The effect of mixed face conditions (MFC) on hard rock TBM performance

O. T. Blindheim Dr O T Blindheim Ltd E. Grv O. T. Blindheim AS B. Nilsen Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) ABSTRACT: Mixed face conditions, shortened as MFC, is a term used on the occurrence of different types of rock or ground at the tunnel face. It is a normal feature in hard rock tunnels. It causes well-known problems with impacts to the cutters and increased loads to the cutterhead structure and main bearing. An easily observable result is increased vibration. This may make it necessary to reduce the thrust, resulting in reduced penetration rate. Increased cutter breakage and other delays reduce TBM utilisation. The effect on the overall performance may be significant, especially if the MFC are pronounced and prevails over long tunnel section. It is very important to be aware of the possible effects during all phases of a project; i.e. during planning, design, preparation of tender documents, bidding, construction and follow up. As few experience data have been published, reliable quantification of the effects is difficult, and experience based judgement has to be applied. There is a need to make available more data for research in order to improve on the general understanding, available prediction models and the rational treatment of the effects. 1 INTRODUCTION Hard rock tunnel boring machines (TBMs) have today reached a stage of development so that a tunnel can be bored in practically any rock mass. However, certain categories of ground conditions still present considerable challenges for the economic application of the TBM method. One of the main cha llenges is represented by so-called "mixed face conditions" or MFC, i.e. simultaneous occurrence of hard and soft rock or ground at the working face. Such conditions may cause vibrations of the cutterhead and the TBM, necessitating reduction of thrust resulting in reduction of the penetration rate. Increased wear or breaking of the cutter rings and bearings, and in the worst cases cracking of the cu tter head, may also be results of severe mixed face conditions. Reduced utilisation may occur from increased stoppages and downtime. The probability of encountering several sections with MTC is high in most hard rock tunnels. For instance, the occurrence simultaneously at the tunnel face of two rock types with significantly different hardness, such as a very hard dyke intruded in a moderately hard rock would appear to constitute a case of MFC. Different layers of sedimentary, volcanic or metamorphic rocks may also qualify as MFC, provided the difference in properties is large enough. A moderately hard or very hard rock may be intersected by wide joints filled with soil or soft weathered material, or by a weathered dyke, thus constituting MFC. Failure to predict or recognise MFC may cause s election of not suitable TBMs resulting in seriously reduced performance, which may lead to contractual claims. In the following it is discussed what is considered as required for the geological conditions to be defined as "mixed face conditions" or MFC. The consequences of such conditions on TBM performance is described and attempts made to show how this may be quantified. The effects of mixed face conditions on the distribution of cutter loads will also be discussed. Available prediction models take these effects into consideration only to a limited extent. Although the problems are well known in the tunnelling industry, there are very few published documented cases. It is therefore an obvious need to improve available understanding of the causes and effects, for utilisation through all phases of planning, design, tendering and construction, as well as for fair treatment of claims. This paper is basically an attempt to encourage a discussion about the subject, for the benefit of the further development of the TBM technology and its application.

2 WHICH CONDITIONS QUALIFY AS MIXED FACE CONDITIONS (MFC)? In hard rock tunnel boring, rock units with different mechanical properties, and veins or dykes within a formation, is commonly referred to as mixed face conditions or MFC. Rock layers with similar mechanical properties do not qualify as MFC as the difference in the net penetration rate of each individual layer is insignificant. If the layer contact is represented by e.g. a bedding joint, this may even increase the penetration locally. The degree of MFC depends on both the mechanical properties of the geological formations and the geometry of such formations. In a horizontal tunnel a vertical dyke crossing the tunnel perpendicularly will normally not give much problems. As the geological formations are aligned more parallel to the tunnel axis, the situation becomes increasingly unfavourable. This is the case for instance in Icelandic basalt formations, see Figure 1, where the different volcanic and sedimentary layers are usually dipping 2-10. It is evident that a large part of a near horizontal tunnel in such geological conditions would be excavated in MFC.

data may not be available, unless the same formation has been bored before. In principle, several physical and mechanical p arameters that are expressing the boreability may be relevant for describing MFC. In practice, Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) is the parameter that often is put in focus in discussions concerning MFC. The UCS may not be the best parameter for TBM boreability, but its availability makes it useful as a reference. Other parameters, such as the Drilling Rate Index (DRI) developed at NTNU (former NTH), Trondheim may be more relevant as it includes the resistance to impacts, which simulates the dynamic loading of rock from the disc cutters (Blindheim & Bruland 1998). Further, parameters expressing elasticity or abrasivity may also be of relevance to describe MFC. There is no generally accepted, unambiguous definition of what is required for geological conditions to be qualified as "mixed face conditions" or MFC. A quick review of relevant literature illustrates this, and a few examples are provided in the following. The ISRM Terminology book (ISRM 1975) does not at all mention the terms mixed face conditions or mixed ground. In the ITA web glossary (ITA 2001), the term "mixed ground is mentioned, but no definition of its meaning is given. Bchi (1992) states that The term mixed face conditions is used when the tunnel face consists of at least two rock types with completely different boreability - in simple terms a mix of soft and hard rock". He refers to medium hard rock of phyllite and mica gneiss (UCS 90-140 MPa) with quartzitic intrusions or amphibolite lenses (UCS 180-220 MPa) as mixed face conditions. Johannessen & Askildsrud (1993) refers to differences in UCS of typically 250 MPa for the strongest (meta-gabbro) and 40-50 MPa for the weakest (shale/phyllite) as causing problems typical for MFC. Hartwig (1994) describes a dyke of UCS=20 MPa in a UCS200 MPa rock as an example of mixed face condition in a real hard rock tunnel. Alber (1998) refers to inter-bedding of UCS=35 MPa dolostone and UCS=15 MPa shale as mixed face condition. These examples cover a range of the strength ratio between the strongest and the weakest rock from b elow 2.5 to above 10. Although it could be tempting to propose a strength ratio as basis for a definition of MFC, it is believed that this cannot be done without considering the effects on the TBM performance, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Steingrimsson et al. (2001) describes several hydropower projects where mixed face conditions have

Figure 1. Potential situations for mixed face conditions (MFC) in basaltic rock mass (Jnsson 1992). (The legend reads from above: Tholeiite Basalt, Olivine or Porphyritic Basalt, Cemented Scoria, San dstone/Siltstone)

It follows naturally from the above that if different ground types are present at the face, this could influence both the boreability of the rock and the stability of the face. In this paper, the focus is on the boreability of the rock, considering also the stability of the rock mass at face as far as it influences the boreability. The overall stability of the tunnel, which may also be influenced, is not addressed here. Such combined problems are not uncommon, and are for example described by Hunter & Aust (1987) for a tunnel in jointed basalt in soft clay matrix. The most direct measure of the TBM boreability is of course the experienced TBM performance, e.g. expressed as net penetration rate. However, such

been suggested and in some cases claims have been raised on this basis. This includes Lesotho Highlands Water Project (hard dykes and sills in sedimentary rocks and basalts), Eydi on Faroe Islands (basalts with tuff and sediments), Dul Hasti in India (quartzite interbedded in phyllite), Merker in Norway (slate, phyllite and greywacke as well as greenstone and meta-gabbro) and Manapouri in New Zealand (gneiss, calcsilicate and quartzite with intrusions of gabbro and diorite). The examples as presented provide no general guidance towards an accepted definition in quantitative terms. Even for the common parameter UCS one must expect different opinions from different engineers. It is noted that in the same paper, a correction factor based on achievable penetration rates estimated by the NTNU prediction model is proposed and applied on a planned tunnel on Iceland. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss this correction factor, but it is noteworthy that the effort represents an attempt to quantify the possible effects ahead of tendering and construction. Figure 2 illustrates that it may not be easy at the planning stage to determine whether MFC will occur or not, and that jointing may also have an influence.

The disc cutters always experience a rapidly varying load during cutting. As they roll over the face, the load on an individual cutter may vary from close to zero, up to peak loads of 5-10 times the average. It is a highly dynamic process, and the toughness (or opposite the brittleness) of the rock is an obvious important parameter, as it represents the resistance against impacts, i.e. some form of d ynamic rock strength. Below the cutter edge, the rock material is crushed, and between the cutter grooves, the rock chips off in smaller or larger pieces. This process, and how it can be simulated, is described in detail in many papers. The crushed material in the cutter grooves can easily be observed at the tunnel face, and the chips (especially in fine-grained rocks) sometimes show feather-like failure patterns, characteristic for the tensile nature of the chipping. In the following discussion, one could address the different layers as being of different toughness or brittleness, or use the general terms hard and soft. For simplicity, it referred to strong and weak rocks, bearing the above discussion about dynamic strength in mind. When the face consists of a mix of strong and weak rock, the cutters rolling on the strong rock attract more of the applied thrust to the cutterhead than the cutters rolling on the weak rock. Simply, the cutterhead forces all cutters to progress with the same penetration per revolution (or practically so). The thrust not needed in the weak rock is utilised in the strong rock. If the change between the two rock types is sharp, the cutter will experience an impact, rolling from the weaker into the stronger material, the average and peak loads also jump up to a higher level. Due to the impacts or the increased hammering the cutters are experiencing, the disc cutter edges may chip or break, if the impacts are large enough. If the rocks are abrasive, an increase in the abrasive wear may also result as the contact stresses increases. Over time, the cutter bearings will take more and higher shock loads per revolution, and bearing breakage will occur more often. This can occur between inspections, and if the bearing freezes, the cutter ring will be destroyed as well. Cutter mounting bolts may break more often. In total, increased cutter consumption results. The TBM utilisation is reduced due to increased cutter change time, as well as increase of other scheduled and unscheduled stoppages. The applied thrust is in practise never completely evenly distributed over the cutterhead. It will fluctuate rapidly with time as the cutters experience different loads. If the face is mixed, the distribution will become more uneven, and large forces can o c-

Figure 2. Strong, homogeneous metagabbro with layers of weak, anisotropic phyllite - MFC or not?

3 WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF MIXED FACE CONDITIONS (MFC)?

3.1 Effects on the boring process As mentioned in the introduction, the effects of MFC with respect to boreability are connected to impacts on the cutters, vibrations of the cutterhead and the TBM, uneven loading of the main bearing, and increased cutter breakage. These effects will below be discussed in more detail in qualitative terms.

cur, that will have to be taken up by the cutterhead structure, the main bearing and its support, and distributed to the TBM frame. In detail, a very stiff cutterhead will force all cutters to penetrate to the same depth, which would be expected to be tougher on the cutters. A softer cutterhead will allow some flexibility for the cutters, but it will have to endure more flexing itself. The design of a cutterhead is a complex matter, and several compromises have to be made. Openings have to be made in the structure to allow for muck collection and for access to the face. There may be a requirement for wells through the head to enable cutter change from behind. If the resulting cutterhead structure is too weak, or it has too many points where cracks can be initiated, repair of fatigue cracks may become necessary to prevent failure of the whole structure. This may involve grinding out cracks and welding, which is time consuming to perform properly in the narrow and dirty environment at the cutterhead. The shape and length of the cutterhead have an influence on the loading of the main bearing. If the bearing fails, it normally takes several weeks to replace, even if a spare is available on site or close by. Naturally, the durability of the main bearing is a concern in any hard rock tunnel, especially so in MFC. This influences operation. 3.2 Effects on TBM operation When an experienced TBM operator observes that the vibrations are increasing from the normal level to one that seems to be too high, or the TBM deviates due to uneven hardness, his immediate reaction will be to lower the applied thrust force to the cutterhead. On TBMs with variable cutterhead drive, he may choose to lower the RPM or both thrust and RPM. Inspection of the cutters is on many projects done routinely once per shift or per day. This inspection may confirm the reason for the increased vibrations, e.g. if it is a dyke, a different layer, combination with jointing etc. Too which level the thrust (and RPM) should be reduced is influenced by many factors, not only by the boreability of the rock and the rock mass. The size of the cutters, the type and age of the TBM, the length and expected conditions on the remaining drive, the progress in relation to the schedule etc. are all factors that would influence the operation. If the MFC prevails, it may be possible to record an increase in cutter breakage, and even cracking of the cutterhead. The effects on the main bearing will not be possible to observe, which may trigger extra caution. According to good practise, the contractor will develop his operation procedures to allow the best

utilisation of the TBM capacity without risking too large increase in cutter consumption and of the various time losses. A trained and experienced operator will utilise this to the best of his own bonus (if any), and for the benefit of his employer and in the end for the project. From this it can be seen that one cannot expect to find for one mixed face conditions, defined in geotechnical terms as e.g. rock strength or boreability, the same effects for all TBMs. It will depend on the machine specifications and also the organisational parameters. The significance of a MFC will have to be documented by observations during construction, backed up by records of applied machine parameters, and statistics about cutter consumption etc. Is it possible to quantify some of these factors, at least to illustrate the size order of the effects? This will be addressed in the next chapter. 4 DEALING WITH MIXED FACE CONDITIONS (MFC)

4.1 Tools for prediction of MFC Normal geological investigation methods and techniques are sufficient to identify and describe MFC in qualitative terms. It is when it comes to quantification of the effects it becomes difficult. Ideally, empirically based prediction models should be available to quantify the effects of MFC. Such models would be based on relevant geotechnical parameters, and would allow realistic planning and the inclusion of practical clauses in the contract, making risk sharing and fair compensation possible. What are then the tools at hand? Again, one has to look at what is known at present. 4.2 Thrust reduction The need and usefulness of reducing the thrust, and thereby to reduce the problems with vibrations (hammering) etc is well known. MFC is often mentioned in papers in general terms like the thrust had to be reduced when passing the dyke etc. However, few documented cases have been published and made available to the tunnelling industry. Alber (1998) describes a case (as mentioned above) where the thrust was reduced gradually from a level of 145 kN/disc to 110 kN/disc over a section of 500 m tunnel located in dolostone (UCS around 35 MPa) and shale (UCS around 15 MPa). This represents a reduction of thrust of 24%, which he presumes was apparently enough to avoid the vibrations. The av-

erage net penetration appears to have decreased with the same percentage. The average rock mass strength, estimated according to the percentage outcrop of the different layers on the face, decreased over the same tunnel section, from 35 to about 15 MPa. This must mean that the occurrence of the stronger rock decreased from 100% at first to almost zero at the end of the section. Accordingly, it is not clear whether the reduction was necessary due to vibrations caused by MFC alone; it may partly be a result of a presence of bedding planes in the shale. Considering the applied thrust levels, it may have been a TBM with 356 mm (14) cutters, not very representative for todays TBMs, which mostly use 432 mm (17) cutters. Alber concludes that more research is needed to assess the negative effects of mixed faces on TBM penetration. This is agreed. The different available prediction models do not give much guidance on the subject. However, the latest NTNU 1-98 empirical prediction model provides some support. In Bruland (1998), recommendations are given for Cutter Thrust. For each cutter size (356mm=14, 394mm=15.5, 432mm=17, 483mm=19) a band is shown for "Recommended maximum gross average thrust per disc. The upper limit indicates boring in homogeneous rock mass, the lower limit indicates boring in medium to very fractured rock mass". For the more common 432mm (17) cutter, the upper limit is shown as 230 kN, the lower is 210 kN. This quoted qualification is further explained in the text of NTNU 1-98: "Figure 1.4 shows a general outline of maximum gross average thrust per cutter disc as a function of cutter diameter and TBM diameter. Gross average thrust means the thrust the cutters are able to utilise over a longer period of time, not peak loads occurring over short time intervals. At present, the material quality of the steel ring is the limiting factor of the cutter thrust. When estimating penetration rate etc., one must consider the thrust capacity of the cutter rings, in addition to the capacity of the cutter bearings and the main bearing." This explanation is useful. If a cutter rating for the 432 mm cutters is assumed as 250 kN the NTNU 198 recommended long term cutter load utilisation is 230/250 = 92% for homogeneous rock mass, and 210/250 = 84% for medium to very fractured rock mass. It can be argued that a MFC with different rock types would normally have less impact than a medium to very fractured rock mass. In a fractured rock mass, smaller or larger blocks may fall out or be pushed out of the face, leaving open gaps or voids. Besides the damage the loose blocks may

cause by themselves, the voids left in the face will cause impacts when the cutters passing the voids hits the rock on the side of the void. The strength ratio between the rock and the void would theoretically be extreme. It seems reasonable that a reduction of thrust to 8590% would account for MFC due to different rock types alone, unless the strength ratio is very high. It is believed that for many of the examples of MFC, the effects are not only due to differences in rock types and their properties, but also due to occurring discontinuities. For example, a very hard dyke may also be jointed, making it easier to bore, but causing vibrations and fall-outs from the face as well. Between different layers, e.g. in basalt or sedimentary rocks, discontinuities may be present along flow contacts or bedding planes. In MFC cases with very high strength ratios, say above 5-10, it may be necessary to reduce the thrust by more than the above mentioned 10-15%, e.g. down to 50%. Such conditions may normally not prevail, but if they do, this would obviously have a large impact on the overall performance. With respect to lowering of the RPM to reduce v ibration, a reduction of the same percentage may be necessary. This would appear as a useful measure, as it would maintain (or even improve) chipping. Published experience is not available to give quantification. 4.3 Cutter load distribution Above the cutter load distribution on a mixed face was described in qualitative terms. Attempts to quantify this have been used on several projects, but again little is published. Bchi (1992) describes boring with 500 mm cutters at the Klippen Hydropower Project in Sweden. Here MFC occurred on 35% of the tunnel in medium hard phyllite and mica gneiss with quartzitic and granitic intrusions or amphibole lenses. Bchi shows an example of estimating cutter forces. This is based on the penetration versus thrust curve for the rock with good boreability as recorded on site, and on a similar curve assumed to be representative for the harder rocks, based on recalculated observations from 4 other TBM projects in very hard rocks. Bchi explains how the cutter forces in the hard rocks may be above the recommended level, and that thrust reduction may be necessary with resulting lower penetration. When boring with overall average thrust of 23 tons per cutter the penetration is given as 3.8 m/h. This however is estimated (from the provided curves) to result in cutter loads for the

cutters rolling in the hard rock of 45 ton, well above the rated capacity of 35 tons per cutter, which would not be sustainable in the long run. A reduction to 35 tons per cutter in the hard rock gives a reduced penetration of 2.5 m/h. It is assumed that these figures refer to average thrust per cutter including friction. Bchis estimate is done in an indirect and simplified manner, but it illustrates the effects and represents a practical approach, that can be refined further. In order for such a calculation of cutter load distribution to be more representative of what is going on at the face, the following should be satisfied: The calculation should consider that the face cutters are taking a higher portion of the thrust than the inclined transition and gauge cutters. This can be easily compensated for by correction for the forward thrust vector of the inclined cutters (according to the cosinus of their angle to the tunnel axis). The calculation should preferably be done on a net load basis, as the manufacturers are normally giving the rating of the cutters as net loads. It has been common practice to assume 10% friction for hard rock TBMs, but this may vary, especially for shielded TBMs.

Tests for recording penetration versus thrust are performed frequently in TBM tunnels, but the contractors often consider the results proprietary. Therefore, the generation of available empirical knowledge is slow. Often prediction models have to be used to establish the input, and the reliability of simplified predictions (e.g. that penetration is inversely proportional to strength) may sometimes be questionable. The use of back-calculations is encouraged to improve the knowledge and for further development of realistic prediction models. 5 CONCLUDING REMARKS MFC is fully foreseeable as a feature in any hard rock tunnel. It will vary to which extent and to which degree it will occur. It is only if the situation is significantly worse that could be expected, or prevails over significantly longer sections that a claim in this respect could be justifiable. The effects of MFC (vibrations etc.) on the boring process and the TBM performance are similar to those being experienced in any hard rock mass with presence of discontinuities. In some cases the effects could be less, sometimes worse, depending on the situation. Jointing may give worse impacts, but could still result in increased penetration. Frequently, combined effects of mixed face of different rock types and presence of joints are experienced, complicating matters. It is not considered useful to define MFC in terms of geological and geotechnical parameters alone. The effects on the TBM performance vary with the type of TBM and the machine parameters as well as the operation of the TBM. More experience data and research is needed to develop existing prediction models to provide reliable quantification of the e ffects. In the meantime, analysis based on comparisons and judgement will have to be applied. TBMs to be used in hard rock tunnels have to be designed and selected to be able to sustain MFC. Thus, it is very important that planning, design and preparation of contract documents take the possibility of MFC into consideration. If MFC is expected to be prevailing, it is important to include contractual tools to deal with this, e.g. by providing suitable excavation classes for pricing and payment. Only on basis of thorough documentation is it possible for the contractors to consider MFC realistically. At present, few references reporting about the effects of MFC are available. It is therefore important that experience is published for the benefit of the tunnelling industry. This may result in better planning, better tender documents, realistic tenders, less

With realistic input, such estimates can be very useful. However, penetration versus thrust curves for each of the rock types are needed for the TBM in question. If these cannot be established by tests in tunnel section with one rock only, judgement will be needed to apply reasonable input. Calculations of cutter load distribution is normally performed as average static loads, and based on the percentage of outcrop of the different rock types on the face. However, the impacts from a very hard layer, say of 1m width, may be more when it is appearing or disappearing in the periphery than when it is fully exposed in the middle of the face. This involves both the impacts on the gauge cutters, the tendencies to cause deviations from the alignment, and the loads on the cutterhead with bearing. At Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), it is now looked into the possibility of simulating the effects of MFC by numerical modelling (FLAC) attempting to take the above factors into account. 4.4 Penetration versus thrust tests

problems during construction, less claims and allow for fair treatment of justifiable claims. 6 REFERENCES Alber, M. (1998): Design of High Speed TBM-Drives. 15th Canadian Tunnelling Conference. Vancouver, pp 181-187. Blindheim, O. T. & Bruland, A. (1998): Boreability Testing. Norwegian TBM Tunnelling, 30 years of experience with TBMs in Norwegian tunnelling, Publication No. 11, Norwegian Soil and Rock Engineering Association, Norwegian Tunnelling Society, NFF, pp 21-27. Bruland, A. (1998): Project Report 1B-98, Hard rock tunnel boring. Advance Rate and Cutter Wear. NTNU-Anleggsdrift, Trondheim, Norway. Bchi, E.T. (1992): New TBM Generation with 20 Cutters. Tunnelling Experience at Klippen Hydropower-Sweden. In TBM Symposium Lucia 1992, Atlas Copco Stockholm, BeFo Stiftelsen Bergteknisk Forskning, BK Bergsprengningskommiten, Stockholm. Hartwig, S. (1994): Some notes on the influence of rock mass properties on hard rock TBM cutterhead design. Proc. NEAT tunnelling seminar, Switzerland, 7p. Hunter P.W. & Aust, M.I.E. (1987): Excavation of a major tunnel by double shielded TBM through mixed ground basalt and clayey soils. In Jacobs & Hendrics (eds), Proc. RETC. New Orleans LA. 1: 526-561. Littleton, CO: Soc. for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Inc. ISRM (1975): Terminology. ISRM Commission on terminology, symbols and graphic representation. International Society for Rock Mechanics, July, 83p. ITA (2001): website: http://www.itaaites.org/-Glossary/glossary.html Johannessen, S & Askildsrud, G. (1993): Merker Hydro Tunnelling the Norwegian Way. Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference RETC, Boston, pp 415-429. Jnsson, (1992): Tunnelling in basalts in Iceland and the Faroe Islands with special reference to the bored tunnels at the Fljtsdalur and Eidi hydro projects. Tuncon 92 Design and construction of tunnels. Steingrimsson, J. H., Grv, E. & Nilsen, B. (2001): The significance of Mixed-face Conditions for TBM performance, To be published in World Tunnelling.