Infrastructure Upgrade through Innovative Tunnel Rehabilitation

By:

Charles A. Maliszwski, JR., P.E., New Jersey Transit

James M. Galvin, P.E., New Jersey Transit

Gerhard Urschitz, P.E., Dr. G. Sauer Corporation

ABSTRACT

With obvious signs of deterioration, the double track, historically registered Bergen Tunnels as part of the commuter rail system in New Jersey waited for rehabilitation for a long time. Serious water infiltration not only caused operational hazards for the electrified rail line but also deteriorated and structurally compromised the tunnel lining. An innovative rehabilitation program was developed to widen the tunnel and to provide a new waterproofing system and final lining. For the rock excavation and support NATM principles were utilized, while watertightness was achieved by installing a PVC membrane waterproofing system followed by a cast-in-place final lining. Experienced on-site supervision generated savings during construction by streamlining support elements based on geologic conditions encountered.

TUNNEL HISTORY

The Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad began construction of the Bergen Tunnel north tube from the east in 1873. Excavation was completed in 1876, with rail traffic initiated in 1877. After about a third of the tunnel’s interior surface was found to be insecure it was decided to install a 0.60 m (2 ft) thick multilayered brick arch on stone masonry sidewalls in specified locations, delaying the official opening until 1887 (see Fig. 1). Construction costs for excavation and support of the tunnel and the lining was estimated at $905,000 (Taber 1998). With the increase in rail service it became necessary to bore a second tube south of and adjacent to the north tube. It was completed in 1908. Both tubes are approximately1,340 m (4,400 ft) long and 8.2 m (27 ft) wide, and traverse the southern reaches of the Palisades, known as the Bergen Hill in the Heights section of Jersey City, NJ. The south tube was completely concrete lined. The original north tube included one major open cut and 5 air shafts. During construction of the south tunnel a second full width air shaft was constructed, thereby breaking the tunnel into three sections, so that the smoke from the steam and later diesel trains could freely escape. Infiltrating water from the Jersey City Reservoir created a serious challenge during construction of the tunnels (New York Times 1876). In and around 1930 the tunnel was modified to incorporate DC electrified catenary service. The tunnels were further upgraded to AC electrified service around 1984.

Project Background

After years of electrified service, especially the north tube began experiencing increased water leakage, which became problematic during winter months, creating power interruptions. Maintenance and removal due to icicle formation became a regular activity. Attempts to divert the increasing amount of water intrusion with available methods of grouting were unsuccessful. In the mid 1990’s design was initiated by the owner New Jersey Transit to completely waterproof the north tunnel and also improve the situation in the south tunnel (Fig. 2).

Operations & Construction Planning

The original design approach was to attempt rehabilitation work under traffic. After much discussion it was determined to best complete the project successfully, removal of service was the only option. Once the decision to rehab the tunnel in an out of face manner was made, several enhancements to the system were added. Improved lighting, safety walk, emergency egress points, fire and life/safety access, emergency communications and powerful smoke evacuation systems were included in the final package.

To accommodate this new approach, modifications to the existing passenger operations were necessary. The seven rail lines approaching via eight tracks had to be diverted into the operating south tube during construction. To accomplish this, critical decisions regarding levels of service and passenger impact had to be made. Approximately 12 trains per day were eliminated. The majority, however, were adjusted by only several minutes on each end (arrivals and departures) to manage the two track bottleneck. This presented its own set of concerns. To remedy any delays resulting from a potential breakdown within the operating tunnel, standby engines were maintained throughout the reconstruction duration to assist the train in making its final destination.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND MATERIAL TESTING PROGRAM

A comprehensive inspection, survey and material testing program was performed to assist in the condition evaluation for the tunnel structures, to locate all water intrusion areas, and to define the rock surface behind the tunnel lining. Photographical scanning with laser equipment and infra-red thermography as well as a detailed structural, mechanical, electrical, and systems inspections provided large amounts of data as base for the design.

A test boring program was developed to provide information about the rock and brick lining. Twelve borings were taken from within the tunnel during night work windows as permitted by New Jersey Transit, which resulted in approximately three hours of productive work. Cores were logged in the field and again in the laboratory after further review. Percussion probe borings were conducted to determine the thickness of the brick lining, presence and size of voids and the nature of the back packing material. Seven borings were made from the surface using the rotary wash method to determine the rock line elevations.

The rock is described as extrusive basalt with columnar jointing, or intrusive diabase. Filled discontinuities and evidence of shear and displacement joints were found throughout the tunnel. Test results for the brick lining showed that some bricks had deteriorated severely over time mainly due to environmental conditions while the mortar and stones of the sidewalls were performing well. Overall, the tunnels were rated to be in fair to poor condition with desperate need for rehabilitation.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN APPROACH

Four alternative rehabilitation schemes were developed, ranging from structurally improving the brick lining and grouting behind the lining to a full replacement of the lining, installation of a waterproofing membrane and cast-in-place final lining. The limited clearance of the existing brick lining and changed requirements for future rolling stock as well as resistance against seismic loads and a minimum service life of 50 years were key factors for evaluating these alternatives.

Inspired by the rehabilitation of the Berry Street Tunnel in Pittsburgh, PA, New Jersey Transit decided to pursue a similar approach for the rehabilitation of the Bergen Tunnel. There, the contractor together with their design consultant, the Dr. G. Sauer Corporation, successfully proposed a NATM type excavation and support scheme that greatly benefited owners as well as the contractor in terms of cost and schedule (BERRY STREET ARTICLE). The Dr. G. Sauer Corporation was therefore asked to join the Bergen Tunnel design team led by URS/Sverdrup JV to implement a cost and schedule effective design in accordance with the established criteria.

After review of all information a tunnel cross section was developed that accommodated the clearance requirements for train operations, systems, and fire and life / safety equipment (see Fig. 3). Based on the findings of the geotechnical investigation program geotechnical profiles were generated to define the limits for the Excavation and Support Types I, II, IIIA and IIIB. Type I represents competent rock, where support comprises of lattice girders 1.5 m (6 ft) on center and an initial shotcrete lining with a thickness of 0.15 m (6 inches). For Type II grouted rock dowels are added in the arch area. For Types III the distance between lattice girders is reduced to 1.2 m (4 ft) and the advance of the brick lining removal ahead of the support installation is reduced. Application of Types III is expected to be limited to portal and shaft areas. Additional horizontal grouted spiling provides support for loose material behind the brick lining in these areas.

For immediate support after excavation and for protection against falling rocks the initial reinforced shotcrete lining was foreseen. An instrumentation and monitoring program was designed within the tunnel and on the surface to monitor all movements during and after excavation. To comply with the main purpose of the rehabilitation, namely creating a watertight structure, the PVC Waterproofing System was recommended. An open system was used, where the membrane is terminated at the invert and the water is collected and drained by horizontal 0.15 m (6 inch) diameter perforated Raudril drain pipes. These drain pipes connect to the 0.3 m (12 inch) diameter track drains every 15 m (50 ft). Great emphasis was given to the fact that the entire drainage system is maintainable and can be cleaned periodically. Cast-in-place concrete was used for the final lining and invert slab.

For the structural analysis two-dimensional finite element models and wedge failure models were calculated to determine the structural and reinforcing requirements. Two finite element models with pre-defined discontinuities were developed using the program ABAQUS, where all defined load cases were analyzed, including wedge failures and seismic loadings. Results of the models confirmed the initial assumption for the required lining thickness of 0.3 m (12 inch).

EXCAVATION AND SUPPORT

The construction contract was awarded to the joint venture of Merco /Obayashi for $56.4 million. Construction started in July 2001 and is expected to be completed by the beginning of 2003. To stay within the very tight schedule the contractor was required to work 24 hours per day, five days a week, and advance multiple faces simultaneously.

Work started at the portals. Because the portals are historic, they had to be carefully dismantled, preserved, and reconstructed to avoid damage to any of the rock blocks and carvings (Burke 2001) before the work in the tunnel could proceed.

For the excavation of the brick lining and the grout behind the brick drill and blast as well as hydraulic hammers were used, rock of the tunnel crown and invert was excavated by drill and blast. Drilling was carried out by twin-boom rubber tired jumbos. Blasting in the middle of a populated area has many restrictions. The contractor was only allowed to blast between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., which left the mucking and shotcreting operation for night hours (Sedjo 2001). Shotcrete was applied with a Meyco robotic self contained unit.

After excavating the crown and bench areas, excavation for the lattice girder footings allowed the lattice girders to be installed.

Due to the good rock conditions movements were minimal.

REFERENCES

- Burke, J., 2001, Bergen Tunnel Rehabilitation, World Tunneling, pp. 83ff.

- Garrett, R., 2002, Bergen Revisited – Contractor Takes Lead in New Technologies, World Tunneling, pp. 481ff.

- Sedjo, A., 2001, Century-Old Tunnel Brought Up-To-Date, TBM – Tunnel Business Magazine, p. 46.

Bergen Tunnel Rehabilitation Project\

Charles A. Maliszewski

2003-01-16

Gerhard Urschitz

NJ Transit