Norra Länken (the northern link) NL51

Pro­ject and ob­jec­ti­ves

The northern link is a ma­jor ro­ad network pro­ject in Stockholm which aims to re­du­ce cong­es­tion in the in­ner ci­ty and im­pro­ve ac­cess to the districts of Vär­taham­nen and Friham­nen. In to­tal, the northern link will be around 5 km in length. The part which is now un­der con­struc­tion will be around 4 km long and will run from Norr­tull to Vär­tan. The ma­jo­ri­ty of the new ro­ad will run in un­der­ground tun­nels and a to­tal of around 11 km of ro­ad tun­nels will be built. As the­re is litt­le or no rock co­ve­rage, for ex­amp­le in the are­as of the slip ro­ads le­a­ding to and from the northern link, conc­re­te cut-and-co­ver tun­nels will be built.

It will be ne­ces­sa­ry to lo­wer the ground­wa­ter tab­le in or­der to build the­se tun­nels, as a lar­ge part of the work will be be­low the ex­is­ting ground­wa­ter le­vel. In the ca­se of deep ex­ca­va­tion work, the walls of the ex­ca­va­tions must be sup­por­ted by so­me kind of structu­re which is wa­ter­tight and stab­le and keeps the en­vi­ron­men­tal im­pact and pos­sib­le mo­ve­ment to a mi­ni­mum.

In or­der to be ab­le to mo­ni­tor the en­vi­ron­men­tal ac­ti­vi­ti­es, the Swe­dish Trans­port Ad­mi­nist­ra­tion has pro­du­ced a mo­ni­to­ring pro­g­ram­me to­gether with the ci­ti­es of Stockholm and Sol­na. En­vi­ron­men­tal requi­re­ments for the imp­le­men­ta­tion of the cont­ract ha­ve been drawn up for eve­ry subcont­ract which was ne­go­ti­a­ted and ha­ve been in­clu­ded in the cont­racts sig­ned with subcont­ractors.

NL 51 is one of the lar­gest subcont­racts on the northern link and will con­nect Norr­tull with Vär­taham­nen and Li­din­gö. It con­sists of a cut-and-co­ver tun­nel around 370 m in length. In or­der to be ab­le to build the tun­nel, a she­et pi­le wall has been con­struc­ted in the loo­se clay. On behalf of the jo­int ven­tu­re H.O.T. (Hoch­ti­ef and Oden), Ge­o­sig­ma has ta­ken re­s­pon­si­bi­li­ty for the mo­ni­to­ring pro­g­ram­me, for ground­wa­ter, ver­ti­cal de­for­ma­tions (in­c­li­no­me­ters) and tie-back for­ces. This me­ans iden­ti­fy­ing le­aks and fol­lowing up mo­ve­ments around the ex­ca­va­tion, plus ta­king the ne­ces­sa­ry me­a­su­res.

Back­ground

The con­tent of the local mo­ni­to­ring pro­g­ram­mes is de­ter­mi­ned by the re­le­vant cont­ract and the mo­ni­to­ring me­a­su­res requi­red are car­ri­ed out in so­me of the cont­racts by both the cli­ent and the subcont­ractor. On behalf of the jo­int ven­tu­re H.O.T. (Hoch­ti­ef and Oden), Ge­o­sig­ma has ta­ken re­s­pon­si­bi­li­ty for the mo­ni­to­ring pro­g­ram­me for NL51 with re­gard to ground­wa­ter, in­c­li­no­me­ters (ver­ti­cal earth mo­ve­ments/de­for­ma­tions) and tie-back for­ces. This in­vol­ves procu­ring, de­sig­ning and imp­le­men­ting the on­go­ing work and ana­ly­sing the da­ta etc.

Ground­wa­ter

Be­fo­re the ex­ca­va­tions be­low the ground­wa­ter tab­le be­gin, it must be de­mon­st­ra­ted that the ex­ca­va­tion cell is suf­fi­ci­ent­ly wa­ter­tight, in other words, that the in­jec­tion and she­e­ting work has had the de­si­red ef­fect.

Ge­o­sig­ma car­ri­ed out pum­ping tests in a num­ber of wells in each ex­ca­va­tion cell. The ground­wa­ter le­vel was me­a­su­red in a num­ber of ground­wa­ter pi­pes both in­si­de and out­si­de the ex­ca­va­tion. The cells we­re as­su­med to be wa­ter­tight when the ground­wa­ter le­vel out­si­de the ex­ca­va­tion did not fall be­low the lo­west per­mit­ted le­vel, whi­le the ground­wa­ter le­vel in­si­de the cell could be re­du­ced to the ne­ces­sa­ry foun­da­tion le­vel and the­re was no risk of bot­tom he­a­ve.

Ground­wa­ter prob­lems re­sul­ting from con­struc­tion in soil and rock ha­ve be­co­me inc­re­a­singly pre­va­lent over re­cent deca­des, as lar­ger and lar­ger ex­ca­va­tion and tun­nel works ha­ve ta­ken pla­ce in built-up are­as. The ground­wa­ter can be found in the fractu­res in the rock and the po­res of the soil and the­se of­ten in­te­ract in com­plex ways. Ground­wa­ter is ext­rac­ted from rock pri­ma­rily via rock tun­nels which of­ten re­sults in the drai­nage of the soil lay­er abo­ve. A re­duc­tion in the ground­wa­ter le­vel can cau­se sub­si­den­ce, in par­ticu­lar in clay soils. As the clay gra­du­al­ly dri­es out, hou­ses and other buil­dings with foun­da­tions on the clay can be­gin to sink. By pre­ven­ting le­a­kage and al­lowing the in­filt­ra­tion of sur­fa­ce wa­ter, via wells in the soil or direct­ly in the rock, it is pos­sib­le to coun­te­ract the fal­ling ground­wa­ter le­vel out­si­de the ex­ca­va­tion and ra­i­se the le­vel of the wa­ter.

In­c­li­no­me­ters and tie-back for­ce sen­sors

When the ex­ca­va­tion cell is wa­ter­tight, the ex­ca­va­tion can con­ti­nue in sta­ges down to the flo­or of the tun­nel. Du­ring the ex­ca­va­tion, wa­le beams are in­s­tal­led at each le­vel which are ancho­red with tie-backs. In or­der to de­ter­mi­ne the lo­ad on the tie-backs, tie-back for­ce sen­sors are fit­ted in a num­ber of se­lec­ted sec­tions. In­c­li­no­me­ters are al­so used in the sa­me sec­tions a few met­res behind the she­et pi­le wall to mo­ni­tor pos­sib­le ho­ri­zon­tal earth mo­ve­ments, which could re­sult in the wall mo­ving in to­wards the ex­ca­va­tion and cau­sing a col­lap­se.

The ex­ca­va­tion cells are the­re­fo­re be­ing mo­ni­to­red using th­ree in­de­pen­dent sys­tems. The mo­ni­to­ring pro­cess con­ti­nues un­til the conc­re­te work is fi­nished and the ex­ca­va­tion is re­fil­led, which al­lows me­a­su­res to be ta­ken im­me­di­a­tely to ac­hi­e­ve the de­si­red ef­fect. The re­sult is that prob­lems can be pre­ven­ted as ear­ly as pos­sib­le, in or­der to mi­ni­mi­se the risk of de­lays and other ne­ga­ti­ve con­se­qu­en­ces.

Becau­se Ge­o­sig­ma was re­s­pon­sib­le for eve­ry stage, from the procu­re­ment through to the mo­ni­to­ring and ana­ly­sis, it was ab­le to link to­gether the ge­o­te­ch­ni­cal and hydro­ge­o­lo­gi­cal in­for­ma­tion, which al­lo­wed for bro­a­der-ba­sed eva­lu­a­tions of the pro­cess in the con­text of both di­s­ci­p­li­nes.

The inc­re­a­sed cost of the­se pre­pa­ra­to­ry me­a­su­res can be ba­lan­ced out against the im­pro­ve­ment in ef­fi­ci­en­cy, becau­se ac­tion can be ta­ken im­me­di­a­tely if le­vel chang­es, mo­ve­ments or inc­re­a­ses in lo­ad are iden­ti­fi­ed. This al­lows for coun­ter­me­a­su­res to be put in pla­ce quick­ly which will re­du­ce the ex­tent and the con­se­qu­en­ces of da­mage to the soil, buil­dings and wa­ter and se­wage fa­ci­li­ti­es over lar­ger are­as.