Eight Heading Rock NATM

INTRODUCTION On February 17, 1995, WMATA Contractor J.F. Shea holed through the last segment of rock tunnels of the planned 103-Mile Rapid Transit System for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. Through the joined efforts and cooperation between the owner and the contractor, the project was completed on time and within budget. The Glenmont extension is on schedule to open in Mid-1998. The complete 103-mile system is scheduled to open in 2001. WMATA’s earlier 19 miles of rock tunnels had been done since 1976 ? By drill and blast with heavy horseshoe steel sets, sets with shotcreting over wire-fabric by TBM and NATM. All rock tunnels were primarily in metamorphic gneiss and schist, part of an east coast lithology that outcrops in a band running from below Richmond, Va. To above New York City. The 5,400 ft. long twin six meter tunnels of the Glenmont line had been earlier de-signed in 1979 by URS of NYC using Jenny Engineering of Pittsburgh, Pa., as a tunnel design specialist sub consultant. Jenny had provided two alternative designs, one conventional drill and blast horseshoe and one for Tunnel Boring Machine. Funding considerations had put the design on the shelf and it was clear that the state of the art had led to improved design methods in the intervening years. Before URS was tasked to update their design in1992, the Authority reviewed its earlier hard-rock experiences in light of the funding mandate to complete each segment on a limited budget and an expedited schedule. Many factors considered and many opinions were in leading to a final decision to drop the earlier designs and redesign for a single designated means of tunneling. That method was the New Austrian Tunneling Method. The NATM had been used earlier on WMATA for both soft-ground and rock tunnels. In the public’s eyes the NATM had become inextricably linked with the use of PVC’s and filter material enveloping or partially enveloping the underground structures to give the holy grail of tunnels, a water-tight structure. Although this link of waterproofing methods with excavation and support methods was essentially severed, a general feeling of their interdependence no doubt helped lead to acceptance of the NATM decision because of the waterproofing design that accompanied it. The Authority decided to drop the TBM and conventional options and provide bid documents for NATM only. URS asked LAW Engineering of Atlanta to provide the NATM design of the tunnels and associated shafts.