BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
Ted Nye
Sinclair Knight Merz
ABSTRACT
This paper describes case studies of building developments around tunnels. The case studies highlight a number of
fundamental issues that have to be addressed when assessing the potential interaction between building construction
around existing tunnels. Apart from safety, the over riding concern is the potential impact that the building excavation
and imposed building loads will have on the adjacent underground structure and in particular the tunnel lining. In the
case of rock, potential sliding along defects in deep basement excavations (as this may also affect the rock modulus
properties assumed in the analysis, typically reported in Sydney sandstone). The commercial drivers for these building
developments with deep basements, generally, is the need to maximise site utilisation where building height limits are
imposed and also to minimise delays during the building approval process. Basement excavation for buildings can
induce unacceptably high stresses in tunnel linings and building foundation loads may have to be transferred below the
tunnel to eliminate potential loading impacts on the integrity of the underground structure.
1.
INTRODUCTION
The construction of buildings around tunnels is an increasingly important issue due to the rising density of cities. In
Australia, our largest cities are steadily becoming traversed with tunnels of all shapes and sizes. Perth has it
Northbridge cut and cover road tunnel and the currently under construction Perth rail project with twin segmentally
lined tunnels down the centre of William Street in the CBD. Melbourne has the Underground Rail Loop and City Link
road tunnels. In Sydney, the City Circle railway and stations, the Airport Motorway, the east west Cross City Tunnel,
the M5 East Motorway, the Lane Cove Tunnel (under construction), the Northside Storage Tunnel and to the south of
the Sydney CBD the Airport Line railway tunnels and stations. Brisbane will in the near future, have the 5 km long
North South By-pass road tunnel which will follow a north south alignment beneath the Brisbane River, parallel to the
Storey Bridge. There are, of course, numerous smaller service tunnels under Australia’s capital cities.
During tunnel construction surface impacts can occur where removal of ground to form the tunnel causes some
disturbance of the surrounding ground mass. If the tunnel is located close to the surface, settlement may sometimes be
observed along roadways, footpaths etc. Existing buildings may potentially be adversely affected. Where these
problems are anticipated, mitigation methods can be put in place, either in the form of tunnel design and appropriate
construction methodologies and or combined with building underpinning etc. In extreme cases the tunnel alignment
may have to be modified in both depth and horizontal alignment.
The reverse of this sequence occurs where a tunnel already exists and a new building is proposed. The problem then is
to determine the influence of the proposed building on the tunnels. In this situation, the interaction between the
building development and the tunnels may take one of three forms:
•
•
•
Excavation for basements will remove overburden weight adjacent to or above the tunnel and induce
stresses in the tunnel lining.
The building may impose additional loading on the tunnels, or
A combination of the above and at different stages of construction.
This paper presents an overview of some of the issues that arise when building are to be constructed near existing
tunnels by using case history examples. While there are a number of technical challenges for this type of construction,
the other challenge is to satisfy the concerns of a range of stakeholders including the approving authority, the
developer/building and the owner of the underground infrastructure. In addition to technical issues other issues raised
by stakeholders may include land ownership (and air rights) and the level of insurance cover.
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
1
BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
2.
NYE
TUNNEL PROFILES, LININGS AND TOLERANCES
It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe the details of the variety of tunnel projects and the range of lining types,
however, it is important to have some knowledge of the range of tunnel linings and tunnel applications because this can
impact on the strategy required to protect them. The following examples given in Table 1 below, is a selected list of
major tunnels in Australia with a very brief description of the tunnel configuration, tunnel profile and indicative
geology. Given the variety of tunnels it is not possible to develop a common tunnel protection strategy, however, it is
surprising that a number of tunnel projects do not have issued guidelines for developers. Protection criteria is often
issued on a case by case basis. This can potentially cause delays to the approval process and also many enquiries
related to building developments are related to the potential purchase of the site. Without guidelines and or the
appropriate professional advice to determine the impact the tunnel may have on a site full development potential
developers are potentially disadvantaged.
Table 1: Selection of Driven Tunnel Profiles and Lining Types.
Item
Project
Typical Tunnel
Profile
Geology
(indicative)
Support
Varies, generally
Silurian
Mudstone
Initial steel sets and shotcrete and either
600 mm reinforced or unreinforced
concrete lining.
1
Melbourne
Underground
Rail Loop
2
Epping to
Chatswood
Railway, Sydney
Circular, 2 x 7 m dia.
Sandstone rock
Initial rock bolt support and
unreinforced in-situ concrete, 200 mm
thickness with and without a
waterproofing drainage layer.
3
Airport Line,
Sydney
Circular, 10 m dia.
Alluvial clays
and sands
Steel reinforced segmental tunnel
lining, 450 mm thickness.
4
Airport Line,
Sydney
Horseshoe
6m high, 10 m wide
Sandstone rock
Unreinforced in-situ concrete over
crown, 300 mm, 50 mm shotcreted
walls.
5
Airport Line,
Green Square
Station, Sydney
Horseshoe
8 m high, 14 m wide
Sandstone rock
Unreinforced in-situ concrete over
crown, 500 mm, with a waterproofing
membrane, shotcreted walls.
6
City Circle
Railway, Sydney
Varies. At Rocks
site, horseshoe, 6m
high, 8.5 m wide
Sandstone rock
Unreinforced in-situ concrete over
crown, 500 mm, thin concrete walls
7
Airport
Motorway,
Sydney
Rectangular varies up
to 22 m wide
Sandstone rock
7m to 9m long rock bolts or cable bolts,
plus 150 mm shotcrete over tunnel
crown. Shotcreted walls.
Circular 4 x 6 m dia
tubes.
As the depth of tunnel varies considerably along any given tunnel projects length the potential interaction between a
building development and the tunnel will also vary considerably depending on the location of the development. Where
they are in close proximity the tolerance of the tunnel lining to displacements will depend on the lining type and the
performance criteria that has to be met. For example, railway tunnels are less tolerant to displacements and potential
cracking because of the likely impact of ground water leakage from the crown of the tunnel and difficult access for
repairs (live overhead wiring) compared a typical road tunnel and where a waterproofing membrane has not been
provided. Other structures, for example three of the underground railway stations on the Sydney Airport Line,
constructed solely by cut and cover methods, have there own performance criteria. The perimeter diaphragm walls are
30m deep with permanently drained base slabs to prevent structure floatation.
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
2
BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
3.
NYE
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
3.1
BACKGROUND
Prior to launching any design numerical analysis a fundamental understanding of the problem at hand must be first be
obtained and this is the stage at which most difficulties tend to arise. Another question is “who takes responsibility for
this phase of the assessment”. Has the client and their consultant recognised that a potential problem even exists or has
been correctly identified?
Regarding methods of analysis the most common method of analysis is the Finite Element Method (although other
methods are commonly also used, e.g. Finite Difference). Any numerical model is of course limited in that they are
representation of “what the behaviour might be”. Whether the available information can justify a full 3D analysis can
only be assessed on a case by case basis. On the Green Square Station site (see case history below) both methods were
used for comparison. Any FE analysis and results must be supplemented by at least one or two alternatives and
supported by field monitoring during construction.
3.2
IMPORTANT VARIABLES
For the building structural designer and tunnel/geotechnical engineer there are a number of important variables which
have to be obtained and assessed for any analysis:
This required basic information is not necessarily limited to the following list:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Depth and breath of the building excavations.
Distribution and magnitude of building loads.
Geological model of the site.
Initial stresses in the ground and tunnel lining.
Depth and lateral location of tunnels relative to the building.
Height of groundwater table.
Relative stiffness of the tunnel lining to the surrounding ground.
Shape of the tunnel and lining type.
Other variables apply if ground anchors/dowels are used to reinforce the rock or for compensating for ground removal
(elastic rebound):
•
•
•
Sequencing of excavation and ground anchor/dowel installation.
Relative position and depth of ground reinforcement.
Direction of stressing loads.
From the developers perspective, the over riding issues are maximising site utilisation and minimising potential delays
during the approvals process.
4.
TUNNEL PROTECTION CRITERIA
4.1
BACKGROUND
Apart from safety, the driver for the protection of tunnels and other structures is the serviceability. The owner of the
tunnel may provide various criteria related to the design and construction of the building and for limiting cracking of the
tunnel lining. For example on the Airport Line guideline documents have been prepared and are issued to prospective
developers. Some minor cracking of the concrete lining is allowed, however, beyond a defined limit the developer has
to cover the cost of any repairs.
Experience shows that the highest risk to the tunnel and the tunnel environment or other underground construction is
during the construction phase. The overriding issue here is accurate survey data and copies (or lack thereof) of tunnel
design drawings. There have been cases where drilling rigs used either for the building site investigation or installing
ground reinforcement mitigation measures have penetrated the tunnel.
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
3
BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
NYE
4.2
SYDNEY AIRPORT LINE GUIDELINES
During the construction phase of the Airport Line (formerly the New Southern Railway) which was completed just prior
to the Sydney Olympics in 2000, it become obvious, given the large number of developer inquires that some guidelines
should be issued to assist developers who were both owners and prospective owners of land along the 11 km route.
The Airport Line consists of approximately 6 km of 10m diameter soft ground tunnel supported by a segmental concrete
lining and 2.5 km of rock tunnel with shotcrete walls and a concrete arch over the crown.
There are also four significant underground railway stations along the route. A fifth station at Wolli Creek was
constructed in an open cut. The two underground stations at Sydney Airport, at the International and Domestic
Terminals and a third station at Mascot were constructed in soft ground with the deep diaphragm walls founded into the
underlying sandstone rock. Green Square Station, in Alexandria is divided into three sections. The middle section
consists of diaphragm walls and an open excavation to track level while the platform tunnels either ends of this section
were excavated in sandstone rock. Figure 1 has been taken from the client guidelines and defines the notification zones
either side of the tunnel. The guidelines include criteria that must be met by developers to protect the stations and
tunnels. There have been at least 30 new developments along the route of the Airport Line for which the guidelines
have been applied. Compared to Sydney’s CBD, the range of potential developments along the Airport Line corridor is
extremely wide, ranging from domestic housing, light industrial to high commercial and residential. Figure 1 was
designed so that only significant developments are flagged for review and approval.
A typical list of issues that have to be addressed and information to be included in any assessment, approval and
monitoring for building works adjacent to tunnels is given below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Verified surface survey details (may also require “as built” survey of tunnel).
Site investigation data, properties of soil and rock.
Building structural and architectural drawings.
Tunnel lining and underground station details.
Design of tunnel protection methodology (including predicted effects).
Construction method details.
Construction programme details.
Construction monitoring results (where measured at surface and/or in tunnel).
o displacements,
o water levels,
o noise and vibration,
o ground stresses,
o tunnel lining stresses,
Potential for electrolysis/corrosion.
Pre and post construction dilapidation surveys.
Works as executed drawings.
Obviously, the level of detail required varies between each project. This will depend on the complexity and scale of the
development and its proximity to the underground structure. There is also the real world reality that not all of the
information required will be available, generally, due to commercial pressures resulting in lack of time or from poor
forward planning by any of the parties involved.
Major construction activity involving excavation adjacent to a tunnel may cause some cracking of the concrete or
shotcrete forming the permanent tunnel lining. Cracks or other damage to the tunnel lining resulting from an adjacent
development site will have to be repaired by the developer at the cost of the developer. The following criteria have
been included in the guidelines to determine whether crack repair is required.
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
4
BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
NYE
Table 2: Crack width repair criteria, Sydney Airport Line
Width of Crack
Less than 0.20 mm
Between 0.20 mm and 0.30 mm
Greater than 0.30 mm
Action
Acceptable if no leakage occurs
Determined by length:
• Less than 300 mm no further work required if no water
leakage occurs
• Greater than 300 mm repairs required
Repairs required
Figure 1: Airport Line – Building development notification zone.
(From Guidelines for Development within the Vicinity of the Airport Line)
The guidelines recognise that one of the largest risks is during construction and for this reason the following points are
given in the guidelines:
1.
2.
3.
All piling contractor must be made aware that the site is above or adjacent to the railway tunnel.
The position of the outside tunnel walls must be marked clearly on the ground in a visible
manner (such as by paint or other means of marking).
Railcorp, or its appointed representative, must be kept informed of piling progress on a daily basis.
The above points could equally be applied to drilling associated with any site investigation works or other site works
including dowel and ground anchor installation.
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
5
BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
5.
NYE
SELECTED CASE HISTORIES
5.1
MELBOURNE CASE HISTORY, MURL
The Melbourne Underground Rail Loop was completed in the early 1980s. Broadly, there are four tunnels in a two over
two tunnel configuration. An example cross section of a building in La Trobe Street is given in Figure 2. The building
is a six storey reinforced concrete structure with two basement levels. The first was 5m deep and 11m wide along a
60m frontage parallel to the tunnels. The second basement level was 14m deep and covered the remainder of the site
which in plan is 60m by 45m.
The proposed building construction required a considerable volume if rock to be removed to establish these basement
levels. The FE analysis used in checking indicated that without mitigation measures being taken in all excavation stages
the tensile stress changes in the tunnel lining would cause excessive cracking. Considerable effort was put into checking
the tunnelling stresses at critical stages of the sequence of excavation and ground anchor installation.
The anchors consisted of two rows, one of 33 permanent anchors stressed to an equivalent force of 2000 kN/m and a
second row of 25 temporary anchors. Initially, it was proposed to distress the temporary anchors as the building weight
increased. The permanent anchors differed to the temporary anchors in that they were provided with long term
corrosion protection.
Figure 2: Section through site and tunnel, La Trobe Street, Melbourne.
(Reference Bennett & Nye)
5.2
SYDNEY CASE STUDIES
5.2.1
Genting Centre, City Circle
The Genting Centre is an example of a typical major basement excavation in Sydney sandstone adjacent to the City
Circle railway tunnels. Figure 3, taken from reference Hewitt et al has been reproduced here. About 100,000 m3 of insitu rock was removed from the site over a 12 month period to June 1998. As can be seen from Figure 3 an anchored
contiguous bored pile wall was used along George Street to about 8m depth which was through fill/residual clay and
low to medium strength siltstone and sandstone. The construction of the Genting Centre required the excavation of
between 29 m and 36 m below ground level adjacent to the existing railway tunnels on the George Street (eastern)
boundary of the site. The maximum lateral displacement measured was 15 mm. Predicted displacements were of the
order of 30 mm. It is understood that there was no impact on the tunnel lining as a result of the construction works.
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
6
BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
NYE
Figure 3: Perspective view of excavation.
(Reference Hewitt, McQueen & Davies)
Monitoring of the site during excavation for the basement had consisted of tunnel survey and convergence readings,
loads cells on selected ground anchors, vibration monitoring, concrete crack monitoring and inclinometers.
5.2.2
Shangri-La Hotel (formally Ana Hotel), City Circle
A cross-section of the site excavation and the adjacent site is given in Figure 4. There are a number of unique design
aspects associated with this site. Firstly, the adjacent site excavation had already impacted on the tunnel lining.
Significant cracking in the un-reinforced concrete crown arch had already occurred. The other aspect of the hotel
construction was that the lift core of the building was excavated adjacent to the twin track railway tunnel and that the
building straddled the tunnel (there are seven caissons aligned down both sides of the tunnel to transfer vertical load to
the tunnel invert, the largest caisson is 2 m in diameter). As with other CBD building developments the basement
volume was maximised to provide car parking, an 800 person ballroom and other back of house hotel functions, e.g.
laundry. The 55,000 m3 of in-situ rock was removed between May 1989 and January 1990 to form the basement.
There was 3m of rock cover left after excavation above the 8.5 m wide railway tunnel. The rock above the tunnel was
reinforced with over 400 vertical cement grouted steel dowels in a uniform grid pattern and horizontally placed and
stress ground anchors. The tunnel lining did not develop any additional significant cracks to those previously caused
by the adjacent D2 site.
Figure 4: A section through the Shangri-la Hotel site (left and over tunnel).
(References Baxter and Nye, and Pells)
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
7
BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
NYE
Monitoring on this site included vibration wire strain gauges across existing cracks in the concrete arch of the tunnel
and displacement monitoring along the tunnel walls, load cells on the permanent horizontal ground anchors, surface
displacement monitoring including 5 inclinometers. All readings were consistently very low and there was no adverse
impact on the tunnel. For example the load cells indicated a small reduction in the ground anchor loading and the
maximum recorded lateral movement of the excavation was 7 mm.
5.2.3
Green Square Station, Sydney Airport line
The site over the southern rock platform tunnel at Green Square Station is still in the design development phase.
However, the design of the mitigation measures to protect the concrete arch over the driven tunnel platform and to
maximise site utilisation are well advanced. Initial approvals have been obtained from Railcorp for this development to
proceed.
Figure 5 shows a typical output from the 3D FEA and Figure 6 a section through the basement excavation and platform
tunnel. The two side tunnels are fire escapes. The proposed 14 storey building main lift core is to be supported on a
transfer slab and caissons. Both 2D and 3D Finite Element analyses have been carried out to determine that likely
impact on the concrete arch lining. The arched lining over the platform tunnel roof, although constructed of unreinforced concrete has a waterproofing membrane. The 2D analysis gave slightly conservative estimates of
displacements and stresses and compared to the 3D results. This of course is expected since the 2D analysis in plane
strain considers the excavation as a long infinite trench while the 3D analysis has some confinement due to the ends of
the site.
Figure 5: Typical graphical output from 3D FE analysis for station concrete arch.
There will remain over the platform tunnel arch 8 m of sandstone rock and the depth of excavation directly above the
platform arch is also around 8 m. The arch of the platform tunnel is unreinforced concrete approximately 500 mm
thick with a waterproofing membrane. The column loads are around 10,000 kN and spaced at 8 m intervals along the
length of the tunnel.
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
8
BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
NYE
Figure 6: Proposed excavation over Green Square Station.
5.2.4
Recent Legal case, Alexandria
Last year in the Supreme Court of NSW the author acted as an expert witness involving a construction dispute. An
injunction on the building prevented construction from continuing. One important issue was the risk to the existing cut
and cover twin track box railway tunnel. There is 7 m of overburden fill above the tunnel roof and there were doubts
about the depth of the piles adjacent to the tunnel and therefore the potential loading on the tunnel structure. Approval
for the building development was obtained from Railcorp on condition that the piles and hence pile loads along the
140 m section of the site parallel to the tunnel be carried down to below the tunnel invert (refer to Figure 7). There
was no disagreement that the developer did not have in his possession reliable piling records.
It is not possible to provide here all of the relevant details, however, the sonic pile tests initiated by Railcorp during the
injunction, while not carried out on all of the piles (due to restricted access), but because of the high percent of passes,
suggested that those piles not tested are more than likely to be at or below the tunnel invert. It was also noted that the
target design depth of the piles was RL 1 m and the tunnel foundation level was at RL 3 m, 2 m above the design pile
toe level.
This assessment indicated a low structural risk to the tunnel and included a series of analyses carried out by SKM.
These included FE, low lateral earth pressure and rock wedge analysis. It was possible to demonstrate that the tunnel
was at a low level of structural risk. These analyses were supported by other factors including that the basement
excavation weight being greater than that of the building (including added live loading), that there would be load
transfer from the piles to the original surface strip footings, thus distributing loads and the results of sonic testing of the
piles to confirm their depth. Taken collectively, the risk to the tunnel was considered extremely low.
The injunction imposed on the site was removed in early 2005 without any modifications to the design of the building
foundation system.
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
9
BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
NYE
Figure 7: Section through tunnel, Alexandria.
The building development has followed an interesting route from inception to completion and this example clearly
demonstrates how systematic failures could potentially cause serious tunnel/building impacts. Initially, the building
was designed without knowledge of the existence of the tunnel. The building foundation design at this point consisted
of pad and strip footings only (i.e. no piles). Ownership of the site, after the initial design of the building was complete
passed onto a new developer.
To expedite the approval process with Railcorp the building facade adjacent to the tunnel was placed on piles to transfer
the building loads “past the tunnel”. However, given that net imposed building load was less than the overburden
stress, and the building remained bearing on the original strip and pads footings, the piles would appear to have been
unnecessary.
Another issue that was very significant was the assumption that the tunnel wall was immediately
adjacent to the railway easement line (i.e. just 2m laterally from the piles), when actually the distance of separation was
5 m. The tunnel invert level was originally assumed by others to be 2 m lower than shown in Figure 7 which made the
problem appear worse than it was. A clear distinction between the tunnel easement and actual tunnel structure location
within the easement had not been made. The design drawings and as built survey of the tunnel confirming the location
of the tunnel as shown on the original tunnel set out and structural drawings was only made in late 2004 and early 2005
during the injunction period.
The low lateral earth pressure acting on the tunnel wall was determined after assessing that the original trench
excavation for the box tunnel had near vertical walls. The backfill would be expected to arch between the wall and the
trench face and thus reduce the lateral earth pressure acting on back of the wall compared to the lateral earth pressure
calculated for the backfill taken to be the full height to surface without the arching effect.
6.
CONCLUSIONS
The presented case histories present a range of problems and solutions. These examples illustrate a number of lessons
to be learned from these case histories and a few key points are listed below.
•
•
Construction monitoring results (where measured at surface and/or in tunnel).
Design drawings of the tunnel and in particular set out details of the tunnel relative to the development is
fundamental and required initial information. If drawings are not accessible then an as built survey of the
tunnel may be necessary. Even with design drawings an “as built” survey may still be necessary given the
high risks associated with drilling and constructing adjacent to “live” tunnels.
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
10
BUILDING AROUND TUNNELS – CASE HISTORIES
•
•
•
•
NYE
It is important to have a fundamental understanding of the spatial and engineering parameters of the
problem (i.e. liner system, geology, groundwater buildings/tunnel development criteria) before launching
into detailed design and analysis.
The approval process may be delayed significantly due to a lack of knowledge of the issues by any of the
stakeholders.
The design of buildings around tunnels is not a code driven design process. To carryout successful designs
requires both basic technical competence and innovation.
The guidelines from the Sydney Airport Line have been a useful reference for both developers and
approvers. From the experience gained using these guidelines it is clear that other tunnel owners would
benefit from developing similar guidelines.
7.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to colleagues at Sinclair Knight Merz, Sergei Terzaghi and Phil Davies. Sergei, for the 3D FEA at the Green
Square Station site (Figure 5) and Phil, who carried out the analyses for the assessment of potential rock wedges at the
Alexandria site (Figure 7).
8.
REFERENCES
Baxter D. A. and A. G. Bennet (1981). Aspects of Design and the In-situ Testing for the MURL Rock Tunnels, Fourth
Australian Tunnelling Conference, Melbourne, pages 41 – 59
Baxter D. A. and E. J. Nye (1990). ANA Hotel, Sydney, Excavation Adjacent to a Major Railway Tunnel, Seventh
Australian Tunnelling Conference, Sydney, pages 250 - 257
Bennett A. L. and E. J Nye (1987). Excavation Adjacent to Tunnels in Rock, Conference on Finite Element Methods in
Engineering, Melbourne, pages 19 -21
Guidelines for Development Within the Vicinity of the Airport Line, Part A, Planning and Design Matters, Part B
Technical Matters, Rail Access Corporation, Revision A, August 2000
Hewitt P. B., L. B. McQueen and P. R. Davies (1999). Genting Centre, Sydney – Deep Excavation Adjacent to Railway
Tunnels, 8th ANZ Conference on Geomechanics Hobart
Pells P. J. N. (1990). Stresses and Displacements Around Deep Basements in the Sydney Area, Seventh Australian
Tunnelling Conference, Sydney, pages 241 - 249
Nye E. J. (1999). The Soft Ground Tunnel Under Sydney Airport, Tenth Australian Tunnelling Conference, Melbourne,
pages 75 - 83,
Rankin W. J. (1988). Ground Movements resulting from urban tunnelling: prediction and effects, Engineering geology
of Underground Movements, Ed. F.G. Benn, London, Geological Society
AGS AUCTA Mini-Symposium: Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling For Infrastructure Projects – October 2005
11