TBM PERFORMANCE AND EXAMPLES OF PROGNOSIS NB # 4

MACHINE CONCEPTS, OPEN AND DOUBLE-SHIELD TBM CUTTER ACTION AND ADVANTAGES OF JOINTING EXPLAINING TBM PROGRESS WITH Q ALONE IS LIMITED A SURVEY OF 145 TBM TUNNELS CASE RECORD ANALYSIS OF DECELERATION FACTORS AFFECTING UTILIZATION USE Q FOR EXPLAINING UNEXPECTED EVENTS THE QTBM PROGNOSIS MODEL: Q and TBM TBM-rock rock interaction SOME EXAMPLES OF QTBM APPLICATION....Oslo-Ski PROBE DRILLING AND PILOT TUNNELS
1

THE SIMPLEST TBM CONCEPT. IN PRACTICE A FINGER-SHIELD IS PROVIDED TO HOLD ANY LOOSE ROCK PRIOR TO BOLTING quite close to the face

OPEN TBM BASED ON CONCEPT OF ROCK REINFORCEMENT (BOLTS) AND SUPERFICIAL SUPPORT (SHOTCRETE) AS CLOSE TO THE TUNNEL FACE AS POSSIBLE TO MINIMISE LOOSENING

A 30-YEARS-BACK GLIMSE OF A 4m DIAMETER TBM WITH 17INCH CUTTERS. FREQUENCY OF CUTTER-CHANGE DEPENDS ON RADIAL LOCATION. LOCATION THIS TYPE OF OPEN FACE (i.e. (i e very protuding cutters) WORKED WELL IN STABLE SHALES AND LIMESTONES (SEWAGE COLLECTOR TUNNEL/OSLO FJORD)

A TBM that got badly stuck in faulted rock.probably due to cutter exposure.

DOUBLE-SHIELD, post 2000 era. NOTE LACK OF RECESSES AROUND CUTTERS IN ORDER TO MINIMISE CUTTER-HEAD JAMMING CAUSED BY BLOCK BLOCK-LOOSENING. LOOSENING (ONE OF FOUR GUADARRAMA TBM: MADRID-SEGOVIA, RAIL)

DOUBLE-SHIELD FOR PROTECTED PC-ELEMENT RINGBUILDING GRIPPER ACTION COORDINATED WITH AXIAL PUSH BUILDING. OFF SUCCESSIVE RINGS OF PC-ELEMENTS

DOUBLE-SHIELD ALLOWING SUPPORTING ELEMENT ASSEMBLY WHILE BORING, WITH PUSH-OFF-LINER CAPABILITY IS EFFICIENT BUT AT AN INCREASED PRICE AS FAR AS REQUIRED SUPPORT IS CONCERNED

THE UNREQUIRED (FOR SUPPORT) LINER MAY BE DEMONSTRATED BY THE HIGH ROCK QUALITY QUALITY, WHERE CROSS-PASSAGES HAVE TO BE BLASTED

10

Guadarrama: four TBM, , 14 km each

(2 x Herrenknecht, 2 x Wirth)

11

IN UNSTABLE ROCK THE TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT OF GRIPPER THRUST BY PUSH-OFF PUSH OFF LINER HAS CLEAR ADVANTAGES

12

TBM TUNNEL IN COLUMNAR-JOINTING (BASALT-LIKE TUFF), SHOWING OVER-BREAK OVER BREAK THAT CAUSES DIFFICULTY FOR GRIPPERS (NTS/ Yucca Mountain Project NEVADA)

13

SHIELD CONTRA OPEN-TBM, THE LATTER ALLOWING SPILING OR BOLTING THROUGH THE FINGERSHIELD, CLOSER TO THE FACE, WHEN STAND-UP TIME IS LIMITED. LIMITED MARGINAL STABILITY IS MORE EASILY SOLVED IN D+B.....IT IS OVER-BREAK ! Question: Open-gripper is more s suitable, itable or doubledo ble shield is more suitable, in this fault zone ?? The answer is complicated p !!

Double-shield can get trapped, pp , but might g be the perfect solution in minor and un-treated fault zones.
14

TWO-TO-THREE PLANAR JOINT SETS, ONE OF THEM BEDDING CAUSES AUTOMATIC LOCAL INSTABILITY. PC-element RING-BUILDING may be COMPROMISED in the case of DOUBLE-SHIELD TBM.

15

IF THE PC-ELEMENT LINER IS NOT BOLTED, FREQUENT BLOCK FALL-OUT CAN COMPROMISE THE RING-BUILDING WEDGE-LOCK PROCESS (CHANNEL TUNNEL / UK SIDE)

16

Bolted elements. Note push-off liner for resetting grippers. (If grippers cannot be used in a fault zone zone, thrust is provided by pushing-off the last ring of PC-elements).

17

EXTREME STRESS-INDUCED FAILURE....OR FAULTING, MAY REQUIRE:

A) CONCRETE PADS TO TAKE GRIPPERS B) STEEL ARCHES SO CLOSE TOGETHER THEY (unintentionally) GET CRUSHED BY THE GRIPPERS

18

Cutter action
Breaking massive rock: cutter life index The advantages of jointing The advantages of fractured zones The need for support if too much jointing The need for probing and pre-injection Recovery from faulting when unprepared

19

WHEN THE ROCK MASS IS MASSIVE THE UCS, q%, CLI (CUTTERLIFE INDEX) and CUTTER FORCE (F) ARE OF MOST IMPORTANCE

20

SHORT CUTTER LIFE FOR HARD ABRASIVE ROCKS

e.g. e g Averaging 2 to 5 m tunnel advance per cutter-change cutter change (usually multiple cutter changes to increase efficiency)

21

LARGER CUTTERS (19, 20) NECESSARY FOR HARDER ROCK (BUT CORRESPONDINGLY MORE DIFFICULT TO CHANGE DUE TO HEAVY WEIGHT)

22

Example of brittle failure of cutter rim in granite, and failure to rotate for some time time, while the cutter cutterhead itself continues to rotate.

23

Examples of tunnel m/cutter, in variably fractured, faulted, and massive granites. Guadarrama Tunnel, Spain

24

FOUR JOINTING SCENARIOS WITH DIFFERENT PR

25

Some similarities between inclined borehole drilling difficulties and TBM boring difficulties

26

WHEN JOINTING IS NEARLY PERPENDICULAR TO THE TUNNEL FACE, MOST ENERGY IS USED TO ADVANCE THE TUNNEL (AR 24 hrs )

27

Some suggest that 60 is optimal. But the tunnelling in phyllonite does not provide data beyond a 60 intersection angle.

28

A CLASSIC RESULT FOR TWO JOINTS THAT INTERSECT WITHIN THE TUNNEL FACE. FACE IF A MIXED FACE (HARD/SOFT) WAS INVOLVED INVOLVED, THERE WOULD USUALLY BE OTHER LESS FAVOURABLE CONSEQUENCES.

29

THE ADVANTAGE OF TUNNEL-ORIENTED DRILLING FOR MOST RELEVANT RQD, for most relevant Q-VALUE

30

AN UNDER-POWERED TBM FROM THE 1980s. NOTE REDUCED PR DESPITE INCREASED THRUST/CUTTER (% limestone is plotted).

31

For a given rock class (Hong Kong Ian McFeat-Smith IMF classes 1 and 2) the PR may increase strongly with thrust/cutter thrust/cutter, but only if the TBM has sufficient thrust per cutter.

32

If the TBM is underpowered in relation to the rock strength, then any method of prognosis should predict predict, as experienced here, reduced PR with increased thrust

33

TBM PROGNOSIS FAILING TO PREDICT REDUCED PROGRESS WITH INCREASED CUTTER THRUST (WHEN TBM IS UNDERUNDER POWERED in relation to very hard meta-sandstones)

34

An example of a rock mass that is hard to bore with an under powered TBM under-powered TBMsee see PR = 1m/hr line
(this slide introduces the concept of deceleration.see later)
25 0 25.0

zone 1

zone 2

zone 3

zone 4

zone 5

zone 6

zone 7

zone 8

zone 9

zone 10

zone 11

OVERALL

35

SOME NORWEGIAN TRIALS WITH HIGH-POWERED ROBBINS TBM

36

FOR A GIVEN INTERSECTION ANGLE, JOINT FREQUENCY AND UCS OBVIOUSLY HELP OR HINDER PROGRESS (Barton, 1996)

37

Drilling rate for percussion holes show similarity in m/min to TBM penetration rates in m/hr

38

Note need for more thrust/mm with less joints, with higher Q-value

39

PR versus Q showing the important influence of UCS. The importance of UCS may y diminish strongly g y in the case of AR.

40

High seismic velocity means little support (unless high stress) but it also means slow PR and perhaps frequent stress), cutter change.

41

PR is for continuous boring, when lower UCS and more jointing are beneficial. AR is the actual rate of tunnel advance (=advance rate), which is slower than PR due to resetting of grippers, change of cutters, rock support needs, etc.

42

An illustration of the delays caused even by bolting alone. The reduced utilizations (U = AR/PR) are closely tied to rock mass class.

43

AUSTRIAN ROCK CLASSES F1 TO F7 WITH APPROX. APPROX Q AND RMR RANGES

44

ATLAS COPCO SYMBOLIC-LOG OF SUPPORT TYPES RELEVANT TO ROCK CLASSES F1 to F6

45

UNIQUE CASE RECORD: SAME TUNNEL DRIVEN FIRST BY TBM, THEN WIDENED BY D+B FOR ROAD TUNNEL LESS SUPPORT WAS ESTIMATED ( (and d used) d) FOR THE TBM PHASE THAN FORTHE D+B PHASE

46

EXCEPT WHERE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT OVER-BREAK IT IS EASY TO OVER-ESTIMATE THE ROCK MASS QUALITY

47

The black rectangles show where rock quality may be over-estimated.

48

A survey of 145 TBM tunnels

GREAT MAJORITY OPEN GRIPPER TBM
(WHERE ROCK CONDITIONS COULD BE DESCRIBED MORE ACCURATELY)

49

145 CASE-RECORDS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING BEST, AVERAGE AVERAGE , BAD BAD-GROUND GROUND PERFORMANCE.on PERFORMANCE on a log PR log T log AR graph (Barton, 2000).

50

51

SYNTHESIS OF THE 145 CASE RECORDS, TOTALLING ABOUT 1000 KM OF TBM TUNNELLING
NOTE: CONVENTIONAL TBM EQUATION EQUATION: AR = PR X U

U = UTILIZATION gradually declines with increased tunnel length.....if all time, even down-time, is included. Gradient (-)m is deceleration.

52

Double-shield machines with simultaneous liner assembly, and push-off capabilities formed very few of these case records . Rock quality can be described only approximately when seen with difficulty during e e.g.cutter g cutter change. For source of long arrow see next screen.

53

Source of long arrow on previous slide. Guadarrama 4 x TBM, 14 km each

54

55

A smaller double-shield TBM with slow first 4 months due to various inefficiencies, including California switch and drive motor repair. Compare cross (progress so far) drive-motor and ellipse (Guadarrama)

56

IN THE 145 CASE-RECORD-REVIEW....THE UNEXPECTED EVENTS (STANDSTILLS, EVENTS (STANDSTILLS BLOCKED CUTTER CUTTER-HEAD HEAD, EXTRA DELAYS FOR HEAVY SUPPORT), WERE STRONGLY RELATED WITH .....LOW Q-VALUES (more negative m)

57

Gradient (-)m

is ALL-IMPORTANT!

AR = PR x U (where ( h U U= utilization tili ti f for b boring) i ) AR = PR x Tm (i.e. ( utilization is time-dependent) ) (T is actual hours)

(large -m in fault zones, small -m when no problems, maybe small -m with doubleshield, but pre-treatment / pre-injection of major faults will be needed...... i.e. reduce -m)

58

DELAYS WHEN Q < 0.1 FOLLOW CONVENTIONAL Q-LOGIC WHEN Q > 1 AN INVERSE RELATION IS SHOWN THEREFORE REQUIRING THE QTBM FORMULATION FOR PR (see next screens)

59

THE QTBM MODEL FOR TBM PROGNOSIS (involves Q and machine/rock interaction)

Q TBM

RQD o Jr Jw SIGMA 20 q = 10 9 Jn J a SRF F 20 CLI 20 5

SIGMA 5 Qc1/ 3

PR 5 Q

1 / 5 TBM
60

Note AR estimation for 24 hrs, 1 week, 1 month

61

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE QTBM PROGNOSIS MODEL

Allow the Q-value to assist in determining delays d t due to support t requirements i t (it therefore th f effects ff t where appropriate - the deceleration gradient) and overall AR Allow the Q Q-value, value and critical rock-cutter rock cutter, and rockmass-machine parameters to also determine the speed p of cutting g( (therefore effecting g slower or faster PR)
(These dual and partly opposing, but legitimate roles of Q were not apparently understood by Blindheim) (See A critique of QTBM, 2005 and NB reply reply, 2005 2005, both in TTI TTI, London)
62

63

THE EMPIRICAL QTBM METHOD

THE CUTTER FORCE (F) IS NORMALIZED BY 20 tnf, AND COMPARED TO AN ESTIMATE OF ROCK MASS STRENGTH, , WHICH IS compressive or tensile strength based

64

THE QTBM METHOD MATCHES THE ROCK MASS STRENGTH AGAINST THE CUTTER FORCE, AND CAN THEREFORE PREDICT REDUCED PROGRESS IF POWER IS INSUFFICIENT DUE TO CURVE-JUMPING (This aspect is not correctly modelled in the NTH model that was favoured by Blindheim)

65

66

The three QTBM screens

(details shown later)

67

The longest (red) line shows the overall performance prediction. di ti Th The contrasting t ti effects ff t of f good d rock k and d faulted rock are easily seen but in an efficient operation with suitable TBM and experienced operator operator, the faulting (if minor) may cause limited overall delay

68

USING VP (FROM HONG KONG SUB-SEA PROJECT), IN PLACE OF QVALUE, WHEN LATTER IS NOT AVAILABLE

69

A hard-rock-with-faults prognosis from near Oslo Oslo..in in some detail detail. 2 x 9.6 km + 2 x 7.9 km tunnels needed

70

Summary of Qvalues l f for all ll logged exposures ( k cuttings) (rock tti ) for f both tunnels

71

Summary of Q-value statistics for one of the Oslo-Ski hard rock tunnels. (Fault zones treated separately, using corelogging and seismic refraction)

72

Examples of T T and U U Q-logging Q logging locations

73

Example of class 1 rock mass

74

75

Q - VALUES: Q (typical min)= Q (typical max)= Q (mean value)= Q (most frequent)=

B L O C K
2000 1500 1000 500 00 10

(RQD 75 100 96 100

V POOR V.

/ / / / /

Jn) 15.0 3.0 7.1 9.0

POOR

* * * * *

(Jr 1.0 3.0 1.8 1.5

/ / / / /
FAIR

Ja) 4.0 1.0 1.3 1.0

* * * * *

(Jw 0.50 1.00 0.83 1.00

GOOD

/ SRF) = Q / 1.0 = 0.625 / 1.0 = 100.0 / 1.0 = 15.36 / 1.0 = 16.67

EXC

RQD %
Core pieces >= 10 cm

20 FOUR

30

40

50

60 TWO

70

80 ONE

90

100 NONE

S I Z E S

1000 800 600 400 200 00

EARTH

THREE

S O U T H N O R T H C O M P A R E D

Q - VALUES: Q (typical min)= Q (typical max)= Q (mean value)= Q (most frequent)=

B L O C K
6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 00

(RQD 75 100 98 100

V POOR V.

/ / / / /

Jn) 15.0 4.0 8.4 9.0

POOR

* * * * *

(Jr 1.0 4.0 1.7 1.5

/ / / / /
FAIR

Ja) 5.0 1.0 1.3 1.0

* * * * *

(Jw 0.50 1.00 0.75 0.66

GOOD

/ SRF) = Q / 1.0 = 0.500 / 1.0 = 100.0 / 1.0 = 11.07 / 1.0 = 11.00

EXC

RQD %
Core pieces >= 10 cm

10

20 FOUR

30

40

50

60 TWO

70

80 ONE

90

100 NONE

Jn
Number of joint sets

S I Z E S

4000 3000 2000 1000 00

EARTH

THREE

Jn
Number of joint sets

20

15

12 PLANAR

3 UNDULATING

0,5 DISC.

20

15

12 PLANAR

3 UNDULATING

0,5 DISC.

(r) and T A N

T A N

1500 1000 500 00

FILLS

Jr
Joint roughness - least 1 0,5 THICK FILLS 1 1,5 1,5 THIN FILLS 2 3 4

(r) and T A N

T A N

4000 3000 2000 1000 00

FILLS

Jr
Joint roughness - least 1 0,5 THICK FILLS 1 1,5 1,5 THIN FILLS 2 3 4

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 00 20 13

COATED UNFILLED HEA

Ja
Joint alteration - least 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 WET 2 1 0,75

(p)

(p)

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 00 20 13

COATED UNFILLED HEA

Ja
Joint alteration - least 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 WET 2 1 0,75

A C T I V E S T R E S S

1500 1000 500 00 0.05 3000 2000 1000 00

20 15

EXC. INFLOWS

HIGH PRESSURE

DRY

Jw
Joint water pressure 0.1 SWELL 0.2 FAULTS 0.33 0.5 0.66 1

A C T I V E S T R E S S

5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 00 0.05 6000 4000 2000 00

20 15

EXC. INFLOWS

HIGH PRESSURE

DRY

Jw
Joint water pressure 0.1 SWELL 0.2 FAULTS 0.33 0.5 0.66 1

SQUEEZE

STRESS / STRENGTH

SQUEEZE

STRESS / STRENGTH

SRF
Stress reduction factor
10 5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5

SRF
Stress reduction factor
10 5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5

Rev.

Report No.

Figure No.

Rev.

Report No.

Figure No.

JBV OSLO-SKI
Borehole No. :

NB&A #1
Drawn by

9
Date

JBV OSLO-SKI
Borehole No. :

NB&A #1
Drawn by

10
Date

Q-histogram based on compilation of all rock-exposure logging for TUNNEL-NORTH, therefore excluding core and weakness zones.

rock exposures
Depth zone (m) near-surface

NB&A
Checked

30.8.09

Q-histogram based on compilation of all rock-exposure logging for TUNNEL-SOUTH, therefore excluding core and weakness zones.

Rock slopes
Depth zone (m) near-surface

NB&A
Checked

31.8.09

nrb
Approved

nrb
Approved

76

INPUT DATA ZONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Class Class Class Class Class LITHOLOGY 5 4 3 2 1 granitic granitic granitic granitic granitic tonalitic tonalitic tonalitic tonalitic gneiss

RQD
85.00 95.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Jn
15.00 12.00 9.00 4.00 2.00

Jr
1.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 3.00

Ja
2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Jw
0.66 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00

SRF
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

m1
-0.10 -0.10 -0.11 0.11 -0.12 -0.12

RQD 0
85.00 95.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

2.65 2.70 2.75 2.80 2.80

BASIC CALCULATION ZONE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Class Class Class Class Class LITHOLOGY 5 4 3 2 1 granitic granitic granitic granitic granitic tonalitic tonalitic tonalitic tonalitic gneiss STABILITY ORIENTED ROCK MASS STRENGTH

Q
1.87 7.84 16.67 50.00 150.00

Q0
1.87 7.84 16.67 50.00 150.00

Q Qc
2.81 15.68 34.17 105.00 375.00

QT
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SIGMACM SIGMA TM SIGMA 18.69 33.79 44.62 66.05 100.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.69 33.79 44.62 66.05 100.96

PERFORMANCE ZONE LITHOLOGY PENETRATION TIME TO ADVANCE OVERALL PERFORMANCE

PR
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Class Class Class Class Class 5 4 3 2 1 granitic granitic granitic granitic granitic tonalitic tonalitic tonalitic tonalitic gneiss 5.25 3.48 2.97 2.13 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AR
2.77 1.38 0.78 0.54 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

T
180.18 1,090.87 6,388.26 3,678.09 1,242.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

check
500.00 1,500.00 5,000.00 2,000.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

L
9,500.00 m

T
PRL(av) 12,579.65 h 2.9104

ART(av) 9.50 km 17.47 month

0.7552

77


80.00 80.00 80.00 0.00 0.00

c
150.00 200.00 205.00 210.00 250.00

I50
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

F
22.00 24.00 26.00 26.00 26.00

CLI
15.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 5.00

q
25.00 25.00 30.00 30.00 35.00

3.50 4.00 5.00 6.00 8.00

D
10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00

n
2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

L
500 1,500 5,000 2,000 500 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vp
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Q
A TBM 0.79 6.11 13.49 71.86 615.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00

GRADIENT m -0.12 -0.13 -0.15 -0.17 -0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00

78

Fault zones drilled following seismic refraction

79

Selected length of core from BH 741: 57.4 to 71.6 m. The blue pen is penetrating two regions of plastic, slightly sandy clay.

80

Q - VALUES: Q (typical min)= Q (typical max)= Q (mean value)= Q (most frequent)=

B L O C K
25 20 15 10 05 00 10

(RQD 10 100 67 95
V. POOR

/ / / / /

Jn) 20.0 3.0 11.2 12.0

POOR

* * * * *

(Jr 1.0 3.0 1.6 1.5

/ / / / /
FAIR

Ja) 8.0 1.0 3.5 2.0

* * * * *

(Jw 0.50 1.00 0.62 0.66

GOOD

/ SRF) = Q / 5.0 = 0.006 / 1.0 = 100.0 / 1.5 = 1.16 / 1.0 = 3.92

EXC

RQD %
Core pieces >= 10 cm

20 FOUR

30

40 THREE

50

60 TWO

70

80 ONE

90

100 NONE

S I Z E S

30 25 20 15 10 05 00

EARTH

Jn
Number of joint sets

20

15

12

0,5 DISC.

(r) and T A N

T A N

40 30 20 10 00

FILLS

PLANAR

UNDULATING

Jr
Joint roughness - least 1 0,5 THICK FILLS 1 1,5 1,5 THIN FILLS 2 COATED 3 4

40 30 20 10 00 20 13

UNFILLED HEA

Ja
Joint J i t alteration - least 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 WET 2 1 0,75

(p)

A C T I V E S T R E S S

60 50 40 30 20 10 00 0.05 80 60 40 20 00
20 15 10

EXC. INFLOWS

HIGH PRESSURE

DRY

Jw
Joint water t pressure 0.1 SWELL 0.2 FAULTS 0.33 0.5 0.66 1

Q-histogram logging result for all the selected core boxes, representing spot-check of seven boreholes in faulted rock.

SQUEEZE

STRESS / STRENGTH

SRF
Stress reduction f t factor
5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20 10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5

Rev.

Report No.

Figure No.

JBV OSLO-SKI
Borehole No. :

NB&A #1
Drawn by

AA8
Date

Q-histogram trends for selected core with weakness zones or faults: aggregate of seven holes.

Seven holes
Depth zone (m) Range 18-144m

NB&A
Checked

1.9.09

nrb
Approved

81

Example of input-data screen for one of the modelled weakness zones..note use of VP in place of Q
Schematic Geology Z5 Z6 Z7

Z1 0 18 ZONE 7

Z2 1 19

Z3 2 20 3 18

Z4

Z8 7

Z9 8

Z 10 9 Z 11 10

4 19

5 20

6 10

LITHOLOGY

Type 1 weakness zone INPUT DATA

ZONE LENGTH

10

RQD
6

Jn

Jr

Ja

Jw

SRF

-m1
-0.55

RQD0

(g/cm )

VP
(km /s)

2.4

2.2

c
(MPa)

I50
(MPa)

F
(tf)

CLI
40.0

q
%

(MPa)

D
(m )

n %
6.0

50.0

4.0

10.0

5.0

10.0

82

Seismic refraction Vp result coverts to Q-value, and vice versa (in case of shallow tunnel)

83

Z1 0 18 ZONE 9

Z2 1 19

Z3 2 20 3 18

Z4

Z5

Z6

Z7

Z8 7 20

Z9 8 30

Z 10 9 Z 11 10

4 19

5 20

6 10

Cumulated time for the nine simulated weakness zones is nearly three months (2.9 months).
30

LITHOLOGY

Type 3 weakness zone INPUT DATA

ZONE LENGTH

RQD
8

Jn

Jr

Ja

Jw

SRF

-m1
-0 25 -0.25

RQD0

(g/cm )

VP
(km /s)

27 2.7

34 3.4

c
(MPa)

I50
(MPa)

F
(tf)

CLI
20.0

q
%

(MPa)

D
(m )

n %
2.0

150.0

8.0

25.0

5.0

10.0

In these simulations, no pretreatment has been modelled: neither the delay caused by preinjection (doubled m, approx.), nor the tougher boring through improved rock, nor the faster boring through Q-improved-by-grouting weakness zones.
Site Weakness zones, types 1, 2 an Date 08/09/2009

TIME FOR TUNNEL COMPLETION (months)

2.9

zone 1

zone 2

zone 3

zone 4

zone 5

zone 6

zone 7

zone 8

zone 9

zone 10

zone 11

OVERALL

84

Example of single-shield (cube) and double-shield (star) (F = 28 or 26 tnf). Different gradients (-m) give the major differences.
(Note: untreated major fault (LOWEST LINE) stops TBM.in simulation)

85

Input data screen for assumed Class 1 rock mass Input-data

S h Schematic ti G Geology l Z5 Z6 Z7

Z1 0 500 ZONE 5

Z2 1 1500

Z3 2 5000

Z4

Z8 7

Z9 8

Z 10 9 Z 11 10

3 2000

4 500

LITHOLOGY

Class 1 granitic gneiss INPUT DATA

ZONE LENGTH

500

RQD
4 100.0

Jn
2.0

Jr
3.0

Ja
1.0

Jw
1.00

SRF
1.0

-m1
-0.19

RQD0
100.0

(g/cm )

VP
(km /s)

2.8

c
(MPa)

I50
(MPa)

F
(tf)

CLI
5.0

q
%

(MPa)

D
(m )

n %
1.0

250.0

32.0

35.0

8.0

10.0

86

Approximate distribution of rock classes in the North and South tunnels.

(Representative mean depths are shown in parentheses). Poorer rock classes Q6, Q7 and Q8 were evaluated by means of VP from refraction seismic profiles in known weakness zones, and logging of relevant lengths g of core.

87

TIME FOR TUNNEL COMPLETION (months)

Site TUNNEL SOUTH grippers only Date 09/09/2009

20.7

SOUTH TUNNELS
zone 1 zone 2 zone 3

zone 4

zone 5

zone 6

zone 7

zone 8

Comparing open gripper TBM and d bl hi ld double-shield TBM

(21 months, 10 months, but minus weakness zones)
Site TUNNEL SOUTH push-off-liner Date 09/09/2009

zone 9

zone 10

zone 11

OVERALL

TIME FOR TUNNEL COMPLETION (months)

9.9

zone 1

zone 2

zone 3

zone 4

zone 5

zone 6

zone 7

zone 8

zone 9

zone o e 10 0

zone 11

88

OVERALL

Reduce risk by probe probe-drilling drilling

Perhaps can utilize seismic as well Perhaps can perform semi-efficient pregrouting (but with limited coverage)

89

PROBE-DRILLING FOR MWD AND SONIC LOGGING, TO POTENTIALLY GET A Q-VALUE Q VALUE ESTIMATE.....BUT ESTIMATE BUT NOTE STRESS EFFECT!

90

MEASURED VP (at depth) MAY NEED DEPTH -CORRECTION

91

TSP FOR PICKING UP REFLECTORS. NOTE SONIC PROBE, WHICH GIVES MORE DIRECT INFORMATION

92

PROBE DRILLING IN KARST MIGHT BE ADVISEABLE ! PROBE-DRILLING

93

PILOT TUNNEL FOR PRE-SUPPORT OF ARCH OF LARGER TUNNEL AN EXPENSIVE FORM OF PROBE-DRILLING

94

AN EARLY EXAMPLE OF THE POTENTIAL DELAYS CAUSED BY PRE-INJECTION CEMENT OR CHEMICAL, IN 3.3m TBM. IN REALITY THE DELAY IS AN INVESTMENT IN TROUBLE-FREE TUNNELLING

95

The two sloping lines, originating from a PR = 4 m/hr represent the deceleration increase caused by the previously shown pre-grouting.(-m) roughly doubles.

96

CONCLUSIONS
1. As a result of a wide-reaching review of TBM case records, and extensive trial and error development of a prognosis method called QTBM (detailed in Barton, 2000), it is possible to calculate the PR, AR and time-for-tunnelling T trends for TBM tunnelling through different rock mass classes (described by Q) and through different weakness zones (described by Q or VP). 2. A key finding and quantification from the analysis of 145 cases representing about 1000 km of mostly open-gripper TBM machines, is the inevitable decline in advance rate with time interval, despite improved learning curve efficiencies at the start. 3 The declining utilization U is quantified as Tm, with the gradient (-m) 3. ( m) initially given by the Q-value where rock conditions are very poor, but mostly by cutter abrasion terms in the better quality rock masses.
97