ITA/AITES

ITA/AITES – Training Course

TUNNEL ENGINEERING

Site Investigation

Prepared by Harvey W. Parker

Istanbul- 2005

May 5, 2005 1/**

1 Index
Importnce of Geology-Challenges of the Underground

2
Site Investigation Issues and Procedures

3
How Much to Do; When to Stop?

4
New Developments and Case Histories

5 References and Conclusions

Site Investigation 2/**

1 Introduction

3 Importance of Geology
Challenges of the Underground
4

Site Investigation 3/**

Geology Dominates
 Importance of Geology
ƒ Geology strongly affects every major decision

ƒ Geology determines
ƒ Feasibility
ƒ Alignment
ƒ Constructability & Cost
ƒ Usefulness and behavior of the completed structure

ƒ Permits interpolation/extrapolation between borings &

correlation of case histories
ƒ Crucial insight to the third dimension
 Geotechnology & Planning

ƒ Everyone in planning and design of tunnels

must give geology serious consideration

ƒ Therefore, Use Geology & Geotechnology

as early as possible
ƒ Conceptual stage
Challenges of the Underground
 Unique Functions
of the
Rock & Soil

ƒ 1) Medium that transfers the forces

ƒ 2) Structural Materials that Carry the Bulk

of Those Forces
ƒ Arching
Challenges of the Underground
• Geologic investigations are more difficult

• Use Well-Qualified Engineering Geologist

and Geotechnical Engineer with Tunnel
Experience
 Selected Challenges of the
Underground: Variability
ƒ Geology can be Subtle and Illusive
ƒ Variability is Often Abrupt
ƒ Properties
ƒ Magnitude Varies Significantly
ƒ Time, Seasons, Sample Size, Rate of Loading

ƒ Properties of Geologic Materials have an

enormous range of values
 Range of permeability
ƒ Greater than any other engineering
parameter
ƒ Roughly 10-7 to 10+3 cm/sec
ƒ Factor of 10,000,000,000

ƒ For Comparison: Strength

ƒ Much Smaller Range
ƒ Soft Clay to Concrete ~ 1,000
ƒ Soft Clay to Steel/Rock ~ 100,000
Potential Variations in Geotechnical Data

After Parker, 1996

Potential Variations in Geotechnical Data 2

After Parker, 1996

 Selected Challenges of the
Underground
• Investigations Recover Extremely Small
Amount of Material Compared to Project
Volume

• Must Extrapolate to Predict

 Selected Challenges of the
Underground
ƒ Example: Concrete
ƒ Sample every 20 to
50 yd3
ƒ Test about 0.1 percent
ƒ See 100 percent out of
the truck
 Selected Challenges of the
Underground
ƒ Tunnels: Core samples @ 100 m

ƒ About 0.0005 percent

ƒ Sewing Thimble to ~50 Oil Drums

Thimble to ~50 Oil Drums
 Selected Challenges of the
Underground
ƒ Predictions will be
EXPOSED
ƒ Actual Vs Predicted
ƒ Stratigraphy
ƒ Groundwater Flow
ƒ Behavior
ƒ Comparison is
guaranteed!
ƒ In detail!
 Selected Challenges of the
Underground
ƒVast Uncertainty
ƒNever See What is Ahead
ƒ Minuscule drill core volume
ƒ 0.0005 percent of the tunnel volume
Selected Challenges of the
Underground

Designers & Contractors

do a remarkable job
in spite of Vast
Uncertainty
1 Chapter 2

2
Site Investigation
3
Issues & Procedures
4

Site Investigation 21/**

 Selected Important
Geotechnical Issues
ƒ Geology
ƒ Groundwater
ƒ Groundwater
ƒ Groundwater
ƒ Obstructions
ƒ Contaminated Soil or Groundwater
ƒ Gas & Other Safety Issues
ƒ Ground and Groundwater Properties
Site Investigations

Methods & Principles

 PURPOSES OF SITE
INVESTIGATIONS
ƒ Support planning & define project
feasibility
ƒ Identify items that may need contingency plans
ƒ Determine most economical and appropriate
ƒ Route and Depth
ƒ Excavation & Support Methods
 PURPOSES OF SITE
INVESTIGATIONS
ƒ Define physical characteristics of the soil, rock, and
groundwater
ƒ govern the behavior of the tunnel
ƒ To minimize uncertainties of physical conditions for the
bidder & to improve safety
ƒ Provide specific data needed to evaluate
ƒ constructability
ƒ cost
ƒ productivity
ƒ schedule
ƒ To document as- built conditions of the completed project
 NO LONGER SUFFICIENT TO
DESCRIBE STRATIGRAPHY &
GROUNDWATER TABLE

MUST PREDICT BEHAVIOR

MUST ESTABLISH A BASELINE

So "changed condition" (if encountered) can be administered fairly

Site Investigation Methods
 Rock versus Soil
• Rock behavior dictated by discontinuities
• In Rock, Discontinuities (joints) govern behavior
– Movements always along joints
– Water flows only through joints
– Properties of joints needed
– Relationship of joint spacing to opening size
• Mass physical properties important
• Dictates choice of investigative methods
Intact vs. Mass Physical Properties

• Intact properties are the properties of the rock

or soil on a small (core sample size) scale
• Mass physical intact properties govern
– Includes the fundamental intact properties
– Modified by the effects of the ground at the scale of
the tunnel
• Effect is particularly important in rock
– takes into account the effects of the joints
After Parker, 1996
After Parker, 1996
Topo Relief Map of USA

After USGS
Geology Superimposed on Topo

After USGS
After USGS
Optimize Boring Layout

After Parker, 1996

Determine Location of Explorations
Accurately
Auger Rig for Shallower Borings

After Caltrans
Rotary Wash Coring Rig

After Caltrans
Mobilization for Exploration is Not Always Easy

After Caltrans
Field Inspection & Logging of Core

After Caltrnas
 Evaluation of Core Borings
• Larger core diameter is better
– See more “Fabric”
– Less disturbance
• Lab Test Properties from core are lower than insitu
– Always some disturbance
– Disturbance reduces Engineering Properties
• Fear what you do not see
– Could be poor quality coring
– Most likely bad ground
• Or worse, a void
Determine Groundwater Location &
Mass Permeability of Soil

After Parker, 1996

 Rock Mass Permeability
• Permeability of Joint System is important
– Not the permeability of intact rock
• Measured by pumping water in to borehole
• The “Lugeon” is a measure of permeability =
– 1 litre of flow per minute
– Into one meter length of borehole
– At 10 bars pressure
• 1 Lugeon is approximately equivalent to:
– Permeability of 10-5 cm/sec
Laboratory testing to determine mass
physical properties

After Caltrans
Correlate to other jobs by geology
& case histories

After USACE, 1997

Soil Classification Based on Mass Physical
Properties

After Parker, 1996

 Tunnel Behavior is Complex
• Behavior of the Ground During Tunnelling
– Determined by MANY factors including:
• Geology
• Engineering Properties of Materials
• Means and Methods

• Generally:
– Owner “Owns the Ground”
– Contractor “Owns the effects of Means & Methods”
– But these are always interdependent and never so clear
Terzaghi’s Tunnelman’s Ground Classification
Firm Can advance heading without initial
support
Raveling Chunks or flakes of material begin
to drop out of arch or walls…
Slow Raveling
Fast Raveling Fast = Raveling in a few minutes

Squeezing Overstressed ground squeezes or

extrudes plastically into tunnel
Running Granular materials that are unstable
will “run”. Cohesive running is
Cohesive Running slower because of cohesive nature.
Running occurs in clean granular
Running materials; goes to angle of repose
Flowing Mixture of soil and water flows into
the tunnel like a viscous fluid

Swelling Ground absorbs water and expands

(in volume) slowly in to tunnel
 Rock Mass Classifications
• Assess importance of each parameter
• Correlate case histories
• Predict behavior
• Semi-empirical estimate of required support
• Can be measured & confirmed in field to
determine “as built” conditions
 Rock Mass Classifications

• Many Classification Systems have been

proposed; three remain in popular use:
– Rock Quality Designation (RQD) by Deere
• Now used as input to RMR and Q
– Rock Mass Rating (RMR) by Bieniawski
– Rock Tunnelling Quality Index (Q) by Barton
 Rock Quality Index (RQD)
(Modified Core Recovery counting only sound pieces of
core that are 100 mm or greater in length)

After Hoek, 2005

 Bieniawski’s Rock Mass Rating,
RMR
Parameter Max Points
Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock 15

Rock Quality Designation (RQD) 20

Spacing of discontinuities 20

Condition of discontinuities 30

Groundwater conditions 15

Adjustment for unfavorable orientation of joints Reduce RMR by

2 to 12 Points
Correlations with Bieniawski’s RMR

• Guidelines have been published for

– ground support recommendations
– stand
- up time
– correlations to other parameters such as rock mass
modulus, as a function of RMR (Bieniawski, 1989)
• System has been modified and adapted by others
for the mining industry
• Frequently done in conjunction with and correlated
with the Q-System (ie use both Q and RMR)
 Barton’s Q System
Q = (RQD/Jn) x (Jr/Ja) x (Jw/SRF)

Rock Mass Condition Q System Parameter

RQD RQD
Number of joint sets Jn
Joint roughness Jr
Joint alteration Ja
Joint water Jw
Stress Reduction Factor SRF
 Barton’s Q System
of Rock Classification
• Rock Tunnelling Quality Index = Q
• Q = (RQD/Jn) x (Jr/Ja) x (Jw/SRF)
• Physical significance of components
– (RQD/Jn) is effect of block size
– (Jr/Ja) is effect of inter-block strength
– (Jw/SRF) is effect of external forces such as in-
situ stress and groundwater effects
 Correlations with Barton’s Q System
(Published by Barton (and others)
• Tables provide guidelines for ground support
• Charts illustrate guidelines for ground support
• Correlations with other classification systems
• Correlations with maximum unsupported span and
estimated permanent roof pressure
• Correlations are constantly being updated including
application with TBM’s
– Be sure to understand the development of the system
and to use latest version
Approximate Selection of Initial Support

For Illustration only.

Not for Design
After Hoek,
Hoek, 2005
Estimated Support Categories

For Illustration only.

Not for Design
After Hoek, 2005
 Some Guides Exist
(Local, National, International)
• Several guides exist to assist investigation planning.
Examples shown below:

After AFTES, 1994; USACE, 1997

1 Chapter 3

2
How Much to Do?
3

4
When to Stop?

Site Investigation 60/**

 Past Practices
ƒ No accepted standard
ƒ # Borings
ƒ Spacing
ƒ Depth

ƒ Geo.Investigation Cost
ƒ 1/2 to 3+ Percent of Construction Cost
ƒ Some up to 8++ % have been reported.
ƒ Special Class over these guidelines
ƒ Nuclear Waste
ƒ Hazardous Waste
 Evaluate Past Practice
ƒ 1984 Study of exploration practices in
USA
ƒ U.S. National Committee on Tunneling Technology
(USNC/TT)

ƒ Average Claim = 12% of the original

basic construction cost
ƒ Some as-completed costs were 50% > engineer’s
estimate
 USNC/TT Recommendations on
Site Investigation
ƒ Exploration = 3.0 percent of project cost

ƒ Boring Length = 1.5 linear meters of borehole per

route meter of tunnel alignment
ƒ For typical urban tunnel situation

ƒ Improve Exploration Procedures

ƒ Groundwater
ƒ Remote Sensing
USNC/TT Evaluation of Exploration Practices
(Example Plot of Data)

USNC/TT, 1984
 USNC/TT Recommendations on
Site Investigation
ƒ Make Geotechnical Report a Contract
Document
ƒ No Disclaimers
ƒ Establish a Baseline
ƒ This evolved into the Geotechnical Baseline Report
(GBR)
ƒ Compile As-Built Report
 Suggested Guidelines

How Much to Do?

WHEN TO STOP?
 Determine Project Magnitude

ƒ Major or Complex Project

ƒ Small or Ordinary Project

 Guidelines for Determining Project
Magnitude
Major or Complex Tunnel Projects
ƒ Greater than 4 m in diameter
ƒ Length greater than 300 m

ƒ Alternative Alignments Considered

ƒ Multiple Phases
ƒ Unusual, complex, or unproven construction procedures
ƒ Difficult or adverse geology
ƒ Considerable risk
ƒ Considerable sharing of risk
Investigation vs Project Scope

After Parker, 1996

After Parker, 1996
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
All Tunnel Projects

ƒ Prioritize Geotechnical Needs

ƒ Emphasize Geology

ƒ Use Non-tradtitional methods if cost-

effective
ƒ In-Situ Testing
ƒ Full Scale Tests, Adits, or Shafts
ƒ Geophysics
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
All Tunnel Projects
ƒ At least two exploration phases
ƒ Fund the initial phase well
ƒ confidently select the alignment
ƒ estimate of the likely construction methods, lining
and cost
ƒ Pre-approve contingency fund
ƒ Answer technical questions resulting from
initial boring program
ƒ Use Contingency only if needed
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
All Tunnel Projects

ƒ More information than needed for “design”

ƒ Enough data to predict “Ground Behavior”

ƒ Alternative construction methods
ƒ TBM or Traditional techniques

ƒ Enough data to minimize uncertainty

Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
All Tunnel Projects

ƒ Don't do any exploration unless it

specifically fills a genuine need
ƒ Often, reduction of uncertainty is a genuine need

ƒ Good Exploration reduces BID COST by:

ƒ 10 to 15 Times Exploration cost
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
All Tunnel Projects

ƒ Conduct a “Supplementary Cost

Exploration Phase”

ƒ After alignment is fixed & after design

ƒ Confirm the design
ƒ Get information contractor needs to estimate
ƒ Productivity (rate of advance)
ƒ Estimate the costs and to bid the job
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
Smaller or Ordinary Projects
ƒ Initial Phase: 1/3 to 1/2 of the USNC/TT
guidelines (i.e., boring length ranging from 0.5 to
0.8 times route length and

ƒ Initial geotechnical costs ranging from 1.0 to 2.0

percent of construction cost).

ƒ Have an overall budget including contingencies of

3.0 percent of overall cumulative cost.
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
Large or Major Projects
ƒ Develop multi-phased program to fill actual
needs
ƒ Phasing increases quality and reduces cost
ƒ Use non-traditional techniques if they
reduce uncertainty
ƒ Geophysics
ƒ In Situ Tests
ƒ Pressuremeters
ƒ pump tests, etc., as appropriate
ƒ shafts, adits, pilot tunnels
Guidelines for Level of Geotechnical Effort
Large or Major Projects
ƒ For initial phases of design, budget,
and fund
ƒ Boring length = 0.75 to 1.2 times route length
ƒ Cost = 1.5 to 2.25 percent of construction cost
ƒ (1/2 to 3/4 of the USNC/TT guidelines)

ƒ Overall budget = 3.0 Percent of

Construction
ƒ Including contingencies
ƒ Implementation of contingencies must be quick and
easy
1 Chapter 4

3
New Developments
4
&
5 Case Histories

Site Investigation 79/**

 Recent Developments
ƒ Methane & Hydrogen Sulfide Issues
ƒ Sonic Drilling
ƒ Geophysics/Tomography
ƒ GPS and GIS
ƒ Video & Digital Photography
ƒ Computer Graphics
ƒ Risk-Based Cost Estimating Ranges
 Methane &
Hydrogen Sulfide
ƒ More Prevalent in Tunnels & Mines than
Previously Thought
ƒ Must Investigate for these Hazards
ƒ Important Decision Regarding Safety
Measures and Cost
 Computer Graphics
Advantages & Pitfalls
ƒ Advantages
ƒ Better Understanding of Task
ƒ Better communication (Internal & External)
ƒ Professional Look
ƒ But- Computer Graphics Can Make Anything Look
Accurate and Credible
ƒ Scrutinize anything that Looks too good
ƒ Geophysics
ƒ Computer Analyses
ƒ FEM
ƒ GIS
Garbage in Garbage Out
 Al Matthews Quote
(Early ’70s)
ƒ “Rapid Excavation also means you can get
into trouble faster”

ƒ Computer Analogy:
ƒ Matthews quote is applicable to rapid
computing and presentations
 Geotechnical Aspects of
Contracting Practices
ƒ No Disclaimers for ground conditions
ƒ Include a fair Changed Condition Clause
ƒ Prepare Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR)
ƒ GBR also called Ground Reference Conditions
ƒ Cross-checked with plans & specifications
ƒ Make GBR part of contract documents
ƒ Share Risk and Share Fairly
ƒ Provide for Disputes Review Board
ƒ Provide for Partnering
RECENT DEVELOPMENT

EVALUATION OF RISK IN
EARLY DESIGN STAGES
RISK & CHOICES
ARE PLENTIFUL
Need for Risk Management
 Geotechnical Risk
Management
ƒ Conduct Geotechnical Investigations
Specifically to Reduce Uncertainty of High-
risk Issues

ƒ Identify Issues using Risk Management

Techniques
ƒ Workshop sessions by technical staff
Risk is Impact X Probability
Estimated Range of Cost & Duration
Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle

Cost Range in Billions Construction Duration

Tunnel $3.8 to $4.1 7 to 9 Years

Aerial $3.2 to $3.5 9 to 11 Years

Rebuild $3.2 to $3.5 6 to 8 Years

Bypass Tunnel $3.1 to $3.4 6 to 8 Years

Surface $2.5 to $2.8 6 to 7 Years

Site Investigation

Case Histories
Mount Baker Ridge Tunnel
 Mt Baker Ridge Tunnel
ƒ Early 1980’s
ƒ Innovative Design
ƒ Comprehensive Geo Investigation
ƒ Most USNC/TT Recommendations
ƒ Full Scale Test Shaft During Bidding
ƒ Bid Price $38.3 M
ƒ Final Price ~$36 M
 Mt Baker Ridge Tunnel
ƒ Contractor made a profit
ƒ Owner got a Good Project
ƒ Industry Demonstrated New
ƒ Contracting practices
ƒ New Technology
ƒ Everybody Won
ƒ True Win-Win Project
LINK
 Seattle’s LINK Light Rail
Initial North Segment
ƒ 7.5 km of twin 6.4-m tunnel
ƒ 3 deep (75+ m) binocular stations
ƒ 1 cut and cover station
ƒ 2 deep single cross-overs
ƒ 1 cut and cover crossover
ƒ Portage Bay crossing
ƒ I-5 freeway crossing through concrete wall
 Significant Geologic Features
ƒ Boulders
ƒ Abrupt contacts
ƒ Flowing silt and sand
ƒ Till and Glaciomarine
ƒ Clay
ƒ Erosional features
ƒ Up to 45 m of Groundwater
ƒ Slickensided fractures
ƒ Methane
 Sound Transit
Exploration Borings
ƒ Conceptual Design Spacing = 600 m
ƒ 11 borings
ƒ 14 cone penetrometers

ƒ Preliminary Design Spacing = 180 m

ƒ 31 borings

ƒ Final Design Spacing = 80 m

ƒ 35 borings @ stations
ƒ 42 borings along tunnel
Sound Transit Ship’s Canal
Crossing
 Sound Transit
New Geotechnical Tools
ƒ Sonic Coring
ƒ Database
ƒ Exploration management
ƒ Data management
ƒ Budget management
ƒ Comprehensive Field Tests
ƒ FLAC
ƒ Intensive Evaluation of Groundwater Issues
ƒ Statistical Assessment of Boulders
 Sound Transit
Summary
ƒ Comprehensive Geo Investigation
ƒ Permitted Meaningful Negotiations
ƒ Between Owner & Design-Build Contractor
ƒ Full Understanding of Ground Conditions
ƒ Minimized Guessing and Contingencies
ƒ Transit Segment Postponed
ƒ Whole Project Over Budget
ƒ For reasons other than geotechnical/geology
1 Conclusions and references

3
References
4
Conclusions
5

Site Investigation 108/**

 References
• AFTES, 1994, The Choice of geotechnical Parameters and Tests Useful to the Design,
Dimensioning and Construction of Underground Structures, Association Francaise de
Travaux en Souterrain, Paris, France
• AFTES, 2003, Guidelines for Caracterisation of Rock Masses Useful for the Design and
the Construction of Underground Structures, Association Francaise de Travaux en
Souterrain, Paris, France
• Barton, N.R., R. Lien, and J. Lunde, 1974, Engineering Classification of Rock Masses
for the Design of Tunnel Support, Rock Mechanics 6, pp 183-236
• Bieniawski, Z.T., 1989, Engineering Rock Mass Classifications, John Wiley & Sons,
New York
• Hoek, 2005, Practical Rock Engineering, Rockscience, Inc., Toronto, Canada Available
on-line at <www.rocscience.com>.
• Parker, Harvey W. 1996, Geotechnical Investigations, Chapter 4 of Tunnel Engineering
Handbook, 2nd Edition, edited by Kuesel & King, Chapman & Hall, New York
• USNC/TT (1984), Geotechnical Site Investigations for Underground Projects, U.S.
National Committee on Tunneling Technology, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
• USACE, 1997. Engineering and Design - Tunnels and Shafts in Rock, Engineering
Manual, EM 1110-2-2901, U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s, Washington, D.C.
 Site Investigation:
Conclusions
ƒ Geology Dominates Every Major Decision
ƒ Allow Geo-Issues their Proper Role in Planning
ƒ Challenges of the Underground are Enormous
ƒ Exploration programs “see” only a very small % of
volume to be tunnelled. (0.0005%)
ƒ Do Proper Geo-Investigation
ƒ Follow Guidelines
 Site Investigation:
Conclusions
ƒ Start Geotechnical Work in Conceptual
Stage & Continue Geo Observations
ƒ During Construction
ƒ As Built Report
ƒ While in Service
 Site Investigation:
Conclusions
• Determine Mass Physical Properties
– Not just intact properties
– Distinguish between properties and behavior
• Behavior is Complex:
– Owner owns ground
– Contractor owns means & methods
– Never that clear
• Prepare a Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) also
known as Geotechnical Reference Conditions Report
– Distinguish between Fact and Interpretation
 Site Investigation:
Conclusions
ƒ Use Best Practices Possible
ƒ Use Tunnelling Classification Systems Carefully
ƒ Use New Techniques
ƒ Use them properly
ƒ Incorporate Formal Risk Studies Early
ƒ Use risk & uncertainty to drive geo
- studies
ƒ Incorporate Geo-Risk into Risk-Based Cost
Ranges
 Site Investigation:
Conclusions
• Budget 3% for Geotechnical Investigation

ƒ Don't do any exploration unless it specifically fills

a genuine need
ƒ However, often, reduction of uncertainty is a genuine need

ƒ Good Exploration reduces BID COST by:

ƒ 10 to 15 Times the Cost of Exploration
 Overall Conclusion

Geology & Geotechnology are

Essential to Planning, Design &
Construction
 Thank You
Harvey W. Parker
President, International Tunnelling Associaton
 ITA/AITES

Clause de non-responsabilité pour les rapports des groupes de travail de l'AITES

L’Association Internationale des Travaux en Souterrain (AITES) publie ce rapport, conformément à ses Statuts, pour faciliter les échanges d’informations afin :
d’encourager l’utilisation du sous-sol au profit du grand public, de l’environnement et du développement durable;
de promouvoir les progrès dans la planification, le projet, la construction, l’entretien, la réhabilitation et la sécurité des tunnels et de l’espace souterrain en
rassemblant et confrontant les informations, ainsi qu’en étudiant les questions qui s’y rapportent.
Cependant, l’AITES décline toute responsabilité en ce qui concerne les informations publiées dans ce rapport.
Ces informations :
sont exclusivement de nature générale et ne visent pas la situation particulière d’une personne physique ou morale;
ne sont pas nécessairement complètes, exhaustives, exactes ou à jour ;
proviennent parfois de sources extérieures sue lesquelles les services de l’AITES n’ont aucun contrôle et pour lesquelles l’AITES décline toute responsabilité ;
ne constituent pas un avis professionnel or juridique (si vous avez besoin d’avis spécifiques, consultez toujours un professionnel dûment qualifié).

Disclaimer for the reports of ITA working groups

The International Tunnelling Association (ITA) publishes this report to, in accordance with its statutes, facilitate the exchange of information, in order:
to encourage planning of the subsurface for the benefit of the public, environment and sustainable development
to promote advances in planning, design, construction, maintenance and safety of tunnels and underground space, by bringing together information thereon and
by studying questions related thereto.
However ITA accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the material published in this report.
This material is:
information of a general nature only, which is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual or entity;
not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date;
sometimes collected from external sources over which ITA services have no control and for which ITA assumes no responsibility;
not professional or legal advice (if you need specific advice, you should always consult a suitably qualified professional).
117/**