Reader Service Number 1 - · PDF fileMarketing Manager Ryan Sneltzer Regional Sales Manager Alexis R. Tarbet Circulation Manager Mark Gorman Web & Interactive Manager Chairman Gary

Reader Service Number 1

CONTENTSCONTENTSAugust 2008

TBM: Tunnel Business Magazine (ISSN 1553-2917) is published six times per year. Copyright 2008, Benjamin Media Inc., P.O. Box 190, Peninsula, OH 44264. USA All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or trans-mitted by any means without written permission from the publisher. One year subscription rates: complimentary in the United States and Canada, and $69 in other foreign countries. Single copy rate: $10. Subscriptions and classified adver-tising should be addressed to the Peninsula office. Postmaster return form 1579 to TBM: Tunnel Business Magazine, P.O. Box 190, Peninsula, OH 44264.USA

ColumnsEditor’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

My Turn: Robert J.F. Goodfellow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

My Turn: Jack Burke. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

DepartmentsBusiness Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Global. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Upcoming Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

30

16

Cover Story TBM Roundtable: Design-Build 16Will one of the oldest construction models build tomorrow’s tunnels?

FeaturesTake a Good Long Look 24Geotechnical investigation and its place in tunneling.

By Greg Thompson

The Misunderstood Leakmaster 27Reducing infiltration with polyurethane chemical grout.

By Leigh Kite

Life Jackets Required 30EPB tunnel project in Southern California is wet and wild.

By Ben Campbell, Jordan Hoover and Shelley Burg, P.E.

Constructive Acceleration 34“Hurry and finish, but don’t say I said so.”

By Peter Kutil and Karl Silverberg

Tunnel Business Magazine 3August 2008

Tunnel Business Magazine4 August 2008

Design-Build, Ditto, Etc.One of the highlights each year in the North American tun-

neling market is UCE of SME’s June conference – either North American Tunneling (NAT) or the Rapid Excavation and Tunnel-ing Conference (RETC). It’s also a highlight here at TBM be-cause that’s when we gather our annual roundtable discussion.

Over the years, we have assembled a number of different groups to discuss the general direction of the industry, or spe-cifi c issues that the market is facing. These roundtables, which comprise leaders from around North America (and the world!), always deliver a wealth of information (which, while great for the readers, can create nightmares for editorial staff as they try to whittle 40,000 words down to 4,000).

This year we tackle the topic of design-build. We had touched on the topic over the years at these roundtables, usually from the point of view of an owner or contractor, or lumped in with developing trends, but never as topic by itself. So, when TBM editorial board chairman Gary Brierley pitched the idea and volunteered to serve as facilitator, we naturally agreed.

Design-build was at the forefront of the tunneling industry when I started covering it nearly 10 years ago with the Tren Urbano-Rio Piedras station design-build project serving as a test case for the industry. The pros and cons of design-build continue to be discussed at length, yet the traditional design-bid-build contract delivery system has maintained its status as the defacto approach to building a tunnel.

In this issue you can read fi rst-hand the points of view from experts on the topic from all facets of the industry — owner, lawyer, contractor, consultant. Panelists included Don Phillips, Arup; David Hatem, Donovan Hatem; Eldon Abbott , Parsons Brinckerhoff; Jeff Peterson, Kiewit; Clara Greco, Ontario Power Generation; and Jim McDonald, S.A. Healy. All of the participants have had some fi rst-hand experience with underground design-build projects.

Many of the same benefi ts were discussed — compressed construction schedule, single point of responsibility, leveraging the experience of the contractor — however, no consen-sus was reached on the applicability of design-build for tunnel projects in general or what types of projects may lend themselves to design-build. So is design-build good for the un-derground? In summation: It depends. It depends on the owner’s experience and aversion to risk. It depends on whether the contractor and owner can adapt to non-traditional roles and whether the owner can remove cede some level of control. It depends on whether forward-thinking agencies can utilize design-build — successfully — in a way that serves as a model for others.

Design-build for underground projects brings with it complications that don’t exist — or certainly don’t exist to the same degree — as their above-ground brethren. I suspect that it will be topic that will continue to be debated for quite some time.

Colorado School of Mines Tunnel Short CourseThe world-renown Colorado School of Mines has announced that it is hosting a three-

day Tunnel Short Course Sept. 10 to 12 on its campus in Golden, Colo. The course direc-tors are Prof. Levent Ozdemir and Tim Coss, president of Microtunneling Inc. The two collaborate on the successful Microtunneling Short Course, which is recognized as the pre-eminent educational venue in the world on microtunneling.

Ozdemir and Coss are following the same model for the Tunnel Short Course and have assembled a panel of international experts as presenters. This is a one-of-a-kind event for all members of the tunneling community. For more information, see the brochure in this issue or visit www.tunneling.com.

Regards,

Jim Rush Editor

Editorial Council

Editorial & Advertising Offices:1770 Main St., P.O. Box 190 Peninsula, OH 44264 USA Ph: 330.467.7588 • Fax: 330.468.2289 Web site: http://www.tunnelingonline.come-mail: [email protected] Information:Wright’s Reprints Ph: 877.652.5295 • Fax: 916.983.6762

EDITOR’S MESSAGEEDITOR’S MESSAGE

Bernard P. KrzysPublisher

Robert D. KrzysAssociate Publisher

James W. RushEditor

Greg ThompsonAssistant Editor

Sharon M. BuenoKeith Gribbins • Brad KramerJason Morgan • Pam Stask

Contributing Staff Editors

W.M. ConleyCreative Director

Edward A. HaneySenior Graphic Designer

Sarah E. Hayes • Chris SlogarElizabeth C. StullGraphic Designers

Kelly DadichMarketing Manager

Ryan SneltzerRegional Sales Manager

Alexis R. TarbetCirculation Manager

Mark GormanWeb & Interactive Manager

ChairmanGary Brierley, P.E.Brierley Associates, Denver

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

Roberto Gonzalez IzquierdoMoldequipo InternacionalTepotzotlan, Mexico

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

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



Business BriefsRobbins Machines Mine Under NYC’s Grand Central Station

A 22-ft rebuilt Robbins machine boring the East Side Access Project has reached its fi rst heading under Grand Central Sta-tion. The double shield TBM, rebuilt by SELI, is the fi rst of two TBMs boring a new subway tunnel to link the New York City boroughs of Manhattan and Queens.

The machine was launched in October 2007, about three months ahead of the second 22-ft diameter Robbins main beam TBM bor-ing a parallel tunnel. The two machines for the Dragados/Judlau JV have performed satisfactorily considering the tough condi-tions, averaging 32.4 ft per day (double shield machine) and 36.6 ft per day (main beam machine).

The Robbins main beam TBM boring the westbound tunnel has maintained good production rates despite diffi cult ground conditions. The drives are separated by a slim 5 ft pillar of rock, providing minimal tunnel support. “Crews have reduced the grip-per and thrust pressure by 45 to 50 percent in order to ensure that the force reacted against the tunnel walls is within safe lim-its,” said King Daniels, fi eld service manager for Robbins. The machine had mined about 4,560 ft of its initial 8,530-ft drive as of early July.

Both machines will be used to excavate multiple headings un-derneath Grand Central Station, requiring that they be retracted out of the freshly bored tunnels. The split tunnels will connect to

various underground caverns beneath Grand Central Station. The entire project for East Side Access consists of twin 8.5-mile

long tunnels traveling in eastbound and westbound directions beneath the East River. Once operational in 2013, the new line will serve 160,000 commuters daily traveling between Manhattan and Queens.

The 22-ft Robbins main beam TBM is performing well despite reduced gripper and thrust pressures.

Tunnel Business Magazine 7August 2008Reader Service Number 3

TAC Conference Draws NearThe Tunnelling Association of Canada

(TAC) is preparing for its 20th National Conference to be held October 27 and 28, at the Sheraton Fallsview Hotel in Niaga-ra Falls. The conference theme is “Tunnel-ling Technology and the Environment.”

The two-days of sessions, exhib-its and meetings are well attended and promise a thorough update of all that is new in the Canadian tunneling market. For further information, in-cluding registration and sponsorship opportunities, visit TAC’s web site atwww.tunnelcanada.ca.

BASF Appoints New Divisional Sales Manager for Canadian Market The Admixture Systems component of BASF Construction Chemicals announced several

organizational changes to support its focus on continued development and growth in Canada. On July 1, John Mucciaccio assumed the role of divisional sales manager, Admixture Sys-

tems, for the Canadian Division. Mucciaccio is based in Toronto and manages sales activities for all of Canada.

“John has been with the organization for 30 years and has consistently demonstrated strong customer focus and solid business skills,” said Alan Nedza, North American sales manager, Admixture Systems. “Our customers will benefi t from his knowledge of the market and his keen understanding of the relationship between manufacturing and end use.”

Mucciaccio is joined by Keith McDonald and Kelly Hines, area sales managers for the Western Canada region. Hines has been with the company since 1987 and, prior to assuming this role, managed dispenser operations, spearheading design improvements and turning concepts into customer solutions. McDonald, a sales specialist in underground mining and construction in Western Canada, has been with BASF since 1999.

“I’m extremely excited about welcoming John, Kelly and Keith into their new leadership roles,” Nedza said. “We are committed to the future growth of the Canadian market and know our customers in the region will benefi t greatly from our expanded presence there.”

The reorganization follows the announcement that Roger Barker who, after 31 years of dedicated service to the company, has decided to retire later this year. Barker will, however, continue to provide support to BASF, as a consultant.

“Roger will be truly missed,” Nedza said, “but we are extremely fortunate to be able to keep him on board in a consulting role. He is very well-respected in the industry and within our community for his strong leadership abilities, depth of knowledge and commitment to his customers. We wish him luck in his retirement, and are pleased that he will continue to be a part of the BASF team.”


Central Contra Costa Sani-tary District Installs A-Line Relief Interceptor with 116-in. Akkerman EPBM

The City of Concord, Calif., together with Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) is replacing an essential sewer line which will decommission one of the largest pumping stations in the country. The cur-rent phase of this project will place pipelines under a golf course, major intersections in a commercial area and alongside a creek. The A-Line Relief Interceptor Phase 2A will employ the use of several construction methods. The earth pressure balance ma-chine (EPBM) will install 3,000 lf of 96-in. reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), a microtun-neling system will install 870 lf of 72-in. RCP and 540 lf of twin 48-in. RCP segments will be open cut.

The existing 78-in. diameter sewage col-lection line travels to the Concord Pump Sta-tion. The 30-year-old, 30- to 39-in. diameter force main can not be inspected or main-tained given that there is no way to take it out of service. Additionally, the force main offers no options for wet weather overfl ow.

In the 1990s, CCCSD created a 102-in. interceptor, positioned downstream, during improvements to the larger collection sys-tem in hopes to tie it into a gravity sewer in the future. This foresight made this current gravity sewer installation more straightfor-ward.

The new 4,400-ft larger capacity grav-ity fl ow connection will eliminate the need for the Concord Sewage Pump Station. Its elimination presents an estimated $350,000

yearly cost savings in electricity, manpower, chemicals and maintenance.

The project general contractor is Moun-tain Cascade Inc., Livermore, Calif. and the tunneling contractor is Pacifi c Boring of Caruthers, Calif. Pacifi c Boring is using an Akkerman Inc. manufactured 116-in. EPBM and intermediate jacking stations to reduce jacking force by distributing thrust on long drives. The EPBM excavates the soil at the cutting face and transports the spoils via ribbon auger to muck cars and haul units. As the EPBM advances a 20-lf, 96 ID RCP section is placed in the jacking frame and pushed forward.

Pacifi c Boring’s scope of work entails pipe jacking 3,000 ft of 96 ID pipe in two drives. The EPBM will use the same 25-ft deep, oc-tagonal launch shaft to complete both drives. Upon completion of the fi rst drive, the EPBM will launch again 135 degrees from the fi rst entry point for the second drive. As of this date of publication, Pacifi c Boring suc-cessfully completed the fi rst drive.

Future work includes connecting the 96-in RCP to 72-in RCP in two microtunnel drives. The drives will total 870 lf, and will be com-pleted with an Akkerman MTBM SL60 with an increase kit and MT890 jacking frame. The 72-in. pipeline will connect to 540 lf of 48-in. twin pipelines which will be open cut 540 ft between the banks of the Walnut Creek channel. Before the fi nal project is fully put into use, CCCSD will test its effectiveness in a wet season cycle to ensure its productivity.

ICE to Host Channel Tunnel Rail Link Seminar

David Caiden, the chairman of the Insti-tution of Civil Engineers New York Metro-politan Local Association will be introduc-ing David Orr, the President of the British Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), as the keynote speaker of a seminar to be held in NYC at the New York University Kimmel Center (Washington Square) on Oct. 2, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. The seminar will be about the high speed Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) project in the UK and the event is titled Channel Tunnel Rail Link: An urban success story.

The line is now offi cially named High Speed 1 (HS1) and is the fi rst true high speed rail line in Britain and it links the Channel Tun-nel with Europe through St. Pancras Station in London. The construction contained an immense amount of state-of-the-art tunnel-ing. The planning, procurement and contract processes are very different from what hap-pens in the United States. Funding for Sec-

tion 2, on which construction started in July 2001, came from a mixture of Government bonds, Railtrack’s purchase of Section 1 and a £2.2 billion grant. The last section of the 69-mile line opened to the public some months ago after getting full government approval in 1996. The total project costs were around $10 billion and the project was delivered on time and in budget.

The New York Local Association of ICE has invited speakers from the project team in the U.K. as well as respected local in-dustry leaders for a closing panel debate to discuss whether the lessons learned on the project could be used in the United States, how such a project would be delivered here and whether there is anything that could be done differently or better. The discussion will be based on the material presented by the invited speakers.

Assisting in organizing the event are NYU’s Wagner Rudin Center for Trans-portation Policy and Management who have completed two HSR studies in the United States and are currently involved in an inter-national study of mega-projects with a Lon-don-based university involving ten countries and thirty case studies. Corporate sponsors for the event will be Arup, Bechtel, Halcrow, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Skanska and Systra.

The seminar organizers intend to offer certifi cates for 2.5 PDHs and entrance to the event will cost $100 per person including breakfast and lunch (student rate $60) and tables of 10 can be reserved for $800. Indi-vidual places or tables can be obtained by contacting Martin Ellwood at (212) 695-2463 or [email protected].

Tough Times for Modern Continental

One business day after facing charges in federal court, Modern Continental fi led for bankruptcy protection.

Modern Continental was the largest con-struction contractor on the Big Dig and was charged with making false statements about the quality of the construction work it per-formed, submitting false time and materials information on contracts and wire fraud. If convicted, Modern Continental would face fi nes of up to $500,000 and restitution could reach in to the tens of millions of dollars.

Modern Continental responded to the charges in a statement, which read in part: “The charges represent an attempt after the fact to criminalize actions that were either approved by the project man-ager and state authorities or represented bookkeeping errors that the company ulti-

Business Briefs

The 116-in. Akkerman EPBM will make way for 20-ft long sections of 96 ID tunnel pipe.

NAT – The San Francisco Treat

San Francisco played host to the North American Tunneling conference June 8 through 11. Tunnel engineers, contractors, equipment manufacturers and suppliers converged on the Hyatt Regency for three days of presentations, exhibits and meetings. The technical program included sessions on urban tunneling, fi re safety, rehabilitation, NATM/SEM tunneling, design and con-struction management and case histories in soft ground and hard rock tunneling, among other topics. Better than 700 attended with nearly 80 exhibitor booths fi lling the hall. NAT 2008 marked the second time UCA of SME organized the event and this was the best-attended NAT yet.

UCA of SME’s next major event is the Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Confer-ence (RETC) at Caesar’s Palace in Las Ve-gas, June 14 through 17, 2009. The next NAT conference is scheduled for June 12-16, 2010 in Portland, Ore.

Bilfi nger Berger Pushes Back

German contractor Bilfi nger Berger has fi led suit against Metro Vancouver, seeking $22 million in payment due for work on the Seymour-Capilano project.

Bilfi nger Berger ceased work on the project in January, citing unsafe working conditions. Incidents of falling rocks, includ-ing three such incidents resulting in injury, elevated safety concerns and ultimately re-

sulted in site closure at the direction of WorkSafe BC.

Metro Vancouver terminated the $100 mil-lion contract in May after the two sides were unable to agree on a new tunneling plan to address the safety concerns.

Bilfi nger Berger’s suit alleges that Metro Vancouver improperly cancelled the project. In addition to the $22 million payment, Bil-fi nger Berger is seeking a court order for the

return of assets at the site. The assets have a reported value of $38 million.

Metro Vancouver has fi led suit against Bilfi nger Berger as well, looking to recover costs associated with the project. Bilfi nger Berger has been paid $50 million of the contract.

Metro Vancouver has sent requests for proposal to several fi rms looking to complete the project.

Tunnel Business Magazine 9August 2008Reader Service Number 4

UCA of SME Chair Brenda Bohlke and NAT 2008 Chair Greg Raines at the Exhibit Hall

Opening Reception.

Fractured and falling rock elevated safety concerns.



Business Briefs

The Spirit of ConcreteThe American Concrete Institute

(ACI) recently announced its Fall 2008 Convention in St. Louis, at the Renais-sance Grand & Suites Hotel and Amer-ica’s Center, Nov. 2-6, 2008.

This fall’s convention, with the theme “The Spirit of Concrete,” will feature technical tours of the Holcim Cement Plant, a dinner in honor of Luke Snell, an Oktoberfest-themed Concrete Mixer, a Student Concrete Cylinder Competi-tion, and a reinvented Contractors’ Day with an Architectural Walking Tour and Concrete Structures Bus Tour. In addi-tion, ACI will sponsor a book drive dur-ing the convention to support literacy in local schools. All attendees are invited to bring any new or gently used children’s books K-12 to the convention.

In conjunction with the convention, the ACI Board Advisory Committee on

Sustainable Development is sponsoring a sustainable development workshop on concrete, green building and ISO stan-dards on Saturday, Nov. 1 from 1 p.m. until 6 p.m.

This workshop will focus on environ-mental management for concrete and concrete structures, with specifi c focus

on the new Standard under development by ISO/TC71/SC8. Discussion topics will include an evaluation system on the materials fl ow of concrete, environmen-tal design of concrete structures, green concrete technologies for life-cycle de-sign of concrete structures and more. All registered ACI convention attendees are invited at attend at no cost. For more information and to RSVP for the work-shop, please contact Denesha Price at [email protected].

Convention attendees who register by Oct. 5, 2008 will receive a discounted registration fee. In addition, the Renais-sance Grand & Suites Hotel is offering convention attendees special rates for rooms reserved prior to Oct. 8. Room rates are based on availability.

For more information about the ACI Fall 2008 Convention and to register, please call 248-848-3795, or visit www.aciconvention.org.


mately addressed.”


Passing the BatonGalyn ‘Rip’ Rippentrop Retires, Celebrates

with Friends, Family and ColleaguesBy Jack Burke

On Tuesday, July 1, a retirement party was held in Evansville, Ind. for Galyn “Rip” Rippentrop, retiring president and CEO

of Frontier-Kemper Constructors after a career of 23 years with Peter Kiewit Sons and almost nine years leading Frontier-Kemper Constructors. With new president and CEO W. David Rogstad hosting the event, it was truly a passing of the baton. Dave assumed the post on July 4 after serving the company as lead estimator, vice president - Northwest Division and senior vice president.

Prior to the evening’s festivities George Yoggy and I went to the offi ces on Allen Road where we met with Alan Zeni, head of F-K’s new blind bore drilling division, and Tom DeLuca and Bob Bald-win of St. Paul Travelers. We joined them for a tour of the new 400-ton frame and draw works for the 20-ft diameter blind hole bore shaft they will be doing within the month. It was really something to behold. We returned to the hotel in time for the dinner.

The ballroom at the Aztar was full of relatives, friends and as-sociates. Many of the leaders of the underground construction in-dustry and engineering, materials and equipment sectors turned out, coming from far and wide. Among them were Gert Roets, Franks Bauer and Jochen Greinacher of Deilmann-Haniel Aton GmbH from Germany; Chris Hickey, Derek Budge and Mike Kelly of J.S. Redpath Ltd from Canada; Bruno and Dianne Mazza from Rio Construction, Puerto Rico. Dave Klug and his son Jon made a wonderful presentation on behalf of his company and the tunneling industry with a tunnel carved out of solid granite to scale. Tom Clemens, Larry DeGraff and Ron Kurta from Ameri-can Commercial presented a fantastic hunting gun to Rip. It is a good thing Rip was driving home to Sioux Falls as they could not afford the new weight regulations on a plane. Bill Hansmire of Parsons Brinkerhoff, Bob Goodfellow and Jim McKelvey of Black and Veatch and Don and Jackie Brennan of Brennan Engineering were there as well. As was Paul Schmall of Moretrench American, Chris Traylor of Traylor Bros. and Peter and Cristina Strasser of Wisko. Michael and Nicole Gay made it from Haiti

There were so many from the company including Del Brock, Carl Barchet, Debra Riger, Chuck McGlothlen, Tom Kilmartin, Steve Redmond, Bill Dean, Rich Rabb, Lonnia Jacobs, Vinnie Sambrato and Richard Boutelle (on his way to Canada). Dyke Howell, co-founder and past CEO was also present.

After the ceremony and the reopening of the bar many friends participated in a good natured roasting of Rip including members of the family, Pam, Michele, Micah and Matt. It was an unforgettable evening of wishing great happiness to a dear, retiring friend.


People

Hayward Baker Appoints New Project Manager Daniel W. Greenwood, P.E., R.G., has been named project man-

ager for Hayward Baker’s Midwest Regional offi ce in St. Louis. As project manager Mr. Greenwood will manage all phases of day to day project activities, from proposal and estimation to scheduling, cost control and QA/QC requirements.

Prior to joining Hayward Baker, Mr. Greenwood was a senior geo-technical engineer for Midwest Testing in St. Louis. He has also held positions with Terracon Consultants and ATEC Associates, Inc. Mr. Greenwood holds a B.S. degree in geological engineering from the University of Missouri at Rolla. He also holds engineering licensure in fi ve states and is a registered geologist.

Commenting on the addition of Mr. Greenwood, Steven Scherer, senior vice president for the Midwest region, stated, “We have had the opportunity to work closely with Mr. Greenwood on many proj-ects and as a result have developed an outstanding working relation-ship. He will provide excellent geotechnical expertise to our rapidly growing Midwest region. We are very pleased to welcome Daniel Greenwood to Hayward Baker.”

A New Post for Charles VasulkaCharlie Vasulka accepted the position of engineering man-

ager with the Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority.In this position, Charlie is responsible for management of the

Authorities capital program including planning, design and con-struction.

Vasulka recently retired as the director of Engineering and Construction with the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District.

Promotions and Appointments at Jacobs AssociatesJennifer Allen, P.E., was promoted to senior engineer. Jennifer has

six years of civil and geostructural engineering experience, including experience managing projects and coordinating fi eld staff. She has de-signed foundations, small architectural structures, and several types of retaining walls and shoring structures. Jennifer is currently work-ing on the New Irvington Tunnel Project for the San Francisco Pub-lic Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore, a project of the California Department of Transportation.

Senior associate Greg Colzani has been promoted to vice presi-dent and continues to serve as the manager of construction man-agement (CM) services. He is responsible for coordinating all CM marketing efforts and allocating staff to projects between regions. Greg has nearly 30 years of experience in tunnel and heavy civil con-struction and mining, including some of the fi rst implementations of large-diameter slurry TBMs in the United States.

Mark D. Havekost, P.E., has been promoted to vice president. Mark has more than 14 years of experience in the underground in-dustry, concentrating on tunnel design and geotechnical engineering. He has been involved with JA projects such as the Upper Diamond Fork Project, San Vicente Pipeline, Brightwater Conveyance Sys-tem, Northern Sewerage Project, and the Portsmouth Force Main. Over the past 8 years he has played a role in the opening of JA’s San Diego, Seattle and Portland offi ces.

Jeremy Johnson, P.E., a newly appointed associate, has several years of experience in geotechnical, civil, and environmental engi-neering. A member of the design staff in Jacobs Associates’ Seattle offi ce. Jeremy has performed both geotechnical and structural en-gineering analyses for projects including the East Contract of the Brightwater Conveyance project in Seattle.

Carol Ravano, P.E., was promoted to associate. Carol has more than 17 years of geotechnical and civil experience and has played leading design roles on the Union Pacifi c Railroad I-5 Tunnel Clear-ance Project and the Caltrain Seismic Upgrade. Carol is currently involved with Norfolk Southern’s 531-mile-long Heartland Corridor, as well as the University Link Light Rail project in Seattle.

Joe Schrank, P.E., P.Eng., was promoted to senior engineer. He has over eight years of experience in rock mechanics and geotechni-cal engineering. Joe has performed geotechnical investigations for rock and soil mechanics projects with an emphasis on tunnels and slope stability, the feasibility and design of trenchless pipeline cross-ings and geotechnical fi eld investigations. Working out of the Seattle offi ce, Joe is currently assisting with the construction management of the Heartland Corridor project to improve clearance of 26 freight rail tunnels to accommodate double-stack trains.

Yiming Sun, P.E., Ph.D., a newly appointed associate, brings more than 20 years of experience in civil and geotechnical engineering to his role with the San Francisco Design group. Yiming has extensive experience in the numerical analysis of underground structures.

Sam Swartz, P.E., has been promoted to associate. With more than 10 years of civil engineering experience in underground tunnel design, Sam is an expert in bolted and gasketed, pre-cast concrete segmental lining systems. Sam is currently providing design services for the University Link Light Rail Project in Seattle.

Sarah Wilson, P.E., a newly minted associate, has 10 years of ex-perience in the design and construction of underground structures. Currently Sarah leads the feasibility study for San Diego Pipeline No. 6, a Metropolitan Water District project. This fall, she will begin work on construction management of the New Crystal Springs By-pass Tunnel near San Francisco.

Obituary – J. Patrick Powers, P.E., F. ASCEJ. Patrick Powers, P.E., F. ASCE, died on May 15th, 2008, fol-

lowing a short illness. He was 81 years old. Mr. Powers graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1947 and joined New Jer-sey geotechnical contractor and dewatering specialist Moretrench American Corporation in 1948, a decision that paved the way for a lifelong career dedicated to the resolution of construction dewater-ing issues all across the United States and in eight other countries. He remained with Moretrench for the next 40 years and was Chief engineer and vice president for 16 years. During the mass transit system construction boom in the mid1970s, he was instrumental in the design and installation of dewatering systems for station exca-vation and running tunnels in Washington D.C., Boston, Buffalo, Baltimore, Atlanta, New York City and San Francisco.

Following retirement from Moretrench, Mr. Powers became a consultant to the geotechnical engineering fi rm Mueser Rut-ledge Consulting Engineers, New York, N.Y., and remained active both as a consultant and as a mentor to young engineers until his death.

Mr. Powers is acknowledged throughout the industry as an au-thority on construction dewatering technology and authored three defi nitive books on the subject, the last of which, “Construction Dewatering and Groundwater Control,” was published in 2007. A frequent lecturer during his distinguished career, Mr. Powers’ contribution to the advancement of his chosen fi eld was recognized by the Construction Institute of the American Society of Civil En-gineers with the 2007 Roebling Award.



GlobalHerrenknecht Celebrates 30 Years

Martin Herrenknecht and board members Gebhard Lehmann, Kurt Stiefel and Werner Suhm hosted a four-course dinner prepared by a one-star Michelin chef to celebrate Her-renknecht’s 30th anniversary on June 28. Guests were treated to an entertaining eve-ning with stars from all over the world in the Baden-Arena in Offenburg. 1,550 employees and 450 customers, business partners, politi-cians and industry representatives came to the gala reception.

Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder recognized Martin Herren-knecht’s merits in his greeting speech. “Martin Herrenknecht is an outstanding entrepreneur, who would need to be invent-ed if he didn’t already exist,” said Schröder. “With courage, farsightedness, but also with his characteristic persistence, Martin Herrenknecht turned Herrenknecht AG into today’s company.”

BASF Chairman Dr. Jürgen Hambrecht, fi rst congratulated the employees during his

speech. “Chapeau!” he said. “To all the em-ployees who contributed to your company’s success.”

Herrenknecht Supervisory Board Chair Prof. Dr. Lothar Späth praised the collabo-ration between the head of the company and the employees, which was even re-fl ected in the way they conjointly celebrate success.

Other highlights included a set of illu-sionists who bent rail tracks with their bare hands to form a 30 in front of the audience. Later that night, they chained Martin Her-renknecht beneath a giant circular saw. Luckily, Herrenknecht disappeared from the saw’s path and reappeared at the oppo-

site end of the ballroom.One surprise was the performance of Mar-

tin Herrenknecht’s three board colleagues Lehmann, Stiefel and Suhm. Wearing black tailcoats, they serenaded Martin Herren-knecht and the audience together with the “Berlin Comedian Harmonists.”

The gala ended in the early morning hours with dancing and live music and was greatly enjoyed by all guests. “It was a fantastic event for our customers and guests; strengthen-ing the coherence within the company,” said Herrenknecht. “Our team has been growing considerably in the last few years. I am very sure that we will also go through thick and thin in the coming years.”

Supply of New Lovat EPB TBM for John Holland Tunnelling

Lovat is pleased to announce the re-cent signing of a contract to supply a new RME115SE EPB TBM to John Holland Tunnelling. The TBM will be used in the construction of the Melbourne Main Sew-er Replacement [MMSR] located in Mel-bourne, Australia.


GlobalThe four-spoke chromium carbide plat-

ed mixed ground cuttinghead is equipped with Lovat backloading rippers (inter-changeable with 15.5-in. disc cutters). The cuttinghead is powered by a Hydraulic drive system (450 kW). Speeds range be-tween 0 and 8.2 rpm with maximum torque of 1,040 kNmat 4.1 rpm.

Located in the stationary shell is a two stage, two-chamber integral airlock, which is outfi tted with an oxygen breathing sys-tem and a pressure regulation system for maintaining a fi xed set point of pressure to a maximum operating pressure of 4 bar.

The 2.92-m diameter mixed face TBM will bore a total of 2,088 m with a maximum slope of 0.12 percent. The entire tunnel alignment is below the groundwater level where heights above the invert vary from 9 to 11 m.

Geology along the tunnel alignment con-sists of formations of Quaternary age collec-tively known as the Yarra Delta Group un-derlain by sequence of tertiary formations. The basement geology of the site comprises folded Silurian sedimentary rock. These rocks generally occur well below the pro-posed tunnel alignment depth. The depth

of cover above the tunnel crown level varies from 8 to 12 m.

The TBM is scheduled for delivery during the fi rst part of 2009.

Leica ADS40 Supports Relief Efforts After Earthquake in Sichuan, China

In the aftermath of the devastating May earthquake in Sichuan, China, local authori-ties coordinating disaster relief efforts re-quired a fast, accurate and comprehensive overview of the damage and affected areas.

Following a request from the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS), Taiyuan Aero Photography Co. Ltd immediately agreed to dispatch their Leica ADS40 digital air-borne sensors to Chongqing near Chengdu in the Sichuan province. Starting May 13, the day after the earthquake, fl ights in the earthquake area took full advantage of the effi ciency of the Leica ADS40 sensor sys-tem. Supported by Leica Geosystems staff, terabytes of continuous high quality image data were acquired and processed on a dai-

ly basis and sent overnight to local authori-ties and the President’s offi ce for analysis and updates.

On May 16, Leica Geosystems’ support staff sent image data to the China Central Government Earthquake Salvation Centre for inspection. Analyzing the image strip, the leadership’s attention was drawn to a sign stating “SOS700” on a rooftop in the village of Cao Ping near Yingxiu town. Although nobody in the Salvation Centre immediately understood the message, a rescue team was quickly dispatched to the village. Upon ar-rival in Cao Ping, the rescuers encountered seven hundred villagers without food and water, many of them wounded.

The discovery of the villagers’ call for help was made possible by the unique per-formance features of the Leica ADS40. The ADS40’s line sensor technology per-mits fast large area data collection at equal resolution across all bands without the loss of image quality and information in the multispectral bands.

“This is truly a case in which the superior Leica ADS40 sensor technology helped to save lives,” said Sam Chen, vice president of Leica Geosystems, China. “We are honored that a combined effort of our customers and local authorities assisted our people and our country in this time of need. Using our tech-nology we will continue to help rebuild the lives of our people in Sichuan.”

Robbins TBM Rises Above Water Infl ows in China

Deep in a sheer-walled canyon at the foot of China’s Jinping Mountain, crews are working around the clock to assemble a gi-ant. The 12.4-m diameter behemoth, a main beam TBM manufactured by The Robbins Co., will excavate one of the country’s larg-est hydropower projects to date.

Assembly of the main beam TBM and back-up system began in mid-April 2008 at the Jinping-II Headrace Tunnel #1. A total of four headrace tunnels, two of them exca-vated by drill and blast and two by TBM,

Earthquakes devastated Sichuan in May.



Reader Service Number10Reader Service Number 9

are needed for the Jinping-II Hydropower Station. The tunnels will draw water from the nearby Yalong River, a tributary of the Yangtze.

The TBM is being built using a proven Robbins assembly process, known as Onsite First Time Assembly (OFTA). OFTA, with-out pre-erection in a manufacturing facility, will result in an earlier machine launch and reduced shipping risk and cost. The ben-efi ts are particularly great because all of the heavy TBM structures have already been shipped from the manufacturing facility in Dalian, ahead of the low water season on the Yangtze River when such shipments are not possible.

The Robbins machine is currently being assembled onsite in an underground launch chamber for a startup later in 2008. Most of the machine components are being staged in the town of Manshuwan, approximately 80 km away, due to limited space at the jobsite. As of May 2008, assembly of the machine was more than 40 percent complete. Crews have erected the cutterhead support and Main Beam, and are welding the six piece

cutterhead. Back-up construction began in a chamber behind the TBM later in May.

Special features on the TBM and back-up will accommodate a high expected water infl ow of 4,000 liters per second. The top of the back-up is arched over its entire length to allow for installation of water shields if high-pressure infl ows are encountered. A water discharge pump will relay any infl ow from the cutterhead support to the end of the back-up. Two TBM conveyors between the cutterhead and the tunnel conveyor were also designed for wet conditions. The conveyors are completely fl at, rather than inclined, in order to prevent spillage of muck with high water content.

Another Robbins main beam TBM, at 7.2-m diameter, is currently being assembled for a water drainage tunnel at the site. The ancillary tunnel will provide drainage to the main tunnel ahead of the 12.4-m machine.

Due to go online in 2010, the Jinping-II Hydropower Station will utilize the eleva-tion drop in the 150-km long Yalong River to generate 4800 MW of electricity per year for owner Ertan. Jinping-II is located 17 km

downstream from the Jinping-I Hydropower station, which is slated for completion in 2014 and will have an annual generating capacity of 3600 MW.

Manufacture of components for the 12.43-m (40.1-ft) diameter cutterhead took place in China.


In many ways, design-build is a return to the “Master Builder” construction delivery method favored in pre-modern times. In the Master Builder approach, one central fi gure, typically the architect, was primarily responsible for all aspects of a project and held complete accountability from start to fi nish. As projects became more complex, that accountability would be spread among more groups, leading to the “standard” method of design-bid-build. Design-bid-build became the unoffi cial “go-to” approach for underground construction.

In the time that we’ve been covering the North American tunneling market, how-ever, we’ve seen more and more design-build projects undertaken. While design-build is more common overseas, its increasing perception as the solution of choice for North American projects is noteworthy. Are we standing at the precipice of the Design-Build Era? Is design-build simply one more tool available to owners?

To answer these questions (among others), TBM Editorial Board Chair Gary Brierley assembled a panel of experts from all walks of the tunneling industry. Included are:

Eldon L. Abbott• , P.E., Vice President & Project Manager, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc.

Clara Greco• , Senior Council, Law Division, Ontario Power Generation

David Hatem• , Partner, Donovan Hatem

Jim McDonald• , S.A. Healy Co.

Jeff Petersen• , Vice President and District Manager, Kiewit Construction Co. — Underground District

Don Phillips• , Principal, Arup

Will One of the Oldest Construction


Gary Brierley (TBM): Should we be promoting design-build as a way of building underground projects? And that would also include the big high-way projects that Kiewit has been involved with like T-Rex and the highway in Salt Lake City; huge design-build applications that involve lots of linear construction and underground applications.

Don Phillips (DP): Where there is a heavily method-re-lated aspect to the project and the owner knows what he wants and can afford to push responsibility for design development to the contractor and not change it too much, then design-build is a good way to go. An owner is not suited to engage the design/build approach if he is immature technically and in terms of hand over of design development responsibility. However, an owner is suited if he is mature technically and understands and can ac-cept the design development responsibility. It’s where owners lie in that middle ground — owners not immature, yet not mature enough — that can mess up a design-build. It sounds daft, but I think it works best in those extremes.

Eldon Abbott (EA): I think part of the issue in the United State is that we don’t have a lot of mature public sector owners be-cause there hasn’t been a lot of design-build in that arena. For a lot of public sector owners it’s new, so they have to walk through the process and the fi rst job can be a little diffi cult, to say the least.

Jeff Petersen (JP): It does not fi t every single job. A con-tractor and designer working together can save time and money and can come up with all kinds of creative ideas. But owners have to be mature enough and not so stuck on one solution that they won’t consider other ideas. In some cases the owner cannot negoti-ate until they choose a contractor And agreeing pre-bid to negoti-ate a change creates higher risk for them. Some states have laws that they can’t utilize alternative contracts in underground work.

Jim McDonald (JM): You have to work through those things and understand what the bidding laws will let you do in the given state. Additionally it depends on the agency involved in the project and their capabilities. For example, if the owner does a geo-technical baseline report (GBR) for bidding and then the design-build team does a GBR for construction, it might work to put the

two together and negotiate that after the bids are in. But not every authority can negotiate a contract after the bids are open. How do you change the GBR after the contract is already awarded?

Clara Greco (CG): It’s not a foregone conclusion that we’d go design-build in every case. With large projects it’s a preferred method, but even then, the actual risk allocation to the contractor is not always going to be the same. We had a small tunnel project where it was one-quarter to one-fi fth of the value of the project. We informed the contractor that they would assume the geotechnical risk and they accepted it. But again, it was in the context of a smaller job.

The Niagara tunnel project is different in that we had a full three-phase GBR developed with the contractor and accepted by both parties. The contractor wasn’t going to accept all of the geo-technical subsurface risks — it’s just too large of a project.

While there’s real value in a design-build contract, it isn’t a cookie cutter. The key is the single point of responsibility because it gives us cost certainty and streamlines projects at the front end. We move to construction much more quickly than we would in other cases.

David Hatem (DH): When you look at the question of choosing design-build as a delivery method for major under-ground work, domestically you’re looking primarily at public projects. In the public sector context there are legal and procure-ment restraints depending upon local laws that the owner must address. These constraints need to be taken into consideration but the character of the project – its underground nature – re-quires that a number of issues be balanced in the decision mak-ing process. What’s absolutely clear is that owners should not resort to design-build as a way of avoiding risk or believing that by transferring design and construction responsibility to a single entity, the design-builder, they’re removing themselves from all risk. In design-build projects, as in design-bid-build projects, risk should be fairly balanced and allocated.

The concern in public sector with the design-build process is that the completed project will meet quality standards and will result in reasonably anticipated operating and maintenance cost, and durability over the life of the project. Another issue is disrup-tion to the public during construction. A public owner needs to stay on top of public disruption concerns as work continues while at the same time transferring substantial risk and project control to the design-builder. That tension always needs to be balanced as it may result in clashes between the owner and design-builder.

Models Build Tomorrow’s Tunnels?

TBM Roundtable: Design-Build


The owner needs to acknowledge relinquishment of signifi cant control. Stringent owner controls over the design development process are a perversion of the use of design-build. If the goal is to transfer signifi cant risk to the design-builder, you’ve got to give the design-builder a certain degree of autonomy and discre-tion to design and execute the project.

EA: If I could I’d like to get back to the original question — how do you determine if a project is a good candidate for design-build? I was quite skeptical about design-build for an underground until I went through Port of Miami as a concession and now I’m con-vinced that that’s a great opportunity. There they have an O&M contingent where for 35 years the concessionaire has to maintain and operate that tunnel project. That’s a powerful motivating force. The quality and everything is built in up front with a great deal of time and effort put in for hand-back requirements. With-out that option, though, if it’s a straight design-build and at the end of construction it is turned over to the owner, then I’d go back to the question of ensuring quality.

By the same token there’s tremendous innovation. The inno-vation we saw from the three concessionaire teams when they submitted proposals was really amazing and a pleasure to see. So there’s a great advantage on a very diffi cult project to have con-tractor input and design-build team input to determine whether or not a project like that can be built.

TBM: Several of you have mentioned risk alloca-tion and there are several signifi cant risks associ-ated with building underground projects. As David pointed out, there’s a risk associated with the ad-equacy of a fi nished facility. There’s a risk associat-ed with the subsurface conditions. How much sub-surface information do you need? Another risk is that the designer is working for the contractor and in a lot of ways is under the contractor’s thumb — the contractor can boss him around and order him to do certain things. The relationships change radi-cally. Are these kinds of risks compatible with the design-build approach? A lot of contractors prefer design-bid-build as they can see a complete package before they start construction. They want to know what they’re bidding on. Are these some of the is-sues that need to be seriously considered before you get involved with these kinds of projects?

JM: You can’t just take the typical, general conditions of a con-tract and turn it into a design-build contract. The allocation of risk is important. If the owner orders borings and turns that information over to the contractor, the contractor may or may not do additional borings. Where’s the baseline? If the contractor does more borings and fi nds something different, is this a differ-

ing site condition before it’s even encoun-tered? What if means and methods change, but when the contractor begins working it turns out to be different again? You can’t bore every inch of the alignment. You’d have to have provisions for those kinds of risk allocations.

JP: Some owners do think they can go to design-build to put all of the risk onto the contractor and designer, but to be successful the owner still has to own the ground. If you can come up with a good GBR process so that the contractor and the designer know what risks they’re taking on, you can determine

the risk allocation. Then it does make sense and it will work.

DH: In design-build, as in any delivery approach, my experi-ence has been that it all starts with the owner. If the right and prudent decisions are made then the project has a higher chance of success. If the wrong decisions are made then they will trickle down and affect every relationship at every tier. In design-build, effective and fair risk allocation presumes that there has been an adequate subsurface investigation. Typically the owner’s respon-sibility is to commission and defi ne the scope of that investigation and to share the products of that investigation as part of the RFP process. One step further is that the scope of investigation may expand depending on the selected design-builder’s approach. That further investigation should be conducted by a geotechnical engineer engaged by the owner and the products of that investi-gation should be shared with the design-build team.

All of the recommended or improved contracting practices that people have focused on since the 1970s work in design-build albeit in a modifi ed way. There’s an adaptation of the baseline approach. There’s an adaptation of the differing site conditions clause. They work in a modifi ed version that’s tailored to design-build. And if you have an equitable basis for transfer and allocation of risk between the owner and the contractor, you have a more reliable basis to look at the contract as a statement of achievable expec-tations. If the owner unduly shifts risk to the design-builder, he simply defers problems and disputes and claims down the road. If risk is unfairly allocated between the owner and the design-build-er, you will see a substantial increase in the professional liability exposure of the engineer involved, because if the design-builder cannot obtain relief upstream from the owner, the experience has been that the design-builder goes downstream to the engineer in the form of a professional liability claim.

CG: We would agree with the point that owners must start with good decisions. One of the reasons we select design-build is to shift risk from the owner to the design-builders who has the experience and capabilities to take on that risk. But the owner does have responsibility in the form of reasonable expectations, of information sharing, of setting up the foundation for good and healthy relationships on the other side.

“For a lot of public sector owners [design-build] is new, so they have to walk through the process and the fi rst job can be a little diffi cult, to say the least.”

– Eldon Abbott



TBM: Is the relationship between a contractor and a designer manageable for a typical, relatively diffi cult subsurface project? Is it reasonable to as-sume that that relationship is going to survive all of the tensions of differing site conditions or own-er complaints of timeline or fi nished facility qual-ity? Is the designer really fulfi lling his responsi-bilities to the owner while he’s trying to keep the contractor happy? It’s not an easy thing to do.

JP: It’s manageable, but it takes a very good understanding of the scope of work and the lines of responsibility. You have to take the time early in your relationship and build the lines of respon-sibility. Working together in the same building and not being in cities far apart plays a role in that. We’re a huge proponent of collocation. You have to work together. It takes effort.

DH: Contrast the claims experience on major design-build underground projects in terms of (a) claims by the design-builder against the engineer to (b) claims by owners against engineers in major underground design-bid-build projects. In design-bid-build the risk for the engineer attaches at the point at which the contractor is out in the fi eld trying to build the design and it’s allegedly not constructible, resulting in either a change in design or means and methods.

In design-build, 70 percent of the claims by design-builders against engi-neers arise out of services performed prior to the start of construction. And about 40 percent of those claims arise out of services performed during the tender period including estimating and preliminary development of design concept based on an understanding of the owners’ criteria or RFP require-ments. The design-builder claims that the engineer is somehow responsible for inaccurate quantity estimates or inaccurate assumptions regarding the Owner’s design criteria, upon which the design-builder relied in negotiating its GMP (guaranteed maximum price).

Design-builders today make efforts to involve the engineer in guarantee-ing quantities within a margin of varia-tion. This is one of the reasons why the professional liability insurance market for engineers on a project-specifi c ba-sis in underground is very small. And it’s going to stay that way for the fore-seeable future because of the adverse experience that insurers have had in insuring engineers for claims that ul-timately sound more like commercial

risk than professional liability risk-type claims. The market will likely remain very tight for exactly that reason – that many of these claims are driven by disappointed commercial expectations rather than a genuine error, omission or design mistake.

Gary’s point is well-taken about an engineer who’s part of the design-build team for a particular project on which the engineer has served the owner on other design-bid-build projects. Work-ing as part of a design-build team is a complete change of per-spective for the engineer and it’s a delicate balance that leads some engineering fi rms to say they won’t work for contractors on design-build projects. They’d rather be the owner’s engineer and stay out of that arena.

Overall the experience in terms of professional liability on design-build has not been good. I tell my engineer fi rm clients to not even consider a major underground project without project-specifi c insurance because you don’t want your corporate insurance exposed to this type of risk. The design-builder would prefer project-specifi c



insurance as well. But the insurance market is getting savvy and get-ting to know the contractors out there who play games with profes-sional liability claims and project-specifi c insurance. The same is true on the surety end on design-build underground as well. Also, owners need to understand that if risk is not allocated in a fair way, the en-suing problems will cause a ripple effect in reducing availability of insurance and surety for the project.

EA: From a designer’s point of view, it’s sometimes hard to take an engineer who’s worked designing bridges for a highway department for 25 years and put them into a fast paced design-build or project development where you have to produce quickly. The private developer wants to get the project done as quickly as possible and doesn’t care how much design effort it takes, but as he gets further and further along in construction, he needs the answers even quicker. If you’re used to working for a public sector client and you have a lot of time to develop ideas that you know will be reviewed, it can be quite an adjustment working in the private sector on a design-build. Not every engineer can work under those conditions. You need to know your people and know who can be successful in that type of environment.

JP: You can’t push the designer to try to do something that the owner’s not going to like. That’s why you hire the right designer — to be creative, to come up with alternate ways to still meet the objectives of the owner.

DP: The designer’s really got to under-stand what are the key drivers for the contractor and the contractor’s really got to understand what are the key drivers for the designer. And if you get that overlap of understanding then it starts to work.

TBM: There is a major contract that must be developed and risks assigned when you’re assembling the team during the proposal stage. How much thought and ef-fort do you put into building that team before you submit the bid?

JP: We put an extensive effort just to pick the designer. And then we get into an MOU process to get through the proposal phase and before the proposal is turned in we have a subcontract

signed. It will have a couple of blank spots that have to be fi lled out later when the proposal is fi nalized, but it’s essentially done and signed when we turn in the proposal.

We try to separate the commercial aspects of risk and put dis-incentive clauses in for quantity so it’s not a liability difference; it’s a pay difference. So it puts the designer in the game – if you help us keep the quantities, cost and schedule down, you get paid more, but if quantities go up, you get paid less. So it’s not a matter

of “you made a mistake,” but it’s judgment and creativity. We’ve been successful with that model. It’s a little different in under-ground work — you can’t change the length of a tunnel, but you can make changes in other ways that may help keep costs down and the project on schedule.

DH: There are many ways owners can infl uence the risk allocation between the design-builder and the engineer in a ma-jor underground project. Working with a large public owner through its engineering consultant on one project in particular, we came up with a set of minimal requirements

for scope of services to be provided by engineering consultants engaged by the design-builder which mandated the presence of that engineer on site periodically during construction. At the time, this was seen as both unconventional, which it was, and intrusive. While it could be viewed that way, it clearly fell within the scope of what could be included in the RFP. It came out of a risk register process that the owner engaged in prior to the issuance of the RFP as to what factors can go wrong, not only functionally but from a relationship standpoint in the execution of the work.

CG: It’s a delicate balance. In our case, we have owner-only con-tracts, which means that the contractor is the constructor for statu-tory health and safety issues. So we don’t want to cross that line be-cause as soon as we become the constructor, we’re liable.

The diffi culty though is if you’ve got a regulator on site, who should they report concerns to? Should they report to the owner’s rep or

should they go to the contractor? As you know, the regulators just want to get to the party that they can control. The owner’s require-ments in these projects can be minimal, but they have to be there.

DH: When the public is annoyed with a design-builder, be it for disruption of business or inconvenience, or whatever, they’re

“You can’t just take the typical, general conditions of a contract and turn it into a design-build contract. The allocation of risk is important.” – Jim McDonald


“A contractor and designer working together can save time and money and can come up with all kinds of creative ideas.”

– Jeff Petersen


going to go to the public owner regardless of what the contract says. And when the regula-tory authorities are upset about environmen-tal impacts and noise, they’re going to go to the public owner notwithstanding what the contract says. The public owner maintains a very direct interest in all aspects of the proj-ect in a way that exposes it notwithstanding carefully-drafted contract language.

DP: If you want the quality, you should be prepared to pay the going rate. If you nickel and dime the contractor along the way, you’ll end up paying the price anyway, but with much more heartache along the way. Best to specifi cally ask for what you want and pay for it up front; then every one is clear on the project objectives.

TBM: Let’s talk about subsurface investigation. You can’t make any decisions in tunneling without adequate subsurface investigations. How does that fi t into the contract? What sorts of subsurface in-vestigation should the designer expect, should the owner expect, should the contractor expect? This is crucial to the success of these projects. What ought to be done and who should be doing it?

JP: It’s absolutely crucial to us. We have a set of standards — a boring every so many feet, a boring at every shaft, boring below the tunnel depth — that represent the ideal of what we’d like to have. But it is possible that we’d take any job, even without these minimums, as long as the owner understands that we’re not tak-ing the risk of the ground. We could build the tunnel with zero borings, without knowing what’s out there, but we won’t take the risk of the ground. We’d like to work with the owner to establish a GBR process. In our opinion, a third-party should do the geo-technical investigation.

EA: It comes back to the owner’s engineer knowing the client and knowing what they can legally do. For instance if they can’t


“If risk is not allocated in a fair way, the ensuing problems will cause a ripple effect in reducing availability of insurance and surety for the project.”

– David Hatem


negotiate with the design-build team after the contract is bid to accept the GBR-C or whatever changes there might be or some-thing in there to correct it and if the owner is to provide a GBR for bidding purposes then the engineer has to do enough investigation to properly quantify and characterize that ground. If the owner re-ally only wants to do two borings in a very diffi cult situation, you’ve got to decide if you want to do the geotechnical investigation.

TBM: Why wouldn’t there be a minimal require-ment for subsurface investigation regardless of what the owner does? Why not fi nd out if there’s a problem?

CG: I agree. You buy into the GBR-A. That’s how you get con-tractors to buy in. You test out what the owner has provided. The ultimate GBR-C should be something both sides can live with.

JM: There has to be a baseline. As was said earlier, the owner may not own the property. The owner may have an in on getting the easement to have access to the ground to make the bores.

DP: It’s almost as if with design-build, the engineer’s interpretation of how it might be done will be turned on its head by the contractor and his team. How you think things might go initially is going to change fundamentally depending on the contractor and the means and methods. To have to change the original GBR to match what the contractor’s actually going to do is a good thing. You’re getting the benefi t of the design-build approach.

JP: A lot of owners have trouble with that, though.

CG: It introduces risk. It’s wonderful to get that innovation, but who’s the best party to accept the risk on a new method? While many owners would welcome innovation, they might be more reluctant to accept responsibility if something goes wrong in the end.

It’s one thing to bring a previously-proven innovative scheme to a project, but a com-pletely different concept that’s never been tested may present issues of fair risk alloca-tion that the owner will want to factor into its negotiated GBR.

DH: What should be portrayed as the base-line should be the physical site condition, not the behavior of the conditions, nor means and methods of construction, nor predictions of production rates and penetration rates. When you look at the most fertile area of confl ict and dispute in design-bid-build underground, it’s usually a competing contention whether what was encountered was materially different or whether the contractor’s diffi culties are at-tributable to its own methodology produc-tion problems, or selection or maintenance of equipment.

In design-build, you have an opportunity to get a complete X-Ray of the design-builder’s expectation as part of a defi ned contractual baseline of what they’re going to encounter, not only in terms of physical conditions, but also how they plan to progress the work. This signifi cantly narrows any area of dispute in the event of a claim down the road. I realize this approach is controversial, perhaps seen as intrusive and stifl ing, but in design-build you can get a much more complete picture and profi le for purposes of contractual base-


“The owner does have responsibility in the form of reasonable expectations, of information sharing, of setting up the foundation for good and healthy relationships on the other side.”

– Clara Greco



line defi nition than you ever could in de-sign-bid-build.

TBM: Is design-build the wave of the future? Are we at the fore-front of a new movement?

EA: It’s a great concept that has a lot of safeguards for the owner and a lot of free-dom for the design-builder. If the owner is ready to relinquish a degree of control, it can be a great solution, but if they want to maintain a higher degree of control it might not be a good fi t.

JP: I think we’ll see more of it. It won’t be design-build as high-way or buildings have gone, but rather hybrids, as in the model that the City of Portland is using. We would recommend design-build as long as the owners aren’t trying to shed more risk of the ground than they would in design-bid-build. We think design-build offers a single point responsibility, no duplication of design and reduced schedule in most cases.

CG: Ultimately our preference is to adopt a contracting strat-egy that is going to provide us with the highest degree of contract certainty, for an on-time or early completion of high-quality proj-ect and low life cycle cost. Our objective isn’t to do design-build or not to do design-build, but we owe it to our customers to meet those goals. If we’re not enlightened in that sense, we’re not going to get best value for our money.

TBM: Most people who talk about design-build don’t talk about best value or life cycle cost; it’s all about the bid. Design-build in-troduces a whole different set of concepts. A lot more thought goes into a design-build contract than into a design-bid-build contract. Does design build require a higher level of sophistication?

DP: What you leave out in design-build is the key. Less is more. If you’ve done a lot of design that the owner doesn’t need, you’ve got to strip it back to the essentials when the owner is producing the bid and contract docu-ments; give the contractor and his designer as much latitude as possible.

EA: It’s almost like we need a bit of an edu-cational process that we go through with the owner if they haven’t done this before. What everybody’s trying to do is get contractors involved earlier because the more diffi cult the project, the more the state of the art is pushed. It’s a great process that needs to be publicized more, but owners need to be en-lightened. But even a knowledgeable public

sector owner will only do one or two of these in his life. You’re not going to get a lot of repeat business.

DH: In some cases, the insurance and surety industry will be the death knell of design-build because you’re not going to have adequate surety and insurance support of that delivery method option.

JM: This is the time to get a hold of the issue and unless the industry is shaping what best practices should be we’re all going to spend a lot of time and money chasing work that isn’t worth getting.


“How you think things might go initially is going to change fundamentally depending on the contractor and the means and methods. [It] is a good thing. You’re getting the benefi t of the design-build approach.” – Don Phillips


Uncertainty.

Risk.

Tunneling is different from other types of heavy construction due to the very different set of risks facing the parties involved. Tunnel builders are always pushing into ground that has never been seen. This is not to say that they proceed blindly, but the ground ahead of the TBM has remained unseen and untouched for centuries. It goes with-out saying, then, that understanding the ground and predicting its makeup and behavior with some degree of cer-tainty would be central to approach-ing a tunneling project. Assessing the ground has been a prime factor in shaping the tunneling market, affect-ing everything from technological ad-vances to contract drafting practice.

Geotechnical Baseline ReportsThe 1974 publication of Better Contracting for

Underground Construction provided a set of guide-lines for major underground projects based on an industry consensus. This document was revisited in 2006 by the Underground Contracting Associa-tion (UCA) of the Society for Mining and Metal-lurgical Engineers (SME). One key component of the guidebook is the call for fair disclosure and risk sharing in underground construction.

Naturally, this lead to an upswing in geotechnical investigation.

Following the guidebook’s publication, legally-bind-ing geotechnical reports began popping up in contract

Geotechnical Investigation and Its Place in Tunneling

By Greg Thompson

Take a Good Take a Good Long LookLong Look


documents and design review boards (DRBs) were formed to over-see high-dollar projects.

Since the ground represents the unknown variable in under-ground construction, it only seems fair that both contractor and owner share the risk associated with the unforeseen circum-stances that might be encountered during construction.

“The ground doesn’t change during work,” explains Randy Essex, executive vice president and director of tunnels at Hatch Mott MacDonald. “But means and methods can affect how the ground behaves or misbehaves.”

Essex’s approach to risk and the ground lead to the 1997 pub-lication of Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Underground Con-struction, colloquially known as The Yellow Book. Essex edited the book, leading a committee that sought to establish a standard that would address the needs of all parties to a major under-ground project. “Tunneling is a victim of its inability to deal with risk,” Essex explains. “Geotechnical baseline reports [GBRs] look to level the playing fi eld.”

According to Essex, the focus of the GBR needs to be on full disclosure. “Ideally, you develop a GBR that fairly represents the reality of the situation,” he says. The GBR should provide the most realistic baseline condition assessment as is possible and should answer such questions as: What’s the third party risk? and What aspect of the work are fi xed?

More than creating a perfect document of ground conditions, a virtual impossibil-ity given access points for investigative borings and the myriad differences that can occur foot to foot underground (“The ground is by no means a layer cake,” Es-sex says, illustrating the latter), the GBR will provide a fair baseline from which all parties can proceed and from which contracts can be negotiated fairly. At its core, the GBR is one tool toward risk management and risk sharing.

Building a GBRWhen Essex and the panel revisited the Yellow Book to revise

it for 2007’s Gold Book, they refl ected on the feedback they’ve received since the original publication. One recurring theme they encountered that GBRs are typically more useful if prepared by someone who has experience writing GBRs. The logic isn’t quite circular.

Think of it this way: Any investigation is only as good as the investigator. “The key is the person who looks at the material,” explains Rick Switalski, sewer design manager of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD). “Good information is more important than how you get it.”

In other words, just as an inexperienced investigator may not properly interpret the data from an investigative boring, an inex-perienced engineer may not form the best GBR out of even the best data.

“A bad GBR can be worse than not having one at all,” Essex cautions.

Essex likes to point out that a well-prepared GBR should be “no more than a six-pack read.” By that he means that the perti-nent information should be accessible enough that it can be read in the amount of time it might take the reader to down a sixer of…water.

Not only that, it needs to provide an honest, accurate estimate of the ground without being too cautious or not cautious enough. “The GBR needs to be as realistic as it can be,” he explains. “It should let the contractor deal with what should be there rather than with an over-conservative estimate.” The very real safety

issues at stake in the event of workers insuffi ciently prepared to engage the ground they’ll face make the reasonability and rela-tive accuracy of the report that much more important.

Recent Developments, Other ApplicationsOne of the newer GBR methodologies is the three-step process

that allows input from both the owner and the builder. First, the owner commissions a GBR to establish the conditions relevant to the project. For the next step, the bidders provide input in an agreed-upon format. The fi nal step, the owners review the pro-posals and from here the fi nal GBR is agreed upon. In this three-step process, the fi nal document is typically referred to as the GBR-C and it is fundamentally important that a give-and-take exist between the owner and the builder to arrive at a document that both parties can work with.

The increasing application of the design-build contracting model and public-private partnerships further exhibit the util-ity of GBRs. Particularly with design-build, a team considers ground, means and methods, looking over the geotechnical re-ports. In many ways, this resembles the three-step approach mentioned above.

Another application of the GBR approach is with other types of underground construction, including cut-and-cover work and shaft excavation. In the instance of a cut-and-cover project, it might not seem fi nancially sound to invest in a full battery of tests up-front, but if the owner is a small municipality, cost over-runs caused by unexpected grounds can be devastating. These applications bring their own conditions and concerns to the table, but GBRs can be a valuable tool in producing fair contracts to all parties involved.

“We tell our consultants to do as much investigation as they need to,” says Switalski. “It’s better to invest up front than to pay more at the back end if something goes wrong.” NEORSD is well-known for its progressive geotechnical investigative plans, but experience has brought them to the point that they learn as much as they can about the ground before they jump into a project.

ConclusionAdequate geotechnical reports are critical irrespective of proj-

ect cost or magnitude. The cost overruns that follow in the wake of underground “surprises” can cripple an owner’s ability to take on future projects, if not permanently disable the project at hand. And then come the lawsuits. Not coincidentally, the GBR is the fi rst docu-ment read pre-bid, the fi rst document referenced in a dispute.

Underground construction is about risk and it’s about uncer-tainty. But it’s not the fun kind of risk where you double down on 9s at the $5 table at Caesar’s. It’s the kind of risk that can bank-rupt a company. The kind of risk that can kill somebody.

How much risk is an owner willing to take? How about a contrac-tor? Or as Essex asks, summing up both sides: “How do you get somebody to belly up to the bar and put a price on uncertainty?”

Greg Thompson is assistant editor of Tunnel Business Magazine.

“The GBR needs to be as realistic as it can be, It should let the contractor deal with what should be there rather than with an over-conservative estimate.” — Randy Essex



One of the oldest, yet least understood materials for repairing leaks in concrete structures is polyurethane chemical grout. Polyurethane chemical grouts react with water to bond with the concrete to form water-tight, permanent seals or to become rigid, fi lling voids and stabilizing soil. Chemical grout was fi rst developed in 1955 and since that time has been used in sewers, manholes, tanks, vaults, tunnels and many other ap-plications all over the world. Recent studies and over 40 years of experience indicate that America’s fi rst trenchless technology is still the best, most cost-effec-tive, long-term defense against infi ltration of ground-water into structurally sound sewer systems.

As population increases and infrastructure ages, municipalities and contractors are under constant pressure to fi nd effective repair options to reduce infi ltration and ease treatment plant overburden. Infi ltration occurs when defects in sanitary sewer lines, manholes, pump stations, catch basins and storm drains allow groundwater to enter the system. This infi ltration adds to treatment costs and in-creases the risk of sanitary sewer overfl ows (SSOs). Groundwater leaks also carry sand, silt and other debris into the system, increas-ing wear and tear on equipment. Voids are often created around these structures that can lead to an unstable foundation and settle-ment. With the right product, leaks can be stopped in a matter of seconds, permanently and with immediate cost-savings.

Studies show that 40 percent of groundwater infi ltration in sewer systems enters through manholes. Some manholes require structural rehabilitation usually involving a spray, hand-applied or cured-in-place (CIP) lining system. It’s important for the munici-pality or the contractor installing any of these systems to realize that groundwater infi ltration must be eliminated prior to the lin-ing system installation. Too often, existing leaks in manholes are treated by applying a quick-set hydraulic cement over the active infi ltration, which stops the leak temporarily, thus giving the lining

system time to be installed. This temporary patch allows water to remain within the primary structure and can lead to a weakened bond or the future failure of the lining system.

The Basics of InstallationPolyurethane chemical grouts are usually injected under pres-

sure as a liquid resin into or in the vicinity of the leak. Once the resin contacts water, a chemical reaction occurs. Depending on the material formulation, the grout/water combination forms ei-ther an expansive closed cell foam or a gel. The foam created can be fl exible and resilient (hydrophilic) or ridged, meaning the cell structure of the foam crushes when compressed (hydrophobic).

In most manhole leak scenarios, the water fl ow or leak can be uti-lized to pull the grout into the structure. To accomplish this, a hole is drilled in the vicinity of the leak and the chemical grout is injected through the wall into the water source. As the resin reacts with the ground water, it is pulled back into the structure and seals the leak from the outside in, thus creating a seal through the entire wall. Chemical grouts can also be injected directly into the defect in cases where the leak is not strong enough to pull the chemical grout into the structure. The expansion of the foam helps drive the grout through the structure to seal the defect. Hydrophilic polyurethane resins that produce gels are typically installed by injecting water along with the resin through a manifold that briefl y mixes the two prior to being injected. These gels are non-expansive but can be produced at water-to-resin ratios as high as 15 parts water to one part resin.

Choosing the Correct Product:Step One — Know the Material

Both hydrophilic and hydrophobic chemical grouts will seal leaks in all types of concrete structures initially. The issue is how to create a permanent seal. “There is not a single product on the mar-ket today that is a fi x-all, do-all for repairing all leaks in concrete,” says Scott Kelly, technical support specialist for Prime Resins Inc.

The Misunderstood The Misunderstood LeakmasterLeakmaster Reducing

Infi ltration with Polyurethane Chemical GroutBy Leigh Kite


“Many products will temporarily fi x a leak, but if applied correctly, most polyurethane grouting repairs are permanent.”

To break down the decision process, let’s look at the basic prop-erties of both hydrophobic and hydrophilic chemical grouts. The properties of each type can be utilized to reduce the cost of instal-lation and improve the quality of the repair long term.

Hydrophilic – Latin (hydro)=water and (philic)=affi nity Hydrophilic chemical grouts can produce either closed cell

foam or a non-cellular gel when mixed with water. The reaction time is typically 30 to 45 seconds for foams and 12 to 15 seconds for gels. When activated, foams expand in volume between 5 to 8 times. The volume of gel produced is relative to the ratio of water mixed with resin during installation. Hydrophilic Gels can shrink after cure in the absence of water. Hydrophilic chemical grout likes water and is able to bond to wet surfaces tenaciously; these grouts are water-scavenging agents that seek out water as they react and allow the resin to work its way into water fi lled pores that exist in wet concrete surfaces. Hydrophilic chemical grouts are fl exible and resilient after full cure and will allow movement to occur in the structure without damaging the seal or bond.

Hydrophobic – Latin (hydro)=water and (phobic)=fearHydrophobic chemical grouts require a catalyst that is blended

into the resin prior to installation. The dosage of catalyst added to the resin controls the reaction time and the volume of foam produced. Using the maximum dosage of catalyst (10 percent by volume), hydrophobic resins have an aggressive expansion; the reaction time is 10 to 12 seconds and expansion can be as much as 29 times in volume. Hydrophobic chemical grouts repel water af-ter activation. When injected into a wet crack or joint hydropho-

bic resins can trap water in the pores of the wet concrete. This trapped water becomes a bond inhibitor. Hydrophobic resins cure rigid and do not recover from compression. If the structure moves there is a good chance the cell structure will be damaged and leaks will reappear. Hydrophobic chemical grout is low vis-cosity and permeates loose and non-consolidated soils readily.

Knowing the basic differences in hydrophobic and hydrophilic chemical grouts is a crucial step in making the correct choice of repair material.

Choosing the Correct Product:Step Two — What to Do and What to Avoid

What to DoIf a leak repair project involves a non-structural defect in a con-• crete or masonry structure, a hydrophilic chemical grout should


Water infi ltration pre-grouting.

We Bring the Show to You

For more information visit: www.trenchlessroadshows.com

Over 40 Exhibitors Live Trenchless Field Demonstrations Educational Sessions

San Francisco, CASeptember 17-18 Hilton Concord

Baltimore, MDNovember 11-12 Turf Valley Resort

ww


be used to seal the leak unless job conditions dictate otherwise.Gels should be used only in below grade structures where • either moisture from the interior (like in a manhole) or from ground water is present to keep the cured gel hydrated. Gels will shrink if water becomes absent, but provide a low-cost alternative to foams.Foams are appropriate for above grade or below grade instal-• lation. They are typically 85 percent air fi lled after cure and have excellent elongation, compression and rebound for use in expansion joints, cracks or any other non-structural defect in concrete structures.Utilize the aggressive expansion of hydrophobic chemical grouts • if repairing a gushing leak that is impractical to repair with milder expanding hydrophilic resins. In below grade structures, this is a good way to fi ll voids that may be present outside the structure. Once the leak is reduced to a manageable level, hydrophilic resin

should be injected into the defect to back up the hydrophobic material.Inject hydrophilic gel into gushing leaks neat or with a 1:1 • water-to-resin mix ratio to shut down gushing leaks. This is a case where you push as much material in as possible as fast as you can. If a high volume pump is available, less material will be used to stop the leak because it reduces the dilution of the resin in the mass of water source.Use Activated Oakum (dry oakum soaked in hydrophilic resin) • to reduce the fl ow in gushing leaks. If the leak can be slowed, a hydrophilic resin may be used to complete the repair.

What to AvoidAvoid installing gels in expansion joints or cracks that are subject • to movement. Gels form a solid material with little or no cellular structure to disperse tension under compression. This tension can split the gel and damage the seal.Avoid installing hydrophobic chemical grouts for repairing minor • leaks in cracks or joints. The repair will be temporary.Don’t get in a hurry when repairing tight cracks and minor leaks. • These can be the most diffi cult to repair long term. As our infrastructure ages, chemical grouting will continue to

maintain its value as one of the easiest, most cost-effective and longest-lasting repair solutions available.

“As with any type of repair, choosing the right repair material has a great impact on the longevity of the repair,” says Kelly. “If the right polyurethane chemical grout is chosen for your repair project and the correct installation techniques are used, the re-pair will actually outlast the structure.”

Leigh Kite is PR and marketing coordinator for Prime Resins Inc.


The same leak as opposite, post-grout.


One reason Owners and Engineers opt to tunnel in urban environments is to elimi-nate or reduce work in the streets. Yet, it’s diffi cult for these Owners and Engineers to explain to local residents why tunnel proj-ects create traffi c issues. In fact, nearly every tunnel project has some need or re-quirement for shafts along the tunnel align-ment: transit tunnels have mandatory exit shafts and/or ventilation shafts; water and sewer tunnels require manholes for main-tenance and/or isolation valves, etc.

The Ellis Avenue Project shafts allow for maintenance access to the 66-in. Ho-bas sewer pipe installed inside the 109-in. tunnel constructed by Barnard Sole-tanche as part of the same project. The contract required fi ve access manholes at 1,000-ft centers over a one-mile stretch in Ellis Ave., a fi ve-lane street with an entrance ramp onto the I-405 Freeway. Barnard Soletanche’s innovative scheme took only 8 to 10 work days per shaft lo-cation, reducing traffi c delays and mini-

mizing impacts to the surrounding busi-nesses and community.

Soil ConditionsThe general project location lay just

west of the Santa Ana River Channel in the southeastern Los Angeles basin, ap-proximately 4 miles inland from the Pa-cifi c Ocean. Soils encountered on the proj-ect consisted primarily of silty clays and clayey, silty sands. The crews observed groundwater approximately 18 ft below the existing ground surface throughout the tunnel alignment.

Manhole Detail – Two-Pass Method

The more traditional original design called for construction of the intermediate manhole shafts in a two-pass method. This process included performing the initial ex-cavation of the drilled shafts the full 11-ft diameter to a depth approximately 3 to 4 ft below the design invert of the tunnel (up

Life Jackets Life Jackets Required!Required!

EPB Tunnel Project in California Is Wet and WildBy Ben Campbell, Jordan Hoover and Shelley Burg

Drivers on a busy Fountain Valley, Calif., thoroughfare may have been surprised earlier this year when they saw crews on the street wearing life jackets while constructing fi ve shafts for an Orange County Sanitation District tunneling project. The joint venture of Barnard Construction Co. Inc. and Soletanche Inc. recently completed these shafts as part of the $32.8 million 66-in. Ellis Avenue Trunk Sewer Project for the OCSD. To reduce time in the street and traffi c interruption, the JV devised a one-pass method of excavating and building the 11-ft diameter shafts and the 60-in. diameter access manholes encased within them. The life jackets? They were part of the crew’s PPE.


to 40-ft deep). Upon completing the initial excavation, the shafts were to be com-pletely backfi lled with a low-strength con-crete/sand slurry material (approximately 1,000 psi). The 11-ft diameter shaft would accommodate the TBM passing through the low-strength concrete while maintain-ing a minimum section outside the tunnel suffi cient to transfer loads to the undis-turbed soil below.

After excavating the tunnel through the backfi lled shafts, the JV was to re-establish its presence within the street to perform the second pass installation of the fi nal manhole. This step included drilling through the low-strength concrete backfi ll material and exposing the top of the initial tunnel lining. This second pass drilling was to be performed with a drill diameter just large enough to accommo-date the 60-in. fi berglass manhole, which would ultimately tie into the 66-in. Hobas fi nal tunnel lining. The 60-in. manhole was to be installed and grouted into place be-fore the street surface could be restored and reopened to traffi c.

Manhole Detail – One-Pass Method

To minimize impacts on traffi c, the sur-rounding neighborhood and local busi-nesses, Barnard Soletanche engineered a one-pass method for this portion of the work. Generally, the modifi ed plan con-sisted of constructing the drilled shaft and 60-in. fi berglass manhole in a single step from the surface; later completing the tie-in from within the tunnel.

The intermediate manholes were lo-

cated in the fi rst two lanes of the fi ve-lane Ellis Avenue. The JV installed traffi c con-trol around the work site, reducing Ellis Avenue to two lanes through the work zone. This afforded the project three lanes in which the JV could construct the drilled shafts. In addition, the drilled shafts were to be located immediately north of a 30-in. A.C. waterline. To prevent damage to this existing line, the fi rst 6 ft of excavation had to be performed via traditional open-cut methodology. They used a trench box shoring system to support the surround-ing ground and adjacent existing utilities.

Once this initial excavation had been completed, Barnard Soletanche set up a polymer slurry batching and storage sys-tem that would be used to stabilize the ex-cavation during the drilling process. When the slurry system had been established, the JV’s drilling subcontractor, Barney’s Hole Drilling Service, mobilized a LoDrill mounted on a 30-ton excavator to com-mence drilling of the shafts. They piloted the excavations with a 60-in. can bit and later reamed them to the completed 11-ft diameter. To keep the excavation open, they used a polymer slurry. The shaft was excavated approximately 3 to 4 ft below the future tunnel invert. Excavation spoils were deposited adjacent to the shaft in-side the containment area constructed of steel sheets, k-rail and HDPE membrane liner. Dump trucks backed up to the con-tainment area where they were quickly loaded with an excavator.

Upon completing the drilled shaft exca-vation, the crew backfi lled the shafts via tremie with low-strength concrete, up to an elevation of approximately 1 ft above the crown of the future tunnel. The team collected the displaced polymer drill-ing slurry at the surface and recycled it for use on drilling the next manhole. The next step involved lowering an 8-ft diam-eter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) down the 11-ft diameter hole through the drill slurry and pushing the bottom of the CMP approximately 1 ft into the low-strength concrete. When the CMP had been an-chored, additional low-strength concrete was tremied into the annulus between the outside of the CMP and the drilled

Barnard Soletanche crews excavate the 11-ft diameter drilled shafts utilizing a polymer slurry.

Crews place the 60-inch fi berglass manhole.


hole. At this point, the CMP was still full of drilling slurry on the inside and sur-rounded with low-strength concrete on the sides and bottom. After allowing the low-strength concrete to set up, the drill slurry was pumped out, and the secured smaller shaft was ready to receive instal-lation of the fi berglass manhole.

The team then set the 60-in. diameter fi berglass manholes inside the 8-ft diam-eter CMP-lined shafts and positioned atop the initial lift of low-strength concrete. The secured shafts allowed surveyors to

verify the exact location of the lower sec-tion of the fi berglass manhole, to ensure that it was plumb, and to verify its loca-tion with respect to the design alignment of the 66-in. sewer line. Once a manhole had been placed, the bottom 2 ft around the outside of the fi berglass manhole were backfi lled with sand before fi nally back-fi lling the balance of this annular space with more low-strength concrete. The temporary box shoring was then removed and the area backfi lled and restored to its original condition.

The team constructed the drilled shafts and installed the 60-in. manholes in ad-vance of the tunnel heading. Upon com-pleting of the tunnel, Barnard Soletanche crews removed the initial tunnel lining within the stabilized drilled shaft loca-tions, and hand-mined up to the 2-ft sand pocket, exposing the end of the fi berglass manhole. As the 66-in. Hobas sewer pipe was installed, crews installed saddle sec-tions which tied the new sewer line into the previously installed fi berglass man-holes. The annulus around the tee con-nections was fi nally grouted using grout and vent tubes installed during the initial placement of the fi berglass manhole.

The life jackets? Well, they attracted a little attention in the street — worn by the crew to prevent drowning in the 40-ft deep polymer slurry-fi lled hole.

ConclusionWith its method to install the drilled

shaft and fi berglass manhole in a single pass, Barnard Soletanche was able to min-imize impacts to the surrounding area by completely eliminating a second mobiliza-tion and traffi c detour. The JV was able to complete each manhole in just a two-week cycle; the last of which took only 7 1/2 working days.

The joint venture team of Barnard Con-struction Co. Inc. (Bozeman, Mont.) and Soletanche Inc. (Miami, Fla.) successfully completed the Orange County Sanitation District’s tunnel project in April 2008. The project was completed ahead of schedule, within budget and without a lost-time ac-cident. The success of this project was attributable to the cooperation and team-work of: the Owner, OCSD; Design En-gineers, Malcolm Pirnie Inc. and CDM; Construction Manager, Parsons - CH2M Hill; and Barnard Soletanche JV.

Ben Campbell, Jordan Hoover and Shelley Burg are with Barnard Construction Co., Boze-man, Mont.

Project SummaryIn general, the Ellis Avenue Project consisted of the following scope:• Construct 45-ft diameter, 45-ft deep junction shaft; 16-ft, 25-ft

TBM retrieval shaft; 30-ft diameter, 20-ft deep diversion struc-ture shaft; and 5 11-ft diameter intermediate manhole shafts reaching depths of up to 35 ft along tunnel alignment.

• Tunnel 5,437 lf, 109-in. diameter through soft ground condi-tions with a Herrenknecht EPB TBM.

• Chemically grout 350 lf of tunnel alignment for stability and environmental purposes through a known area of petroleum-

contaminated soil.

• Install 5,500 lf of 66-in. fi nal liner carrier pipe and 14,500 lf of fi ber-optic line inside completed tunnel and shafts.

• Cellular grout 5,437 lf of tunnel annulus formed by rib and board initial lining and 66-in. Hobas pipe fi nal lining.

• Cellular grout 8,000 lf of 36-in. abandoned sewer pipe.

• Construct concrete diversion structure tying new sewer line into existing 96-in. trunk sewer.

• Construct concrete junction structure joining new line with OCSD’s new pumping station, currently under construction.

Workmen confi rm shaft alignment.


Project TeamContractor: Barnard Construction Co. Inc. and Soletanche Inc. JV

General Superintendent: Mickey Aliff

Project Manager: Ben Campbell

Project Engineers: Jordan Hoover and Patrick Stump

Field Superintendents: Chris Eckhardt, Andy Granger, Alvin Matthews, Dave Meyer and Willie Flores

Safety: Boodie Hurd

Owner: Orange County Sanitation District

Engineer: Malcolm Pirnie Inc.

Tunnel Engineer: CDM

Construction Manager: Parsons-CH2M Hill

Reader Service Number 19Reader Service Number 18

Backfi lled excavation after completing installation of the drilled shaft and fi berglass manhole.

Legal Feature

ConstructiveAcceleration

“Hurry and fi nish, but don’t say I said so.”


IntroductionConstruction projects require precise movement of material and labor. When one component of the proj-ect is delayed, it may affect work that follows. Delays to the planned project completion date may be the unavoidable result. In an effort to mitigate project delay, contractors often accelerate their work. Con-tractors add labor, equipment and/or re-sequence work to make up lost time.

If the underlying reason for the delay is clear and the owner takes responsibility for the cause of that delay, the owner may direct the contractor to accelerate to make up the lost time. With “directed acceleration,” the parties sit down and plan their ef-forts and the cost of this directed acceleration ahead of time. If the underlying cause of the delay is the contractor’s responsibil-ity, the contractor has two options, either accelerate on its own or face the prospect of having to pay for the owner’s delay costs, be they liquidated damages or actual damages.

Constructive acceleration typically occurs when a contractor makes a claim for additional time, based on an excusable delay, and the owner denies the time extension and directs the contractor to fi nish project according the pre-delay schedule. This requires the contractor to accelerate to make up the lost time incurred from the excusable delay. An excusable delay is a delay that under the con-tract entitles the contractor to extra time to complete the project. Typical excusable delays under many construction contracts in-clude delays due to unusual weather, labor disputes, owner caused delays and delays caused by factors beyond the contractor’s con-trol.

The term “constructive” used to describe this concept comes from the line of cases that discuss “constructive changes.” In such situations, the owner wants an item of work a certain way but does not acknowledge that the work constitutes a compens-able change under the contract. In constructive acceleration scenarios, similar elements are present regarding the schedule

aspects of the project. The owner wants the contractor to accel-erate, but does not acknowledge that the owner is responsible to pay for the acceleration.

Legal Elements of a Successful ClaimThere are fi ve basic legal elements to a claim for constructive

acceleration. The elements are as follows: 1) the contractor expe-rienced an excusable delay; 2) the contractor properly and timely requested a time extension; 3) the project owner failed or refused to grant the requested extension; 4) the project owner demanded that the project be completed by the original date despite the excusable delay; and 5) the contractor actually accelerated the work to complete the project by the original date.

Under the fi rst element, the contractor must experience an ex-cusable delay. As discussed earlier, such delays depend on the pre-cise language in the contract and typically include: unusual weath-er, labor unrest and acts of God. The excusable delay may also be the fault of the owner. The key issue under this element is that the cause of the delay must be outside the control of the contractor.

Under the second element, the contractor must properly and timely request an extension of time due to the delay. Most important here is the “proper” request for the time extension. This is crucial as the contractor must give notice pursuant to the contract claim notice provisions. Furthermore, many contracts require that a contractor’s notice of delay include notice for all delays that the contractor believes it is entitled to as part of its claim for additional time.

Under the third element, to have a constructive acceleration claim, the project owner must have refused to grant the contractor’s re-quest for an extension of time to complete the required work. Critical to this element is the timing of owner’s response to the contractor’s request. If the owner is to grant additional time, the owner must do so in a prompt manner so that the contractor can take advantage of the extension by effi ciently ordering and sequencing the work that needs to be performed. A belated extension is meaningless, other than constituting admission that the delay was excusable.

The fourth element, that the project owner demand that the project be completed by the original date, is, perhaps, the most subject to dispute. The cases do not provide a clear test on what

by Peter M. Kutil, Esq. and Karl Silverberg, Esq.

conduct by the owner will suffi ce. The circumstances of the proj-ect may be such that it is very clear that the owner wants the project to be completed by the original completion date. In many cases, however, the owner writes a strong letter threatening liq-uidated damages, but stops one word short of directing the con-tractor to accelerate. Is this an order to accelerate? The United States Court of Claims concluded in Norair Engineeering Corps v. United States1 that “a request to accelerate or even an expres-sion of concern about lagging progress, may have the same effect as an order.” To determine whether there is clear direction by the owner to accelerate, the contractor could try writing a letter to the owner and ask the question: Are you directing me to accelerate? If the answer back is anything but a clear “no,” courts would likely fi nd that owner did indeed order the contractor to accelerate.

Under the fi fth and fi nal element, the contractor must actu-ally accelerate its work to complete the project by the original completion date. Success of timely completion, however, is not a requisite for a contractor’s claim, as long as there is a legitimate effort to accelerate. The contractor could recover for construc-tive acceleration even if the efforts undertaken by the contractor do not result in a timely fi nish.

ExampleThe case of Fraser Construction Co. v. United States2 from the

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provides a good example. The case arose from a contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to excavate a lakebed for fl ood control purposes. “During the excavation, the water level of the lake [was to] be lowered by 8 ft, resulting in a small stream that would wind its way through a mud fl at.” In order to work com-pletely in the dry, the contractor diverted the local river that feeds the lake around the perimeter of the lake and dewatered the lakebed.

“The excavation did not proceed smoothly, however. The con-tractor contended that in the summer of 1993, a greater volume of water fl owed through the river than in any other year on re-cord, and that the fl ows did not recede to normal levels at any time during June, July and August.”

The contractor submitted a certifi ed claim to the contracting offi cer for additional money claiming that the Army Corps’ denial of a time extensions due to the high water fl ow in the river consti-tuted a constructive acceleration. The contracting offi cer denied the contractor’s claim. The contractor fi led an action in the Court of Federal Claims seeking to overturn the contracting offi cer’s decision. The Court denied the contractor’s request for relief and upheld the contracting offi cer’s decision. The contractor then ap-pealed the Court’s decision.

The appellate court started by noting the fi ve elements for a constructive acceleration claim discussed above.

The appellate court fi rst addressed the issue of whether the contractor had experienced an excusable delay, the fi rst element of constructive acceleration claim. The appellate court noted that the lower court had decided that the high water fl ow conditions the contractor experienced, in and of itself, would not be an ex-cusable delay. The contract stated that delays are excusable if such delays are due to “unforeseeable causes,” including “fl oods” or “unusually severe weather.” According to the lower court, the high water fl ow conditions the contractor experienced “can give

rise to an excusable delay only when they are relatable to unusu-ally severe weather . . . or else associated with a fl ood.” According to the lower court, because technically there was no fl ood and no severe weather to explain the high water level, the lower court found no excusable delay.

The appellate court disagreed with the lower court. The appel-late court found that contract “provides generally that delay is excusable if it arises from ‘unforeseen causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.’ Floods and unusually severe weather are provided as ‘examples’ of causes that may give rise to excusable delay, but the contract language makes clear that those are not the only conditions that can have that effect.” Because the high water level was beyond the con-tractor’s control, it can constitute an excusable delay.

The Army Corps further argued that the contractor never for-mally requested additional time in the fi rst place, the second ele-ment of a constructive acceleration claim. Although there were no documents evidencing a formal request for a time extension, the contractor submitted an affi davit to the court by its project manager. The affi davit stated that the project manager orally re-quested time extensions for several periods of high water in June 1993 and was told by an Army Corps representative that the con-tractor would receive no time extension for fl ooding. While the lower court dismissed the affi davit as insuffi cient, the appellate court found that the affi davit suffi ced to raise an issue of fact as to whether the contractor did indeed make a request for a time extension that the Army Corps denied.

This case highlights how two different courts can come to two different conclusions on the same set of facts. The higher court ulti-mately found in favor of the contractor. The case shows that the con-tractor has to clearly make its case for an excusable delay. It shows that the contractor should follow the technical process for making a time-related claim to avoid potential adverse outcomes later.

ConclusionTypically, when a contractor gets behind schedule, whether

due to unusual weather delays, faulty designs, or other reasons, it is not an easy task to right the ship. There is a tendency among owners to neglect contractors’ claims for extra time and leave such claims unresolved until the very end of the project. Failure to promptly address time-impact claims can be shortsighted, as it often results in higher costs to perform the work and expensive litigation later. By dealing with schedule impacts early, the owner and contractor get the benefi t of working together to achieve bet-ter results mitigating the delay’s impact. The best practice for owners and contractors is to deal with the issues they face on a real time basis in order to avoid a cascade of deeper scheduling problems from arising later.

1229 Ct. Cl. 160, 666 F. 2d 546 (1981).21999 U.S. App. LEXIS 15787.

Peter Kutil and Karl Silverberg are attorneys with the fi rm of King & King, LLP in New York and focus their practice on serving the construction industry. More information is available at their website: www.king-king-law.com.




CaliforniaAlameda CountyNew Irvington TunnelSan Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Constructing a tunnel parallel to the ex-isting Irvington Tunnel, in Alameda County, Calif., will allow the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to decommission the Irvington Tunnel for inspection and rehabili-tation to improve the water delivery reliabil-ity. Located between the Calaveras and Hay-ward Fault Zones, the mixed-face tunnel is made up of inter-bedded layers of sandstone and shale, with several smaller fault zones. Adding more complications, the tunnel offers 700 ft of cover and high hydrostatic head with potential water infl ows up to 1,000 gpm.

An 18,200-ft long excavation is proposed with the installation of a 10-ft inside diameter concrete liner. There will also be construction of a new access road to the Irvington Portal and a new Portal within the piping manifold. Additional isolation valves and connections to the Bay Division Pipelines, originating from the Irvington Tunnel site, will also be installed.

The total construction cost for the project is estimated at $154 million. The bid date has been proposed for March 2009, with an estimated construction start around August 2009.

Berkeley-OrindaThe Caldecott Tunnel ProjectCalifornia Department of Transportation

The Caldecott Tunnel connects Alameda and Contra Costa Counties via state Route 24, and The Caldecott Improvement Project proposes to alleviate traffi c congestion along Route 24 by constructing a fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel. The goals of the project are to improve mobility for motorists and emergency crews along State Route 24 via the Caldecott tunnels, reduce delays and im-prove travel times, eliminate the need for dai-ly tunnel lane reversals and merges, enhance safety for the traveling public and Caltrans maintenance workers and respond to Re-gional Measure 2 and Contra Costa County Measure J.

The project is fully funded with a total production cost estimated at $420 million. The design phase will be completed in sum-mer 2008. Construction is planned to begin in the summer of 2009, with a completion in 2013 or 2014. It’s proposed that excavation will be completed primarily by roadheader with around-the-clock activity from both sides. If the construction is limited to one side, the project’s duration will be increased by 14 months, increased cost of $45 million and increase risk for serious delays. A sound-isolating and absorbing temporary soundwall will need to be built — 1,000 ft long and 35 to 40 ft high.

San FranciscoBay TunnelSan FranciscoPublic Utilities Commission

Down by the Bay, the Bay Tunnel Segment of the new Bay Division Pipeline (BDPL) No. 5 will extend fi ve miles from Newark. From there, it will cross under the San Francisco Bay and adjacent marshlands, ending in Menlo Park, Calif. Under the San Francisco Bay, it’s a mix of sandy and silty clays of the San Antonio Formation, with one 500-ft sec-tion through the Franciscan Formation bed-rock.

Using a pressurized-face tunnel boring machine, the construction of the 26,200-ft long tunnel will utilize bolted and gasket, pre-cast concrete segment initial lining and the installation of a 9-ft inside diameter welded steel pipe fi nal liner. Two permanent shafts will also be constructed — one 58-ft in diam-eter and 129 ft deep and one 28-ft in diameter with a depth of 83 ft. It’s proposed that these will be constructed using either slurry wall or caisson methods.

The total construction cost is estimated at $280 million. The bid date is proposed for August 2008, with an estimated construction start in January 2009.

San Mateo CountyNew Crystal Springs Bypass TunnelSan Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Beginning from the south and mostly through bedrock contained within the Franciscan Complex, classifi ed as melange and sandstones, the New Crystal Springs Bypass Tunnel will provide system redun-dancy for the vulnerable Crystal Springs Bypass Pipeline and improve delivery reli-ability. The tunnel passes under San Mateo Creeker near the north, where potential pre-grouting may be needed to strengthen the creek bed.

The excavation will measure 13-ft diam-eter and 4,200 ft long. Installation of initial pre-cast concrete segmental lining will be needed to support the tunnel excavation, in addition to the installation of additional iso-lation valves, vaults and connections to the existing pipelines and/or tunnel ends. The tunnel will sport an 8-ft ID welded steel pipe fi nal liner.

The total construction cost is estimated at $57 million. The estimated construction start will be in October 2008.

IndianaIndianapolisBelmont-Southport Interplant ConnectCity of Indianapolis

A key component of the City of Indianapo-lis’ long-term, $1.8 billion plan to reduce raw sewage overfl ows, the Interplant Connect

will connect the Belmont and Southport wastewater treatment plants. Design (Earth Tech) is to be completed in 2008 and the proj-ect will bid in 2009.

The $161.2 million project includes 6.5 miles of 12-ft diameter tunnel between 35 and 70 ft below grade. When complete, the sewer will move an estimated 320 million gal-lons each day.

Kentucky CovingtonWestern Regional Conveyance TunnelNorthern Kentucky Sanitation District

Northern Kentucky Sanitation District No. 1 has selected a team including Hatch Mott Macdonald to provide design and construc-tion management services for 38,000 ft of 9-ft diameter gravity sewer tunnel and 3,000 ft of open-cut gravity sewer line, shafts, odor control facilities and connections. The tunnel, which will extend through shales more than 300 ft below the ground surface, will convey sewage fl ows to the new Western RegionalWastewater Treatment Center on the Ohio River.

The project is scheduled for bid in 2009 or 2010.

MarylandLaurelBi-County Water TunnelWashington Suburban Sanitation Commission

The Bi-County Water Tunnel (formerly called the Bi-County Water Supply Main), is a new 84-in. diameter water main de-signed to meet growing demands and ensure continued reliable water supply to customers in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. The new main will con-nect two existing mains in Montgomery County, Maryland.

The 5.3 miles of tunnel will be construct-ed within solid bedrock between 90 and 280 ft below ground. It will 12-ft in diameter and lined inside with 84-in. diameter pipe.

Black and Veatch are the prime design engineers, while Jacobs Associates and EA Engineering, Jacobs Engineering and Hatch Mott MacDonald are the short list of primary construction management fi rms. The design engineer will be provid-ing technical review and performing with miscellaneous services during construc-tion. The WSSC is in the process of se-lecting an engineer to provide inspection, quality control and other services during construction. Work to be performed by a contractor includes construction of the tunnel, liner and testing.

Construction is expected to start in mid-2008 and complete in 2012.

Upcoming Projects


NevadaLas VegasRiver Mountains Tunnel No. 3Clean Water Coalition

This 40,000 lf, 10-ft fi nished diameter wastewater tunnel is scheduled for bid in 2008. Black and Veatch has provided a feasi-bility study as well as conceptual and detailed design services. Black and Veatch provided similar services, in addition to construction management on the River Mountains Tunnel No. 2 project.

New York / New JerseyNew York CityNo. 7 Line ExtensionMetropolitan Transport Authority

To redevelop the Hudson Yards area of Midtown West, the Metropolitan Transport Authority proposed construction and op-eration of an extension of the No. 7 line. The MTA agreed on a $2.1 billion expansion for the No. 7 train as part of the development of the MTA’s rail yards on the West Side of Manhattan. Taking the subway further west from its current fi nishing point at Times Square, continuing along 41st Street and 11th Ave and then south to a new terminal at 34th Street and 11th Ave.

Construction of the No. 7 Subway Exten-sion would be accomplished by a variety of mining methods, including the use of a tunnel boring machine, conventional excavation, cut-and-cover, and drill-and-blast. The contract to dig the tunnels for the expansion is estimated at $1.14 billion

The contracts will be bid and awarded in 2009.

New York City / NewarkHudson River CrossingNew Jersey Transit Board / Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has committed $3 billion to the tunnel con-necting Secaucus, N.J., to midtown Manhat-tan rail hubs. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey followed suit and New Jersey Transit is committing about $1.5 bil-lion. The tunnel will be nearly 30,000 lf and 20-ft diameter.

Scheduled to bid in 2009, with the fi rst con-tracts awarded as early as April, construction is anticipated to start shortly thereafter. Ex-tensive geotechnical investigation has been completed and offi cials have begun prequali-fying contractors. Offi cials anticipate some 25 contracts awarded for the project.

Final design is completing this summer

and the project is scheduled for completion in 2017.

WashingtonSeattleUniversity Light Rail ExtensionSound Transit

The 3.2-mile underground light rail exten-sion from downtown Seattle to the Univer-sity of Washington has the Federal Transit Administration’s highest rating for proposed transit projects in the nation and is scheduled for bid in 2009. Included in the $1.75 billion project are twin 12,000 lf, 22-ft diameter tun-nels and twin 3,800 lf, 22-ft diameter tunnels.

Keep us in the loop.Send news of upcoming

projects to [email protected]!

Upcoming Projects

Reader Service & FREE* Subscription Card

Fax to 330.657.2855Fax to 330.657.2855

12345678910

11121314151617181920

21222324252627282930

31323334353637383940

414243 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 6970

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 8990

919293949596979899100

101102103104105106107108109110

TBM0808

Expires 2/2009TUNNELINGONLINE.COM

CHECK your job TITLE � Owner/Partner � C.E.O. � C.O.O./C.F.O. � President � Vice President � Manager/Coordinator/Administrator � Supervisor/Foreman/Inspector � Director/Commissioner� Superintendent � Engineer/Estimator/Consultant � Safety � Other; Specify:

____________________________

I want to renew/subscribe to TBM: Tunnel Business Magazine FREE� ................................� YES � NOI would like to subscribe to the FREE E-newsletter ..............................................................� YES � NO

Signature: _______________________________________________ Date: ____________________

Would you likeRenew notices by e-mail .............................................................................................................................................................................� YES � NOConference & Webinar info from BMI by e-mail .........................................................................................................................................� YES � NOPre-screened 3rd party e-mails .................................................................................................................................................................� YES � NORenewal notices & other industry info from BMI by fax .............................................................................................................................� YES � NO

Name __________________________ _ _________________________________________

Job Title: ________________________ Company: ____________________________________

Address: ____________________________________________________________________

City: ___________________________ State,Province: __________ Zip,Postal Code: _____________

Country: _________________________ Email: _____________________________________

Phone: _________________________ Fax: _______________________________________

*The Subsciption is free in USA and Canada only

PLE

ASE

PR

INT

CLE

AR

LY

1. CONTRACTING� Utility Contractor� Tunneling Contractor� General Contractor� Other; Specify:___________________________

2. ENGINEERING � Design/Construction of Tunnels� Geotechnical� Other; Specify:___________________________

3. MINING� Operations� Engineering� Other; Specify:___________________________

4. PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITIES� Water and Sewer� Roads� Transportation Systems� Other; Specify___________________________ 5. OTHER� Equipment Manufacturer� Supplier� Library� Other; Specify___________________________

What is your primary business? (CHECK ONLY ONE):

Please allow 4-6 weeks for processing

Order online at www.benjaminmedia.com/book-store or call 330.467.7588 today!

Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Infrastructure ManagementThis publication presents a coherent, integrated picture of water and sewer infrastructure

management and provides comprehensive coverage of the latest research on management practices for water and sewer capital facilities with an emphasis on infrastructure. Taking a

life-cycle approach to the management of physical capital facilities, this well-illustrated reference provides the how-to’s for planning, budgeting, designing, constructing, and

managing the physical infrastructure of water and sewer systems. The integrated presentation of topics allows for direct application of material to job-related functions.

256-Pages/ HardboundAuthor: Neil S. Grigg

Price: $156.00*

GREENBOOK Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2006 Edition

For over 30 years, the Greenbook has been the accepted source for public works specifications for hundreds of counties, municipalities and public works agencies

throughout the nation. This all-new edition includes hundreds of new and improved specifications, as well as the most recently tested and accepted methods

of installation, techniques and technology.

450 Pages / SoftboundPublisher: BNiPrice: $90.00*

Reducing Infrastructure Damage by Tree RootsDamage to infrastructure by tree roots is a major expense for practically every city. This compendium was developed to serve as a concise and comprehensive reference on the subject of tree and infrastructure conflicts. With up-to-date descriptions and assessments of methods used to reduce damage, this resource is intended to provide tree managers, planners, and engineers with the information they need to create effective management plans.

119-Pages/ SoftboundAuthor: Laurence R. Costello and Katherine S. JonesPublisher: Western Chapter - International Society of ArboriculturePrice: $25.00*

* Shipping and Handling Not Included

Guide to Water & Wastewater Asset Management The ultimate reference guide for water and wastewater officials interested in improving the performance of their systems. Topics covered include: funding, financing, benchmarking, rate-setting, communications and establishing service levels.

84 Pages/ Softbound• Compiled by: Center for Underground Infrastructure Research and Education (CUIRE) at the University of Texas-Arlington• Compiled from: Articles published in Underground Infrastructure ManagementPublisher: Benjamin MediaPrice: $80.00*



Advertiser’s IndexAdvertiser ............................................ Page .....RS#

Allentown Shotcrete ....................................44 ........ 23

Barnard Construction ..................................33 ........ 19

Benjamin Media Resource Center .................39 ........ 21

Brierley Associates ......................................14 .......... 8

Cellular Concrete ........................................19 ........ 11

ChemGrout, Inc. .........................................15 .......... 9

Donovan Hatem LLP ....................................10 .......... 5

Hayward Baker .........................................6, 7 .......... 3

Herrenknecht ...............................................2 .......... 1

Jacobs Associates .......................................23 ........ 14

Kiewit Construction Company .......................15 ........ 10

McDowell Equipment ...................................41 ...... 104

Mercator Industries .....................................41

Messe Berlin GmbH ....................................11 .......... 6

Messinger/Kingsbury, Inc .............................21 ........ 12

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

Michels Corp. .............................................41

Microtunneling, Inc. ....................................41 ...... 101

Moretrench ................................................22 ........ 13

MWH ...........................................................9 .......... 4

Nicholson Construction ................................29 ........ 17

No-Dig 2009 ..............................................26 ........ 15

No-Dig Sewers Without Trenches ..................41 ...... 100

Ruen Drilling ...............................................33 ........ 18

Shaft Drillers International ...........................13 .......... 7

Shank/Balfour Beatty ...................................41

Surecrete Inc. .............................................41 ...... 102

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

TRS Series Ad............................................28 ........ 16

Tunnelling Association of Canada ..................36 ........ 20

Wholesale Mine supply ................................43 ........ 22

September 2008

22-27 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress 2008, Agra, India Ph: +91-11-2615984/26116567; Fax: +91-11-26116347; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.wtc2008.org

23-26 InnoTrans 2008, Berlin Ph: +49/(0)30/3038-2036; Fax: +49/(0)30/3038-2190; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.innotrans.de

October 2008

23-25 Underground Urban Infrastructure 2008, Wroclaw, Poland, Ph: +48 71 320 29 14; Fax: +48 71 328 18 89; E-mail: [email protected]

November 2008

10-12 ICDE 2008 — “Challenges and Risk Management of Underground Construction,” Singapore Ph: (65) 6735 6255; Fax: (65) 6392 4090; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.avconsultants.com.sg

February 2009

3-6 World of Concrete, Las VegasPh: 888-962-7469 Web: www.worldofconcrete.com

March 2009

29-Apr 3 2009 International No-Dig Show, TorontoWeb: www.nodigshow.com

May 2009

23-28 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, Budapest, Hungary Ph: +36 1 214 7701; Fax: +36 1 201 2680; E-mail: [email protected]; Web: www.wtc2009.org

June 2009

14-17 2009 RETC, Las Vegas Ph: (800) 763-3132; Fax: (303) 973-3845; E-mail: [email protected];Web: www.retc.org

Events Calendar


Business Cards & Classifieds





HELP WANTEDA leading multidisciplinary utility contractor based in the upper Midwest is looking for an experienced tunneling machine/hydraulic mechanic. Qualifi ed candidates must have a solid background in maintenance and repair of tunneling and other construction related equipment. Experience in hydraulics, electronics, diesel repair, generators, excavators and cranes are benefi cial. Welding, fabricating, and agricultural repair experience is a plus. Must possess ability to work independently and also as a team player.

Come work for a company who takes pride in their reputation for quality work performed safely and with care for the environment. Be an integral part of a growing, innovative company who values strong work ethics and is committed to teamwork.

Equal Opportunity Employer

Send your resume to:

classifi [email protected]

For Sale: Hitachi-Zosen Earth Pressure Balance TBM; used by Shank/Balfour Beatty to excavate 10,800 feet of soft ground tunnel. TBM is in near-new condition. TBM is complete with trailing gear, and many spare parts, including a main bearing. Shield diameter is 19.23 feet (5,860 mm), and is equipped to erect a 48 inch wide, six piece, universal ring. TBM will be disassembled in August, 2008, and stored adjacent to port facilities in Boston, MA, USA, for ocean freight shipping, worldwide. For details, contact Shank/Balfour Beatty at [email protected]. Telephone (617) 464-4444. Fax (617) 464-4474.

Mercator Industries60 Radel StreetBridgeport, CT 06607

Phone: (203) 336-5531Fax: (203) 336-5563E-mail: [email protected]

Multiple positions available for international Opportunity with Mercator Industries

CCTV Main Sewer Line Camera Operator Professionals

experienced in pipe bursting and cured in place

Mail, email or fax your resume for consideration.


F rom time to time, we should ask ourselves whether we are satis-fi ed with our industry. If the answer is no, we must then ask what

we are going to do about it. This article is a call to arms for those who wish to see improvement in one aspect of the tunnel industry.

Recent industry efforts in geotechnical baseline reporting and contracting practices have successfully shown the way for the tunnel industry to improve. These efforts engaged the profession at large in assessment, review and production of guidelines documents in areas where the practice had been identifi ed as lacking.

With efforts concluded for now in the fi elds of geologic interpre-tation and contracts, the focus naturally turns to technical specifi -cations and design procedures. Understanding of ground behavior, numerical modeling procedures and guidelines and load cases for tunnel design are some the many points of potential improvement within these areas. Specifi cation and implementation of concrete products — cast-in-place, pre-cast and sprayed concrete — is another area that merits special attention. Constraints on placement, loading conditions and equipment are all different in underground applica-tions, and this places different demands on mixing, chemistry and admixtures that should be more widely known and considered in de-sign specifi cation and construction.

UCA of SME has formed a sub-committee to improve the speci-fi cation and use of concrete in underground applications and to pro-vide a central point of reference for the industry.

There is real benefi t in developing and implementing an updated, state-of–the-practice, industry-approved guideline to provide own-ers and designers with recommended practices in the use of concrete in underground applications. These guidelines should differentiate between underground applications and existing guidance for above-ground applications, and they should specifi cally address:

Standards and testing procedures for concrete products •

Basics of gradation of coarse and fi ne aggregate•

Easy reference on cement types and availability by region•

Testing and quality control guides for underground concrete lin-• ings — including sprayed concrete

Use and purpose of cement replacement•

Mixing and placement equipment and requirements•

Basics of admixture chemistry and the description of what is • required

Generic guidance on the use of pumpable, low-slump and • high-strength mixes

Training and experience requirements for shotcrete • application

Dealing with high pH tunnel discharge water during concreting•

Specifying and achieving acceptable concrete fi nishes • — particularly sprayed concrete

As the chair of the new sub-committee, I encourage any UCA member with an interest in this project to join this effort, either as a core committee member who will produce the guideline document or as an expert who will contribute information and expertise to the core committee in an advisory capacity. For more information or to join the sub-committee and help the underground industry move forward, please contact me at [email protected].

Robert J.F. Goodfellow is Associate Vice President and Director of Tunneling — East Region of Black & Veatch Corp.

UCA of SME Helps Move Concrete Technology Forward

My Turn

By Robert J.F. Goodfellow, PE

To fully appreciate the irony of what has transpired between the U.S. Attorney’s offi ce in Brooklyn, N.Y., and Anthony

DelVescova, project manager of the Water Tunnel #3 project for Schiavone Construction Co., Secaucus, N.J., it would be well to look back to a similar situation between the District Attorney of Queens County, N.Y., and Raymond Donavan, executive vice president of Schiavone.

In 1987, Ray was accused of all kinds of charges related to a rental crane used on the Manhattan to Queens tunnel section of the 63rd Street project. These charges came not long after he had retired from the position of Secretary of Labor in the Reagan administration. When he was fi nally tried, he was acquitted and totally exonerated. Questioned by the press when he exited the courtroom he said that he was glad to be cleared but famously asked: “Which offi ce do I go to to get my reputation back?”

Fast forward to February 2008 when Anthony DelVescova was arrested handcuffed while the F.B.I. raided company offi ces. He was taken, arraigned and then named in the indictment on February 7, 2008. Anthony had to step down as project manager and was not allowed on any jobsite. The newspapers and a trade magazine had a fi eld day with photos of Anthony in handcuffs together with known mobsters.

The entire underground tunneling indus-try joined Schiavone in coming to Anthony’s defense with letters, etc., all of which ap-peared to fall on deaf ears. Fortunately for Anthony, someone with common sense must have joined the prosecutor’s offi ce, as on August 1, 2008, the U.S. Attorney’s offi ce in Brooklyn announced it had dropped all Fed-eral corruption charges. Carl Cosenzo, president of Schiavone, re-ported that Anthony was totally exonerated.

Having worked with and known Anthony almost from the day he left college and joined Schiavone, I was fl abbergasted at the ac-cusations and wondered what would happen when they found out how very wrong they were. We now know just words; no apologies. Is there no shame in our Justice department for what they do to ruin peoples’ lives?

Luckily Anthony did not have to wait years—only months—to ask the question: “Where do I go to get my reputation back?”

Jack Burke is retired and writes for Tunnel Business Magazine, World Tunnelling and other magazines. He is a member of ASCE, Beavers, Moles and AUA.

Déjà Vu

By Jack Burke



Documents

Reader Service Number 1 - · PDF fileMarketing Manager Ryan Sneltzer Regional Sales Manager Alexis R. Tarbet Circulation Manager Mark Gorman Web & Interactive Manager Chairman Gary