Cobbly-Bouldery Ground

Microtunneling with Mixed

Ground Heads
Steve Hunt

Mixed-Face Ground,
Presentation Contents Soil-Hard Rock Interface
1.Mixed-Face ground examples, considerations

2.Geology

3.Subsurface investigation and baselining

4.Boulder fracturing and excavating

5.Risks and risk management

6.Contract provisions (specs, pay items)

7.Costs

8.Conclusions

Mixed-Face Ground Mixed-Face Ground, Weak Rock

Extremely variable strength, hardness, abrasivity Cemented Alluvium

Cobbly-bouldery ground

Soil-hard rock interface, karst ground

Soft and hard rock interface

Weathered rock

Blocky Ground rock

Fault zone

1
Mixed-Face Ground, Weathered Rock Mixed-Face Ground Potential Impacts

Cutter breakage from hard rock impacts

Pinion gear, main gear, housing breakage

Cutterhead stalling, jammed excavation chamber

Severe cutter, cutterhead wear

Plucked rock clast jammed in cutterhead opening

Reduced cutter life more frequent changes

Severe advance rate reduction

Mixed-Face Ground, Blocky Rock Key Tunneling Considerations

Geology - extent of mixed-face ground, BVR, TVR, etc.
Hydrogeology permeability, head
Depth and potential rescue shaft access
MTBM requirements:
Power torque, speed
Cutterhead type and COR (cutterhead opening
ratio)
Cutter types and arrangement
Rock crusher type and power
Intervention risk during jacking drive:
o Change cutters - abrasion wear or breakage
o Remove obstructions: boulders, GCB jam
o Chamber or chamber and cutterhead?
o Atmospheric vs hyperbaric (0-3.5 bar, >3.5 bar)

Mixed-Face Ground, Fault Zone Presentation Contents

1.Mixed-Face ground examples, considerations

2.Geology

3.Subsurface investigation and baselining

4.Boulder fracturing and excavating

5.Risks and risk management

6.Contract provisions (specs, pay items)

7.Costs

8.Conclusions

2
 Relative Cobble and Boulder
Mixed-face ground considerations Concentrations
Geologic setting glacial, alluvial, residual, etc.
MFG, C&B Frequency boulder concentration: CVR,
BVR, TVR
MFG, C&B Distribution random (scattered) or
geologically concentrated (lag zones, nests, fault
zones).
Size and angularity of rock clasts
Composition rock type, mineralogy
Clast strength UCS, hardness, abrastivity
(63%) of cases had a BVR <1%)
Matrix composition and strength
Abrasivity of matrix and rock clasts

Cobble, Boulder Volume Ratio Definitions

Common Boulder Size Distributions

CobbleVolume
CVR (%) =
ExavationVolume Portland,
85% small
to medium
BoulderVolume
BVR(%) = Cronin et al, R2003.48

ExavationVolume
Wayne County (Detroit Area)

Large

TotalClastVolume Medium
Small
Detroit,
TVR(%) = =CVR+BVR 78% small
ExavationVolume to medium
DiPonio et al, R2003.47

DiPonio et al 2007

0
Trace (0-1%) Boulder Volume Ratio Typical Cobble-Boulder Strengths
1
Descriptive Terms UCS, MPa
Few (1-2%) 0 69 138 207 276 345
2

Many (2-5%)

Frequent (5-10%)

10

20
Very frequent (10-50%)

50

Extremely frequent (>50%)

100
Solid rock (100%) Cobbles and boulders are the survivors of weathering and transport

3
 High Cobble and Boulder Abrasivity
Subsurface Investigation

Garbage in = Garbage out

MFG risks cannot be properly

managed without a thorough
understanding of the geology
From W2105-352 and anticipated ground

Cobbles and boulders are generally very abrasive

conditions

Presentation Contents Geological Uncertainty

1.Mixed-Face ground examples, considerations

2.Geology Legget in his 1979 Terzaghi lecture reminded

us that:
3.Subsurface investigation and baselining

4.Boulder fracturing and excavating

There can never be any certainty about
5.Risks and risk management
geological conditions between adjacent
6.Contract provisions (specs, pay items) boreholes, even 5 ft apart, until the excavation
has actually opened up the ground.
7.Costs
Uncertainty cannot be eliminated, but it can be significantly reduced !
8.Conclusions

Subsurface Investigation Borings alone generally inadequate

Previously covered by Greg Raines
Method Value for boulder invest.
Conventional Marginal with careful
borings geotech logging
Cone penetrometer Will be obstructed in cobbles
and boulders
Rotosonic coring Very useful and cost
effective - recommended Conventional Boring Enhancements:
30-40 inch auger Very useful, but costly and o RDR (Relative Drilling Resistance) logging
bores potentially damaging o SPT N-Value Interpretations
Test pits, quarries, Very useful, but may not o Combine with other SI methods (rotosonic,
outcrop mapping penetrate tunnel zone soil large auger borings, test pits)
Seismic (refraction, Generally of little value for
GPR, etc) tunnel depths >20 ft

4
 Total Ground Abrasivity
Relative Drilling Resistance
Soil matrix abrasivity - wear

Mixed ground abrasivity

wear and breakage

Rock abrasivity - wear

To help enhance interpretation of conventional boring data

Total Ground Abrasivity

Soil matrix abrasivity
SPT N-Value Interpretation Avoid methods that dont test gravel component (SAT,
LCPC)
Penn state soil abrasion testing device [TU2011.64 and
TU2012.42]
Soft Ground Abrasion Tester (SGAT) [TU2013.121]
New methods dont test cobbles and boulders

Rock clast abrasivity

Must consider CVR + BVR (clast percentage in ground)

To help enhance interpretation of conventional boring data Factor soil matrix and rock clast abrasivity
High CVR and BVR like rock, consider UCS, CAI of rock

Laboratory Testing Soil Matrix Abrasivity

Complete normal lab testing and:

Matrix UCS testing
Matrix grain size analyses
Matrix soil abrasion testing
Clast UCS testing
Clast Cerchar abrasivity

Gravel 2-75 mm LCPC, SAT do not test gravel

Cobbles 75-300 mm FUAT, SGAT, NDAT, PSU methods may include gravel
Boulders 300+ mm None of the methods account for cobbles and boulders

5
 Rock Abrasivity Index Cutter Life Vs. BVR
Less abrasion, more cutter life at BVR < 1-2%
Longer cutter life for disc cutters than scrapers

Cobbles and boulders typically have high abrasivity

Combined Matrix and MFG, Cobble and Boulder Abrasivity

Cobble and Boulder Abrasivity
Approach:
Complete New NTNU Soil Abrasion Tests (SAT) on soil
matrix (sieved soil sample <4 mm = clay, silt & sand)
Also consider LCPC abrasivity test (to get LAC) on
sieved matrix 4-6.3 mm = fine gravel)
Complete Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI) tests on rock
clast samples
Determine CVR and BVR values for tunnel zones
Evaluate implied abrasivity from each method
1. Soil with TVR < 1%
Soil abrasivity controls, cutter life higher
Isolated risk of boulder obstruction
Scraper cutters provide higher advance rates
2. Soil with TVR 1 to 5%
Abrasion wear, breakage will reduce cutter life
MFG, cobbles and boulders are a concernable risk
Combined scraper and disc cutters best
3. Soil with TVR >5%, MFG to blocky rock

Challenge: Significant abrasion wear, breakage cutter impacts

How to combine matrix abrasivity with cobble and MFG, cobble and boulder risk must be managed
boulder clast abrasivity and CVR+BVR values all three All or mostly disc cutters best
factors are very important!

Average Clast and Total Ground Abrasivity Cobble and Boulder Baselining
GBR Items to Discuss
CVR+BVR Total Ground Total Ground Abrasivity Approach (Hunt and Del Nero, 2012+, Hunt 2002, Hunt &
% Abrasivity Mazhar 2004, Hunt and Angulo, 1999)

Cobble and boulder volume ratios Baseline

< 1% Very Low Soil matrix abrasivity controls - use a
Soil Abrasivity Index (SAI) Size distributions Baseline

Shapes, angularity
1-5% Low 90% SAI + 10% CAI ?
Unconfined compressive strength Baseline
5-10% Moderate 70% SAI + 30% CAI ?
Abrasivity Baseline

10-50% High 50% SAI + 50% CAI ? Mineral compositions

Matrix soil composition, strength Baseline
>50% Very High Rock abrasivity controls use Cerchar
Abrasivity Index (CAI) Geologic origin
Distribution in ground

6
 Cobble and Boulder Quantity Baselining Probabilistic and Statistical Methods

Frank & Chapman 2005

Ditlevsen 1997, 2006: exponential
Boulder volume ratio methods Medley 2002: power law distribution

Probabilistic methods Felletti & Beretta 2009: transition probability

Functional Baselines
Methods require: many borings,
extensive logging of test pits,
auger bores, excavations,
outcrop mapping, etc. to have
sufficient statistical data

Boulder Volume Ratio Method Baselining Boulders Conclusions

Options:
Local geologic correlation
% C + B in boring length
based on RDR and N-values 1. Dont potentially
costly DSC
claims

Convert to CVR and BVR 2. Guess

using chart
3. BVR-CVR [Hunt: 1999, 2002; Boone et al, 1998]
Use CVR and BVR data from
test pits, excavations, 4.Probabilistic: Frank & Chapman 2005; Medley,
auger bores, sonic borings 2002; Felletti & Beretta 2009]
Use CVR and BVR data from
previous local tunnels

Select CVR and BVR values

for each geologic unit Figure 2 BVR vs. % bouldery ground in borings (Hunt, 2002)

Boulder Size Distribution

Presentation Contents
BVR input with tunnel reach excavation volume
1.Mixed-Face ground examples, considerations

2.Geology
Estimated boulder
3.Subsurface investigation and baselining
quantities by size
4.Boulder fracturing and excavating

5.Risks and risk management

6.Contract provisions (specs, pay items)

7.Costs

8.Conclusions

7
 Cutting Tool Considerations Drilled push hole to remove boulder obstruction

Cutter tool cost

Effect on instantaneous advance rate
Cutter life (wear, breakage)
Cutter change intervention cost
Effect on average advance rate
Risk of stuck drive (rescue shaft access)
Commutation energy

Requires surface access and hole stability

MFG, boulder excavating options

Dont remove boulder obstructions this way !
1. Push aside: common in soft-loose ground
2. Push hole: drilled shaft at heading, if access
3. Rescue shaft/tunnel: need vertical access -
generally expensive
4. Split by hand: drill & blast, hydraulic splitter (face
access and face stability required)
5. Bash, fracture, pluck and pass: by rippers, picks
and scrappers then rock crusher
6. Chip, split, pluck, and crush: by disc cutters and
scrappers then rock crusher- (requires boulder
embedment in a strong matrix)

Pushing cobbles, boulders aside Rescue Shafts

Possible if soil matrix around cobbles

and boulders is soft or lose

8
 Boulder breaking by blasting Cutter Selection Factors:
MFG, cobble-boulder frequency
Clast sizes, shapes
Clast unconfined compressive strength
Matrix soil type, shear strength, abrasiveness
Groundwater pressure (hyperbaric interventions)
Tunnel diameter
Face access for tool changes
Face standup time (open vs pressurized mode)
Mucking system type (e.g. screw, slurry, etc)
Cutter cost

Requires face access and face stability Instantaneous advance rate

Boulder breaking by non-blasting Cutters for MTBMs in MFG, Cobbly-Bouldery Ground

more
more

Drilling & pneumatic wedge

splitting
Relative Cost per
cutter life cutter
Drilling & non-blast propellant
splitting

drilling & expansive gas

splitting

less less
Requires face access and face stability

Scrapers Rippers - Pick Cutters

Boulder fracturing by cutters
1. Ripper-scraper impact bashing, scraping

2. Roller (disc) cutter-chipping, splitting

9
 Scraper - Ripper Cutter Action Scraper - ripper cutter wear, breakage
Shinouda et al, R2011.80

Ripper - Direction of cutting Worn Broken

scraper
Worn

Shearing New
Soil Weak Rock
Ref: Camp 2008
New
Ripper - Direction of cutting Broken
scraper
New

Shearing

Soil Weak Rock Worn

with Boulder Worn

Scraper - Ripper Cutter Action Roller Cutter Types

Scraping Ripping, bashing and plucking

single disk double disk cutter carbide button

cutter cone / strawberry
cutter

Ref: Burger 2008

Ref: Burger 2008

Plucked
boulder
two row carbide triple disk cutter three row
insert cutter with carbide carbide insert
Plucked cutter
boulder inserts

Boulder Bashing Disc Cutter Action in Massive Rock

Disc cutters are

the most efficient
cutting tools.
A brutal method Ozdemir, 1995

10
Rock UCS Limits for MTBM disc cutters Soil matrix strength required for disc cutters to
0 15 30 KSI 45 60
be effective from Goss, 2002
Limits Limits Limit
suggested by suggested possible
Abbott & by Hunt & with a
Lyman, 2006 Del Nero, robust
2009 MTBM

UCS rock not more than 600 x

Limits suggested
by Robbins for
UCS (Qu) soil to cut vs pluck
SBU-M
Limits
suggested
Limits by AGD
suggested by (Isecki),
Abbott, 1996 2003

= Cases with stuck MTBM

~600:1
From Goss, 2002

Disc Cutter Action in Soil Less Effective Kiefer et al, 2008: Boulder cutting tests at CSM

Failure after partial

cutting with shear
along boulder-
matrix interface

Stiff matrix

Failure after partial

cutting by deep
fracture and/or
bearing capacity
failure and plucking
Soft matrix

Eccentric loading
increases risk of
plucking before
boulder is cut

Kiefer et al, 2008

Boulder cutting by disk cutters Kiefer et al, 2008: Boulder cutting tests at CSM

Must limit advance rate to 10 mm per cutterhead revolution (=30 mm/min

at 3 RPM) to cut-chip versus pluck hard rock boulders
Cutter impacts on boulders cause torque spikes and impact stresses Stiff matrix
that may damage cutters, cutter housings and gears-pinions Stiff matrix Soft matrix

Stiff matrix

Stiff matrix Soft matrix

Requires strong soil

matrix

Stiff matrix Soft matrix Soft matrix

Babenderede, 2003

11
 Boulder cutting by disk cutters Disc cutter wear, breakage
Worn

Worn
For a UCS
rock/soil ratio =
Broken
200, about
~50% of boulder
will be cut
before plucking Worn Broken
or fracturing
develops
Boulder soft, Boulder hard, Worn
weak relative strong
to matrix relative to
matrix
Conclusion: disk cutters unlikely to fracture entire
cobble or boulder clast before plucking occurs !
Kiefer et al, 2008

Plucked NAT 2004 Hunt & Mazhar Paper

boulders rolling on
Conclusion 1
cutterhead and cutters
causing wear, breakage 40 cases evaluated: The risk of getting
stuck from boulders was highest if the
MTBM was equipped with scraper
pick cutters only and no face access.

Hunt & Mazhar, 2004

Plucked boulders jamming NAT 2004 Hunt & Mazhar Paper

in cutterhead openings Conclusion 2
The risk of getting stuck on boulders
was significantly lower if the MTBM
was equipped with disc cutters.

Hunt & Mazhar, 2004

12
 Opinion on Cutters for MTBMs in Rock Crushers
Cobbly-Bouldery Ground
Brittle tensile fracturing
Heavy block or block carbide insert ripper cutters
may be more cost effective in lose, soft matrix ground
with TVR<5% where low groundwater heads and
ground conditions allow mostly free air interventions
to remove obstructions and replace cutters.
Disc cutters should generally be more cost effective
in dense, strong matrix ground and where TVR>5%
and where high potential inflows requires hyperbaric
interventions or grouting to remove obstructions and
replace cutters.
Risk of isolated boulder obstruction must be
considered even if BVR is low.

Commutation Energy MTBM Rock Crushers

Manufacturers: Crushers capable of crushing rocks 20 to 30
percent of MTBM diameter and UCS up to 200 Mpa (30 ksi)

Commutating stronger rock by cutters and rock

crusher requires more energy than weak rock

Commutation Energy Strong Rocks MTBM Rock Crusher

Only the strong survive!

Commutating stronger rock requires more

energy than weak rock

13
 Commutation Energy Crushed clast passage causes intake port wear

3=7.6 cm Severe
intake port
wear and
jammed
slurry lines
and
excavation
chamber
Commutating to gravel size for slurry mucking
system pumping requires more energy than to San Diego area,

larger size clasts for conveyor mucking Camp, No-Dig

2007

Commutation Energy Conclusions

Presentation Contents
1. Cobbles and boulders must be fractured and crushed to
gravel size for slurry pumping. 1.Mixed-Face ground examples, considerations
2. Larger cobble and boulder volume ratios result in larger
energy demand for fracturing and crushing.
2.Geology

3. Stronger clasts require more commutation energy. 3.Subsurface investigation and baselining
4. Clast commutation not only requires considerable energy but
causes more abrasion to cutters, crusher, intake ports and 4.Boulder fracturing and excavating
slurry mucking system.

5. Clast commutation by cutters and rock crusher causes 5.Risks and risk management
impact stresses and vibrations that may damage cutter
housings, gears, bearings and other MTBM parts. 6.Contract provisions (specs, pay items)
6. As CVR and BVR increase, more commutation energy is
required and cutter and mucking system abrasion and wear 7.Costs
increases.
8.Conclusions

MTBM Intake Ports MFG hazards, potential consequences, and risks

Generally, cobbles
and boulders must
be crushed to less Obstructed MTBM stuck
than 2 inches (50
Clogged and jammed MTBM stuck
mm) to pass
through intake ports Severe abrasion and wear more cutter
changes and interventions, slower AR
Broken cutters, cutter housings, gears
stuck or more cutter changes and
interventions, slower AR
Significantly reduced advance rates
Steering difficulty out of line, grade
tolerance
Pipe, casing damage from point loads

14
 Risk of getting stuck on boulder
Hazards Potential Consequences obstructions
Hunt & Del Nero 2010

Potential consequences may be costly Example Boulder Obstructed MTBMs

Akkerman
1500 mm (60) OD
pick and drag scraper cutters
no face access, ~16 boulders
stuck twice in 141 m (462)

Iseki Unclemole TCC 1200,

1450 mm (57) OD
Drag scraper cutters
no face access
several boulders
152 m (500 ft) drive

Risk of getting stuck on boulder Example Boulder Obstructed MTBMs

obstructions Iseki Unclemole TCC 1350,
Risk
1620 mm (63) OD
drag scraper cutters
no face access
Risk of boulder impacts much
higher at MTBM diameters less ~8 boulders
than ~ 1500 mm (60 inch ) Stuck at 177 m (582)

Iseki Unclemole TCC 800,

980 mm (39) OD
drag scraper cutters
no face access
MTBM
~ 1500 mm ~6 boulders
Diameter
Stuck at 183 m (600)
~ 60-inch

15
 Example severe scraper, pick cutter wear Example rock-soil interface, bedrock
Denny Way SLUP cutters at launch Denny Way SLUP cutters after
ridge - Milwaukee
No steering problems MFG rock to soil
reception

Launch

See ND2010-132

Example pipe casing damage from

overridden boulder
Gauge cutters ineffective MTBM pushed up, rode over
Excessive heave - line and grade problem
High contact stresses - cracked pipe

Selected MTBM Case

History

Example rock-soil interface Kwang Difficult Ground Case History, Sunol, CA

Yang River, Korea 20 to 40 percent cobbles and boulders (TVR) , GCB 40 to 70 % - not baselined

No steering problems MFG rock to soil

MTBM, pipe severe rise MFG soil to rock

Soil

MFG

Rock

16
 Difficult Ground Case History, Sunol, CA Difficult Ground Case 4, Sunol, CA
Project Drive Outside MTBM Torque, ft- TVR, %
Stalled, stuck TBM after 254 ft of advance Length Diam., in lbs
COR=Cutter head
Chamber jammed with GCB Stuck Opening Ratio
ft

Alameda Siphon 4 Akkerman SL-74

254 96 170,500 20-40
Failed drive COR ~ 20%

Alameda Siphon 4
287 96 , COR ~ 14% 170,500 20-40
Successful finish

GCB Consequences:
High and erratic torque
Overmining and sinkholes
Jammed excavation chamber caused stuck MTBM
Stalled MTBM required a rescue shaft
Failed planetary carrier casing of gear box replaced
Reduced cutterhead opening ratio
Added bentonite to slurry
Completed drive successfully with slower advance rate100

Difficult Ground Case History, Sunol, CA

Damage to MTBM gearbox

Defective casting
Vibration impact damage
Some GCB mitigation measures

Difficult Ground Case History, Sunol, CA Cutterhead Opening Ratio in GCB

Damage gearbox replaced
COR reduced from 20 to 14%
Bentonite added to thicken slurry
Suggested COR limits for TVR ranges in a
sand or gravel matrix

Suggested maximum
TVR, percent COR, percent
10 - 19 25
20 - 29 20
30 - 39 18
40 15

17
 Cutterhead Torque in CGB Boulder Obstruction Specification
Avoid or prohibit upsizing
An obstruction occurs when a large boulder or cluster of cobbles
and boulders is encountered at the heading of a tunnel that stops
or significantly inhibits forward progress to less than 10
percent of normal progress for at least 30 minutes under
normal thrust and torque with properly functioning cutters, and
because boulders are too large or cobbles and boulders are too
congested to be broken or ingested through the TBM cutterhead,
excavation chamber and tunnel mucking system. In addition, the
obstructing boulder or cobbles and boulders require removal by
supplementary means such as drilling and splitting from the
excavation chamber or removal by an excavation made from
outside of the tunnel.

Summary Images
Failure to handle GCB
Success handling GCB MTBM Specification Considerations
TBM cutter types require disc cutters
Face access to remove obstructions, replace
cutters may also require hyperbaric capability
Require minimum diameter (to get more power)
Require minimum torque-RPM
Require cutterhead retraction capability
Require cutterhead armoring with high CVR-BVR
Limit cutterhead opening ratio in GCB
Require bentonite in muck conveyance slurry in
GCB

Presentation Contents Other Risk Mitigation Considerations

1.Mixed-Face ground examples, considerations
2.Geology
3.Subsurface investigation and baselining
4.Boulder fracturing and excavating
5.Risks and risk management
6.Contract provisions (specs, pay items)
7.Costs
8.Conclusions
Avoid or minimize zones with MFG and TVR>5%.
Situate tunnel zone in lower permeability ground
even if deeper.
Mine from hard ground to soft not soft to hard.
Consider intervention, rescue shaft restrictions
and potential consequences of getting stuck.
Minimize drive length (provide more shafts).
Increase extent of subsurface investigation and
thoroughly baseline expectable conditions.
Provide payment items for interventions, MFG,
cobble-boulder obstruction removal.
Consider pre-excavation grouting of GCB, MFG
zones.

18
 Average Time to Manually Split Boulders from
Presentation Contents MTBM - TBM
Seattle 31 minutes average, ranging
Milwaukee
1.Boulder occurrence considerations 10-170 minutes per boulder
Sheppard Subway, Toronto 21 minutes average,
ranging 10-90 minutes
2.Subsurface investigation per boulder Interplant
Solids Pipeline,
Milwaukee
3.Baselining
Boone et al 1998 32 minutes average,
ranging 10-120
4.Boulder fracturing and excavating minutes per boulder
South Pennsylvania
Ave, Milwaukee
5.Boulder risks
30 minutes average,
ranging 10-90 minutes
6.Contract provisions (specs, pay items) per boulder Oklahoma
Ave Relief, Milwaukee

120 minutes average

7.Costs for very large
45*60/22=122 min avg boulders, Nutley
Quarry Trunk Sewer,
8.Conclusions 20-480 min range New Jersey

Average 2009 Cost to Manually Split Boulders

Boulder Excavation Cost Factors
Depends on face access, tunnel method:
Manual boulder splitting, removal
Cost of cutters and replacement
interventions, cutterhead repairs
Rescue excavation, removal, repairs
Cost of reduced advance rates $3150 avg per boulder obstruction per Seattle Pipe Jacking per ND2015-13

Delays, inefficiencies - generally much

higher cost if not anticipated (DSC)

Manually Split Boulder

Boulder Removal Cost by Removal Cost
Rescue Shaft Conclusion: Payment by T&M generally more cost
effective than unit rate/boulder bidding
$6,000
BOULDER OBSTRUCTION

Time and
$5,000 material
Requires surface access
$4,000
Permits may cause excess delays
COST

$3,000
and higher costs
$2,000 Unit rate
May require dewatering, grouting bid per
$1,000 boulder
May cost $2,000 to over $10,000 $0
per vertical foot of shaft depth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CASE NUMBER Hunt, NAT 2002

19
 Singapore DTSS T05
4.82m (15.8 ft) OD EPBM

MTBM advance rate

impacts from cobbles and
boulders

75% reduction in advance rate as BVR or hard

ground in face increase from 0% to >60%

Columbia Slough, West Drive

11,600 boulders in 4,400 ft
Estd avg CVR+BVR =~ 8% +4% = 12%

4.6 m (15.2 ft) open mode Boulder impact on advance rate

TBM with scraper cutters
Large TBM: AR reduced by 14-22% as
BVR increased to 18%
TBM: AR reduced by 30% as BVR
increased to 0.1%
AR = 105 ft per shift when no boulders to 83 ft per
shift at 6.0 boulders per tunnel ft (~ BVR=4%)
resulting in 21% reduction in advance rate MTBM: AR reduced by 65% as
BVR increased from 0 to 0.7%
11,600 boulders averaging 2.7 boulders per
foot within 4,373 feet of tunnel

Cronin & Coluccio, 2003

Columbia Slough, East Drive

22,700 boulders in 3,600 ft
Estd avg CVR+BVR =~ 18% +9% = 27%
4.6 m (15.2 ft) open mode
TBM with scraper cutters
AR = 58 ft per shift when no boulders to 22 ft per
shift at 30 boulders per tunnel ft (~ BVR=9%)
resulting in 48% reduction in advance rate
12,700 boulders averaging 8.8 boulders
per foot within 3,576 feet of tunnel
Cronin & Coluccio, 2003
Boulder Excavation Costs
Costs are real but very uncertain
Avoid making incidental if face accessible
Unit rate per boulder ok for manual removal
Time and material rates better
Pay higher $/ft for verified C&B AR reduction
If cobbles and boulders encountered cannot be
measured, make incidental, but still baseline
quantity, size, etc.
Define obstructed advance, include payment
options such as T&M

20
 Presentation Contents
Conclusions -3
14. If TVR>5%, require a mixed-face cutterhead with robust
1.Boulder occurrence considerations cutter housings and armoring of cutterhead and rock
crusher bars.
2.Subsurface investigation 15. In GGB, require or use an engineered bentonite or
bentonite-polymer additive slurry prohibit use of water
3.Baselining or weak slurry.

16. Consider requiring or using a COR < 20 % when K>10-2

4.Boulder fracturing and excavating
cm/sec and TVR > 10% - thick bentonite slurry may not
be enough.
5.Boulder risks
17. In GCB, prohibit or discourage use of excavation
6.Contract provisions (specs, pay items) chamber or cutterhead water jets it acts to dilute the
slurry and destroy filter cake formation.
7.Costs 18. For long drives or drives with no rescue shaft option,
require excavation chamber access, an air lock and
8.Conclusions hyperbaric intervention capability.

Conclusions - 1
1. Coping with MFG, cobbles and boulders generally requires
time and expense it is not incidental.

2. MFG, cobble and boulder conditions should be baselined

even if measurement is difficult.

3. Ballpark baselines are ok uncertainties will remain

4. Prescriptive tunneling methods specified should depend

on ground and consequences of boulder or obstruction
occurrence.
Questions?
5. Cutter selection, replacement options are important. (414) 526-5106 mobile
6. Obstruction definition is very important.

7. Compensation should depend on anticipated cobble-

Steven.Hunt@CH2M.COM
boulder quantities, risks, uncertainties, and tunneling
methods specified.

Conclusions - 2
8. Complete a thorough SI and baseline gravel, cobble and
boulder conditions, including CVR and BVR.
9. Test and assess abrasivity of soil matrix and rock clasts
and evaluate total abrasivity, cutter life considering TVR.
10. Microtunneling in GCB generally requires special
measures, particularly when K>10-2 cm/sec and TVR >
10% .
11. Pre-excavation grouting and use of an open-face
machine might be a solution in some cases, but generally
not cost-effective.
12. If the potential consequences of a jammed MTBM or
boulder obstruction occurrence are serious (high risk),
require or utilize a robust MTBM with special features.
13. Prohibit or avoid an upsized (skinned up) MTBM or
specify or use maximum available torque for MTBM size.

21