Tunnel Prenj

Challenges of designing and construction of long tunnel

Workshop

Sarajevo 25.10.2019
 Agenda
• General introduction, specifics of planned
tunnel structure
• Safety concept + ventilation
• Geology + hydrogeology + geological risk
management
• Coffee break
• General tunnelling aspects and approaches
NATM/TBM
• Procurement
• Coffee
• Panel discussion
• Conclusions
General introduction,
specifics of planned
tunnel structure
• Tunnel Prenj = 10,1 km long tunnel
• Up to 1100 m overburden
• Entrance in the tunnel at altitude of app. 700 m
• Exit of the tunnel at altitude of app. 620 m
• Limestone/Dolomitic
rock/Karstification/Tectonised rock

Well known tunnels of similar lengths

• Karavanke 7,8 km
• Mt. Blanc 11,6 km
• St. Gotthard 16,9 km
• Lærdal 24,51 km

Only 22 constructed road tunnels in the wolrd are

longer (app. 11 - 1 tube / 11 - 2 tubes)
 Traffic volume predictions AADT
2%, 3%, 4% growth?
Traffic conditions 30000

25000

20000
• Čelebići (Konjic – Mostar) ADT = 8794 veh/day
(summer time 11687 veh/day, max 16807) 15000

• App 3% growth per year (4% = BIH average) 10000

• 8% of HGV 5000

0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

*BROJANJE SAOBRAĆAJA NA MAGISTRALNIM CESTAMA FEDERACIJE

BiH U 2016 . GODINI
Longitudinal section
Vertical Alignment
Before tunnel 5.9 %, Entrance 2,5% / Highest point on 1/4 of the tunnel length / max tunnel incl 3.7%
Inclination limits; Short tunnels 4%, / middle tunnels 3%, long tunnels 1,5 %
General introduction, specifics of planned tunnel structure

Horizontal Alignment
Ventilation: Normal operations
• Semi-Transverse Ventilation
• fresh air is pulled in by the traffic and jet fans in the roadway; (if
needed) exhaust air is extracted via the overhead duct and fans at the
portal
Exhaust
air out at Exhaust
portal air out at
portal

direction of traffic flow

 Ventilation: Emergency operations
• Semi-Transverse Ventilation
• smoke is extracted via the overhead duct at the location of the incident
via fans at the portal; the jet fans are used to control the spread of
smoke in the roadway area
Smoke
out at Smoke
portal out at
portal

traffic behind the incident stops; traffic ahead of the incident

people escape in a smoke-free area direction of traffic flow drives out of the tunnel
to the "place of safety"
Attractive but not recomended safety concept alternatives for new
tunnels

Minimum requirements: Escape routes

UPGRADING EXISTING ROAD TUNNELS TO CURRENT NEEDS, TAKING THE ARLBERG TUNNEL AS AN EXAMPLE M. Bacher, P.J. Sturm Graz
University of Technology, Austria
Safety concept & ventilation
• Basic concepts
• Important input data
• A risk-based design approach
• Options
• Further steps
Basic concept
• Build one 2 lane tunnel for traffic with a parallel escape tunnel
(1+1 option) *
• traffic flows in both directions
• in an emergency people escape into the parallel tunnel
• Later there are two 2 lane tunnels (2 tunnel option)
• traffic flows in one direction in each tunnel - safer!
• in an emergency people escape into the parallel tunnel
• easier maintenance as one tunnel can be close, if needed
• Ventilation is used to control the air quality during operations
• both normal operations and emergencies
* building a single tunnel with refuges or escape via a ventilation duct is not a safe option
Important input data
• Regulations
• This is part of the Koridor Vc TEN route so it is assumed that normal EU
regulations apply
• Traffic forecast
• Volume of traffic (now and in the future); traffic mix (especially how many
HGVs)
• Geometrical inputs
• Road gradient -> fire risks from overheating engines / brakes; impact on air
quality as HGVs drive up a steep gradient
• Climate & location (e.g. pressure differences betwen portals)
• Other
• Traffic management concept (normal operations and maintenance)
Comments on base assumptions
Traffic volume predictions AADT
• One vs two tunnels 2%, 3%, 4% growth?

• (one tunnel = traffic going in both 30000

directions -> bidirectional flow) 25000

• bi-directional flow is much less safe 20000

than mono-directional traffic flow
15000

• Operating one tunnel will only be 10000

acceptable for 8 to 14 years 5000

• Gradient: the design gradient is higher than 0

recommended which increases the emissions 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
and risk of fire -> more expensive ventilation
• Traffic: 22% are heavy good vehicles which
is higher than normal. this increase emissions Duration of acceptable bi-directional
and the risk of accidents -> more expensive flow operations: 8 to 18 years?
equipment
Normal vs emergency operations
• Normal
• Maintain acceptable air quality
• Emergency (e.g. fire)
• Self rescue - people must find their own way to a "place of safety"
• Access for fire fighting teams (based locally or at the portals?)
• Control measures to minimise the effects of the fire (e.g. smoke control,
fire suppresssion systems?
• It is important to talk to the operating authorities and fire brigade
early to feed their input into the design.
Risk-based design
• TuRisMo / DGQRAM
• Actual tunnel compared to fully equipped tunnel according to standards.
• Actual tunnel must be safer comparing to reference tunnel.
• Safety can be achieved using different measures
• very few prescripted / majority of variable measures

• Model based risk analysis

A model of smoke propagandation and evacuation for numerous possible
scenarios.

Acceptable limits must be set.

For temporary operating scenarios temporary conditions can be compared to
fighest operating acceptable risks.
1+1 vs 2 tunnel option?
• When should the second tunnel be upgraded
from an emergency access tunnel to a road
tunnel? *
• This work will cost money (CAPEX) but the cost
OPEX may be lower for the 2 tunnels (CAPEX & OPEX)
Option 1+1
because the ventilation is simpler.
• This subject needs to be studied in detail as Option 2
there are many influences on this such as
traffic flows, safety, tolls and financing costs.
time

* the parallel tunnel should be the normal side for a road tunnel as it is too difficult to enlarge a smaller one.
Options
Phasing of work, what to build and when?

Rescue tunnel of smaller profile is not an option

Phasing of finalisation of second tube should be

critically assessed (Ventilation / Equipment)

Direct construction of second tube

Geology + hydrogeology + geological risk management

 What do we know at the time about Tunnel Prenj ground conditions?

 What can go wrong if ground conditions are not understood well enough? Recent
example Tapovan HRT…
 What are the geological and hydrogeological risks for Tunnel Prenj as to current
knowledge?
 How important is the preservation of the huge Karst Water Body of rock massiv of
Tunnel Prenj for BiH?
 How can we reduce the current geological and hydrogeological risks?
 How should we continue with dealing with geological/hydrogeological risks after
the detailed site investigation is completed?
What do we know about Tunnel Prenj ground
conditions?
• The geology of Tunnel Prenj has been studied carefully during recent years. (The list below does no mention
significant faults, that occur rather frequently).
• 1) adjacent to Northern portal approx. 800m in loose ground, scree deposits and glacial deposits
• 2) dolomitic rocks, partially fractured and limestone and dolomitic rocks, usually layered
• 3) marl, shale, sandstone and sandy limestone sequence (Werfener beds) frequently tectonized and sheared
• 4) bedded massive limestone with subordinate dolomitic limestone,
• 5) bedded, layered to massive limestone, heavy karstification expected
• 6) bedded, layered to massive limestone, dolomitic rocks, sometimes sandy appearance, heavy karstification
expected, cherts possible
• 7) bedded, layered to massive limestone, heavy karstification expected, 8) layered limestone, oolitic limestone, and
dolomitic rocks,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
What do we know about Tunnel Prenj
hydrogeological conditions?
Green colour materials: highly permeable rock mass with high permeability and significant to high risk of
karstification, expected inflow into tunnel 250l/sec/km (?)

Yellow colour materials: rock mass with moderate permeability, expected inflow into tunnel 30l/sec/km

Brownish colour materials: rock mass with low to very low permeability, expected inflow into tunnel
3l/sec/km
What can go wrong if ground conditions are not understood good enough?
example Tapovan HRTTapovan Vishnugad HEP, India, problems of TBM HRT

New Delhi

Dhauliganga Valley at
Tapovan/Joshimath / near springs of
Ganges River

Project: Hydropowerplant, 520 MW with four turbines each 130 MW; 2,6 GWh/yr
Owner: NTPC
Subject: Headrace Tunnel with TBM and Drill/Blast/Backhoe excavation
Schedule: TBM started in 2008, currently stand-still of TBM since 2012
Status: Since 2014 arbitration at arbitration court in New Delhi, 500 Mio € claim and counter claim
 Length of HRT = 12.1 km
Tapovan Vishnugad HEP, India (diameter = 6.65m)

24.12.2009: 1st TBM event/TBM blocked, water Right from beginn on repeated
inrush q = 700-800 l/s water inrush situations and partial
collapses during drill/blast/backhoe
excavtion

TBM-drive = 8.6 km (telescopic double

shield machine)

drill/blast/backhoe excavation
= 3.3 km
Quelle: Project tender
documents

Helong Formation (gneiss, mica schist Tender documents do not mention any Joshimat Formation (mainly
quartzite, amphibolite) fault beetween the two tectonic units gneiss
 TBM drive:
Tapovan Vishnugad HEP, India Water inrush with q = 700-800 l/sec
Tapovan Vishnugad HEP, India
„first TBM incident“:
Measures for saving and repairing
the TBM:
Build by-pass tunnel, intensive
drainage ahead and around,
probing ahead and around.
TBM stand-still period:
December 2009 till March 2011,
in total 15 months. Monate.

Vortrieb

Dez 2009

Zeit
März 2011
Tapovan Vishnugad HEP, India
Indented/bent shield of TBM.
Tapovan Vishnugad HEP, India
Face collapses and lateral collapses with heavy water
inrush at tuunel driven by drill/blast/backhoe
excavation. Completely inadequate excavation/support
methodology.
High risk level for labour and site.
 Review / revision of geological model 2011/2012 showed that HRT
Tapovan Vishnugad HEP, India alignment almost entirely located in a large important fault zone (in MCT =
Main Central Thrust Zone)

„1st TBM incident“

Dec 2009 – March 2011
at tectonic fault
„2nd and 3rdTBM incident“
March 2012 until today near beginning of very unfavourable
fault zone
 Tapovan Vishnugad HEP, India

2nd and 3rd TBM incident/standstill

March 2012 until today (?)

Current status (November 2018)

• TBM is clogged again with indented/bent shield approx. 5860 m inside high mountain range. Owner cancelled contract
because of non performance of contractor and rejects access to contractor.
• New contract for „balance works“ awarded early 2016 to other contratcor. Until summer 2018 no significant progress at
TBM drive.
• Owner and contractor of original contratct for HRT are in arbitration.
• Accumulated claims (claim and counterclaims) are about 500 Mio Euro.
 Formation

HRT
Tapovan Vishnugad HEP, India = MCT Zone
Helong Formation

Sketch B: Tender, 2006

Joshimath
Formation

HRT
Helong Formation

Sketch C: As-built, 2013

Joshimath
Formation
HRT
Helong Formation = MCT Zone
Helong Formation = Tapovan Formation = Munsiari Formation/Group = Main Central Thrust (MCT) Zone
Tectonized
Main reasons / faulted rock mass within MCT zone
for failure:
HRT Head Race Tunnel
• Geological model of tender documents was extremely simplified and ground conditions were describend much too
favourble (80 % „fair and good rock“ and 20 % „poor to very poor rock“. Important and large fault zone was completely
neglected.
• Insufficient site investigation for tender documents.
• Design elements and BoQ for drill/blast/excavator driven part of HRT completely inadequate and tendered solution highly
unsafe.
• Very short period for bidding (few month only) in area with very difficult access.
• Quite different „culture of how to solve contractual problems between owner and contractor“ compared to other countries.
What are the geological and hydrogeological shortcomings/risks for Tunnel
Prenj as to current knowledge?

• Geological model/longitudinal section through tunnel derives purely from regional geological
mapping, significant uncertainty as no deeper site investigation performed up to now
• High uncertainty concerning karstification/size and frequency of karst voids/caves, tunnel
excavation method must consider potential caves/chimneys ….. Regular probing ahead with
sufficient overlap may help.
• High uncertainty concerning potential fillings of karst voids (volume, grain size, water pressure,…)
Regular probing ahead with sufficient overlap may help.
• High uncertainty concerning water inflow to be expected / high water pressure possible due to high
overburden – More site investigation and hydrogeological modelling
• Danger of polluting karst ground water body/ies during construction… Tunnelling works need to be
specified accordingly.
• Rock mass locally tectonized and faulted, mechanical properties of faulted rock mass/cataclasites,
any swelling clay minerals in fault gouge - not yet studied. Detailed site investigation works will help
to minimize this.
• Thickness of fault zones to be tunnelled not yet studied in detail - Detailed site investigation works
may help to minimize this shortcoming
How important is the preservation of the huge karst water body of
of Tunnel Prenj mountain range for entire BiH on the long range?

• This is most likely an issue of national water ressources

planning.
• May we drain large quantities of ground water into tunnel
(regulations? any water protection area in vicinity? any National
Park or preserved area in vicinity?
• Maybe we do not talk about this issue at this moment?
How can we reduce the current geological and hydrogeological risks for
Prenj Tunnel project?

Risk/shortcoming Proposed activities/measures

Karst Perform hydrogeological monitoring (temp, q, chem.comp. etc. of
groundwater/water in springs and wells for long enough period (years)
rock mass
Performing tracer tests for distinction of karst water run off
directions/underground flows
Faults/heavily Study faulted rock mass on surface (detailed outcrop logging) and
tectonized rock mass with drilling/seismic surveys
Geological model in Detailed ingeneering geological mapping in appropriate scale with
general detailed outcropp logging of all materials to be encountered
Develop and perform necessary drilling/testing/InSitu testing
program
How should we continue with dealing with geological/hydrogeological risks
after the detailed site investigation is completed?

Even with the most diligent and thorough site investigation in a difficult geological situation such as
Tunnel Prenj, some geological and hydrogeological risks will remain during preparation of tender
documents. For this reason we would advise
• to accept that the Ground belongs to the Employer
• to accept that the Employer has to pay reasonable cost required to handle the ground conditions
encountered durring construction
• to include a clear definition of foreseen ground conditions as the basis for Tenders. This definition of
foreseen ground conditions should be the Geotechnical Baseline report GBR as described in the
FIDIC Emerald Book
• The GBR shall be the single contractual document that defines what ground conditions are to be
assumed to be encountered during execution of tunnelling works.
• The GBR contractually allocated risks between the Employer and the Contractor for defined
physical conditions
COFFE BREAK
General tunnelling aspects and
approaches NATM/TBM
• Peter
 Constr.

Name Tubes E L (m)

time
(yrs) Method yr/km History of long
Arlbergtunnel

Plabutschtunnel
1+e
1+1
1978
1987
13972
10085
4,5
7
NATM
NATM
0,32
0,69
road tunnels in
Gleinalmtunnel 1+1
2003
1978
10085
8320
4
5
NATM
NATM
0,40
0,60
Austria
2017 8320 4 0,48
Karawankentunnel
1 + (1) 1991 7864 5 NATM 0,64
Landecker Tunnel
1 2000 6955 3,5 NATM 0,50
Pfändertunnel 1+1 1980 6718 6 NATM 0,89
2006 6718 4 TBM 0,60
Tauerntunnel 1+1 1975 6401 4 NATM 0,62
2010 6401 4 NATM 0,62
Strenger Tunnel
2 2006 5851 6 NATM 1,03
Katschbergtunnel 1974
1+1 2009 5898 4 NATM 0,68
Bosrucktunnel 1+1 1983 5509 3,5 NATM 0,64
2011 5509 4 NATM 0,73
Roppener Tunnel
1+1 1990 5095 3 NATM 0,59
Felbertauerntunnel
1+e 1967 5282 5 NATM 0,95
Schmittentunnel 1 1996 5111 3 NATM 0,59
Average 0,64
 Constr.ti
Long Railway
Name Tubes E L (m)
me
(yrs) Method yr/km tunnels in
Wienerwaldtunnel TBM+NA

Inntaltunnel
2 2012 13356 8 TM 0,60 Austria
1 1994 12696 4,5 NATM 0,35
Lainzer Tunnel
1 2012 12300 6 NATM 0,49
Arlbergtunnel
1 1884 10648 4 NATM 0,38
Tauerntunnel
1 1906 8550 8 NATM 0,94
Karawankentunnel
1 1906 7976 4 NATM 0,50
Siebergtunnel
1 2001 6480 5 NATM 0,77
Galgenbergtunnel
1 1998 5460 4,5 NATM 0,82
Kaponig-Tunnel
1 1996 5096 4 NATM 0,78
Semmering-
Basistunnel TBM+NA
2 2026 27300 14 TM 0,51
Brennerbasistunnel TBM+NA
2 2027 64000 15 TM 0,23
Average 0,58
What do we now compare with?
• NATM • TBM
double shell, drained tunnel, membrane • shield machine with segmental lining
exhaust ventilation • single or double shell
Important features of long road tunnels
• Ventilation compartments inside cross section
Important features of long road tunnels
• Ventilation shafts and caverns
Important features of long road tunnels
• Cross passages every 300m
• Lay-by niches each 1000m
• In bi-directional traffic lay-by niches on both sides
What this means for construction method
NATM TBM
• completely flexible in shape • first, you build a circular
tunnel only
• for other sections: lining has
to be cut open – NATM works
• NATM site facilities have to
be here as well
Example TBM tunnel and niche widening
Speed of NATM excavation works
16
15
14 Kalotte
[m/AT]
13
(m/d)

12
[m/AT]

11
speed

10 wide range of
Vortriebsleistung

9 advance rate
8 Systemleistung
Advance

Kal.+Str. [m/AT]
7
6
5
4
3
VKL 3/1,15 VKL3/2,05 VKL4/1,75 VKL 4/2,95 VKL 5/3,85 VKL5/5,54 VKL6/4,43 VKL6/6,43 VKL6/8,43 VKL6/10,43
2
3.00 3.00 2.20 2.20 1.70 1.70 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
Abschlagslänge max. [m]
Advance length (m)
Pro‘s and Con‘s
NATM pro‘s NATM con‘s
quick start less speed
flexible in shape likely longer construction time
more local manpower
involved
cash flow better distributed
adaptive to ground conditions
does seldom get stuck
Pro‘s and Con‘s
NATM pro‘s NATM con‘s
quick start less speed
flexible in shape likely longer construction time
more local manpower
involved
cash flow better distributed
adaptive to ground conditions
does seldom get stuck
Pro‘s and Con‘s
NATM pro‘s NATM con‘s
quick start less speed
flexible in shape likely longer construction time
more local manpower
involved
cash flow better distributed
adaptive to ground conditions
does seldom get stuck
Pro‘s and Con‘s
NATM pro‘s NATM con‘s
quick start less speed
flexible in shape likely longer construction time
more local manpower
involved
cash flow better distributed
adaptive to ground conditions
does seldom get stuck
Example of a construction program TBM
2 x 8.8 km railway tunnel
Cuts, portals, starting tube, TBM manufacturing
6.5 years

…delayed… 1 year
TBM drive 1st tube

TBM drive 2nd tube

Invert concrete, embankments, rest

TBM – when things don‘t go well

4.5 months stoppage

Extensive mobilization cost and time at
TBM tunnel projects
Pro‘s and Con‘s NATM
NATM pro‘s NATM con‘s
quick start less speed
flexible in shape likely longer construction time
more local manpower
involved
cash flow better distributed
adaptive to ground conditions
does seldom get stuck
Pro‘s and Con‘s TBM
TBM pro‘s
highly mechanized
working safety
fast in less variable ground
conditions
cost effective in high-salary
countries & adequate rock
conditions
length not so critical
TBM con‘s
produces only circle
extra NATM facilities requ.
in case of adverse ground
conditions – it may go very
wrong
may get stuck
Procurement Aspects
Examples of General Guidelines and Regulations
NEC
 Contract Strategies
• Contract type – NEC, FIDIC, Domestic?
• Traditional – Build Only
• Design and Build
• Partnering
• ECI
 Traditional Why Traditional?

• Transactional (One-off)
Client
• Known Scope
• Hands-on client

Consultant Contractor • Lowest price ; adversarial,

(Design) (Build) confrontational?
 Design and Build Why Design & Build?

• Encourage innovation in tender

Client design
• Transfer of Risk
• Save investment in client design
Consultant
(Design)
Contractor • Prices up ; tender cost up
Design and
Build
 Partnering Why Partnering?
• Collaboration
• Encourage team working
Client
• Client-Consultant-Contractor

Consultant Contractor
(Design) (Build)
 ECI Why ECI?
• Contractor involved in early decision
Client
making
Consultant
• Management of designers
(Design)
• Buildability & Value management
throughout
• Assured delivery time
Contractor
• Capture resources and supply chain
Public Inquiry
Design and Build
• Price competition strategic

61
UK Construction Industry 2014
The industry have done a successful transformation
from adversarial to collaborative contracting

Two important tools are:

• NEC, the use of the New Engineering Contract to
drive collaboration and incentivisation
• ECI, the Early Contractor Involvement in the
design.
COFFE BREAK
 Next steps…
• Preliminary documentation:
Conceptual design/Main design/ Excavation/support, Inner lining, Cross passages,
• Traffic prognosis Carriageway, Portals, Architecture, Landscaping, Access roads, Deviations (if any), Dewatering,
• Risk analysis Cable ducts, Portals in general (wider), Deposits of excavation material, Portal structures/walls,
Reservoirs (fire fighting water/pavement waters), Analysis and plan for conditions in karstic
• Ventilation study rock, Tunnel equipment, Traffic signalisation…EL Electric supply, Electric equipment
(lighting/signalization/safety equipment/sensorics). Mechanical installations (Ventilation, Air
• Analysis of speed of the HGV entering the tunnel (number of lanes in the portal area). conditioning of the equipment, Firefighting systems)
• Plan of geological investigation works, Geophysics, hydrogeological conditions, karst BOQ – estimation of investment
occurrences.

• Plan of phase construction

• Analysis of noise impact (construction/operation) Tender design

• Environmental impact assesment (construction/operation) • Technical specifications

• Risk analysis for groundwater • Time norms according to ÖNORM B 2203-1

• Effects of construction of section on the regional financial developement ROI • Exact BOQ
• Time schedule • Exact time schedule
• Risk analysis for geotechnical works
• Handling with waste material and material reuse
Panel discussion
• Open questions
Conclusions