THE 2010

HARDING
LECTURE
British Tunnelling Society
Harding Lecture 15th April 2010
by Alastair Biggart
 THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

Foreword
By Robert Ibell,
British Tunnelling Society Chairman.
The paper that follows is the 2010 Sir Harold Harding Memorial Lecture. This lecture is
the latest in the series of lectures given by eminent speakers on tunnelling and related
subjects at the British Tunnelling Society.
The history of this event commences some 40 years ago; in the April 1971 edition of
‘Tunnels and Tunnelling’, it notes that the British Tunnelling Society (BTS) has been
formed with Harold Harding as its provisional Chairman. At the first BTS AGM in
September 1971, a draft constitution was formally adopted, and its first committee of 9
members was elected. That committee included other eminent tunnellers who have
delivered Harding Lectures and also James Clarke, whose memory is honoured by the
BTS by the award of the James Clarke medal to those who have made a major
contribution to tunnelling.
The BTS and the British tunnelling industry has changed over the years, but it is a
much changed world we live and work in. It is good to note that there is ongoing
consideration of the nature of the BTS role and objectives because there is a
tremendous resurgence of interest in tunnelling. This is mainly because of the need for
improved transport links across adverse terrain and across (beneath) densely
populated cities not only in the UK but across the world. The demand for the transfer of
clean water remains along with foul water disposal. We also have the storm relief
sewers whose role becomes so important as we experience more extremes of drought
and rainfall.
This forecast need for tunnelling skills has given impetus to the BTS to take forward
initiatives related to education and training of young and older engineers who would
be tunnellers. We are promoting an MSc course at Warwick University and supporting
National Vocational Qualifications and Underground Safety Passports with TunnelSkills.
We have a Young Members section that started full of enthusiasm and are in the
process of converting enthusiasm into achievements. They will succeed; I have no
doubt, because all these initiatives are being led by industry rather than government or
educationists and the pendulum is swinging towards greater need for, and recognition
of, technical skills. So much of what needs to be achieved in terms of sustainable
infrastructure requires advancements in technology to achieve it.
The BTS has a very important role to play in the future if standards of tunnel
engineering, tunnel construction and tunnel safety are to be maintained. Tunnelling is,
and always has been, about understanding the forces of nature and combining the
theoretical, the technical and the practical. The BTS seeks to bring these together at all
times, keeping a balance between our academics, our consulting engineers, and our
contractors.
This Harding Lecture is given by Alastair Biggart, whom I was fortunate enough to
work with on the Channel Tunnel and who taught me personally a lot about tunnelling.
The lecture not only brings us up to date with the latest developments but also brings
out some good lessons learnt which have particular relevance for anyone
contemplating tunnelling in an urban environment.

3
THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

Dr Alastair Biggart
Alastair took his degree in Civil Engineering at Loughborough University back in the early
1950s. After university he flew as a pilot in the Royal Air Force during his National Service.
After leaving the RAF he worked for three different contractors for 4 years and gained
practical experience on tunnelling projects, a dry dock and roadworks. This was followed
by 6 years with tunnelling contractor Mitchell Brothers, followed by 12 years with Edmund
Nuttall. He served as a director with both these companies and was mainly involved with
tunnelling works. It was whilst he was with Nuttalls that he was put in charge of the New
Cross experiment to develop the Bentonite Tunnelling Machine, patented by John Bartlett
of Mott Hay and Anderson. This started a 38 year involvement with closed face tunnelling
machines. During the last 2 years with Nuttalls he served as Managing Director of a Nuttall
subsidiary, Robert L Priestley, who designed and manufactured TBMs, including the 1973
Channel Tunnel TBM.
In 1982 he joined Lilley Construction and worked on the Cairo Wastewater Project as
Technical Director. Three Slurry Tunnelling Machines (STMs) were used in water bearing
sands and gravels. This was followed by 5 years on the Channel Tunnel, where he first
worked as Assistant Construction Director for the contractor, Trans Manche Link, looking
after the tunnelling on the UK side and then as Operations Director in charge of strategic
planning, the various interfaces between construction and fixed equipment and also the
interface with France.
In 1992 Alastair changed from being a contractor to being a consultant and joined Mott
MacDonald on the Storebaelt Eastern Tunnel Project. He became Project Director for the
Owner on this very difficult sub aqueous project which used 4 Earth Pressure Balance
Machines (EPBMs). This was followed by 4 years as Project Manager on the North
Hollywood Extension of the Los Angeles Metro, where rock tunnelling TBMs were used.
Since retiring from full time work in 2001he has acted as a consultant on twelve
tunnelling projects. These include, Malmo Citytunnel in Sweden, the Copenhagen Metro,
Buenos Aires Water Tunnel, 4 Australian projects, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link,
Hallandsaas Railway Tunnel in Sweden, the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project in San Jose,
California and the Dublin Metro North project. On all of these projects closed face TBMs
were used or are proposed for use.
Alastair chaired the British Tunnelling Society Committee which produced “Closed Face
Tunnelling Machines and Ground Stability” in 2005. He has also written a number of papers
on tunnelling.
He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, Fellow of the Institution of Civil
Engineers and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He was twice
awarded the ICE Telford Medal (1974 and 1997), the ICE Gold Medal (1995), the ICE
Overseas Medal (2000) and the BTS James Clark Memorial Medal (1991). He was awarded
an honorary Doctor of Technology of Loughborough University in 1995.

4
 THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

Introduction History of Modern Tunnelling – 1825 to

Today
Chairman, ladies and gentleman. It’s a great privilege to be
invited to give this year’s Harding Lecture. Harold Harding, I will start of course with the great Brunel’s shield used for
as many will know, was a founder member and founding the construction of the Thames tunnel between 1825 to
chairman of our society and also a great engineer and 1843, see Figure 1. Considering the state of technology at
tunneller. He was one of the best and funniest after dinner that time it was a marvellously ingenious design. It was
speakers I have ever heard. One of his bon mots for made in cast iron and each individual vertical part could
engineers was “be prepared to be surprised but never move forward independently.
appalled”. During the same period came the introduction of
I’m very pleased to see some of my more mature compressed air by Cochrane’s patent of 1830. At first they
colleagues sitting in their normal front row places. Most of didn’t use a shield with compressed air, but soon
you here tonight are the generation with broad minds and discovered that this was dangerous. Cochrane was in fact
narrow hips, whereas we are the generation where the two a very interesting man. He became 10th Earl of Dundonald
have changed places. and commanded the Chilean navy at a time when they
My lecture will mainly cover the period from the start of defeated the Spanish in a sea battle. He was appointed at
what might be called modern tunnelling, the 1950s that time by the then Chilean President, Bernardo
onwards, which coincides with the period of my own O’Higgins - and that’s not the start of an Irish joke. I
involvement in underground works. should also mention that the first use of compressed air in
I’ll start with some history as I think it is important to our immediate area here in London was for the first
understand history in order to understand where we are Blackwall tunnel built between 1892 and 1897.
today and of course to help us to avoid the mistakes of the Then came Barlow’s patent for a circular shield in 1864.
past. So historically I will look briefly at the period from Then in 1869 Greathead, using Barlow’s shield patent,
when the great Brunels carried out their work on the designed a shield that was used in the Tower subway, see
Thames tunnel and then go on from there to the Figure 2. This was the first use of a circular shield together
development of shields and tunnel boring machines and with a bolted cast iron lining.
the early use of compressed air.
I will talk mostly about the use and development of
closed face machines, which is the title of the lecture, and
mention a number of the associated subjects such as the
development of tunnel linings to fit in with the
sophistication of the TBMs, the development of grouting
techniques, both annular and ahead of the face, the better
understanding of settlement, the use of conditioners as an
aid to closed face tunnelling and the way that compressed
air has been largely replaced by the use of these machines
and finally the improvement in tunnel logistics.
Now it is conventional wisdom that in any form of civil
engineering construction there are 5 important criteria that
we must all satisfy.

■ Cost and budget, bring the project in under budget

■ Schedule, bring the project in on time.
■ Safety, minimum accidents.
■ Quality, satisfy the clients desire for fulfilling the design
intent and provide a good quality finish.
■ Protection of the environment from a visual, noise and
pollution point of view.

Now these criteria are important, whether you’re a

contractor, an engineer or an owner. They are also largely
interrelated. So my main proposition is that the use of
closed face tunnelling machines, if properly designed,
controlled, monitored and managed will help the
achievement of all 5 of these criteria. This is especially so
considering the current state of the art and the
sophistication of these machines and techniques. Figure 1: Brunel’s shield for the construction of the
Thames tunnel

5
THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

1/ " plate
2

Screw worked
with ratchet brace

21/2" diameter

Figure 4: St. Clair River Tunnel - 1890

Tunnel in 1880, see Figure 3. They achieved 2km of tunnel

on the UK side using this machine, which was operated
by compressed air.
Meantime over on the Canadian/ American border in
1890 a tunnel shield was used, together with compressed
air, for the construction of the first St Clair River railway
tunnel, see Figure 4. This was notable, amongst other
things, for the first use of an erector. You can see from this
picture that there was a little bit of the old and the new
Figure 2: Greathead’s shield, used in the Tower subway involved in the construction.
Then coming into the 20th century came the Price
Interestingly enough Barlow got his idea for the shield Excavator in 1901, see Figure 5. Forty of these machines
patent when he was working on the caissons for the were made by Markhams of Chesterfield, who also made
construction of the first Lambeth Bridge in London in 2 of the Channel Tunnel machines in 1998, but who sadly
1862. My father was working on the present replacement no longer make tunnelling machines. 18km of the
bridge when he was married in 1929. Northern and Piccadilly lines in London were constructed
Over in America the first use of compressed air was for using Price Excavators. Note that the cutterhead was
a 5.5m diameter tunnel constructed in 1874 under the mounted on a centre shaft.
Hudson River, Then shortly after in 1879 the Kattendyk Then came the Whittaker Machine in 1923. These
tunnel was constructed in Antwerp, also using machines, which look very old fashioned, were
compressed air. manufactured by Sir William Arrol of Glasgow, the
Then come Beaumont and English, who designed the contractor who built the Forth Railway Bridge which was
tunnel boring machine for the first attempt at the Channel opened in 1890. One of these machines was used for an
experiment for the Channel Tunnel in 1925. When the
Figure 3: Beaumont & English TBM-1880 Channel Tunnel was constructed in 1989 one of the

6
 THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

to convey the spoil from the front to the back of the

machine.
In the early 1960s came the development of machines
for cohesive ground. Figure 6 shows two of those
machines. On the left is the McAlpine Digger using a
centre shaft for mounting the cutterhead. On the right is
the Kinnear and Moodie Drum Digger. The drum which
held the cutter head rotated in between fixed rollers and
the main axial thrust was taken by a crude thrust bearing
which consisted of a greased soft metal plain thrust
bearing, that wore away very rapidly. These machines
were bought by the London Transport Board at the time of
constructing the Victoria line in London in the early 1960s
and they represented the first use of what is now called
the Owner Procurement Process (OPP). As a matter of
interest the contractors who were working on the Victoria
line through the 1960s included names, some of which
have become defunct, such as Cochrane, Lilley, Marples
Ridgeway, Mitchell Brothers, Kinnear and Moodie,
Mowlem, Waddington, Charles Brand, Balfour Beatty, and
Kier. Some of them still exist and some of them were
absorbed into bigger companies.
The Priestly 100” TBM arrived on the scene in the late
1960s, see Figure 7. This was one of the first uses of a
cross roller bearing for the mounting of the cutter head.
Figure 5: The Price Rotary Tunnelling Machine - 1901 Robbins had initiated this technology for rock TBMs. So
they had discarded the use of a centre shaft, which was
entrepreneurial geologists, Paul Varley, organised a team comparatively crude and they had turned to the use of a
and dug out the machine. It was refurbished and is now full size roller bearing. One of the early Priestley TBMs
an exhibit in the Science Museum. The idea for these was used in 1970 by Edmund Nuttall to construct the Ely
machines was originally encouraged by the army’s desire Ouse water tunnel in East Anglia. This set up a world
to mine under the German lines in World War 1. Another record at the time of 435m (1,427 feet) of lined tunnel
interesting point, from a closed face machine point of constructed in one week. That’s actually 7m more than the
view, is that this machine used a screw conveyor in order record on the Channel Tunnel marine drive in 1991, 21
years later. It should, of course, be appreciated that the
Figure 6: Drum Digger & McAlpine Digger c. 1963 Channel Tunnel was a much larger diameter than the Ely

60 H.P. Shove Ram 81/2" Bore, Shove Ram 7" Bore, Sides of arms
Motor Stroke 2' 8" Stroke 2' 4" shaped to
Adjustable form scoops
Tooth
Cutter Cutting
Arm Head
Drum
Spoil Digging Bearing
Conveyor Teeth Rollers

Driven
Gear Ring

Spoil
Conveyor
Centre
Shaft
Swiveling Annular
Ram Shoe Pick-up
Buckets
50 H.P. Thrust
Motor Bearing

McAlpine Centre Shaft Digger Kinnear Moodie Drum Digger

0 5 10

7
THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

Slurry Tunelling Machines (STMs)

At the start it was just slurry machines, which arose out of
the 1964 patent by John Bartlett of Mott, Hay and
Anderson for the Bentonite Tunnelling Machine. They were
developed for use in soft ground and mainly used in
granular materials below the water table. The face was
supported by bentonite slurry and the excavated material,
mixed with the slurry was transported out of the tunnel in
a slurry pipeline. A separation and slurry cleaning plant
was required on the surface. In the top right hand corner
of the first page of John Bartlett's patent it says the patent
was for a “rotary mechanical digging mechanism in front
of a bulkhead in which a liquid thixotropic suspension is
delivered under pressure to the space in front of the
bulkhead so as to contact (and support) the working face
on which the digging mechanism works, and the spoil
excavated by the digging mechanism is removed together
with a proportion of the liquid suspension.” Anyone who
Figure 7: Priestley 100” TBM – 1967 has used STMs will see that this is an exact description of
how slurry machines still function today, albeit the
Ouse tunnel and was of the order of 12km out under the mechanisms have become considerably more
sea at the time the record was achieved. sophisticated.
So at that time, in the early 1970s, unless the ground In the UK we started an experimental tunnel in 1972 at
was cohesive or hard, it was still necessary to use a shield New Cross, London using a 4.12m diameter closed face
or a TBM with compressed air in order to control the TBM. This became known as the New Cross experiment.
ingress of water, with all the various dangers of the bends, It took 8 years, from 1964 to 1972, to find the funding for
bone necrosis, blowouts, etc. that experiment which was a great shame. The

Figure 8: Bentonite Tunnelling Machine Circuit

8
 THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

grease being fed in between them.

At the same time as we were carrying out the
experiment in New Cross the Germans had started in
Hamburg with what they then called a hydro shield, see
Figure 10. I believe they still call it a hydro shield. It’s a
very elegant concept using twin bulkheads. There is the
main bulkhead, in front of which the slurry is held under
pressure. Then there is a three quarter bulkhead ahead of
the main bulkhead and sandwiched between the two is a
large air bubble held under a pre-determined pressure of
compressed air. It is the pressure of that compressed air
that is used to control the pressure of the slurry in the
face. It is a very good system and is still used in
Figure 9: Tailseal Patent – 1971 Herrenknecht STMs and maybe some others. Just
returning to the original Hamburg STM they had to use
experiment, which consisted of just 140m of tunnel, did compressed air in the tunnel because at the time they
prove the concept of Bentonite Tunnelling Machines as were carrying out the original experiment they hadn’t
they were then called. There was a slurry circuit which developed a tail seal that could hold the pressure.
was not exactly the same, but very similar to the type of In Japan they started using STMs in 1964, the same
slurry circuits that are used today, see Figure 8. year as the Bartlett patent. The Japanese machines were
In 1975 came the first commercial contract which was originally called mud shields. Figure 11 shows a typical
for a sewer project in Warrington, north west England. The one made by Okumura. They used them in very soft
tunnel was 1.3km long and used a 2.44m diameter Slurry material and the process was that soft material squeezed
Tunnelling Machine (STM), and was constructed by through the very narrow slot at the front. I never inquired
Edmund Nuttall. It had twin blow up tail seals that were about the amount of settlement they created, but I
patented at that time, see Figures 9. The first 240m of that imagine it was quite high.
tunnel was constructed in sandstone using a conveyor By the end of the 1970s over 1,000 STMs had been
and an open face. In effect it was the first use of what used worldwide, but a vast majority of those were in
nowadays is called a Mixshield. A patent for a wire brush Japan, where they were catching up on a poorly
seal was taken out by the National Research and developed infrastructure in Tokyo and elsewhere.
Development Corporation, NRDC, in 1971. They were one Today the different makes of STMs control pressure in
of the funders, along with the London Transport Board, of different ways.
the original experiment for the Bentonite Tunnelling First of all, the hydro shield with the compressed air
Machine. It is for a patent using a wire brush, which is very bubble. With this I suggest that it is possible to control the
similar to the type of tail seals that are used nowadays, pressure at the face within +/- 0.05 bar.
except that there are now multiple seals with fibrous Then there are the other machines which use differential

Compressed Air
Balancing Reservoir Tail-Skin Tail-Seal Grouted Void
Compressed
Air/Bentonite Compressed Primary Personnel Adjustable
Separation Baffle Air Lock Segmental Lining Access Door Vanes
Lining 5.52m I.D.
6.12m Ext. Dia.

6.12m Ext. Dia.

Shaft Drive Motor

Cutting Bentonite Stone Bentonite Feed Segmental

Head Chamber Screen & Return Pipes Lining Erector
Thrust Rams

Figure 10: Hydroshield - 1971

9
THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

Earth Pressure Balance Machines, EPBMs

A summary is shown on Figure 12. The Japanese
recognised that STMs were very limited in the range of
ground to which they were applicable. EPBMs were
developed by the Japanese in the mid 1970’s. They only
used them within Japan during the first 5 or 6 years.
These machines effectively broadened the range of
applicable ground conditions. They are much simpler than
the STM, with the face supported by conditioned
excavated spoil and with the excavated spoil removed
from the face using a screw conveyor and transported by
train or conveyor to the surface. There is no requirement
for the complex slurry treatment plant on the surface.
They have to some extent replaced the STM, but certainly
not entirely. There is still a variety of ground conditions
that require an STM. There are a number of main parts of
an EPBM. There is the main bulkhead, with the cutterhead
Figure 11: Japanese Slurry Machine 1966. mounted in front, and the screw conveyor for extracting
the material, which is part of the control mechanism for
pumping in and out of the face to control the pressure. achieving the desired earth pressure. The full earth
Typical of this are the Okumura Markham 6m diameter pressure is present at the front of the screw, but by the
STMs used in Cairo in the mid 1980’s for the Wastewater time the spoil arrives at the outlet end of the screw it must
project. They can control the pressure within +/- 0.1 bar. be at atmospheric pressure, in order that it can be ejected
These machines were still using a centre shaft. In the on to the belt conveyor in free air. The tail seal at the rear
opinion of the Japanese designers at the time it is not end is important. The airlock for personnel to enter the
advisable to use a centre shaft on a tunnel boring machine face to repair the cutterhead and replace the cutter tools
much above 6m diameter. This limitation arises from the is important.
differential eccentric loads caused by either mixed soft A very early use of this type of machine in the USA was
and hard ground or boulders. one used under the Anacostia River on the Washington
I’d like to pause briefly there and mention what one can DC Metro. It is a Hitachi Zozen EPBM. It can be seen from
call “the tunnelling system”, it’s all obvious in a sense. The Figure 13 that the screw conveyor is very short compared
tunnelling system is in 3 parts: to what is used today. Also nowadays we put the entrance
to the screw in the invert. The machine worked reasonably
■ Firstly the ground, well, but found difficulty in controlling the earth pressure. It
■ Secondly the tunnel boring machine can be seen that it had active articulation between the
■ Thirdly the permanent lining front and mid body.
As a result of the development of closed face tunnelling
It’s vital, of course, to have compatibility between all 3. machines new horizons have been opened up to
You must also suit the tunnel boring machine to the tunnellers. We are now able to tunnel in ground using
ground and not the other way round, as sometimes closed face machines where it was not possible to tunnel
happens. You must have co-operation between the tunnel previously. For example: The 8.7m EPBMs that were used
boring machine manufacturer and the lining manufacturer. on the French side of the Channel Tunnel, shown in Figure
In addition I suggest that owners and engineers have a 14: The 8.75m EPBMs used on the Storebaelt Railway
responsibility to check that the contractor is proposing the
right equipment for the project, as it is usually the owner Cutterhead Drive Articulation Tailseal Grouted
who ends up paying the final bill. Motors Rams Void
Air Lock
5.08m I.D. Lining
5.744m Ext. Dia.

Thrust Erector Screw

Rams Conveyor

Figure 12: Typical Earth Pressure Balance TBM Figure 13: Anacostia EPBM-1985

10
 THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

Clay Grit Sand Gravel

100

75

rry

es
slu
EPBMs

hin
or

ac
% 50

m
B
EP

ry
ur
Sl
25

0
0.002 0.05 2 10
mm

Figure 15: Soil Grading Curve

sophisticated vibrating screens nowadays which of

themselves can separate material down to the 60 micron
size: then varying sizes of hydrocyclone for getting it even
cleaner: finally hydraulic filter presses or centrifuges for
Figure 14: New Horizons for Tunnelling – the 8.7m removing the extremely fine material.
EPBMs that were used on the French side of the ■ Secondly for EPBMs the use of long screws, double
Channel Tunnel screws, double piston pumps and the use of more
sophisticated conditioners has helped considerably with
tunnel in Denmark under extremely difficult sub-sea controlling the pressure when there is a lack of fines.
conditions: The very large 14.87m diameter Groene Hart Figure 16 shows a double screw and it can be seen from
machine and The 6m STMs that were used in Cairo. On all the diagram that if the screws are rotated at different rates
these projects it would have been very difficult, if not of rotation, you can build up a sand plug between the
impossible, to construct tunnels without closed face screws to aid in the pressure holding capacity.
TBMs.
So the question to ask ourselves is “what is this all Front Plug Pressure
about?” It’s about making sure that when you’re tunnelling screw zone gate
through the ground, the ground doesn’t know you’re there,
or doesn’t feel any impact. Or to quote Randy Essex of
Hatch Mott MacDonald in the US, “We are still in the
business of trying to fool Mother Nature”.
I refer to the report produced by the British Tunnelling
Society and the Institution of Civil Engineers in 2005,
published by Thomas Telford and titled, “Closed Face
Boulder Front Rear Rear
Tunnelling Machines and Ground Stability”. It represents a trap gate screw gate
guideline for best practice and is an excellent reference
guide. Figure 16: Double Screw

■ Finally, conditioning for EPBMs which is now a very

Choosing Between STMs and EPBMs significant part of the technology. Up to the mid 1980s it
was a choice between bentonite, polymer or water. In the
A very important subject is how you choose between an mid 1980s the Japanese introduced surfactant foams
STM and an EPBM. Obviously ground conditions is the which produce a better viscosity, give help in binding the
most important one. Figure 15 shows the grading of fluids and solids together and finally produce a significant
ground suitable for each type of machine. Generally an reduction in cutterhead torque.
STM is suitable for the more granular soils whereas the Another criterion to consider is the permeability of the
EPBM is more suitable for silty, clayey soils. This is ground. A distinction can be made that STMs are more
because the STM’s separation plant will struggle to keep appropriate if permeability is above 1×10-5m/s and
the slurry clean if there is too much fine material below 60 EPBMs are more appropriate for ground below that figure.
microns. Whereas the EPBM will find difficulty in With added fines, such as pulverised limestone, EPBMs
controlling the pressure using the screw conveyor if the can perform in even more permeable ground.
percentage of fines (again below 60 microns) is less than Hydrostatic heads must also be considered, especially if
say 10-15%. However this distinction is more blurred a high hydrostatic head is combined with high
these days because: permeability. In this case an STM may be more suitable.
Settlement is a key factor. However with the introduction
■ Firstly the Slurry treatment plant in STMs has become of foam conditioners to EPBMs there is not a lot to
very much more sophisticated and can therefore remove choose between the two types in terms of controlling
much finer material from the slurry. There are very ground movement. Both types, properly managed, have

11
THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

the capability of controlling volume loss to less than 1%. I Specifying and Designing Closed
would suggest that 0.5% is now a figure that engineers Face TBMs
and contractors should be aiming at today. There is quite
a lot of case history, as shown on Figure 35, to support There are some important details that must be considered
this figure. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link is a good when specifying or designing closed face tunnel boring
example. It achieved an overall average of approximately machines. It is vital that all the necessary facilities are
0.6% volume loss. On the St Clair River Tunnel in Canada, fitted to a TBM before it leaves the factory. It must leave
using a 9.5m EPBM it was less than 1%. Interestingly the factory as it were “all singing and all dancing” and
enough on the Warrington Sewer project, which was ready for any eventuality below ground. It’s too late if you
carried out in the mid 1970’s, and used a prototype STM, are trying to modify the machine below ground- it will
Nuttalls managed to keep the volume loss down to cause delay and very large expense:
1.37%. On the Heathrow tunnel where they used
compressed air in the face of an EPBM instead of a full ■ The Permanent Lining. The technology has had to keep
face of conditioned spoil, which is a departure from pace with the development of these sophisticated
normal, they kept volume loss to 0.5%. machines. On the Victoria Line on the London Tube in the
Other factors to consider, that would not normally lead 1960s the transition happened almost overnight between
to distinguishing between STMs and EPBMs, are the the use of cast iron and the use of concrete, which is
presence of boulders and the ability to measure virtually uniform nowadays, except for special
excavated quantities accurately. But the overriding need is requirements such as the junctions between running
to select a TBM that can control ground movement and tunnels and cross passages. Figure 17 shows the 9.5m
volume loss. internal diameter trial rings on the Hallandsaas Project.
To conclude on the subject of choosing the type of Each of these rings is 2.25m long and uses tapered
closed face TBM, it should be said that the choice is dowels on the circle joints. This has enabled the building
sometimes extremely difficult. of an extremely accurate ring below ground.

Control of Settlement
There are a number of key factors when using a closed
face TBM which are important in terms of controlling
settlement.

■ The earth or slurry pressure at the face must be kept at

a calculated level. Earth or slurry pressure should be
calculated for the full length of the tunnel. It is a mistake to
take one figure and try to keep it at that throughout the
tunnel length, as the required pressure will vary due to the
ground conditions, the tunnel depth, the hydrostatic
pressure etc.
■ Use a minimum overcut around the shield. This can be Figure 17: Tunnel Linings – Hallandsaas
in the form of a bead or a tapered shield resulting in not
too large an annular gap around the shield. ■ It is vital to have the correct open area on the face of the
■ Fill the gap around the shield continuously with a cutter head for EPBMs. It is not so important for an STM. I
bentonitic paste. Interlock the pumping of this paste with suggest that 35% open area on the cutterhead should be
the forward movement of the TBM. This can be the aim. However if there are special reasons, this can be
considered to be a fairly recent innovation. reduced to 30% but no lower. On the Storebaelt EPBMs in
■ Use tail skin grouting to fill the annular gap between the Denmark, it was lower at approximately 25% and this
excavated profile and the extrados of the permanent gave severe problems in terms of spoil jamming in the
lining. This is now an accepted method and in my view cutterhead.
must be used. Interlock the pumping of the annular grout ■ The ability to be able to carry out pre-treatment ahead
with the forward movement of the TBM of the face is essential. Figure 18 shows drilling through
■ It is also vital that the TBMs are supplied to the site with both the skin of the TBM and through the cutterhead.
both adequate thrust and torque. There must be no Many engineers say don’t go through the cutterhead
limitation on excavation rate due to lack of either thrust or because the rods might break and that would cause
torque. problems for the cutterhead and cutting tools. However
■ Another important subject, which is mentioned below, is on the Hallandsaas project in Sweden they are currently
the open area of the cutter head. drilling ahead and grouting through the cutterhead in order
■ The ability of the machine to steer properly within preset to reduce the large amounts of water. This has not caused
limits is also most important. If TBMs go off line, a large problems.
percentage of available thrust will be absorbed in making ■ Conditioners have already been mentioned with
steering corrections. surfactant foams described as revolutionary. So the use of
foams, bentonite, polymers, water, and added fines are all

12
 THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

developed in order to cater for the very high thrusts that

are used in large diameter closed face machines and to
resist earth pressures up to 8 bar. However this remains
the most vulnerable system on closed face TBMs.
■ The ability to detect wear on the cutterhead, the cutting
tools and within the screw conveyor, has been getting
increasing attention. Wear of pick cutters can now be
detected remotely. However the technology is not yet in
place to do the same for disc cutters.

TBM Design Development

There are various subjects which are described as design
development.

■ The articulation of the machines is important in order to

Figure 18: Pre-treatment ahead of the Face be able to steer correctly. It helps in keeping the TBM on
line and also in negotiating tight curves. It also allows the
standard nowadays. Therefore the facilities for delivering cutterhead to be withdrawn from the face without drawing
them to the excavation chamber must be designed into back the whole TBM and consequently damaging the
the TBM. tailseals. There is either passive or active articulation. It’s
■ Risk management and safety are important subjects but important to use the correct one, to suit the alignment of
they are subjects for another paper. the tunnel.
■ I must also mention the use of the Owner Procurement ■ Thrust and torque have been mentioned already. Closed
Process (OPP) on various projects. It’s been well used Face TBMs must never be thrust or torque limited. Thrust
internationally. The first use was on the Victoria Line, has to be able to overcome a) the earth or slurry pressure,
which is referred to earlier with the use of the McAlpine b) the force needed to bury the cutting tools, c) the skin
Centre Shaft TBM and the Kinnear and Moody Drum friction of the shield, d) the friction between the tailseals
Digger in 1963. This was followed by the Melbourne rail and the permanent lining and e) the drag of the trailing
loop in 1972. Then in other places such as the Sheppard sledges. It also has to assume that a percentage of thrust
Line in Toronto. The main reasons for using the OPP is will be taken up by steering corrections. Torque is more
that first of all you obtain a risk reduction because there’s difficult to calculate. However there is a useful empirical
more time than normal to think about and develop the formula for both STMs and EPBMs which is based on the
design. The machine will not be a second hand machine formula αD3 where D is the TBM diameter and α is the
from contractors who happen to have it in their yard and factor. For STMs α is 0.75 to 2.0 and for EPBMs α is 2.0
would like to use it, but the machine may not be exactly to 3.0. This assumes for EPBMs the use of foam
suitable, so there would be compromises. Very conditioners which reduce torque by as much as 50%.
importantly there is usually a considerable time saving if ■ Cutterhead drive units. Manufactures are turning more
tunnel boring is on the critical path. and more to the use of variable frequency drive (VFD) for
driving the cutterhead. It is more efficient than hydraulic
drive, produces less heat and produces less vibration and
Innovations in Technology, 1950 to Today noise.
■ The development of cutters has been considerable, the
There have been extensive nnovations in technology from resistance to wear has also been improved considerably.
1950 to today. They have had to keep up with the For disc cutters, which are normally 17” it is now quite
development and sophistication of these machines: common to use 19” cutters. There are two major
■ For surveying techniques the use of GPS, total stations, advantages when using 19” cutters. Firstly, they will take a
gyro-theodolites, TBM guidance below ground with Z thrust of 30 tonne, whereas 17” cutters are limited to 25
instruments or VMT, together with laser beams. All these tonnes. Secondly, they are more resistant to both wear
methods are universal today. and mechanical damage.
■ Welding techniques have developed considerably and ■ Wear is a major subject and must always be considered
have been one of the factors in allowing the growth in size in relation to the ground conditions. This is referring to
of TBMs above 15m diameter. wear of the cutter tools and the cutterhead for both types
■ Finite element design has also been a factor in design of closed face TBMs. In addition for STMs it is vital to
development to enable the growth in size and the handling control the wear in the slurry pumps and pipelines and in
of earth pressures up to 8 bar. EPBMs it is vital to control the wear in the screw conveyor.
■ PLC control for the required sophistication in the TBM Control of wear is aided considerably in STMs by the
control cabin. bentonitic slurry and in EPBMs by the foam, bentonite and
■ The use of conditioners, especially surfactant foams, polymer conditioners. Mixshields excavating in rock have
has been a giant step forward for EPBMs. a particular problem in controlling the wear in the slurry
■ Main bearings and bearing sealing systems have pipes and pumps.

13
THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

■ Measurement of excavated quantity is vital. On EPBMs

the latest and most accurate method is the use of belt Normal Build Area 4 Nos. Brush Seals
weighers, preferably mounted on a dedicated, constant Shove Ram
130
tension belt. In the good old, bad old days we just
counted muck skips which was extremely inaccurate. The
Emergency seal
skips often included a lot of water. Today the best method
is to use two belt weighers. The belt weigher is suspended 1650 1650
between rollers with pressure cells below. Laser profilers
are also used, which are supposed to give greater
accuracy. Belt weighers will probably measure the Figure 19 (above): Wirebrush Tail Seal. Figure 20
excavated spoil to an accuracy of +/-10%. However their (below): Bearing Sealing System
main usefulness is that they will give a comparative
reading from ring to ring. So they would usually be used,
say, on a 5 ring rolling average, so that it can be quickly
seen if there has been a serious problem of over
excavation. On STMs the use of magnetic flow meters and
infra red density meters on the inbound and outbound
slurry lines is the standard method. It should be noted that
on both types of closed face TBMs the spoil measurement
has to take into account the varying ground density, the
varying moisture content and the amount of conditioners
being injected into the excavation chamber.
■ The sophistication of today’s tail seals is enabling the
use of very high earth or slurry pressures up to 8 bar.
Tailseals have become standard and use multiple wire
brush seals injected constantly with a fibrous grease
whenever the TBM is moving. This type of tailseal was
developed by the Japanese but based on an original
NRDC patent dated 13th Dec 1971, which arose out of the
New Cross Experiment, see Figure 19. These tail seals are
now designed to be capable of resisting up to 13 bar of
pressure.
■ Main bearing and seal systems. This is the heart of any or sometimes a combination of both. Active articulation is
TBM and has gone through considerable development a positive articulation between the front and central body
over the last 4 decades. Main bearings are now universally of the TBM. This will allow, as well as giving the ability to
triple roller bearings made with great precision by articulate, the ability for the front body to move axially in
specialist companies. They are normally designed with a relation to the central body by as much as 100mm.
d10 life of 10,000 hours. Seal systems are in some Passive articulation is normally the articulation of the
respects more sophisticated mechanisms than the tailshield and controlled by passively connected hydraulic
bearings. They are also extremely vulnerable when rams, which results in the tailshield passively following the
working against high earth or slurry pressures and any central body and in essence shortens the TBM length in
failure in the system will expose the main bearing to terms of steering capability.
contamination, which, if it happens, will result in rapid ■ The ability to control the earth or slurry pressure is
bearing failure. Figure 20 shows the main bearing and essential. In EPBMs it is achieved by a combination of the
seals on the Hallandsaas Mixshield. An important correct design and use of the screw conveyor and the use
consideration in the sealing system design is the labyrinth of spoil conditioners, especially the surfactant foams. The
at the front of the sealing array. This is injected with a length of the screw has to be designed to suit the
fibrous grease which extrudes out into the excavation maximum earth pressure. There is an empirical formula
chamber and protects the lip seals, which have a normal which gives the length of screw to resist pressure. It is 0.2
capacity of resisting 4 bar per seal. bar per flight and assumes each flight takes up 0.6m of
■ The erection of the pre-cast tunnel lining. It is becoming screw length.
universal to use vacuum erectors and vacuum handling for ■ The ability to deal with boulders is most important. The
transfer cranes. This has virtually become a necessity due cutterhead on one of the Storebaelt EPBMs with both
to the very large weight of segments involved in large picks and disc cutters. The disc cutters break up the
diameter TBMs, or tunnels which have to resist high boulders and also protect the pick cutters, which are
ground or hydrostatic pressures resulting in very thick required for excavating the granular soils. On STMs it is
linings. also necessary to have a crusher to break down the
■ The ability to steer TBMs accurately is vital. Most boulder fragments, that pass through the cutterhead to a
manufacturers use articulation of the body, whereas some size suitable for pumping. This is normally one third of the
manufacturers use an articulated cutterhead, which has pipe diameter.
the ability to move axially and also radially in any direction. ■ There has been marked growth in TBM size over the last
Articulated TBMs can be articulated passively or actively, decade and a half and is referred to below in the

14
 THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

description of some major projects. This has been quite problem was wear to the cutter tools and cutterhead and
remarkable. The first really large ones were for Trans the difficulty of entering the excavation chamber under
Tokyo Bay Highway Tunnel, at 14.14m, where there were 8 very high pressures of compressed air. It was on that
STMs. Then on the 4th Elbe tunnel at 14.2m. It was on the project I first became a consultant and also a gentleman
3rd Elbe tunnel in the mid 1970’s that the modern type of after 35 years as a contractor - with apologies to all
EPDM gaskets for pre-cast linings were originally contractors!
developed. This revolutionised the water tightness of
tunnels. Before that, all tunnellers would say that you can’t
make a tunnel perfectly watertight. Nowadays we aim to
make tunnels totally watertight. Then the Groene Hart
tunnel in Holland used a 14.87m diameter TBM which was
quite a breakthrough for the Dutch. Then further down is
shown the current world record in Chong Ming in China.
A mixshield at 15.42m diameter. So it can be seen that the
growth in size of closed face TBMs has been considerable
over the last 16 years. There are also TBMs of over 16m
and 19m now on the drawing board. Soft ground
machines would never have reached this size without the
development of closed face TBMs.
■ The growth in maximum working pressure has also been
considerable. On the French side of the Channel Tunnel it
was up to 10 bar. On the 4th Elbe tunnel it was 4.5 bar, on
Storebaelt it was 7.5 bar and on the Hallandsaas project,
the machine has been designed for 13 bar. Currently on
Lake Mead in the USA they are proposing to use a Figure 21: Storebaelt EPBM – 8.75m
machine beneath the lake at 13 bar.
■ The Trans Tokyo Bay Highway tunnels constructed in
the early 1990s used the first of the really large STMs at
Major Projects using Closed face TBMs 14.14m diameter. This was a very exciting project at the
time and was given a great deal of international attention.
The following projects are a selection of projects carried Eight STMs were supplied for the project by Kawasaki,
out during the last quarter of a century. Some of these Mitsubishi, Hitachi and IHI. Figure 22 shows one of these
projects could not have been carried out before the large TBMs.
introduction of closed face TBM technology.

■ The Channel Tunnel, French side used EPBMs for the

marine running tunnels. The sub-aqueous tunnels were
driven between 1987 and 1990. The Kawasaki Robbins
EPBM is 8.7m diameter and was used on one of the
Marine Running Tunnels. Hydrostatic pressures were up to
10 bar.
■ The modern St Clair River tunnel was constructed in the
mid 1990s using a Lovat EPBM of 9.5m diameter. This has
historic significance as it replaced the original tunnel,
which was constructed in 1880 and had become obsolete
due to its inability to allow the use of double stacked
container trains. There was very low cover of 5m below the
St Clair River. This was equivalent to only half a diameter,
which is extremely low for a sub-aqueous tunnel. The
machine was provided by the owner using the OPP. Figure 22: Trans Tokyo Bay TBM – 14.14m
■ The 14.2m Mixshield for the 4th Elbe tunnel constructed
in the late 1990s. This project used 4.5 bar pressure in the ■ The Copenhagen Metro consisted of 7km of twin tunnel
excavation chamber. The machine had twin cutterheads and was constructed in the early 2000s using two 5.76m
rotating in opposite directions. This assisted the clearance diameter NFM EPBMs, shown on Figure 23. Closed face
of spoil from the centre and also reduces the effective machines were used for keeping water out rather than for
torque in any one direction. supporting the face. There’s a problem when tunnelling in
■ The Storebaelt Railway tunnel in Denmark was Copenhagen because a number of the old buildings are
constructed between 1989 and 1995 using four 8.75m set on timber piles. If the water table is lowered, then
diameter Howden EPBMs, as shown in Figure 21. Face within 6 weeks the piles will start to deteriorate. This
pressures were up to 7.5 bar. The loose glacial tills project is another example where the cutterhead open
combined with high hydrostatic pressures made the area was too small at about 23%. This was problematic
tunnelling extremely challenging. The most severe when the machine was launched in the local glacial tills.

15
THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

The machines had extreme difficulty in excavating tunnels under the river Thames and below the suburbs of
because the spoil was jamming within the cutterhead. East London during the period from 2002 to 2004. When
Some modifications were made, in particular burning off comparing the Kawasaki EPBM, the Wirth EPBM, the
the grizzly bars. Lovat EPBM and the Herrenknecht STM it can be seen
that the Kawasaki TBM cutterhead has a large open area
of 40%, whereas the Wirth machine was below 30%,
which did cause a few problems in the dense dewatered
sands at the start. This resulted in the need for
modifications. Overall the tunnelling on this project was a
major success.

Figure 23: Copenhagen Metro-5.76m

■ The Madrid Calle 30 Highway tunnels were constructed

between 2004 and 2008 using two 15.2m diameter EPBMs.
The manufacturers were Herrenknecht and Kawasaki.
Herrenknecht used their previous technology of contra
rotating cutterheads, only used before with STMs. See
Figure 24. The centre cutterhead had one screw to take the
spoil from that part of the face. The outer cutterhead had
two screws which removed the remainder of the spoil. They
were very sophisticated, as with a number of the
Herrenknecht machines. But in fact the Kawasaki machine,
which had a standard single cutterhead with a single screw,
managed to achieve the same rate of progress. The other
interesting piece of comparative data is that the
Herrenknecht cutterheads had 31.6% open area and were
driven hydraulically and the Mitsubishi machine had 43%,
which is the Japanese philosophy for EPBMs, and used a
VFD cutterhead drive system. Figure 25: Groene Hart Rail Tunnel – 14.87m

■ The Hallandsaas Railway Tunnel project in Sweden

started in 1992 and will probably complete in 2015. The
10.5m Herrenknecht Mixshield can operate as a rock
cutting machine in open mode or as an STM in closed
mode. The fractured gneiss and amphybolite geology has
hydrostatic pressures of up to 13 bar at tunnel level and is
extremely challenging. At the time of writing the TBM has
passed through what is known geologically as the
Mollenback Zone, a very fractured horst, which has been
cryogenically frozen in advance. The machine is designed
for 13 bar and will complete the first drive in September
2010. The TBM will then be dismantled and used for the
second drive. It is of interest that the TBM was delivered
from the manufacturer with 17in cutters, but at a mid adit,
Figure 24: Madrid EPBM, Herrenknecht -15.2m half way along the drive, a new cutterhead with 19in
cutters was fitted. There has often been argument as to
■ The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) used eight 8.11m whether 17in or 19in cutters are better. However the
diameter closed face TBMs to excavate 20km of twin Hallandsaas 19in cutters have shown a large improvement

16
 THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

in the need to repair cutters and to enter the excavation succintly what an extraordinarily large tunnel it is.
chamber. The use of cutters before and after the change ■ The Sheppard line in Toronto was constructed during
has improved from 200 m3/cutter to 325m3/cutter. the period 1996 to 1999 using two 5.9m diameter Lovat
■ In San Diego, California, an outfall tunnel was EPBMs. They were supplied by the metro authority using
constructed using a 3.98m diameter Mitsubishi EPBM. the OPP. Currently the metro authority is designing a new
Because of the high sub sea hydrostatic pressure of 7 bar line, the Spadina line, which may also use the OPP.
they used a 47m long screw conveyor, which may be a ■ Crossrail in London is just starting and it will be
world record. They also used 2,000 tonnes of thrust, which interesting to see what type of machines are going to be
is comparatively large for a 3.98m diameter machine. used for that project.
■ The Smart tunnel in Kuala Lumpur was constructed ■ In Seattle, Washington State USA, they are replacing the
using two 13.21m diameter Herrenknecht Mixshield. The Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel under the city. It is
concept for this tunnel is very interesting. There are two currently proposed to use a 16.2m diameter closed face
road decks at the top and a water flood control area TBM. So who knows where these size increases are going
below the bottom deck. If there are high floods the whole to stop.
tunnel can be closed to traffic and flooded.
■ The Groene Hart tunnel in Holland was constructed in the
early 2000s using a 14.87m diameter NFM STM, see Figure Conclusion
25. The Dutch are great maritime engineers, so for some of
their early metro works they used maritime solutions, such I strongly recommend that if a closed face machine is
as a line of compressed air caissons through Amsterdam. being used, it should be used in closed mode at all times,
They turned to tunnelling methods fairly recently. But have unless it has been designed as a mixshield. Use an
now taken it up seriously. They have also constructed the accurate means of measuring the excavated volume, as a
Westerschelde tunnel using Mixshields, which was again a means of controlling settlement. Make the TBM all
very difficult tunnel to construct. singing, all dancing within the factory and do not be left
■ The Rio Subterraneo water tunnel was constructed in trying to modify it below ground. Always use tail skin
Buenos Aires, Argentina during the period 1997 to 2000, grouting and make sure that grouting is taking place
using two 4.37m diameter Herrenknecht EPBMs. These whenever the TBM is moving forward. Make sure that
machines were supplied by the owner using the OPP. The settlement monitoring is in real-time and is not catching
machines had difficulty steering when the contractor used up when it is too late. Always carry out a thorough ground
open mode at the start of driving. It was concluded that investigation, it saves everyone money, especially the
this was due to the lack of the backward force of the earth owner. Make the correct choice of tunnel boring machine
pressure acting at the machine centre creating a turning type at the start. Use an adequate open area of cutter
moment in combination with the shove rams. Once the head. Double check the design of the main bearing seals,
contractor turned to the use of closed mode the machines as these are extremely difficult or impossible to change
operated extremely well and broke some weekly records. below ground. And finally always be prepared for boulders
■ The Chong Ming Highway tunnels in China are currently of the unexpected kind.
the largest use of closed face TBMs. The tunnels were The safety of the work force is considerably improved,
constructed in the period 2005 to 2008 using two tunnels can be constructed where none could be
Herrenknecht Mixshields. In Figure 26 can be seen a constructed before and settlement control has improved
picture of the Chong Ming lining which illustrates very beyond recognition. Finally closed face machines give
considerable assistance with the achievement of the five
important criteria necessary for any form of construction
namely: cost, schedule, quality, safety and the protection
of the environment.
We have come a very long way in the 185 years since
the Brunels started the Thames tunnel in 1825 and in the
46 years since John Bartlett brought out his patent for the
Bentonite Tunnelling Machine in 1964. None of us involved
at the start in the 1960s and 1970s envisaged that these
TBMs could be used for the size and complexity of
projects that I have described in this paper.
The future of this particular tunnelling art is in your
hands. Make sure that it is done safely, to a high quality
and with absolutely minimum effect on the ground. If you
are currently about 25 years old who knows what you
might be building in another 50 years. Just to speculate on
this I find it really quite exciting. I hope that you all agree.
So ladies and gentlemen, the future is yours. So I would
say keep your eyes on the horizon and this art will
continue to evolve over time.

Figure 26: Chong Ming Tunnel Lining

17
THE 2010 HARDING LECTURE

Notes:

18
Published by:

Tunnels & Tunnelling International

John Carpenter House
7 Carmelite Street
London EC4Y 0BS
UK