Use of Pre-splitting Technique as an Alternative Approach to

Cost Optimisation in Tunnel Excavation

T Siimer
1
and H A Giiveni,,2
ABSTRACT
Cost of Drilling
32%
This paper summarises a cost optirnisation procedure by minimising the
total drill metres and the overbreak that occurs in tunnel excavation in
medium strength rock (uniaxial compressive strength <80 Mpa). The cost
optirnisation approach discussed here is an alternative interpretation of
the concept of rock fragmentation through seismic waves (Grand, 1980).
The proposed practice is an alternative approach to smooth blasting
techniques employed in tunnel excavation, since this approach reduces
overbreak and speeds up the excavation. This approach was successfully
employed in derivation, energy. and grouting tunnel excavations of
Bekrne Dam Project.
The on-site experience and the points that should be laken into account
in practice are given in the conclusions. The proposed practice was
employed in strong rock conditions (calcareous limestone) at Diyarbakir
irrigation tunnels in Turkey with a very limited success.
Cost of Explosives
32%
Cost of supports
25%
Cost of
transportation
11%
INTRODUCTION
The perimeter and face stability of any tunnel excavation is
dependent on the techniques employed in using explosives as
much as it depends on the existing lithology of the rock mass in
which the excavation is to be carried out. Smooth blasting
techniques and uncontrolled blasting practices not only causes in
stability but also excessive overbreak in soft and medium strength
rock conditions. This overbreak is reflected as additional cost to
contractors that cannot be included in the monthly invoices even
though geological conditions are introduced as the main causes.
We have also found out that in environments with fluctuating
humidity conditions the organic fill materials that are used to fill
overbreak volumes and the cavities in the tunnel perimeter cause
the generation of poisonous gasses that are flammable. This
increases the cost of maintenance and causes insurance problems.
In order to find an economical solution to the existing problem,
pre-splitting was employed first at the tunnel portal then at the
faces. The next step was to optimise the drilling meterage by
eliminating reaming holes that were previously designed to be
drilled as 102 mm in diameter, and two in number. The third step
was to reduce the total drill metres on each face by increasing the
drilling diameter from 42 mm up to 89 mm. We have
experimented with different set-ups in each step. After six
unsuccessful iterative attempts a unique drill pattern was formed.
The details of this practice and the cost comparisons with
classical drilling and blasting practices are given in the following
sections.
DETERMINATION OF COST PARAMETERS
In order to form the base of this practice a research was
performed in 12 different tunnels with face areas of 20-75 m
2
and where drilling and blasting practice is employed with
drill holes ranging from 38-45 mm in diameter. The above
practice as here in after will be named as 'classical approach'. All
the tunnels that are surveyed was chosen to be in calcareous rock
formation in the presence of at least one fault line.
I. Department of Tendering and Planning, Ceylan Construction
Co Ltd, Ankara, Thrkey.
2. Department of Computer Engineering and Information Science,
Bilkent University, 06533 Ankara, Thrkey.
FIG I - Cost distribution for tunnel excavation.
The result of excavation cost (manpower included) calculations
of these tunnels that are excavated or are being excavated can be
summarised as in Figure I (Stimer and Asenjo, 1993).
In order to give a comparison in open cast operations where
bore hole diameters of 64-89 mm is used (in calcareous
environment), the cost of drilling only is approximately
1.30-1.60 $/m and for each drill metre approximately 12 m
3
of
rock can be excavated. On the contrary in tunnel excavation the
drilling cost is approximately 2.60-3.20 $/m and only 0.6Q-O.90 m
3
of rock can be excavated per drill metres.
In classical approach, after a few experimental blasts the
required amount of explosives needed for each face blast can
easy be found depending on the existing rock media of concern.
Then modifications to theoretical calculations can easily be made
to suit the local boundary conditions. Therefore, if one does not
take into account the drastic changes in the lithology of the rock
environment, the amount of explosives required for each face
blast can be assumed to be approximately fixed. Trying to cut
down the amount of explosives required to a further degree will
decrease the excavation speed and increase the maintenance cost
of equipments used.
The number of workers needed for excavation depends totally
on the past experience of the engineer in charge. Therefore the
required work force will be fixed in number, depending on the
rate of excavation planned and number of shifts practiced. Trying
to reduce the number of worker will require high mechanisation
that will bring an additional inve tment, hence the decision on the
degree of mechanisation will be made on the basis of local
conditions.
The cost of supports depends only on the geological conditions
that will be faced during excavation, since research drilling
cannot be made on every metre of the tunnel alignment.
Therefore the cost of supports depends on the amount of risk that
will be planned to be undertaken by the contractor. The risk is
very limited due to the human life involved. As a result, cost of
support can also be considered to be fixed.
We therefore are left with only one cost parameter that is the
drilling cost. This parameter is interrelated with explosive cost.
We all know that no one can blast effectively a wrong drilled
tunnel face. We have encountered tunnel face pulls less then 80 per
cent of the drilling bore hole length due to miss practices in drilling.
EXPLO '95 Conference Brisbane, 4 - 7 September 1995 383
T SUMER AND H A GUVENIR
PRELIMINARY COST OPTIMISATION
Figure 1 shows the distribution of costs for tunnel excavation. In
order to optimise the drilling cost, we programmed on-site control
of the drilling activities, considering the tunnel excavation studies
we have studied previously. This control saved us 8-12 per cent
on overall drilling costs. As the second step of cost optimisation,
various drill patterns for pre-splitting in tunnels are trailed. Six
out of 23 tunnel face blasts were completely a failure. We then
were able to achieve partial success in the following 13 blasts. In
the last four blasts we achieved full success.
PRE-SPLITTING PRACTICE
The theoretical background (which was modified due to present
boundary conditions) of this pre-splitting practice was based on
the assumption that in order to form a crack pattern within the
rock mass, the vibrations thal will be generated from the blast of
the explosives that are placed on the perimeter should be kept
within the limits given in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Critical vibration velocity for rock conditions.
ROCK TYPE CRITICAL VIBRATION
VELOCITY mrnIsec
A) Hard Rock
Density >2.8 ton/m
3
>950
ues >220MPa
B) Medium Hard Rock
Density >2.6 ton/m
3
600--750
70 < ues < 140 MPa
C) Soft Rock
Density> 2.3 ton/m
3
<400
ues <40MPa
Note: ues Uniaxial eompressive Strength
The calculation of the expected vibrations can be done
(Johansson, 1990) as follows:
V = (YIE) *C
where V = Critical vibration velocity mm/ sec,
Y = Rock Strength (DCS),
E = Young Modules,
C = P wave velocity mm/sec.
A study performed by Berta (1990) also gives a practical
background.
PRE-SPLITTING AT THE PORTAL
An example of pre-splitting practice employed at the portal of a
tunnel is shown in Figure 2 (Popouic and Sumer, 1989).
Pre-splitting holes of diameter 34--45 mm are drilled at the
boundary of the portal with 20-35 cm spacing and loaded with
counter explosives as shown in (Table 2). The length of these
pre-splitting holes are extended as the RQD (Rock Quality
Designation) of the rock gets higher, this ranges from 1.5 m to
5 m in depth. A similar approach w"as mentioned (Mavar 1987)
two years after this application was realised. These mentioned
counter holes which were drilled and blasted before drilling of the
production holes.
PRE-SPLITTING AT THE TUNNEL FACE
The idea of optimisation of drilled metres in tunnels occurred
when we placed a few 60 mm gelatin cartridges in one of the 102
mm reaming holes after experiencing several problem with
scaling and blasting.
No. of holes: 117
empty: S8
loaded: S9
FIG 2 - Pre-splitting technique applied at the portal of energy tunnel
number 2.
TABLE 2
Hole spacing, hole diameter, and explosives usedfor various rock
conditions at tunnel portals.
Type of Rock Hole Spacing Hole Diameter Explosives
UCS (MPa) (cm) (mm Used
Shale-soft-limest 20 cm 45-49 GURITBI7,
ne Kountur Vitezit
UeS:30-40 5a 22
Dolamitic 22 43 GURITAII,17,
Limestone Kinit20
ues: 60-80
Massive 23-27 41 GURIT BII,17,
Limestone Kontur Vitezit
ues: 80-110 18
Note: ues Uniaxial eompressive Strength.
We found out that scaling is no more a problem. This inspired
the idea of increasing the blast hole diameters from 38-45 mm to
52-(j4-76 mm so that we can load fewer holes with a larger
amount of explosives per drilled hole. In the first trial only the
drillhole diameters are increased and a reasonable reduction in
total drilling meters was achieved, but excessive overbreaks
occurred. In order to reduce the extent of overbreak, the perimeter
of the tunnel face was drilled with pre-splitting holes 50-70 cm
apart. These pre-spitting holes were drilled parallel to the axis of
the tunnel and loaded with explosives of 4300 m/sec detonating
velocity. The loading density of these holes was about
0.2-0.35 kg/m. These perimeter holes were blasted with 25 m/sec
delay per 15-25 holes (Fourhaugh and Sumer, 1989), in order to
bring down the blast vibrations generated from pre-splitting to the
calculated limit. This enabled us to form a crack all around the
volume of rock that is planned to be blasted in the next round.
The next step was to drill the face that was previously separated
from the rock medium with 52-64 mm holes.
This saved us 25 per cent in drilling cost. Another ten per cent
saving was obtained from blasting since higher loading densities
were achieved by employing large diameter holes. The last saving
was from the over break which was 65 per cent.
Another problem that we have encountered was the uneven
tunnel face generated after each blast. This problem was
overcome by increasing the loading density of explosives
gradually towards the end of the blast holes. By this practice we
have found out that we can widen the tip angle of the breaking
cone that is formed at the far end of the blast hole. We have seen
that the breaking angle totally depends on the velocity of
detonation and density of explosives loaded at the tip point. After
realising this fact, a piece of gelatin explosive is placed at the end
of each pre-splitting holes (Figure 3).
384 Brisbane, 4 - 7 September 1995 EXPLO '95 Conference
ElllJLIT ISO
1/2 EIlULIT ISO Sxl GURU ' 32/1100 ..
, 40/200 , 17/500
FIG 3 - Loading detail of a pre-split hole.
FIG 4 - Classical burn hole drilling detail.
USE OF PRE-SPLITIING TECHNIQUE
In order to increase the savings from drilling costs to a further
level, the design of the classical reaming hole (Figure 4) is
changed. This idea is inspired by Bergovists (1990). Seven to ten
holes were drilled parallel to the tunnel axis with diameter of
43 mm (Figure 5). These holes were loaded with contour
explosives and were connected with detonating cord P5 in a
vertical direction and blasted with the delay pattern shown in
Figure 5. Three parallel crack lines were formed by this method
at just the same location as the previous bum cut used to be
drilled. Through this application, in place of two 102 mm holes
only ten 43 mm holes were drilled which took only 25 minutes
instead of 1.5 hours, partly due to the need to change drill bits
and related accessories. This itself caused a saving of 66 per cent.
The next step for cost optimisation was to increase the drillhole
lengths as we enter a rock media of RQD 85. The drillhole length
of 3.2 m was increased to 5 m so a pull of m was
realised. Through this application the number of faces that needed
to be blasted was decreased by up to 40 per cent. Even longer
drillholes were experimented with by use of couplings. Due to the
lack of mechanisation (which is now available in the market at a
very reasonable price) and due to the complexity involved in the
explosive loading and blasting patterns of longer blast holes, the
cost of tolerable mistakes was so high that we could not claim to
have reached a successful result. We believe that longer blast hole
drilling in medium strength rock conditions needs further
research.
The results of the application of all the techniques mentioned
above at the same tunnel face resulted with the following savings:
I. Reduction of overbreak was 60-72 per cent. Reduction in
support cost was 25-35 per cent. Reduction in shotcrete was
40-50 per cent.
2. Reduction of the fill concrete cost was around 72-81 per
cent.
3. The time gain helped us to complete an excavation round
within a shift cycle.
Firts trial
Second trial
THE COST ANALYSIS OF THE PRE-SPLITTING
APPROACH

No6
Last trial
No1
FIG 5 - Alternative bum hole drilling pattern.
For a tunnel face with a face area of 40 m
2
and a circumference
of 25 m a pull of 2.6 m per blast was practiced. Since the classical
approach was used, 71 production holes were drilled per face.
The cost of drilling was 71 holes * 3.2 m per hole * $3 Im =
$681.6 per face. When the pre-splitting approach was employed
45 holes were enough to pull the face as the first attempt so the
drilling cost was 45 holes * 3.2 m * $3.4 Im = $489.6 per face.
This means a saving of $191.9 per face. The classical approach
causes an overbreak minimum 12 cm, which results in extra
0.1 m * 25 m =3 m of concrete per metre. The cost incurred is
3 m' Im * $65 1m
3
= $195 Im. In the pre-splitting approach 60 per
cent of this loss was regained resulting $195 Im * 0.60 = $117 Im
of saving per face. In the classical approach I ton/m contact
grouting was required however in the pre-splitting approach,
0.70-0.83 ton/m grout was enough. The saving in grouting was
$210 Iton * (1-0.83) =$35.7 per metre of tunnel. As a result, a
savings of $343.37 per metre of tunnel wa achieved. Please note
that the savings discussed above are in terms of only three cost
parameters. When all the other cost parameters are considered,
approximately a saving of $510 per metre was calculated. If one
considers that the total cost of tunnel operation is approximately
2500 per metre, the total savings will be up to 20.4 per cent on
cost bases.
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Some of the important points that are needed to be taken care of
in the application of pre-splitting approach in weak to medium
rock conditions can be listed as follows:
EXPLO '95 Conference Brisbane. 4 - 7 September 1995 385
T SUMER AND H A GUVENIR
FIG 6 - The relation between type of line joining two adjacent pre-splitting
holes and the amount of explosives.
* straight lines
* correct amount
of explosive
* convex lines
* insufficient amount
of explosive
* concave lines
* excessive amount
of explosive
Grand, C H, 1980. An Emprical Method of Enegy Distribution in Blast
Patterns (Soc of Mining Engineers of AIME).
Johanson, M, 1990. Tunnel Blasting Technique Course in Advanced Rock
Blasting Techniques, Section 4 (Gytrop: Seweden).
Mavar, R, 1987. Results of Channel and Tunnel Po:lJ!.! Excavation
Practice, Technical Report No: 2220-1-223,915-87.
Popouic, R and Sumer, T, 1989. Project Procedure fo Excavation and
Diversion Tunnel Inlets. Enka Cons Report No: DTOO28/01 LOT 4A
BEKHMEDAM.
Sumer, T and Asenjo, T R, 1993. An Interactive Computer Simulation for
Tunnel Cost Calculations, Interm Report no: CICS 0028193 Berke
Dam Project, Ankara.
Sumer, T and Guvenir, H A, 1993. Cost optimization for controlled
blasting, transportation, and crushing, in Proceedings Nineteenth
Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Technique, pp 13-23
(International Society of Explosives Engineers).
REFERENCES
I. The diameter of perimeter holes should be gradually
increased from 38 mm to 64 mm. The hole spacing should
be increased from 35 cm to 70 cm gradually. We have faced
several problems when the spacing of pre-splitting holes
were increased beyond 60 cm in medium hard rock
conditions.
2. Production holes of diameter up to 89 mm should be placed
at the middle of the tunnel face and the hole diameters
should gradually be decreased near the perimeter to avoid
excessive vibrations and overbreaks. The concept of
changing drillhole diameters in the same drill pattern was
also experienced in open cuts (Stimer and Gtivenir, 1993).
3. In determining the spacing and loading density of perimeter
holes, first a conservative spacing should be fixed and
perimeter explosive should be changed. When the required
amount of explosive per hole is almost determined then the
spacing should be optimised.
4. Utmost care and control on the drilling pattern and its
compatibility with the calculated drilling patterns should be
maintained on-site.
5. In order to reduce the cost of counter explosives which are
around $4ooo/ton, low density ANFO (0.3-0.5 kg/dm
3
) was
used. The point to be taken care in the use of ANFO is that
the absorption of fuel oil should not be less chan 8.5 per
cent, otherwise unobserved fuel-oil dissolves the synthetic
spheres introduced to the mixture.
6. In medium-hard rock conditions detonating cord of P50-60
can be used instead of specific counter explosives. The
point here is that two lines of P30 will not replace one line
ofP60.
7. In any case, all the counter explosives and explosives in
production holes should be primed from the bottom of the
holes.
8. All the shock tubes and detonators should be carefully
checked by an inspector before being sent to a site.
9. The success of pre-splitting blasting can be evaluated by
examining the line joining two adjacent pre-splitting holes
as follows:
if amount of explosive is normal, then the line is
straight,
if excessive amount of explosive is used, then the line is
concave,
if insufficient amount of explosive is used, then the line
is convex.
These cases are illustrated in Figure 6.
Ariog1u, E and Tokgoz, N, 1993. Kaya\;larin Tek Eksenli Basin\;
Dayanimi Arasinda Ampirik Baglantilar Ozerine Bir Istatikse1
c;aIisma, Geosandjoumal, 23.
Bergovists, I, 1990. Tunnel Blasting Lecture Notes. Blasting Application
Research (Nitro Nobel ab: Gyttrop Seweden).
Becta, G, 1990. Explosives an Engineering Tool (Itallsplosives: Milano)
pp 100-110.
Fourhaug, M and Summer, T, 1990. An Alternative Aproch to Audio Over
Break Problems Experianced at Urfa Tunnels. Sevedofo Consult,
Report no: DS0028116
386 Brisbane, 4 - 7 September 1995 EXPLO '95 Conference