Controlling Design and

Construction Costs of the

World’s Largest Double-Deck
Road Tunnel: Case Study –
Chongming Tunnel
Mr Eddie Wong
23 June 2011
AECOM’s Role

• Design Review

Project Background
• Independent Design Check

• Technical Advisory Service during Design and

Construction Stage

• Participation in Expert Panel Meetings

Chong Ming Island

Approximately
1040 sq km

Current population
600,000

Huge development
potential

Presentation Title June 24, 2011 Page 3

Chang Jiang Tunnel & Bridge Project

7.5 km twin bore tunnel:

Pudong to Changxing
Island

15.1 km Viaduct and
Cable Stayed Bridge
Changxing to Chong
Ming

2.9 km at grade
approaches
Project Objectives

Currently journey from Down Town Shanghai to Chong Ming

takes 1 - 2 hours by ferry

The link will cut journey time between Chong Ming and the
Pudong to 30 minutes

Estimated Cost

12.6 billion Yuan (12,600,000,000)

US$1.58 billion
Parties to the Tunnel Construction

Client:
Shanghai Changjiang Tunnel and Bridge Development Co
Ltd

Designer:
Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Design Institute (STEDI)

Contractor
JV of Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Corporation (STEC)
& Bouygues Asia

Special Advisor
AECOM Asia Company Ltd
 Chong Ming Tunnel Layout

Pudong Man-made Island Changxing Island

(Ventilation Shaft 1) (Ventilation Shaft 2) (Ventilation Shaft 3)
Longitudinal Section of Chongming Tunnel
Ground Conditions

Sandy Silt

Clay

Silty clay

Clayey Silt

Silty clay
Clayey Silt
Features of the Tunnel

Diameter and length of tunnel
15.0m in diameter and approx. 7.5km long
13.7m is the internal diameter

Ground conditions
soft material (silt and clay)

Water Pressure
about 60m water head

Man-made Island
The island is for ventilation and emergency situation
AECOM’s Role

• Design Review

Design Control
• Independent Design Check

• Technical Advisory Service during Design and

Construction Stage

• Participation in Expert Panel Meetings

Factors Controlling the Construction Cost

Ground conditions

High water pressure

Ventilation

Tunnel lining

Tunnel internal structure

TBM

Provision of railway services

Cross passage

Sump pit
AECOM’s Role

• Design Review

Design Developments
• Independent Design Check

• Technical Advisory Service during Design and

Construction Stage

• Participation in Expert Panel Meetings

Initial Typical Cross Section
Revised Tunnel Typical Cross Section

Twin bores13.7 m
Internal diameter

7.5 km Long

Volume of
excavation 2.7
million m3

3 x 3.75 m traffic
lanes

LRT in invert
Cross Passage Layout

8 Cross Passages

Spacing : 830m
Developed Plan of Intrados For universal
Tapered Ring
AECOM’s Role

• Design Review

Tunnel Ventilation
• Independent Design Check

• Technical Advisory Service during Design and

Construction Stage

• Participation in Expert Panel Meetings

Tunnel Alignment
Man-
Man-made Island
(Ventilation Shaft 2)

Layout 1 Layout 2
Original Man-made Island Layout

Retaining Wall
Rubber
550kg
100kg Rock Fender
100kg Rock Rock
fill (0.5m fill (2m Thick) Amour San
Thick) (2 layers) d
Fill

20~100kg Existing
Rock fill Soil

Layout 1
Ø1700m
m Pipe
Pile

Retaining Wall

250kg Rock
100kg Rock fill 100kg Rock
San Amour (2 layers)
(2m Thick) fill (0.5m
d Thick)
Fill

Existing 20~100kg
Soil Rock fill

Layout 2
Ø1700m
m Pipe
Pile
Man-made Island Design Considerations

Scouring Effect

Ship Collision Design

Environmental Impact

Wave Action

Interim and Long Term Settlement

Overall Stability

Liquefaction

Temporary Working Platform
Alternative Ventilation Solution

Hybrid solution
AECOM’s Role

• Design Review

Tunnel Lining
• Independent Design Check

• Technical Advisory Service during Design and

Construction Stage

• Participation in Expert Panel Meetings

Segmental Lining

Critical Design Issues

Buoyancy
– Large diameter tunnels in soft soils must be ‘ballasted’ to achieve
neutral buoyancy during construction phase

Longitudinal deflection
– Connection between the ‘rigid’ approach structures and ‘floating’
tunnel
Arrangement Full-scale Ring Test
Full-scale Ring Test
Segmental Lining

11 No. precast concrete

segments per ring
– total no. 90,000 pieces

Each segment
– Weight 16 tonnes
– Width 2.0 m
– Thickness 650 mm
– Reinforcement 135 to165 kg/m3

Sealed against a maximum

water pressure of 8.5bar by
EPDM compression gaskets
Lining: Reinforcement Cage
Lining: Segment Mould
Lining: Storage & Curing
AECOM’s Role

• Design Review

Tunnel Internal
Structure
• Independent Design Check

• Technical Advisory Service during Design and

Construction Stage

• Participation in Expert Panel Meetings

Original Road Deck Structure

The road deck is divided

into 3 units

The central unit is pre-cast

The left and right units are
cast in-situ
Alternative Road Deck Structure

The road deck is divided

into 3 units

The left and right units are
cast in-situ and supported
by corbels

Rebar are drilled and
inserted into the concrete
lining
Road Deck Structure Construction
Road Deck Structure Construction
Road Deck: Central Precast Unit
Road Deck: Insitu Construction
Road Deck: Final Construction
AECOM’s Role

• Design Review

Tunnel Boring Machine

• Independent Design Check

• Technical Advisory Service during Design and

Construction Stage

• Participation in Expert Panel Meetings

Tunnel Boring Machines

Herrenknecht S 317 & 318 Mixshields

• Diameter 15.43m
• Length 125m

Weight
• 2,300tonnes total
• 170tonnes main drive unit

Cutter Head Power 3,500kW

Design and fabrication 13 months

Site assembly 4 months
TBM Assembly
TBM Cutterhead Chamber for Changing Tools
TBM Cutter Head Site Assembly
TBM Site Assembly
TBM Site Assembly Tailskin in Place
Slurry Treatment Plant

Slurry treatment plant

capacity
3,000m3/hour/TBM

Treatment Process

Rotating Drum Screens

Hydrocyclones
– Primary
– Secondary
Slurry Treatment Plant
Tunnel Spoil After Separation
Segmental Lining Transportation

Original Scheme
Purpose Built Transporters

Final Scheme

But Nothing is Ever Perfect

TBM Segment Feeder
Segmental Lining Erection

Ring built to within +/-10mm

Average build time

Initially 150 minutes

Generally 50 minutes

44 rings / week
Tunnelling Progress

TBM Drive Best Shift Best Day Best Week Best Month

East 6 (12) 11 (22) 65 (130) 241 (482)

West 6 (12) 11 (22) 62 (124) 255 (510)

TBM Advance rings (m)

Erector Arm: Loss of Vacuum

Re-welding head to seal

air leakage paths

Replacing vacuum seals

Erector Arm: Vacuum Test
West: TBM Break Through
AECOM’s Role

• Design Review

Provision of (LRT)
• Independent Design Check
Light Rail Transit
• Technical Advisory Service during Design and
Construction Stage

• Participation in Expert Panel Meetings

Provision of Light Rail Transit

Decision made after tender award and TBM Fabrication

Commenced
Impossible to ‘create’ additional space not only to
accommodate LRT itself but also:

Repositioned sumps

Evacuation provisions
Provision of Light Rail Transit

Cross Passages

Original provision 8 no. inter-connecting cross passages at

road level

Options considered
– Enlarged combined use cross passages
– Dedicated cross passages for each level
Provision of Light Rail Transit

Combined Use Cross Passage

Provision of Light Rail Transit
Dedicated Cross Passages
Provision of Light Rail Transit

Solution emergency stair connection lower to

upper deck every 175 m
Provision of Light Rail Transit
AECOM’s Role

• Design Review

Construction of Cross
Passage
• Independent Design Check

• Technical Advisory Service during Design and

Construction Stage

• Participation in Expert Panel Meetings

Cross Passage: Ground Freezing

Ground freezing only feasible method to secure ground

during excavation
Design Considerations

Heave pressure due to expansion of water

Loss of freeze due to heat transfer
Cross Passage: Ground Freezing

A thermal and mechanical (TM) analysis conducted to

evaluate the influence of ground freezing

The 3-D finite difference program FLAC-3D adopted

Five major steps are involved in the simulations:
– The initial stress condition of the underground;
– The excavation of the tunnel;
– The freezing effect of the cooling pipes;
– The excavation of the crossway passage
– The effect of the crossway excavation to the tunnel.
Cross Passage: 3-D FLAC Model
Cross Passage: 3-D FLAC Model Ground Freezing
Cross Passage: Freezing Pipe Arrangement
Cross Passage: Ground Freezing

Fixing of door frame in steel

opening set

Freeze started with calcium

chloride brine at -35o C
Cross Passage: Ground Freezing

Emergency Door
Cross Passage Excavation & Temporary
Support

Unfrozen core

Steel ribs with timber lagging

 Cross Passage: Lining & Waterproofing

Shotcrete infill to ribs with grout tubes

Water proof membrane in place

Cross Passage: Permanent Lining
AECOM’s Role

• Design Review

Tunnel Sump Pit

• Independent Design Check

• Technical Advisory Service during Design and

Construction Stage

• Participation in Expert Panel Meetings

Low Point Sumps

Original Scheme: Standard Solution of Internal Sumps

LRT envelope not only,

encroached on space
provided for sumps,
but also

dropped the elevation
of the low point

Sump
Tank
Low Point Sumps - External

External sump disadvantages

Rings have to be broken

External hydrostatic head
65m

Ground treatment required
only option ground freezing

Sump
Tank
Alternative Solution

Advantages

No ring is required broken

Construct inside the shield

Less cost and risk

Sump
Tank
Low Point Sumps

Solution ‘split’ sumps

Road Deck to original
location

LRT to a series of sumps in
invert

Special steel invert

segments fabricated to form
sumps for the LRT Level
Thank You