Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF
MECHANICAL EXCAVATORS IN TUNNELS
Prepared by “Nuh BILGIN, Cemal BALCI”
Istanbul - 2005
date 1/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Index
Introduction
2
Impact Hammers
3
Roadheaders
4
Tunnel Boring Machines TBMs
2/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Introduction
THE PERFORMANCE OF MECHANICAL
EXCAVATORS
2 Why the performance of a mechanical excavator is
important?
It defines the job duration and tunnel drivage economy
3 The performance of a tunneling machine mainly
depend on
4 1. Rock mass properties, rock strength and
abrasivity, inclination and orientation of
geological discontinuities, water income etc.
2. Machine parameters, design of cutting head,
5 type of cutters, machine power etc.
3. Mode of experience, operator and contractor
experience, job organization, machine facilities
etc. 3/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Terms Related to Machine Performance
4/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Impact Hammers in Tunnel Drivage
Hydraulic impact hammers have been used widely in mining industry and civil
engineering applications since 1960 (Rodford 1974; Pelizza 1994). Almost 11
km of metro tunnels were driven in Istanbul with impact hammers (Bilgin 1996,
2 Bilgin 1998).
5/43
Performance prediction
Typical of mechanical
view excavators
of an impact hammer in (Courtesy
tunnels by of
Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Schaeff)
Working Principle of Impact Hammers
The working principle of a modern hydraulic
hammer is simple. There is a piston moving up and
down and striking against to tool end. To produce big
energy pulses during downwards strokes, the hammer
is equipped with an accumulator that is able to supply
needed oil volume in a very short time. The
accumulator is charged continuously by a hydraulic
pump.
The technical process makes today available
very highly powered machines (up to 150 kW for
hammers weighting more than 78 tons) with impact
energy values up to more than 12 kJ/blow, (Pelizza
1994).
6/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Mechanical Parameters Effecting the Performance
of Impact Hammers (Wayment 1976, Bilgin 1989)
mV 2 E = Single blow energy (Joule) Pinp = Oil supply requred x Operating pressure
E= M = Weight of piston (kg) Poutput= Impact rate x Impact energy
2 V =Speed of piston (m/sec) Effiency of impact hammer η=Poutput/Pinput
Numerical Example:
Impact rate = 500 impact/min
Impact energy = 3500 J (350 kgxm)
Oil supply required = 160 lt/min
Operating pressure = 14 MPa
8/**
HammerPerformance prediction
working sequence of mechanical
when rock layersexcavators in tunnels
are inclined. by Bilgin,N
Hammer working& Balci,C.
sequence from floor to roof.
Prediction of Net Breaking Rate on Impact
Hammer
The following empirical equation were obtained using a database
on the application of impact hammers in different tunnel
applications.
−0.567
IBR = 4.24 P(RMCI)
RMC = σc(RQD/100)2/3
Where,
IBR = Instantaneous or net breaking rate, m3/h
P = Cutting power of the machine, HP
RMCI = Rock mass cuttability index, MPa
σc = Uniaxial compressive strength, MPa
RQD = Rock quality designation, %
9/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Jack hammer having a power of 30 HP
45
40 RQD
Net Breaking Rate (m /h)
3 35 25%
30 50%
25 75% The relationship between rock
20
100% compressive strength and
15
instantaneous breaking rate of jack
10 hammers for a given
5 RQD and power of the hammer
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock (MPa)
Jack hammer having a power of 60 HP
100
90 RQD
Net Breaking Rate (m /h)
80
3
25%
70 50%
60 75%
50 100%
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock (MPa) 10/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
The application of Impact Hammers in Istanbul Metro
Tunnel Drivages
New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) has been used
since the tunnel diameter and ground structure changes frequently
along the route. 3-4 m long rock bolts, wire mesh and shotcrete
were used as temporary tunnel support. Depending on tunnel
diameters the final lin-ing is undertaken with 35-45 cm thick in-
situ cast concrete.
Single track tunnel type A has a cross section of 36 m2 and
excavated in two steps. The up-per bench of 28 m2 is excavated
first and the lower bench of 8 m2 is excavated later, which is 30 m
behind of the first bench. The overall performance of the tunnel
drivage in Phases 1 and 2 are summarized in Figures 2-3. As seen
from these Figures, the utilization of impact ham-mers in average
is 22 % and 17 % of the total time is spent to mucking. Shotcrete
takes almost 27 %of the total time.
11/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
The overall performance of impact hammers in Istanbul Tunnels
12/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Roadheaders
14/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Axial Type Roadheader
15/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Advantages and disadvantages on longitudinal and
transverse cutting heads (Sandvik Handbook)
1. Transversal cutter heads cut in the direction of the face.
Therefore, they are more stable than roadheaders with
longitudinal heads of comparable weight and cutter head
power.
2. At transversal heads majority of reactive force resulting from
the cutting process is directed towards the main body of the
machine.
3. On longitudinal cutter heads, pick array is easier because both
cutting and slewing motions go in the same direction.
4. Roadheaders with transversal-type cutter heads are less affected
by changing rock conditions and harder rock portions. The
cutting process can make better use of parting planes especially
in bedded sedimentary rock.
16/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Advantages and disadvantages on longitudinal and
transverse cutting heads (Sandvik Handbook)
1. If the cutter boom’s turning point is located more or less in the axis of
the tunnel, a cutter head on longitudinal booms can be adapted to cut
with minimum overbreak. For example, cutter booms in shields where
the demand can be perfectly met are often equipped with the same type
of cutter head. Transverse cutter heads always cause a certain overbreak
regardless of machine position.
2. Most longitudinal heads show lower figures for pick consumption, which
is primarily a result of lower cutting speed.
3. The transverse cutter head offers greater versatility, and with the proper
layout and tool selection, has a wider range of applications. Its
performance is not substantially reduced in rock that presents difficult
cutting (for example, due to the high strength or ductile behavior).
4. Additionally, the reserves inherent in the concept offer more
opportunities for tailoring the equipment to existing rock conditions.
17/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Classification of roadheaders
Range of
Range of Operation
Roadheader Cutterhead max. cross RQD
weight max UCS
Class power (kW) section (%)
(t) (MPa)
(m2)
18/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Methods for predicting cutting performance of roadheader
Correlation between laboratory specific energy and the in-situ cutting rates
20/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Empirical methods for roadheader performance
prediction
2
RQD 3
RMCI = σ c ⋅
100
21/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader
from rock mass cuttability index
Instantaneous Cutting Rate (m /h) 30
3
25 Roadheader, 95 Hp
20 -0.0263x
y = 26.127e
15 R2 = 0.7331
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
The variation of instantaneous cutting rate with Rock Mass Cuttability Index
22/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from machine
power and machine weight
24/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from full
scale cutting tests
P
ICR = k ⋅
SE opt
ICR = Instantaneous cutting rate in m3/h
k = Energy transfer ratio
P = Cutting power of cutting head in kW
SEopt =Optimum specific energy in kWh/m3
25/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Comparison of the predicted values from full scale cutting
tests and actual values obtained in Kucuksu Tunnel
14 P
12 ICR = k
SE
S E(kWh/m 3 )
10
8
90kW
6
ICR = 0.4
4
2
7 kWh / m 3
0 1 2 3 4
s /d
5 6 7 8
ICR = 5.1m 3 / h
26/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from
destruction work (After Thuro)
27/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Overall performance of roadheaders in Kucuksu Tunnel
28/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs)
29/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Tunnel Boring Machines TBMs
30/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Cutters Used for Mechanical Excavators
Conical cutters
31/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Performance prediction using Full scale linear cutting tests
4
(kWh/m3)
SE
3 CCS
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
s/d
6
Expected power of the machine for cutting depth of 0.8 mm. P = 2π x253 kW; P = 160 kW
60
P (kW)
Net excavation rate (m 3 /h) = k
SE (kWh/m 3 ) •Net excavation rate=60∼70 m3/h
36/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
PERFORMANCE PREDICITION USING THE METHOD
DEVELOPED IN THE NORWEGIAN UNIVESITY OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY (NTNU MODEL)
The prediction model is based on job site studies and statistics from 33
job sites with 230 km of tunnels. Data have been carefully mapped
systematized and normalized. The methodology is well explained in
ITA recommendations and guidelines for tunnel boring machines
working group no 4. Specific tests such as drilling rate index,
Siever J-value SJ, angle between tunnel axis and plane of weakness,
fracturing factor and several correction indexes are need for
performance estimation.
37/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
A Typical Overall performance of TBMs
Backup downtime
3%
Cutter inspection
TBM downtime
6%
3%
TBM Boring Time
TBM re-grip time 41%
11%
Cutter change
14% Downtime - Other
causes
22%
38/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Conclusions and references
The performance of a mechanical excavators plays and important
role in tunnel drivage which manly depends on:
2 a) Rock mass properties, rock strength and abrasivity, inclination
and orientation of geological discontinuities, water income,
inclination of tunnel etc.
b) Machine parameters, design of cutting head, type of cutters,
3 machine power etc.
c) Modes of operation, operator and contractor experience, job
organization, maintenance facilities etc.
4
In this presentation rock mass properties and some machine
parameter affecting the performance of impact hammers,
roadheaders and TBMs are widely explained including most
5 common performance prediction models. Some numerical
examples on calculating instantaneous breaking and cutting
rates are also given. Overall performance of different
mechanical excavators is summarized for some tunnels.
39/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Conclusions and references
Balci,
Balci, C., Demircin,
Demircin, M.A., Copur,
Copur, H. & Tuncdemir,
Tuncdemir, H. 2004. Estimation of optimum specific energy based on rock properties
properties for
assessment of roadheader performance. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 104 (11): 633- 633-
643.
2 Bilgin N, Yazici,
Yazici, S. & Eskikaya,
drivages.
Eskikaya, S.1996. A model to predict the performance of roadheaders and impact hammers in tunnel
drivages. In: Barla G, editor. Proceedings of the Eurock ’96 on Prediction and Performance in Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 2: 715-
Engineering, 715-720.
Bilgin, N., Balci, C., Acaroglu, O., Tuncdemir, H., Eskikaya, S.,
S., Akgul, M. & Algan, M. 1999 Performance Prediction of a TBM
in Tuzla-
Tuzla-Dragos Sewerage Tunnel, World Tunnel Congress,
Congress, Oslo 29th May –3rd June, Rotterdam: Balkema.
Balkema.
Bilgin, N., Kuzu, C. & Eskikaya, S. 1997. Cutting performance of rock hammers and roadheaders in Istanbul Metro drivages. drivages.
People: 455-
Proceedings, Word Tunnel Congress’97, Tunnels for People: 455-460. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Balkema.
Bilgin,N.,
Bilgin,N., Dincer,
Dincer, T. & Copur,
Copur, H., 2002. The performance prediction of impact hammers from Schmidt
Schmidt hammer rebound values in
Copur H, Rostami J, Ozdemir L & Bilgin N. 1997. Studies on performance prediction of roadheaders based on field data in mining
and tunnelling projects. In: Gurgenci H, Hood M, editors. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Mine
Automation, Brisbane, Queensland. A4-
Mechanization and Automation, A4-1/A4-
1/A4-7.
Dunn, P.G., Howarth,
Howarth, D.F., Scmidth,
Scmidth, S.P.J. & Bryan, I.J. 1997. A review of non explosive excavation
excavation projects for the Australian
4 metalliferrous mining industry. In: Gurgenci H, Hood M, editors. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Automation, Brisbane, Queensland. A5-
Mine Mechanization and Automation,
Evans, I. 1974. Energy requirements for impact breakage of rocks.
A5-2/13
rocks. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying and
Tunnelling, London:1-8
Tunnelling, IMM London:1
Farmer, I.W. & Garrity,
Garrity, P. 1987. Prediction of roadheader cutting performance from fracture toughness considerations. In: Herget
G, Vongpaisal S, editors. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Rock Mechanics.
Mechanics. 621–
621–624.
Fowell,
Fowell, R.J. & Johson,
Johson, S.T. 1982. Rock classification and assessment of rapid excavation.
excavation. In: Farmer I, editor. Proceedings of the
5
Mechanics, Newcastle Upon Tyne: 239-
Symposium on Strata Mechanics, 239-242.
Fowell,
Fowell, R.J, Johson,
Johson, S.T. & Speight, H.E. 1984. Boom tunneling machine studies for improved excavation performance. In: Brown
ET, Hudson JA, editors. Proceedings of the International ISRM Congress on Design and Performance
Performance of Underground
Excavations, Cambridge.305-
Excavations, Cambridge.305-312.
Friant, E.J., Ozdemir, L. 1993. Tunnel Boring Technology - Present and Future, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference
Proceedings, Boston, USA.
(RETC) Proceedings,
40/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Conclusions and references
Gaskell, J & Phillips, R. A. 1974. The Gullick Dobson impact ripper. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying
and Tunneling, IMM London: 73-82
Hughes, H. 1972. Some aspects of rock machining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.(9):205-11.
2 Johanessen, O. 1995, Hard rock tunneling boring, University of Trondheim, The Norwegian Institute of Technology 165.
Johson, S.T. & Fowell, R.J. 1984. A rational approach to practical performance assessment for rapid excavation using boom-type
tunneling machines. In: Dowding CH, Singh MM, editors. Proceedings of the 25th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
Illinois. 759-766.
Johson, S.T. & Fowell, R.J. 1986. Compressive strength is not enough. In: Hartman HL, editor. Proceedings of the 27th US Rock
Mechanics Symposium. 840-845.
Krupa, V. Krepelka, F. & Imrich, P. 1994. Continuous evaluation of rock mechanics and geological information at drilling and
boring. In: Olieveira at al., editors. Proceedings of the 7th International Congress, International Association of
4 Lislerud, A. 1988. Hard rock tunnel boring, prognasis and costs. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology (3)1, 9-17.
Matti, H. Editor, 1999. Rock Excavation Handbook , Sandvik Tamrock Corp.
McFeat – Smith, I. & Fowell,
Fowell, R.J. 1977. Correlation of rock properties and cutting performance
performance of tunneling machines. In: Potts
ELJ, Attewell PB, editors. Proceedings of the Conference on Rock Engineering,
Engineering, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.
582–
582–602.
McFeat – Smith, I. & Fowell,
Fowell, R.J. 1979. The selection and application of roadheaders for rock tunneling. In Maevis AC, Austrulid
WA, editors. Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation Tunn Congress,
Congress, Atlanta. 261–
261–279.
5
McKelvey,
McKelvey, J.G., Schultz, E.A. & Blindheim,
Blindheim, O.T. 1996, Geotechnical analysis in S. Africa, World Tunnelling,
Tunnelling, November, 377-
377-
390.
Mellor, M. 1972. Normalization of specific energy values. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.(9):661
Sci.(9):661--663.
Merguerian, C., Ozdemir, L. 2003. Rock Mass Properties and Hard Rock TBM Penetration Rate Investigations, Queens Tunnel
Complex, NYC Water Tunnel #3, Stage #2", Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) Proceedings.
Proceedings.
Nilsen,
Nilsen, B., Ozdemir,
Ozdemir, L. 1993. Hard rock tunnel boring prediction and field performance,
performance, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Proceedings, Chapter 52, Boston, USA,
Conference (RETC) Proceedings, USA, 13-
13-17.
41/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Conclusions and references
Ozdemir,
Ozdemir, L., Miller, R.J. & Wang, F.D. 1978 Mechanical Tunnel Boring Machine
Machine Prediction and Machine Design, NSF APR73- APR73-
07776- A03, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA.
07776-A03,
Ozdemir,
Ozdemir, L. 1991.Performance Prediction for Mechanical Excavators in Yucca Yucca Mountain Tuff, Task Report to Sandia National
3
of Shaft Drilling Technology,
Rostami, J., Ozdemir L & Neil D. 1994. Performance prediction: a key issue in mechanical hard rock mining. mining. Mining
Engineering.Nov.:1264-
Engineering.Nov.:1264-1267.
Rostami,
Rostami, J., Ozdemir,
Ozdemir, L. 1993 A New Model For Performance Prediction Of Hard Rock TBMs, TBMs, Proceedings of RETC,RETC, Boston
MA, June 13-
13-17.
Schimazek,
Schimazek, J. & Knatz,
Knatz, H. 1970. The influence of rock composition on cutting velocity and chisel wear of tunnelling machines.
Gluckauf:
Gluckauf: 106. 274-
274-278.
Sekula, F, Krupa V & Krepelka F. 1991. Monitoring of the rock strength characteristics in the course of full of face driving
4 Thuro,
process. In: Rakowski Z, editor. Proceedings of the International Conference on Geomechanics.
Geomechanics. 299-
Thuro, K & Plinninger RJ. 1998. Geological limits in roadheader excavation four case studies. In: Loky,
Congress, Vancouver.2:3545-
8th International IAEG Congress, Vancouver.2:3545-3552.
299-303.
Loky, editor. Proceedings of the
Thuro,
Thuro, K & Plinninger RJ. 2003. Hard rock tunnel boring, cutting, drilling and blasting:
blasting: rock parameters for excavatability.
excavatability. In:
Merwe JN, editor. Proceedings of the 10th International ISRM Congress on Technology
Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics,
Metallurgy. 1227-
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 1227-1253.
Thuro,
Thuro, K, &Plinninger
&Plinninger RJ. 1999. Predicting roadheader advance rates. Tunnels and Tunnelling
Tunnelling.;31:36
.;31:36--39.
5
Thuro,
Thuro, K, &Plinninger
&Plinninger RJ. 1999. Roadheader excavation performance - geological and geotechnical influences, 9th ISRM
Congress Paris, August, 25th - 28th, Theme 3: Rock dynamics and tectonophysics / Rock cutting and drilling
Verhoef,
Verhoef, P.N.W. 1997. Wear of rock cutting,
cutting, 327, Rotterdam: Balkema
Wayment,
Wayment, W & Grantmyre,
Grantmyre, I. 1976. Development of high blow energy hydraulic impactor.
impactor. Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and
Conference: 611-
Tunnelling Conference: 611-626
West, G. 1989. Technical Note - Rock Abrasiveness Testing for Tunnelling.
Tunnelling.- Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.&
Sci.& Geomech. Abstr.,
Geomech. Abstr.,
26(2), 151-
151-160.
Wyllie, B. 1985. Hydraulic breakers. Mining, March:
breakers. International Mining, March: 18-
18-24
42/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
ITA/AITES