TJ_0211_SLURRY_032_037.

qxd:Feature 10/2/11 23:09 Page 32

SLURRY OR EPBM?

UNTIL THE INTRODUCTION of closed face

Closed face dec
SLURRY OR
TBMs in the late 1960s, all shield tunnelling in
soft ground conditions below the water table
was carried out with shields combined with
compressed air. Air pressures were not used
above 3 bar. However the hunt was on for an
alternative, which would avoid compressed air
and it’s associated dangers of the bends and
bone necrosis.
Slurry Tunnelling machines (STMs) arose
from the 1964 patent for the Bentonite
Tunnelling Machine taken out by John Bartlett.
In the UK the use of the patent was first tried
during the New Cross experimental tunnel in
south London, carried out in 1971/72. Prior to
this the Japanese had started trials with the so-
called mud shield in 1964 in the very soft
coastal alluviums. In Germany trials were
carried out in Hamburg in 1976 using what
they referred to as the Hydroshield, a type of
STM still produced today by the TBM
manufacturer Herrenknecht. By the end of the
1970s over 1,000 STMs had been used Independent TBM consultant Alastair Biggart
worldwide.
By the mid 1970s the Japanese were
tackles the very important subject of choosing the
recognising the limitations of the STMs due to most suitable type of closed face TBM for a project.
the narrow range of ground conditions that
this type of closed face TBM was suitable for. The choice will normally be made on issues
So during the mid 1970s they invented the
EPBM. This effectively widened the range of concerning the ground, but also other matters
ground conditions suitable for closed face
TBMs into the finer granular materials and also
such as the environment, or the availability of
silts and cohesive clays. Figure 1 shows the spoil disposal areas. However, the over-riding
envelope of ground conditions suitable for
each type. It can be seen that there is a mid issue will be the requirement to control settlement
range of ground conditions
which is suitable for Fig 1: The PSD Curve for grain size distribution a large percentage of the spoil from the slurry
both types. using vibrating screens, hydrocyclones and, if
Range of ground conditions necessary, belt or hydraulic filter presses for the
How an STM works Clay Silt Sand Gravel removal of very fine material. The use of
In an STM the 100 centrifuges is an alternative to the filter
cutterhead excavates presses. The cleaned slurry is then pumped
the ground in front of down the tunnel for re-use. For environmental
a full bulkhead across 75 reasons it is sometimes necessary to further
rry

the forward end of the clean the spoil using a sand washing plant to
slu

% Slurry
EPBMs
or

machines
TBM. The cutterhead remove residual bentonite or polymer.
B
EP

50
chamber ahead of the An extra benefit of the bentonitic slurry is a
bulkhead is filled with considerable reduction in wear to the
a bentonitic slurry, 25
cutterhead and tools and also in the pipes and
typically a 3% mixture. pumps.
This slurry is Face pressure control is by using a fixed flow
continuously pumped 0 inbound pipe and a variable flow outbound
0 0.002 0.06 2.0 60 mm
through the pump. However if a Hydroshield is used, the
excavation chamber main form of pressure control is the use of a
via an inbound slurry pipe. As the TBM moves cycle. The excavated quantity is computed large air bubble trapped between the main
forward during the excavation cycle the using a magnetic flow meter on both the bulkhead and a semi bulkhead ahead of the
excavated spoil mixes with the slurry and is inbound and outbound pipes together with main bulkhead. This is a more accurate form
removed from the excavation chamber with infrared density meters on both lines. of pressure control.
the slurry through the outbound slurry pipe. The spoil-laden slurry is pumped to the
The slurry spoil mix will be typically in the surface where it passes through a Slurry How an EPBM works
range of 20% to 30% during the excavation Treatment Plant (STP). This effectively removes An EPBM is altogether a simper form of closed

32 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
 TJ_0211_SLURRY_032_037.qxd:Feature 10/2/11 23:09 Page 33

SLURRY OR EPBM?

ace decisions - earth and hydrostatic pressures. Hence the

RY OR EPBM?
name Earth Pressure Balance Machine. The
excavated spoil has a large amount of friction,
which resists the easy flow of the spoil
towards the screw conveyor and also causes a
large amount of torque resistance to the
cutterhead as it tries to turn against this high
friction mass. This results in difficulty in
controlling the earth pressure and hence the
control of settlement.
When the EPBM was first introduced in the
mid 1970s the high friction within the
excavation chamber was reduced by injecting
conditioning agents into
the chamber. These
Left: Kawasaki’s were either bentonite,
CTRL 2 EPBM polymer or water or a
combination of all
Opposite page: three. In the early 1980s
The NFM Groene the Japanese introduced
Hart Slurry TBM the use of a surfactant
(courtesy NFM foam conditioning
Technologies) agent, which is made
up of a combination of
Below left: A the surfactant, water
typical Slurry set and compressed air. This
up (courtesy has a dramatic effect by
Herrenknecht) reducing the cutterhead
torque by as much as
Below: A typical 50% and also allows a
EPBM set up large improvement in
(courtesy the control of earth
Herrenknecht) pressure, which in turn
leads to better

face TBM. This means that contractors and
owners may be tempted to use an EPBM
instead of an STM against their better
technical judgement, purely on the basis of
cost and simplicity. But the wrong choice can
turn out to be an expensive mistake.
With an EPBM, as with an STM, the
cutterhead excavates the ground in front of a
full bulkhead across the forward end of the
TBM. The cutterhead chamber ahead of the
bulkhead is filled with the excavated spoil and
is removed from the chamber via an
archimedean screw (the screw conveyor). It
can be seen that depending on the relative
forward progress of the TBM and the speed of
rotation of the screw conveyor, the pressure
within the excavation chamber can be
controlled and therefore balanced against the
settlement control. The use of foam is
standard today, however EPBMs should
continue to be supplied with the ability to
inject bentonite and polymer to assist the
working of the foam. In addition the possibility
of injecting crushed material such as
pulverised limestone should also be provided
for areas of ground where the fines content is
too low for the screw conveyor to provide

TUNNELLING JOURNAL 33
TJ_0211_SLURRY_032_037.qxd:Feature 10/2/11
SLURRY OR EPBM?
Fig 2: A typical Tailseal array
Emergency seal
Normal build area
Shove ram
1650
adequate resistance to control the earth
pressure.
The screw conveyer delivers the conditioned
spoil to a belt conveyor system, which
nowadays typically includes a long tunnel
conveyor. It is not as easy to measure the
excavated quantity as with an STM. However it
is now standard practice to use belt weighers
on a short belt within the TBM back-up. When
used on, say, a 5 ring rolling average this can
give an early indication of over mucking. In
addition a laser profiler can be used to back up
the information from the belt weigher. This
technology is not yet in common use.
Some important technical characteristics
It is most important to understand the various
technical functions of each type of closed face
TBM as this will provide a better background
for making the choice. It will also indicate the
various things that should be included in the
TBM chosen. It is no use choosing the correct
type of TBM and not providing it with the
correct facilities
Articulation - Closed face TBMs are normally
articulated. As most tunnels involve some
curves, the articulation is provided to help
negotiate curves. Even if there are no curves
articulation is still useful in order to be able to
correct mis-alignment. There are three basic
types of articulation:
• Passive articulation which is normally in the
form of a trailing tailshield connected to
the main shield body by passive hydraulic
rams, which in effect reduces the steerable
length of the TBM shield
• Active articulation which is articulation
between the front and mid body of the
TBM shield. This is a more positive form of
articulation and in effect curves the shield
body positively in order to force the TBM
around curves
• An articulated cutterhead which is
mounted on a spherical bearing and allows
the cutterhead to be set in such a way that
it can overcut in any quadrant of the circle,
thus allowing the TBM to move into the
overcut space
• A combination of any of the above for the
negotiation of extremely tight curves.
There is no differentiator regarding
articulation between the two types of closed
face TBM
34 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
23:09 Page 34
Tailseals - By
definition all closed
face TBMs have a
4 nos. brush seals pressure of either
130
spoil or slurry in the
excavation chamber.
Also by definition
1650
they are in water
bearing ground with
a hydrostatic pressure
all around the TBM
shield. For both
reasons they require
efficient tailseals around the rear of the
tailskin to prevent the ingress of water or
slurry under pressure. Todays tailseals are
made up of multiple rows of wire brush
seals around the intrados of the tailskin. The
seals and the space between seals is
continuously filled with a fibrous grease
whenever the TBM is moving forward. Seals
can now be designed to resist up to 13 bar
external pressure. There is no differentiator
in terms of the tailseals between the two
types of closed face TBMs. See Figure 2 for
a diagrammatic view of a tailseal array.
The Screw Conveyor - This section only
applies to EPBMs. So the description is
included in order to describe the limitations
of the screw. It is important to understand
the way a screw works in an EPBM. It’s
ability to hold pressure is almost entirely
dependant on the length of the screw and
the viscosity of the spoil. There is a simple
formula which can be used to give the
pressure holding capacity of the screw, L/l x
p where L is the screw length in metres, p is
the pressure holding capacity of a single
screw flight and is approximately 0.2 bar
and l is the typical, but variable, length of a
single screw flight and is approximately
0.6m. The pressure holding capacity can be
improved when using an EPBM by the use
The archimedes screw in an EPBM
(courtesy The Robbins Company)
of a double screw, a very long screw or a
double piston pump attached to the end of
the screw. As a general rule it is suggested
that if extremely high pressures are involved
an STM may be more applicable due to it’s
ability to hold high pressures.
Crushers - This section only applies to
STMs. Due to the configuration in the
excavation chamber of an EPBM it is not
possible to have a crusher in the chamber.
The crusher in an STM is situated in the
invert of the excavation chamber
immediately behind the rear of the rotating
cutterhead. Typically the crusher will be a
strong jaw crusher set immediately in front
of a grillage that prevents stones or crushed
boulder fragments from entering the
outbound slurry pipe. A crusher should be
included in an STM if large cobbles or
boulders are expected in the ground. It is
most important that this part of the ground
investigation is set up to investigate the
presence of cobbles and boulders. It is also
important that if there are possible
boulders, the gaps between the cutterhead
arms are sized to retain the boulders at the
face whilst the cutter tools, which should be
a combination of picks and discs, break
them down to a size suitable for the crusher
to digest. If boulders are present in ground
being excavated by an EPBM it is important
that the cutterhead can break the boulders
down to a size suitable for digestion by the
screw. As both STMs and EPBMs can digest
boulders the presence of boulders would
not prevent the use of either type.
Main Bearings and Seals - The heart of a
closed face TBM, or any TBM, is the main
bearing. If this should be damaged during
tunnelling it is a major problem for the
project. It is possible to change a main
bearing within the tunnel but extremely
time consuming and expensive. Nowadays
main bearings are of the three roller type
and made by specialist companies such as
Rothe Erde. Protecting the bearing in an
TJ_0211_SLURRY_032_037.qxd:Feature 10/2/11
open face TBM against the ingress of dirt is
relatively easy, but with a closed face TBM it
is extremely difficult. In an open TBM a
single set of seals would normally be
sufficient. With a closed face TBM it will
require multiple seals, the number being
dependent on the pressure in the face. A
typical supplier of seals is Merkel, who
produce seals that will withstand 4 bar of
pressure across the seal. There is no
differentiator between types regarding the
main bearing and its seals. See Figure 3 for
a diagram of the seals on a Mixshield
machine currently in use.
Open Area of the Cutterhead -
Cutterheads are designed to suit the
conditions and the type of closed face TBM.
When using an STM the open area of the
cutterhead can be quite small as the slurry
contains a small percentage of spoil and is
not very viscous and can easily pass through
a small opening. With an EPBM the
conditioned spoil is highly viscous, even
when treated with foam. It is difficult for
23:09 Page 35
this material to pass through the cutterhead
openings and it can be difficult for the
pressure in the excavation chamber to be
properly transmitted to the face. This can
cause difficulty with settlement control. It is
recommended that the open area of
cutterheads in EPBMs is not less than 35%,
with an absolute minimum of 30% if
circumstances dictate. It should be noted
that Japanese manufacturers use nearer
40%. There is no differentiator here
between types as either type can be
designed with an appropriate open area for
the conditions. The photos above show two
TBMs that were used on the UK’s CTRL
Section 2 Tunnels. The top photo is a Wirth
EPBM which had a low percentage of open
area and had to be modified in the ground.
The photo below it shows a Kawasaki TBM
with a larger open area of near 40%.
Excavated Spoil Measurement - In an
STM the excavated quantity is measured by
magnetic flow meters and infra red density
meters on both the inbound and outbound
SLURRY OR EPBM?
slurry lines. This does not give an absolute
measurement as it requires correction for
ground density and water content. It will
also be inaccurate if there is leakage of
slurry into the ground or leakage of ground
water into the excavation chamber – both
being dependant on accurate pressure
control to balance the hydrostatic ground
pressure. Generally this form of spoil
measurement is reasonably accurate, but it
should be considered as a comparative
measurement rather than an absolute
measurement and therefore be used on a 5
ring rolling average basis to give an early
indication of over-
excavation.
Left top: The Wirth In an EPBM, up
CTRL EPBM until quite recently
the crude method of
Left: The Kawasaki counting muck cars
CTRL EPBM was used, which was
highly unsatisfactory.
Today, with the
almost universal use of long tunnel
conveyors there is no opportunity anyway
to use muck cars. Today’s technology is to
use belt weighers on a fixed belt within the
TBM back-up. Preferably this should be a
short, constant tension, horizontal belt for
accuracy. These weighers have a declared
accuracy of 10%. They should therefore be
considered as giving a comparative
measurement rather than an absolute
measurement and therefore be used on a 5
ring rolling average basis to give an early
indication of over-excavation. The use of
laser profilers is gradually coming in to
supplement the use of the belt weigher, but
this technology is not yet proven. The belt
weigher results also need to be corrected
for ground density and ground water
content. As the methods for both the STMs
and the EPBMs give in the order of 10%
accuracy and are used on a 5 ring rolling
average, the measurement of excavated
spoil is not a differentiator.
Why use closed face TBMs
Before going on to describe the criteria for
choosing between the two types, it is
important to think about why closed face
TBMs have been introduced to TBM
tunnelling.
The main motivation for the introduction
of closed face TBMs was to enable TBMs to
excavate in water bearing ground in
granular soils without the aid of
compressed air to hold back the water.
Secondly there was a wish to widen the
range of ground conditions that can be
safely tunnelled using TBMs. In effect
tunnels can now be driven with closed face
TBMs in any soft ground conditions, where
before the introduction of closed face
machines it would not have been possible
to tunnel at all.
The over-riding motivation is to enable
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 35
TJ_0211_SLURRY_032_037.qxd:Feature 10/2/11 23:09 Page 36

SLURRY OR EPBM?

TBMs to control surface settlement within

acceptable limits when tunnelling in unstable
soft ground conditions.
Additional benefits are the reduced impact
on the environment and the increase in the
safety of the workforce.
Criteria for Making the Choice Between
STMs and EPBMs
In examining the various criteria for choosing
which type of closed machine to use it is
necessary to recognise that the prime
requirement is to control settlement at the
surface and to cause minimum environmental
impact. Contractors and Owners will also wish
to consider the cost and risk implications of
their decision.
Ground Conditions
In soft ground tunnelling the ground
conditions are well illustrated by the Particle
Size Distribution (PSD) curve. These should be
plotted for the full length of the tunnel
alignment from boreholes at realistic centres as
near to the tunnel alignment as possible. The
PSD curves can be drawn with envelopes of
ground which are suitable for each type of
closed face TBM.
Generally the STM is more suitable for the
ground with a higher granular content,
whereas the EPBM is more suitable for ground
with a higher percentage of fines. However,
there is a mid point between the granular and
the finer material which is suitable for both
types (figure 1).
There are, nowadays, a number of factors
that widen the range of ground conditions
suitable for each type of closed face machine
and also narrow the differences between the
Because closed face TBMs have
pressurised material in front of the
main bulkhead there is always an
additional backward force to be
overcome in addition to the normal
forces of friction and the force to bury
the cutters and tow the back up sledges
Fines Content of the Ground injecting re-constituted fines into the
The cut point for fines content is 60µ. If there excavation chamber, which increases the
are less than say 10% fines below this size capability of the screw conveyor in terms of
then it is more difficult to use an EPBM. holding pressure.
However, as mentioned above it is possible to
inject fines such as pulverised limestone to Hydrostatic Head
increase the natural fines content and As a general rule an STM is more capable of
therefore give the screw conveyor a better resisting a high hydrostatic head than an
pressure holding capability. EPBM. This is because the pressurised slurry is
There is also a point at which too many fines pumped around a closed circuit. Whereas with
will inhibit the use of an STM by blocking up an EPBM there are limits to the capability of
the slurry treatment plant. It must be the screw conveyor in holding pressure. As
remembered that when examining the fines previously mentioned this capability can be
content it is necessary to look at the ground improved by re-injecting fines into the
excavation chamber. The
most difficult
Fig 3: The Bearing and seal system on TBM combination would
be to have a high
permeability together
with a high
hydrostatic head.
Permeability can
10 therefore be a strong
R2800 factor in deciding the
type of closed face
TBM. This would be
FA1-12

OA1-4
PA1-4

LA1-4

two types. especially so if say

• For STMs the slurry treatment plants (STPs)
are becoming much more sophisticated with
use of improved vibrating screens,
hydrocyclones and hydraulic filter presses or
centrifuges, thus allowing the slurry to be
more thoroughly cleaned and therefore the
ground range to extend further into the
more silty/clayey materials
• For EPBMs the use of long screws, double
screws, double piston pumps and the use of
more sophisticated conditioners, including
the re-injection of fines, such as pulverised
limestone, enables a better ability for the
screw conveyor to control the pressure
where the natural fines are limited, thus
allowing; a) the ground range to extend
further into the more sandy, gravelly
materials and; b) the TBM to work at much
higher pressures
The above factors mean that generally the two
types of closed faced TBMs are; a) more
versatile and; b) it is more difficult to decide
which type to use.
So the first thing to look at in making a
decision on type is the PSD curve. This will give
an early indication of the correct type, but will
not give the final answer.
content for the full vertical span of the tunnel
and along the whole tunnel length.
Ground Permeability
The permeability of the ground must be
examined and it will therefore be necessary to
include pumping tests to give a general
indication of permeability along the tunnel
alignment. A rough guide to the level of
permeability suitable to each type is that an
STM is suitable for ground with a higher
permeability than 1 x 10-5m/s and an EPBM
with permeability below this figure. However
an EPBM can be used in ground with a higher
permeability, which implies fewer fines, by
high permeability
existed for the whole
length of a tunnel,
which would indicate
the use of an STM.
Settlement Control
One of the prime
reasons for using a
closed face TBM is to
control ground
movement. Nowadays
both types of closed face TBM are excellent at
controlling surface settlement. Before the
introduction of foam conditioners to EPBMs,
the STM was better in terms of settlement
control. However with the advent of foam
conditioners both types of closed face TBM
can be used to control settlement to an
acceptable degree. If the ground is very
granular with few fines below 60µ then it may
be necessary to re-inject re-constituted fines if
using an EPBM. Table 1 show volume losses
achieved on closed face machine projects
Presence of Boulders
Both types of closed face TBM can be used in

36 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
TJ_0211_SLURRY_032_037.qxd:Feature 10/2/11
ground containing cobbles and boulders. In
both types the cutterhead tool configuration
and size of openings must be designed to
break up boulders at the face before they pass
through the cutterhead. In an STM they must
be broken down to a size suitable for the
crusher and in an EPBM they must be broken
down to a size that can be digested by the
screw conveyor.
Thrust and Torque
It is most important that with all closed face
TBMs they are not limited by insufficient
torque or thrust.
Because closed face TBMs have pressurised
material in front of the main bulkhead there is
always an additional backward force to be
overcome in addition to the normal forces of
friction and the force to bury the cutters and
tow the back up sledges.
In a 6m diameter TBM with 3 bar in the face
this force will be 848 tonnes. In a 16m
diameter TBM with 3 bar pressure the force
will be 6,034 tonnes. A 10m diameter
machine with 13 bar in the face will have a
backward force of 10,214 tonnes. If an STM is
being used with a slurry in the face it is
possible to have rapid changes in this force
due, for instance, to a rapid loss of slurry. An
EPBM with a much more viscous material will
not suffer the same rapid changes. So this is a
differentiator between the two types. These
very large forces must be considered carefully
in the design of the pre-cast lining.
Torque is a factor where there is
considerable difference between an EPBM and
an STM. With an STM there is a very low
viscosity slurry in the excavation chamber.
agent. Even with foam there is still a severe
resistance for the cutterhead to overcome. An
approximate method for calculating the
required torque in tonne metres for each type
is obtained from the simple empirical formula
αD3 - where α is a coefficient relating to the
machine type and D is the TBM diameter in
metres. For an EPBM α is between 2 and 3
and for an STM α is between 0.75 and 2. This
means that an EPBM of 6m diameter would
require a torque between 432 and 648 tonne
metres, whereas an STM of the same diameter
would only require between 162 and 432
tonne metres. For an EPBM the above
calculations take account of the use of foam
with its ability to reduce torque by up to 50%. limestone in areas of very few fines in the
This is a considerable differentiator between
the two types. However either type can be
Table 1: Percentage Volume Loss (PVL)
CTRL EPBMs: 30.4km –average 0.6%
St Clair River EPBM: 1.87km <1%
SMART Slurry: 9.7km <0.75%
Dockland Light Rail Slurry: <1.0%
Toronto Subway EPBM: 8.8km <0.8%
Kowloon Southern Link EPBM: <0.5%
Warrington Sewer Slurry:1.4km 1.37%
Heathrow T5 EPBM/CA: average 0.5%
Seattle CSO EPBM: 1.89km <0.5%
23:09 Page 37
Tunnel logistics with a slurry system
designed with sufficient torque.
Environmental Considerations
The main environmental consideration is the
effect of conditioners or bentonite slurry on
the spoil disposal areas.
STMs, since they were first introduced in the
1960s, have always used a bentonitic slurry as
a transportation medium, sometimes
supplemented by the use of polymers. An
EPBM today uses a surfactant foam usually
supplemented by polymers or bentonite.
These are occasionally supplemented by a re-
constituted material such as pulverised
ground. These different materials are a definite
differentiator between the two types. For an
STM it is possible, if it
is necessary, to clean
out any residual
contaminants using a
sand washing plant.
For an EPBM this is
not so easy. However,
most of the
conditioners are bio-
degradable and at the
worst it may be
SLURRY OR EPBM?
necessary to lay out the
materials in thin layers for a
week or two to aid the bio-
degrading process. In
summary it is necessary to
take into account the effect
on the environment of the
various materials used with
each type.
Logistics
Tunnel logistics are greatly
improved by using an STM,
due to the spoil being
removed with the slurry in the
outbound pipeline. Apart
from reducing total traffic this
improves the quality of air in
the tunnel by the consequent
reduction in diesel fumes.
There is also a consequent
improvement in personnel
safety due to the reduction in
traffic.
The same logistical
improvement does not apply
to EPBMs. However,
nowadays it has become
common practice to use long
tunnel conveyors which
provide the same
improvement in logistics
together with the other
consequential effects.
Logistics would not be a
factor in deciding which type
of closed face TBM to use.
However the logistical effects
must be born in mind when
taking the decision.
Summary
The main criteria in deciding between an STM
and an EPBM are ground related. None of the
factors described above can be examined in
isolation. As stated the main criteria is the
information contained in the PSD curves. But
this information must be examined together
with the ground permeability and the
hydrostatic head and the distribution of fines
within the whole length of the tunnel. It is
essential to consider the ability of the chosen
TBM to control settlement within acceptable
limits.
In coming to a decision the other factors to
consider are the presence of boulders, the
requirements for adequate torque and thrust,
the effect on the environment and also the
tunnel logistics. But none of these additional
factors will have a strong influence on the
choice.
Having made the decision, thought must
then be given to the various facilities that
should be built into the TBM to ensure that it
is capable of dealing with the known
conditions and also possible unknown
conditions that may arise.
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 37