NorTh American Tunne/ing’98, Ozdemir(ed.

)© 7998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 9054109319

Managing subsurface risk for Toronto’s Rapid Transit Expansion Program

J.Westland & J. R. Busbridge

GolderAssociates Ltd, Mississauga, Ont., Canada
J.G.Ball
National Engineering Technology Corporation, Los Angeles, Calif USA
,

ABSTRACT: The design and construction strategy adopted to manage subsurface risks on Toronto’s Rapid
Transit Expansion Program are described. Measures include a “risk sharing” approach to construction
contracts, a commitment to comprehensive pre-construction site investigation and appointment of a Program
Geotechnical Consultant. The role of the Program Geotechnical Consultant in planning investigations,
ensuring consistency in quality and providing a consistent interpretation of subsurface data is described. The
level of site investigation effort for the major tunnelling contracts is related to construction risks, such as
change orders, to assess the optimum level of investigative effort. The “risk sharing” approach to
construction requires preparation of a Geotechnical Baseline Report and the appointment of a Disputes
Review Board for each major civil works contract. The approach to providing “baseline” conditions for
typically contentious issues, like boulder frequency, is described.

1 INTRODUCTION the risks be integrated into the management and

planning of the program. Though funding cuts
“A tunnel is a hole in the ground with an engineer have reduced the program to construction of the
on one end, a lawyer at the other and a contractor single 6.4 km Sheppard Subway (with 5
stuck in the middle.” Such is the gallows humour underground stations) the measures adopted to
of the underground construction industry and a manage subsurface risk on the program continue to
reflection of the reality that subsurface be applied on this project.
construction is inherently risky and characterized
by projects that often involve lengthy disputes,
eventually resolved by litigation. This paper 2 SUBSURFACE RISKS
describes the management strategy adopted for
Toronto’s Rapid Transit Expansion Program to Subsurface risk arises from the variability of ground
minimize and control subsurface risks. and groundwater conditions and the limits to which
Toronto’s Rapid Transit Expansion Program such conditions can be practically explored prior to
was originally planned to include two new subway construction. The variables include the thickness and
lines (the Sheppard and Eglinton Subways), extent of deposits, the strength and compressibility
extensions to two existing subway lines (the Bloor- of deposits and their permeability. The variation in
Danforth and Spadina Subways), an extension to soils is large compared to other engineering
the Scarborough LRT line and expansion of the materials; for example permeability can vary by up
Wilson subway yard facilities. In total 25 km of to 10 orders of magnitude between materials
new transit lines were planned, with 9.6 km of encountered on a single construction site. Added to
twin bored tunnel and 19 stations. The majority of the inherent natural variability are man-made hazards
construction was to take place within glacially such as subsurface contaminants, which are to be
derived soils that are typical of southern Ontario expected in most urban areas.
and much of the northern United States. The The variability and uncertainty of ground
extent of underground construction required that conditions often can require changes to construction
management of subsurface risk be considered at methods/equipment, this can cause delays and result
the onset of the projects and measures to control in construction claims that frequently are costly to

37
resolve. In addition to disputes between the parties to consistent with a trend toward risk sharing for
construction contracts, the uncertainty with respect major underground projects in North America.
to ground conditions can lead to damages to third This trend recognizes that exculpatory clauses
parties associated with ground movement or have not stood up well, as courts generally seek
contaminant migration. The publicity arising from means of preventing owners from making a
such third party impacts can compound the costs to representation and then disclaiming responsibility
the project and, indeed, threaten public support for for it (USNCTT, 1984). Thus, subsurface
large urban infrastructure projects. Recent conditions which deviate from what could reasonably
examples of sinkholes forming above tunnelling be anticipated at the bidding stage, often provide a
works in London, Los Angeles, Sau Paulo and basis for contract claims. Reasonable interpretations
Seoul made headlines world-wide and attest to the of conditions can vary significantly without a clearly
risks associated with underground constmction defined baseline and, in a low bid environment,
(World Tunnelling 1996, ENR 1995, World News contractors are encouraged to make optimistic
1997, Chung et al 1995). interpretations of ground conditions. However, given
the cost of collecting “changed” conditions claims,
and the risk that some claims may not be successful,
3 RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY contractors are forced to carry “risk” money in their
tendered prices. Thus, when an owner is forced to
The keys to managing subsurface risks for the pay a “changed conditions” claim, it in effect pays
Toronto transit expansion program were three times: once for the claim itself, once for the
considered to be understanding and assessing the risk allocation built into the bid price and once for
risks during design and clearly allocating and the cost of resolving the claim.
communicating the risks during tender and The “risk sharing” philosophy works on several
construction. The first key relates to planning and levels to reduce claim costs. All tenderers bid against
managing the site investigation program, the same interpretation of the subsurface conditions
interpreting the data obtained consistently and and the tenderers have no need to carry subsurface
providing appropriate systems to assess anticipated risk money in their bid, unless they choose to make a
construction methodology and affects on third more optimistic interpretation of conditions or
parties. These design processes are directed behaviour than has been made by the owner in
toward developing site specific contract documents preparing the baseline. Further, because the owner is
that identify minimum design and performance accepting the subsurface risk, it is encouraged to
criteria for construction. The construction criteria more thoroughly define subsurface conditions at the
relate directly to the second key to the subsurface design stage; this in itself reduces risk and claims
risk management approach - contractually during construction. Finally, because a baseline is
allocating and communicating subsurface risk. The defined at the time of tender and the risk is allocated,
objective of this aspect is to reduce costly disputes the cost of resolving claims is reduced.
that can get mired in resolving responsibility for For the TTC projects the efficient resolution of
incidents and determining the foreseeability of disputes is aided by requiring contractor’s bid
incidents, rather than solving inevitable documents to be held in escrow and a Disputes
construction problems. The specific components of Review Board (DRB) to be appointed for each major
the subsurface risk management system are civil works contract. The escrow bid documents
described in the following subsections. allow for fair assessment of claims, as settlement is
based in part on the assumptions made during
3.1 Risk Sharing Contracts bidding, not on an inflated cost born of opportunism.
The DRB, formed of a member appointed by the
Fundamental to the TTC’s subsurface risk owner, one by the contractor and a third jointly
management strategy is the implementation of selected by the two appointees, provides a
“Risk Sharing Contracts”. Whereas many major mechanism for the two sophisticated contracting
civil works contracts in the past have attempted to parties to resolve any disputes that arise. Though
assign all subsurface risk to contractors via DRB decisions are non-binding, its opinion is
exculpatory clauses, the TTC has accepted the risk compelling, given the construction experience and
of “changed” conditions and undertook to provide expertise its members typically posses; the judicial
tenderers with all relevant subsurface data and to alternative would offer a far more expensive decision
define subsurface conditions in a Geotechnical and one that is likely to be less well technically
Baseline Report (GBR). This approach is grounded.

38
3.2 Management Responsibility 3.3 Site Investigation Program

Management of Toronto’s Rapid Transit Expansion Site investigations for the Rapid Transit Expansion
Program is by a joint venture of Delcan-Hatch and Program are undertaken by investigation
staff from the TTC who were integrated with other consultants retained directly by the TTC, who
consultants to form the program management team. execute investigation work plans prepared by the
The TTC selected Golder Associates Ltd. as Program Geotechnical Consultant. The program
Program Geotechnical Consultant (PGC) at the geotechnical standards provide minimum
onset of the program; thus, subsurface expertise requirements for the field and laboratory work, a
was integrated with the management team from the standard format for the investigation reports and
start. standard forms for borehole logs and laboratory test
The geotechnical consultant’s responsibilities data.
have included setting program-wide investigation The site investigation program is carried out in
and reporting standards, planning subsurface phases, consistent with the progress of a particular
investigations, interpreting subsurface data, project’s design. Sampled boreholes were the
preparing design and baseline reports, reviewing primary investigative tool, and maximum borehole
designs and contractor’s submittals and managing spacing for the various phases is provided in Table
construction instrumentation data (Shirlaw et al 1. The Phase 1 drilling was carried out at the start of
1996). As a number of consultants undertook site the program to provide an overview of conditions
investigations on behalf of the TTC, a key role of along each alignment. The Phase 2 drilling was
the PGC is to ensure that the level of effort and typically started at the beginning of the detailed
quality of basic subsurface data is consistent across design of any section and Phase 3 investigation
all contracts and projects; this minimizes the followed shortly thereafter, during detailed design.
contractual risk associated with different
contractors receiving different amounts or quality Table 1. Maximnm Borehole Spacing for
of data. By interpreting the subsurface data the Phased Investigation Program.
Investigation Maximum Borehole
PGC minimizes the risk of interface design
anomalies, which can arise if different designers
interpret similar subsurface conditions in different Phase Spacing (in)
ways. Indeed, the individual section designers are
responsible for assessing the likely third party Phase 1 450 m
impacts of construction for their particular design
contract; basic criteria for such assessments (soil Phase 2 ISOm
properties, settlement relationships, etc.) are
established by the PGC, who also reviews the Phase 3 50 m Stations
designer’s findings so that there is consistency in 75 m Tunnels
the manner that third party risks are assessed and
in the measures that are adopted to mitigate such
risks. The object of the phased investigation program is to
The PGC ‘s involvement during construction to provide subsurface data through the design process,
manage instrumentation data allows construction consistent with project needs. The phasing also
experience to be efficiently fed back into the allowed the investigation program to be optimized,
design of future contracts. Ground movement data with more detailed investigations and sophisticated
from the early Sheppard Tail Track contract was sampling and testing carried out where preliminary
interpreted and supplied to station designers so that design assessments showed it to be warranted.
the anticipated ground movement adjacent to Without a phased approach to a large transit project,
excavations (and its effect on adjacent structures) one would risk spending excessively where there is
could be refined. This construction contract also not the need, or not having sufficient information at
provided field data on boulder frequency that critical locations.
dictated a change in the tunnel boring machine For the Sheppard Subway the borehole
head design (Busbridge et al 1998, Boone et al investigation work completed to date is summarized
I 998a). in Table 2. The total cost of this investigation work
is $2.0 million (Cdn.); this cost is for data collection
and reporting only - the costs for interpretation,

39
Table 2. Extent of Investigations for Sheppard Risk” is added to the investigation cost and plotted
Subway. against the “Extent of Investigation”, to determine
the minimum combined cost, or optimum level of
Entire Tunnels investigation.
Alignment Only This schematic figure provides a rational basis
for determining the optimum level of investigation;
however, while attaching a cost to the level of
Number of 244 65 investigation may be relatively straight forward,
Boreholes
assessing the “Cost of Risk” with varying levels of
investigation is a greater challenge. Data compiled
Average 29 52 by the U.S. National Committee on Tunnelling
Spacing (in) Technology in 1984 is reproduced in Figure 2,
where “Changes Requested” (i.e. claims made) as a
percentage of the Engineer’s project estimate are
Total Length 4940 1480 plotted against the ratio of the total borehole length
Drilled (in) to tunnel alignment length. The line of best fit
through this data is considered to represent the “Cost
of Contractual Risk” associated with varying levels
of site investigation. It is speculated that a
design, baseline and environmental report relationship for third party risks would show a
preparation, design support and design review is also similar pattern.
expected to total about $2.0 million (Cdn.) for the The budget estimate of the civil works cost for the
Sheppard Subway is $511 million (Cdn.). This
Sheppard Subway (about 0.75% of the construction
budget). budget estimate, and the actual extent and cost of the
The average borehole spacing is significantly site investigation for the Sheppard Subway, has been
smaller than the maximum spacing required by the used to plot the “Cost of Investigation” line on
program standards. The additional drilling is Figure 2 (Note that for purposes of plotting the
“Cost of Investigation” line it has been assumed that
associated with ancillary structures (bus terminals,
the Engineer’s Estimate for all projects will be the
parking structures, upgraded roadways) and the
need to more thoroughly investigate locations such
as tunnel cross-passages, structures susceptible to
damage from construction work and contaminated 55
sites.
The appropriate level of investigative effort is 50
often difficult to assess, especially when 5)
‘5
E 45
budgetting at the start of a project. It has been
w
argued that there is an optimum level of ~a 40
investigative effort, that balances the reduced cost 5)

of risk resulting from greater investigative effort I~) ~

against the increased cost of more comprehensive •0
5)
subsurface investigations. This is schematically ~5)
illustrated by Figure 1, in which the “Cost of 0•
5)
o: 25
5’
0)
‘5
.~ 20 b o\o
0 s’tii
Sheppard
‘5 U Subway
15 5) ~ Eglinton
Subway
10 ~
10%
Contingenc
-
Th - combined Oost of
5
• .‘-~RiskInvestigsitgn
and Investigation)
— -‘ ~~.,eppard costsubway)
0
(from Ash and Russet 1g74~ C’ 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Borehole Length /Tunnel Length
Figure 1. Establishing the optimum extent of site investigation Figure 2. Cost of risk and investigation based on available data

40
same as the Budget Estimate). The cost of be about 10 per cent of the Engineer’s estimate.
investigation relative to potential claims is striking, The probability of claims is explored further in
as is the absence of a minimum along the line Figure 3, where the tunnelling claim data has been
representing the combined cost of risk and interpreted to provide “probabilty of exceedance”
investigation. While the limitations of the curves for projects in which the ratio of total
relationship must be recognized (it does not account borehole length to tunnel length is less than 0.5
for borehole depth or spacing and there is little data and for projects with a ratio greater than 0.5. In
for high borehole length ratios) it appears that there the former case there is a 20 per cent chance that
is not a clear optimum level of investigative effort, the claims will exceed 50 per cent of the bid price
but rather a point at about a borehole length to
-
and a 60 per cent chance that the claims will be
tunnel length ratio of 1.5 beyond which increased - greater than 10 per cent of the bid price. Where
investigation provides little, if any, net benefit. At greater investigation takes place these probabilities
a ratio of about 0.75 it is probable that claims will drop to 5 per cent and 38 per cent respectively.
The affect of investigative effort on the cost
certainty of underground construction projects is
further illustrated by Figure 4, in which the ratio of
go. completed project cost to the Enginner’s estimate is
80
plotted against the borehole length to tunnel length
ratio. Where the borehole length ratio exceeds about
0.8, the completed constmction costs rarely
— Total Borehole Length <0.5 Tunnel Length
exceeded the Engineer’s estimate.
The plot on Figure -5, which shows the ratio of
bid prices to Engineer’s estimate against the borehole
length ratio shows that bid prices can be expected to
40 be below the Engineer’s estimate when the borehole
30 \ —--Total Borehole Length> 0.5 Tunnel Length length ratio is greater than 0.5. From Figures 2
through 5, it is apparent that the optimum level of
20. K investigative effort for major tunnelling projects
N.
corresponds to a borehole length to tunnel ratio of
10 between 0.5 and 1.5. On Figures 2, 4 and 5 the
0
borehole length ratios for the Sheppard and Eglinton
50 100 150 subways are plotted. Both projects were planned on
Size of Claims (% of Bid Price) the basis of the same maximum borehole spacing
Figure 3. Probability of claims exceeding a given size for different criteria; the difference in borehole length ratios is
levels of investigation effort

1.8 - 1.8 -

1.8
lGti

1.4
%14~
B

Si i2~- Si 1.2

a,
a’
U
1.0
~ 10 -.
0)
U
SI
Si F 0.8 • S. SHEPPARD •
08 TUNNELS
U
L ..
0
U
0.6
• EGLINTON
TUNNELS
c 061 0

0. 0.4
E0 04 SHEPPARD B
0
SUBWAY 0.2
EGLINTON
0.2 SUBWAY
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 Borehole Length I Tunnel Alignment Length
Borehole Length I Tunnel Alignment Length
Figure 4. Effect of estent of investigation on certainty of construction cost Figure 5. Effect of extent of investigation on certainty
of construction coat

41
attibutable to the greater depth of the Eglinton The process recognizes that it is impossible to
Subway alignment and the particularly challenging cause no damage to structures and established
subsurface conditions at the Eglinton tunnel launch classification criteria (Boscardin and Cording
shaft. The level of subsurface investigation is 1989) are used to assess the level of induced
considered to have been sufficient to allow thorough damage. The goal is to limit damage to slight or
assessment of subsurface risks at the design stage less because slight damage is unlikely to disrupt
and to communicate these risks for construction. occupants of structures and such damage can be
Claims records will be reviewed at the end of the repaired relatively inexpensively with miniral
Sheppard Subway project to determine if the inconvenience.
investigation has indeed been optim.ized. Where the Level 1 assessment suggests the
potential for moderate or greater damage, a Level
3.4 Assessment and Control of Third Party Impacts 2 assessment is carried out. This more detailed
analysis utilizes sophisticated modelling tools and
The potential affects of construction on third parties geotechnical testing to assess ground movements
are assessed as part of the design process (Boone and often requires a structural engineering
et al 1998). The greatest subsurface risk to third assessment of a particular structure’s tolerance to
parties is considered to arise from ground settlement. Modelling and assessment of
tnovements induced by tunnelling and deep progressively more elaborate construction techniques
excavations. For each design contract all is carried out until the “slight” damage criteria is
structures, including utilities, within a prescribed met. The costs of such measures are then compared
zone of influence (see Figure 6) are subject to a to measures such as utility relocationlreplacement or
“Level 1 Damage Assessment”. The Level 1 property purchase. The end result is a site-specific
assessment is a screening mechanism in which protection strategy that minimizes cost, while at the
established empirical relationships between site same time reduces risk of construction damage that
geometry (tunnel/excavation depth, building would lead to third party claims.
founding level and set-back) and broad soil types This design exercise is tangibly reflected in the
are used to conservatively assess likely ground contract documents as minimum design requirements
movements associated with conventional that are imposed on contractor’s temporary works
construction techniques. and as performance criteria (maximum ground or
structure movements) that must be met during
construction. Compliance with such criteria is
measured during construction via an instrumentation
——Zone of Influence program and damage to structures is assessed via a
program of pre and post condition surveys. These
latter provisions also serve the important function of
minimizing the risk of false claims arising from
parties seeking to take advantage of the “deep
pockets”of a large, publicly funded agency.
-— Final Excavation Level
EXCAVATIONS 3.5 Soil and Groundwater Management

Contaminants must be anticipated in the soil and

——Zone of Influence —--------——— -I groundwater for large urban infrastructure projects.
Efforts to detect contaminants atthe design stage will
minimize the costs and delays during construction
N
N __ 1.5
is ~ that will arise when contaminants are unexpectedly
I -.
N
N I encountered.
I
N —
An early activity on the Rapid Transit Expansion
N ~ Tunnel
N — I
Springline Program projects was a thorough historical land-use
review of all alignments. Sources of information
included air photos, fire insurance maps, land
BORED TUNNEL registry records, government waste generator and
Figure 6. Zone of influence used to determine structures that
fuel storage tank records and walk-by inspections.
undergo level 1 damage assessment The review focused on identifying present or past

42
land uses that are associated with chemical releases not have made provision for an event in its tender.
to the environment, such as service stations, land This requirement presents a challenge because
fills, dry cleaning operators and industrial facilities. of the variability of ground conditions and the
Mapping of such information was used as a planning limits to which the ground can be investigated.
tool to optimize the subsurface investigation; However, where there is uncertainty, the key is to
wherever possible, boreholes were located adjacent make a clear professional judgement as to the
to, or on the side of the alignment closest to sites likely behaviour and, in the spirit of risk sharing,
where contaminants might be anticipated. be prepared to fairly compensate contractors when
The program geotechnical standards require that the ground conditions or behaviour are worse than
all soil samples obtained be examined by the those established in the GBR.
investigation consultant for visual or olfactory For example, glacially derived soils are known
evidence of contaminants. Organic vapour tests are to contain boulders, but borehole investigations
required to be made of the air trapped at the top of rarely encounter boulders that can be core sampled
each sample jar. Similar tests are required at the top and documented (Westland et al 1996, Boone et al
of all sampling well riser pipes. These field 1 998a). If the GBR were to state that the ground
screening measures provide a relatively inexpensive may contain boulders, there would be no basis for
means of identifying potentially contaminated areas, assessin~ how frequent such obstructions might be
provide a rational basis for selecting soil and
and what their impact on construction might be.
groundwater samples for analytical testing and For the Sheppard Subway, the data from two early
identify locations where further subsurface cut and cover contracts were correlated with
investigation is necessary. borehole records of “hard” drilling (an indicator of
The findings of the investigation and testing is cobbles and boulders) to estimate the boulder
used to develop a strategy for handling and frequency for other contracts. A relative boulder
disposing of soil and groundwater at each site. The volume is now provided in the GBR for each
findings also provide the basis to quantify expected contract; site records are kept during excavation and
volumes of waste materials to be handled during payment is made to the contractor if the boulder
construction. At sites where contaminants are not quantity exceeds the baseline.
identified during design, the contract documents This example illustrates another important point
none—the-less include provisions for handling and regarding risk sharing contracts and preparing
disposing of waste materials on a unit price basis. baseline reports. It is tempting when determining the
Estimated quantities of various classifications of baseline for something as uncertain as boulder
waste material are included as line items in the frequency to be conservative, so that changed
contract to avoid the risk associated with excessive condition claims are not made against the owner and
charges that could be levied for disposal of such the report author is not perceived as being “wrong”.
materials on a contract change basis. This approach is costly, as contractors will build into
their prices the costs associated with the conservative
3 6 Geotechnical Baseline Reports baseline. It must be accepted by all parties that for
issues such as boulder frequency it is impossible (or
A Geotechnical Baseline Report is bound into all highly improbable) for the geotechnical engineer to
major civil works contracts for Toronto’s transit be “right”, and that the interests of the owner is best
expansion. The GBR establishes the ground being served if a project claims record shows him to
conditions for construction against which all be wrong half of the time.
tenderers bid. The GBR provides an interpretation
of the thickness of deposits between boreholes, 3.7 Insurance Coverage
highlights anticipated subsurface hazards, provides
discussion on the way that ground conditions have The use of geotechnical baseline reports within a
influenced the design and the contract provisions, “risk sharing” contracting philosophy allocates
and describes the anticipated behaviour of the subsurface risk between owner and contractor;
ground in relation to construction operations. however, it is recognized that some high cost, low
Because the GBR is a basis for tendering, the probability events would be onerous for either party
document is written with definitive wording; to bear and insurance coverage is typically obtained
speculative wording (such as may, might, is for such events. The TTC negotiated a Wrap-Up
possible) is avoided because it creates ambiguity, insurance package that includes public liability and
making it unclear if a contractor should or should property damage insurance, professional liability

43
 insurance and builder’s risk imurance. This anticipate all events. However, costs can be
insurance package provides coverage for the TTC, controlled, and third party impacts minimized, if
third parties, TTC’s consultants and contractors, as the potential risks are recognized and a
applicable. comprehensive subsurface risk management
The Wrap-Up coverage is a key component of the system is put in place at the start of any project.
subsurface risk management strategy, as it provides This paper has summarized the subsurface risk
protection against third party property and injury management plan for Toronto’s transit expansion;
claims, including damage that could arise from it is hoped that it will prove to have been well
excessive ground movement. In negotiating this conceived; however, it is recognized that
coverage the entire subsurface risk management construction experience will provide “lessons
strategy was presented to the insurers, so that when learned” that will allow subsurface risk
preparing their quotations they would have an management systems to be improved.
appreciation of the site investigation program, the
manner in which third party impacts are assessed and
the contractual measures that would be implemented
to minimize such risks. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The limit of liability for the public liability and
property damage coverage on the Sheppard line is The writers thank the TTC for permission to
$100 million (Cdn) aggregate for the project and per publish this paper and recognize the efforts of J.N.
incident on the project. A $5000 (Cdn.) deductible Shirlaw in the planning of the subsurface
per incident applies; the deductible includes management strategy and the leadership that he
adjusting fees. For the project work completed to provided to the program geotechnical consultant
date, claims have been relatively small and the team at the start of the program.
inclusion of adjusting fees in the claim cost has
provided contractors with a strong incentive to be
active with the community to resolve small issues REFERENCES
before they escalate into a claim. For the very
large claims that may arise from ground Ash, J.L. and Russel, B.E., 1974. Improved
Subsutface INvestigation for Highway Tunnel
settlement, there has been concern that the level of
Design and Construction, Federal Highway
the deductible does not provide sufficient incentive
Administration Office of Research LJRS-1 1,
for contractors to minimize such incidents. This
Washington.
might true if the insurance deductible provided the
Boone S. J., Westland J., Busbridge J.R., Garrod
oniy mechanism to influence the contractors
B., 1998a. (in press) Prediction of Boulder
workmanship. However, for the Sheppard
Obstructions, Proceedings of World Tunnelling
subway, the site specific temporary works design Conference, Balkema, 1998.
criteria that are imposed, and the contractual Boone 5.1., Garrod B., Branco P., 1998b. (in press)
power to halt work and order that corrective Building and Utility Damage Assessments, Risk
measures be taken that is granted to the owner if and Construction Settlement Control, Proceedings
ground and structure movement Ilinits are not of World Tunnelling Conference, Balkema, 1998.
achieved, provide a strong incentive for Boscardin M.D. and Cording E.J. 1989. Building
contractors to carry out construction in a manner Response to Excavation-Induced Settlement,
that minimizes third party impacts and the claims Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
which can arise from such incidents. 115(1), p. 1-21.
Busbridge J.R., Westland 1., Boone 8.1., Garrod B.,
Charalambu H. 1998 (in press). Boulder
4 CONCLUSION Frequency Assessment for Machine Tunnelling
Projects. Proceedings of North American
Toronto’s Rapid Transit Expansion Program has Tunnelling Conference, Ba1kema, 1998.
incorporated many of the investigation and Chung H. S., Sohn 1. I., Kim 1. B., Paik Y. S.,
contracting practices that have been advocated at Choi 1. B., lang C. 5. 1995. Performance of
tunnelling conferences for the last decade, or so. It Remedial Treatment for Cave-in Collapse of a
is considered that no single practise can reduce Subway Tunnel. Underground Construction in
claims and, indeed, the inherent risks in Soft Ground. Fujita & Kusakabe (eds), Balkema,
underground construction make it impossible to p. 233-236.

44
Engineering News Record July 1995. L.A.
Terminates Tunnel Contract, p. 8.
Shirlaw J.N., Boone 8.1., Ball J.G., Ng, R. 1996.
Geotechnical Investigations for Toronto’s
Eglinton West Subway Project. Canadian
Tunnelling, p. 227-253.
United States National Committee on Tunnelling
Technology (USNCTT) 1984. Geotechnical Site
Investigations for Underground Projects. Vol.
1&2. National Academy Press.
World Tunnelling May 1996. A Triumph of Intellect
over Adversity. p. 129-132.
World News September 1997. NATM Collapse on
Sao Paulo Metro. Tunnels and Tunnelling. p. 7.
Westland 1., Shirlaw J.N., Busbridge JR., Wheeler
C. 1996. Geotechnical Investigations and
Assessment of Boulder Frequency for Toronto’s
Sheppard Subway Project. Canadian Tunnelling.
p. 255-275.

45
FROM THE SAME PUBLISHER:
Ponnuswamy,S. &Diohnson Victor 9054102969
Transportation tunnels
Negro,A. & A.A.Ferreira(eds.) 905410936 X 1996,24cm, l%pp., Hfl.1401$70.OOffA7 (Norights India)
Tunnels and metropolises —Proceedings ofthe WorldTunnel Thebook isintented asan introduction to transport tunnels, cove-
Congress ‘98, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2S-3OApril1998 ring theessential aspects ofinvestigation, design, constructionand
1998,25cm, c.1800pp., 2 vols,Hfl.380/$190.00/f127 maintenanceofhighwayand railway tunnels. Thebasic principles
Topics: Planning and projectmanagement; Design criteria, geo- ofdesign arediscussedwith examplesofpractical design. Con-
technical and structuralaspects; Infiltration,maintenanceandre- tents: Introduction; Preliminary investigations andsurveys; Trans-
habilitation; Mechanizedtunnelling; Urban constraintson under- portationtunnel requirements; Design oftunnels;Survey and set-
ground works; etc. ting out;Tunnellingoperations; Drilling,blastingand mucking;
9054109513 Metro tunnels; Lining, Ventilation, lighting anddrainage; Refer-
Tunnel construction -Proceedingsofthe5thinternationaLsym- ences; Index.
posium,Mwiich. 1-2April1998
1998,25cm,c.200pp., Hfl.115/S58.00/i38/DM11O Wagner, Harald&Alfred Schulter(eds.) 9054108118
Germanedition: 9054109511 Tunnel boring machines-Trends indesign and constructionof
Topics: Tunnelingtechniquesfor the nextmillenium; Trendsin mechanizedtunnelling —Proceedingsofthe international lecture
tunnelling techniques; Large-scaleprojects inthe international series,Hagenberg Castle,Linz, 14-15December1995
tunnelconstruction; Safety techniques and work protectionin the 1996,25cm, 280pp., HfL200/$100.00/~67
tunnel construction; etc. In thepast tenyears there was a worldwide trend towardsincrea-
9054109491 sed useofTunnelBoeing Machines (TBM’s). Parallel to the tech-
Micro-Tunnelling -Proceedingsofthefourth international s~n- nical developmentofTBM’s towards applicationsfor longertun-
posium,Miinchen,1998 nels,running through changinggeologicalconditions, thereare
1998,25 cm,c.200pp.,Hfl.115 /$58.0O/f38/DM11O needsforthe developmentoflining methods. ‘TBM Tunnel
German edition: 9054109505 Trends’an international lecture seine collection,aims to present
Topics: Microtunnelling into the 21stcentury; Domestic connec- the latestscientific and practicalstateofthe art ofTBM tunnelling,
tions; Microtunnel construction machineryfor canalisation, water taking intoconsideration interactions between machineryand li-
supplysystems and gas lines; Long distance tunnelling— special ning.26 international highly recognizedpapers.
projects,surveys; Internationalprojects.
Franciss,F.O. 9054101458
Golser,J.,WJ.Hinkel&W.Schuhert(eds.) 9054108681 Weak rock tunneling -A simplified analytical simulation, aPC-
Tunnelsfor people/Tunnel fur Menschen WorldTunnel Con- basedmodel anddesign charisfor engineeringpractice
gress ‘97, Vlenna,Austria —Proceedings/Sitzungsberichte —23rd 1994,25cm, 216pp.,Hfl.140/$70.00/~47
Assemb(yofthelnternationalTwznelingAssocialion,]2-]7April The mechanicsassociated to the underground excavation & sup-
1997 port installation areexplained.This simplified modelwas derived
1997,25cm, 880pp.,2vols, Hfl.270/$135.00/~90 from well-established rockmechanics principles & engineering
Topics coveredi Design and construction; ITA-OPEN choice of practice. It simulates theoverall equilibrium at tunnelheadings &
tunnellingmethods; Mechanized tunnelling and tunnelling facto- is appliedtoquasi-elliptical cross-sections, takinginto account not
ring in squeezing grounds; Contn~tualrelationships, contract re- only the lining stiffness& lining installationprocedure butalso the
sponsibilities; Outstanding underground works; Index. mechanical properties,geostatic stresses & hydraulic conditions
ofthe underground. Simplecomputer programme available at
Varma, C.VJ. & AR.G.Rao (eds.) 9054107472 Hfl.80 /$45.00/f30.
TunnellingAsia ‘97 —Selectpapers
1997,25 cm,408pp., Hfl.195 /$99.00/i~65 (Norights India) AbdelSalam, ME.(ed.) 9054103639
Contents:Engineeringclassification andcharacterization of rock Tunnelling and ground conditions —Proceedingsofthe interna-
mass fortunnelling; Planning, investigation and analysis often- tional congress, Cairo,Egypt, 3-7April1994
nels; Tunnelling, stabilization and support system; Liningforum- 1994,25cm,710pp.,Hfl.230/$115.00/07
nels;Monitoring, back analysis; Induction ofmodern technology 89 paperson manyaspects oftunnelling includingrecentcase his-
for construction oftunnels and shafts; Tunnelling in urban areas tones ofmajorprojects, tunnelling through water bearingdeposits,
formetrorailway androad, watersupply andsewer lines; Suppor- underground projects ofrock formations, recent research & devel-
ting systems for tunnelling, Shafts andinclined tunnels; Tunnel- opment ofundergroundspace, numerical & experimental model-
lingequipment; Costing and contract management; etc. ling,repairoftunnels, managementofundergroundprojects&
othergeneral tunnellingtopics.
Ozdemir,Levent(ed.) 9054108029
NorthAmerican Tunneling‘96 -ProceedingsoftheNorthAme- Marennyi, Yad. (R3Zeidler, transl.) 9054101415
rican cot?ferenceNAT ‘96 and -22ndGeneralA.ssemblylnterna- Tunnels i~ith ia-situ pressed concrete lining
tional TunnelingAssociation, WashingtonD.C., USA,21-24 April (Geotechnika 9-Selected translationsofRussiangeotechnical li-
1996 teraune)
1996,25cm, 886pp. 2vols, Hfl.290/$l45.00/~97 1993,25cm,256pp.,HfL160/$80.00/~53
Thepapersare grouped under 3 main tracks: Engineering, design Basics oftheUSSR-originating advanced method for construction
and construction ofunderground facilities; Policy, finance andma- oftunnelsfor various purposeswith in sitepressure moulded li-
nagement; andPlanning anddesign issues for sustainabledevelop- nings. Includes practicaltunnelling experience, theomtical basis&
meriL Papersaddress a variety ofissues, includingnewtechnolo- methods ofanalysis ofsuch linings, specific requirementsof con-
gies, materials and procedures forundergroundconstruction, un- crete, operational procedure,equipment systems,as well asde-
derground megaprojects, policyoptions, financing strategies and signs satisfying these requirements andevaluation ofthe method
contracting procedures, costcomparisonofunderground versusal- intechnical andeconomical aspects. TheEnglish edition includes
ternativesandcase histories. an updated state-of-the-artreview.

Allbooks availablefrom yourbookseller or directlyfrom thepublisher:

A A. Balkema Publishers, P.O. Box 1675,NL-3000 BR Rorterdam, Netherlands (Fax: +31-10-413-5947)
For USA & Canada:AA.BalkemaPublishers, Old PostRd,Brookfield, VJ’05036-9704 (Fax: 802-276-3837)