but there are obstacles to an adoption oradaptation of practices and methods because of culturaldifferences affecting the planning and early decision togo underground — differences in business practices,including standard contractual and legal relationshipsamong the owners, engineers and contractors.

Technological advances and the use of excavationmethods, materials and equipment may be the easiest to“borrow,” but even those have obstacles if the ownersperceive a risk to be too high. A role the UCA can playis to provide expertise and objective evaluation of any ofthe new or old methods for a project.



King County’s Wastewater Treatment Division servesaround 1.4 million people in Washington’s central PugetSound region. Without an upgrade, the existing waste-water conveyance and treatment system likely wouldhave reached capacity by 2010. This could have stifledregional growth by potentially affecting a state-imposedmoratorium on new construction.

As a result, King County planned the newBrightwater Wastewater Treatment System to providethe increased capacity and infrastructure needed tosupport anticipated growth. The new system also willbring important environmental benefits, such as con-trolling untreated overflows into lakes and bays andrecycling sewage into irrigation water.

The System in BriefWhen completed in 2010, Brightwater will connect

about 335 miles of existing sewage pipes to a new 36 mil-lion-gallons-per-day treatment plant. From the plant,treated wastewater will flow to a new outfall in PugetSound. The project includes approximately 13 miles ofnew bored soft-ground tunnels, which will lie 40 to 440 ftunderground in north King and south Snohomish coun-ties. Nearly all tunnel construction will employ 14- to 19.5-ft-diameter tunnel boring machines (TBMs), launchedand retrieved via deep shafts in glacial tills well below thewater table. The entire tunnel length is separated intofour tunnel drives — Brightwater Tunnel (BT) -1, -2, -3,and -4 — and packaged into three distinct tunnel con-

Tunnel Business Magazine30 August 2007Tunnel Business Magazine August 2007

Brightwater: Buildinga Watertight Design

By Jeremy Johnson and Joe Clare

Photo by: Sue Bednarz, Jacobs Associates

tracts: the East (BT-1), Central (BT-2 and -3) and West(BT-4). The total Brightwater Conveyance Tunnel Systemcarries a projected cost of $435 million.

Design History Throughout a four-year involvement with Brightwater,

Jacobs Associates has encountered some unique designchallenges, especially in managing groundwater. JacobsAssociates began preliminary design in 2002 as a sub toHDR and then performed final design, completed in 2006,in joint venture with MWH. The MWH-Jacobs Associatesjoint venture (JV) now lends engineering support to facili-tate a smooth and successful construction process.

Unique Shaft Designs, East ContractThe East Contract features two large shafts: one for

tunnel excavation, called the Influent Structure (IS) shaft;and one to house a new pump station, called the InfluentPump Station (IPS) shaft. High groundwater and com-pressible soils at the site prohibited dewatering duringshaft construction, thus requiring underwater techniques.In order to facilitate this construction requirement, andbecause of the size and depths of the two shafts, MWH-Jacobs Associates designed both shafts utilizing relativelywatertight concrete diaphragm wall technology.

Designed to resist hydrostatic uplift forces applied by 87to 98 ft of groundwater, heavily reinforced tremie-placedconcrete slabs form the inverts of both shafts. The con-tractor began construction of both shafts in summer 2006,with the IS shaft completed in spring 2007, and the IPS

shaft scheduled for completion in fall 2007.The IS shaft has a circular shape with an inside diame-

ter of 80 ft, and a finished depth of 74 ft. Five tunnels con-nect to the shaft. Four tunnels start their drives from theIS shaft: the nearly 19.5-ft-excavated-diameter BT-1, a 92-in.-diameter microtunnel, and two approximately 14-ft-diameter hand-mined tunnels that connect the two shaftson site.

Finally, the approximately 17-ft-diameter BT-2 tunnelwill end its drive in the shaft. A 3-ft-thick reinforcedconcrete final lining enables the IS shaft to complete its

permanent service as a surge chamber during periods ofheavy flow.

The IPS shaft will house a new wastewater pump station. King County required a rectangular footprint forthe pump station, which created challenges for design ofthe shaft itself. MWH-Jacobs Associates evaluated sever-al shaft footprints, including rectangular and circular.However, underwater construction prevented the use oftemporary internal bracing required within a rectangularshaft, and site space constraints eliminated the use of alarge, unbraced circular shaft. MWH-Jacobs Associatesovercame this challenge by designing a twin circular-cellshaft. Each of the intersecting cells measures 83 ft in diam-eter, with a temporary 60-ft-long diaphragm wall spanningthe two intersecting points. As the shaft is excavated, thetemporary wall is demolished and replaced by three largereinforced concrete struts, creating an open floor plan forthe pump station. As with the IS shaft, a 3-ft-thick rein-forced concrete final lining will finish the IPS shaft.



Groundwater Pressure, Central Tunnel Contract

The Central Tunnel Contract also features a large TBMlaunch shaft, labeled the North Kenmore Portal

(NKP) shaft, from which two large tunnels, BT-2 and BT-3, will be mined concurrently. Additionally, one microtunnelwill terminate its drive at the shaft. The NKP shaft mea-sures approximately 100 ft deep and 52 ft in finished diam-eter. High groundwater conditions at the site, and therequirement to provide a watertight permanent structure,again dictated the use of concrete diaphragm wall technol-ogy for excavation support, and a reinforced concrete slabfor the invert.

As with the East Contract, shaft excavation and invertplacement was originally envisioned to occur underwater.However, additional groundwater pump tests and soil sam-pling during the design phase indicated that excavation inthe dry could be accomplished. Groundwater conditionsconsisted of a perched shallow aquifer and a deep pressur-ized aquifer near the shaft bottom. The geology consisted ofpermeable shallow sediments underlain by low permeableglacially consolidated deposits. Depressurization of thedeep aquifer would allow a dry excavation with minimumdrawdown of the shallow aquifer, which could have impact-ed a nearby wetland. A 12-ft-thick invert slab and 3-ft-thickreinforced concrete final lining will complete the shaft.Shaft construction began in January 2007, with the final lin-ing scheduled to conclude after completion of the two tunneldrives in early 2010.


Photo by: Sue Bednarz, Jacobs Associates

Due to the complexity and scope of theBrightwater Conveyance System, King County pack-aged the project into multiple construction contracts.

Name — Construction cost (U.S.) — Contractor —Anticipated completion date — Description (mea-surements approximate)

East Contract — $131 million– Kenny Shea TraylorJoint Venture (JV) — Late 2009 — One 14,400-ft-long(4.4 km), 16.6-ft-interior-diameter (ID) (5 m) tunneldrive; one 2,400-ft-long (731.5 m) microtunnel; twolarge shafts, one 80-ft (24.4 m) and another 82-ft–ID(24.9 m)

Central Contract — $210 million — Vinci GrandProjets/Parsons/Frontier-Kemper JV – Late 2010 —Two 14.8-ft-ID (4.5 m) tunnels, one 20,100 ft (6.1 km)and another 11,600 ft (3.5 km) in length; 1,600-ft-long(487.6 m) microtunnel; and two shafts, one 100 ft(30.5 m) and another 200 ft (61 m) in depth

West Contract — $102 — Jay Dee/FrankColuccio/Taisei JV — Early 2011 — One 21,000-ft long(6.4 km), 13-ft-minimum-ID (4 m) tunnel; 540-ft-long(164.6 m), 60-in.-ID (1.5 m) microtunnel; one 50-ft-deep (15.2 m) shaft; sampling facility

Conveyance System Construction Contracts

The 11,600-ft-long BT-2 tunneldrive will hole through at the IS shaft, constructed by the EastTunnel contractor, a Kenny/Shea/Traylor JV. The nearly 20,100-ft-longBT-3 drive will hole through at theBallinger Way Portal, constructedunder the Central Contract. (TheWest Tunnel contractor, JayDee/Frank Coluccio/Taisei JV, willalso retrieve the BT-4 TBM at theBallinger Way Portal.) The CentralTunnel contractor, Vinci GrandProjets/Parsons/Frontier-KemperJV, designed the Ballinger WayPortal, 200 ft in depth and approxi-mately 24 ft in diameter. Due to thedepth and complex geologic andhydrogeologic conditions, theMWH-Jacobs Associates designrequired that the contractor designconsist only of slurry diaphragmwall or groundfreezing. The VinciGrand Projets/Parsons/Frontier-Kemper JV selected groundfreezingfor excavation support, with con-struction scheduled for mid-2007.

Groundwater pressures compli-cate the two approximately 17-ft-diameter tunnel drives on theCentral Contract. Due to localtopography and hydraulic con-straints, portions of the BT-3 mustlie more than 400 ft undergroundand face up to 7.3 bars of groundwa-ter pressure. Due to the high exter-nal groundwater pressures, approxi-mately 4,200 ft of the BT-3 tunnelwill have a 126-in. secondary steelliner. The BT-2 tunnel drive willreach depths of nearly 350 ft. Forproject efficiency, the tunnel willconsist of a combined tunnel housingpipelines for influent, effluent,reclaimed water and influent stor-age. The contractor selected fiberreinforcement (rather than conven-tional steel reinforcement) for thesegmental lining.

Due to the high groundwaterpressures MWH-Jacobs Associatesspecified that tunnel mining useslurry shield technology, a first inthe United States on a competitivelybid contract. The contractor selectedHerrenknecht to supply two slurryshield TBMs: one refurbished forBT-2, and one new for BT-3. Therefurbished TBM recently complet-

ed work south of Seattle on the WestSide CSO project in Portland, Ore.TBM refurbishment is being com-pleted locally by Herrenknecht, andthe new slurry TBM is being manu-factured in Germany. Since both dri-ves will launch from the single shaftand be driven concurrently, a largeon-site segment storage area will berequired. The segments for all threecontracts are being manufacturedby CSI Hanson in Tacoma, Wash.Tunneling will begin in late summer2007.

Site Access, WestContract

The West Contract includes oneapproximately 21,000-ft-long, app-roximately 13-ft-diameter tunneldrive (BT-4) to launch from a site onthe Puget Sound shore. King Countymade a commitment to use alterna-tive methods (rail or barge) to trans-port tunnel spoils rather than usingtrucks through the residentialneighborhood. Vehicular trafficaccessing the site must cross therailroad tracks on an existing pri-vately owned timber trestle, whichwas in need of some maintenance. Toimprove site access, MWH-JacobsAssociates developed a plan torepair the bridge and an existing on-site dock. The modified dock willallow a barge to haul out tunnelspoils, and the improved bridge willserve trucks delivering incomingmaterials, including segments. Dueto its weight, the tunnel boringmachine will travel to the site by rail,barge, truck or a combination of thethree, so long as none of the individ-ual pieces exceed the dock or bridgeload capacities. Site preparationactivities began in February 2007.

Once completed, Brightwater willachieve a major improvement in theregional sewerage treatment systemof the greater Seattle and PugetSound region.

Jeremy Johnson, PE, serves as the lead forengineering support during construction ofthe Brightwater Conveyance System EastContract. Joe Clare, PE, serves as the leadfor engineering support during constructionof the Brightwater Conveyance SystemCentral Contract.



The Arrowhead East and Arrowhead West tunnels arecurrently under excavation using two hybrid hard rockTBMs from Herrenknecht. The fully shielded machinesare 5.8 m (19.3 ft) in diameter and bolted, gasketed concretesegments are erected in the rear of the shield. The TBMtype was termed hybrid because the original design includ-ed handling of soft rock with less than 2 MPa (285 psi) incompressive strength to hard rock with more than 310 MPa(44,300 psi) in compressive strength.

Another special feature of these machines is the capabil-ity of multi-location drilling ahead of the tunnel face forprobing and pre-excavation grouting. The original patternincluded 11 grout holes mounted at 8 degrees and 15 groutholes at 1.5 degrees to the tunnel axis. Additional drillingpositions were added to improve the grouting efficiency,comprising 19 holes at 4 degrees to be drilled through theforward bulkhead and the cutterhead. Drain holes at 20degrees may also be drilled as needed.

The 13-km (8-mile) tunneling project is well under waywith more than 75 percent of the length now (August 2007)excavated. The tunnels lie near the base of the SanBernardino Mountains, which are crossed by several sig-nificant faults. The distance to the well known San AndreasFault is just 1 km (0.6 mile) and especially the East Tunnelfrom the Strawberry Creek portal has crossed someextremely poor ground. Static groundwater head of up to20 bar (300 psi) has been experienced already and whencombined with soil-like weathered rock the overall miningconditions become adverse.

An essential key construction requirement was to pro-tect the groundwater resources during tunnel construction.The U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit limited thegroundwater inflow into the tunnel heading of the EastTunnel to no more than 33 l/sec (520 gpm) and this limit hasnot represented a problem under “normal” ground condi-tions. However, to keep the groundwater ingress below theallowed limit has become only part of the problem whentunneling is hitting adverse conditions with flowing groundat high pressure. This article focuses on a recent experienceof adverse conditions and how this section was successfullypre-treated and mined through.

Problem DescriptionUnder most hard rock conditions, you would not expect

it to be difficult to satisfy the water ingress limit given bythe U.S. Forest Service by just using Portland cement andperhaps microfine cement. This would apply even if sec-tions of the tunnel showed heavily broken ground. In theArrowhead East tunnel, the extensive use of ultrafinecement has faced serious problems in achieving the neces-sary penetration and distribution to allow proper blockageof groundwater flow. The ground has showed a sort ofunpredictable behavior in that bore holes sometimes takecement grout and other times close to nothing and this mayhappen regardless of initial water yield from just a few gpmto more than 200 gpm. It is furthermore typical that whena bore hole takes several thousand pounds of cement,drilling new holes close by it may still hit water as if nogrouting had been done.

The primary reason for the described ground responseto grouting is a variable degree of in-situ weathering anddecomposition of the granitic bedrock. The direct proof ofthis process is all the silt-like fine material that gets washedinto the tunnel when boreholes hit groundwater. In seriouscases, a water and sand/silt jet will blow-out of the hole at200 to 300 psi pressure. The TBM plenum has been filled-up with sand/silt in a matter of minutes (several cubicmeters) until a packer could be placed to block the flow.

When injecting a cement grout under such conditions,the front of grout material will pick up the fines (silt/sand)as it spreads into cracks and joints and a filter is createdthat causes blockage. Experiments with high water tocement ratio and also going the other way to stable groutand high pressure have not really made any difference.

The problem of groundwater ingress control turned intoa problem of stabilizing and controlling flowing ground. Insome locations the granitic rock matrix was so weakenedand porous that the high hydraulic gradient caused bydrilling a borehole resulted in local hydraulic collapse. Therock material turned into sand and blew out of the hole asif from a fire hose. If insufficiently grouted, subsequentmining into the area would lead to face or periphery col-lapse and stop the excavation for weeks.


By Knut F. Garshol

Using Colloidal Silicafor Ground Stabilization &

Groundwater Control

Colloidal Silica Mineral GroutColloidal silica is a water suspension of nanometric size silica particles.

The water dispersion contains discrete, non-aggregated spherical particles of 100 percent amorphous silicon dioxide in a 30 percent solidssuspension. To give an idea about the particle size, remember that silicafume particles are like cigarette smoke as compared in Table 1 below. Seealso Figure 1 and 2 below.

Comparison of particle size for silica products is as follows:

Product Particle size (µm) Spec.surface (m2/g)

Colloidal silica 0.016 80 - 900Silica fume 0.2 15 - 25Precipitated silica 5 10 - 15Crystalline silica 15 0.4(mesh 200)

The colloidal silica suspension (component A) is mixed with table saltdissolved in water used as accelerator (component B) and depending ondosage and temperature gel times from a few seconds to more than 2 hours may be achieved. Figure 3 shows the typical relationshipbetween accelerator dosage and gel time.

The most important technical data are as follows (at 20 C):

Property Component A Component B Mixed product

Color Clear Clear ClearViscosity mPas 10 1 5Density g/ml 1.2 1.07 1.15pH 9.5 - 10.5 7 9.8

As can be seen from the technical data, the product has a very low viscosity and it is well suited for all situations where penetration into finecracks, joints and pores is necessary and difficult to achieve with particulate grouts.

The gelling behavior of colloidal silica is very favorable since low viscosity is maintained until the preset gel time, when the viscosity increases rapidly. This is well demonstrated in the measurements presented in Figure 4.

The strength of the gel is very good and there is no syneresis or shrinkage. This creates very good water tightness and the groundstrengthening effect is also noticeable in loose soils, running sand and invery broken rock. Compared to traditional chemical silica grouts, the chemical stability is very much improved and the product can be considered a permanent sealant. The strength development has been measured to develop for more than three years and there is no reason toexpect this to stop or reverse.

The gel itself will have a compressive strength of 0.1 MPa (15 psi) whileinjected silty sand will reach 1.0 MPa (150 psi) after injection. If a sufficient volume of ground has been injected, this strength is sufficient tostabilize the ground and seal against water flow.

Advantages of colloidal silica are:• Low materials cost for both components. Long shelf life

• No toxic, aggressive or hazardous substances in either component

• Extremely simple handling, preparation, practical use and cleaning and disposal


Figure 1: Injection products particle size

Figure 2: Injection products particle size

Figure 3: Gel time at 8 C vs. dosage of accelerator (component B)

Figure 4: Viscosity development of MP320T

• Easily adjustable gel time within a wide range (10seconds to 150 minutes)

• Very low viscosity (5 mPas) until gelling, behaveslike a true liquid

• Zero syneresis and excellent chemical stability anddurability

Arrowhead East Ring 3292 February — March 2007

At this location, probe holes at depth beyond about 60 fthit large water inflows of 100 to 220 gpm at back pressuresof 230 to 275 psi, with flowing sand coming out of the probeholes. An extensive pre-excavation grouting operation hadto be executed to allow face advance.

In total, 17 holes were drilled (and re-drilled) to 150ft and initially injected with 358,979 lbs of cement. Amajor part of this was used to replace the flowingground lost into the TBM. To finally create the neces-sary grout permeation to stabilize and seal around thetunnel periphery a total of 19,125 gal of colloidal silicawas injected. The whole operation took 22 days andallowed advance of the face by 30 ft to Ring 3298 (eachprecast ring builds 5 ft along the tunnel).

At Ring 3298, another set of six boreholes were drilled140 ft ahead and the maximum inflow was now down to 20 gpm, but the maximum back pressure was still 200 psi.This time the cement take was just 5,746 lbs while the colloidal silica went up to 24,759 gal. Sufficient ground and water control was achieved after 6 days and the facewas advanced another 30 ft to Ring 3304. The last 30 ft were excavated through an area of double grout curtain coverage.

The new face at Ring 3304 was just at the start of theoriginal probe hole intersection of the adverse ground.Still, the 14 holes drilled 140 ft ahead only found a maximum flow of 38 gpm and the maximum back pressuredropped further to 160 psi. This time, 26,051 lbs of cementwere grouted and rounded off with 14,663 gal of colloidalsilica. This step took another five and a half days beforeface advance of 40 ft could be executed through an areawith triple grout curtain coverage.

At Ring 3312 another eight holes 140 ft long were drilled,yielding a maximum of 32 gpm of water at maximum backpressure of 120 psi. Grouting of 2,735 lbs of cement and 11,255gallons of colloidal silica brought the stop to 4 days, allowing anext mining ahead of 50 ft. Most of this new section of exca-vation took place behind 4 times grout curtain coverage.

At Ring 3322, drilling ahead 140 ft with 11 holes gaveabout the same conditions as Ring 3312 and the cementtake was 4,777 lbs and colloidal silica 12,565 gal. This operation was done in three days and mining went aheadanother 50 ft to Ring 3332 and at this time, the worst partwas now completed.

ConclusionThe Arrowhead East Tunnel has past some extremely

variable ground and the worst section as described aboveis probably the most difficult any machine like this hasmined through. The “cuttings” coming out on the con-veyor belt during mining looked like sand. The ability tocross such adverse conditions must be attributed to acombination of several important factors including:

• A highly competent contractor and dedicated tunnelingstaff working in close cooperation with involved consultants to develop a technical solution

• A custom designed TBM that first of all allows thedrilling of a sufficient number of bore holes to adequately cover the tunnel periphery with positionsfor probing and pre-excavation grouting

• The colloidal silica that has allowed permeation into thepart of unstable flowing ground where ultrafine cementcould not penetrate adequately, thus completing thegrouting coverage and preventing local blow-outs

We cannot know how the described “extreme” zonewould have been crossed without the supplement of col-loidal silica. The real point is in any case that colloidalsilica turned-out to be an important element in the solu-tion and that it helped speed-up the tunnel advance andproduce a good result.

Knut F Garshol is with BASF Construction Chemicals.


Photo courtesy of Shea-Kenny


Business Cards





Tunnel Business Magazine Webinars turnprospects into qualified leads, giving yoursales team the information they need toclose more sales.

Brand your company as an expert andleader with a one-hour seminar broadcastlive on the Web. Participants will have real-time interaction with speakers/moderators throughout the event.

Educate. Market. Brand. Launch a New Product. Create Interest. Sponsors use Tunnel BusinessMagazine Webinars for all of these reasons but the #1 reason is to generate qualified leads.

Call or e-mail today for more information and to schedule your Webinar.Kelly Dadich [email protected] or

Greg Thompson [email protected]: 330-467-7588

Capture Qualified Leads on the Net with the NewWebinar Program from Tunnel Business Magazine



Products

Mobile DrillsDrillers' Choice Inc. introduces to the U.S. quarry, con-

struction and tunneling markets the latest in mobile drills.Manufactured by Perfora S.r.l., the Rockbuggy is ideal fordrilling oversized material in quarries, or at construction pro-jects where high production is a necessity and working spaceis at a premium.

The Rockbuggy can maneuver around any jobsite as it isequipped with the Cummins 3.3 diesel engine that produces 85 hp at 2,600 rpm;a Sauer Danfosshydrostatic trans-mission; 4 x 4 inde-pendent hydraulicdrive and threesteering modes.

Productivity ismaximized with theAtlas Copco modelROC 1132 hydraulicdrill. This drifter produces 15 hp of output power and canpunch a 2.5-in. hole into granite at a rate of three feet perminute. From one setup position the Rockbuggy has a drillingcoverage area of 175 sq ft as the boom offers 17 ft of horizon-tal reach and 26 ft of vertical reach. Equipped with the option-al 360-degree rollover feature, the Rockbuggy can drill out a20-ft by 20-ft heading while at the same time has the capacityto drill for rock bolt installation.

Other features of the Rockbuggy include an onboard dustcollector, remote control operation of all drilling and tramming functions, and a 106 cfm air compressor.

For more information contact Drillers' Choice Inc. at 1-866 GO DRILL (663-7455) or e-mail [email protected].

Traffic Barrier SystemThe Softstop Barrier System™ is a radical new safety warn-

ing system that solves the problem of drivers (entering tun-nels) ignoring conventional signals to stop. In an emergency

situation theS o f t s t o pB a r r i e rSystem™ cre-ates an impact-ful STOP mes-sage that rapid-ly appearsacross trafficlanes of anygiven tunnel.

Softstops primary objectives include the prevention of vehicles entering a dangerous environment & infrastructureprotection.

The product has recently been installed in the SydneyHarbor Tunnel. Since opening, the tunnel has endured over10,500 traffic incidents ranging from accidents, breakdowns,fire and the odd beachgoer running out of fuel. Delays and clo-sures prove very costly for the Sydney community as the tun-

nel is a key access route for the city’s business district andeastern suburbs.

General Manager of Sydney Harbor Tunnel, Mr. Bob Allenstated “ as a tunnel operator I need to be able to stop vehiclesentering into the tunnel” ... “ we realized that traditional sig-nage wasn’t enough after the reality check of a fire incidentand the impact of several high trucks.”

Extreme examples of tunnel disasters include Mont Blanc(France) which claimed 39 lives and burnt for 52 hours. A yearlater 12 people perished in the Tauern tunnel (Austria) andKaprun (Switzerland) which claimed 155 lives, leaving only 12survivors. When a fire breaks out in a tunnel, vehicle occu-pants are not spectators to an accident, they are potential par-ticipants in a disaster. Web: www.laservision.com.au

Fiberglass PipeHOBAS pipe can be found in the infrastructures of most

U.S. municipalities. The centrifugally cast, fiberglass-rein-forced, polymer mortar pipe is ideal in new construction andrehab for critical applications, and its use is growing fasterthan ever. It is inherently corrosion resistant with a lifeexpectancy of 100 years or more that provides very low life-cycle cost. Contractors pre-fer its leak-free, push-togetherjoints that reduce installationtime and costs. Key applicationsare sanitary sewers, potablewater and corrosive environ-ments. It is ideal for open cut,above ground, direct bury andnearly every trenchless applica-tion including microtunneling/jacking and tunnel lining in addi-tion to sliplining. Pipe diametersrange from 18 to 110 inches forboth pressure and gravity appli-cations. Web: www.hobas.com.

Down-the-Hole HammersRockmore International introduces the newest generation

ROK hammer — a new and improved design of DTH (down-the-hole) hammers using SonicFlow Technology. Engineers atRockmore have invested substantial time developing and test-ing this new technology, which strongly increases airflow efficiency within the ROK hammer and ensures that the

high pressure airpaths are opti-mized to deliverthe greatestamount of ener-gy to the piston.Rockmore hasalso reduced thenumber of com-

ponents used in the design of the ROK hammer itself, whilestill producing greater impact energy to the bit, higher pene-tration rates, and an overall better hammer performance.Web: www.rockmore-intl.com.


October 200711-13 32nd Annual Conference on Deep Foundations,

Washington, D.C., Deep Foundations InstitutePh: (973) 423-4030; Fax: (973) 423-4031

16-19 ICUEE 2007, Louisville, Ky, Ph: (800) 867-6060; Fax: (414) 272-2672; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.icuee.com

25 Passive Fire Protection of Underground Concrete Structures,New York City Ph: (800) 763-3132; Fax: (303) 973-3845; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.smenet.org

November 200727-29 STUVA Conference ‘07, Cologne, Germany,

Ph: +49 (0)2 21 59 79 50; Fax: +49 (0)2 21 5 97 95-50E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.stuva.de

27-29 INTERtunnel 2007, Moscow, Russia, Ph: +44 (0) 1273 300 434; Fax: +44 (0) 1273 300 986E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.intertunnelrussia.com

16-19 ICUEE 2007, Louisville, Ky, Ph: (800) 867-6060; Fax: (414) 272-2672; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.icuee.com

25 Passive Fire Protection of Underground Concrete Structures, New York City Ph: (800) 763-3132; Fax: (303) 973-3845; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.smenet.org

March 200811-15 CONEXPO-CON/AGG, Las Vegas,

Ph: (800) 867-6060; Web: www.conexpoconagg.com

June 20087-11 2008 North American Tunneling, San Francisco

Ph: (800) 763-3132; Fax: (303) 973-3845;E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.smenet.org

September 200822-27 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress 2008,

Delhi, India, ITA, Ph: +91-11-2615984/26116567; Fax: +91-11-26116347E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.wtc2008.org

May 200923-28 World Tunnel Congress & 35th ITA General Assembly

“Safe tunnelling for the City and Environment,”Budapest, HungaryPh: +36 1 214 7701; Fax: +36 1 201 2680; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.wtc2009.org

June 200914-17 2009 RETC, Las Vegas

Ph: (800) 763-3132; Fax: (303) 973-3845; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.retc.org

Ad Index

Advertiser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page . . .RS #

Alpine Sales & Equipment Corp. . . . . . . .21 . . . . . .8

ALWAG Tunnelausbau Gesellschaft m.b.H. 19 . . . . . .7

Benjamin Media Webinars . . . . . . . . . . .38 . . . . .12

Brierley Associates LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . .5

Cellular Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 . . . . . .6

Hayward Baker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 . . . . .11

Herrenknecht Tunnelling Systems USA Inc. .2 . . . . . .1

Howden Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 . . . . . .3

Icon Equipment Distributors, Inc. . . . . . . .9 . . . . . .4

Jacobs Associates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 . . . . .12

Jordan, Jones & Goulding . . . . . . . . . . . .44 . . . . .14

Advertiser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page . . .RS #

Moretrench American Corporation . . . . . .29 . . . . .10

No-Dig 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 . . . . .18

No-Dig Sewers Without a Trench . . . . . . .38 . . . . .50

Robbins Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 . . . . . .2

Sekisui SPR Americas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 . . . . .51

Shaft Drillers International . . . . . . . . . . .38 . . . . .52

Shimahara Illustration . . . . . . . . . . .26, 38 . . .9, 53

Stein Books Ad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 . . . . .15

TRS Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 . . . . .16

TRS New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 . . . . .17

Wholesale Mine Supply, LLC . . . . . . . . . .43 . . . . .13

Events Calendar


David Egger makes several validpoints in “Industry Growing Pains —But What Is the Medicine?” from theApril 2007 issue of Tunnel BusinessMagazine. I especially like the idea of aformal certification program for tunnelengineering. This could be sponsored bythe Underground ConstructionAssociation of the Society for Mining,Metallurgy and Exploration (UCA ofSME), and could extend to include onefor trenchless technology and one for“big tunnel” engineering. A separatecertification for design and constructionis a good way to encourage specializa-tion and it allows for sufficient time inthe training and certification courses tomake it a worthwhile effort that is mean-ingful to our clients.

Despite agreeing with the need forprofessional standards in the tunnelingindustry, I do support using theInternational Tunnelling InsuranceGroup’s (ITIG’s) proposed Code ofPractice for Risk Management ofTunnel Projects on U.S. tunneling pro-jects. Although there are many good ele-ments of this “code,” and we have someprojects where the owner’s insurancecarriers require that we demonstratecompliance with the code, I do notbelieve that it is a model that we shouldadopt on a systematic basis in theUnited States.

The Code of Practice was developedprimarily to benefit the insurers, anddespite being called a “code,” it does notsatisfy the need for a standard of bestpractices for underground construction,which are far more important and criti-cal for a successful project delivery thana code of prescriptive practices. Theright way to document best practices isfor the industry, perhaps through thesponsorship of the UCA of SME, to pre-pare a set of “best practices” that wouldaddress the interests of owners, engi-neers, contractors, insurers and thirdparties. The insurers could then refer-ence that document if they so choose.

In addition to this big-picture argu-ment against adopting the Code ofPractice, I have several argumentsagainst its use:• The ITIG document is written so

one-sidedly on behalf of insurersthat despite providing all partieswith a better understanding of the

risks, it does not address two of themore important objectives of riskmanagement: 1) reducing the proba-bility of a loss happening, and 2)reducing the size of a loss when itdoes happen.

• A great number of the undergroundprojects have contractor-furnishedinsurance, and many of the stagesdiscussed in the ITIG documenthappen before the contractor’sinsurer ever gets to see the job. Forinstance, the evaluation of projectoptions is done long before the finaldesign is complete, and this evalua-tion should have little, if anything, todo with the risk managementprocess for the selected option. Thisapproach may be appropriate forthe way that project delivery is donein other countries, but not in theUnited States.

• The recommended threshold of $2million (U.S.) is way too low, particu-larly with requirements such as sen-sitivity tests. The effort levelrequired to comply with the codewould suggest that a threshold of$100 million would be more practical.

• Although the ITIG document doesnot recommend it, for some risks,insurance is reasonable as a contin-gency/mitigation measure. Somerisks are best allocated to insurers.

• Cascading risk registers are usefulfor monitoring the design as it pro-gresses through various stages.However, the inclusion of designlevel risk registers in the biddingdocuments for a contract let usingthe design-bid-build deliverymethod could seriously affect therisk allocation set forth in the con-tract documents. To the best of myknowledge the concept of cascadingrisk registers has not been done forDBB projects in the United States,and its impact is unknown.

• The ITIG document implies thataddenda could be eliminated simplyif more time were available forpreparing contract documentation,but it’s not usually a matter of time.Many addenda result from responseto valid bidder questions in anattempt to facilitate understandingthe requirements of the project.

• Despite a lot ofdiscussion injournals like Tunnel BusinessMagazine, contractor prequalifica-tion is not standard in this country,and many owners preclude itbecause of statutory reasons.

• Application of this code would cre-ate work for another consultant,simply to verify that the insurer’scode requirements have been met.This additional level would providevirtually no value to the project, andonly generate billable time foranother group of checkers.

There are a host of other issues relatedto how some of these provisions would beinterpreted/applied/enforced in theUnited States. Some examples are: 1)The inclusion of pre-bid risk assessmentsrelated to health and safety, which is thecontractor’s responsibility; and 2) assess-ing methods statements as part of thetender evaluation. Such a process is like-ly to increase the risk of bid protest.Although this may not concern insurers,it is of paramount concern to the owners.It is unrealistic to think we could includesuch subjective criteria in all of our pub-lic bid evaluations.

Nonetheless there are many featuresof the ITIG code that are useful andshould be adopted on all projects. Theseinclude evaluating alternatives, estab-lishing risk registers, site/ground investi-gation and testing standards, requiringGBRs, information transfer betweendesigners at each project phase and qual-ity control during design.

But there are many other “best prac-tices” that are not included in the ITIGcode: the proper use of cost estimatesand contingencies and scheduling projec-tions during planning and design, who isbest suited to do quality control duringconstruction, and using other risk alloca-tion provisions such as differing site con-dition and escalation clauses.

Rather than using our resources toadopt this code to our needs, we shouldpursue the development and documenta-tion of best practices that address theneeds of all parties involved in under-ground construction equitably and fairly.

Bill Edgerton is a principal and the presidentof Jacobs Associates, San Francisco.

My TurnMoving Toward a Standard of Best Practices

By Bill Edgerton

Reader Service Number 1 - Tunnel Business Magazine(Colorado School of Mines). Reader Service Number...

Documents

Transcript of Reader Service Number 1 - Tunnel Business Magazine(Colorado School of Mines). Reader Service Number...