Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Department of Geological and Mining Engineering and Sciences, Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI 49931-1295, USA
b
Department of Geological Science and Engineering, and the Rock Mechanics and Explosives Research Center, University of Missouri-Rolla,
1006 Kingshighway, Rolla, MO 65409-0660, USA
c
CDM, Geotech Division, Annandale, Virginia, USA, and Mining Department, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Accepted 10 July 2006
Available online 16 October 2006
Abstract
A series of full-scale laboratory disc cutting tests was conducted with a single disc cutter (432 mm diameter and a constant cross-section
prole) and a single rock type (a coarse-grained red granite). Normal, rolling, and side forces were measured for a series of spacings and
penetrations, from which other cutting parameters also were calculated. Although the increases of normal and rolling forces with
increased spacing and penetration are as expected, the results illuminate additional aspects of performance prediction. Specic energy
(SE) considerations indicate that a spacing of 76 mm is close to optimum in this hard, brittle crystalline rock. At this spacing, penetration
has very little effect on SE. These results show why spacings near 76 mm are commonly found on tunnel boring machines operating in
hard rock. The relationship of rolling force to normal force was close and consistent: A nearly linear rise of the ratio of rolling force to
normal force with increased penetration, and, conversely, a nearly unchanged ratio with increases in spacing. The results tend to validate
performance prediction methodologies based on normal force-penetration models.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rock cutting; Cutter forces; Tunnel boring machine; Performance prediction
1. Introduction
The original purpose of the test program was to conduct
a detailed investigation of the cutting forces acting on a
commercial disc cutter; they are presented here for the
interest of other researchers. Upon reviewing the results,
issues relating to performance prediction of tunnel boring
machines became apparent.
Predicting tunnel boring machine (TBM) performance
can be relatively straightforward when the forces required
on the disc cutters to fragment the rock are known.
Predicting these cutting forces, however, is not necessarily
straightforward. While disc cutter geometry, disc diameter,
and tip radius obviously inuence the performance of a
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 573 341 7278; fax: +1 573 341 4368.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246
cutter
penetration
spacers
239
Table 1
Properties of the granite used in the tests
Uniaxial compressive strength
Brazilian tensile strength
Punch shear strength
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
p-Wave velocity
s-Wave velocity
Dynamic Youngs modulus
Dynamic Poissons ratio
Age
Constituents
22,900 psi
980 psi
3300 psi
5,940,000 psi
0.234
14,950 ft/s
9,470 ft/s
7,050,000 psi
0.155
1.4 by (Precambrian)
Quartz, feldspar, biotite
grained)
158 MPa
6.78 MPa
22.8 MPa
41.0 GPa
4557 m/s
2886 m/s
48.6 GPa
(coarse-
load
cell
saddle
cutter
rock
sample
rock
box
cutter
spacing
cylinder
sled
Fig. 1. The CSM linear cutting machine: the direction of cutting is away
from the viewer. Drawn approximately to scale with a 432-mm diameter
disc cutter.
FR
FN
Fig. 2. The three-dimensional forces acting on a disc cutter: j is the cutter
cord engaged in the rock and b the angle of the resultant force that passes
through the center of the cutter. Dividing b by j gives the normalized
resultant force, as discussed in the text. FR is the rolling force vector and
FN is the normal force vector. The positive side force direction is toward
the page.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
240
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246
0.025/0.6
0.050/1.3
0.075/1.9
0.100/2.5
0.125/3.2
0.150/3.8
0.200/5.1
0.250/6.4
0.300/7.6
Spacing (in/mm)
1/25
2/51
R16
R17
R18
R19
R20
R21
R22
R23
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
3/76
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
The R codes identify the test number, and also appear in Table A1.
Table 3
Representative performance prediction models
Model
Sanio [7]
Tensile failurecutting pressure model
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246
241
180
S = 25 mm
S = 51 mm
S = 76 mm
160
140
Normal Force (kN)
120
100
y = 11.085x + 75.224
R2 = 0.9738
80
y = 11.618x + 48.361
R2 = 0.9786
60
40
y = 12.824x + 32.334
20
R2 = 0.9959
0
0
4
6
Penetration (mm)
10
Table 4
Summary of spacing and penetration effects on disc cutting parameters
Parameter
Spacing
Penetration
Linear increase
Linear increase
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246
242
40
300
250
y = 0.9543x + 149.97
30
R2 = 0.8634
200
P = 1.9 mm
P = 2.5 mm
P = 3.2 mm
P = 3.8 mm
P = 5.1 mm
P = 6.4 mm
P = 7.6 mm
35
150
P = 1.9 mm
P = 2.5 mm
P = 3.2 mm
P = 3.8 mm
P = 5.1 mm
P = 6.4 mm
P = 7.6 mm
100
y = 1.2793x + 53.934
50
R2 = 0.9713
25
y = 0.2062x + 13.354
R2 = 0.9507
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
60
40
Spacing (mm)
80
100
0
0
20
40
60
Spacing (mm)
80
100
25
S = 25 mm
S = 51 mm
S = 76 mm
20
15
y = 3.1331x - 1.3041
10
R2 = 0.9922
y = 2.2923x - 0.3133
R2 = 0.9943
y = 1.8522x + 0.2286
R2 = 0.993
0
0
10
Penetration (mm)
Fig. 5. Rolling force and cutter penetration.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246
30
P = 0.6 mm
P = 1.3 mm
P = 1.9 mm
P = 2.5 mm
P = 3.2 mm
P = 3.8 mm
P = 5.1 mm
P = 6.4 mm
P = 7.6 mm
30
25
y = -0.7422x + 24.156
R2 = 0.3307
20
y = 0.0437x + 11.858
R2 = 0.0102
15
10
S = 25 mm
S = 51 mm
S = 76 mm
y = 0.2895x + 8.8257
R2 = 0.5022
0
0
4
6
Penetration (mm)
10
25
243
20
15
10
0
0
20
40
60
Spacing (mm)
80
100
simultaneously lowers SE because the volume of fragmented rock increases faster than the forces required to achieve
it. This is in contrast to penetration, which has little impact
on SE (above).
Because SE denes cutting efciency, several investigators have attempted to determine cutting regimes or
combinations of spacing and penetration that lower SE.
For example, Ozdemir and Miller [10] postulated that, for
any given penetration, very narrow spacing rst results in
high SE. Then, as spacing is increased, SE decreases until a
relative low is reached, and then SE increases as spacing
continues to increase to very wide. This means that at some
value for cut spacing, SE is minimal and thus cutting is
optimal. Additionally, as the depth of penetration increases, the spacing at which minimum SE values are
reached also increases. The underlying mechanism for this
is simple: When the cuts are too close, excessive crushing
occurs for the narrow chips produced; as the spacing
widens, crushing and chipping come into an optimum
balance; and as spacing becomes excessively wide, cut-tocut interaction degrades.
A practical minimum SE was not observed for the
three test spacings in the red granite. At the 51 and
76 mm spacings (2 and 3 in.), there is a relative SE
low at approximately 2.5 mm (0.10 in.) penetration; yet
2.5 mm has to be less than desirable for efcient TBM
operation. Previous investigators [10,11] indicate that the
optimum for disc cutters is approximately within the
spacing-to-penetration ratios of 1020, and for brittle rock
it can be as high as 30. For this granite, the minimum
SE at a wide range of spacing-to-penetration ratios
can be from 10 to 30, yet no consistent minimum was
seen in our test data. Clearly, the entire range of specic
energies and possible spacing-to-penetration ratios was not
investigated.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246
244
16%
16%
S = 25 mm
S = 51 mm
S = 76 mm
14%
12%
14%
10%
8%
y = 0.0143x + 0.0315
R2 = 0.9795
6%
y = 0.0161x + 0.0246
4%
R2 = 0.9739
2%
y = 0.0114x + 0.0408
R2 = 0.9159
2
10%
8%
6%
P = 0.6 mm
P = 1.3 mm
P = 3.2 mm
P = 3.8 mm
P = 5.1 mm
P = 6.4 mm
P = 7.2 mm
4%
2%
0%
0%
0
12%
10
20
40
60
Spacing (in)
80
100
Penetration (mm)
Fig. 9. Cutting coefcient (ratio of rolling to normal forces) and cutter
penetration.
Fig. 10. Cutting coefcient (ratio of rolling to normal forces) and cut
spacing.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
S = 25 mm
S = 51 mm
S = 76 mm
0.1
0.0
0
4
6
Penetration (mm)
10
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246
245
Appendix
For complete test results, see Table A1.
Table A1
Complete Test Results
S (mm)
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
51
51
51
51
P (mm)
0.6
1.3
1.9
2.5
3.2
3.8
5.1
6.4
1.3
1.9
2.5
3.2
S P (mm2)
16
32
48
65
81
97
129
161
65
97
129
161
S/P
40.0
20.0
13.3
10.0
8.0
6.7
5.0
4.0
40.0
26.7
20.0
16.0
Avg. cutter
Force (kN)
Peak cutter
Force (kN)
Norm
Roll
Side
Norm
Roll
Side
42
47
58
64
73
81
95
116
58
73
79
90
1.6
2.4
3.9
4.8
6.1
7.3
9.1
12.4
3.1
4.0
5.0
7.0
5.0
3.5
4.0
6.7
8.9
11.2
16.6
25.8
1.0
3.4
4.6
3.8
84
95
111
125
142
146
169
198
140
161
178
197
7.3
8.5
11.4
13.3
15.4
17.8
20.8
27.5
11.9
14.1
16.6
21.0
13.5
14.3
17.9
21.5
26.3
29.4
38.5
51.1
17.6
23.2
27.7
29.8
CC (%)
SE (kW h/m)
3.8
5.1
6.8
7.5
8.4
9.0
9.5
10.7
5.3
5.5
6.3
7.7
27.7
20.8
22.6
20.8
21.0
21.0
19.5
21.4
13.2
11.4
10.8
12.0
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246
246
Table A1 (continued )
S (mm)
51
51
51
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
P (mm)
3.8
5.1
6.4
1.9
2.5
3.2
3.8
5.1
6.4
7.6
S P (mm2)
194
258
323
145
194
242
290
387
484
581
S/P
13.3
10.0
8.0
40.0
30.0
24.0
20.0
15.0
12.0
10.0
Avg. cutter
Force (kN)
Peak cutter
Force (kN)
Norm
Roll
Side
Norm
Roll
Side
93
106
121
100
96
112
121
129
147
159
8.5
11.2
14.5
5.0
6.1
8.3
11.4
14.0
19.2
22.3
5.9
8.7
12.4
2.2
2.9
3.2
3.5
4.5
8.6
13.6
209
234
260
201
194
237
247
262
283
306
23.9
29.2
40.5
17.1
17.5
23.0
28.6
31.8
43.5
49.9
33.4
42.4
48.2
26.1
29.9
35.8
39.0
40.4
46.6
56.6
References
[1] Rostami J. Development of a force estimation model for rock
fragmentation with disc cutters through theoretical modeling and
physical measurement of the crushed zone pressure. PhD thesis,
Department of Mining Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1997.
[2] Alehossein H, Boland J N, et al. Prediction of rock failure in rock
indentation by a rock cutter. HDRK-CMTE report, 1995.
[3] Hood MC, Roxborough FF. Rock breakage: mechanical. In:
Hartman HL, editor. SME mining engineering handbook, vol. 1.
Littleton, CO, USA: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc.; 1992. p. 680721.
[4] Teale R. The concept of specic energy in rock drilling. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1965;2:5773.
[5] Alehossein H, Hood M. State-of-the-art review of rock models for
disk roller-cutters. In: Aubertin M, Hassani F, Mitri H, editors.
Second NARMS, rock mechanics tools and techniques. Montreal:
Balkema; 1996. p. 693700.
[6] Gertsch R, Ozdemir L. Performance prediction of mechanical
excavators in Yucca Mountain tuffs from linear cutting tests.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
CC (%)
SE (kW h/m)
9.1
10.5
12.0
5.0
6.3
7.4
9.5
10.9
13.0
14.0
12.2
12.0
12.5
9.6
8.7
9.5
11.0
10.1
11.0
10.7