North American Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT)

NASTT’s 2018 No-Dig Show

Palm Springs, California

TM1-T5-05
March 25-29, 2018

Assessing Abrasivity and Wear Risks for Microtunneling in Ground with

Cobbles and Boulders

Steven W. Hunt, P.E., Jacobs Engineering Company, Henderson, Nevada

1. ABSTRACT

An assessment of tunnel zone ground abrasivity to estimate wear of cutters, cutterhead, rock crusher and mucking
system is a very important component of risk management for microtunneling in ground with gravel, cobbles and
boulders. Abrasion and wear including breakage of cutters and rock crusher components is due to the combined
effects of soil matrix abrasivity and both the wear and breakage effects of cobbles and boulders. During the past 10
years, significant advancements on soil matrix abrasion tests have been made by academic researchers. The first soil
matrix abrasion testing methods were limited to soil matrix grains smaller than 20-mm (0.8-inches), which does not
allow assessment of abrasion risk from gravel, cobbles and boulders. More recently developed methods now allow
testing of soil mixtures with gravel and very small cobbles up to ~100-mm (3.9-inch) in size. None of the soil matrix
abrasion tests consider the effects of cobbles and boulders. The risk of ignoring cobbles and boulders is directly
proportional to the cobble and boulder volume ratio of the tunnel zone. This means that a proper assessment of
abrasivity and cutter wear cannot be made without sufficient subsurface investigation to determine cobble and
boulder conditions. Once an adequate subsurface investigation program has been completed to characterize the soil
matrix and cobble and boulder conditions along a tunnel zone, and gravel size and finer soil matrix abrasivity testing
has been completed, then total ground abrasivity, cutter wear, cutter breakage and cutter change intervention spacing
can be adequately estimated.

2. INTRODUCTION

Microtunneling in ground with cobbles and boulders involves risks. The type and severity of risks are directly
related to cobble and boulder quantities within the tunnel zone. The potential consequences of encountering
excessive cobble and boulder quantities include: MTBM obstruction; severely reduced advance rates; steering
difficulties; increased risk of excessive lost ground settlements or sinkholes and associated property damage; impact
damage to cutters, cutter housings or MTBM gears and pinions; severe abrasive wear of cutters, cutterhead, rock
crusher and mucking system; and lower utilization resulting from more intervention time to remove obstructions and
repair worn MTBM and mucking system components. The probability of one or more of these risks occurring
depends on 1) the extent of cobbly-bouldery ground and 2) the microtunneling means and methods employed.
Assessment of risk severity requires specialized subsurface investigation, identification of hazards and their
potential consequences, and quantification of probably of occurrence. Once risk severity has been determined,
mitigation measures can be proposed, selected by the responsible party and then implemented.

Tunneling risks are not only dependent on the ground conditions, but also on the site conditions and tunneling
methods employed. Site condition factors include: tunnel depth, surface access constraints (land use and easement
restrictions), utility interferences to potential rescue or obstruction removal shafts, dewatering and ground
improvement limits, settlement limits, vibration limits and ground contamination. Tunneling method factors
involve: tunnel size and shape; face stability control measures (open mode vs. closed and pressurized mode);
required ground improvement (dewatering, grouting, freezing, etc.); cutterhead opening ratio; excavation tools

Paper TM1-T5-05 - 1
(MTBM cutters and rock crusher); available power (MTBM torque-speed); face access (ease of access and free air
vs. hyperbaric intervention pressurized face access); and mucking system including separation plant.

Managing risks of tunneling in cobbles and boulders requires an adequate understanding of specific ground
conditions and the geologic setting. Too often, the site and subsurface investigation program is not customized to
provide suitable information on cobble and boulder conditions and data is not presented for geologic units. In most
cases, a routine subsurface investigation program will not provide the information needed to properly manage risks.
To manage risks properly, a phased subsurface investigation program is needed beginning with a geologic desk
study and followed by phases of customized investigations where each phase is evaluated in a geologic setting and
the next phase is designed to reduce remaining uncertainties. All the relevant collected data should be presented in a
geotechnical data report (GDR). Key cobble, boulder and matrix ground conditions should be baselined in a
geotechnical baseline report (GBR). Remaining uncertainties should be identified and associated risks managed.

3. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE COBBLE AND BOULDER CONDITIONS

Perhaps the most challenging and often inadequately completed element of managing risks of microtunneling in
cobbles and boulders is ground characterization. In most cases, conventional subsurface investigation and laboratory
testing are not enough and will not allow proper baselining of cobble and boulder conditions.

A subsurface investigation program for characterizing cobbles and boulders should include the following elements:
• A geologic and previous underground construction desk study for the project vicinity. The first phase of a
field exploration program should be based on the results of these desk studies and the anticipated geologic
setting.
• In most cases, a phased subsurface investigation program is essential. A single-phase investigation would
only be appropriate in simple, uniform geology or where extensive information was found in the desk
studies. After each phase, the results should be evaluated, the geologic model refined and a technical
memorandum written to present the results, list the remaining uncertainties and provide recommendations
for the next phase of investigation or perhaps investigation during construction.
• Conventional hollow-stem auger or rotary wash drilling and sampling should be always supplemented by one
or more of the following methods: borings with continuous sonic coring, continuous Becker percussion
borings, large diameter (>600-mm) auger borings, shaft logging, test pits, or geophysical methods
(crosshole or surface [if viable] ground penetrating radar (GPR), seismic refraction or electrical resistivity.
Sizes, shapes and quantities of cobbles and boulders with depth for each geologic unit should be
determined by screening and logging of samples. Representative samples should be selected for laboratory
testing.
• Laboratory testing should be completed for both representative samples of soil matrix and of rock clasts
(cobbles and boulders) for all geologic units with cobbles and boulders. Matrix tests should include:
density, compressive strength, grain size distribution, minerology-quartz content, and soil abrasivity testing
(for gravel size and smaller). Rock clast testing should include: unconfined compressive strength,
minerology-quartz content assessment and Cerchar abrasivity testing.

More discussion on cost-effectiveness and detailed recommendations for subsurface investigation programs are
given in Frank & Chapman 2001, Hunt 2014, Hunt & Del Nero 2010, Hunt 2017 and other references – see an
extensive bibliography in Hunt 2017.

4. COBBLE AND BOULDER BASELINING

Cobble and boulder risks cannot be assessed and mitigated unless an adequate subsurface investigation program is
completed and cobble and boulder conditions are carefully baselined. Cobble and boulder conditions can and should
be baselined for tunnel projects where the subsurface investigation indicates that portions of the tunnel zone will
have a combined cobble volume ratio (CVR) and boulder volume ratio (BVR) over approximately 0.5 percent.
Previous studies have shown that BVR values over as small as 0.1 percent can have significant impacts on
microtunneling (Hunt & Mazhar 2014) and that the vast majority of projects studied with boulder impacts had BVR
values ranging from 0.1 to 2 percent (Hunt 2017). Where BVRs exceed approximately 2 percent or where CVR +
BVR values exceed approximately 5 percent, the potential impacts can be very significant and costly.

Paper TM1-T5-05 - 2
The primary cobble and boulder (rock clast in soil matrix) conditions to consider baselining include:
• Quantities and size ranges for anticipated cobbles, including cobble volume ratios for all geologic units.
• Quantities and size ranges for anticipated boulders, including boulder volume ratios for all geologic units.
• Profiled cobble and boulder distributions and concentrations along tunnel (isolated and clustered).
• Soil matrix conditions including: strength (cohesion or degree of cementation), density, abrasivity and
permeability.
• Rock clast mineralogy (including equivalent quartz content) and rock type descriptions including both native
and erratic clasts.
• Rock clast unconfined compressive strength ranges (statistical data and histogram).
• Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) ranges (histogram) for rock clasts.

Of these items, the most important are the soil matrix type, density and strength; cobble and boulder volume ratios;
maximum boulder size and size ranges; and rock clast strength and abrasivity ranges. Additional conditions to
consider baselining include: estimated cobble and boulder quantities for size ranges per length of tunnel, cobble and
boulder angularity and shapes, and gravel volume ratios (as a percentage of total excavation volume and not just in
grain size distribution curves for the gravel and finer soil matrix).

Methods of evaluating subsurface investigation data including ‘relative drilling resistance’, standard penetration
teste (SPT) N-values and volumetric data are discussed in Hunt 2017 and other Hunt references.

5. CLAST SIZE MATTERS

Volume of gravel, cobbles and boulders matters. Most microtunnel boring machines are designed to ingest and crush
cobbles and boulders up to approximately 20 to 35 percent of the MTBM diameter. Due to this limitation, many
specifications assume that cobbles and boulders smaller than the ingestion-crushing size limit are ‘incidental’ and
are therefore not baselined. This assumption may be acceptable where the combined cobble and boulder volume
ratio is less than approximately 0.5 percent, but it is not appropriate for higher boulder volume ratios. Studies have
shown that the combined gravel, cobble and boulder volume ratio affects the ability of a MTBM rock crusher to
commutate (crush) rock clasts to gravel size or smaller for slurry transport fast enough for the MTBM advance rate
(Hunt et.al 2013). When the combined gravel plus volume is too high, the MTBM torque becomes excessive, the
crusher chamber often becomes jammed and the MTBM stalls. This condition can occur even if all the rock clasts
are smaller than MTBM ingestion-crushing size limit. Furthermore, the combined gravel, cobble and boulder
volume ratio may have a major impact on total ground abrasivity and wear of cutters, cutterhead, rock crusher and
mucking system.

Energy consumption matters. Another useful way to assess the combined impact of gravel, cobbles and boulders is
energy consumption. The energy required to commutate rock clasts to gravel size for slurry muck transport is
directly related to the rock clast strength and the degree of commutation required for passage from the crushing
chamber into the slurry transport system (Hunt 2017). The higher the cobble and boulder volume ratios, the higher
the energy demand. The higher the cobble and boulder strengths, the higher the energy demand. Energy demand
correlates with total ground abrasivity and wear. The higher the energy demand to commutate cobbles and boulders,
the greater the abrasion and wear impacts.

Boulder size matters. The rock clasts that are too large for ingestion-crushing, must either be fractured with the
MTBM cutters or pushed aside. If the ground matrix is too dense or strong for pushing boulders aside, then boulders
larger than the ingesting-crushing limit must be fractured by the MTBM cutters or the advance must be stopped to
allow large boulder removal or fracturing my other means – often at considerable expense. Risk management for
cobble and boulder conditions should consider the potential impacts of large boulders even if the BVR value is low.
A single large boulder can stop and obstruct a MTBM that does not have the cutters, cutter housing, thrust and
torque to bore through a large boulder. If the MTBM does not have capability to bore through a large boulder and if
face access is not available, the machine will become stuck and require a rescue shaft or tunnel or have to be
abandoned. If surface utilities, highways, railroads or other improvements do not allow for rescue shaft
construction, the large boulder risk should be managed by providing a robust MTBM and cutters that can bore
through rock and by providing face access. If none of these options are practical, them a larger MTBM or other

Paper TM1-T5-05 - 3
tunneling or mitigation measures will be required. Again, this risk cannot be managed unless the subsurface
investigation program is adequate.

Boulders that are too large for ingestion create a ‘mixed-face’ condition for the cutters. As the cutters rotate from the
softer soil matrix and impact a boulder, several potential consequences result including damaging MTBM gear
stresses and vibrations, increased cutter wear and excessive cutter breakage. Pick and scraper cutters are most
vulnerable to breakage. Large block rippers and disc cutters, particularly multi-kerf cutters are more resistant to
breakage. Heavy block scrapper cutters, cutters with hardened inserts and disc cutters are more resistant to breakage.
The cutter breakage risk is discussed further below.

6. ABRASION AND CUTTER WEAR

The total abrasivity of tunnel zone ground is due to the combined effects of the soil matrix, gravel, cobbles, boulders
and any mixed-face ground or bedrock encountered. An assessment of tunnel zone ground abrasivity to estimate
wear of cutters, cutterhead, rock crusher and mucking system is a very important component of risk management for
tunneling in ground with gravel, cobbles and boulders or mixed-face conditions. Total ground abrasivity not only
includes the primary wear of cutters and secondary wear of the cutterhead and mucking system, but also includes
cutter breakage from impacts with cobbles and boulders or hard rock in a mixed-face condition.

During the past 10 years, significant advancements on soil matrix abrasion tests have been made by researchers in
France, in Norway at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), in the United States at Penn
State University and Colorado School of Mines, in Iran and recently in South Korea. Generally, the soil abrasion
testing involves rotation of a metal paddle, impeller, bar, pin or other ‘tool’ across or through a soil matrix sample
with the weight loss of the ‘tool’ correlated to abrasion.

The early soil matrix abrasion testing methods were limited to testing grains smaller than 20-mm (0.8-inches), which
does not allow assessment of abrasion risk from gravel, cobbles and boulders – a significant limit since many soils
have at least some gravel plus size material. More recently developed methods now allow testing of soil mixtures
with gravel and finer, and some even allow very small cobbles up to ~100-mm (3.9-inch) in the matrix tested. None
of the soil matrix abrasion tests consider the effects of cobbles and boulders. If portions of the tunnel zone ground
are anticipated to have cobble plus boulder volume ratios over ~ 1-2 percent, soil abrasion testing alone is not
adequate – the CVR and BVR abrasivity should also be considered.

Soil abrasion testing methods vary significantly, but have not been standardized and new methods are still under
development. Table 1 summarizes testing aspects from nine different methods. Kim et.al. 2017 and Mirmehrabi
et.al. 2016 discuss the previous methods and present new soil abrasion testing methods called the Soil Abrasion and
Penetration Test (SAPT) and Ferdowsi University Abrasion Test (FUAT). The papers also summarize the key
features of the new methods and the other soil abrasion testing methods. Table 1 shows that only the NDAT (Newly
Developed Abrasion Test) and PSAI (Penn State University) new test allow grains size up to 75-100-mm where
gravel size is considered 2-75-mm and 75-100-mm is considered very small cobble size. None of the methods apply
to medium to large cobbles and all boulders.

All of the soil abrasion tests involve measurement of steel loss of a ‘tool’ after the tool used has been subjected to
rotation movement past soil grains. The output results are as varied as the number of tests and include parameters
such as: SAT in mg, LAC in g/t, PSAI in g, SGAT in g, TUSC in g, FUAT in g, and RUB in g (see the papers for
explanations of these parameters). Some of the papers for these tests provide correlations to other wear parameters
such as CLI, cutter life index, Soil Abrasivity Index, SAI, Sc, tool cutting distance in km/cutter, and Vc, cutter tool
life in m3 of bored ground/cutter. The last two parameters, Sc and Vc allow a more direct estimation of tool life and
distance bored, bl, before an intervention is required to change cutters.

Koppl & Thuro 2013 and Koppl et.al 2015 define and utilize a term called cutting distance, Sc, as the ground surface
distance traveled for the cutter life – when it wears to an extent requiring replacement. The cutting distance estimate
for cutters can be used to estimate the cutter change interval, bl, for the anticipated ground conditions, which
determines where interventions may be needed and the extent of effort and cost to mitigate abrasive cutter wear and
breakage.

Paper TM1-T5-05 - 4
Table 1 – Summary of Nine Soil Abrasion Testing Methods (modified from Mirmehrabi et.al. 2016)
Soil Dur- Rotation Surcharge Max Abrasion Metal Soil Reference
abrasion ation speed / chamber grain Per
testing (min) (RPM) pressure size, test
method mm (kg)
SAPT NA NA NA 100+ Cutter steel varies (the SAPT test 65 Kim et.al
details not reported yet) 2017
FUAT 30 1–100 0–25 kg 20 Steel bolts, Vickers hardness 179 6 Mirmehrabi
(Rockwell hardness B 88) et.al 2016
RUB Varies 45-140 300 N 4 Pins made with conventional tool 29– Küpferle
materials (S275JR default) 32 et.al 2016
TUSC 10 160 2 kPa 20 Steel disk, Vickers hardness 116, 20- Salazar et.al
189 25 2016
NDAT - 10 20 3 bar 100 Steel disk (Rockwell hardness of 6 Barzegari
SCAT B 60–70) et.al 2015
SGAT 4 1–100 6 bar 10 Steel cross from cutter steel. 6.5-8 Jakobsen
Vickers hardness 227 (HRC 23) et.al 2013
PSAI 5, 10, 60–180 10 bar 100 Steel propellers, Rockwell 40 Gharahbagh
30, 60 hardness 17, 31, 43, 51, and 60 et.al 2013
LCPC 5 4500 0 6.3 Soft steel block (Rockwell 0.5 Thuro et.al
hardness of B 60–75) 2007
SAT - 1 20 10 kg 4 Steel bar from cutter ring steel for 0.08 Nilsen et.al
AVS AVS test 2007

Koppl & Thuro 2013 evaluated data from 18 drives for 10 reference projects that used 13 slurry mix-shield TBMs,
which are most similar to slurry MTBMs. Disc cutter and scarper cutter wear results, Sc and Vc are provided for
clay and silt, sand and gravel conditions. The soil conditions are characterized by Soil Abrasivity Index (SAI)
values. An equation is provided that allows SAI to be estimated from the Equivalent Quartz Content (EQC) and D60
values for soil matrix types. The EQC is determined by microscopic examination of a thin section to determine the
mineral contents by percentage, multiplied by the Rosiwal abrasivity index for each mineral (Thuro & Plinninger
2003, Moridzadeh et.al 2016). After EQC is computed, Sc values can be determined using the charts shown in
Figure 1. Equations are also given to allow Sc adjustments for cutter tip width and number of scrapers. After
adjustments, the intervention interval, bl, can be computed from another equation with input for Sc, cutterhead
rotation speed, cutterhead diameter and estimated penetration rate. The results may be compared to the case history
data evaluated by the authors for soil types of clay and silt, sand and gravel.

Figure 1. Cutting distance versus Soil Abrasivity Index for disc cutters and scrapers (from Kloppl & Thuro 2013)

Paper TM1-T5-05 - 5
Slightly revised equations for Sc than those in Figure 1, are presented in Koppl et.al 2015. The latter paper considers
additional projects studied in Koppl’s 2014 PhD Thesis.

Kim et.al. 2017 also determined cutting distance, Sc, values for six soil types based on a study of 17 projects (Table
2). The Sc values ranged from <250 to over 1500 km/cutter for the soil types. The values in Table 2 are in the same
range as those in Figure 1 and may be used as a guideline or check against cutting distance estimates by other
methods. Since SAI values are least for a clay matrix and highest for a gravel matrix, Figure 1 and Table 2 are useful
for quantifying potential differences in cutter life as ground conditions vary from low abrasivity clay which might
allow over 1500 km of cutting distance for scraper cutters, to high abrasivity within a gravel matrix which may only
allow 250 km or less of cutting distance before a cutter change intervention.

Table 2. Cutting Distance, Sc, values in km for six soil types (from Kim et.al 2017)

Another approach to estimating maximum intervention interval, bl, values is to estimate of cutter tool life, Vc, which
is the cubic meters of tunnel bored divided by the number of worn or broken cutters that must be replaced over a
tunnel interval. Vc values can be used to estimate bl values for the anticipated ground conditions.

Jakobsen et.al 2013 provide charts that relate Vc in m3/cutter to EQC, SAI, and SAT (Soil Abrasion Test from
NTNU). Figure 2 shows a relationship between Vc and EQC for various soil types and shows that Vc values for soil
matrix generally ranges from about 50 to 1400 m3/cutter with most of the data between 200 and 1200 m3/cutter. Kim
et.al 2017 provide similar results for six soil types studied from 17 projects.

Figure 2. Tool life, Vc, versus equivalent quartz content, EQC (from Jakobsen et.al 2013)

Paper TM1-T5-05 - 6
For comparison, Vc values for seven bored tunnels in rock are shown in Table 3. The Vc values range from 42 to
1661 m3/cutter. By considering Vc values from both the soil matrix and rock data, an indication of cutter tool live
from cobbles and boulders might be assessed. For example, if the soil matrix is primarily clay with a EQC of 10%,
a Vc value of ~800 m3/cutter may be estimated. If the ground contains cobbles and boulders with a CVR+BVR of 10
percent or more, the rock abrasiveness may control and if the rock is hard granitic rock (common for boulders) an
EQC of 80% may apply and a Vc value of 100 m3/cutter may be assumed for the rock clasts. The combined Vc
could be estimated as 0.9 x 800 + 0.1 x 100 = 730 m3/cutter. This proportion method is probably not accurate
because more weight should be given to the cobbles and boulders or rock clasts. A better approach is given later.

Table 3 – Cutter life, Vc values in m3/cutter and intervention intervals for tunnels in rock and mixed face ground
Project Ground Vc, m3 / bl, avg Reference
cutter intervention
length, m
HEPP, Turkey Limestone 1661 552 Akgül et.al 2015
Busan Line II, Korea Mixed face (soil-rock) 295 212 Bae & Kim 2001
Busan Line II, Korea Granodiorite, andesite 91 73 Bae & Kim 2001
Tuzla WW, Turkey Sandstone conglomerate 42 79 Gumas e.al 2016
Yinhanjiwei, China N Phyllite, amphibolite schist 1048 218 Xue et.al 2016
Yinhanjiwei, China S Quartzite, granite 121 13 Xue et.al 2016
Tsuen Wan, Hong K. Tuff, granodiorite 88 - Perlo et.al 2012

7. ABRASIVITY FROM COBBLES AND BOULDERS

The abrasivity of the cobble and boulder component should always be considered when the BVR exceed 0.5 percent
and combined CVR+BVR exceeds approximately 2 percent. The objective is an assessment of total ground
abrasivity along the tunnel zone. It must be estimated by combining the soil matrix abrasivity with the abrasivity of
cobbles and boulders. The latter involves an assessment of the intact rock clast abrasivity as indicted by Cerchar
abrasivity tests and then modification for cobble and boulder conditions by consideration of concentration
(combined cobble and boulder volume ratio), size, angularity and distribution within the soil matrix. Breakage
should also be considered.

The abrasivity of rock clasts (cobbles and boulders) or rock can be assessed by completing Cerchar Abrasivity Tests
per ASTM D7625, Laboratory Determination of Abrasiveness of Rock Using the Cerchar Method. Many references
are available on rock abrasivity testing and evaluation of the results. The Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI) is
commonly related to rock properties such as unconfined compressive strength, Mohs Hardness, Vickers Hardness
number of the rock (VHNR) and Equivalent Quartz Content (EQC or EQu). The previous discussion also provided
some data on cutter live, Vc, values for various rock types. This paper does not attempt to summarize all the
extensive research on rock abrasivity testing, but instead focuses the combined abrasivity effects of the soil matrix
and rock clasts.

Two approaches are tentatively proposed for estimating cutter life and intervention interval for soils with cobbles
and boulders. The first approach is simply a semi-empirical correlation of reported intervention intervals and BVR
data. The second is based on proration of Vc estimates for the soil matrix and rock clasts for various levels of BVR.

For the first approach, a database of soft ground tunnel projects was used. Projects that had reported or interpreted
TBM and MTBM intervention intervals, and reported or estimated BVR and/or CVR data was evaluated. Figure 3
shows the result with a plot of average cutter change intervention interval, bl, versus BVR. It shows that impacts on
bl are small for BVR values less than approximately 0.5 percent and are slightly more than bl values typically
experienced for soil without cobbles and boulders. The impact of boulders on bl rapidly increases at BVR values
over 0.5 percent (which correlates to CVR+BVR = 1 to 2.5 percent) and approaches the bl values for rock at BVR
values over 1-2 percent which correlates to CVR+BVR values in the range of ~3 to 10 percent.

If the subsurface exploration program provides CVR and BVR data, then the chart in Figure 3 could be used to help
estimate interventional intervals and risks that microtunneling drives may require cutter changes. The chart does not

Paper TM1-T5-05 - 7
distinguish between cutter types, but the data generally showed similar intervention intervals for disc cutters and
heavy block rippers and smaller intervention intervals for scraper and pick cutters. Additional reliable data would
help increase the value of the chart, but unfortunately most case histories for tunneling and microtunneling in ground
with cobbles and boulders don’t report CVR or BVR values and may also not report intervention intervals.
Hopefully, future projects will begin reporting both more often.

Figure 3 – BVR versus bl or average cutter change intervention interval (disc, ripper and scraper cutters)

The second approach involves estimation of the total ground abrasivity using the trial chart provided in Table 4. The
table provides the author’s current opinion on how tool life, Vc, in m3/cutter may be estimated for ranges in BVR
using combinations of Vc from soil matrix and rock clast data.

For example, Table 4 suggests that for the preceding case where a CVR+BVR of 10 percent was assumed, total
ground abrasivity may be estimated as 50 percent of the soil matrix Vc plus 50 percent of the rock Vc = 0.5 x 800 +
0.5 x 100 = 400 + 50 = 550 m3/cutter.

The percentages shown in Table 4 are preliminary and need to be researched further, but the approach should
provide a better estimate of total ground abrasivity due to cobbles and boulders than present methods which ignore
the impact of cobbles and boulders. The method might be used in conjunction with the relationship between BVR
and bl shown in Figure 3 to better estimate the impact of cobbles and boulders on cutter wear and life.

Table 4 – Preliminary total ground abrasivity approach using cutter life Vc data for soil and rock components
CVR+BVR, Total Ground Total Ground Abrasivity Approach
% Abrasivity
<1 Very Low Soil matrix abrasivity controls - use tool life, Vc, in m3/cutter from soil
matrix abrasivity testing
1-5 Low 70% Vc soil + 30% Vc rock clasts
5-20 Moderate 50% Vc soil + 50% Vc rock clasts
20-50 High 30% Vc soil + 70% Vc rock clasts
>50 Very High Rock abrasivity controls – use Vc or Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI) data
for rock and increase 20% for higher mixed-face impact cutter breakage

Paper TM1-T5-05 - 8
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

During the past twenty years, the tunneling industry has made considerable improvements in capability of
successfully microtunneling and tunneling in cobbly-bouldery ground. Subsurface investigation methods for
geologic units have identified to obtain necessary data. A database of typical cobble and boulder volume ratios for
common soil types has grown. Designers have developed practical and statistical methods to predict boulder
occurrences (Hunt 2017). These methods have been used with reasonable success on well over 50 projects and
perhaps in the hundreds.

Baselining and pay items (where applicable) have helped to significantly reduce the contractual risk of excavating
through cobbly-bouldery ground. Risk management methods should be used to assess cobble and boulder risks for
each geologic unit along all portions of the alignment. Where the consequences of getting stuck are high or where
the cost of interventions to change cutters is excessive, contract documents might require more robust MTBMs with
higher torque, face access and a combination of disc and scraper cutters. Where conditions are bad and risks are
high, redundancy and backup plans should be designed with appropriate pay items to manage uncertainties and
risks.

Abrasivity of cobbles and boulders should to be considered when a geologic desk study identifies the potential of
significant gravel, cobbles and boulders and particularly when subsurface investigation data indicates a boulder
volume ratio, BVR, over ~ 0.5 percent or CVR + BVR over ~2 percent. Cobble and boulder volumes of 2 percent or
more are expected to have significant impacts on advance rate, cutter life and the average cutter change intervention
interval and may also cause more severe impacts such as obstruction and cutterhead or mucking system damage.

Two approaches were given to allow estimates of intervention interval or cutter life for CVR and BVR values. The
first approach is to use a semi-empirical correlation of BVR to intervention interval. The second approach would
allow cutter life estimates for the soil matrix to be combined with cutter life estimates for rock clasts to estimate a
combined cutter life which may be used to estimate the average cutter change intervention interval, bl.

9. REFERENCES

Akgül, M., Akgül, E., Bostanci, E. & Copur, H., (2015), Analysis of disc cutter consumption of a Double Shield
TBM, In Proceedings of 2015 World Tunnel Congress, ITA. [W2015.153].
Bae, G. & Kim, H. (2001). Improving Performance of Shield TBM For Subway Tunnel Passing Through Riverbed,
[South Korea], 6p.
Barzegari, G., Uromeihy, A. & Jian Zhao, J. (2015), Parametric study of soil abrasivity for predicting wear issue in
TBM tunneling projects, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 48, April 2015, [TU2015.63] 43-57.
Frank, G. & Chapman, D., (2001), “Geotechnical Investigations for Tunneling in Glacial Soils,” In Hansmire, W.H.
& Gowring, I.M. (eds). Proceedings 2001 Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Littleton, Colorado: SME.
[R2001.26], 309-324.
Gharahbagh, E.A., Rostami, J. & Talebi, K., (2013), Introducing the Penn State soil abrasion index (PSAI) for
application in soft ground mechanized tunneling, [W2013.156], 8p.
Gumus, U., Altay, U., Bilgin, A.R., Bostanci, E. & Copur, H., (2016). Double Disc Cutter Consumption of an EPB
TBM in Tuzla Wastewater Tunnel, In Proceedings of 2016 World Tunnel Congress, SME-ITA, [W2016.270], 10p.
Hunt, S., Del Nero, D. & Finney, A., (2013), Microtunneling in Gravel, Cobbles, and Boulders, In Proceedings 2013
Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, SME, [R2013.18], 226-239.
Hunt, S.W. & Mazhar, F.M., (2004), MTBM and Small TBM Experience with Boulders, Ozdemir L. (ED), In:
Proceedings of North American Tunneling 2004, SME, Littleton, Co., [N2004.06], 47–64.
Hunt, S.W., (2004), Risk Management for Microtunneled Sewers, Proceedings of Collection Systems 2004:
Innovative Approaches to Collection Systems Management, Water and Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA,
Paper 9D, [F2004.06], 15p.

Paper TM1-T5-05 - 9
Hunt, S.W. & Del Nero, D.E., (2010), Two Decades of Advances Investigating, Baselining and Tunneling in
Bouldery Ground, Proceedings of World Tunnelling Congress, Vancouver BC, ITA-TAC, [W2010.48], 8p.
Hunt, S.W., (2017), Tunneling in Cobbles and Boulders, 10th Annual Breakthroughs in Tunneling Short Course,
August 14-16, 2017, Chicago, IL, 46p.
Jakobsen, P.D., Bruland, A. & Dahl, F. (2013), Review and assessment of the NTNU/SINTEF Soil Abrasion Test
(SAT™) for determination of abrasiveness of soil and soft ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
37, [TU2013.74], 107-114.
Jakobsen, P.D., Langmaack, L., Dahl, P. & Breivik, T., (2013) Development of the Soft Ground Abrasion Tester
(SGAT) to predict TBM tool wear, torque and thrust, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Volume 38,
September 2013, [TU2013.121], 398-408.
Kim, D. Y., Farrokh, E. Song, M. K. & Hyun K. C. (2017), Cutting tool wear evaluation for soft ground TBMs. In
Proceedings of 2017 World Tunneling Congress, [W2017.77], 8p.
Köppl, F. & Thuro, K., (2013), Cutting tool wear prognosis and management of wear-related risks for Mix-Shield
TBM in soft ground. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Paris, September 2-6, 2013, 1739-1742.
Köppl, F. Thuro, & K. Thewes, M., (2016), Suggestion of an empirical prognosis model for cutting tool wear of
Hydroshield TBM, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 49, June 2015, [TU2015.100], 287-294.
Küpferle, J., Röttger, A., Theisen, W. & Alber, M., (2016), The RUB Tunneling Device – A newly developed test
method to analyze and determine the wear of excavation tools in soils; Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 59 (2016), [TU2016.162], 1–6.
Mirmehrabi, H., Ghafoori, M. & Lashkaripour, G., (2016), Impact of some geological parameters on soil
abrasiveness. Bull Eng Geol Environ, November 2016, Volume 75, Issue 4, 1717–1725.
Moridzadeh M., Cheshomi A., Ghafoori M. & Trigh-Azali S., (2016), Correlation of equivalent quartz content,
Slake durability index and Is50 with Cerchar abrasiveness index for different types of rock; International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 86, (2016), 42–47.
Nilsen, B., Dahl, F., Holzhäuser, J. & Raleigh, P., (2007), New Test Methodology for Estimating the Abrasiveness
of Soils for TBM Tunneling, In Proceedings of 2007 Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, SME,
[R2007.10]. 104-116.
Perlo, R., Swales M. Kane T., Louie, H.C.K., & Poon, F.H.T., (2012). Tunnelling in Difficult Ground: How the
Geotechnical Baseline Report Helps. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Seminar Geotechnical Division, 2012, The
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Geotechnical Aspects of Tunnelling for Infrastructure Development, 8p.
Salazar, C., Martinelli, D., Todaro, C., Peila, D. & Boscaro, A., (2016), Study of Wear in Conditioned Granular Soil
by Using a New Test Device, Proceedings of 2016 World Tunnelling Congress, [W2016.243], 9p.
Thuro, K. & Plinninger, R.J., (2003), Hard rock tunnel boring, cutting, drilling and blasting: rock parameters for
excavatabilty. ISRM 2003–Technology roadmap for rock mechanics, South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 2003, 7p.
Thuro, K. Singer, J. & Kasling, H. (2007), Determining abrasivity with the LCPC Test, 1st Canada - U.S. Rock
Mechanics Symposium, 27-31 May 2007, Vancouver, Canada, American Rock Mechanics Association, In
Eberhardt, E. (Ed.), Stead, D. (Ed.), Morrison, T. (Ed.). Rock Mechanics: Meeting Society's Challenges and
Demands, Two Volume Set. London: CRC Press, 8p.
Xue Y., Diao Z. & Zhao F. (2016). Analysis of TBM Performance and Disc Cutter Consumption in Yinhanjiwei
Water Conveyance Tunnel Project. In Proceedings of 2016 World Tunnel Congress, SME-ITA, [W2016.277], 13p.

Paper TM1-T5-05 - 10