3.

TBM PROGNOSES THROUGH

HARD ROCK,
HIGH STRESS, WATER, FAULTS,
USING QTBM METHODS WITH
OPEN-GRIPPER
OR DOUBLE-SHIELD TBM

1
 CONTENT of LECTURE
• Some back-ground about QTBM
• Application to a specific tunnelling project near
Oslo, Norway
• Double-shield compared to single-shield TBM
• TBM through hard rock and weakness zones
• Fault-zone challenges for TBM
• Long tunnels fast by TBM?
• High-stress challenges for TBM
2
TBM prognosis for the following specific project

3
4
5
 HOW to PREDICT

• PENETRATION RATE PR ?
• ADVANCE RATE AR ?

• Differences between machines

(open-contra-double-shield)
in the given rock masses ?
6
 DEFINITIONS EXAMPLE
PR = penetration rate (for continuous boring)
AR =advance rate (actual rate of tunnel advance)
AR slower than PR (due to change of cutters, rock support needs, ETC)

7
 PR and AR cannot be predicted
using Q (alone)
(Note change of adjectives, and larger equation on next screens)

8
 A survey of 145 TBM tunnels
GREAT MAJORITY were OPEN-GRIPPER TBM

(WHERE ROCK CONDITIONS COULD BE DESCRIBED MORE

ACCURATELY)

9
 THE QTBM MODEL FOR TBM PROGNOSIS

(involves Q and machine/rock interaction)

RQD o Jr Jw SIGMA 20 q 
Q TBM     10   
Jn Ja SRF F 20 9 CLI 20 5  
1/ 3
SIGMA  5  Q c

1 / 5
PR  5 Q TBM

10
Note AR estimation (example) for 24 hrs, 1 week, 1 month.
Note ’new’ adjectives

11
 WHAT ABOUT SPEED?

• DO TBM GET FASTER AS THE TUNNEL GETS

LONGER?

• WHERE DOES THE LEARNING CURVE FIT IN?

• MAYBE TBM DO SLOW DOWN WHEN TUNNELS

GET VERY LONG – it would be logical?

12
 145 CASE-RECORDS SHOWED THE FOLLOWING ‘BEST’,
‘AVERAGE’, ‘BAD-GROUND’ PERFORMANCE

Performance of (mostly) OPEN-GRIPPER TBM (Barton, 2000).

13
 SYNTHESIS OF 145 CASE RECORDS, TOTALLING ≈ 1000 KM
(GREAT MAJORITY WERE OPEN-GRIPPER TBM )

NOTE: CONVENTIONAL TBM EQUATION: AR = PR X U

Gradient (-)m demonstrates reduced-utilization-over-time = deceleration.

14
 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)

15
WHERE DO DOUBLE-SHIELD TBM
FIT IN THIS PERFORMANCE
PICTURE?

16
17
 DOUBLE-SHIELD TBM
ALLOW
SUPPORTING ELEMENT
ASSEMBLY WHILE
BORING
WITH PUSH-OFF-LINER
CAPABILITY IF GRIPPERS
CANNOT BE USED

18
 GUADARRAMA TUNNELS
2 x Herrenknecht TBM, 2 x Wirth TBM

19
 Guadarrama 4 x TBM, 14 km each
(all four TBM were double-shield: smaller gradient (-)m

20
 If grippers cannot be used in a fault zone, thrust is provided by
pushing-off the last ring of PC-elements. Note: double-shield do not
solve all problems! (Example from smaller tunnel)

21
Guadarrama average performance: see long blue arrow
(GRADIENT –m ≈ ½ x open-gripper..... often –(0.08-0.13)

22
 A smaller double-shield TBM with slow first 4 months due to
various inefficiencies, including California switch delay and drive-
motor repair. Compare cross (progress so far)
and ellipse (Guadarrama)

23
HARD ABRASIVE ROCK PROBLEMS

24
Example of brittle failure of cutter rim in granite, and
failure to rotate for some time,
while the cutter-head continues to rotate.

25
Examples of tunnel m/cutter, in fractured, faulted, and massive
granites. Guadarrama Tunnel, Spain

26
CUTTER LIFE INDEX
(from Trondheim)
is a very useful
measure of cutter
replacement
frequencies
27
SUMMARY OF STRENGTH AND ABRASIVENESS
DATA

Tonalitisk gneiss UCS = 208, 209, 205

MPa (depth 93m) CLI=6.0

Supracrustal gneiss UCS = 96, 124 MPa

(depth 56m) CLI=14.5

Biotite gneiss UCS = 163, 149 MPa

(depth 42m)

Granitisk gneiss UCS = 212, 262 MPa

(depth 83m) CLI=(see below)

Amfibolite UCS = 238, 244, 332 MPa

(depth 88m) CLI=30.7
 
CLI for gneiss and granitic gneiss were:
6, 11, 6, 7, 8, 8, 7.4, 7.3, 9.9 and 5.7

Quartz contents for the samples were

28
q% = 25, 20, 29 and 35.
 PR versus Q showing the important influence of UCS. The
importance of UCS may diminish strongly in the case of AR.

29
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.

30
 TBM PROGNOSIS FAILING TO PREDICT REDUCED
PROGRESS WITH INCREASED CUTTER THRUST (WHEN
TBM IS UNDER-POWERED in relation to very hard
meta-sandstones)

31
UCS of LIMESTONE is 120 MPa, UCS of SHALE is 40 MPa

32
TOO HIGH Vp is (also) ADVERSE FOR TBM !

33
 PrintInput

Nick Barton & Associates

PrintCompute

PrintEquations
TESTING !!
PrintGraphic
Schematic Geology

Z2
Z3
Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7
Z8
Z9 Z 10
PR variation due to
F= 25 tnf.
Z1 Z 11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5500 4000 50 30

ZONE 4 LITHOLOGY fault (if untreated)

INPUT DATA
ZONE LENGTH 30
F= 30 tnf.
g VP
RQD Jn Jr Ja Jw SRF -m1 RQD 0
(g/cm ³) (km/s)

First
Zone
3 25.0 15.0 1.0 5.0 0.50 2.5 -0.50 25.0 2.5
New
Zone
(open gripper TBM)
sc I50 F q sq D n
bº CLI
(MPa) (MPa) (tf) % (MPa) (m ) %
75.0 100.0 5.0 15.0 10.0 25.0 4.0 10.0 5.0
Nick Barton & Associates Contract JBV
TIME FOR TUNNEL COMPLETION (months) Site Oslo-Ski North Tunnel
Date 05/09/2009
38.5

zone 1

zone 2

zone 3

zone 4

zone 5

zone 6

zone 7

zone 8

zone 9

zone 10

zone 11

OVERALL

34
 TESTING !!
Example of single-shield and double-shield (with cutter-force F = 28 or 26
tnf).
The different gradients (-m) give the major differences.
(Note: untreated major fault stops TBM…….in simulation)

35
A ‘hard-rock-with-faults’ prognosis for the
Oslo-to-Ski project

2 x 9.6 km + 2 x 7.9 km tunnels needed

36
Northern tunnel(s) of 2 x 9.6 km pass beneath here,
on east side of Oslo Fjord

37
38
Summary of Q-values for
all logged rock
exposures, for both
north and south tunnels

(Note: separate
investigation of
weakness zones)

39
Examples of ‘T’ and ‘U’ Q-logging locations

40
 Q-
histogram
logging
sheet for
localities E1
to E7

41
 Summary of Q-value
statistics for the
southern Oslo-Ski
tunnel(s)

(Fault zones treated

separately, using
deviated core-drilling
and seismic refraction)

42
43
44
 N
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 Q (typical min)= 75 / 15.0 * 1.0 / 5.0 * 0.50 / 1.0 = 0.500
Q (typical max)=
Q (mean value)=
100
96
/
/
3.0
7.1
*
*
3.0
1.8
/
/
1.0
1.3
*
*
1.00
0.83
/ 1.0 = 100.0
/ 1.0 = 15.36 O Q (typical max)=
Q (mean value)=
100
98
/
/
4.0
8.4
*
*
4.0
1.7
/
/
1.0
1.3
*
*
1.00
0.75
/ 1.0 = 100.0
/ 1.0 = 11.07
Q (most frequent)=
B 2000
V. POOR
100 / 9.0
POOR
* 1.5
FAIR
/ 1.0 *
GOOD
1.00 / 1.0 = 16.67
EXC
R Q (most frequent)=
B 6000
V. POOR
100 / 9.0
POOR
* 1.5
FAIR
/ 1.0 *
GOOD
0.66 / 1.0 = 11.00
EXC

L
O
C
1500
1000
RQD %
Core pieces
T L
O
C
5000
4000
3000
RQD %
Core pieces

H
>= 10 cm 2000 >= 10 cm
K 500 K 1000
00 00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

EARTH FOUR THREE TWO ONE NONE EARTH FOUR THREE TWO ONE NONE
S 1000 S 4000
I I
&
800 3000
Z Jn Z Jn
600
2000 Number of
E 400
Number of E
joint sets joint sets
S 200 S 1000

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

T
1500
FILLS PLANAR UNDULATING DISC.
S T
4000
3000
FILLS PLANAR UNDULATING DISC.

A Jr
O
A 1000 Jr
N Joint N 2000 Joint
(fr) 500 roughness (fr) 1000
roughness
- least

U
- least
00 00
and 1 0,5 1 1,5 1,5 2 3 4 and 1 0,5 1 1,5 1,5 2 3 4

T
THICK FILLS THIN FILLS COATED UNFILLED HEA THICK FILLS THIN FILLS COATED UNFILLED HEA
2500 6000
T T 5000
2000
A Ja A 4000 Ja

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

A A EXC. INFLOWS HIGH PRESSURE WET DRY

C
EXC. INFLOWS HIGH PRESSURE WET DRY 5000
1500
C C 4000
T 1000 Jw T Jw
3000
I
O
I Joint 2000
Joint
500 water V water
V 1000 pressure
pressure
E E 00
00

S
0.05

SQUEEZE
0.1

SWELL
0.2

FAULTS
0.33 0.5

STRESS / STRENGTH
0.66 1
M S
6000
0.05

SQUEEZE
0.1

SWELL
0.2

FAULTS
0.33 0.5

STRESS / STRENGTH
0.66 1

3000

P
T T
R 2000 SRF R 4000 SRF
E Stress
E Stress

A
S 1000 reduction S 2000 reduction
factor S factor
S 00
00

R
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 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

Re v. Report No. Figure No. Rev. Re port No. Figure No.

JBV OS LO-S KI NB&A #1 9 JBV OS LO-S KI NB&A #1 10

E
Borehole No. : Drawn by Date Bore hole No. : Drawn by Date

Q-his togra m ba s e d on compila tion of a ll rock-e xpos ure rock e xp os ure s NB&A 30.8.09 Q-his togra m ba s e d on compila tion of a ll rock-e xpos ure Ro c k s lo p e s NB&A 31.8.09
De pth zone (m) Che cke d Depth zone (m) Che cked

logging for TUNNEL-NORTH, the re fore e xcluding core ne ar-surfa ce nrb

Approve d D logging for TUNNEL-S OUTH, the re fore e xcluding core

a nd we a kne s s zone s .
near-surface nrb
Approved
45
a nd we a kne s s zone s .
Fault zones drilled following investigation by seismic refraction

46
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.

47
Weakness zone Vp statistics

48
Seismic refraction result coverts to Q-value,
and vice versa…simplest for shallow seismic

49
The broken line of ‘stars’ is designed to follow both the
declining UCS and the reducing Q-value, as rock
strength reduces, jointing increases, and the weakness
zones are approached with lowest VP

50
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 10
Core pieces
>= 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
15 Number of
E
10 joint sets
S
Q-histogram
05
00
20 15 12 9 6 4 3 2 1 0,5

T
40
FILLS PLANAR UNDULATING DISC. logging result
A
N
30
20 Joint
Jr for all the
(fr) 10
00
roughness
- least selected core
and 1 0,5

THICK FILLS
1 1,5 1,5

THIN FILLS
2

COATED
3

UNFILLED HEA
4
boxes,
representing
40
T
A 30
Ja

‘spot-check’
N 20 Joint
(fp) 10
alteration
- least
00
20 13 12 10 8 6 5 12 8 6 4 4 3 2 1 0,75 of seven
A
C
60
50
EXC. INFLOWS HIGH PRESSURE WET DRY
boreholes in
faulted rock.
T 40 Jw
I 30 Joint
V 20 water
10 pressure
E 00
0.05 0.1 0.2 0.33 0.5 0.66 1

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

Re v. Re port No. Figure No.

JBV OS LO-S KI NB&A #1 AA8
Bore hole No. : Dra wn by Da te
Q-histogra m tre nds for s e le cte d core with we a kne s s zone s S e ve n ho le s NB&A 1.9.09
De pth zone (m) Che c ked
or fa ults : a ggre ga te of s e ve n hole s . Range 18-144m nrb
Approve d
The three QTBM screens

52
Example of input-data screen for one of the modelled weakness
zones…..note use of VP in place of Q
Nick Barton & Associates

Schematic Geology

Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7
Z8
Z3 Z9 Z 10
Z2
Z1 Z 11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
18 19 20 18 19 20 10

ZONE 7 LITHOLOGY Type 1 weakness zone ZONE LENGTH 10

INPUT DATA

g VP
RQD Jn Jr Ja Jw SRF -m1 RQD 0
(g/cm ³) (km /s)
6 -0.55 2.4 2.2

sc I50 F q sq D n
bº CLI
(MPa) (MPa) (tf) % (MPa) (m ) %
50.0 4.0 40.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 6.0

Contract Site

53
 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7
Z8
Z3 Z9
Cumulated time for
Z2 Z 10
Z1 Z 11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

the nine simulated

18 19 20 18 19 20 10 20 30

ZONE 9 LITHOLOGY Type 3 weakness zone ZONE LENGTH 30

INPUT DATA
weakness zones is
g VP
RQD Jn Jr Ja Jw SRF -m1 RQD 0
(g/cm ³) (km /s)
nearly three months
(2.9 months)
8 -0.25 2.7 3.4
New
Zone
sc I50 F q sq D n
bº CLI
(MPa) (MPa) (tf) % (MPa) (m ) %
150.0 8.0 20.0 25.0 5.0 10.0 2.0
Nick Barton & Associates
TIME FOR TUNNEL COMPLETION (months) Site Weakness zones, types 1, 2 and 3
Date 08/09/2009
2.9
Contract Site

zone 1

zone 2

zone 3

zone 4

zone 5

zone 6

zone 7

zone 8

zone 9

zone 10

zone 11

OVERALL

54
Example of Class 1 rock mass

55
 Input-data screen for assumed Class 1 rock mass
Nick Barton & Associates

Schematic Geology

Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7
Z8
Z3 Z9 Z 10
Z2
Z1 Z 11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
500 1500 5000 2000 500

ZONE 5 LITHOLOGY Class 1 granitic gneiss ZONE LENGTH 500

INPUT DATA

g VP
RQD Jn Jr Ja Jw SRF -m1 RQD0
(g/cm ³) (km /s)
4 100.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.00 1.0 -0.19 100.0 2.8

sc I50 F q sq D n
bº CLI
(MPa) (MPa) (tf) % (MPa) (m ) %
250.0 32.0 5.0 35.0 8.0 10.0 1.0

Contract Site 56
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 of core.

57
 SOUTH TUNNELS: OPEN-GRIPPER PROGNOSES ( without
weakness zones)
Barton & Associates
TIME FOR TUNNEL COMPLETION (months) Site TUNNEL SOUTH grippers only, Q5 to Q1
Date 09/09/2009
20.7

zone 1

zone 2

zone 3

zone 4

zone 5

zone 6

zone 7

zone 8

zone 9

zone 10

zone 11

OVERALL

58
 SOUTH TUNNELS: DOUBLE-SHIELD PROGNOSES ( without
Barton & Associates
weakness zones)
TIME FOR TUNNEL COMPLETION (months) Site TUNNEL SOUTH push-off-liner
Date 09/09/2009
9.9

zone 1

zone 2

zone 3

zone 4

zone 5

zone 6

zone 7

zone 8

zone 9

zone 10

zone 11

OVERALL

59
FAULT ZONES AND TBM

60
WHY DO FAULT ZONES TAKE SO LONG WITH TBM ????

PRACTICAL REASONS ARE ILLUSTRATED, FOLLOWED BY ‘THEO-

EMPIRICAL’ REASONS

PROBE DRILLING…..and PRE-TREATMENT needed!

61
 Fault zones
also create
great
problems for
double-shield
TBM – if
zone not pre-
treated……
following
probe-drilling
discovery!
Care needed
when
reversing the
TBM…..
not too
much!! 62
 ILLUSTRATES UNLOADING EFEECT
( as expressed by VP) when exposing fault

63
 THERE ARE VERY GOOD ‘THEO – EMPIRICAL’ REASONS WHY FAULT ZONES
ARE SO DIFFICULT FOR TBM

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

64
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 –m.....to less negative value)

65
 Analogous to
problems in fault
zones………

reduced block size

an automatic
potential
problem??

(Shen and Barton)

66
WHEN A FAULT ZONE LIKE THIS IS PENETRATED BY A TBM…..THE TBM IS
‘IN THE WAY’ OF EFFICIENT TREATMENT

67
68
Too much water for stability in
the fault zone. Sand/gravel
‘delta’ behind back-up

Derailment of the train was

therefore frequent behind the
back-up

69
70
Unexplored, faulted conditions, can give prognoses like
this….without pre-treatment.
Nick Barton & Associates
Site
Date

zone 1

zone 2

zone 3

zone 4

zone 5

zone 6

zone 7

zone 8

zone 9

zone 10

zone 11

OVERALL

71
 HIGH STRESS
IS A REAL PROBLEM
FOR TBM TUNNELS
BECAUSE THE (INITIAL) LACK OF
DAMAGE MAY PUT (ISOTROPIC-elastic
STRESS CONCENTRATION) THEORY
e.g. σθ ≈ 3σ1 – σ3
INTO PRACTICE !!
72
 Various
examples of high
stress: physical
models, theory,
TBM prediction

73
74
75
UCS = 4 to 9 MPa, ∆v from (+) 70 m cliff loading !!

76
Extract from Q-system tables, Barton and Grimstad, 1994
(ONSET OF STRESS-FRACTURING BEYOND the “0.4” ratio)

77
The “0.4” threshold – but may vary

78
Rock bursts effects in CHINA, ∆v from 1 to 2 km + load

79
STRESS-SLABBING STARTING WITH MODERATE COVER

80
81
STRESS-SLABBING IS LESS SEVERE WITH DRILL-AND-BLAST, THEREFORE USE
THIS AS ‘PLAN B’ – from the other end of the tunnel !

82
83
DRILL AT 9 O’CLOCK AND 3 O’CLOCK TO RELIEVE HIGH σθ !!

84
 “LONG TUNNELS
ARE FASTER BY TBM” ??

(sometimes but not often)

85
86
 “Weibull-flaw”
theory on a large
scale??

87
 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
 A wide-reaching review of TBM case records
 An empirical prognosis method called QTBM
 Can calculate PR, AR and time-for-tunnelling T (hours) for TBM
 Machine/rock interaction parameters and Q-values are needed

 Key finding from 145 cases and 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. Less decline with double-shield
TBM.

 Declining utilization U quantified as Tm, with gradient (-m) initially given by Q-value
where rock conditions very poor, but mostly by cutter abrasion terms, UCS etc. in
better quality rock masses.

 Very roughly….m is about halved by double-shield TBM

 Therefore even if ‘low’ PR, double-shield efficiences pay off – at a price !
88
89