Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
This report was prepared under Contract No. 1449-0070-373, dated 8 December 1966, between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Bureau of Mines of the Depart- ment of the Interior, acting for and with jointfinancialsupport from Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Public Roads, Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, Atomic Energy Com- mission, Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, Office of High Speed Ground Transportation, and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Requests for permission to reproduce or quote from the contents of this publication should be directed to the National Academy of Sciences. Such permission is not required of agencies of the United States Government. AvttBahlefrom Pimt&ig andPuUOimg Office Ndtmnal Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Aveme Washington, D.C. 20418 Ubrary of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-61719
COMMITTEE ON RAPID EXCAVATION EUGENE P. PFLEIDER, Chairman, Ftofessor of Mineral Engineeriiig, Institute of Tech- nology, School of Minetal and Metalluigy Engineering, Univeisity of MinnesoU THEODORE F. ADAMS, Consulting Engi- KENNETH S. LANE, Chief, Geology, neei. Brown & Root. Inc. Soils and Materials Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers BERNARD P. BELLPORT, Chief Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of WILUAM C. MAURER, Senior Re- the Interior search Speciahst, Esso Production Research Co. JOHN D. BLEDSOE, Manager, Unar Re- ceiving Laboratory, Brown & Root Northrop ROBERT McNEE, Chairman, Depart- ment of Geography, University of KENNETH C. COX, Consultant (formerly Cincinnati Manager, Shaft and Tunnel Department, Dravo Corporation) RICHARD T. NEWCOMB, Assistant Profesror of Mineral Economics, DON U. DEERE,ftofessorof CivU Engi- Department of Mineral Economics, neering, University of Illinois The Pennsylvania State University HOWARD L. HARTMAN, Dean, School of LEONARD OBERT, Science Advisor - Engineering, Sacramento State Collie Mimng Research, U.S. Bureau of Mines J. DONOVAN JACOBS, President, Jacobs Associates L. B. UNDERWOOD, Division Geol- ogist, U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers ELMER JONES, Chairman, Lead-Zinc Producers Committee (formerly Divi- T. N. WILUAMSON, Research Direc- sion Manager, St. Joseph Lead Company tor, Jacobs Associates STAFF ARTHUR R. LYTLE. Executive Secretory, R. W. RUMKE, Project Engineer, DONALD M. WEINROTH, Consultant
FOREWORD Two of the major challenges now facing the United States aie urbanization and conservation of resources. Both challenges are affected to some degree by the nature, cost, and maimer of application of available earth-moving or tun- neling technology. Both challenges can be met in part by fuller exploitation of available earth-moving and tunneling technology. A very important step toward meeting these chaUenges will be the ability of technologists to bridge the gap between what is technically possible today in earth-moving and tun- neling and what can become possible tomorrow. Unfortunately, the importance of this step is largely unrecognized. Planners of urban and resources development tend to think of excavation technology as fixed, not as a variable under the control of policy makers and science. Thus, for example, planners tend to ignore alternatives that would require under- ground facilities because of present high costs and long construction times, even though this type of fadlity offers impressive solutions to many of the worst problems involved in the eradication of the pollution and congestion now blighting the urban and rural environments. Recognition of the potential role of excavation technology in meeting these challenges is a necessary step toward giving the nation feasible alternative courses of action. Such recognition by itself, however, is insufficient; it must be coupled with examination of the adequacy of the technology in light of urban and resource problems and with definition of technological areas found wanting. On behalf of the Interagency Informal Conmiittee on Rapid Excavation - an unofficial government group comprising representatives of nine federal agencies with interest in and responsibility for the development and use of particular aspects of excavation technology - the Bureau of Mines, U.S.
Department of the Interior, requested the National Academy of Sciences-Nation- al Academy of Engineering to "examine the importance of improving rapid ex- cavation capability, to explore the scope and the adequacy of present research activities, to identify areas of research and development requiring greater em- phasis, and to provide recommendations for a general research program com- mensurate with rapid excavation problems and needs." In response to this request, the Committee on Rapid Excavation was ap- pointed within the Division of Engineering of the National Research Council and was charged with justifying, developing, and recommending a research and development program in rapid excavation that would express the national as well as industrial interest; guide future rapid-excavation research actions of governmental, industrial, and academic organizations; and identify opportuni- ties in the field where important markets may develop. The Committee determined early that surface-excavation technology is markedly in advance of underground-excavation technology, especially in light of the present status and prospects of nuclear excavation; although there still remains significant research to be pursued in surface-excavation technology, present levels of productivity and market cost, as well as of research and devel- opment, are satisfactory. However, in light of the urban and resource challeng- es facing the nation (such as mass transportation within and between dties; conservation demands to preserve the earth's surface; and mining, water sup- ply, and defense needs), the Committee decided that underground excavation, particularly tunneling of rock, needed the greatest amount of research atten- tion, and that this subject should be the heart of its report. During its 18-month life, the Committee operated primarily through panels, each composed entirely of members of the Conmiittee who were most knowl- edgeable in the specific areas of interest of the respective panels. The panels were instrumental in developing the background material required by the Com- mittee as a whole. The reports of the individual panels, on which the main report is based, have been assembled into a separate volume and distributed to the several sponsors. THE PANELS AND THEIR MEMBERS EXCAVATION REQUIREMENTS R. B. McNee. Coordinator. R. T. Newcomb, E. P. Pfleider GEOLOGY AND ROCK MECHANICS L. Obert, Coordinator, D. U. Deere, W. C. Maurer, L. B. Underwood
ROCK DISINTEGRATION T. N. Williamson, Coordinator. T. F. Adams, W. C. Maurer GROUND (X)NTROL K. S. Une, Coordinator, K. C. Cox, L. Obert, D. U. Deere MATERIALS HANDLING T. F. Adams, Qmrdinator. E. A. Jones, W. C. Maurei ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND SAFETY H. L. Hartman, Coordinator. J. D. Jacobs, T. N. Williamson SYSTEMS EVALUATION J. D. Bledsoe, Coordinator. K. C. Cox, B. P. Bellport, J. D. Jacobs The Committee appreciates the information ntade available by interested knowledgeable individuals outside the Committee and by concerned industrial and governmental organizations. The Committee is particularly grateful to Mr. Thomas Howard, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, who served as liaison representative to the Committee and advised the Committee on the interests and concerns of the sponsoring government agencies. The Committee also acknowledges the advice and assistance of Mr. F6ter R. Vandersloot, of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Tudor and Bechtel, in the early stages of Committee operation. EUGENE P. PFLEIDER Chairman
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 1 SIGNIFICANCE Challenges of Urbanization and Natural Resource Conservation 7 Current Constraints on Increased Underground- Excavation Productivity 16 Residual Demands for Underground Excavation 19 Chapter 2 NEEDS 26 Process Problems 26 Research Program 38 Chapters OPPORTUNITIES 43
