1301309590eberhardt - L11-Excavationmethods PDF

Rock Engineering
Practice & Design
Lecture 11:
Excavation Methods
1 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Authors Note:
The lecture slides provided here are taken from the course
Geotechnical Engineering Practice, which is part of the 4th year
Geological Engineering program at the University of British Columbia
(V
(Vancouver, Canada).
C d ) The
Th course covers rock k engineering
i i andd
geotechnical design methodologies, building on those already taken
by the students covering Introductory Rock Mechanics and Advanced
Rock Mechanics.
Mechanics
Although the slides have been modified in part to add context, they
of course are missing the detailed narrative that accompanies any
l
lecture. It is also
l recognizedd that
h these
h lectures
l summarize,
reproduce and build on the work of others for which gratitude is
extended. Where possible, efforts have been made to acknowledge
th vvarious
the ri us ssources,
urc s with
ith a list of
f references
r f r nc s being
b in provided
pr vid d att the
th
end of each lecture.
Errors, omissions, comments, etc., can be forwarded to the

author at: erik@eos.ubc.ca

The Excavation Process
It is instructive to consider the fundamental objective of the excavation
process which is to remove rock material (either to create an opening or
to obtain material for its inherent value). In order to remove part of a
rock mass,
mass it is necessary to induce additional fracturing and
fragmentation of the rock.
This introduces three critical aspects

p of excavation:
The peak strength of the rock

must be exceeded.
The in situ block size

distribution must be changed
to the required fragment size
distribution.
distribution
By what means should the

required energy be introduced
into the rock?

In Situ Block and Fragmentation Distribution
Rock is naturally fractured and consists
of rock blocks of certain sizes. The
fracturing of rock during excavation
changes this natural block size
distribution to the fragment size
distribution. The engineer can consider
how best to move from one curve to the
other in the excavation process.
Hudson & Harrison (1997)

Energy and Excavation Process
Although the objective during excavation is large-scale fragmentation, at
the same time we wish to minimize any damage to the wall rock as this
would work towards weakening the rock mass which may result in ground
control problems.
problems Fragmentation and rock mass damage are both related
to the amount of energy used and whether its applied instantaneously or
continuously.
The tensile strength of rock is

about 1/10th the compressive
strength and the energy beneath
the
h stress-strain curve is roughly
hl
its square. Therefore, breaking
the rock in tension requires only
Hudson & Harrison (1997) 1/100th of the energy as that in
compression.

Energy and Excavation Process
One objective in the excavation process may be to optimize the use of
energy, i.e. the amount of energy required to remove a unit volume of
rock (specific energy = J/m3). There are two fundamental ways of
inputting energy into the rock for excavation:
Blasting: Energy is input in large

quantities over very short
h
durations (cyclical drill then
blast, drill then blast, etc.).
Machine Excavation: Energy is

input in smaller quantities
continuously.

Conventional Drill & Blast
The technique of rock breakage using explosives
involves drilling blastholes by percussion or rotary-
percussive means, loading the boreholes with
explosives and then detonating the explosive in each
hole in sequence according to the blast design.
The explosion generates a

stress wave and significant
gas pressure. Following the
local fracturing at the
blasthole wall and the
spalling of the free face,
the subsequent gas
pressure then provides the
necessary energy to
disaggregate the broken
rock
rock.

Conventional Drill & Blast
Drill Load
Survey Blast
Bolt V
Ventilate
il
Scoop
Scale

Drill & Blast - Drilling
water rotation thrust percussion

flush force hammer
((chip
p
removal)
Thuro (1997)

Drill & Blast - Drilling
The bit'
Th bit's ability
bilit tto penetrate
t t ththe rock
k efficiently
ffi i tl d depends
d on th
the contact
t t
surface of the buttons, their shape and number, the bits' flushing
characteristics and the brittleness, or drillability, of the rock.
Button Shape Characteristics Application
"non aggressive" shape Rock with high UCS

minimum drilling rates and high abrasivity
Spherical low bit wear (e.g. quartzite,
excavation mainly by granite, gneiss,
impact amphibolite)
"aggressive"
gg shape
p Rock with mid UCS
moderate drilling rates and less abrasivity
Semi- moderate bit wear (e.g. slate,
excavation mainly by sandstone, limestone,
Ballistic
shearing/cutting weathered rock)
"very aggressive" shape Rock with low UCS

maximum drilling rates and low abrasivity
Conical high bit wear (e.g. shale, weak
(Ballistic) excavation mainly by sandstone, phyllite)
shearing/cutting
Thuro (1997)

Drill & Blast Drill Bit Buttons
l. (2002)
nninger et al.
Plin
Drill & Blast Blast Pattern Design
One of the basic principles of designing the configuration and sequential
detonation of blastholes in a one blast, is the presence of a free face
parallel or sub-parallel to the blast holes, as detonation occurs. In some
cases these free faces may already be present (benches in an open pit
cases,
mine), but in other cases may need to be created by the blast itself (a
tunnel face).
Practical application of the

free-face
free face concept using one
form of the burn cut.

Drill & Blast Burn Cut
The correctt d
Th design
i of f a blast
bl t starts
t t withith the
th first
fi t h
hole
l to
t bbe detonated.
d t t d
In the case of a tunnel blast, the first requirement is to create a void into
which rock broken by the blast can expand. This is generally achieved by a
wedge
g or burn cut which is designed
g to create a clean void and to eject
j the
rock originally contained in this void clear of the tunnel face.
Burn cut designs using

y
millisecond delays.

Drill & Blast Blast Pattern Design

Specialized Blasting Techniques
During
D i blasting,
bl ti the
th explosive
l i d damage may nott only
l occur according
di
to the blasting round design, but there may also be extra rock
damage behind the excavation boundary. To minimize damage to the
rock a pre-split
rock, pre split blast (surface excavation) or smooth-wall
smooth wall blast
(underground) may be used to create the final excavation surface.
dson & Harrison (1997)
Pre-split blast: First a

series of small-diameter,
parallel boreholes are
drilled along the plane of
the required final
excavation boundary (i.e.
rock cut slope).
slope)
Hud

Pre-
Pre -Split & Smooth
Smooth--Wall Blasting
The principle is then to tailor
the explosive parameters such
that detonation of the
explosives
l i iin these
h initial
i i i l
holes will primarily create a
plane of intersecting holes
through the coalescence of
several induced fractures.
The smooth-wall blast follows a similar

process to the pre-split blast, except
in the reverse order. First a rough
opening is formed using a large bulk
blast, and then the smooth-wall blast
follows along a series of closely spaced
and lightly charged parallel holes.

Pre-
Pre -Split Blasting
When, subsequently, the main body of rock is blasted to form the
cutting, the pre-split reflects the stress waves back into the rock
being excavated and dissipates excess gas pressure, such that the bulk
blast has little effect of the rock behind the pre-split plane.
plane
pre-split normal bulk

bl t d
blasted bl
blasted
d

Drill & Blast Explosives
Commercial explosives are mixtures of chemical compounds in solid or
liquid form. Detonation transforms the compounds into other products,
mostly gaseous.
The following are the main criteria

applied to select an explosive for a
given type of blasting:
available energy per unit weight
of explosive (i.e. strength)
density of the explosive
detonation velocity
sensitivity (ease of ignition)
reaction
ti rate
t
temperature and pressure
stability
y (chemical
( and storage)
g )

Drill & Blast Explosives
The following are the more common explosives used in hard rock excavation:
dynamites (nitroglycerin made stable by dissolving it in an inert

bulking agent moderate bulk strength)
ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate & diesel Fuel Oil low bulk strength)
slurries (water gels high bulk strength for wet conditions)
emulsions
ANFO is the most prevalent explosive used in

mining because it is the least expensive and the
safest to transport and handle. ANFO type
explosives are susceptible to water and,
and
therefore, are not suitable for wet blastholes.

Drill & Blast Stemming
Stemming materials (e.g. pea-sized
gravel), are used to top-off the
blastholes. The stemming material
acts to provide confinement,
confinement
preventing the explosive gases and
energy from travelling (venting) up
through the drill hole, and instead are
contained
i d within
i hi the
h rockk mass.
Effects of poor
stemming.

Drill & Blast Blasting Caps & Delays
A blasting cap is a small explosive device generally
used to detonate a larger, more powerful
explosive. Most blasting caps contain what is
c ll d a primary
called p im explosive.
xpl si A primary
p im explosive
xpl si is
a high explosive compound that will explode from
flame, heat or shock.
Word to the wise: Do not crimp fuses

to blasting caps using your teeth.
Few blasts are fired instantaneously.

Instead, delays are used to sequence
the blast ggiving
g better fragmentation,
g
more efficient use of the explosive,
reduced vibration, and better control
of the fly rock. Generally, delay
detonators are produced in measures
of milliseconds or seconds.

Drill & Blast Fly Rock
Fly rock
Fl k iis a constant
t t concern to
t blasters
bl t and
d their
th i
co-workers. It can be controlled if proper
preparation, blasting techniques and safety
procedures are followed. Four of the major
p j causes
of excessive fly rock are:
Geology conditions.
Inaccurate drilling
g and loading.
g
Poor hole design.
Poor pattern timing.
Incidents have been

recorded where flyrock
has travelled in excess
of 1 km and resulted in
significant damage,
injury and/or death.

Drill & Blast Fragmentation
How efficiently muck from a working tunnel or surface excavation can be
removed is a function of the blast fragmentation. Broken rock by volume
is usually 50% greater than the in situ material. In mining, both the ore
and
nd waste
t hhas to
t be
b moved
m d to
t surface
f for
f milling
millin or disposal.
di p l Some
S m wastet
material can be used underground to backfill mined voids. In tunnelling,
everything has to be removed and dumped in fills or if the material is
g , may
right, y be removed and used for road ballast or concrete aggregate
gg g
(which can sometimes then be re-used in the tunnel itself).

Drill & Blast Summary
TNU (1995)
NT
Mechanical Excavation
Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM)

There are two basic types of machine for underground excavation:
Partial-face
Partial face machines: use a Full-face
Full face machines: use a rotating head
cutting head on the end of a armed with cutters, which fills the tunnel
movable boom (that itself may be cross-section completely, and thus almost
track mounted). always excavates circular tunnels.

Partial-face
P ti l f m
machines
hin
are cheaper, smaller
and much more flexible
in operation.
p
cut
muck
out
scoop

Full-face machines when used for relatively
straight and long tunnels (>2 km) permit high
rates of advance in a smooth, automated
construction operation.
operation
scoop
muck
out
cut

The advance rate at which the excavation proceeds is a function of the
cutting rate and utilization factor (which is the amount of time that the
machine is cutting rock). Factors contributing to low utilization rates are
difficulties with ground support and steering,
steering the need to frequently
replace cutters, blocked scoops, broken conveyors, etc.
The cutters may jam if the

TBM isi pushed
h d forwards
f d
with too much force. Then
they might scrape against
the rock and become
fl tt
flattened
d on one side.
id
Broken conveyor

Mechanical Excavation Tool Wear
Delays: When the tunnel boring machine is inside the tunnel
tunnel, the cutters
must be changed from the inside the cutting head.

Mechanics of Rock Cutting Tool Wear
The primary
Th i impact
i t off tool
t l wear on costs
t can be
b so severe that
th t cutter
tt
costs are often considered as a separate item in bid preparation. For TBM
cutters, 1.5 hours are required for a single cutter change, and if several
cutters are changed
g at one time,
m , each may
m y require
q 30-40 mminutes. Even
higher downtimes can be expected with large water inflows, which make
cutter change activities more difficult and time-consuming.
uneven
new wear
normal heavy
wear wear
Thuro & Plinninger (2003)

Mechanics of Rock Cutting
During
D i the
th cutting
tti process, both
b th thrust
th t (Fn) andd torque
t (Ft) are applied.
li d I
In
selecting the proper cutting tool, the engineer wishes to know how the
tools should be configured on a machine cutting head, how to minimize the
need to replace
p cutters,, how to avoid damaging
m g g the cutter mounts,
m , and
how to minimize vibration.
dson & Harrisson (1997)
Hud

Mechanics of Rock Cutting
Cutting
C tti iinvolves
l a complex
l mixture
i t of
f tensile,
t il
shear and compressive modes of failure. With
thrust, the cutting disc penetrates the rock and
generates extensive
extens ve crack propagat
propagation
on to the
free surface. Further strain relief occurs as the
disc edge rolls out of its cut, inducing further
tensile cracking and slabbing at the rock surface.
U-Anleggsdrrift (1998)
NTNU
TBM Excavation & Design
The two main factors that will stop
tunnel boring machines are either
the rock is too hard to cut or that
the rock is too soft to sustain the
reactionary force necessary to
push the machine forward. TBMs
will operate within certain ranges
of
f rockk deformability
d f bili andd strength,
h
where the machine can be tailored
to a specific range to achieve
maximum efficiency (the risk being
if rock conditions diverge from
those the TBM is designed for) .
2000)
Barla & Pelizza (2
Instability problems at the tunnel
face, encountered during excavation of
the 12.9km long g Pinglin
g tunnel in
Taiwan.

a & Pelizza (2000)

Barla
Single & Double Shield TBMs Single-shield TBMs are cheaper and are the
preferred machine for hard rock tunnelling. Double shielded TBMs are normally
used in unstable geology (as they offer more worker protection), or where a high
rate of advancement is required.
Double shield
TBM
Single shield
TBM

Open- & Closed-Face
O Cl d F Shields
Shi ld When
Wh th
the tunnel
t l face
f does
d nott require
i a continuous
ti
and pressure balanced support, the TBM is operated in Open Mode. The face is
mechanically supported by the cuttinghead while the flood control doors regulate
muck flow from the face to the cuttinghead chamber. The excavated muck is
rapidly
idl extracted
t t d by
b the
th conveyor. With a closed-face,
l d f an airlock
i l k and d bulkhead
b lkh d
are used to allow the excavation chamber to be pressurized with compressed air
to aid face support.
Open-face
shields
Closed-face
shields

Earth Pressure Balance (Closed-Face Shield) This method provides continuous
support to the tunnel face by balancing earth pressure against machine thrust. As
the cutterhead rotates and the shield advances, the excavated earth is mixed with
foams in the cutterhead chamber to control its viscosity. The pressure is then
adjusted by means of the rate of its extraction (by screw conveyor) to balance the
pressure exerted by the ground at the tunnel face. This enables near surface
tunnelling in bad ground conditions with minimal surface settlement.
clay
y foam injector
j

U S Army Corps of Engineers (1997)

U.S.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1997)

TBM Selection & Geological Risk
The Yacamb-Quibor
Th Y b Q ib Tunnel
T l iis a prime
i example
l off
tunnelling blind the geology was largely unfamiliar
and unpredictable. With little previous experience,
it was unknown how the rock would react, especially
under the high stresses of the Andes.
Geology: Weak, tectonically sheared graphitic phyllites were
encountered giving rise to serious squeezing problems, which without
adequate support would result in complete closure of the tunnel.
1975: Excavation begins on the 24 km tunnel, for which the

use of a full-face TBM is specified (for rapid excavation).
1977: The weak phyllites fail to provide the TBM grippers

with enough of a foundation to push off of. Supporting
squeezing ground was another defeating problem.
1979: During a holiday

h ld shutdown,
h d squeezing rock
k conditions
d
were left unchecked, resulting in the converging ground
ek (2001)
effectively swallowing one of the TBMs.
1980s: A decision is made to p

permit the tunnel to be
excavated by drill & blast. Recently completed, it took Mining out the remains of
Hoe
more than 33 years to tunnel the full 24 km. the trapped TBM.

TBM insertion
i ti through
th h
vertical shaft.
TBM gripper used to provide

reactionary force for forward thrust
by gripping onto sidewalls of tunnel.
TBM working platform for

installing support (e
(e.g.
g rock
bolts, meshing, shotcrete).

TBM Excavation & Design - Pre
Pre--Cast Linings

Tunnelling Breakthroughs

Lecture References
Barla, G & Pelizza, S (2000). TBM Tunneling in difficult conditions. In GeoEng2000 - Proceedings of
the International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, Melbourne. Technomic
Publishing Company: Lancaster, pp. 329-354.
Hoek, E (2001). Big tunnels in bad rock (the Thirty-Sixth Karl Terzaghi Lecture). Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127(9): 726-740.
Hudson, JA & Harrison, JP (1997). Engineering Rock Mechanics An Introduction to the Principles .
Elsevier Science: Oxford.
NTNU (1995).
(1995) Tunnel: Blast Design.
Design Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU):
Trondheim, Project Report 2A-95.
NTNU-Anleggsdrift (1998). Hard Rock Tunnel Boring: The Boring Process. Norwegian University of
Science and Technology (NTNU): Trondheim, Project Report 1F-98.
Plinninger, RJ, Spaun, G & Thuro, K (2003). Prediction and classification of tool wear in drill and
blast tunnelling. In Proc., 9th Congress of the IAEG, Durban. CD-ROM, paper #395, pp. 2226-2236.
Thuro, K (1997). Drillability prediction: Geological influences in hard rock drill and blast tunnelling.
g
Geologische Rundschau 86(2):
( ) 426-438.
Thuro, K & Plinninger, RJ (2003). Hard rock tunnel boring, cutting, drilling and blasting: Rock
parameters for excavatability. In Proc., 10th ISRM Congress, Johannesburg. SAIMM: Johannesburg,
pp. 1227-1234.
U.S.
U S Army
A C
Corps of
f Engineers
E i (1997) Engineering
(1997). E i i and
d Design
D i - Tunnels
T l and
d Shafts
Sh ft in
i Rock.
R k
Publication EM 1110-2-2901.

1301309590eberhardt - L11-Excavationmethods PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1301309590eberhardt - L11-Excavationmethods PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rock Engineering

Practice & Design

1 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Errors, omissions, comments, etc., can be forwarded to the

2 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

This introduces three critical aspects

The peak strength of the rock

The in situ block size

By what means should the

3 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Hudson & Harrison (1997)

4 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

The tensile strength of rock is

5 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Blasting: Energy is input in large

Machine Excavation: Energy is

6 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

The explosion generates a

7 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

8 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

water rotation thrust percussion

9 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Button Shape Characteristics Application

"non aggressive" shape Rock with high UCS

"very aggressive" shape Rock with low UCS

10 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Practical application of the

12 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Burn cut designs using

13 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

14 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Pre-split blast: First a

15 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

The smooth-wall blast follows a similar

Hudson & Harrison (1997)

16 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

pre-split normal bulk

17 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

The following are the main criteria

18 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

dynamites (nitroglycerin made stable by dissolving it in an inert

ANFO is the most prevalent explosive used in

19 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

20 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Word to the wise: Do not crimp fuses

Few blasts are fired instantaneously.

21 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Incidents have been

22 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

23 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM)

25 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

26 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

27 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

28 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

The cutters may jam if the

29 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

30 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

Thuro & Plinninger (2003)

31 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

32 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

34 of 45 Erik Eberhardt UBC Geological Engineering ISRM Edition

a & Pelizza (2000)