Performance Prediction Of Mechnaical Excavators

ITA/AITES

ITA/AITES – Training Course TUNNEL ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF MECHANICAL EXCAVATORS IN TUNNELS Prepared by “Nuh BILGIN, Cemal BALCI” Istanbul - 2005

date

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

1/43

Index

1 Introduction

2 Impact Hammers

3 Roadheaders

4 Tunnel Boring Machines TBMs

5

Conclusions and references

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

2/43

1 2 3 4 5

Introduction THE PERFORMANCE OF MECHANICAL EXCAVATORS Why the performance of a mechanical excavator is important? It defines the job duration and tunnel drivage economy The performance of a tunneling machine mainly depend on 1. Rock mass properties, rock strength and abrasivity, inclination and orientation of geological discontinuities, water income etc. 2. Machine parameters, design of cutting head, 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 Shift time

= Boring time + Machine delays + Non-machine delays Utilization = Boring time/Shift time Availability = (Boring time +Non-machine delay time) / Shift time Reliability = Machine delay time/Shift time Advance rate = Penetration rate x Utilization

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

4/43

1 2

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, Bilgin 1998).

3 4 5

Performance prediction mechanical excavators in (Courtesy tunnels by of Bilgin,N & Balci,C. Typical of view of an impact hammer Schaeff)

5/43

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).

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

6/43

Mechanical Parameters Effecting the Performance of Impact Hammers (Wayment 1976, Bilgin 1989) mV 2 E= 2

E = Single blow energy (Joule) Pinp = Oil supply requred x Operating pressure Poutput= Impact rate x Impact energy M = Weight of piston (kg) Effiency of impact hammer η=Poutput/Pinput V =Speed of piston (m/sec)

Numerical Example: Impact rate = 500 impact/min Impact energy = 3500 J (350 kgxm) Oil supply required = 160 lt/min Operating pressure = 14 MPa

160 x10 −3 m 3 x14kg / cm 2 160 x10 −3 m 3 x1400kN Pinp = = = 37.3kW 2 60 s 60 sxm 3.5kNmx500 Pout = = 29.2kW 60

29.2 η= = 0.78 37.3

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

7/43

The Modes of Operation in Impact Hammer Applications (Courtesy of Sandvik Tamrock Corp.)

Two-phase tunneling with two hammers.

8/**

prediction of mechanical in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C. HammerPerformance working sequence when rock layersexcavators are inclined. Hammer working 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.

IBR = 4.24 P(RMCI)

−0.567

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, %

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

9/43

Jack hammer having a power of 30 HP

3

Net Breaking Rate (m /h)

45 40

RQD

35

25% 50% 75% 100%

30 25 20

The relationship between rock compressive strength and instantaneous breaking rate of jack hammers for a given RQD and power of the hammer

15 10 5 0 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock (MPa)

140

3

Net Breaking Rate (m /h)

Jack hammer having a power of 60 HP 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

RQD 25% 50% 75% 100%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock (MPa) Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

10/43

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 insitu 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

Performance of impact hammers in Metro Tunnels Phase 1.

Overall performance of impact hammers in Metro Tunnels Phase 2.

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

12/43

1 2 3 4 5

Roadheaders

The first roadheaders were used for mining in the 1960’s since then they have been widely used both in civil and mining industries. Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

13/43

Transverse Type Roadheader

Cutting Mode of a Transverse Type Roadheader

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

14/43

Axial Type Roadheader

Cutting Mode of an Axial Type Roadheader

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

15/43

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. Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

16/43

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.

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

17/43

Classification of roadheaders Cutterhead power (kW)

Range of max. cross section (m2)

Operation max UCS (MPa)

8-40

50-170

25

40-60

Any

Medium

40-70

160-230

30

60-90

Any

Heavy

70-110

250-300

40

90-110

<80

Extra heavy

> 100

350-400

45

110-140

<60

Range of weight (t)

Light

Roadheader

Class

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

RQD (%)

18/43

Methods for predicting cutting performance of roadheader

Core cutting test rig in Istanbul Technical University

Core cutting test

Tool width of 12.7 mm Depth of cut of 5 mm Rake angle of (-5°), Back clearance angle of 5°

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

19/43

Core cutting test application to roadheader performance prediction

Correlation between laboratory specific energy and the in-situ cutting rates Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

20/43

Empirical methods for roadheader performance prediction

ICR = 0.28 ⋅ P ⋅ (0.974)  RQD  RMCI = σ c ⋅    100 

RMCI

2 3

ICR is instantaneous cutting rate of roadheaders in m3/h RMCI is rock mass cuttability index σC is uniaxial compressive strength in MPa P is power of cutting head in HP

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

21/43

30

3

Instantaneous Cutting Rate (m /h)

Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from rock mass cuttability index

Roadheader, 95 Hp

25 20

-0.0263x

y = 26.127e R2 = 0.7331

15 10 5 0 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Rock Mass Cuttability Index (MPa) The variation of instantaneous cutting rate with Rock Mass Cuttability Index Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

22/43

Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from machine power and machine weight

ICR = Instantaneous Cutting Rate, m3/hr RPI = Roadheader Penetration Index UCS = Uniaxial Compressive Strength, MPa

W = Roadheader Weight, metric ton P= Cutterhead Power, kW e = Base of the Natural Logarithm

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

23/43

Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from full scale cutting tests

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

24/43

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

System efficiency of some common mechanical excavators

Tool Spacing and Its Effect on Specific Energy

Tunnel Boring Machine

η = 0.85 - 0.90

Roadheader

η = 0.45 - 0.55

Raise Borer

η = 0.60 - 0.70

Shaft Drill

η = 0.55 - 0.70

Continuous Miner

η = 0.70 - 0.80

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

25/43

S E(kWh/m 3 )

Comparison of the predicted values from full scale cutting tests and actual values obtained in Kucuksu Tunnel P ICR = k SE

14 12 10 8 6 4 2

90kW ICR = 0.4 7 kWh / m 3 0

1

2

3

4 s /d

5

6

7

8

ICR = 5.1m 3 / h

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

26/43

Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from destruction work (After Thuro)

Estimation of the specific destruction work Wz from the stress-strain curve of a rock sample under unconfined compression

Cutting performance, correlated with destruction work of 26 rock samples (argillaceous slates and quarzites, Zeulenroda sewage tunnel).

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

27/43

Overall performance of roadheaders in Kucuksu Tunnel HORIZONTAL AND DRY ZONE Machine pull and site surveying 8%

Breakfast/ lunch/dinner break 17% Machine breakdown maintenance 15%

INCLINED WET STICKY ZONE Waiting for material and muck truck 9% Muck loading 13%

Excavation 38%

Ring montage 20%

Cutting head stuck due to clay 5%

Machine breakdown maintenance 17%

Rail addition and water drainage 10%

Excavation 8%

Machine pull and site surveying 4%

INCLINED AND DRY ZONE Waiting for material and muck truck 9% Stoppages due to safety concern 5%

Breakfast/ /lunch /dinner break 17%

Excavation 8% Chainage 90-150 m

Muck loading 10%

Chainage 70-80 m

INCLINED WET ZONE

Machine breakdown maintenance 17%

Waiting for material and muck truck 9%

Breakfast/ /lunch /dinner break 17%

Chainage 25-50 m

Ring montage 20%

Machine pull and site surveying 4%

Muck loading 10%

Rail addition and water drainage 10%

Ring montage 13%

Machine pull and site surveying 6%

Waiting for material and muck truck 13%

Breakfast/ /lunch/dinner break 17%

Rail addition, longer distance transportation 10%

Machine breakdown maintenance 15%

Stoppages due to safety concern 8%

Excavation 8%

Muck loading 10%

Chainage 150-275 m

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

28/43

1 2 3 4 5

Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) The use of tunnel boring machines for underground construction has been increasing steadily for the last 30 years. However the efficient and economic use of these high capital cost machines, necessitates an intensive side and laboratory studies. The proper and correct machine performance prediction basically depends on the quality and quantity of the geological and geotechnical data collected before making the final decision.

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

29/43

Tunnel Boring Machines TBMs

Single Gripper-TBM:

Shielded-TBM with articulation joint:

Double Gripper-TBM:

Double Shield-TBM:

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

30/43

Cutters Used for Mechanical Excavators

Disc cutters for TBMs

Soft rock

medium rock

hard rock

Conical cutters Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

31/43

Performance prediction using Full scale linear cutting tests

Hypothetical relationship between specific energy and spacing/depth ratio 32/43 Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

A typical example Tuzla-Dragos Tunnel in Istanbul

The profiles of constant cross section (CCS) disc cutters 6

SE (kWh/m3)

5 4 3

CCS

2 1 0 0

2

4

6

8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 s/d

The relationship between specific energy and s/d ratios Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

33/43

Machine performance prediction for Tuzla-Dragos Tunnel Optimum specific energy value from Figure, is SE=2.1 kWh/m3 and s/d = 8-10 As a result of cutting tests it was found that FT = 8.4 kN/mm, FR = 0.64 kN/mm From machine specification cutter spacing is s=7.5cm For s/d= 8; d=7.5/8=1cm For s/d=10; d=7.5/10=0.8cm For d=8mm, total machine thrust is 36×8×8.34=2400 kN For d=10mm, total machine thrust is 36×10×8.34=3000 kN Total machine thrust must change between 2400 kN and 3000kN 6

Expected power of the machine for cutting depth of 10 mm. P = 2π 60 x317 Expected power of the machine for cutting depth of 0.8 mm. P = 2π Net excavation rate (m 3 /h) = k

P (kW) SE (kWh/m 3 )

In competent rock an average machine utilization factor of 30% and 16 hours working time per day will result a daily advance rate of

kW; P = 200 kW

6 x253 kW; P = 160 kW 60

•Net excavation rate=60∼70 m3/h 16 h x 60 m3 x 0.3 ≅ 15 m/day 25 2 hxπ m 4

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

34/43

PERFORMANCE PREDICITION USING THE METHOD DEVELOPED IN THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES The CSM model for TBM performance prediction was developed by the Earth Mechanics Institute (EMI) over a time period extending over 25 years. The development efforts on the CSM model began with a theoretical analysis of cutter penetration into the rock without any adjacent cuts or free-faces. CSM model, rock compressive and tensile strengths were used as input to characterize the rock boreability by disc roller cutters. The compressive strength was used to describe the rock crushing beneath the cutter tip while the tensile strength accounted for the chip formation between adjacent cuts. Hence, using these two rock properties, a correlation was developed between cutters thrust force and the depth of penetration achieved as a function of cutter edge geometry and the cutter diameter. Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

35/43

PERFORMANCE PREDICITION USING THE METHOD DEVELOPED IN THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES The CSM model predicts the penetration rate without any consideration given to the influence of existing joints/fissures in the rock. To account for these effects, the model makes use of the correlation factors developed for joint effects by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NTNU). Depending on joint/fissure spacing and angle that these weakness planes make with the tunnel axis (i.e. the alpha angle), NTNU has derived a set of relationships between TBM penetration rate and the fracturing factor. The CSM model results are then adjusted accordingly to account for the joint/fissure effects using the relationships similar to those developed by NTNU.

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

36/43

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. Mckelvey and co-workers in their comparative studies included that generally predicted penetration rates from NTNU model were significantly more comparative than the achieved penetration values. Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

37/43

A Typical Overall performance of TBMs Cutter inspection 6%

Backup downtime 3% TBM downtime 3% TBM Boring Time 41%

TBM re-grip time 11%

Cutter change 14%

Downtime - Other causes 22%

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

38/43

1 2 3 4 5

Conclusions and references The performance of a mechanical excavators plays and important role in tunnel drivage which manly depends on: 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, machine power etc. c) Modes of operation, operator and contractor experience, job organization, maintenance facilities etc. In this presentation rock mass properties and some machine parameter affecting the performance of impact hammers, roadheaders and TBMs are widely explained including most 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. Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

39/43

1 2 3 4 5

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): 633633643. Bilgin N, Yazici, Yazici, S. & Eskikaya, Eskikaya, S.1996. A model to predict the performance of roadheaders and impact hammers in tunnel drivages. drivages. In: Barla G, editor. Proceedings of the Eurock ’96 on Prediction and Performance in Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Engineering, 2: 715715-720. Bilgin, N., Balci, C., Acaroglu, O., Tuncdemir, H., Eskikaya, S., S., Akgul, M. & Algan, M. 1999 Performance Prediction of a TBM in TuzlaTuzla-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. Proceedings, Word Tunnel Congress’97, Tunnels for People: People: 455455-460. 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 Istanbul metro tunnel drivages, drivages, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 17: 17: 237– 237–247 Bilgin,N., Bilgin,N., Dincer, Dincer, T., Copur, Copur, H., Erdogan, Erdogan, M. 2004. Some geological and geotechnical factors affecting the the performance of a roadheder in an inclişned tunnel, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 19: 19: 629– 629–636. 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 Mechanization and Automation, Automation, Brisbane, Queensland. A4A4-1/A41/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 metalliferrous mining industry. In: Gurgenci H, Hood M, editors. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Mine Mechanization and Automation, Automation, Brisbane, Queensland. A5A5-2/13 Evans, I. 1974. Energy requirements for impact breakage of rocks. rocks. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying and Tunnelling, Tunnelling, IMM London:1 London:1-8 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 Symposium on Strata Mechanics, Mechanics, Newcastle Upon Tyne: 239239-242. 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, Excavations, Cambridge.305Cambridge.305-312. Friant, E.J., Ozdemir, L. 1993. Tunnel Boring Technology - Present and Future, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) Proceedings, Proceedings, Boston, USA.

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

40/43

1 2 3 4 5

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. 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 Engineering Geology. 1027-30. Krupa, V. Krepelka, F. Bejda, J. & Imrich, P. 1993. The cutting constant of the rock does not depend on scale effect of rock mass jointing. In: Cunha APD, editor. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Scale Effect on Rock Masses. 63-6. Krupa, V., Krepelka, F., Sekula, F. & Kristova, Z. 1993. Specific energy as information source about strength properties of rock mass using TBM. In: Anagnostopoulos A, et all., editors. Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks. 1475-7. Levetus, F.B & Cagnioncle, G. 1974. Completely hydraulic rotary-percussive rock drills. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying and Tunnelling, IMM, London, :67-78 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. McKelvey, McKelvey, J.G., Schultz, E.A. & Blindheim, Blindheim, O.T. 1996, Geotechnical analysis in S. Africa, World Tunnelling, Tunnelling, November, 377377390. 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 Conference (RETC) Proceedings, Proceedings, Chapter 52, Boston, USA, USA, 1313-17.

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

41/43

1 2 3 4 5

Conclusions and references Ozdemir, Ozdemir, L., Miller, R.J. & Wang, F.D. 1978 Mechanical Tunnel Boring Machine Machine Prediction and Machine Design, NSF APR73APR730777607776-A03, A03, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA. Ozdemir, Ozdemir, L. 1991.Performance Prediction for Mechanical Excavators in Yucca Yucca Mountain Tuff, Task Report to Sandia National Laboratories, Laboratories, Contract 3535-0039. Pelizza, S., Patrucco, Patrucco, M. & Benedetto, G. 1994. Workplace environmental conditions and innovative Tunnel driving techniques. Measurement air contro. contro. Proceedings, Tunneling and Graund Conditions: 617617-623 Rotterdam: Balkema. Balkema. Pool, D. 1987. The effectiveness of tunnelling machines. Tunnels and Tunnelling.19:66 Tunnelling.19:66--67. Rodford, Rodford, I.G. 1974. Experience with impact units. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying and Tunnelling, Tunnelling, IMM London: London: 5757-66 Rostami, Rostami, J. & Ozdemir, Ozdemir, L. 1994. Roadheader performance optimization for mining and civil construction. In: DeMers JE, et all., editors. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Technical Conference, Institute of of Shaft Drilling Technology, Technology, Las Vegas, Nevada. Rostami, J., Ozdemir L & Neil D. 1994. Performance prediction: a key issue in mechanical hard rock mining. mining. Mining Engineering.Nov.:1264Engineering.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 1313-17. Schimazek, Schimazek, J. & Knatz, Knatz, H. 1970. The influence of rock composition on cutting velocity and chisel wear of tunnelling machines. Gluckauf: Gluckauf: 106. 274274-278. Sekula, F, Krupa V & Krepelka F. 1991. Monitoring of the rock strength characteristics in the course of full of face driving process. In: Rakowski Z, editor. Proceedings of the International Conference on Geomechanics. Geomechanics. 299299-303. Thuro, Thuro, K & Plinninger RJ. 1998. Geological limits in roadheader excavation four case studies. In: Loky, Loky, editor. Proceedings of the 8th International IAEG Congress, Congress, Vancouver.2:3545Vancouver.2:3545-3552. 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, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Metallurgy. 12271227-1253. Thuro, .;31:36--39. Thuro, K, &Plinninger &Plinninger RJ. 1999. Predicting roadheader advance rates. Tunnels and Tunnelling Tunnelling.;31:36 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 Tunnelling Conference: Conference: 611611-626 West, G. 1989. Technical Note - Rock Abrasiveness Testing for Tunnelling. Tunnelling.- Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.& Sci.& Geomech. Geomech. Abstr., Abstr., 26(2), 151151-160. Wyllie, B. 1985. Hydraulic breakers. breakers. International Mining, Mining, March: March: 1818-24

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

42/43

ITA/AITES

Clause de non-responsabilité pour les rapports des groupes de travail de l'AITES L’Association Internationale des Travaux en Souterrain (AITES) publie ce rapport, conformément à ses Statuts, pour faciliter les échanges d’informations afin : d’encourager l’utilisation du sous-sol au profit du grand public, de l’environnement et du développement durable; de promouvoir les progrès dans la planification, le projet, la construction, l’entretien, la réhabilitation et la sécurité des tunnels et de l’espace souterrain en rassemblant et confrontant les informations, ainsi qu’en étudiant les questions qui s’y rapportent. Cependant, l’AITES décline toute responsabilité en ce qui concerne les informations publiées dans ce rapport. Ces informations : sont exclusivement de nature générale et ne visent pas la situation particulière d’une personne physique ou morale; ne sont pas nécessairement complètes, exhaustives, exactes ou à jour ; proviennent parfois de sources extérieures sue lesquelles les services de l’AITES n’ont aucun contrôle et pour lesquelles l’AITES décline toute responsabilité ; ne constituent pas un avis professionnel or juridique (si vous avez besoin d’avis spécifiques, consultez toujours un professionnel dûment qualifié).

Disclaimer for the reports of ITA working groups The International Tunnelling Association (ITA) publishes this report to, in accordance with its statutes, facilitate the exchange of information, in order: to encourage planning of the subsurface for the benefit of the public, environment and sustainable development to promote advances in planning, design, construction, maintenance and safety of tunnels and underground space, by bringing together information thereon and by studying questions related thereto. However ITA accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the material published in this report. This material is: information of a general nature only, which is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual or entity; not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date; sometimes collected from external sources over which ITA services have no control and for which ITA assumes no responsibility; not professional or legal advice (if you need specific advice, you should always consult a suitably qualified professional).

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

43/43