TBM PERFORMANCE AND

EXAMPLES OF PROGNOSIS: QTBM

PROBLEMS WITH FAULT ZONES

NB # 6

 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-rock interaction

 SOME EXAMPLES OF QTBM APPLICATION....Oslo-Ski

 PROBLEMS WITH FAULT ZONES 1

THE ALTERNATIVES: TBM, (or TBM and D+B, or D+B alone)

2
 TBM tunnels not always circular!

Beaumont TBM Tunnel, 1880 :

wedge-failure,
stress-failure,
tidal influence.

Three TBM photos separated by 150 m.

3
TBM probe drilling and pre-grouting D.Willis, Robbins. Tunnelling Journal, 2012.

4
MARGINAL STABILITY IS
MORE EASILY ’SOLVED’ IN
D+B.....IT IS OVER-BREAK !

Double-shield can get trapped,

but might be the perfect
solution in minor and un-
treated fault zones.

(Robbins, 1982 – record breaking

progress, then stopped in glacial
debris. Note finger shield.)

5
A recent TBM that got badly stuck in faulted rock, probably due to
excessive cutter exposure, as when blocks fall they can
prevent cutter-head rotation.

6
 OPEN-GRIPPER
(High-powered TBM)
Tailored rock support and
reinforcement

(Robbins, D.Willis)

DOUBLE-SHIELD
(PC-element RING-BUILDING
inside tail shield)

(Robbins, D. Willis)
7
DOUBLE-SHIELD TBM. NOTE LACK OF RECESSES AROUND
CUTTERS IN ORDER TO MINIMISE CUTTER-HEAD JAMMING
CAUSED BY BLOCK-FALLS IN HARD ROCK. (Wirth/Aker).

(ONE OF FOUR GUADARRAMA TBM: MADRID-SEGOVIA, RAIL)

8
DOUBLE-SHIELD TBM FOR PROTECTED PC-ELEMENT RING-BUILDING.

GRIPPER ACTION COORDINATED WITH AXIAL PUSH OFF SUCCESSIVE

RINGS OF PC-ELEMENTS. GREAT EFFICIENCY. Wirth/Aker.
(GOOD UTILIZATION = U) IS POSSIBLE. Guadarrama Tunnels/South portal.

9
Double-shield gripper re-set, push-off (last ring) liner animation. Herrenknecht.
Photos from inside Guadarrama Tunnels (North portal. N.Barton)

10
 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.
Guadarrama North
Portal.
11
 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

12
WHEN THE ROCK MASS IS MASSIVE THE UCS, q%, CLI (CUTTER-
LIFE INDEX) and CUTTER FORCE (F) ARE OF MOST IMPORTANCE
Note need for optimal cutter spacing

13
 Examples of new, worn,
‘seized’, and sharpened
cutters.

Cutter ‘sharpened’ in a
certain category of fault zone.

(Guadarrama examples)

14
 SHORT CUTTER LIFE FOR HARD ABRASIVE ROCKS
e.g. Averaging 2 to 5 m tunnel advance per cutter-change
(usually multiple cutter changes each 24 hours, to increase efficiency)

15
LARGER CUTTERS (19”, 20”) NECESSARY FOR HARDER ROCK
(BUT CORRESPONDINGLY MORE DIFFICULT TO CHANGE DUE
TO HEAVY WEIGHT)

16
 FOUR JOINTING SCENARIOS WITH DIFFERENT PR
(PR = penetration rate, with uninterrupted boring: m/hr)

17
18
A CLASSIC RESULT (from NTNU) FOR TWO JOINTS THAT INTERSECT
WITHIN THE TUNNEL FACE. IF A MIXED FACE (HARD/SOFT) WAS
INVOLVED, THERE WOULD USUALLY BE OTHER LESS FAVOURABLE
CONSEQUENCES.

19
AN UNDER-POWERED TBM FROM THE 1980’s. NOTE REDUCED
PR DESPITE INCREASED THRUST/CUTTER
(% limestone is plotted).

20
 For a given rock class (Hong Kong ’Ian McFeat-Smith’ IMF classes 1
and 2) the PR may increase strongly with thrust/cutter, but only if the
TBM has sufficient thrust per cutter.

21
TBM PROGNOSIS FAILING TO PREDICT REDUCED PROGRESS
WITH INCREASED CUTTER THRUST (WHEN TBM IS UNDER-
POWERED in relation to very hard meta-sandstones)

22
 Hydraulic drilling rate for e.g. probe-holes, show similarity in m/min to
TBM penetration rates (PR) in m/hr. Joint spacing applies in each case
to limestones. See Barton, 2000.

23
PR versus Q showing the important influence of UCS. The importance
of UCS may diminish strongly in the case of AR.

24
 High seismic velocity means little support (unless high
stress), but it also means slow PR and perhaps frequent
cutter change.

25
 TBM DELAYS

• Due to support / reinforcement needs

• Expressed as reduced utilization (U)
• AR therefore reduced in relation to PR

26
 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.

27
An illustration of the delays caused even by bolting alone. The reduced
utilizations (U = AR/PR) are closely tied to rock mass class.

28
AUSTRIAN ROCK CLASSES
F1 TO F7 WITH APPROX.
Q AND RMR RANGES

29
ATLAS COPCO SYMBOLIC-LOG OF SUPPORT TYPES
RELEVANT TO ROCK CLASSES F1 to F6

30
EXCEPT WHERE THERE IS SIGNIFICANT OVER-BREAK IT IS EASY TO
OVER-ESTIMATE THE ROCK MASS QUALITY Q (or RMR) in TBM tunnels.

31
The grey rectangles show where rock quality may be over-estimated.
To the left (lower Q) we can see over-break in D+B and TBM. To the
right, no over-break is seen in either.

32
 A survey of 145 TBM tunnel
lengths: about 1000 km total
GREAT MAJORITY = OPEN GRIPPER TBM

(WHERE ROCK CONDITIONS COULD BE DESCRIBED

MORE ACCURATELY)

33
 145 CASE-RECORDS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING ‘BEST’,
‘AVERAGE’, ‘BAD-GROUND’ PERFORMANCE….on a log PR – log
T – log AR graph (Barton, 2000).

34
SYNTHESIS OF THE 145 CASE RECORDS, TOTALLING ABOUT 1000 KM
OF TBM TUNNELLING. SEE #1, 2 , 3 PERFORMANCE (next screen)
CONVENTIONAL TBM EQUATION: AR = PR x U AR = PR x Tm
U = UTILIZATION gradually declines with increased tunnel length.....if all time,
even down-time, is included. Gradient (-)m is deceleration.

35
Double-shield machines with simultaneous liner assembly, and push-off
liner capabilities formed very few of these case records. Rock quality can
be described only approximately when seen with difficulty during e.g. cutter
change. For source of long arrow – see next screen ≈ halved gradient.

The blue line

is the mean
performance
of four TBM
(2 x Wirth)
(2 x HKnecht)
tunnelling 56km
(14km each) in
mostly gneiss,
two mountains.
 Source of ‘long arrow’ on previous slide.
Guadarrama 4 x TBM, 14 km each, 30-33 months.

37
A smaller double-shield TBM with slow first 4 months due to
various inefficiencies, including California switch and drive-motor
repair. But very massive hard abrasive rock for 5 km length.
Compare cross (progress so far) and ellipse (Guadarrama).

38
IN THE 145 CASE-RECORD-REVIEW....THE ’UNEXPECTED
EVENTS’ (STANDSTILLS, BLOCKED CUTTER-HEAD, EXTRA
DELAYS FOR HEAVY SUPPORT), WERE STRONGLY RELATED
WITH .....LOW Q-VALUES (more negative m)

39
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)

40
 THE QTBM MODEL FOR TBM PROGNOSIS

(involves Q and machine/rock interaction)

RQD o Jr Jw SIGMA 20 q 
    10   
Q TBM
Jn 
Ja SRF F 20 9

CLI 20 5

SIGMA  5  Q c
1/ 3

1/ 5
PR  5 Q TBM

41
 Note AR estimation for 24 hrs, 1 week, 1 month
New ‘adjectives’ for TBM (Q tbm ≈ 0.3 to 30 is ideal for fast progress)

42
43
THE EMPIRICAL QTBM METHOD

THE CUTTER FORCE (F) IS

NORMALIZED BY 20 tnf,
AND COMPARED TO AN
ESTIMATE OF ROCK MASS
STRENGTH (SIGMA) WHICH
IS compressive or tensile
strength based.

44
The three QTBM screens
(details shown later)

45
Example of single-shield (cube) and double-shield (star) (F = 28 or 26
tnf). Different gradients (-m) give the major differences.
Both methods to be used in this example.

(Note: untreated major fault (LOWEST LINE) stops TBM…….in simulation)

46
A ‘hard-rock-with-faults’ prognosis
from near Oslo…..in some detail.

2 x 9.6 km + 2 x 7.9 km tunnels

needed

47
 Summary of Q-
values for all
logged exposures
(rock cuttings) for
both tunnels

48
 Summary of Q-value
statistics for one of the
Oslo-Ski hard rock
tunnels.

(Fault zones treated

separately, using core-
logging and seismic
refraction)

49
Examples of ‘T’ and ‘U’ Q-logging locations

50
Example of class 1 rock mass: may give slow PR with
TBM (but perfect for drill-and-blast)

51
ADDING THE OBSERVATIONS: example of frequency of RQD, Jn and Jr for
Tunnel South.

52
Q - VALUES: (RQD / Jn) * (Jr / Ja) * (Jw / SRF) = Q Q - VALUES: (RQD / Jn) * (Jr / Ja) * (Jw / SRF) = Q
Q (typical min)= 75 / 15.0 * 1.0 / 4.0 * 0.50 / 1.0 = 0.625 S Q (typical min)= 75 / 15.0 * 1.0 / 5.0 * 0.50 / 1.0 = 0.500
Q (typical max)= 100 / 3.0 * 3.0 / 1.0 * 1.00 / 1.0 = 100.0 Q (typical max)= 100 / 4.0 * 4.0 / 1.0 * 1.00 / 1.0 = 100.0
Q (mean value)= 96 / 7.1 * 1.8 / 1.3 * 0.83 / 1.0 = 15.36 O Q (mean value)= 98 / 8.4 * 1.7 / 1.3 * 0.75 / 1.0 = 11.07
Q (most frequent)= 100 / 9.0 * 1.5 / 1.0 * 1.00 / 1.0 = 16.67 Q (most frequent)= 100 / 9.0 * 1.5 / 1.0 * 0.66 / 1.0 = 11.00
B 2000
V. POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXC U B 6000
V. POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXC

L L 5000
RQD %
O
C
1500
1000
RQD %
Core pieces
>= 10 cm
T O
C
4000
3000
2000
Core pieces
>= 10 cm
K 500 K
H
1000
00 00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

S
I
1000
800
EARTH FOUR THREE TWO ONE NONE

Jn
+ S
I
4000
3000
EARTH FOUR THREE TWO ONE NONE

Jn
Z 600 Z
E
S
400
200
Number of
joint sets N E
S
2000
1000
Number of
joint sets

00
00
20 15 12 9 6 4 3 2 1 0,5 O 20 15 12 9 6 4 3 2 1 0,5

FILLS PLANAR UNDULATING DISC. FILLS PLANAR UNDULATING DISC.

R
1500 4000
T T
A 1000 Jr A 3000 Jr
N Joint N 2000 Joint
(fr) 500

00
roughness
- least T (fr) 1000
00
roughness
- least

and and

2500
1 0,5

THICK FILLS
1 1,5 1,5

THIN FILLS
2

COATED UNFILLED HEA

3 4
H T
6000
1 0,5

THICK FILLS
1 1,5 1,5

THIN FILLS
2

COATED UNFILLED HEA

3 4

T 5000
2000
A Ja A 4000 Ja
1500
N Joint N 3000 Joint
(fp)
1000
(fp) alteration 2000 alteration
500
00
20 13 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 2 1 0,75
- least
C 1000
00
20 13 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 2 1 0,75
- least

A
C
1500
EXC. INFLOWS HIGH PRESSURE WET DRY
O A
C
5000
4000
EXC. INFLOWS HIGH PRESSURE WET DRY

T Jw T Jw
M
1000 3000
I Joint I 2000
Joint
V 500 water V water
pressure 1000 pressure
E E
00
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.33 0.5 0.66 1 P 00
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.33 0.5 0.66 1

S SQUEEZE SWELL FAULTS STRESS / STRENGTH S SQUEEZE SWELL FAULTS STRESS / STRENGTH
T
R
3000

2000 SRF
A T
R
6000

4000 SRF
E Stress E Stress
S
S
1000

00
reduction
factor R S
S
2000

00
reduction
factor

20 15 10 5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20

Rev.
10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5

Report No. Figure No. E 20

JBV OSLO-SKI
15 10 5 20 15 10 5 10 7.5 5 2.5 400 200 100 50 20

Rev.
10 5 2 0.5 1 2.5

Report No. Figure No.

10
JBV OSLO-SKI NB&A #1 9 NB&A #1

Q-histogram based on compilation of all rock-exposure

Borehole No. :

rock exposures
Drawn by

NB&A
Date

30.8.09
D Q-histogram based on compilation of all rock-exposure
Borehole No. :

Rock slopes
Depth zone (m)
Drawn by

NB&A
Checked
Date

31.8.09
Depth zone (m) Checked

logging for TUNNEL-NORTH, therefore excluding core near-surface nrb logging for TUNNEL-SOUTH, therefore excluding core near-surface nrb 53
Approved Approved
and weakness zones. and weakness zones.
Input-data screen for assumed Class 1 rock mass. Many adverse
characteristics for TBM (low PR). (Perfect for drill-and-blast).

54
NORTH TUNNELS

Comparing open-
gripper TBM (top)
and double-shield
TBM (bottom).

(37.9 months or
17.5 months,
but minus
weakness
zones).
WEAKNESS/FAULT zones drilled following seismic refraction

56
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.

57
Q - VALUES: (RQD / Jn) * (Jr / Ja) * (Jw / SRF) = Q
Q (typical min)= 10 / 20.0 * 1.0 / 8.0 * 0.50 / 5.0 = 0.006
Q (typical max)= 100 / 3.0 * 3.0 / 1.0 * 1.00 / 1.0 = 100.0
Q (mean value)= 67 / 11.2 * 1.6 / 3.5 * 0.62 / 1.5 = 1.16
Q (most frequent)= 95 / 12.0 * 1.5 / 2.0 * 0.66 / 1.0 = 3.92
B V. POOR POOR FAIR GOOD EXC
25
L 20
O RQD %
15
C Core pieces
10
>= 10 cm
K 05
00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

EARTH FOUR THREE TWO ONE NONE

S 30
I 25
Z 20 Jn
E 15 Number of
10 joint sets
S 05
00 Q-histogram
20 15 12 9 6 4 3 2 1 0,5

T
40
FILLS PLANAR UNDULATING DISC. logging
A
N
30
20 Joint
Jr
result for all
(fr) 10
roughness
- least

and
00
1 0,5 1 1,5 1,5 2 3 4
the selected
T
40
THICK FILLS THIN FILLS COATED UNFILLED HEA
core boxes,
A 30
Ja
N
(fp)
20
10
Joint
alteration
representing
- least
00
20 13 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 2 1 0,75
‘spot-check’
A
C
T
60
50
EXC. INFLOWS HIGH PRESSURE WET DRY

Jw
of seven
40
I
V
30
20
10
Joint
water
pressure
boreholes in
E 00
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.33 0.5 0.66 1 faulted rock.
S SQUEEZE SWELL FAULTS STRESS / STRENGTH
80
T
R 60
SRF
E 40 Stress
S 20 reduction
S factor
00
20 15 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.

JBV OSLO-SKI NB&A #1 AA8

Borehole No. : Drawn by Date

Q-histogram trends for selected core with weakness zones Seven holes NB&A 1.9.09
Depth zone (m) Checked

or faults: aggregate of seven holes. Range 18-144m nrb

Approved

58
Example of input-data screen for one of the modelled
weakness zones…..note use of VP in place of Q

59
Cumulated time for the nine
simulated weakness zones is
nearly three months (2.9 months).

In these simulations, no pre-

treatment has been modelled:
neither the delay caused by pre-
injection (doubled –m, approx.),
nor the tougher boring through
improved rock, nor the faster
boring through ‘Q-improved-by-
grouting’ weakness zones.
MEASURED VP (at depth) MAY NEED ’DEPTH-CORRECTION’

61
 FAULT ZONES AND TBM

First some theo- empirical reasons for

the possible delays

(TBM can occasionally go 2.0 km/month but more ‘often’ 0.0

km/month, and occasionally can go a record 16 km in one year,
but more ‘often’ 0.0 km in one ultra-bad year,
if stuck in a major fault).

62
WHY DO FAULT ZONES TAKE SO LONG WITH TBM ?

PRACTICAL REASONS (Robbins, 1982) ARE ILLUSTRATED BELOW,

FOLLOWED BY ‘THEO-EMPIRICAL’ REASONS

WITHOUT PROBE DRILLING…..ONE IS OFTEN TOO OPTIMISTIC

(and the probe drilling is not usually done under the invert where first
warnings would be detected……in this and many other cases) 63
Fault zones also
create great
problems for
double-shield
TBM – if zone is
not pre-treated
following probe-
drilling discovery!

(Grandori et al., 1995).

Also avoid too

much TBM
withdrawl.
ANALOGY OF TBM TUNNEL FACE WITH TBM WITHDRAWN

There is 1 year between ‘c’ and ‘d’ – presumably with insufficient support
65
 THERE ARE VERY GOOD ‘THEO – EMPIRICAL’ REASONS WHY
FAULT ZONES ARE SO DIFFICULT FOR TBM. (Barton, 2000.)

We need three basic equations to start with

1. AR = PR x U (all TBM must follow this)

2. U = Tm (due to the decelerating advance rate with time)

3. T = L / AR (obviously time for length L must be proportional to 1/AR)

Therefore we have the following:

4. T = L / (PR x Tm) (from #1, #2 and #3)

5. T = (L / PR) (1 / (1+m)

6. (this is VERY important for TBM……since m is strongly related to Q-

values …..in FAULT ZONES)
7. It is important because very negative (-)m values make 1/(1+m) TOO BIG

66
8. If the fault zone is wide (large L) and PR is low (due to collapses etc.)
then L/PR gets too big to tolerate a TOO BIG component 1/(1+m).

9. It is easy (too easy) to calculate an almost ‘infinite’ time for a fault

zone using this ‘theo-empirical’ equation. (Three permanently buried, or
fault-destroyed TBM: Pont Ventoux, Dul Hasti, Pinglin…there are many
more!)

BUT…Q CAN BE IMPROVED BY PRE-GROUTING !

(improve Q, reduce negative –m)

67
Comparing TBM with drill-and-blast

• Central qualities are required – if the TBM is to

be much faster than D+B

• Are long tunnels faster with TBM?

68
CENTRAL Q-VALUES AND QTBM VALUES ARE BEST FOR
GOOD TBM PROGRESS. TAIL-DISTRIBUTIONS ’BETTER’
WITH D+B !
(Note that this comparison is for an open-gripper machine without push-off liner
capabilities in bad rock).
Note records
for drill-and-
blast:
173m/one
face in 168
hours (7x24)
week.

Whole project
104 m/week
average (next
screen).
LNS (Northern
Norway
contractor)

Leonhard
Nilsen &
Sonner A/S

32 weeks
>100m/week

(Drill-and-blast
mine access
tunnel, one
face
progress)
 What happens (statistically-
speaking) when a long tunnel is
planned compared to a short
tunnel?

71
 LONG TUNNELS WITH FAULTS and HARD ROCK…….BEWARE !
(Assuming long tunnels are faster by TBM, is guaranteed to increase risk!)

(due to a ‘large scale’ Weibull theory…..more ‘flaws’ the larger the ‘sample’)
72