Tunnel Engineering. A Museum Treatment Part 3

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 31.--EXCAVATION IN FRONT OF s.h.i.+ELD, Tower Subway. This was possible because of the stiffness of the clay encountered. MHT model--front of model shown in fig. 29.

(Smithsonian photo 49260-A.)]

Under this thin pretense of legal authorization, the sub-rosa excavation began from the bas.e.m.e.nt of a clothing store on Warren Street near Broadway. The 8-foot-diameter tunnel ran eastward a short distance, made a 90-degree turn, and thence southward under Broadway to stop a block away under the south side of Murray Street. The total distance was about 312 feet. Work was carried on at night in total secrecy, the actual tunneling taking 58 nights. At the Warren Street terminal, a waiting room was excavated and a large Roots blower installed for propulsion of the single pa.s.senger car. The plan was similar to that used with the model in 1867: the cylindrical car fitted the circular tunnel with only slight circ.u.mferential clearance.

The blower created a plenum within the waiting room and tunnel area behind the car of about 0.25 pounds per square inch, resulting in a thrust on the car of almost a ton, not accounting for blowby. The car was thus blown along its course, and was returned by reversing the blower's suction and discharge ducts to produce an equivalent vacuum within the tunnel.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 32.--INTERIOR OF COMPLETED TOWER SUBWAY.

(THORNBURY, _Old and New London, 1887, vol. 1, p. 126_.)]

The system opened in February of 1870 and remained in operation for about a year. Beach was ultimately subdued by the hostile influences of Boss Tweed, and the project was completely abandoned. Within a very few more years the first commercially operated elevated line was built, but the subway did not achieve legitimate status in New York until the opening of the Interborough line in 1904. Ironically, its route traversed Broadway for almost the length of the island.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 33.--VERTICAL SECTION through the Greathead s.h.i.+eld used at the Tower Subway, 1869. The first one-piece s.h.i.+eld of circular section. (COPPERTHWAITE, _Tunnel s.h.i.+elds and the Use of Compressed Air in Subaqueous Works_.)]

The Beach s.h.i.+eld operated with perfect success in this brief trial, although the loose sandy soil encountered was admittedly not a severe test of its qualities. No diaphragm was used; instead a series of 8 horizontal shelves with sharpened leading edges extended across the front opening of the s.h.i.+eld. The outstanding feature of the machine was the subst.i.tution for the propelling screws used by Brunel and Greathead of 18 hydraulic rams, set around its circ.u.mference. These were fed by a single hand-operated pump, seen in the center of figure 34. By this means the course of the s.h.i.+eld's forward movement could be controlled with a convenience and precision not attainable with screws. Vertical and horizontal deflection was achieved by throttling the supply of water to certain of the rams, which could be individually controlled, causing greater pressure on one portion of the s.h.i.+eld than another. This system has not changed in the ensuing time, except, of course, in the subst.i.tution of mechanically produced hydraulic pressure for hand.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 34.--BEACH'S Broadway Subway. Advancing the s.h.i.+eld by hydraulic rams, 1869. MHT model--1-1/2" scale. (Smithsonian photo 49260-E.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 35.--VERTICAL SECTION through the Beach s.h.i.+eld used on the Broadway Subway, showing the horizontal shelves (C), iron cutting ring (B), hydraulic rams (D), hydraulic pump (F), and rear protective skirt (H). (_Scientific American_, March 5, 1870.)]

Unlike the driving of the Tower Subway, no excavation was done in front of the s.h.i.+eld. Rather, the s.h.i.+eld was forced by the rams into the soil for the length of their stroke, the material which entered being supported by the shelves. This was removed from the shelves and hauled off. The ram plungers then were withdrawn and a 16-inch length of the permanent lining built up within the shelter of the s.h.i.+eld's tail ring. Against this, the rams bore for the next advance. Masonry lining was used in the straight section; cast-iron in the curved. The juncture is shown in the model.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 36.--INTERIOR of Beach Subway showing iron lining on curved section and the pneumatically powered pa.s.senger car.

View from waiting room. (_Scientific American_, March 5, 1870.)]

Enlarged versions of the Beach s.h.i.+eld were used in a few tunnels in the Midwest in the early 1870's, but from then until 1886 the s.h.i.+eld method, for no clear reason, again entered a period of disuse finding no application on either side of the Atlantic despite its virtually unqualified proof at the hands of Greathead and Beach. Little precise information remains on this work. The Beach system of pneumatic transit is described fully in a well-ill.u.s.trated booklet published by him in January 1868, in which the American Inst.i.tute model is shown, and many projected systems of pneumatic propulsion as well as of subterranean and subaqueous tunneling described. Beach again (presumably) is author of the sole contemporary account of the Broadway Subway, which appeared in _Scientific American_ following its opening early in 1870. Included are good views of the tunnel and car, of the s.h.i.+eld in operation, and, most important, a vertical sectional view through the s.h.i.+eld (fig. 35).

It is interesting to note that optical surveys for maintenance of the course apparently were not used. The article ill.u.s.trated and described the driving each night of a jointed iron rod up through the tunnel roof to the street, twenty or so feet above, for "testing the position."

THE FIRST HUDSON RIVER TUNNEL

Despite the ultimate success of Brunel's Thames Tunnel in 1843, the s.h.i.+eld in that case afforded only moderately reliable protection because of the fluidity of the soil driven through, and its tendency to enter the works through the smallest opening in the s.h.i.+eld's defense. An English doctor who had made physiological studies of the effects on workmen of the high air pressure within diving bells is said to have recommended to Brunel in 1828 that he introduce an atmosphere of compressed air into the tunnel to exclude the water and support the work face.

This plan was first formally described by Sir Thomas Cochrane (1775-1860) in a British patent of 1830. Conscious of Brunel's problems, he proposed a system of shaft sinking, mining, and tunneling in water-bearing materials by filling the excavated area with air sufficiently above atmospheric pressure to prevent the water from entering and to support the earth. In this, and his description of air locks for pa.s.sage of men and materials between the atmosphere and the pressurized area, Cochrane fully outlined the essential features of pneumatic excavation as developed since.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 37.--THE GIANT ROOTS LOBE-TYPE BLOWER used for propelling the car.]

In 1839, a French engineer first used the system in sinking a mine shaft through a watery stratum. From then on, the sinking of shafts, and somewhat later the construction of bridge pier foundations, by the pneumatic method became almost commonplace engineering practice in Europe and America. Not until 1879 however, was the system tried in tunneling work, and then, as with the s.h.i.+eld ten years earlier, almost simultaneously here and abroad. The first application was in a small river tunnel in Antwerp, only 5 feet in height. This project was successfully completed relying on compressed air alone to support the earth, no s.h.i.+eld being used. The importance of the work cannot be considered great due to its lack of scope.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 38.--TESTING ALIGNMENT of the Broadway Subway at night by driving a jointed rod up to street level. (_Scientific American_, March 5, 1870.)]

In 1871 Dewitt C. Haskin (1822-1900), a west coast mine and railroad builder, became interested in the pneumatic caissons then being used to found the river piers of Eads' Mississippi River bridge at St.

Louis. In apparent total ignorance of the Cochrane patent, he evolved a similar system for tunneling water-bearing media, and in 1873 proposed construction of a tunnel through the silt beneath the Hudson to provide rail connection between New Jersey and New York City.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 39.--HASKIN'S pneumatically driven tunnel under the Hudson River, 1880. In the engine room at top left was the machinery for hoisting, generating electricity for lighting, and air compressing. The air lock is seen in the wall of the brick shaft.

MHT model--0.3" scale. (Smithsonian photo 49260.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 40.--ARTIST'S CONCEPTION OF MINERS escaping into the air lock during the blowout in Haskin's tunnel.]

It would be difficult to imagine a site more in need of such communication. All lines from the south terminated along the west sh.o.r.e of the river and the immense traffic--cars, freight and pa.s.sengers--was carried across to Manhattan Island by ferry and barge with staggering inconvenience and at enormous cost. A bridge would have been, and still is, almost out of the question due not only to the width of the crossing, but to the flatness of both banks. To provide sufficient navigational clearance (without a drawspan), impracticably long approaches would have been necessary to obtain a permissibly gentle grade.

Haskin formed a tunneling company and began work with the sinking of a shaft in Hoboken on the New Jersey side. In a month it was halted because of an injunction by, curiously, the D L & W Railroad, who feared for their vast investment in terminal and marine facilities.

Not until November of 1879 was the injunction lifted and work again commenced. The shaft was completed and an air lock located in one wall from which the tunnel proper was to be carried forward. It was Haskin's plan to use no s.h.i.+eld, relying solely on the pressure of compressed air to maintain the work faces and prevent the entry of water. The air was admitted in late December, and the first large-scale pneumatic tunneling operation launched. A single 26-foot, double-track bore was at first undertaken, but a work face of such diameter proved unmanageable and two oval tubes 18 feet high by 16 feet wide were subst.i.tuted, each to carry a single track. Work went forward with reasonable facility, considering the lack of precedent.

A temporary entrance was formed of sheet-iron rings from the air lock down to the tunnel grade, at which point the permanent work of the north tube was started. Immediately behind the excavation at the face, a lining of thin wrought-iron plates was built up, to provide form for the 2-foot, permanent brick lining that followed. The three stages are shown in the model in about their proper relations.h.i.+p of progress. The work is shown pa.s.sing beneath an old timber-crib bulkhead, used for stabilizing the sh.o.r.eline.

The silt of the riverbed was about the consistency of putty and under good conditions formed a secure barrier between the excavation and the river above. It was easily excavated, and for removal was mixed with water and blown out through a pipe into the shaft by the higher pressure in the tunnel. About half was left in the bore for removal later. The basic scheme was workable, but in operation an extreme precision was required in regulating the air pressure in the work area.[5] It was soon found that there existed an 11-psi difference between the pressure of water on the top and the bottom of the working face, due to the 22-foot height of the unlined opening. Thus, it was impossible to maintain perfect pneumatic balance of the external pressure over the entire face. It was necessary to strike an average with the result that some water entered at the bottom of the face where the water pressure was greatest, and some air leaked out at the top where the water pressure was below the air pressure. Constant attention was essential: several men did nothing but watch the behavior of the leaks and adjusted the pressure as the ground density changed with advance. Air was supplied by several steam-driven compressors at the surface.

The air lock permitted pa.s.sage back and forth of men and supplies between the atmosphere and the work area, without disturbing the pressure differential. This principle is demonstrated by an animated model set into the main model, to the left of the shaft (fig. 39). The variation of pressure within the lock chamber to match the atmosphere or the pressurized area, depending on the direction of pa.s.sage, is clearly shown by simplified valves and gauges, and by the use of light in varying color density. In the Haskin tunnel, 5 to 10 minutes were taken to pa.s.s the miners through the lock so as to avoid too abrupt a physiological change.

Despite caution, a blowout occurred in July 1880 due to air leakage not at the face, but around the temporary entrance. One door of the air lock jammed and twenty men drowned, resulting in an inquiry which brought forth much of the distrust with which Haskin was regarded by the engineering profession. His ability and qualifications were subjected to the bitterest attack in and by the technical press. There is some indication that, although the project began with a staff of competent engineers, they were alienated by Haskin in the course of work and at least one withdrew. Haskin's remarks in his own defense indicate that some of the denunciation was undoubtedly justified. And yet, despite this reaction, the fundamental merit of the pneumatic tunneling method had been demonstrated by Haskin and was immediately recognized and freely acknowledged. It was apparent at the same time, however, that air by itself did not provide a sufficiently reliable support for large-area tunnel works in unstable ground, and this remains the only major subaqueous tunnel work driven with air alone.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 41.--LOCATION OF HUDSON RIVER TUNNEL. (_Leslie's Weekly_, 1879.)]

After the accident, work continued under Haskin until 1882 when funds ran out. About 1600 feet of the north tube and 600 feet of the south tube had been completed. Greathead resumed operations with a s.h.i.+eld for a British company in 1889, but exhaustion of funds again caused stoppage in 1891. The tunnel was finally completed in 1904, and is now in use as part of the Hudson and Manhattan rapid-transit system, never providing the sought-after rail link. A splendid doc.u.ment of the Haskin portion of the work is S. D. V. Burr's _Tunneling Under the Hudson River_ published in 1885. It is based entirely upon firsthand material and contains drawings of most of the work, including the auxiliary apparatus. It is interesting to note that electric illumination (arc, not incandescent, lights) and telephones were used, unquestionably the first employment of either in tunnel work.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 42.--ST. CLAIR TUNNEL. View of front of s.h.i.+eld showing method of excavation in firm strata. Incandescent electric illumination was used. 1889-90. MHT model--1" scale. (Smithsonian photo 49260-D.)]

THE ST. CLAIR TUNNEL

The final model of the soft-ground series reflects, as did the Hoosac Tunnel model for hard-rock tunneling, final emergence into the modern period. Although the St. Clair Tunnel was completed over 70 years ago, it typifies in its method of construction, the basic procedures of subaqueous work in the present day. The Thames Tunnel of Brunel, and Haskin's efforts beneath the Hudson, had clearly shown that by themselves, both the s.h.i.+eld and pneumatic systems of driving through fluid ground were defective in practice for tunnels of large area.

Note that the earliest successful works by each method had been of very small area, so that the influence of adverse conditions was greatly diminished.

The first man to perceive and seize upon the benefits to be gained by combining the two systems was, most fittingly, Greathead. Although he had projected the technique earlier, in driving the underground City and South London Railway in 1886, he brought together for the first time the three fundamental elements essential for the practical tunneling of soft, water-bearing ground: compressed-air support of the work during construction, the movable s.h.i.+eld, and cast-iron, permanent lining. The marriage was a happy one indeed; the limitations of each system were almost perfectly overcome by the qualities of the others.

The conditions prevailing in 1882 at the Sarnia, Ontario, terminal of the Grand Trunk Railway, both operational and physical, were almost precisely the same as those which inspired the undertaking of the Hudson River Tunnel. The heavy traffic at this vital U.S.--Canada rail interchange was ferried inconveniently across the wide St. Clair River, and the bank and river conditions precluded construction of a bridge. A tunnel was projected by the railway in that year, the time when Haskin's tribulations were at their height. Perhaps because of this lack of precedent for a work of such size, nothing was done immediately. In 1884 the railway organized a tunnel company; in 1886 test borings were made in the riverbed and small exploratory drifts were started across from both banks by normal methods of mine timbering. The natural gas, quicksand, and water encountered soon stopped the work.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 43.--REAR VIEW OF ST. CLAIR s.h.i.+ELD showing the erector arm placing a cast-iron lining segment. The three motions of the arm--axial, radial, and rotational, were manually powered.

(Smithsonian photo 49260-C.)]

It was at this time that the railway's president visited Greathead's City and South London workings. The obvious answer to the St. Clair problem lay in the successful conduct of this subway. Joseph Hobson, chief engineer of the Grand Trunk and of the tunnel project, in designing a s.h.i.+eld, is said to have searched for drawings of the s.h.i.+elds used in the Broadway and Tower Subways of 1868-9, but unable to locate any, he relied to a limited extent on the small drawings of those in Drinker's volume. There is no explanation as to why he did not have drawings of the City and South London s.h.i.+eld at that moment in use, unless one considers the rather unlikely possibility that Greathead maintained its design in secrecy.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 44.--OPENING OF THE ST. CLAIR TUNNEL, 1891.

(_Photo courtesy of Detroit Library, Burton Historical Collection._)]

The Hobson s.h.i.+eld followed Greathead's as closely as any other, in having a diaphragm with closable doors, but a modification of Beach's sharpened horizontal shelves was also used. However, these functioned more as working platforms than supports for the earth. The machine was 21-1/2 feet in diameter, an unprecedented size and almost twice that of Greathead's current one. It was driven by 24 hydraulic rams.

Throughout the entire preliminary consideration of the project there was a marked sense of caution that amounted to what seems an almost total lack of confidence in success. Commencement of the work from vertical shafts was planned so that if the tunnel itself failed, no expenditure would have been made for approach work. In April 1888, the shafts were started near both riverbanks, but before reaching proper depth the almost fluid clay and silt flowed up faster than it could be excavated and this plan was abandoned. After this second inauspicious start, long open approach cuts were made and the work finally began. The portals were established in the cuts, several thousand feet back from each bank and there the tunneling itself began. The portions under the sh.o.r.e were driven without air. When the banks were reached, brick bulkheads containing air locks were built across the opening and the section beneath the river, about 3,710 feet long, driven under air pressure of 10 to 28 pounds above atmosphere.

For most of the way, the clay was firm and there was little air leakage. It was found that horses could not survive in the compressed air, and so mules were used under the river.

In the firm clay, excavation was carried on several feet in front of the s.h.i.+eld, as shown in the model (fig. 42). About twelve miners worked at the face. However, in certain strata the clay encountered was so fluid that the s.h.i.+eld could be simply driven forward by the rams, causing the muck to flow in at the door openings without excavation. After each advance, the rams were retracted and a ring of iron lining segments built up, as in the Tower Subway. Here, for the first time, an "erector arm" was used for placing the segments, which weighed about half a ton. In all respects, the work advanced with wonderful facility and lack of operational difficulty. Considering the large area, no subaqueous tunnel had ever been driven with such speed. The average monthly progress for the American and Canadian headings totaled 455 feet, and at top efficiency 10 rings or a length of 15.3 feet could be set in a 24-hour day in each heading. The 6,000 feet of tunnel was driven in just a year; the two s.h.i.+elds met vis-a-vis in August of 1890.

The transition was complete. The work had been closely followed by the technical journals and the reports of its successful accomplishment thus were brought to the attention of the entire civil engineering profession. As the first major subaqueous tunnel completed in America and the first in the world of a size able to accommodate full-scale rail traffic, the St. Clair Tunnel served to dispel the doubts surrounding such work, and established the pattern for a mode of tunneling which has since changed only in matters of detail.

Of the eight models, only this one was built under the positive guidance of original doc.u.ments. In the possession of the Canadian National Railways are drawings not only of all elements of the s.h.i.+eld and lining, but of much of the auxiliary apparatus used in construction. Such materials rarely survive, and do so in this case only because of the foresight of the railway which, to avoid paying a high profit margin to a private contractor as compensation for the risk and uncertainty involved, carried the contract itself and, therefore, preserved all original drawing records.

While the engineering of tunnels has been comprehensively treated in this paper from the historical standpoint, it is well to still reflect that the advances made in tunneling have not perceptibly removed the elements of uncertainty but have only provided more positive and effective means of countering their forces. Still to be faced are the surprises of hidden streams, geologic faults, s.h.i.+fts of strata, unstable materials, and areas of extreme pressure and temperature.