- A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
- Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering (2018) 51:1599–1613
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1408-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
Inuence ofSubjectivity inGeological Mapping ontheNet
Penetration Rate Prediction foraHard Rock TBM
YongbeomSeo1· FranciscoJavierMacias1,2· PålDrevlandJakobsen1,2· AmundBruland1
Received: 9 November 2015 / Accepted: 12 January 2018 / Published online: 20 January 2018
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract
The net penetration rate of hard rock tunnel boring machines (TBM) is influenced by rock mass degree of fracturing. This
influence is taken into account in the NTNU prediction model by the rock mass fracturing factor (ks). ks is evaluated by geo-
logical mapping, the measurement of the orientation of fractures and the spacing of fractures and fracture type. Geological
mapping is a subjective procedure. Mapping results can therefore contain considerable uncertainty. The mapping data of a
tunnel mapped by three researchers were compared, and the influence of the variation in geological mapping was estimated
to assess the influence of subjectivity in geological mapping. This study compares predicted net penetration rates and actual
net penetration rates for TBM tunneling (from field data) and suggests mapping methods that can reduce the error related
to subjectivity. The main findings of this paper are as follows: (1) variation of mapping data between individuals; (2) effect
of observed variation on uncertainty in predicted net penetration rates; (3) influence of mapping methods on the difference
between predicted and actual net penetration rate.
Keywords Hard rock TBM· Geological mapping· NTNU prediction model· Net penetration rate· Rock mass fracturing
factor (ks)
Abbreviations
TBM Tunnel boring machine
NTNU Norwegian University of Science and
Technology
DRI™ Drilling Rate Index™
CSM Colorado School of Mines
UCS Uniaxial compressive strength
RMR Rock mass rating
RQD Rock quality designation
RMi Rock Mass Index
GSI Geological Strength Index
CLI™ Cutter Life Index™
MSJ Marked single joints
CV Coefficient of variation
SD Standard deviation
List of symbols
ks Rock mass fracturing factor
α Orientation of the weakness plane
αf Dip angle of the weakness plane
αt Bearing of the tunnel axis
αs Strike angle of the weakness plane
ks-avg Average rock mass fracturing factor
li Tunnel length of fracturing class “i” in the
mapped section
ks-i Rock mass fracturing factor for class “i” in the
mapped section
ks-tot Total rock mass fracturing factor
ksi Rock mass fracturing factor for set number “i”
n Number of fracturing sets
Im Average net penetration rate
Inj Net penetration rate for subsection j
Ij Length of subsection j
Tbj Net time (machine hours) used to bore subsection
j
̄
X
Mean of the results
* Yongbeom Seo
yongbeom.seo@ntnu.no
1 Department ofCivil andTransport Engineering, NTNU,
7491Trondheim, Norway
2 SINTEF Building andInfrastructure, Rock Engineering,
7465Trondheim, Norway
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.