C612 EHC Tunnels - WOrks Options Report

MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION
Tseung Kwan O Extension

C603 Bored Tunnels and
Ancillary Buildings
Works Options Report

C612 - EHC Tunnels
02 17/12/98 Second Issue POC JH RT RT

(Amended for revised alignment &
MTRC comments)
01 24/7/98 First Issue TJB POC RT RT
(Update of C.O.R. Rev #2A)
REV DATE DESCRIPTION BY CHK’D REV’D APP’D
ORIGINATING MTRC SOS DOCUMENT NO. REV.
CONSULTANT: CLAUSE REF: EA00121-168
Hyder Consulting Ltd 4.3.8 FILE NO. 2
12116802.doc
MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION
Bored Tunnels & Ancillary Buildings

C612 - EHC Tunnels
Tseung Kwan O Extension

Consultancy Agreement No. C603
TKE : Agreement C603
C612 - EHC Tunnels
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General 1
1.2 Alignment 1
1.3 Scope 2
2.0 SITE HISTORY & CONDITIONS 3

2.1 General 3
2.2 Adjacent EHC 3
2.3 Along Housing Authority Formation 4
2.4 Adjacent Yau Tong Station 4
3.0 DESIGN PARAMETERS AND CONSTRAINTS 5

3.1 Alignment 5
3.2 Operational Constraints 5
3.3 NHKTC Requirements 5
3.4 Geometric Constraints 6
3.5 Structural Constraints 6
3.6 Construction Constraints 8
3.6.1 Installation 8
3.6.2 Demolition 8
3.6.3 Flood Protection 8
3.6.4 Utility Services/MTRC Services 9
3.7 Design Parameters and Constraints - Summary 9
4.0 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS 12

4.1 General 12
4.2 Alignment 12
4.2.1 Consideration of Alignment at the EHC Intersection 12
4.2.2 TKE Westbound Considerations 13
4.2.3 TKE Eastbound Considerations 14
4.3 Bored Vs Cut & Cover Construction 14
EA00121-168
C:\Documents and Settings\oconnorp\Desktop\temp dell\temp from vaio\C603\12116802.doc
16/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
4.4 WATERPROOFING AND JOINTS 16

4.5 CONNECTION STRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS 17
4.5.1 General 17
4.5.2 Roof Slab 17
4.5.3 Demolition of Walls 18
4.5.4 Base Slab Support 18
4.6 DEWATERING 19
5.0 BASE SLAB SUPPORT 22

5.1 Option 1 - Needle Beams 22
5.1.1 Option 1A - External Needle Beams 22
5.1.2 Option 1B - Internal Needle Beams - Concrete 23
5.1.3 Option 1C - Internal Needle Beams – Steel 25
5.2 Option 2 - Thickening of the Base Slab 26
5.3 Option 3 - Tension Piles 28
5.3.1 Option 3A - Small Diameter Piles 28
5.3.2 Option 3B - Large Diameter Piles 29
5.4 Option 4 - Prestressed Ground Anchors 30
5.4.1 General 30
5.4.2 DSM Waiver 31
5.4.3 Design Considerations 32
5.4.4 Durability 33
5.4.5 Specification 34
5.4.6 Maintenance 34
5.4.7 Case Histories 34
5.4.8 Expert Advice 35
5.4.9 Risk Assessment 35
5.5 Comparison of Options 36
5.5.1 Constructability 36
5.5.2 Structural Adequacy 36
5.5.3 Durability 37
5.5.4 Disruption of MTRC Train Operations 37
5.5.5 Compliance with Constraints 38
6.0 ADVANCE WORKS 39

6.1 Existing Structures Monitoring 39
EA00121-168
16/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
6.2 Electrical Diversions 39
7.0 PROGRAMME 41
7.1 Connection Works 41
7.2 NCB to YAT Cut & Cover Tunnels 41
8.0 COSTS 42
9.0 CONCLUSIONS 43
9.1 Dewatering Method 43
9.2 Monitoring of Existing Structures 43
9.3 Services Diversions 43
9.4 Structural 43
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 44
10.1 Connection Structure Interface 44
10.2 EHC to YAT Tunnels 44
10.3 Base Slab Support System 44
APPENDICES
A Alignment Offset Data

B Preliminary Civil & Structural Works Programme
C Base Slab Support
C1 Anchor Case Histories
C2 Outline Method Statements
C3 Risk Assessments
C4 Expert Advice Report
C5 Preliminary Calculations
C6 Specification for Ground Anchors
D Photographs
E Figures
F Drawings (Bound separately)
EA00121-168
16/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
The Tseung Kwan O Extension (TKE) Line merges into the existing Kwun Tong Line
(KTL) adjacent to the approach ramp and Toll Plaza area of the Eastern Harbour
Crossing (EHC) Road Tunnel. This part of the works forms a complex section of
geometry and engineering given the need to modify and integrate an existing
section of Cut & Cover Tunnel (KTL) as well as the diverging alignment of the W/B
and E/B tracks as the line approaches Yau Tong Station (YAT). The overall length
of this section is approximately 534m, composed of 90m of modified tunnel structure
and a further 444m of new tunnel structure.
Drawing 612/W/03/HCL/C01/010 in Appendix F indicates the overall layout and the

proposed form of tunnel structures for Works Contract 612.
Revision 1 of the Civil Engineering Options Report was submitted to the MTRC in
March 1998. Revision 2A of the above was issued on 10/7/98 which addressed
comments made by MTRC with respect to the revision #1 report. In addition it
describes in detail extra options for accommodation of the effects of the modification
works upon the existing rail tunnel base slab, (many of which had been considered
in general terms but not elaborated upon in the previous report).
This Works Option Report is the continuation of the revision 2A of the Civil
Engineering Options Report. This revision addresses comments made by MTRC
with respect to the use of ground anchors and the revisions made to the rail
alignment.
1.2 Alignment
The track alignment at its connection with the EHC forms a standard “Y” intersection
of two lines sharing a common vertical level. The EHC Connection structure starts
approximately at Ch 1003 (KTL W/B) and the overall length of the modification
works is approximately 90m. Beyond the EHC Connection structure is
approximately a further 107m of Cut & Cover Tunnel that follows a tight curve
toward the proposed New Cha Kwo Ling Ventilation Building (NCB) to the north
east, which is sited on top of the existing mountainous formation adjacent to the
EHC Toll Plaza. Beyond the EHC Connection structure the E/B track diverges from
the W/B track vertically, with the E/B track rising above the W/B track whilst the
horizontal alignments converge such that as they reach YAT the two tunnel bores
form a vertically stacked arrangement.
From the NCB location through to Yau Tong the existing hillside is to be reduced to
new, significantly lower, platform levels for the purposes of a future housing
development. This site formation and associated civil works has been entrusted to
MTRC by the Housing Authority as part of Works Contract 612.
EA00121-168
Page 1
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Drawings 612/W/03/HCL/C02/001 to 002 and 612/W/07/HCL/C02/001 in Appendix

F indicate the above MTRC proposed alignment.
Drawing 612/W/07/HCL/C01/001 in Appendix F indicates the general site formation

extent and final levels.
The tunnel plan, shape and cross sections have been derived from the above
alignment, and the required clearance values as stated in DSM Section 3,
Permanent Way. At the EHC Connection the alignment has been rigorously
analysed in order to accommodate as much of the new alignment within the existing
running tunnel as possible. This point is elaborated on below in Section 4.2.
The Cut and Cover Tunnel section beyond the EHC Connection structure (CH:
615m TKE W/B) forms a standard twin track box to the NCB, then continues in a
similar arrangement through the NCB but structurally as part of the NCB building.
Beyond the NCB, further toward YAT, the two running tunnels still form a continuous
box but the E/B track is significantly higher than the W/B track. At chainage 374.7m
(TKE W/B) the two running bores diverge into two separate single track bores. This
arrangement runs through to YAT.
Section 4.3 below discusses the possibility and associated issues of using bored
tunnels from W/B track chainage 240m to approximately 520m.
1.3 Scope
The following report discusses the civil engineering issues associated with the Cut
and Cover Tunnels from the existing Kwun Tong Line (KTL), through to the
proposed Yau Tong Station (YAT), including the connection to the Eastern Harbour
Crossing (EHC). Various options are considered in relation to the various
constraints, which apply at this site, and recommendations are made for the design
solution considered most effective. The Bored Tunnels from Lam Tin Station (LAT)
to YAT have been covered under a separate report given the different issues to be
addressed for that section of works.
EA00121-168
Page 2
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
2.0 SITE HISTORY & CONDITIONS
2.1 General
Works Contract 612 covers an area of Cha Kwo Ling, bounded by the Eastern
Harbour Crossing towards Yau Tong as well as a rail corridor from the existing Lam
Tin Station to the proposed Yau Tong Station crossing immediately under the EHC
Toll Plaza. The hillside to the east of EHC will form a site formation section and a
small lot of land on Hong Kong Island adjacent to the existing Quarry Bay (road/rail
tunnel) Ventilation Building (QVB) will be used to site the proposed Quarry Bay
Infeed Sub-station.
This report specifically covers the TKE tunnels from EHC to YAT only. The buildings
and building modifications and LAT/YAT tunnels are covered separately.
A detailed review and assessment of the ground conditions has been undertaken
and is more extensively reported in the Site Interpretative Report.
The works area covering the EHC/YAT tunnels can be divided into three distinct
areas. Firstly, the area adjacent to the existing EHC structure, secondly along the
length of the proposed Housing Authority formation, and lastly, the area toward Yau
Tong Station.
2.2 Adjacent EHC
The area adjacent to the EHC is well known given the relatively short time since
construction of the original works was completed. The area now used as the
approach ramp and Toll Plaza for the EHC was the old Cha Kwo Ling quarry. The
quarry was abandoned and the EHC Contractor used the area to form the casting
basin for the Immersed Tube Tunnel units. The existing quarry levels were brought
down to an approximately level platform at -9.0mPD. A channel was further Cut from
the casting basin area to the harbour. This channel was some 45m wide by 400m
long. The width of this channel and its base formation level was based on the size
and base level of the proposed Cut and Cover Tunnel. The base of the rail tunnel
section is lower than the road base section and is seated almost directly on the Cut
rock base of the channel. The level between the road slab base and channel base
was brought up using a rock or granular fill.
Plates #1 and #2 in Appendix (D) show the casting basin and associated channel
during production of the EHC IMT units.
Given the rock foundation, negligible settlement, absolute or relative, is anticipated

for both new or existing tunnel structures.
EA00121-168
Page 3
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
An Existing Building Survey (EBS) for the EHC structures is to be prepared and has
been issued under a separate cover. The settlement issues are mainly confined to
the dewatering and recharge construction activities.
The dewatering of this area is considered difficult given the need to cut off water
entering from the Harbour in the granular material between the road/rail tunnel and
the rock base. This issue is described in detail in Section 4.5 below.
Five additional boreholes (Nos. EC7 to EC11) have been carried out, with
associated testing, adjacent to the rail box, in order to aid in the solution of a
dewatering method.
2.3 Along Housing Authority Formation
The length of tunnel along this section which is some 400m long and will be founded
directly on the exposed formation, is to be undertaken as part of Works Contract
612. The resultant foundation will be good quality granite (Grade II or Grade III
rock) and no difficulties with bearing or settlement are expected.
2.4 Adjacent Yau Tong Station
Beyond the rock formation toward Yau Tong Station an area of reclamation fill
material exists. This material is loose to medium dense, with low bearing capacity.
Some form of ground improvement or alternatively structural piling will be required
to support the tunnel over this region.
DDC603 is only responsible for the design of the TKE tunnels to Chainage 240m
(TKE W/B). This section of tunnel is still founded on sound rock and does not
extend into the soft area. The continuation of the tunnel design to YAT is
undertaken by DDC604 who will address the conditions.
EA00121-168
Page 4
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
3.0 DESIGN PARAMETERS AND CONSTRAINTS
3.1 Alignment
The track alignment for TKE is supplied by the MTR Corporation and is well
constrained between EHC and YAT with little or no scope for change. The alignment
is fixed at the EHC by the existing railway and at YAT by the station platform. Along
the approximately 534m length, the alignment is further constrained by the provision
of a floodgate at the NCB. As such the horizontal alignment must be sufficiently
separated at the building location to accommodate the gate. These given three
constraints, over a limited length on a tight radius, result in an almost fixed
alignment.
The currently proposed alignment for the TKE allows for the maintenance of existing
rail levels on the KTL. MTRC have also advised that the option of raising rail levels
by up to 400mm should also be considered (ref. Permanent Rock Anchor Meeting
Nos. 2 & 8, 8 and 19 June 1998 respectively).
3.2 Operational Constraints
MTRC require that normal train operations be maintained on the KTL throughout the
duration of the construction works. Consequently, all construction operations within
the existing rail tunnel, or which may affect train services, can only be carried out
during Night Time Hours (NTH) when train operations cease. Allowing for time
taken to isolate power supplies, hand over and hand back track possessions, the
working time available to the Contractor has been taken as 3.5 hours within a night
shift.
Obviously 3.5 hours is a short duration to prepare for, execute and clear away
construction operations and careful planning of individual possessions will be
required by the Contractor. In order to avoid potentially expensive delays to the
resumption of train operations, it is considered that, where possible, emphasis
should be placed an utilising construction operations which have a minimal impact
on the existing trackwork and the structural elements supporting it.
3.3 NHKTC Requirements
Any works carried out to the existing rail box of the EHC in order to form the EHC
Connection must avoid compromising the structural integrity and stability of the road
tunnel structure. In addition, it is considered that emphasis should be placed on
design options which minimise impact on the operation of the road tunnel in order to
avoid disruption to traffic and potentially expensive compensation payments to the
New Hong Kong Tunnel Company (NHKTC).
EA00121-168
Page 5
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Excavation works for the EHC Connection will result in the removal of part of the
existing EHC Slip Road and weighbridge. These structures shall be diverted by the
Contractor and maintained continually throughout the duration of the works. The
pedestrian access route between the EHC bus stop and Cha Kwo Ling Road shall
also be maintained through out the duration of the works.
Various NHKTC utility services are present above the location of the proposed
Connection (Refer Drawing 612/W/07/HCL/P06/023). These services require
temporary support within the proposed works or temporary relocation and
reinstatement.
Furthermore, NHKTC has stipulated that excavation of fill material to the north west
side of the EHC shall not be allowed. (Ref. verbally at initial liaison meeting with
NHKTC)
3.4 Geometric Constraints
Geometric constraints on proposed design options for the EHC Connection are
essentially imposed by the existing road and rail structures and the proposed track
alignment (see Section 3.2). The new works require demolition of the existing
central and external walls to the EHC rail box. Any new supporting elements within
(or external to) the rail box will need to consider the dimensions of the structure
gauge, easement allowance, services clearances and the firemen’s walkway.
The proposed vertical alignment of the track will dictate the structural depth
available for any new base slab supporting elements within the rail box. This is
basically limited to 500mm above the top of the structural base slab. Consideration
will also be given to the possibility of increasing this by a further 400mm although
this will require track modification over a significant length beyond the area of the
EHC Connection works.
The maximum allowable gradient between two vertical points has been conformed
by MTRC P-way department as 1v to 625 h. Any raising of the existing line at one
point will affect a length dictated by the above.
3.5 Structural Constraints
Design and loading requirements are described in detail in the Approval in Principle
(AIP) Report (Doc. Ref. EA00121-049/03). Design options utilising in-situ concrete
construction will generally be considered due to considerations of durability and
maintenance. Design shall be in accordance with the MTRC Design Standards
Manual (DSM) and the normal Codes of Practice and British Standards (Listed in
the AIP Report), particularly BS8110, Design of Concrete Structures and BS8007,
Design of Concrete Structures for Retaining Aqueous Liquids.
EA00121-168
Page 6
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
When designing water retaining concrete elements it is important to restrain

cracking so that leakage does not take place and the concrete remains durable with
the design generally being governed by the requirements of the serviceability limit
state (with reinforcement acting at stresses below those normally existing in
reinforced concrete members).
Stability considerations are also particularly important and design must take careful
account of the construction methods to be used.
Acceptable crack widths for the various elements, based on the relevant standards,
are detailed in the AIP Report. To ensure a watertight structure the concrete must
be adequately reinforced in areas where tension may occur and it should be noted
that allowable anchorage bond stresses in sections subject to direct tension must be
reduced below normal levels. Continuity reinforcement to prevent cracking must be
provided at corners and member junctions and should extend well beyond where it
is required to resist the tensile stresses (particularly external faces). Consequently,
it is important, when considering design options which incorporate strengthening of
existing elements at the EHC Connection, to carefully review the details and
capacity of the existing reinforcement.
Consideration should also be given to the potential for cracking occurring as a result
of temperature differentials during hydration of thick concrete sections.
It is also considered prudent to place emphasis on minimising the number of joint

interfaces between new and existing concrete elements (because of the difference
between short and long term shrinkage rates of the new and existing structures).
Various means are available to reduce the chance of leakage at these locations
(e.g. hydrophilic strips, grout injection tubes, prestressing joints etc.) but the greater
the number of interfaces then the greater the potential for failure and leakage to
occur.
The structural action of elements within the original EHC rail and road structure
should also be carefully reviewed when considering options for strengthening or
supporting existing elements in order to facilitate the EHC Connection works. It is
considered preferable, where possible, to retain the structural action and load paths
as closely as possible to the original design concept. For design options, where the
structural action is significantly changed consideration should be given to
reinforcement detailing in the existing structure. This is particularly true of the
existing rail tunnel roof slab which utilised contiguous precast beams with an in-situ
topping and has limited longitudinal capacity.
EA00121-168
Page 7
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
3.6 Construction Constraints
3.6.1 Installation
Construction operations for the EHC Connection work require the excavation of the
fill material to expose the existing rail tunnel structure within the rock channel. This
itself requires dewatering of the site to take place. The existing rail tunnel is known
to fit within the rock channel which was formed during the construction of the EHC.
Therefore, consideration should be given to the amount of further excavation in rock
required since no blasting will be permitted adjacent to the operational railway.
As previously stated in Section 3.3, maintenance of normal train operations requires

any EHC Connection works within the rail tunnel to be carried out under railway
possessions during NTH. This will impose severe restrictions on the Contractor and
careful detailed planning will be essential. In order to reduce the need for plant and
labour mobilisation at each shift, certain operations may take place from the outside
utilising the existing rail tunnel roof slab as a working platform. However, this
proposal has received negative comments from the MTRC OED (ref. comments for
Revision 1 of this report) as coring through the roof slab is considered undesirable
and accurate setting out to avoid existing services would become critical.
3.6.2 Demolition
Demolition of the existing rail tunnel central and external walls is required in order to
form the Connection at the EHC. This work cannot be carried out until dewatering
and fill excavation has taken place. Furthermore, it is considered that the demolition
work should also follow on from the installation of any new roof or base slab support
measures. Although this is not structurally a necessity for the base slab, as the
uplift pressure will be removed by the dewatering operations, it is considered
advisable due to the risk of significant structural damage if the dewatering measures
fail. It would also cause the loss of rail services for long periods.
3.6.3 Flood Protection
As previously stated, dewatering of the site is required in order to carry out the EHC
Connection works. It is essential that the existing operational railway is protected
from the danger of flooding caused by a dewatering failure, and this is further
elaborated on in Section 4.6. Therefore, design options should consider the
requirement to isolate the new works from the existing until such a time that the new
works themselves can be isolated. In addition, any construction operations, which
require the penetration of the existing structure should preferably have the capacity
to be temporarily waterproofed.
EA00121-168
Page 8
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
3.6.4 Utility Services/MTRC Services
A number of services existing within the rail tunnel will require diversion and/or
permanent relocation as they are currently supported by walls due for demolition. All
of these services are required to be kept in operation during the execution of the
works.
The services include :
Signaling Cables
Power & Catenary
Leased Telephone lines and Leaky Coaxial Cables
Data Cable
Fibre Optic Cables (Number of)
Radio Cable
Cables buried in the trackbed
150mm diameter Firemain
Drainage provision at Trackform level
A full list of services and a proposed diversion plan was tabled at the “Inaugural Co-
ordinated Track Interface Meeting” by the relevant MTRC divisions. This list and the
plan are attached to the minutes of the meeting as attachment #4, and may be
referred to.
MTRC have indicated a preference, where feasible, that as much of the cabling as
possible be relocated to new cable troughs provided for in the track form concrete.
Various public utility services are also present at the site of the EHC Connection
works (see Drawing 612/W/07/HCL/P06/021) and will require temporary or
permanent diversion of support within the works.
3.7 Design Parameters and Constraints - Summary
The design parameters and constraints discussed in the foregoing clauses are
summarised below for ease of reference when discussing the various design
options.
Alignment Constraint Ref
Compliance with horizontal alignment A
Compliance with vertical alignment B
Compliance with vertical alignment +400mm C
EA00121-168
Page 9
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Train Operation Constraint Ref
Normal train operations maintained D
Maintain low potential for disruption of normal train operations E
NHKTC Requirements
Works required within road tunnel (traffic disruption) F
Maintenance of structural integrity of EHC road tunnel G
Maintenance of EHC slip road and pedestrian access H
Maintenance of EHC utility services I
No excavation of fill material on north west side of EHC J
Geometric Constraints
Accommodation of existing EHC road and rail tunnel geometry K
Compliance with Structure Gauge L
Compliance with easement allowance, services clearance, M

fireman’s walkway.
Structural Constraints
Compliance with DSM N
Compliance with relevant design standards (AIP List) O
Minimal disruption to existing structures (new/old interface) P
Maintenance of structural integrity of EHC rail tunnel Q
Maintenance of structural stability R
Maintenance of original structural action/load paths S
Ensure long term durability T
Minimal requirement for future maintenance U

EA00121-168
Page 10
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Construction Constraints Constraint Ref
Minimal excavation of rock V
Minimal excavation of structural concrete W
Avoid coring/breaking out roof slab (rail tunnel) X
Wall demolition after new slab support installation Y
Wall demolition after dewatering Z
Maintenance of flood protection (railway operation) AA
Maintenance of flood protection (structural) BB
Maintenance of cable diversions within trackbed CC
Accommodation of required public utility diversions, DD

temporary supports
EA00121-168
Page 11
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
4.0 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS
4.1 General
The principal design issues for the EHC to YAT tunnels and EHC Connection
structure are shown below and are considered the feasible options warranting
further investigation.
1. Consideration of the tunnel and connection geometry to suit the proposed

track alignment. In particular a rigorous analysis of the existing structure to
determine to what extent the proposed line can be accommodated within the
existing structure in order minimise the EHC Connection structure.
2. The type of tunnel structure for the section beyond the EHC Connection to
YAT, namely, bored versus Cut and Cover type construction through the HA
Site Formation area, and their respective geometry.
3. The structural system proposed for the EHC Connection structure.
The main construction issue to be considered at the design stage is the influence of
dewatering on the structural design and the proposed construction constraints. The
existing system and constraints imposed on the construction as outlined under items
(2) and (3) need to be addressed as the dewatering and its operation could not be
considered to be standard. As such, guidance is required to be given to the
Contractor for his consideration in his subsequent design of the dewatering system.
4.2 Alignment
At the intersection of the TKE with the existing KTL, the existing rail box has been
scrutinised to consider the options for limiting the extent of structural modifications
to the EHC. A decision has been made on the resulting recommendation at the time
of issue of this report. However, the options remain included in the text below for
completeness.
4.2.1 Consideration of Alignment at the EHC Intersection
The proposed TKE line from Yau Tong Station back towards Quarry Bay Station will
need to connect into the KTL at the existing EHC. The initial design concept pursed
by the planning Consultant was to start the EHC Connection close to the EHC Cut
and Cover tunnel portal and modify the existing rail box over a length of
approximately 100m to accommodate the new line. The existing trackwork from
EHC to Lam Tin station was to be abandoned under this proposal due mainly to the
problems of cant in the rail.
EA00121-168
Page 12
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
MTRC did not accept that the existing line from EHC to LAT had to be abandoned
and instructed that this line is to remain in service for operational reasons and will
become a Service Connection Tunnel. To allow for both lines to meet minimum
design standards and operational speeds, the rail alignment was modified.
After undergoing several revisions, the currently proposed alignment for the TKE
intersects the existing KTL at Ch 1017.524 (KTL W/B). To accommodate the
alignment and to comply with the minimum DSM requirements, in terms of
clearances etc), the structure modifications are required to commence at
approximately Ch 1031.924 (KTL W/B). This point is beyond the portal to the EHC
road tunnel and requires the need to incorporate difficult amendments to the existing
movement joint. Alternatively, in order to minimize the length of the new structural
works and avoid the portal movement joint, consideration is given (below) to
encroachment upon the easement and services clearances within the tunnel.
4.2.2 TKE Westbound Considerations
At the W/B track alignment intersection point (Ch: 725.605, TKE W/B) of the
proposed TKE and existing KTL, the existing concrete rail box has a constant cross
section. The external wall was set out as 2175mm off the KTL W/B track centre-line.
This is the minimum required dimension for a line on a straight section. At the
intersection point, the TKE bears off to the east at a Radius of 1123.044m. This
radius equates to a vehicle centre throw of 27mm, thus the train bore required by
DSM is 2175+27=2202mm from the track centre-line to the internal face of the
external wall. The throw of the train will increase from zero at a distance of one
bogie length into the tunnel to a maximum value at a distance of 0.5 bogie lengths
beyond the alignment intersection point. Over this length the throw will vary, with the
clearance to the face of the tunnel wall being the sum of 2175mm and the throw.
It is proposed to minimise the modification works by encroaching upon the space

within the tunnel allocated for the provision of services. By doing this, it is possible
to accommodate some of the new alignment in the existing rail bore. The main
reason for this is to limit the extent of the new structural works and demolition of the
existing tunnel box and therefore reduce costs.
The length of tunnel wall over which the 300mm services clearance zone will not be
provided is detailed on Drawing No. 612/P/07/HCL/C02/003 (A5) which is included
in Appendix F.
If the 300mm services clearance zone were maintained, an additional 32m (approx.)
of external wall would require demolition. The new works would then include the
existing movement joint at the existing EHC Tunnel Portal which would increase
construction difficulties and increase costs.
EA00121-168
Page 13
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
An estimate has been prepared of the costs associated with not allowing the
departure from standard. The estimate for the additional work involved is HK$16
million. This estimate is compared with the tender estimate for the interim Bill of
Quantities of 16th June 1998 and excludes geotech and soft landscape costs.
It is also possible to gain additional clearance at the external wall, as the overall
clear dimension in the existing tunnel is 125mm larger than that required by the
DSM. To make use of this space, the existing trackwork beyond chainage
725.605m would require realignment way from the external wall. However, this
would result in a longer length of trackwork modifications, and would only save a
further 4m of modifications.
4.2.3 TKE Eastbound Considerations
Similarly to the W/B track, the same procedure may be applied in order to determine
where the central wall demolition begins. The current distance between the E/B
track centre-line and the face of the internal wall is 2475mm. For the TKE E/B track
we require a dimension of 2377mm. This is made up of 2350mm required to include
the provision of fireman’s walkway and 27mm throw. Thus, an additional clearance
of 98mm can be utilised. This equates to Ch 1004.906 (KTL E/B).
Further savings in the demolition of this wall can be made by encroaching into the
area designated for the fireman’s walkway and the services clearance zone. The
savings here would be in the order of 14.65m length, which is also illustrated on
Drawing No. 612/P/07/HCL/C01/003 (A5).
4.3 Bored Vs Cut & Cover Construction
For the section of TKE tunnel from approximately chainage 240m through to
approximately 520m (TKE W/B), an alternative tunnelling method is feasible.
Drawing 612/P/03/HCL/C10/021 indicates an alternative bored tunnel solution.
Although it is technically feasible, it would be necessary to use more stringent
criteria on the blasting operations for these sections, than for the other drill and blast
bored tunnels under this contract. These tunnels would be constructed as a mined
tunnel with specific limitations on overbreak etc. The lower TKE westbound bore
would need to be completed first and then the TKE eastbound over, due to their
close relative positions.
The Cut and Cover Tunnel option is preferred since there is greater flexibility in the
construction of an in-situ tunnel if the rock conditions prove to be unreliable for
mining techniques. Additionally, the easier interfacing with the NCB design and the
avoidance of two interfaces between Cut and Cover Tunnels and bored tunnels are
a further advantage.
EA00121-168
Page 14
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
A bored tunnel is however, being considered concurrently with the programming and
documentation of the Site Formation works. It may be necessary to use the bored
tunnel method due to programming considerations. The Cut and Cover Tunnel
construction is dependent upon the Contractor completing the site formation and
tunnel excavation in this area before construction of the tunnel can commence. It
may be necessary to hand over the site early necessitating the need to use a bored
solution.
Once the area has been excavated, the construction of the Cut and Cover Tunnel,
section will progress relatively quickly. To complete approximately 400m of in-situ
tunnel would take approximately 9 months. This section could still be completed
ahead of the EHC Connection structure works or Yau Tong Station even given a late
handover of the site formation area.
An external toe has been shown to the new base slab throughout the EHC
Connection and Cut and Cover Tunnels and is not only used to ease reinforcement
congestion, but also aids in minimising flexural rotation at the base. Therefore, if
ground anchors are used then the tie force is limited to the uplift component only,
and there is no prying effect from rotation associated with wall flexure. The toe also
allows superior engagement of the surrounding soil mass when considering
buoyancy effects. The large axial forces in the external walls are also more
uniformly transferred to the foundation. Poor or inconsistent foundations will allow
the external wall to rotate and only very small rotations will result in significant
increases in flexure in the base slab.
The excavation for the tunnels from EHC to YAT is not geometrically constrained by
adjacent structures etc. and the use of an external toe adds minimally to the overall
excavation.
The advantages of the toes are:
Simplified reinforcement detailing resulting in reduced congestion.

Superior load transfer to the foundation.
Limitation on base flexure.
(Limitation on prying effects if ground anchors are used for the EHC
Connection).
Engagement of surrounding soil mass aiding in resistance to buoyancy.
Superior durability due to the combination of all the above.
The disadvantages are:
Increased excavation (although not a geometrical constraint on this site).

Increased volume of concrete (less than 5%, but offset by reduced
reinforcement due to detailing).
EA00121-168
Page 15
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
4.4 WATERPROOFING AND JOINTS
A continuous waterproofing system shall be provided to all external surfaces of the

tunnel.
For the Cut and Cover Tunnel the base will be provided with a preformed,
continuously keyed, sheet polymer membrane of 2mm thickness, fixed directly to the
underside of the base slab. The tunnel external walls and roof will be protected by a
two coat, 2mm overall thickness polymer spray applied membrane with appropriate
protection boards.
Given that the proposed tunnel will be founded on rock along its entire length,
differential movement longitudinally is not envisaged. Jointing will be provided,
between the new and existing structures to match existing movement joint locations.
No further joints will be introduced to the tunnel until it interfaces with YAT, with
strains due to shrinkage etc. being catered for by reinforcement.
Joints specifically designed to cater for transitional and/or rotational movement will
be provided with a flexible waterstop. These will be rubber and furthermore a
groutable waterstop may be used. At such joints a redundant waterstop is
expedient, and the use of hydrophilic seals or a secondary groutable waterstop will
be used. Vertical and horizontal shear keys will be provided in the form of concrete
keys or more likely by the use of steel dowels. Such dowels would be made of
stainless steel to enhance durability such that they ideally will not require
replacement over the entire design life of the tunnel.
Fire protection to the joint seals will be provided across the joints. Steel (or
Durasteel, or similar) cover plates will be provided across the joints to provide a
flush finish.
The movement joint detail currently shows a recess to enable the retro fitting of an
Omega type seal. The provision to retro fit an Omega type seal does not result in an
increase in cost or effort during the original construction, but does allow a workable
solution if the joint fails to perform in the future.
EA00121-168
Page 16
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
4.5 CONNECTION STRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS
4.5.1 General
The existing rail tunnel is a reinforced concrete box structure. The design and
construction of the existing tunnel used standard reinforced concrete techniques
and detailing. The base and side walls are solid, poured in-situ reinforced concrete
sections. The roof however uses a series of composite precast beams (500mm wide
by 400mm deep) laid adjacent to each other, with an additional 400mm deep
(600mm deep at the combined road/rail tunnel) in-situ slab poured after. This was
used for programming reasons, allowing access to the rail tunnel earlier than if
internal forms were used for an in-situ section. As such, the roof section has limited
capacity longitudinally as there is no structural connection between adjacent precast
beam elements.
4.5.2 Roof Slab
The existing roof slab currently transfers imposed loads by spanning approximately
5m between wall supports. The existing roof slab was constructed by placing the
precast beams on the walls and subsequently pouring the remainder of the slab in-
situ. There is structural continuity between the precast members and the in-situ slab
by virtue of links protruding into the in-situ section sufficiently to develop adequate
strength.
The current proposal, as documented, is for the existing roof slab to be tied to a new
roof slab that will be designed to resist all the permanent loads. The original
concept shown at the proposal stage of DDC603, of allowing the existing roof slab to
remain in service and replace the wall supports with a longitudinal beam
subsequently supported by a cross beam has been abandoned due to the need to
tie each precast beam to a new section over. It will be simpler and more effective to
simply pour a new, much larger slab over the entire roof. The existing roof will be
tied to the new to allow train services to be maintained during construction, but will
serve no structural purpose after the permanent works are completed.
The roof slab may be removed completely with the provision of a new slab over, but
this would require the demolition of the in-situ section of slab and subsequent
removal of precast beams. This method was discounted due to MTRC OED
concerns regarding debris risk to train operation and the exposure of the running
line to external elements. Further, there is no protection to flooding in the event of a
dewatering failure.
The drawings in Appendix F indicate the size of the new roof slab and the hook tie
details.
EA00121-168
Page 17
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
4.5.3 Demolition of Walls
The demolition of the existing external and central walls over the length shown on
drawing 612/07/W/HCL/C21/003 is relatively straightforward. Advice from demolition
Contractors concurs that wire cutting into manageable pieces is the most practical
method. The principle issue with the demolition of the walls is the sequencing with
the proposed structure to ensure strength and stability at all times given the
changing conditions as construction progresses.
The constraint on wall demolition is for the new external structure to be completed
around the existing and completion of anchor installation (or other slab support
system) at a section before wall demolition can commence. To meet current
programme requirements, demolition of the external wall is being allowed to be
carried out during operation hours as well as non traffic hours. For demolition to be
undertaken during the day, a suitable protective barrier will need to be installed in
the running tunnel outside the kinematic envelope to protect trains from debris or
failure of a cutting wire.
New walls will be designed and constructed by standard in-situ techniques. The
design will comply with the AIP Report.
4.5.4 Base Slab Support
Formation of the EHC Connection results in the unavoidable demolition of the

existing rail tunnel walls, which removes the inherent slab support. The base slab
has required the most consideration, due to the difficulty in enhancing the slab
strength required given the increased slab span for the permanent works. Similarly
to the roof slab above, the base slab is subjected to a considerable hydrostatic
pressure from groundwater. These pressures are of the order of 120 to 130 Kpa
and will always be present.
It has been suggested by MTRC that the possibility of permanently draining the EHC
Connection area be investigated. However, the difficulty and doubtful reliability of
such an option, coupled with the consequence of failure logically precludes this
“option”.
Calculations on the base slab given the existing section and reinforcement were
undertaken to ascertain the allowable span of the base. The slab was found to be
able to span approximately 5m to 6m one or two way spanning while still complying
with strength and watertightness requirements. As such, the existing slab will not be
able to span the full width of 11m (or more) across the tunnel once the central wall is
removed. Therefore, the tunnel base slab requires further strengthening or
alternative support for the proposed works.
EA00121-168
Page 18
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Ideally it would be desirable to provide a new base slab under the existing, similar to
the roof slab solution, but such extensive excavation and difficulty in pouring a new
slab under an existing slab precludes this option.
Similarly, the removal and complete reconstruction of the base slab is precluded by
the need to maintain train services throughout the construction process.
Section 5 is devoted to the consideration of viable options that were further

investigated in strengthening or supporting the existing base slab.
4.6 DEWATERING
One of the major issues associated with construction of the works is the dewatering
method used to maintain a dry working environment. The site is adjacent to the
harbour and as stated in Section 2.1 above, ground water levels are expected to be
at sea level. The area formed in the old quarry also forms a natural catchment to
collect ground water from stormwater run-off. Water levels are expected to be at
approximately +2.5mPD and the base of the excavation at some -9.1mPD.
It is currently believed that the original cut-of wall used to de-water the site for the
construction of the EHC can be used to advantage. The description below is based
on an assessment of as built drawings and anecdotal evidence from the original
Contractor, namely Kumagai Gumi Hong Kong. Unfortunately, both HCL and MTRC
no longer have copies of the temporary works submissions to verify the details.
The original construction of EHC used the Cha Kwo Ling quarry as the Immersed
Tube Tunnel casting basin and a channel was excavated between the casting basin
and the harbour. The channel was some 45m wide by 400m long, with two
watertight gates, one at the southern Harbour end and the other at the northern end
of the channel. After completion of the immersed tube units, Unit 15, being the
Kowloon landfall unit, was towed down the channel and out into the Harbour. This
unit was then lowered into position, seated upon a full width concrete beam cast
onto, and locked into, the surrounding rock formation. A rubber seal between the
IMT unit and the concrete beam was used to stop water from entering the channel
from under the unit. To cut-off water from the sides, a diaphragm wall and caisson
system was constructed on the side rock slopes. A sheet pile wall was then installed
between the outer diaphragm walls and the Unit 15 tunnel walls down to rock at the
base. This system effectively formed a cofferdam to the channel allowing the Cut
and Cover Tunnel to be constructed.
Drawing 612/K/07/HCL/C02/005, attached to Appendix F, outlines the reference for

the dewatering system.
Five additional boreholes, EC7 to EC11, have been placed immediately adjacent to
the existing Cut and Cover Tunnel, spaced at approximately 25m. These boreholes
terminate at the rock head at the base of the tunnel and confirm the presence of a
graded granular material for backfill. The pumping test associated with the
EA00121-168
Page 19
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
boreholes is still being implemented at the time of issuance of this report. The
boreholes together with the pump test should shed more light on the effectiveness
dewatering the channel.
It will always be necessary to develop a contingency for dewatering the channel in

the event that it is not possible to de-water the channel by the above method. The
above will also only be documented as a reference design such that the Contractor
awarded the project will need to be responsible for the temporary condition and not
be able to claim delays if the system does not function effectively. This point needs
to be made be clear in the Tender documents with specific reference to the need to
outline the intended dewatering method for technical appraisal.
An alternative system would most likely be of the same principle to the above, with
the installation of a cut-off wall between the tunnel and the rock. Cutting off the
water to the sides of the tunnel does not present too difficult a problem, unlike the
prevention of water from entering from underneath the tunnel. It may be necessary
to grout the material between the underside of the tunnel and the rock. This would
involve coring the existing Cut and Cover base at regular intervals over its full width
and injecting a grout material. This method would only reasonably be used if all
other methods failed. It is highly desirable to avoid any work that might affect the
road tunnel operation in any way.
Ground freezing techniques may also be considered, but are unlikely to be as

effective or economic as the above alternative methods.
As with any dewatering operation, close monitoring of the surrounding structures will
be required. This monitoring is discussed below under Section 4.3 referring to
advance works.
The current Tender drawings and documents implicitly allow the Contractor to open
up a full excavation adjacent to the EHC to construct the EHC Connection structure.
Calculations have been undertaken to quantify the stability and strength of the
existing structure during stages of the construction sequence. If the entire side of
the tunnel is exposed over the full length of the modification Works then some 100m
of the rail box adjacent the open ramp will be exposed. Calculations show that,
during construction, if the dewatering is functioning the existing structure remains
stable with an adequate factor of safety.
If pore water pressure starts to build up on the unexcavated side of the EHC then
the FOS on sliding stability reduces. A tolerable differential water head of 1.5m has
been specified at which an acceptable FOS is still maintained. However a failure of
the dewatering system would result in the existing structure having a tendency to
slide and fail. Given that the tunnel and approach ramp is such a stiff element, any
movement will result in cracking and leakage. Further movement would cause
serious damage to the structure with a severe safety concern for construction
workers within the excavation zone. In addition, buoyancy failures also become a
concern in the event of increase in water pressure in the open excavation.
EA00121-168
Page 20
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Given the above, the Contractor has been directed to provide not only a primary
dewatering system, but also a fully independent backup system to minimise the
possibility of a dewatering failure at any time. Other options are to allow only
segments to be excavated such that sufficient restraint to sliding exists globally with
a check on the strength of the tunnel structure to span across the excavation. This
span is nominally 40 to 50 m long. To overcome buoyancy sufficient dead weight (in
the form of Kentledge blocks for example) could be used to ensure stability.
If a restriction on excavation is not imposed and reliance is made on the dewatering

system then a contingency plan will be required to inform relevant persons of
impending danger given a failure of the dewatering operation.
Demolition drawing 612/07/W/HCL/C21/003 reflects the Works programme of

dividing the EHC Connection structure into three sections to be constructed. To
ensure safety to the existing running tunnels the Contractor will be required to
maintain external isolation. To achieve this, a steel bulkhead will be erected at the
end of a completed section between the new and existing structures. This bulkhead
will prevent water ingress to the tunnel in case of flood hazard as well as generally
protecting the tunnel from debris etc.
EA00121-168
Page 21
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
5.0 BASE SLAB SUPPORT
5.1 Option 1 - Needle Beams
The existing slab may be supported by using the inherent longitudinal flexural
capacity provided by the slab’s distribution reinforcement to span the slab between
discrete transverse beams or “needle beams”. Three options have been considered
which are described below.
5.1.1 Option 1A - External Needle Beams
For this option the existing slab would be tied down to new transverse beams
constructed below the rail tunnel. The tie would utilise post-tensioned stress bars
which would not only provide a structural connection between the two elements but
would compress the two faces together so assisting the water-tightness of the
interface.
Figure 5.1.1 attached to Appendix (E) illustrates the general arrangement of this
option and Drawings 612/W/07/HCL/C21/001 and /002 attached to Appendix F
indicate the sequence of installation. In order to install these beams the area is de-
watered as described in Section 4.5 and the area excavated to expose the existing
rail box. Beams are required at approximately 6m centres and would be installed in
a staggered arrangement in order to ensure that the installation process does not
undermine the existing tunnel, allowing normal rail services to be maintained. The
size of the beam required is approximately 2m by 2m. This has been sized following
consideration of the geometrical requirements to allow operatives to carry out
excavation and to install reinforcement etc., rather than for wholly structural reasons
(see preliminary calculations in Appendix C5). These beams are hereafter referred
to as needle beams.
Obviously, installation of these needle beams requires workers to gain access to

and work under the existing base slab. There is a clear safety consideration here as
it will not be known precisely during the design phase what the environment directly
under the base slab is. Although it is known that the tunnel rests on a hard
foundation with underlying rock, there may be a layer of compacted granular
material, which was used during the original construction to bring up the levels. The
levels of the casting basin are not exactly known and as-built drawings are not
consistent. Adjacent to the rail box a rock fill was used under the road tunnel base,
as the road base is higher than the rail. If this granular material remains saturated
during the dewatering process, or the dewatering is not successful, water may enter
the excavation under the base causing a collapse of the excavation. A continuously
installed shoring type system may be required to overcome this problem but the
main disadvantage with this option is the inherent risk associated with water and
excavation stability.
EA00121-168
Page 22
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
The rock or soil material will need to be excavated by hand methods only, using
small tools, given the location and the need to minimise vibration in order not to
affect the operation of the railway. The Contractor’s method will need to address the
question of vibration and ensure it complies with the MTRC requirements. The use
of blasting is not a viable option.
After the area has been excavated for the needle beams, it will be necessary to
install the stressbars, required to tie the slab and beam together, from inside the rail
tunnel. This operation can be completed during subsequent track possessions
during NTH. The position of the ties will however be affected by the future
trackwork modifications required for the crossover and several will have to be
placed under the trackform concrete plinths. Once the needle beams have been
installed the completion of the base slab and other external works is relatively
straightforward using standard techniques.
The advantage of this system is that once the permanent works are completed the
final product has the same degree of structural redundancy and long term
performance as any other reinforced concrete section. The design and detailing of
the sections is relatively straightforward and a high degree of confidence can be
given to the structural solution.
It is considered that a detailed design and construction methodology can be

developed in order to comply with all of the constraints listed in clause 3.8 except
those referenced S and V. Constraint T may also be partially compromised as
several stress bars would be positioned below the trackform concrete and would not
be easily accessible for visual examination.
However, MTRC’s comments on Rev. 01 of this report reinforced the above

statements with respect to the risk of water ingress (and additionally ventilation)
during construction and also emphasised that hand excavation in rock would be
extremely slow and costly. The comments stated that this option should be
“dismissed as unacceptable”.
5.1.2 Option 1B - Internal Needle Beams - Concrete
In order to avoid potentially hazardous and time consuming excavations below the
existing rail tunnel, consideration has been given to the construction of needle
beams from within the tunnel. The general arrangement for this option is illustrated
in Figure 5.1.2. Beams would be required at approximately 5m centres and use
would be made of the available structural depth of 500mm (from the top of the
structural slab to the underside of the track plinths) plus the existing slab depth. At
the critical location, the slab depth is 1000mm and hence a potential overall
structural depth of 1500mm is available. Consideration has also been given to
increasing the rail level by 400mm giving an overall structural depth of 1900mm.
EA00121-168
Page 23
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
In order to install the needle beams, the existing trackbed concrete and structural
concrete would be broken out to a depth necessary to enable installation of new top
beam reinforcement and new shear reinforcement. The slab would not be
completely broken through in order to avoid the potential flooding risk (following a
dewatering failure) of large openings which could not be adequately waterproofed
during the construction process. Hence, the new works must rely on the existing
slab reinforcement at the external face, however, additional top slab (internal)
reinforcement can be added to suit. It is envisaged that considerable construction
difficulties would be encountered during the installation of these needle beams.
Large quantities of structural concrete must be broken out for approximately 24 such
beams in restrictive conditions during the 3.5 hrs NTH. The work must be carefully
carried out around the rails and associated services (cables, drainage, etc.) and
these must also be adequately supported across the width of the excavation. The
existing top slab longitudinal steel would also require cutting and subsequently re-
splicing in order to restore continuity.
Irrespective of the construction difficulties involved with this option, it is considered

to be structurally unviable based on the results of preliminary calculations (included
in Appendix C5). For the two structural depths available, two cases have been
considered for the needle beams spanning between the existing internal wall and
the new works. The beams have been considered as fixed at the existing wall and
propped at the new works (Case 1) and also fixed at both ends (Case 2), the latter
requiring more construction effort in providing continuity with existing reinforcement.
Table 5.1.2 below summarises the requirements for the needle beams to satisfy
both serviceability and ultimate limit states. Asreq. refers to external face
reinforcement (at the support) as top reinforcement can be provided to suit.
Case 1 Case 2
Propped Cantilever Fixed Ended Beam
H = 1500mm H = 1900mm H = 1500mm H = 1900mm
10858 kNm (sls) 7239 kNm (sls)
Support Moment
14200 kNm (uls) 9467 kNm (uls)
6108 kNm (sls) 3619 kNm (sls)
Span Moment
7987 kNm (uls) 4733 kNm (uls)
Width equired
1780mm 1085mm 1190mm 725mm
(sls)
Asreq.
20437mm2/m 22602mm2/m 17373mm2/m 22109mm2/m
(uls)
As available 2 2 2 2
5396mm /m 5396mm /m 5396mm /m 5396mm /m
(existing)
Table 5.1.2
EA00121-168
Page 24
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Clearly, examination of the table shows there is insufficient reinforcement in the

existing slab for this option to be considered viable. In addition, by inspection, much
higher moments than currently exist will be applied to the internal wall at the
locations of the needle beams. It is unlikely that these areas can be practicably
strengthened to accommodate the moment increase.
It has been suggested by MTRC that the transverse needle beams can be
considered as simply supported elements spanning between the existing internal
wall and the new works. Consequently, sufficient mid-span reinforcement can be
provided to suit this model at the top of the beams. However, in order for this
scenario to work, the existing external face reinforcement at the support would need
to yield to form a plastic hinge in order for the moment to redistribute to mid-span.
This would inevitably lead to excessive cracking in the external face of the slab and
wall, significantly beyond the limits stipulated in the DSM, the relevant Design
Codes and the AIP Report. Whilst the external slab reinforcement could be
considered sacrificial at the ultimate state for this type of structural action, as all
reinforcement is connected, any ensuing corrosion would eventually reach
structurally critical sections. Leakage into the tunnel would also be very difficult to
prevent. It is therefore considered that the adoption of this type of structural model
(i.e. designing for excessive crack widths) contradicts accepted design parameters
and good practice for this type of tunnel structure and consequently cannot be
recommended.
Comparison of this option with the various constraints listed in clause 3.8
demonstrates that a significant number of constraints are contravened. These are
constraints referenced B, C, E, K, N, O, P, Q, S, T, U, W and CC.
5.1.3 Option 1C - Internal Needle Beams – Steel
Consideration has also been given to the use of steel beams needled through the
external wall and supported at the internal wall with permanent flat jacks placed
between the structural slab and the steel beam. The beams would have to utilise
the same structural depth that is available for the option described above in Section
5.1.2 and preliminary calculations indicate that this option only becomes remotely
feasible when the rail level is raised by 400mm. In this situation solid steel sections
approximately 370mm wide by 800mm deep would be required at 1m centres.
There are obviously significant (if not insurmountable) problems associated with the
manufacture, fabrication and installation of such a massive steel section and
therefore this option has not been investigated further.
EA00121-168
Page 25
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
5.2 Option 2 - Thickening of the Base Slab
With this option the original transverse spanning nature of the base slab is
maintained whereas with each of the needle beam options the slab was required to
act mainly in the longitudinal direction. However, the slab is now required to span a
distance of approximately 11.1m. The general arrangement for this option is
illustrated in Figure 5.2.
In order to strengthen the slab similar construction operations would be required as

for the needle beams except that the work would be required continuously over the
full area of the slab. The existing trackbed concrete and structural concrete would
be broken out to a depth necessary to enable installation of new top beam
reinforcement and new shear reinforcement. Again, complete breakthrough of the
slab is avoided in order to avoid the potential flooding risk following a dewatering
failure. Hence, the new works must rely on the existing slab reinforcement at the
external face but additional top reinforcement can be added to suit. It is envisaged
that considerable construction difficulties would be encountered during the
thickening of the slab. Even larger quantities of structural concrete must be broken
out and the works must progress in a hit and miss strip sequence if the constraint for
wall demolition following slab strengthening is to be met. Failure to comply with this
requirement would mean the slab is exposed to the risk of significant structural
failure in the event of flooding.
As for the needle beams, the work must be carefully carried out around the rails and
associated services (cables, drainage, etc.) and these must also be adequately
supported across the width of the excavation.
When considering the structural merit of this option the slab has been assumed to
act as fixed at the existing wall and propped at the new works (as for Case 1 with
the Needle Beams). Use would be made of the available structural depth of 500mm
(from the top of the structural slab to the underside of the track plinths) plus the
existing slab depth. At the critical location, the slab depth is 1000mm and hence a
potential overall structural depth of 1500mm is available. Consideration has also
been given to the section of existing 800mm thick slab. Table 5.2 below
summarises the findings of the preliminary calculations (included in Appendix C5).
MAult refers to the support moment and MCult refers to the in-span moment.
EA00121-168
Page 26
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Chainage 762 (TKE W/B) Chainage 674 (TKE W/B)

Existing Slab Existing Slab
1000mm thick 800mm thick
MAult MCult MAult MCult
Applied Moment 2486 kNm 1398 kNm 1362 kNm 681 kNm
Capacity of Existing
1700 kNm 855 kNm 1506 kNm 648 kNm
Slab (uls)
Capacity of 1500mm
thick slab
2702 kNm 3366 kNm 2775 kNm 2788 kNm
(uls)
Approx. Depth of Slab
reqd. for crack control
2200mm 1900mm 2000mm 1700mm
(sls)
Table 5.2
Examination of Table 5.2 shows that there is adequate capacity in the existing
external face reinforcement for the ultimate limit state applied moments at the
support (and sufficient new reinforcement can be added to accommodate the in-
span moments). However, when the relevant sections are checked for crack widths
these are found to significantly exceed design requirements. In order to reduce
crack widths to acceptable levels the stress in the reinforcement needs to be
considerably reduced which, without the provision of any intermediate restraint,
requires an increase in slab depth to the size indicated in the table. This is clearly
in excess of both the 1500mm structural depth available and also that available if
the rail level was increased by 400mm.
As for the needle beam option, a significant increase in construction effort at the
EHC Connection works, involved in providing continuity to the existing
reinforcement, would mean that the slab could be considered as fixed at both ends.
Although this would have the effect of reducing the support and in span moments,
similar calculations demonstrate that the required structural depth is still in excess of
that available.
MTRC’s proposal for considering the needle beams as simply supported can also be
applied to the option to increase the existing slab depth. The comments made in
clause 5.1.2 with respect to this proposal, which conclude that it is an inappropriate
model to adopt, also apply in this case.
constraints referenced B, C, E, K, N, O, P, T, U, V, W and CC.
EA00121-168
Page 27
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
5.3 Option 3 - Tension Piles
5.3.1 Option 3A - Small Diameter Piles
An alternative to providing measures to strengthen the existing base slab, either in

the transverse or longitudinal direction, is to install an intermediate support within
the width of the slab. This would effectively act as a substitute for the central wall,
which provided the original support. One means of achieving this intermediate
support would be the installation of small diameter tension piles. Figure 5.2.1
illustrates the general arrangement of this option. 48 piles would be provided at
approximately 2.5m centres to a depth of approximately 10-13m. The existing slab
can span up to about 5m in the longitudinal direction however, the adoption of 2.5m
centres allows for some structural redundancy in the system should a pile fail.
In order to install the tension piles working operations would need to commence
from a working platform on the roof slab. The slab, and the associated length of
central wall below it, would be broken out over an area of approximately 1-1.5m long
by 1m wide during NTH . A cylindrical or rectangular steel shield could then be
lowered into the slot created so that further breakout operations for the base slab
and excavation of the rock could be carried out whilst providing protection to the
track and services. On completion of the excavation, a steel tension pile would be
lowered into the hole and in-situ concrete placed to provide a bond between the
rock and the steel. The cut slab reinforcement would then require reinstatement in a
restricted area and a positive connection made between the pile head and the
reinstated slab.
In order to determine the size of tension pile required consideration has been given
to the amount of vertical deflection that can be sustained in the base slab, without
inducing unacceptable crack widths. In essence, the restraint system is a passive
one; therefore, the tension pile will undergo some deformation before it is capable of
providing a restraint force for the slab to react against. Pile sizing has consequently
been based on providing a steel section which provides the necessary force in
conjunction with a small enough extension to limit slab deflection (preliminary
calculations are presented in Appendix C5). The preliminary calculations indicate
that very small deflections in the base slab will lead to excessive slab cracking. This
finding is understandable when the effective stiffness of the 1000mm thick slab is
taken into account. It has consequently been determined that the required steel
area for the tension pile is approximately 244cm2, which translates into the typical
section sizes referred to below:
20 No. T40 bars (giving a pile diameter of 800mm approx.)

a 355.6mm diameter CHS with 25mm wall thickness
a 175mm diameter solid steel section
a 305 x 305 x 158 UC
a 762 x 267 x 197 UB
EA00121-168
Page 28
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Whilst the use of the section sizes referred to above is not impossible, this type of
solution presents many difficulties with its installation. Splicing of the sections is not
considered appropriate for the tension member and therefore installation would
need to take place through the roof. The excavation for the piles would be carried
out in a very restrictive area and would be time consuming. The excavation through
the slab would need to be relatively large and is likely to be uneven in nature, which
would make it extremely difficult to waterproof during the construction process.
Consequently, the potential flooding risk would remain in the event of a dewatering
failure.
The nature of the passive piling system means that in order for the pile to take up
load the surrounding concrete would inevitably crack. Therefore, an amount of
sacrificial steel would need to be added to that calculated for structural purposes.
This is not desirable since the use of sacrificial layers as corrosion protection is not
considered acceptable where load is transferred by bond. In addition, if the steel
were subject to penetration by water containing chlorides, the subsequent corrosion
would not be a uniform surface rusting but may be the highly localised black pitting
corrosion normally associated with chloride attack. This would pose a significant
threat to the structural integrity of the pile.
The necessity for relatively large openings through the slab results in a significant
number of interfaces between new and old in-situ concrete, with the potential for
leakage into the rail tunnel if they are not adequately sealed. Also, it would almost
certainly require a closure of the railway in order to carry out the necessary load
tests on the piles to prove that adequate factors of safety have been achieved.
Comparison of this option with the various constraints listed in Section 3.8
constraints referenced B, C, E, K, N, O, P, T, U, V, W, X, Y and AA.
5.3.2 Option 3B - Large Diameter Piles
In order to reduce the number of pile installations through the roof slab,
consideration has also been given to the use of approximately 24 No. larger
diameter piles at 5m centres, which is the limit for the existing slab spanning in the
longitudinal direction. This would of course mean that there is no redundancy built
into the system in the event of a pile failure. Figure 5.2.2 illustrates the general
arrangement of this option.
The installation of the larger diameter piles would essentially be the same as for
those of smaller diameter. The broken out openings and rock excavations would
obviously have to be that much bigger. Preliminary calculations have been carried
out similar to Option 3A and it has consequently been determined that the required
steel area for the tension pile is approximately 488cm2, which translates into the
typical section sizes referred to below:
EA00121-168
Page 29
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
39 No. T40 bars (giving a pile diameter of 1400mm approx.)

a 457mm diameter CHS with 40mm wall thickness
a 250mm diameter solid steel section
a 356 x 406 x 393 UC
a 914 x 419 x 388 UB
The comments made regarding the problems which will be encountered during the
installation of the smaller piles in clause 5.2.1 above, also apply to the larger
diameter piles. However, many of the problems will be increased due to the larger
size. The potential for flooding following a dewatering failure will be greater and the
greater size of opening will create larger new/old concrete interfaces, which
increases the leakage risk. In addition, the size of opening likely to be required to
facilitate installation and reinstatement of cut reinforcement, may begin to impinge
on the structural gauge and any shielding used would need to be removed after the
construction shifts during NTH. Consequently, it is considered that there are no
significant advantages to be gained by the use of large diameter piles as opposed to
small diameter piles.
constraints referenced B, C, E, K, N, O, P, T, U, V, W, X, Y and AA.
5.4 Option 4 - Prestressed Ground Anchors
5.4.1 General
This option proposes the installation of a grid of permanent prestressed ground

anchors in order to provide support to the slab (lost by the wall demolition) by
mobilising the rock mass below. Figure 5.4 illustrates the general arrangement of
this proposal and the suggested construction sequence is shown on Drawing Nos.
612/W/07/HCL/C21/001 & 002. Further details of the proposed layout and the
anchor elements are give on Drawing Nos. 612/W07/HCL/C10/001 to 002 025 &
026.
The anchor system essentially comprises multi-strand (or bar) steel tendons which
are protected against corrosion by grease and encapsulated in high density
polyethylene (HDPE) sheaths. The tendons are grouted into holes cored into the
rock substrata and load is transferred via bond between the tendons and the rock.
The tendons are prestressed against a steel baseplate to a predetermined force to
provide a reactive force which restrains the base slab. Preliminary calculations
(included in Appendix C5) indicate that the working tendon force required is
approximately 800 kN for anchors placed at 2.5m longitudinal centres. This requires
a seven strand cable with a tendon diameter of 50mm, a core diameter of 150mm
and a tendon length of 9.5m (6m fixed/3.5m free). The exact layout and load
requirements for the anchors will be reviewed during the development of the
EA00121-168
Page 30
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
detailed design and will be modified to suit new information such as detailed
requirements for the permanent way layout.
Installation of the ground anchors requires breaking out a 500mm square opening in
the track bed concrete, diamond drilling 150mm dia. cores through the structural
slab and coring 150mm dia. holes through the rock substrata to the required depth.
It is possible for these operations to take place from holes opened up in the rail
tunnel roof slab. However, based on comments made by MTRC OED (see Section
3.6.1) this has been discounted and the preferred method would be installation from
within the rail tunnel. Consequently, this imposes the restriction that all installation
and testing operations must take place during NTH. Consultation with specialist
sub-contractors and recognised experts has confirmed that the operations required
can be accommodated within the shift working patterns imposed by NTH.
Due to the restricted headroom within the rail tunnel, the use of multi-strand type
tendons is the preferred choice. The use of bar type tendons is possible, however,
this would require the use of short lengths of threaded bar with coupler connections.
The use of couplers would require a larger core diameter and also demands the
application of corrosion protection during tendon placement which is considered
unacceptable.
The manufacture, fabrication and installation of the ground anchors involves the use
of many different elements. Consequently, a sophisticated quality control procedure
and comprehensive testing regime is required (see Section 5.4.5 below). This
should be backed up by the use of experienced, reputable, specialist sub-
contractors and consideration should even be given to the use of a nominated sub-
contractor.
An outline construction methodology, prepared by a specialist sub-contractor and

based on that used for a previous high profile contract, is presented in Appendix C2.
5.4.2 DSM Waiver
In order for the prestressed ground anchor option to be adopted, a waiver to the
normal requirements of the MTRC DSM will require approval. The relevant DSM
clause relating to ground anchor compliance is Clause. 4.4.6.18 which comes under
the heading “Anchors Resisting Structure Flotation Forces”, and can be summarised
as follows:
“The use of permanent anchors to resist flotation forces will generally not be
permitted”. However, Clause 4.4.6.18 goes on to state that “Where other methods
are shown to be impractical, rock anchors may be allowed providing they comply
with the criteria given in Clause 4.4.6.19 to Clause 4.4.6.21 inclusive”.
These clauses essentially require the use of other methods to be discounted before
the use of ground anchors is allowed. If that proves to be the case then full,
EA00121-168
Page 31
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
supporting information for the proposed ground anchors should be submitted to the
Corporation for their approval.
Note:
Following instruction from MTRC the Tender documents have been prepared on the
assumption that prestressed ground anchors will be used for the EHC Connection
structure. Much of the information required to validate this approach has previously
been supplied to MTRC under separate cover. The reason for their use is further
expounded upon in this revised report and all of the supporting information is
collected together, for convenience, in the Appendices.
5.4.3 Design Considerations
The use of prestressed ground anchors essentially provides an active restraint

system. When the ground anchorages are stressed, the prestressing force is
resisted by the reaction of the base slab bearing on the underside of the bearing
plate. Due to the relative stiffnesses of the tendon and the ground, this process
usually results in a large extension (40mm from the preliminary calculations) of the
tendon and a small displacement of the ground. The action of stressing the tendon
precompresses the ground so altering its original state of stress. The design of the
anchorage system must ensure that this alteration results in a stable condition with
an adequate factor of safety.
The subsequent application of an external load in the direction of the anchoring

force (i.e. the uplift pressure) will tend to restore the stresses in the ground to their
original state. There will be no significant increase in the anchorage load until the
stress is fully restored, which will not occur until the applied load equals the
anchorage load. Therefore, in calculating the required anchorage such external
forces should be included in the analysis of overall stability.
The foregoing means that a certain amount of flexibility and redundancy can be
purposefully designed into the system. Careful selection of the correct anchor force
means that, for instance, alternate anchors may be removed without a noticeable
increase in the load in the remaining anchors. In addition, no vertical upward
deflections will take place at the locations of the ground anchors. Consequently, a
critical element of the system is the strength of the existing base slab and the
distance it is required to span between the anchors.
In order to provide a suitable level of confidence in the design, relatively

conservative factors of safety (FOS) will be adopted as follows:
FOS against failure of grout to rock bond 3.0

FOS against failure of grout to tendon bond 3.0
FOS against failure of grout to tendon sheath bond 3.0
FOS against failure of tendon strand 2.0
FOS against failure of rock mass 3.0
EA00121-168
Page 32
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
The design resulting from the use of such factors of safety means that the tendons
will be operating at lower stress levels than might normally be expected for ground
anchor systems. A consequence of this is that loss of load due to creep will be
reduced as will the susceptibility of the prestressing tendon to stress corrosion
cracking.
The base slab is thought to lie over a thin layer of compacted gravel at some
locations within the area of the EHC Connection works. In other areas, it is believed
to bear directly on to the rock head. The exact details of the gravel are unknown
and direct sampling is not considered viable at pre-construction stage. Whilst the
gravel is expected to be extremely well compacted, analysis will be made at detailed
design stage, utilising expected ground conditions, to determine whether settlement
will be a problem when the prestressing force is applied. It is considered highly
unlikely that significant settlements will take place. If, however, they do become a
concern, options such as pre-grouting the gravel may be specified in order to
exclude the problem.
5.4.4 Durability
The durability of the ground anchor system depends on the prevention of corrosion
of the tendons and other elements. This, in turn, relies on good design and
fabrication of the system elements, and good supervision of the installation process.
The necessary quality control and system testing regime are referred to in Section
5.4.5 below.
The proposed primary corrosion protection system incorporates a double layered

encapsulation of the whole tendon in HDPE sheaths. Special end caps, splicing
arrangements, anchor head sealants, greases, etc., are also used where
appropriate. In addition, over the fixed length of the anchor, the strands are
maintained in a permanent alkaline environment due to the presence of the tendon
grout. However, in corrosion protection terms the grout is only considered to be
additional benefit as the main protective element is the HDPE sheathing.
It is believed that MTRC have had problems with workmanship on corrosion

protected bolts on previous underground works. This may be a contributory factor to
the statements in the DSM which require other alternatives to be discounted before
ground anchor solutions will be approved. However, comments made on Revision 1
of this report state that MTRC are now fully aware of the factors responsible for
these problems. The comments also indicate that the problems can be avoided
provided that high quality products are used and site supervision is of the required
standard.
It is further considered that the extensive use of ground anchors on many important
civil engineering projects around the world (including tall buildings, dams, nuclear
power stations, etc.), not least on MTRC’s own schemes, are a testament to the
EA00121-168
Page 33
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
veracity of the system and the durability which can be achieved (see Case Histories
in Section 5.4.7 below).
5.4.5 Specification
As previously stated, a sophisticated quality control procedure and comprehensive

testing regime is required in order to confirm the accuracy of adopted design
parameters and the robustness and integrity of the installed anchors. To this end,
GEOSPEC 1 : Model Specification for Prestressed Ground Anchors, has been
amended to provide a higher level of testing. A copy of the additional clauses is
included in Appendix C6. The sources used to develop the additional clauses are
BS 8081:1989 - Code of Practice for Ground Anchors, a contract specific report
prepared by Professor Littlejohn (Chairman of the Technical Committee for BS
8081) and details of research and testing carried out by specialist sub-contractors
for a prestigious high rise building in Hong Kong.
5.4.6 Maintenance
Due to the importance of the structure and the seriousness of the consequences
should failure occur, it is considered prudent to specify that monitoring of the
anchorage system should be carried out during it’s lifetime, or at least until sufficient
data has been gathered to ensure it’s long term durability. It is, in any event, a
requirement of the DSM that, if approved for use, anchors are monitorable and
safely replaceable. The proposed system complies with both these requirements
and the necessary details are included in the Specification documents.
The need for long term monitoring may be looked upon as a disadvantage as it
commits MTRC to future expenditure on long term maintenance requirements. It
could be argued, however, that many of the other options considered result in
significant disruption and breaking out activities to the existing structure and
therefore durability should also be a serious concern in those situations.
Consequently, it is considered that monitoring should be a prerequisite for any
option adopted in view of the importance of the structure. The relative ease with
which monitoring of the ground anchors can be carried out (hand held, demountable
load cells placed within the anchor head box outs) therefore becomes an advantage
rather than a disadvantage.
5.4.7 Case Histories
Details of Case Histories of the previous use of prestressed ground anchors on

many projects world-wide are included in Appendix.C1. These refer to the frequent
use of anchors on critical structural elements within many important structures such
as high rise buildings in Hong Kong, large dams, nuclear power stations and many
MTRC stations and ancillary structures.
EA00121-168
Page 34
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
The sources of these Case Histories are Professor Littlejohn, specialist sub-
contractors and MTRC.
5.4.8 Expert Advice
In order to validate the Tender proposals for prestressed ground anchors (beyond
HCL’s normal in house checking procedures) advice has been sought from a
recognised expert in this field. Consequently, a detailed report which reviews the
Tender proposals has been prepared by Professor G S Littlejohn who was the
Chairman of the Technical Committee which prepared BS 8081 : 1989. A copy of
the report is included in Appendix C4 together with a copy Professor Littlejohn’s
Curriculum Vitae.
In general terms the report states that the proposed Tender design is structurally
adequate and appropriate for its intended use. More importantly, no significant
anticipated problems are highlighted with respect to durability in this location. The
report makes a number of suggestions with respect to the Specification which have
already been addressed. It also provides useful information with respect to future
consideration of the Contractor’s proposed method statement and detailed material
and fabrication information.
In conclusion, it is considered that a detailed design and construction methodology

can be developed in order to comply with all of the constraints listed in clause 3.8
except those referenced N (DSM compliance) and U (minimal future maintenance).
5.4.9 Risk Assessment
In view of MTRC’s known current reluctance to utilise permanent prestressed

ground anchors, a performance risk assessment has been prepared which is
included in Appendix C3. The risk assessment document describes the perceived
risks in the use of such systems and details the control measures which would be
put in place to ensure a satisfactory end product. It also attempts to address the
various queries raised by MTRC during the development of the Tender proposal
with respect to the use of such a system.
EA00121-168
Page 35
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
5.5 Comparison of Options
5.5.1 Constructability
Options 1, 2 and 3 all require significant amounts of excavation of reinforced

concrete or rock or a combination of both. By contrast, Option 4, the prestressed
ground anchors, requires excavation through the track bed only followed by coring
through the concrete and rock at relatively small diameters. It is also considered
that the almost factory line type of production which would be used for Option 4 is
much more suited to the short duration shift work which will be required. This will
have a significant effect on programme and consequently cost.
In addition, the type of breaking out required to the existing structure, which will be
required for Options 1B, 1C, 2, 3A and 3B, will be very disruptive and must work
around the tracks and associated services. Consequently, they have the highest
potential for causing delays to the resumption of normal train services following the
completion of the NTH shifts. The significant amount of disruption to the existing
structure will also require a commensurate number of construction joints between
new and old works. This will result in these options having the greatest potential for
leakage into the tunnel. Options 3A and 3B would also require the installation
operations to commence with breaking out of the rail tunnel roof slab.
The use of ground anchors would minimise these potential risks.
Option 1A involves a high degree of risk with respect to the health and safety of
construction operatives. The other options will require relatively standard
operations, which it is considered can address the normal health and safety
requirements with relative ease.
Options 3A and 3B, the tension piles, have the added disadvantage that pile load
testing would not be practicable without the closure of the railway for greater than
NTH periods.
5.5.2 Structural Adequacy
Options 2, 3 and 4 all have the advantage of maintaining the same basic structural
action and load paths, within the base slab, as the original design of the EHC.
However, based on preliminary calculations, Options 1B, 1C and 2 are considered
to provide structurally inadequate solutions. Options 1B and 1C fail at the ultimate
limit state and Option 2 fails at the serviceability limit state. These options could
only be shown to perform satisfactorily from a structural point of view, if significant
departures from design standard and accepted good practice were allowed with
respect to crack width constraints.
EA00121-168
Page 36
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Preliminary calculations indicate that Options 1A, 3A, 3B and 4 can all be developed
into detailed designs which are structurally adequate. However, as previously
stated, Option 4 is considered to attract far fewer installation problems. Option 4
also has a much greater flexibility and built in redundancy than the other options.
5.5.3 Durability
It may be perceived that Options 1 to 3 involve more standard and traditional

construction techniques than Option 4 and will therefore result in a more durable
end product. However, the amount of disruptive breaking out and extent of required
construction joints suggest that this is not the case. It is considered that the
durability of such options should be as significant a consideration as it has
historically been for ground anchors.
Where failures have occurred historically in ground anchors, lessons have been
learned and ground anchorage design and practice have consequently improved to
ensure that the type and location of these localised corrosion failures will not recur.
This has led to the proposal, which incorporates double encapsulation of the tendon
in HDPE, can be easily monitored and can be replaced if necessary. The durability
of Option 4 is therefore considered to be adequate provided the specification is
complied with regarding fabrication, manufacture and installation. Provision of
suitable site supervision is considered essential to ensure this (as it is for the other
options).
Redundancy, monitoring and replacement requirements are important aspects of the

ground anchor design and are explicitly specified in the DSM. Satisfactory provision
of these requirements has now become achievable for ground anchors due to the
continuing development of the technology and its use on many important projects.
They are all provided for, with relative ease, in the proposed Tender design.
However, they are not so easily achievable for Options 1, 2 and 3.
5.5.4 Disruption of MTRC Train Operations
It is considered that the potential for disruption of the train services is directly
related to the nature of the works, which will take place around the tracks and
associated services. For all options this is exacerbated by the short duration of the
NTH shifts. By inspection, it is apparent that the installation of ground anchors is
much less disruptive than any of the other options.
EA00121-168
Page 37
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
5.5.5 Compliance with Constraints
Compliance of the different options with the various constraints listed in Section 3.8
are given individually above. In summary, Options 1A and 4 comply with all but two
of the constraints but these are not considered to discount their use for those
reasons alone. In contrast, the other options fail to comply with a significant number
of constraints, some of which may be argued to discount a particular option in its
own right. It is therefore considered that the pursuit of any of Options 1B, 1C, 2, 3A
and 3B will cause great difficulty in overcoming these non-compliance’s.
EA00121-168
Page 38
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
6.0 ADVANCE WORKS
6.1 Existing Structures Monitoring
As stated above regarding the dewatering system, it will be necessary to monitor the
existing structures within the influence of the de-watered zone. For this section of
works this means the NHKTC tunnel structures, maintenance and workshop
buildings, administration building, and the Toll Plaza and footbridge. To the north
east, the Site Formation works will be unaffected. Outside the rock channel, there
should be no influence on existing structures.
The installation of survey markers and the instigation of building condition surveys
for the above structures should commence immediately to obtain base line readings.
6.2 Electrical Diversions
All the services currently within the tunnel section to be modified will need to be
diverted and potentially relocated permanently. Since the external wall will be
demolished the services attached to this wall will require diversion. Furthermore, as
stated in Section 4.2 referring to the encroachment of structure gauge into the
services zone, it is suggested to permanently relocate these services elsewhere.
Secondly, the central dividing wall between bores will be removed for approximately
45m, with all the services attached to this wall requiring permanent relocation. All of
these services will require to be kept in service during the works.
The services include, but are not limited to, the following;
Signalling Cables
Power & Catenary
Leased Telephone lines and Leaky Coaxial Cables
Data Cable
Fibre Optic Cables (Number of)
Radio Cable
Cables buried in the trackbed.
150mm diameter Firemain
Drainage provision at Trackform level
A full list of services and a proposed diversion plan was tabled at the “Inaugural Co-
ordinated Track Interface Meeting” by the relevant MTRC divisions. The list and the
plan are attached to the minutes of the meeting as attachment #4, and should be
referred to.
MTRC have proposed that as much of the cabling as possible be relocated to new
cable troughs provided for in the trackform concrete. Currently, there is no
structural reason why this solution cannot progress.
EA00121-168
Page 39
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Close co-ordination is essential during both documentation and construction to

ensure that the persons responsible (either MTRC OED or the Contractor) for a
work item clearly understand the work programme and the time and space
limitations to complete the item. A monthly co-ordination meeting currently takes
place, where all parties within MTRC involved with the works, meet to co-ordinate
the works.
It cannot be over emphasised that the modification works be critically planned, with
close co-ordination between all parties, such that the Tender documents clearly set
out the responsibilities and time frame of each planned activity.
Some of the above diversion works can already commence to allow the civil
Contractor access to the tunnel as early as possible to commence structural works,
and to ensure the total work is completed within the TKE programme.
Currently the OED diversions are scheduled for completion in July 1999, but the
Civil Contractor may wish to access the tunnel prior to this date since contract award
is in January 1999. The Contractor may reasonably require access to the base slab
for the purposes of ground anchor installation (or other slab support system) in April
1999, and this is the date that OED should aim for in completing the services
diversions.
EA00121-168
Page 40
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
7.0 PROGRAMME
It is difficult to accurately and fairly compare the various options, in a quantitative

manner, with respect to programme and cost. This is because a significant amount
of work has already been carried out at Pre-Tender stage for Option 4, the
prestressed ground anchors. However, a qualitative examination of the construction
processes required, suggest that the Options 1, 2 and 3 will all take a significantly
longer time to install than Option 4. The primary reason for this is the significant
amount of reinforced concrete and rock excavation that these options require, much
of which takes place in restrictive conditions around tracks which must be protected.
A programme has been developed for the C612 Works including the EHC
Connection, the EHC to YAT tunnels and the EHC Site Formation area and has
been tied in with known key dates. The C612 Works programme shown in Appendix
B has been included in the C612 tender as the Employers Works programme. The
individual programmes for each work element are relatively independent except for
the structural completion dates to handover for the trackwork and system-wide
contractors. The Works programme at tender is based on the drawings shown in
Appendix F, which documents the solutions recommended in Section 10 below.
7.1 Connection Works
The main interfacing issue associated with the EHC Connection works is the co-
ordination with the MTRC OED electrical diversion works.
Further to the above, preliminary programmes have been developed for the three
types of base slab solution in an attempt to compare the options. The programme for
the installation of anchors has been developed to a greater degree of detail given its
inclusion in the tender. The two other programmes are for the construction of
external needle beams and for internal strengthening of the base slab.
7.2 NCB to YAT Cut & Cover Tunnels
The programme for the NCB to YAT works is tied to the EHC Site Formation. The
structural form of these tunnels, either Cut and Cover Tunnel or bored is currently
tied to the programming and handover dates of the site formation works. The area
through which the tunnel is to pass may be used as an area to deposit spoil from
adjacent areas in order to handover a section of the final platform to the Housing
Authority so they may start their own work. It is unlikely at the time of issue of this
report that the HA will require the area and any requirement for deposition of spoil
on site has not been included in the Tender programme.
In summary, if the tunnels are to be Cut and Cover then the Site Formation needs to
be completed first over the tunnel area. The current Works programme allows
sufficient time for construction of the Cut and Cover Tunnels given the site and time
restraints.
EA00121-168
Page 41
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
8.0 COSTS
The Quantity Surveyor has completed the Pre Tender Cost Estimate for C612,
which follows the Tender drawings and is shown in the Report referenced EA00121-
137/01. By comparison with the Scheme Design estimate Report EA00121-058/01,
we may conclude the following.
For the tunnels from NCB to YAT a bored tunnel has been costed as approximately
15 million $HK cheaper than Cut & Cover, but this must be kept in perspective in
that the rate used for bored tunnelling has not (and cannot) quantitatively assessed
the risk associated with the higher standard required for boring tunnels in such close
proximity which has not been undertaken in Hong Kong previously. It also excludes
any costs that would require intermediate concrete slabs between running tunnels
where a large cavern would be mined to accommodate both running tunnels as they
merge. As such the potential saving would not be realised or significantly reduced.
With respect to cost for the EHC Connection options, a detailed estimate of Option 4
has been prepared for Tender purposes. For comparative purposes, the material
cost of the individual options are not expected to be significantly different,
particularly with respect to the overall cost of the Project. However, the amount and
nature of disruptive work required for Options 1 to 3 is likely to produce installation
costs much in excess of those for Option 4. Option 4 does have the disadvantage
that ongoing costs beyond the construction maintenance period will be expended on
the monitoring programme. However, as previously stated, the durability of the
more traditional options has also been called into question and this may also attract
unforeseen future maintenance costs.
From the Quantity Surveyors reports it seems that the use of ground anchors is
approximately 20 million $HK cheaper than the use of external needle beams. The
costs of internal needle beams or strengthening has not been assessed in detail. It
can be concluded that the material costs would be similar or higher than the external
needle beams, but the labour costs and sundries due to working in a constrained
area and under strict time constraints will be far higher than for the external needle
beams. As such the use of ground anchors is significantly cheaper than other
alternative options for the base slab.
EA00121-168
Page 42
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
The connection of the TKE to the KTL at EHC is the most challenging section of the
TKE line. For its implementation to be a success the following issues require
addressing in order to formulate the final documented solution. It is strongly noted
that close co-operation and co-ordination be maintained between all parties
involved, to develop the programme and design.
9.1 Dewatering Method
The dewatering of the existing channel housing the Cut and Cover Tunnel is one of
the main issues associated with the ability to construct the works. It has been
concluded that it is technically feasible to provide a cut-off wall or re-instate the
original cut-off wall in order to dewater the channel. Reference to the above should
be given to the Contractors together with the soil and pump test results at the time of
Tender. However, the design of the dewatering system must remain the contractual
responsibility of the main contractor.
9.2 Monitoring of Existing Structures
Settlement monitoring and condition surveys of the NHKTC structures should

commence immediately.
9.3 Services Diversions
Planning and programming should progress quickly, to identify services etc, that can
be diverted or provision made to divert or relocate, such that the civil and structural
works can commence as soon as possible after award of the contract. There is an
inherent risk associated with lost time for the modification works given the
complexity of the project and the small time frame that work can be completed
during the night possessions.
9.4 Structural
The use of needle beams, tension piles or slab thickening are considered
significantly inferior with respect to structural suitability, ease of installation, safety
and cost when compared to the use of ground anchors.
For ground anchors the use of bar type tendons is possible, however, this would
require the use of short lengths of threaded bar with coupler connections. The use
of couplers would require a larger core diameter and also demands the application
of corrosion protection during tendon placement which is considered unacceptable.
EA00121-168
Page 43
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to avoid potentially expensive delays to the resumption of train operations,

it is considered that, where possible, emphasis should be placed on utilising
construction operations which have a minimal impact on the existing trackwork and
the structural elements supporting it.
10.1 Connection Structure Interface
It is recommended that dispensation be given to allow a relaxation in clearance

requirements such that the extent of modifications at the EHC Connection can be
minimised. An encroachment of 300mm is required in order to achieve this.
10.2 EHC to YAT Tunnels
It is recommended to use cut and cover tunnel construction from chainage 240m
(TKE W/B) through to and under the NCB in lieu of bored tunnel techniques
10.3 Base Slab Support System
Given the safety concerns associated with the installation of the needle beams and
the difficulty of internal strengthening, it is recommended that the use of permanent
strand type ground anchors be accepted and supported. This is considered the most
cost and programme effective solution for the base slab support.
The anchor layout, design working load and generic specification should be shown
on the tender drawings. The contractor should be responsible for the design of
individual anchor, their components and methods of installation, testing, monitoring
and replacement.
It is recommended that the following key critea be incorporated into the anchor
design.
a) The anchors should be designed to standards such that the maximum

practicable durability is achieved. It is recommended that an anchor utilising
double encapsulation of the tendon in HDPE sheaths be adopted. (see also
Clause 5.4.4 and Section 4 of Appendix C4)
b) The anchors should be designed to faciliate regular inspection and monitoring.

The frequency of monitoring shold be detailed in the Specification and detailed
procedures for monitoring included in the contractors’ anchor design. It is
recommended that threaded de-mountabe load cells be used for monitoring of
anchor service loads. (see also Clause 5.4.6 and Section 7 of Appendix C4)
EA00121-168
Page 44
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
c) The anchor layout should incorporate a degree of redundancy to allow for the
possibility of degraded conditions or the replacement of individual anchors. In
addition the contractors anchor design should allow for it to be removed and
replaced if necessary. (see Clause 5.4.3 and 5.4.6)
EA00121-168
Page 45
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Appendix A
Alignment Offset Tables
TKE viz. KTL at the Alignment Intersection
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Appendix B
Preliminary Civil & Structural Works Programme
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Appendix C
Base Slab Support
C1 Anchor Case Histories

C2 Outline Method Statements
C3 Risk Assessments
C4 Expert Advice Report
C5 Preliminary Calculations
C6 Specification for Ground Anchors
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
C1
Anchor Case Histories
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
C2
Outline Method Statements
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
C3
Risk Assessments
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
C4
Expert Advice Report
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
C5
Preliminary Calculations
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
C6
Specification for Ground Anchors
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Appendix D
Photographs
Plate 1 Casting Basin During Construction

View From The North
Eastern Harbour Crossing
Plate 2 Casting Basin During Construction

Eastern Harbour Crossing
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Appendix E
Figures
4.2.2 EHC Connection Intersection
5.1.1 External Needle Beams

5.1.2 Internal Needle Beams
5.2 Thickening of Base Slab
5.2.1 Small Diameter Piles
5.2.2 Large Diameter Piles
5.4 Prestressed Ground Anchors
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
Appendix F
Enclosed Drawings:
SKETCHES
612/P/03/HCL/C10/021 A1 NCB TO YAT - ALTERNATIVE BORED TUNNEL OPTION
612/P/07/HCL/C21/001 A1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND NOTES, SHEET 1 OF 2
612/P/07/HCL/C21/002 A1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND NOTES, SHEET 2 OF 2
612/K/07/HCL/C01/005 A1 INDICATIVE CASTING BASIN CUT-OFF WALL
EHC TO YAT, CUT & COVER TUNNELS

612/W/10/HCL/C02/006 A1 SITE FORMATION - SETTING OUT PLAN
612/W/03/HCL/C01/002 A1 GENERAL NOTES

612/W/03/HCL/C01/003 A1 STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, SHEET 1 OF 2
612/W/03/HCL/C01/004 A1 STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, SHEET 2 OF 2
612/W/03/HCL/C01/010 A1 LOCATION PLAN
612/W/03/HCL/C01/011 A1 SCHEMATIC FIREMAN'S WALKWAY
612/W/03/HCL/C02/001 A1 PLAN & PROFILE, SHEET 1 OF 2

612/W/03/HCL/C02/002 A1 PLAN & PROFILE, SHEET 2 OF 2
612/W/03/HCL/C02/003 A1 TUNNEL CLEARANCES & GAUGES
612/W/03/HCL/C10/001 A1 TUNNEL PLAN & ELEVATIONS, SHEET 1 OF 12

612/W/03/HCL/C10/014 A1 GEOLOGICAL LONGITUDINAL SECTION
612/W/03/HCL/C10/015 A1 CROSS SECTIONS, SHEET 1 OF 3
612/W/03/HCL/C10/020 A1 INTERNAL FITTINGS
612/W/03/HCL/C10/021 A1 STANDARD RECESS DETAILS
612/W/01/HCL/D01/001 A1 EHC/LAT TUNNELS SCHEMATIC DRAINAGE DIAGRAM

612/W/03/HCL/D01/001 A1 PUMP SUMP GENERAL ARRANGEMENT (PS4)
EA00121-168
17/12/98
C612 - EHC Tunnels
EHC CONNECTION
612/W/07/HCL/C01/001 A1 LOCATION PLAN
612/W/07/HCL/C01/003 A1 EXISTING SITE SURVEY
612/W/07/HCL/C01/006 A1 STANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
612/W/07/HCL/C06/001 A1 INSTRUMENTATION - TYPE I
612/W/07/HCL/A57/001 A1 LANDSCAPING REINSTATEMENT (WEST), SHEET 1 OF 2

612/W/07/HCL/A57/002 A1 LANDSCAPING REINSTATEMENT (EAST), SHEET 2 OF 2
612/W/07/HCL/C02/001 A1 PLAN & PROFILE

612/W/07/HCL/C02/002 A1 TUNNEL CLEARANCES & GAUGES
612/W/07/HCL/C21/001 A1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE & NOTES, SHEET 1 OF 2

612/W/07/HCL/C21/002 A1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE & NOTES, SHEET 2 OF 2
612/W/07/HCL/C21/003 A1 DEMOLITION PLAN
612/W/07/HCL/C10/001 A1 BASE SLAB PLAN, SHEET 1 OF 2

612/W/07/HCL/C10/002 A1 BASE SLAB PLAN, SHEET 2 OF 2
612/W/07/HCL/C10/005 A1 ROOF PLAN GENERAL ARRANGEMENT, SHEET 1 OF 4
612/W/07/HCL/C10/006 A1 ROOF PLAN GENERAL ARRANGEMENT, SHEET 2 OF 4
612/W/07/HCL/C10/030 A1 STRUCTURAL SECTION THROUGH EXISTING RAIL TUNNEL
612/W/07/HCL/C10/025 A1 GROUND ANCHOR, SHEET 1 OF 2
612/W/07/HCL/C10/026 A1 GROUND ANCHOR, SHEET 2 OF 2
612/W/07/HCL/P06/021 A1 UTILITIES DIVERSION PLAN

612/W/07/HCL/P06/023 A1 UTILITIES DIVERSION, NHKTC SERVICES ROAD (PLAN)
EA00121-168
17/12/98

C612 EHC Tunnels - WOrks Options Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

C612 EHC Tunnels - WOrks Options Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION

Tseung Kwan O Extension

Works Options Report

02 17/12/98 Second Issue POC JH RT RT

Bored Tunnels & Ancillary Buildings

Works Options Report

Tseung Kwan O Extension

2.0 SITE HISTORY & CONDITIONS 3

3.0 DESIGN PARAMETERS AND CONSTRAINTS 5

4.0 DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS 12

4.4 WATERPROOFING AND JOINTS 16

5.0 BASE SLAB SUPPORT 22

6.0 ADVANCE WORKS 39

6.2 Electrical Diversions 39

A Alignment Offset Data

Drawing 612/W/03/HCL/C01/010 in Appendix F indicates the overall layout and the

Drawings 612/W/03/HCL/C02/001 to 002 and 612/W/07/HCL/C02/001 in Appendix

Drawing 612/W/07/HCL/C01/001 in Appendix F indicates the general site formation

2.0 SITE HISTORY & CONDITIONS

2.2 Adjacent EHC

Given the rock foundation, negligible settlement, absolute or relative, is anticipated

2.3 Along Housing Authority Formation

2.4 Adjacent Yau Tong Station

3.0 DESIGN PARAMETERS AND CONSTRAINTS

3.2 Operational Constraints

3.3 NHKTC Requirements

3.4 Geometric Constraints

3.5 Structural Constraints

When designing water retaining concrete elements it is important to restrain

It is also considered prudent to place emphasis on minimising the number of joint

3.6 Construction Constraints

As previously stated in Section 3.3, maintenance of normal train operations requires

3.6.3 Flood Protection

3.6.4 Utility Services/MTRC Services

The services include :

3.7 Design Parameters and Constraints - Summary

Alignment Constraint Ref

Compliance with horizontal alignment A

Compliance with vertical alignment B

Compliance with vertical alignment +400mm C

Train Operation Constraint Ref

Normal train operations maintained D

Maintain low potential for disruption of normal train operations E

Works required within road tunnel (traffic disruption) F

Maintenance of structural integrity of EHC road tunnel G

Maintenance of EHC slip road and pedestrian access H

Maintenance of EHC utility services I

No excavation of fill material on north west side of EHC J

Accommodation of existing EHC road and rail tunnel geometry K

Compliance with Structure Gauge L

Compliance with easement allowance, services clearance, M

Compliance with DSM N

Compliance with relevant design standards (AIP List) O

Minimal disruption to existing structures (new/old interface) P

Maintenance of structural integrity of EHC rail tunnel Q

Maintenance of structural stability R

Maintenance of original structural action/load paths S

Ensure long term durability T

Minimal requirement for future maintenance U

Construction Constraints Constraint Ref

Minimal excavation of rock V

Minimal excavation of structural concrete W

Avoid coring/breaking out roof slab (rail tunnel) X

Wall demolition after new slab support installation Y