Mr. Gusztav Klados, Senior Tunnel Project Manager, SMART Project Office, No.

67, Jalan 3/93, Taman

Mihraja, off Jalan Cheras, 55200 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; tel: +603 9206 3000; fax: +603 9285 3723;
gus@smartjv.com.my

Mr. David R.Parks, BSc(Hons), CEng., PEng., FICE, Chief Resident Engineer, SMART Project Office,
No.67, Jalan 3/93, Taman Mihraja, off Jalan Cheras, 55200 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; tel: +603 9206
3000; fax: +603 9285 3723; davidrparks@smartjv.com.my

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND ROAD TUNNEL

(SMART)
OVERVIEW, TBM SELECTION AND CONSTRUCTION

This paper highlights the following main points:

1. Project overview
2. Geological profile
3. Site investigation
4. Selection of TBM equipment
5. Special features in the TBM to handle the geological conditions.
6. The extensive geophysical and soil investigation together with real time instrumentations on site.
7. Evaluation of TBM performances in difficult excavation conditions.
8. Difficulties encountered tunnelling in highly variable karstic limestone conditions

-1-
 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Kuala Lumpur, the business and commercial hub of Malaysia has of
late often been inundated by the floods from the Klang River as
development has canalized the river. Over the years the intensity of
the floods increased with each incidence, causing financial losses
and inconvenience to the city folk. With cars submerged and traffic
grinding to a standstill, the city was in urgent and immediate need of
flood mitigation. (Figure 1)

The innovative SMART Project provides a stormwater diversion

scheme including floodwater storage and a 10km, 11.8m diameter
bypass tunnel, sufficient to save the city from flooding in the
foreseeable future. With no major flood event likely to occur over
most of the year the tunnel a dual use was engineered, with double
road decks built into the central three kilometre section, relieving
traffic congestion by providing 2×2 traffic lanes for cars connecting
the city centre to the southern gateway, the KL – Seremban
highway.

The flood water is diverted at the confluence of the Klang and

Ampang rivers into a Holding Pond. From there the water passes
through the tunnel into the Taman Desa Attenuation Pond and via a
box culvert discharges into the Kerayong River. (Figure 2).

The government accepted the innovative proposal of two Malaysian

companies, MMC and GAMUDA, to reduce the cost of the scheme
for the Government. The firms proposed to build the road tunnel
section at a cost to be recovered by a toll collection Concession
from the Government thus providing a dual purpose usage and
Figure 1: Flood in the city and offsetting the overall Government costs as a Concession.
Sg. Besi traffic
Main Project Components
The paper focuses mainly on the 9.7km, 11.8m internal
diameter stormwater tunnel but the project also
comprises of a number of other major structures
associated with river diversion, intake to the tunnel, road
structures and outfalls. The main project components
are as follows:
• River Klang Offtake Structure
• River Klang Diversion Weir
• Holding Pond excavation
• Tunnel Inlet Structure
• 9.7km, 11.8m int. dia. Tunnel
• Emergency Escape Passages
• North Ingress/Egress Road Box ramps
• North Junction Box
• North Ventilation Shaft
• South Ventilation Shaft
• South Junction Box
• South Ingress/Egress Road Box ramps
• Tunnel Outlet Structure
• Attenuation Pond
Figure 2: Location of tunnel in Kuala Lumpur

-2-
• Twin Box Culvert
• River Kerayong Outfall Structure

The overall scheme provides storage for some 3,000,000m³ of water and allows water to be transferred
through the system whilst utilizing the upper and lower road decks for traffic at the same time. Three
operational modes are envisaged.

Organisation of the SMART Project

The project owner, the Government of Malaysia is represented by JPS the Public Works Department, DID
the Drainage and Irrigation Department and by LLM, the Highway Authority.

The project design and supervision Consultants are Sepakat Setia Perunding (SSP) in association with
Mott MacDonald.

The project promoter is the MMC - GAMUDA Joint Venture.

MMC - GAMUDA Joint Venture also set up the Concession holder company for the road operation called
Syarikat Mengurus Air Banjir & Terowong Sdn Bhd (or SMART Sdn Bhd).

The EPC Contractor is the MMC - GAMUDA Joint Venture.

Geological Profile
The tunnel traverses the Kuala Lumpur limestone formation at shallow depth (Figure 3). The mature
karstic formation is covered by loose silty sand, peat or, at some places, mine tailings, the remnants of
the extensive but now historic tin mining in the region.

The quaternary alluvial deposit is generally 4 - 5m thick. However in karstic areas the unpredictable
rockhead may suddenly drop 20-30m due to eroded solution and cliff features. The mean UCS value is

SG. FROM SG. KLANG TO ALONG JALAN AL0NG JALAN KL - SEREMBAN SALAK SG.
Klang JALAN DESA PANDAN KPG. PANDAN ALONG JALAN TUN RAZAK CHAN SOW LIN HIGHWAY I/C KERAYONG
STORAGE
POND
40.00m

30.00m
1 : 650
20.00m
1 : 1000
10.00m

0.00m

-10.00m

LEGEND:-
OVER BURDEN
ROCK BED

Figure 3: Sub surface conditions for the SMART tunnel

50 MPa. The maximum value is 120 MPa but the limestone has not been found to be very abrasive.

The groundwater table is 1.5-2.0m below the surface. The permeability of the rock is generally low
although groundwater movement through the soft alluvial overlay and karstic features can be extensive
and lead to water drawdown hundreds of metres away from a disturbed area. Drastic differences in
rockhead are an expected feature in karstic areas or at fissure zones.(see Figure 4 ).

-3-
 Considering the alignment from north to south the
tunnel runs in alluvium and mine tailings for about
2,5kms. and mixed conditions for a further 1.5km.
This is followed by a central section of some 5.5km
predominantly in limestone with karstic features the
latter 1.5km being with shallow rockhead cover. The
last 200 m is in residual soils of the Kenny Hill
Formation. The full cover of the tunnel ranges between
0,8-1,8 diameters. Typically, the rock cover is
expected to be 3-7m but in areas of karstic depressed
rockhead, a full face of soil or a mixed face of soil and
rock are expected.

The area is very sensitive to groundwater drawdown.

Figure 4: Exposed karstic rockhead at a tin mine The reduction of groundwater level is known to trigger
sinkhole incidents in karstic areas, sometimes a
considerable distance from excavations. The alluvial cover produces differential settlements in proportion
to the thickness of the cover on the undulating rockhead. Hence only tunnel excavation methods
preventing the drawdown of the groundwater were considered.

For shaft excavations experience has shown that ground treatment prior to excavation is essential in
controlling ground water to eliminate movement which may trigger a sinkhole some distance from the
works. Initial excavations to rockhead identified deeper features where piling was necessary to support
the excavation. These areas were extensively ground treated to control ground water before excavation
by drill and blast methods continued.

Site Investigation
The original soil investigation carried out to determine the profile of the rock head, was found to be
inadequate to evaluate and understand better the highly variable karstic limestone and facilitate the
choice of optimum excavation techniques. The following additional soil investigations were carried out:

a) Three stages of soil investigation totalling to more than 334 boreholes over a 12 km project length.

b) Microgravity Survey conducted over sections where there is significant drop in rock head and
presence of cavities.

c) Resistivity Tests and Seismic Tests are also being carried out. Such tests cover most of the
alignment and focus on areas of particular concern and risk identified in the earlier site investigation
work.

Sensitive Structures and Instrumentation

a) Settlement predictions along the tunnel alignment have been plotted as a settlement trough based on
O’Reilly & Newi. Extensive instrumentation has been identified and installed on site as ground
monitoring markers, building settlement markers, standpipes and tiltmeters

b) With the alignment traversing an urban environment with urban infrastructures such as highways,
railway lines, existing bridges and adjacent buildings a number of sensitive structures were identified.

c) These sensitive structures have intensive instrumentations coverage as well as ground treatments to
stabilize the ground where the TBM transverses. In total there are 1300 no of instrumentations on site
(see Figure 5).

-4-
 Figure 5: Instrumentation Layout around NVS

d) Risk analysis was carried out categorising the buildings based on their type of foundation, structural
condition and use. Risk mitigation measures were defined based on this risk.

Tunnel Lining
The tunnel segmental lining was designed by Mott MacDonald and consists of an 11.8m internal diameter
precast lining with 500mm thick segments. The ring is in effect a universal taper of 2x55mm, giving overall
110mm taper, but the rings are used as left and right tapers to keep the keystone above the axis level for
ease of erection. The ring is made up of 6 standard plates, 2 counter keys and a keystone. The rings are
1.7m long and weigh 82 tonnes. (Figure 6)

Figure 5: Instrumentation of North Drive after NVS

Criteria for Selection of TBM

The original proposal for excavation of the south section from the North Ventilation Shaft was used drill
and blast tunnelling and cut and cover methods. At a very early stage in the project this was considered
impractical and imposed unacceptable risks and disruption to the public. Accordingly, it was decided to

-5-
use a second TBM. Both EPB and Slurry TBMs were considered. The following criteria influenced the
decision to select a TBM:

a) The alignment had very tight radius curves of 250m radius to allow land acquisition to follow road
reserves and stay within the public right of way.

b) The overburden is shallow with only 10m to 20m cover.

c) The control of ground water with a pressurized system to maintain required face support pressure in
order to prevent triggering of sinkhole incidents.

d) The machines have to work in a predominantly limestone environment. Several sections are expected
to have either filled karstic caverns or sudden drops in rockhead. Both machines have to be able to
work in mixed face conditions.

TBM Features
With the majority of the tunnel in karstic rock conditions and the need to control groundwater, it was
considered appropriate to select slurry TBMs with an air bubble based control. The air bubble system
regulates the face pressure more accurately than the pump speed based systems. The pressure control
was deemed to be very important in enabling tunnelling with very low overburden and high water table.

The control of groundwater drawdown in a rock filled excavation chamber which would also have
unsuitable material to seal the screw conveyor was deemed to be unachievable with the EPB technology
even with constant conditioning of the material in the excavation chamber.

Two identical Mixshields were purchased from Herrenknecht, Germany. The first TBM was delivered
within 12 months and the second machine within 15 months of order. The cutterhead configuration
selected was for mixed face conditions. The double rotational head had to be able to effectively excavate
medium rock and soft soil or mixed face conditions.

Special emphasis was placed on the spherical main bearings. It allowed the cutterhead to tilt in the
direction of the curve to be negotiated, thereby reducing the differential ram loads on the segmental
lining. The cutterhead had also to be shoved out by a maximum of 400 mm through the drive unit
housing. (See Figure 7) This feature allowed the pull-back of the head for cutter change and inspection in
rock face conditions without moving the front shield.

The machine is equipped

with two air locks and a
smaller material lock to
facilitate near continuous
compressed air work to
change tools on the
cutterhead. The
machines are equipped
with two probe drilling
rigs to investigate
conditions ahead of the
machines although
experience to date has
seen only occasional use
of them. This is due to
Figure 7: Major components of Mixshield TBM the limited value provided
over such a large face
area and the fact that the very ground conditions which are being investigated are the conditions where
the rods may become jammed thus disrupting TBM progress.

-6-
Cutterhead tilt monitoring device is fitted on both machines. This device indicates the location of the
centre of load on the cutterhead. It also shows and indicates if the machine goes through large cavities
or is in mixed face conditions.

TBM Operations and Countermeasures

Difficult excavation by the TBM was envisaged due to the potential risk of settlements from soft material
overlaying the limestone, the existence of karstic limestone and ground cavities. Loss of bentonite into
features would lead to loss of face pressure and resulting collapse of ground surface. Alternatively over
pressurization can lead to surface heaving and bentonite loss to ground surface areas through karstic
features in the ground. These not only cause disruption and mess at the surface but are often followed by
collapse of the ground surface as the cutterhead slurry pressure must be reduced to avoid losing
bentonite to the surface.

In order to overcome the potential risks and mitigate the loss of bentonite, whilst controlling face
pressures, there are a number of countermeasures that have been adopted to manage the risks involved
in tunnelling through these ground conditions. These include:

a) Confinement pressure, was computed for various scenarios of cavities formation in terms of size
and location in front of the drive face using the Mohkam Model .

b) Specifying correct TBM parameters for each of the following scenarios i.e. tunnelling through
homogeneous ground conditions, mixed ground conditions of rock and alluvium/peat, interface conditions
and in filled cavities.

c) Carrying out extensive site investigations involving geophysical methods, boreholes, piezometers
etc. Geophysical surveys have been calibrated and correlated to SI results and used to cover areas
between SI boreholes. This provides the coverage needed to anticipate possible cavities ahead of the
TBM drive. Samples of results showing cavities with low density portrayed by different colour using
Resistivity and Seismic Survey are shown in Figures 8 and 9.

d) Intensive settlement monitoring on the surface to monitor any surface settlement or heave,
together with controlling the face pressure during TBM excavation in various ground conditions.

e) Intensive visual monitoring of the surface in a wide area to observe signs of distress caused by
localised settlement of karstic features. These settlements are not picked up by conventional monitoring
systems

f) Adjustment of slurry composition to cope with varying ground compositions and characteristics
together with slurry volume control to compensate face loss.

-7-
 Figure 8: Resistivity Image

Figure 9: Cross hole Seismic Tomography Image

-8-
g) In sensitive zones, the possibility to drill and grout from the ground surface ahead of the TBM
using three different types of grouting namely: compensation grouting, compaction grouting and rock
fissure grouting methods. These grouting methods differ in sequencing of the works and grout mix.

h) Probing and grouting can be carried out from within the TBM although grouting from the surface
offers cost and scheduling advantages as it is considerably less disruptive to TBM progress and likely to
be more successful.

Tunnelling Difficulties
In karstic limestone conditions, the face pressure (confinement pressure) is considered critical.
Equilibrium of hydrostatic and earth pressures with the face pressure, utilising slurry support, will be
maintained so long at the cavities in front of the TBM are filled with water or soil. As such, encountering
filled cavities at the front face has controllable risk. If there is no loss of slurry and no heave on the
surface then the calculated face pressure reflects the actual pressure requirement. This is shown by the
determination of face pressure support and subsequent observations during tunnelling.

Cavities that are not filled or partially filled pose a serious risk. Such cavities will potentially cause the loss
of slurry pressure and could lead to face collapse and ground settlement. The contingency is that the
Separation Plant has 1000m3 of fresh bentonite and 1000m3 of used bentonite available for filling any
unfilled cavities. Where water filled cavities connected to extended karstic systems are encountered, the
most likely event is the reduction of confinement pressure. This only constitutes a risk if at the same time
the rockhead is dropped and the crown is in soft ground. Under these conditions the density of slurry can
be increased to a maximum of 13kN/m3.

Similar risks can occur if the TBM hits a loosely filled well or funnel of loose material like in mining areas.
In such events, the TBM will have to reduce face pressure to hydrostatic pressure and grout from the
surface.

Road Deck
Within the central 3 km of tunnel the dual purpose facility of double deck roads is sited between the North
and South Junction Boxes. These Junction Boxes provide the bifurcation arrangement where the
stormwater and road systems merge together with provision of the road and flood gate systems that
provide the control and safety of the operation of the scheme.

The road decks are constructed in two pours. Firstly the lower deck and secondly sidewalls and upper
deck. (Figure 10) The original design was modified and precast planks, 100mm thick carrying the lower
reinforcement cage, introduced similar to the ‘Omni’ system used in bridge decks. To achieve programme
the work progresses at the same time that tunnelling proceeds. To achieve this special considerations
were needed to develop the formwork so TBM trains could still supply segments and materials to the TBM
while deck construction proceeded.

-9-
 Figure 10: Road Deck Configuration in Tunnel

Cross Passages
Within the road tunnel, Access to escape passages are provided approximately every 250m to a place of
safety in the event of an emergency. These passages are constructed between the lower and upper road
decks, each being considered a point of safety in the event of an emergency in the other. This provision,
together with a tailor-made ventilation system designed to handle a 100MW fire, ensures public safety.

The passage configuration also contains a switch room, telephones, fire fighting provisions and watertight
doors that are sealed during the flooding operation.

The construction of the passages was preceded by extensive grouting from the surface to prevent
groundwater drawdown. Drill & blast method with shotcrete temporary support and spot rock bolting were
used. Sprayed on waterproofing will be used to mitigate the difficulties of placing a conventional
membrane on complicated 3D surfaces.

Progress to Date
The initial North TBM Tunnel drive from the North Ventilation Shaft to the North Junction Box was
completed by the sub contractor, Wayss & Freytag. The 743 ring drive holed through on 11 December
2004 and was relaunched on the second drive towards the Holding Pond on 5 March 2005. As of mid
June 2005 the drive was 26% complete and had reached Ring 770.

The South TBM Tunnel drive from the North Ventilation Shaft through the South Ventilation Shaft and on
to the South Junction Box was completed by MMC – Gamuda. The 1072 ring drive holed through on
4 June 2005 completing 44% of the drive. At the time of writing, the TBM is undergoing refurbishment
and is intended to be moved across the shaft for relaunch in mid July 2005

The entire dual use tunnel section has been completed. The lower road deck in the 740m long dual use
section of the North Drive is 100% complete and 44% of the upper road deck has been completed. The
lower road deck in the South Drive is 42% complete together with 20% of the upper road deck.

- 10 -
Overall the SMART project progress is on schedule with 51% having been completed by the end of end
May 2005.

Summary/Conclusion
The Stormwater Management and Road Tunnel scheme has demonstrated that with some innovative
thinking dual usage of major infrastructure works are feasible from an engineering perspective.

Despite concerns regarding the variable nature of the karstic limestone in Kuala Lumpur before
embarking on the project, the choice of TBM has been vindicated and the project has shown that
tunnelling in this type of ground is possible, although considerable care is needed to maintain optimum
TBM parameters and slurry properties.

With careful interpretation the use of seismic and resistivity geophysical survey methods to investigate the
ground conditions from the surface have provided useful additional information to replace the original
intention to supplement the site investigation with probing ahead of the TBM. This has proved to be a
useful tool that could be developed further.

Large scale shaft excavations have also been achieved with minimal settlement using carefully designed
ground treatment strategically located to control groundwater in geological features and avoid sinkholes,
a common event in this type of ground. Settlement monitoring, although a major tool in checking surface
and building movement, needs to be supplemented with a surface based team to visually inspect the
ground above the TBM in case sinkholes develop.

i
O’Reilly, M.P. and New, B.M., Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England “Settlements
above tunnels in the United Kingdom—through magnitude and prediction” Tunnelling’82 Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, UK

- 11 -