ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Disc cutting tests in Colorado Red Granite: Implications for TBM

performance prediction
R. Gertscha,{, L. Gertschb,, J. Rostamic
a

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.

E-mail addresses: GertschL@umr.edu (L. Gertsch), RostamiJ@cdm.com

(J. Rostami).
{
Deceased
1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.07.007

TBM, cutting forces change also in response to cutter

spacing and penetration. Although the rock itself heavily
inuences machine performance, the layout of the disc
cutters on the cutterhead is very important. To study the
relationship between cutting forces and cutter layout in
hard rock, a series of full-scale laboratory disc cutting tests
was conducted with a single 432 mm (17 in.) diameter,
constant cross-section cutter in a single rock type, a coarsegrained red granite. The results of the tests are presented
and discussed here as they relate to prediction of TBM
performance in similar rock types.
Many investigators have studied the forces on TBM disc
cutters in the eld and in the laboratory, and cutting forces
on single disc cutters in the laboratory. In conjunction with
this work, theoretical and empirical models have been
proposed to predict disc cutter forces. Some models were
derived from rst principles and others were semi-empirical
relationships. The goal was always to predict machine
performance by predicting cutting forces. A review of the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246

large corpus of past work is beyond the scope of this paper,

but how the results of the cutting tests affect some of these
models will be discussed. For in-depth literature surveys,
see [13].
Of particular interest is the reaction of cutting forces to
spacing between cuts and cutter penetration into the rock,
because the TBM designer can match these parameters to
specic rocks. The test series was designed to study the
operation of a TBM as commonly practiced in the eld. As
such, cut spacing, cutter penetration, and the disc cutter
design were selected to duplicate common eld conditions.
Hardrock TBMs tend to operate at spacings of about
76 mm (3 in.) with as much penetration per revolution as
machine power will allow. For the tests in Colorado Red
Granite, a spacing of 76 mm (3 in.) and a penetration of
7.6 mm (0.3 in.) were the largest values tested, while smaller
values were included to determine their effects. The red
granite was selected because it represents the hard crystalline rock commonly encountered in eld operations.
2. Experiment procedures
The disc cutting tests were performed on the linear
cutting machine (Fig. 1) at the Earth Mechanics Institute of
the Colorado School of Mines. The disc cutter used in all
tests was an off-the-shelf commercial ring manufactured by
the Robbins Company with a 13 mm (0.5 in.) wide-tip
constant-cross-section prole and a 432 mm (17 in.)
cutter
penetration
cylinder

cutter
penetration
spacers

239

diameter, made of standard hardened steel. This is a disc

design commonly used on eld TBMs. The rock samples
were large enough (nominally 1.1  0.8  0.6 m) that edge
effects were avoided and cutting tests could be repeated
many times. Several cuts were made on each sample before
data acquisition began to ensure the rock surface was fully
conditioned, i.e., surface damage had reached the same
degree of steady-state as found on a TBM tunnel face. The
physical properties of the Colorado Red Granite samples
are listed in Table 1. The cutting forces were measured in
three dimensions (normal, rolling, and side; Fig. 2) while
the cutter was forced through the surface of the rock
sample at a preset penetration depth for each individual
cutter spacing. The spacings and penetrations tested are
listed in Table 2. The linear cutting machine possesses
sufcient stiffness to isolate the response of the cutter to the
rock from the response of the cutting machine itself.
From the measured cutting forces, several parameters
were calculated that are commonly used in performance
prediction and analysis. The cutting coefcient (CC) is the
ratio of the rolling force to the normal force, expressed as a
percent. This is considered an indicator of the amount of
torque needed for a given amount of thrust; the higher the
CC, the higher the torque needed by the tunnel boring
machine. It also relates the rolling force to the normal

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

force. The specic energy (SE) is the energy required to

fragment a unit volume of rock [4], with units of kilowatthours per cubic meter. In addition, the resultant of the
normal and rolling forces was normalized by dividing the
resultant angle by the angle of the contact chord at each
penetration tested (angles are referenced to vertical, and
dened graphically in Fig. 2).
3. Disc cutting performance prediction
Many performance prediction methodologies focus on
predicting the cutting forces [5]. If forces can be predicted
for a given set of cutting parameters (spacing, penetration,
disc diameter, disc tip width, and rock type), then
predicting the rate of advance and cutting energy needed
is relatively straightforward [6]. Commonly, after postulating a failure mechanism and cutting geometry, the
investigator develops a model that predicts cutting forces
which arise from that mechanism. Cutting forces might be
caused by the pressure needed under the cutter to cause
tensile failure [7,8], the forces needed to penetrate the rock
sufciently to create a chip in shear [9,10], or the resistance
of the rock to penetration dened by the rock compressive
Table 2
Experimental cut spacings and penetrations
Penetration (in/mm)

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.

strength and the rock cutter contact area [11]. A summary

of some of the investigations that inuenced the current
work is provided in Table 3.
In 1965, Teale [4] observed that penetration is the
essential rock cutting parameter; if there is no penetration,
there is no failure. As penetration increases, damage to the
rock increases, which manifests itself as increased energy
consumption, normal force, and rolling force. Increased
damage also implies that deeper penetrations form more
and/or larger cuttings [12]. Because of the central role of
penetration, many investigators constructed cutting and
indentation predictive models that start with penetration
[711]. These models considered the normal force to be a
function of penetration: the deeper the penetration, the
higher the force. One reason why normal force penetration
models are popular is that they are simpler to construct
than rolling force models. Many of these models consider
rolling force to be a function of normal force, which is not
unreasonable.
The role of cut spacing in the performance model was
either included with some difculty [8], or essentially left
out [11]. However, these investigators recognized that
spacing has an important role to play, because changes in
spacing modify the forces acting on a cutter. Several
investigators included a theoretical consideration of spacing. Sanio [7] and Paul and Sikarskie [9] postulated that
an increase in the width of the chip (i.e., the spacing
between the current cut and the last cut) must increase the
normal force, because more rock is broken to the side of
the cutter. Ozdemir and Miller [10] agreed and postulated
that spacing affects the cut-to-cut interaction; both toonarrow and too-wide spacings increase SE. In Ozdemirs
model wide spacings allow larger chips to form, but their
formation can only be initiated by deeper penetration.
Therefore, spacing must be viewed in the context of
penetration.
In addition to spacing issues, the models experience
difculty modeling and predicting the rolling force. They
usually predict that rolling force increases with normal

Table 3
Representative performance prediction models
Model

Normal force predictive basis

Spacing and rolling force

Rostami and Ozdemir [8]

Pressure model

Pressure distribution under the cutter and area of

cutter contact

Sanio [7]
Tensile failurecutting pressure model

Normal force must create a pressure bulb sufcient

to induce a crack to form a chip

Ozdemir and Miller [10]

Shear failure model
Roxborough and Phillips [11]
Compressive strength failure model

Normal force creates a chip in shear

Paul and Sikarskie [9]

Wedge indentation shear model

Shear (for wedge indentation, not a disc cutter)

Spacing not modeled directly

Rolling force predicted by cutting coefcient and
normal force
Spacing a function of the length of a chipping crack
Rolling force a function of normal force, when the
resultant force causes zero torque on the cutter
Spacing controls chip width and shear force
Rolling force related to normal force
Spacing not considered
Rolling force a function of normal force, such that
the resultant force causes zero torque on the cutter
Indentation model only
Spacing considered indirectly
Rolling force not modeled

Normal force is a function of rock compressive

strength and the contact area of the cutter

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246

force. An increase in either spacing or penetration would

thus increase the normal force and the rolling force would
follow. The response of rolling force itself to spacing or
penetration has been difcult to address. Further, the
normal force-indentation models are quasi-static, but
rolling force can only be dynamic.

241

explained by excavated rock volume alone. Increases in

spacing cause the excavated volume to increase linearly,
while the normal forces increase more rapidly; widening the
spacing increases the resistance to rock cutter penetration
at an increasing rate.
Like the normal force, the rolling force increases linearly
with penetration (Fig. 5); however, at penetrations below

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Normal and rolling forces

Normal force increases nearly linearly with penetration
depth at all three cut spacings tested (Fig. 3), an expected
result. More data scatter occurs at lower penetrations,
especially at the wider spacings, probably because the
damaged rock surfaces vary; irregularities in the rock
surface are a much larger proportion of shallow cuts than
of deeper cuts. Increases in spacing also increase the
normal forces (Fig. 4), although with an increasing rate of
increase. The normal force increase required to go from 51
to 76 mm (23 in.) cut spacing is greater than can be

180
S = 25 mm
S = 51 mm
S = 76 mm

160
140
Normal Force (kN)

This discussion is conned to the reaction of normal

forces, rolling forces, SE, CC, and normalized resultant
force (NRF) to spacing and penetration. Other measurements are presented in the Appendix (Table A1 and the
following gures); all results are summarized in Table 4.

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

Fig. 3. Normal force and cutter penetration.

Table 4
Summary of spacing and penetration effects on disc cutting parameters
Parameter

Spacing

Penetration

Normal force (FN) (kN)

Increasing rise with spacing

Spacing 2551 mmFN rises 11 kN
Spacing 5176 mmFN rises 25 kN

Linear rise with penetration

Rolling force (FR) (kN)

Increasing rise with spacing

Spacing 2551 mmFR rises 1.3 kN
Spacing 5176 mmFR rises 2.7 kN

Linear rise with penetration

Side force (FS) (kN)

Increases with spacing

Increases with penetration

More effect at high penetration

Cutting coefcient (CC)

Rolling/normal force ratio (%)

High penetrationincreases with spacing

Low penetrationdecreases with spacing

Linear rise with penetration

Negligible variation of CC with spacing at all
penetrations

Normalized resultant force (NRF)

Small changes near NRF 0.5. Regime change at spacing of

51 mm

Small changes near NRF 0.5. Regime

changes at penetration of 3.8 mm

Specic energy (SE) (kWh/m3)

Decreases at a decreasing rate w/spacing

Spacing 2551 mmSE drops 10 kWhr/m3
Spacing 5176 mmSE drops 2 kW/m3

Small decrease at 25-mm spacing

Approx. at at 51- and 76-mm spacings

Peak normal force (kN)

Decreasing rate of increase

Linear increase

Peak rolling force (kN)

Decreasing rate of increase

Linear increase

Normal peak-to-mean ratio

Increase then decrease with spacing. Less spread at all

penetrations than rolling

Small decrease with spacing. Decrease is

relatively linear

Rolling peak-to-mean ratio

Increase then decrease with spacing. More spread at all

penetrations than normal

Large decrease with spacing. Decrease attens

at high penetration

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

Rolling Force (kN)

Normal Force (kN)

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

Fig. 4. Normal force and cut spacing.

20

40
60
Spacing (mm)

80

100

Fig. 6. Rolling force and cut spacing.

25
S = 25 mm
S = 51 mm
S = 76 mm

Rolling Force (kN)

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.

about 2.5 mm (0.1 in.), the rolling force is nearly the

same, regardless of spacing. Conversely, at penetrations
equal to or greater than 3.8 mm (0.15 in.), rolling force
is well differentiated in response to spacing (Figs. 5 and 6).
At the wide 76 mm spacing, rolling force also increases
at a higher rate in response to increases in pene
tration depth, than at the narrower 25- and 51-mm
spacings. Again, like the normal force, the rolling force
increases at an accelerating rate with increases in
spacing. Judging from the reaction of both normal and
rolling forces to spacing, the cutter must work harder to
achieve the necessary crushing under the cutter at wider
spacings.

Although the reactions of the normal and rolling forces

to changes in cut spacing and cutter penetration are
similar, the differences suggest that different cutting
mechanisms exist in the normal and rolling directions.
A disc cutter penetrating fresh rock in the normal direction
does not damage the rock in quite the same way as the
same cutter rolling ahead into unbroken rock. Since both
mechanisms occur simultaneously during actual cutting,
the total cutter force response is a complex summation of
the two mechanisms that is controlled by the particular
combination of spacing and penetration being experienced
at that instant.
The normal and rolling forces respond differently at the
initial point of cutter engagement with the rock surface.
Very small penetrations quickly cause the normal force to
rise to a high level (Fig. 3), but they have much less effect
on rolling force (Fig. 5), which remains close to zero at
small penetrations. At rst contact with the cutter, the rock
strongly resists penetration, and a signicant normal force
immediately develops. Simple linear regression of measured
normal force against penetration (shown in Fig. 3) predicts
very high normal force at very near zero cutter penetration.
This adds detail to some of the force-penetration models,
which predict a zero normal force at zero penetration
that increases approximately linearly with penetration (e.g.,
[9,11]). Conversely, a cutter rolls forward through the
rock with very little resistance at low penetrations. This
result implies two fundamental characteristics of TBM
performance:
(1) TBM thrust (a function of cutter normal force) reaches
a high level as soon as the cutterhead engages the rock,
then increases linearly, but more slowly, with penetration depth.
(2) TBM torque (a function of cutter rolling force) is
essentially zero upon rock engagement; torque at

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246

shallow penetration is low, but increases linearly with

depth of penetration.

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

In general, the rolling direction consumes almost all of

the cutting energy; the cutting energy expended in the
normal direction is comparatively negligible [13]. This
follows directly from the much greater amount of cutter
travel tangential to the face than normal to it, even though
the normal force is much higher than the rolling. An
increase in either spacing or penetration increases both the
excavated volume and the rolling forces needed to excavate
that volume (although spacing has the greater effect on SE
(Figs. 7 and 8) than penetration does).
Neglecting the impractically narrow 25 mm (1.0 in.)
spacing, SE reaches a relative low at 2.5 mm (0.1 in.)
penetration; as penetration increases further, SE rises
slightly then remains relatively constant (Fig. 7). This
shows that, even though TBM operators avoid low
penetrations (and low thrust), penetration actually has
little effect on cutting efciency in this granite. This means
that the penetration rate of a TBM can be increased in this
type of rock for almost no increase in SE, simply by
increasing the instantaneous penetration (i.e., by increasing
the thrust). Since SE does not increase with penetration
and the excavated rock volume does, the rolling force
increase is paralleled by an increase in the volume
excavated.
The focus on penetration in past investigations [8,10,11]
is a reasonable starting point, since penetration signicantly affects cutting forces. However, widening the
spacing between cuts also increases cutter forces (Figs. 4
and 6). Even though cutting forces increase, wider spacing

30

Specific Energy (kW-hr/m3)

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)

Fig. 7. Specic energy of cutting and cutter penetration.

10

Specific Energy (kW-hr/m3)

25

4.2. SE and cutting forces

243

20

15

10

0
0

20

40
60
Spacing (mm)

80

100

Fig. 8. Specic energy of cutting and cut spacing.

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%

Cutting Coefficent (%)

Cutting Coefficent (%)

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.

4.3. CC and NRF

As penetration increases, the CC increases almost
linearly (Fig. 9). Equally interesting is that spacing has
little effect (the three curves plot very close to each other),
and the linear trends cross at a penetration of 3.8 mm
(0.15 in.). Since CC indicates relative torque requirements,
its almost linear increase at all spacings means that torque
(as a proportion of machine thrust) steadily increases with
TBM penetration rate. The increase with penetration also
means that the fraction of rolling force in the total force
increases with penetration. The forward shift in the force
resultant is due to an increase in the contact length of the
disc cutter in the rock; the cutter has more bite as it rolls
forward.
The CC response to spacing is very different. At low
penetrations, less than 3.8 mm (0.15 in.), it decreases as
spacing increases, but at penetrations above 3.8 mm, it
increases with spacing (Fig. 10). In either case, the effect of
spacing is very small. However, when cut spacing is
increased, the total number of cutters on a TBM cutterhead
is reduced. The net result is that torque tends to decrease
with an increase in spacing for the entire cutterhead,
evidenced by the decreasing SE with spacing.
CC has use in performance prediction, as it relates the
rolling force to the normal force. If the relationship is
consistent, knowing a rocks CC would allow performance
models to readily predict rolling force after normal force is
determined. Since some investigators start by predicting
normal force, a predictable CC would be a means to
predict the rolling force. Rostamis pressure model [1,8]
predicts that CC rises with penetration and is the basis for
rolling force prediction. In this model, the increase is a
function of disc tip geometry, and should thus be
predictable.

Normalized Resultant Force (ratio)

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

Fig. 11. Normalized resultant force and cutter penetration.

The NRF trends close to 0.5 (Fig. 11), and is closest to

0.5 at the higher and more realistic spacings and penetrations. For spacings of 51 and 76 mm (2 and 3 in.), NRF
increases to 0.5 after a penetration of 3.8 mm (0.15 in.) is
reached. For the impractically narrow spacing of 25 mm
(one in.), the trend reverses. The implication of this is not
clear, but it could signal a different cutting mechanism
coming into play at very narrow spacings. The 0.5 NRF
ratio was used by Roxborough and Phillips [11] to predict
rolling force directly from normal force. They surmised
that the NRF bisects the arc of the disc contacting the rock
and passes through the center of the disc hub. Similarly,
Rostami and Ozdemir [8] postulated that the angle of the
resultant force is one half of the angle of the engaged disc
cord, as part of the pressure model.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Gertsch et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 44 (2007) 238246

4.4. A transitional penetration

A penetration of 3.8 mm (0.15 in.) appears to mark a
change of cutting regime in the red granite. Above this
penetration threshold:




The rolling force as a function of penetration becomes

clearly differentiated by cut spacing (Fig. 5);
CC stops increasing with spacing, and begins to decrease
with spacing (i.e., above this penetration an increase in
spacing causes a decrease in the relative amount of
rolling force) (Fig. 10);
The NRF reaches, then remains at, about 0.5 for all
further increases in penetration. This occurs for the
realistic spacings of 51 to 76 mm (2 and 3 in.), and is
reversed at the impractical spacing of 25 mm (1 in.)
(Fig. 11); and
SE remains relatively constant (Fig. 7).

The simplest explanation for this phenomenon is that, at

low penetrations, the cutter action is different than at
higher penetrations. Perhaps this is the penetration above
which more consistent chip formation occurs, a desirable
outcome.
5. Conclusions
The results provide some insights into performance
prediction for a TBM operating in hard and brittle
crystalline rock of moderate strength. It may be likely that
similar results may be characteristic of stronger crystalline
rock; similar results in softer sedimentary rock seem less
likely.
TBMs usually operate in a relatively narrow range of
cutting parameters. Most hard rock machines mount 43cm (17 in.) diameter discs at cut spacings of approximately
76 mm (3 in.). Although rarely less than 51 mm (2 in.),
spacing may exceed 76 mm. Likewise, penetration per

245

revolution is usually in the range of 6 to 7 mm (0.25 in.; at

this penetration, a cutterhead with a 10 rpm rotation rate
will advance 4 m/h).
If the rolling force continues the accelerating increase
with spacing that these test results indicate, SE reduction
will slow and perhaps reverse as spacing increases beyond
76 mm (3 in.), at least in moderate strength crystalline rock.
However, since SE is less sensitive to penetration than to
spacing, the operators goal would be to operate a TBM at
the highest penetration possible for the given amount of
installed torque, subject to the need to minimize destructive
vibrations.
The close correspondence between rolling and normal
forces indicated by the CC simplies TBM performance
prediction, since many investigators start by predicting
normal force and must derive rolling force from it. The
nearly linear rise of CC with penetration, combined with
the minimal effect of spacing, seems particularly signicant. This relationship should be explored further.
The change of cutting regime seen in several quantities
(rolling force, CC, and NRF) at 3.8 mm (0.15 in.) penetration indicates that disc cutter performance depends on the
cutterhead being totally engaged with the rock.
When cutterhead stiffness or operating conditions allow
cutters to lose contact with the rock face, performance
prediction becomes more difcult and the machine
efciency suffers.
In conclusion, although normal force and cutter
penetration have been modeled more effectively than
rolling force and cut spacing have been, SE is more
sensitive to the latter pair. TBM performance prediction
will be improved by a better understanding of how rolling
force and spacing contribute to the cutting of moderatestrength brittle rock by disc cutters.

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

SAND91-7038. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National

Laboratories; 1996.
Sanio H. Prediction of the performance of disc cutters in anisotropic
rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1985;22(3):15361.
Rostami J, Ozdemir L. A new model for performance prediction of
hardrock TBMs. In: Bowerman LD, Monsees JE, editors. Proceedings of rapid excavation and tunneling conference. Boston, MA:
AIME; 1993. p. 793809.
Paul B, Sikarskie DL. A preliminary theory of static penetration of a
rigid wedge into a brittle material. In: Trans Soc Min Eng, vol. 232.
New York, NY: AIME; 1965. p. 37283.
Ozdemir L, Miller J, et al. Mechanical tunnel boring, prediction, and
machine design. National Science Foundation; 1976.
Roxborough FF, Phillips HR. Rock excavation by disc cutter. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1975;12(12):3616.
Teale R. The mechanical excavation of rockexperiments with roller
cutters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1963;1:6378.
Gertsch R, Ozdemir L. Performance prediction of mechanical excavators
in Yucca Mountain welded tuffs from linear cutting tests. SAND91-7038.
Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories; 1991.