Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Preface
Acknowledgements
About the Authors
1 Introduction
2 Geology of Turkey and Istanbul, expected problems, some cuttability characteristics of the rocks
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Geology of Turkey
2.3 Geology of Istanbul
2.4 TBM performance in different projects in Istanbul
2.5 Description of geological formations in Istanbul, physical and mechanical properties
2.6 Full-scale linear rock cutting tests with disc cutters in rock samples collected from different projects in Istanbul
2.7 Conclusions
References
3 Difficult ground conditions dictating selection of TBM type in Istanbul
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Case study of open TBM in complex geology (1989), in Baltalimani tunnel: Why open type TBM failed
3.3 Double shield TBM in the Istanbul–Moda collector tunnel, 1989/90
3.4 Double shield TBM working without precast segment, difficulties in difficult ground: Tuzla-Dragos tunnel in Istanbul
3.5 Difficulties in using slurry TBMs in complicated geology, Marmaray tunnel project
3.6 Difficulties in single-shield TBM working in open mode in complex geology: An example from Kadikoy–Kartal metro tunnel
3.7 Eurasia tunnel excavated by a large diameter slurry TBM
3.8 Conclusions
References
4 Difficult ground conditions affecting performance of EPB-TBMs
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Factors affecting performance of EPB-TBMs
4.3 Performance prediction of EPM TBMs in difficult ground conditions
4.4 Conclusions
References
5 Selection of cutter type for difficult ground conditions
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Comparative studies of different type of cutters for Tuzla–Dragos tunnel in Istanbul – test procedure and results
5.3 The inefficient use of tungsten carbide studded disc cutters in the Marmaray–Istanbul project
5.4 Conclusions
References
6 Effects of North and East Anatolian Faults on TBM performances
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Kargi tunnel
6.3 Gerede tunnel
6.4 Dogancay energy tunnel
6.5 Nurdagi railway tunnel
6.6 Uluabat energy tunnel
6.7 Tunnels excavated by drill and blast methods
6.8 Conclusions
References
7 Effect of blocky ground on TBM performance and the mechanism of rock rupture
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Mechanism of rock rupture and face collapse in front of the TBM in the Kozyatagi–Kadikoy metro tunnels in Istanbul
7.3 Conclusions
References
8 Effects of transition zones, dykes, fault zones and rock discontinuities on TBM performance
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Beykoz sewerage tunnel
8.3 Kartal–Kadikoy metro tunnels, methodology of understanding critical zones
8.4 Conclusions
References
9 Squeezing grounds and their effects on TBM performance
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Basic works carried out on squeezing ground
9.3 Uluabat tunnel
9.4 Kargi Tunnel
References
10 Clogging of the TBM cutterhead
10.1 Introduction
10.2 What is clogging of a TBM cutterhead and what are the clogging materials?
10.3 Testing clogging effects of the ground
10.4 Mitigation programs to eliminate clogging
10.5 Clogging of TBMs in Turkish projects
10.6 Conclusions
References
11 Effect of high strength rocks on TBM performance
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Beykoz sewerage tunnel, replacing CCS disc cutters with V-type disc cutters to overcome undesirable limits of penetration for a maximum limit of TBM thrust
11.3 Nurdagi tunnel, full-scale cutting tests to obtain optimum TBM design parameters in very high strength and abrasive rock formation
11.4 Beylerbeyi–Kucuksu wastewater tunnel, TBM performance in high strength rock formation
11.5 Tuzla-Akfirat wastewater tunnel, TBM performance in high strength rocks
11.6 Conclusions
References
12 Effect of high abrasivity on TBM performance
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Determination of the abrasivity
12.3 Empirical prediction methods for disc cutter consumption
12.4 Examples of cutter consumptions on TBMs in Turkey
12.5 Conclusions
References
13 Effect of methane and other gases on TBM performance
13.1 Properties of methane
13.2 Selimpasa wastewater tunnel, methane explosion in the pressure chamber of an EPB-TBM
13.3 Gas flaming in the Silvan irrigation tunnel
13.4 More gas-related accident examples for mechanized tunneling
13.5 Conclusions
References
14 Probe drilling ahead of TBMs in difficult ground conditions
14.1 Introduction
14.2 General information on probe drilling and previous experiences in different countries
14.3 Melen water tunnel excavated under the Bosphorus in Istanbul
14.4 Methodology of predicting weak zones ahead in the Melen water tunnel
14.5 Kargi energy tunnel
14.6 Conclusions
References
15 Application of umbrella arch in the Kargi project
15.1 Introduction
15.2 General concept of umbrella arch and worldwide application
15.3 Methodology of using umbrella arch in the Kargi project
15.4 Criteria used for umbrella arch in the Kargi project and the results
15.5 Conclusions
References
16 Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
2 Geology of Turkey and Istanbul, expected problems, some cuttability characteristics of the rocks
Table 2.1 Some of the completed metro tunnels [4].
Table 2.2 Some of recent TBM applications in sewerage projects in Istanbul [4].
Table 2.3 Some of tunnels completed within Marmaray Project [4].
Table 2.4 Summary of geological formations in Istanbul.
Table 2.5 Physical and mechanical properties of rocks taken from Trakya formation [8].
Table 2.6 Physical and mechanical properties of rocks taken from Trakya formation [9].
Table 2.7 Physical and mechanical properties of the rocks taken from Kartal formation (Zone A) [8].
Table 2.8 Physical and mechanical properties of the rock samples taken from Kartal formation (zone B) [8].
Table 2.9 Physical and mechanical properties of the rock samples taken from Kurtköy formation [8].
Table 2.10 Physical and mechanical properties of the rocks taken from Kurtkoy formation [9].
Table 2.11 Physical and mechanical properties of the rocks from Dolayoba formation [8].
Table 2.12 Physical and mechanical properties of the rocks taken from Doloyaba formation [9].
Table 2.13 Physical and mechanical characteristics of the rocks from Gozdag formation [9].
Table 2.14 Physical and mechanical characteristics of rocks from Tuzla formation (clay stone-shale) [9].
Table 2.15 Rock physical and mechanical properties of the samples from Sultanbeyli formation [9].
Table 2.16 In situ Schmidt hammer test values and point load test values [13]
Table 2.17 Summary of unrelieved cutting tests in Arcose [14].
Table 2.18 Summary of unrelieved cutting tests in Doloyaba limestone [14].
Table 2.19 Summary of unrelieved cutting tests in Kartal limestone [14].
Table 2.20 Disc cutting test results in Trakya formation (siltstone) in unrelieved mode [14].
Table 2.21 Summary of relieved cutting tests in arcose [14].
Table 2.22 Summary of relieved cutting tests in Dolayoba limestone [14].
Table 2.23 Summary of relieved cutting tests in Kartal limestone [14].
Table 2.24 Disc cutting test results in Trakya formation (siltstone) in relived mode [14].
Table 2.25 Mechanical and physical properties of the rock samples subjected to rock cutting tests [14].
Table 2.26 Specifications of the Robbins 165-162/E1080 TBM [15].
Table 2.27 Comparison of predicted and measured TBM performance values [15].
Table 2.28 Geomechanical parameters of the two rock types used in laboratory tests [12].
Table 2.29 Summary of rock cutting tests in unrelieved and relieved mode in two different rock samples [12].
Table 2.30 Basic technical specifications of the TBM [12].
Table 2.31 Comparison of the machine parameters calculated after the full-scale cutting tests and manufacturer design values [12].
Table 2.32 TBM (open mode) field data parameters [12].
Table 2.33 Predicted and the field TBM performance values [12].
Table 2.34 Geomechanical parameters of the rock types used in laboratory tests [18].
Table 2.35 The actual and measured values of thrust force values [18].
Table 2.36 General characteristics of TBM used in Tarabya tunnel [18].
Table 2.37 Basic technical specifications of the TBM [19].
Table 2.38 Geomechanical parameters of Kirklareli formation with fossil [19].
Table 2.39 Summary of laboratory rock cutting tests with V-type disc in unrelieved and relieved mode [19].
Table 2.40 TBM field data parameters [19].
3 Difficult ground conditions dictating selection of TBM type in Istanbul
Table 3.1 Machine performance in Buyukada and Trakya formations [1].
Table 3.2 Machine downtime in Buyukada and Trakya formation [1].
Table 3.3 Specifications of the Robbins 165-162/E1080 TBM [4].
Table 3.4 Performance of the TBM in the Tuzla-Dragos tunnel [3].
Table 3.5 Rating for machine utilization (RMU) using double-shield TBM and wire mesh, shotcrete, steel arch and secondary lining system [3].
Table 3.6 Performance of TBM No. 5 in the Marmaray project.
Table 3.7 Basic technical specifications of the TBM [6].
4 Difficult ground conditions affecting performance of EPB-TBMs
Table 4.1 Description of tunnel projects with field and predicted specific energy values [3].
Table 4.2 Guidelines for estimating TBM utilization time [3, 4].
Table 4.3 Mean rock properties between two stations [5].
Table 4.4 Variation of specific energy values in Lines 1 and 2 (between shafts 8 and 7) with TBM penetration [5].
Table 4.5 Predicted and realized TBM Performance in Lines 2 and 1 between shafts 8 and 7 [5].
Table 4.6 Predicted and actual daily advance rates covering the period 12 February 2013 to 7 March 2015 [5].
Table 4.7 Variation of mean face pressure, optimum field specific energy and cutting power in different geological formations for the Mahmutbey–Umraniye metro tunnels [5].
5 Selection of cutter type for difficult ground conditions
Table 5.1 The summary of the cutting test results [2].
6 Effects of North and East Anatolian Faults on TBM performances
Table 6.1 Performance values of TBM and drill and blast excavations [2a, 2b].
Table 6.2 A TBM risk classification for tunnels to be excavated close to NAF and EAF [5].
7 Effect of blocky ground on TBM performance and the mechanism of rock rupture
Table 7.1 Basic technical specifications of the Herrenknecht TBM [4].
Table 7.2 Material consumption with TBM excavation in Lines 1 and 2 [3].
8 Effects of transition zones, dykes, fault zones and rock discontinuities on TBM performance
Table 8.1 General stratigraphy of the project area [1, 2, 3].
Table 8.2 Technical characteristics of the TBM [1].
Table 8.3 Mean values of TBM avances.
Table 8.4 The effect of geological formation on machine utilization time [2, 3].
Table 8.5 Some physical and mechanical properties of rock formations [5].
Table 8.6 Summary of TBM blockages in 11 different areas [5].
Table 8.7 TBM performance parameters related to face collapses and TBM blockage [6].
9 Squeezing grounds and their effects on TBM performance
Table 9.1 Characteristics of Herrenknecht EPB-TBM
Table 9.2 The performance of TBM in squeezing zones jamming the shield [2].
Table 9.3 Squeezing zones and Q values in Uluabat tunnel [25].
Table 9.4 Characteristics of seven areas where jamming of the TBM occurred [7].
Table 9.5 The chainage of the galleries, Q values and associated faults [25].
10 Clogging of the TBM cutterhead
Table 10.1 Physical and mechanical properties of rock formations [7].
11 Effect of high strength rocks on TBM performance
Table 11.1 Some of the properties of the rock masses [9].
Table 11.2 Technical features of Herrenknecht (M1801M) EPB-TBM.
12 Effect of high abrasivity on TBM performance
Table 12.1 Some parameters affecting cutter life, replacement and consumption rates for TBMs (revised from [1, 2]).
Table 12.2 Major cutter failure mechanisms [3, 4].
Table 12.3 Basic disc cutter damage types [5].
Table 12.4 Rock abrasivity classification based on Cerchar abrasivity index [9].
Table 12.5 Rock abrasivity classification based on Cerchar abrasivity index [10].
Table 12.6 Technical features of the EPB-TBM used in the Tuzla-Akfirat wastewater tunnel [23].
Table 12.7 Summary of excavation performance in the Tuzla-Akfirat wastewater tunnel [23].
Table 12.8 Some of the geological and geotechnical properties of the excavated zones including some operational parameters of the double-shield TBM in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Table 12.9 Technical features of the Robbins double-shield TBM used in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Table 12.10 Summary of excavation performance in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Table 12.11 Total cutter ring replacement numbers and rates, based on excavated rock mass zones in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Table 12.12 Number of cutter ring replacements based on cutter damage types and excavated rock mass zones in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Table 12.13 Physical and mechanical properties of the siltstone-claystone and diabase between Carsi and Umraniye stations [6].
Table 12.14 Some of the technical features of the EPB-TBMs used in the Uskudar–Umraniye–Cekmekoy–Sancaktepe metro tunnel [6].
Table 12.15 Excavation performance and some of the operational parameters realized during excavation of Lines 1 and 2 between Carsi and Umraniye stations [6].
Table 12.16 Cutter consumptions during excavation of Lines 1 and 2 between Carsi and Umraniye stations [6].
Table 12.17 Cutter wear damage types of the disc cutters for Lines 1 and 2 between Carsi and Umraniye stations [6].
13 Effect of methane and other gases on TBM performance
Table 13.1 Technical specifications of the Herrenknecht EPB-TBM.
Table 13.2 Record excavation performance in April 2011.
Table 13.3 Technical specifications of the Herrenknecht double-shield TBM used in the Silvan irrigation tunnel.
Table 13.4 Examples of gas-related accidents that occurred during tunneling.
14 Probe drilling ahead of TBMs in difficult ground conditions
Table 14.1 Compressive strength test results calculated after an NCB cone indenter test.
Table 14.2 The variation of normalized probe drilling rate with normalized TBM thrust.
Table 14.3 The variation of TBM thrust and torque with probe drill data obtained from histogram within different tunnel chainages representing different geological formations.
Table 14.4 Classification for difficulty in TBM excavations, based on mean values taken from frequency of variables.
List of Illustrations
2 Geology of Turkey and Istanbul, expected problems, some cuttability characteristics of the rocks
Figure 2.1 The geology of Istanbul [4].
Figure 2.2 Stratigraphy of Istanbul [6].
Figure 2.3 Shale and sandstone within Kurtkoy formation [6].
Figure 2.4 Typical view of Aydos formation [6].
Figure 2.5 Typical view of Gozdag formation [6].
Figure 2.6 Typical view of Doloyoba formation [6].
Figure 2.7 Typical view of Kartal formation [6].
Figure 2.8 Typical view of Tuzla formation [6].
Figure 2.9 Typical view of Baltalimani formation with andesite dykes (with kind permission of Akyuz, S.).
Figure 2.10 Typical view of Trakya formation (with kind permission of Akyuz, S.).
Figure 2.11 Typical view of Belgrad formation. (with kind permission of Akyuz, S.).
Figure 2.12 Typical grain size in silty sand in Gungoren–Cukurcesme formation.
Figure 2.13 Variation of RQD in Trakya formation [8].
Figure 2.14 Variation of RQD in Trakya formation, [9].
Figure 2.15 Variation of RQD in Kartal formation Zone A [8].
Figure 2.16 Variation of RQD in Kartal formation Zone B [8].
Figure 2.17 Variation of RQD in Kurtkoy formation RQD [8].
Figure 2.18 Variation of RQD in Kurtkoy formation, [9].
Figure 2.19 Variation of RQD in Dolayoba formation [8].
Figure 2.20 Variation of RQD in Doloyaba formation, [9].
Figure 2.21 Variation of GSI in Trakya formation [8].
Figure 2.22 Variation of GSI in Trakya formation [9].
Figure 2.23 Variation of GSI in Kartal formation Zone A [8].
Figure 2.24 Variation of GSI in Kartal formation Zone B [8].
Figure 2.25 Variation of GSI in Kurtkoy formation [8].
Figure 2.26 Variation of GSI in Kurtkoy formation [9].
Figure 2.27 Variation of GSI in Kurtkoy formation [8].
Figure 2.28 Variation of GSI in Doloyaba formation [9].
Figure 2.29 Variation of GSI in Gozdag formation [9].
Figure 2.30 Variation of RQD in Tuzla formation (claystone-shale) [9].
Figure 2.31 Variation of GSI in Tuzla formation (claystone-shale) [9].
Figure 2.32 Variation of RQD in Tuzla formation (limestone) [9].
Figure 2.33 Variation of GSI in Tuzla formation (limestone) [9].
Figure 2.34 Tunnel face in Uskudar–Umraniye metro line, Ihlamurkuyu Station, Kurtkoy formation [13].
Figure 2.35 Tunnel face in Uskudar–Umraniye metro line, Shaft of Inkilap Station Area Kartal formation [13].
Figure 2.36 Tunnel face in Uskudar–Umraniye metro line, shaft of Carsi Station Kartal formation [13].
Figure 2.37 Tunnel face in Uskudar–Umraniye metro line Altunizade station Kartal formation [13].
Figure 2.38 Tunnel face in Uskudar–Umraniye metro line Libadiye (Dudullu) station Kartal formation [13].
Figure 2.39 Tunnel face in Uskudar–Umraniye metro line, Umraniye Station, Kartal formation [13].
Figure 2.40 Tunnel face in Uskudar–Umraniye metro line, Kisikli Station, Aydos formation [13].
Figure 2.41 Full-scale linear rock cutting machine in ITU Laboratories.
Figure 2.42 A schematic drawing of full-scale linear rock cutting machine.
Figure 2.43 Three components of forces acting on a disc cutter.
Figure 2.44 Disc cutter forces in Arcose in unrelieved mode [14].
Figure 2.45 Disc cutter forces in Dolayoba limestone in unrelieved mode [14].
Figure 2.46 Disc cutter forces in Kartal limestone in unrelieved mode [14].
Figure 2.47 Disc cutter forces in Trakya siltstone in unrelieved mode [14].
Figure 2.48 Disc cutting forces in Arcose in relieved mode [14].
Figure 2.49 Disc cutting forces in Dolayoba limestone in relieved mode [14].
Figure 2.50 Disc cutting forces in Kartal limestone in relived mode [14].
Figure 2.51 Disc cutting forces in Trakya siltstone in relived mode [14].
Figure 2.52 Variation of SE with s/d in arcose [14].
Figure 2.53 Variation of SE with s/d in Doloyaba limestone [14].
Figure 2.54 Variation of SE with s/d in Kartal limestone [14].
Figure 2.55 Variation of SE with (s/d) in Trakya siltstone [14].
Figure 2.56 Typical variations of disc cutting forces.
Figure 2.57 The Plan of the tunnel project [15].
Figure 2.58 Location map of the project area and the geological cross-section of Kozyatagi–Kadikoy section [12].
Figure 2.59 Variation of the field and the laboratory rock boreability indices with different penetrations for Kozyatagi–Kadikoy metro tunnel [12].
Figure 2.60 Relationships between depth of cut and cutter forces obtained in the laboratory [16].
Figure 2.61 Relationships between depth of cut and laboratory normal force, rolling force and specific energy for cutting limestone in relieved mode (spacing=75 mm) [17].
Figure 2.62 Relationship between s/d (cutter spacing / depth of cut) ratio and specific energy for cutting limestone (spacing = 75 mm) [19]
3 Difficult ground conditions dictating selection of TBM type in Istanbul
Figure 3.1 Robbins 145-168 open type TBM [1].
Figure 3.2 Herrenknecht shielded roadheader.
Figure 3.3 The support used in the Baltalimani tunnel [1].
Figure 3.4 Geology of the excavated area and general performance of TBM [1].
Figure 3.5 Collapse between chainage 0+920 and 0+935 km [1].
Figure 3.6 Collapse between chainage 0+965 and 0+982 km [1].
Figure 3.7 TBM used in Tuzla-Dragos Tunnel [3].
Figure 3.8 Cross-section of Tuzla-Dragos Tunnel [4].
Figure 3.9 Case 1, collapse at 0+1028 km [4].
Figure 3.10 Case 2, Collapse at 0+1008 km [4].
Figure 3.11 Typical fault breccia causing face collapse and damaging the cutterhead.
Figure 3.12 Big rock blocks coming from the tunnel face [6].
Figure 3.13 TBM-360, cutterhead with grizzly bars on the right and cutterhead before modification on the left [6].
Figure 3.14 Daily advance rate of TBM, before and after replacing grizzly bars and screw conveyor [6].
4 Difficult ground conditions affecting performance of EPB-TBMs
Figure 4.1 Surface collapse in Mahmutbey Mecidiyekoy Metro tunnel on the 13.06.2015.
Figure 4.2 Grain size distribution in muck produced by rock TBMs reported by Peila et al. [7].
Figure 4.3 Effect of grain size on the selection of excavation type [9].
Figure 4.4 Relationship between uniaxial compressive strength and optimum specific energy obtained in the laboratory, Bilgin et al. [22].
Figure 4.5 Relationship between advance per revolution and field specific energy in Kadikoy–Kartal metro tunnel for Kartal Dolayoba limestone, siltstone, carbonated shale (mean UCS = 45.8 MPa).
Figure 4.6 Learning curve [6].
Figure 4.7 The geological profile between Carsi and Umraniye stations.
Figure 4.8 Work distribution in Line 2.
Figure 4.9 Work distribution in Line 1.
Figure 4.10 The variation of specific energy against penetration for Line 2.
Figure 4.11 Variation of specific energy against penetration for Line 1.
Figure 4.12 Size distribution of the sample taken in geological formation referred to as sand in the project geotechnical report.
Figure 4.13 The variation of SE with penetration in rock, with the TBM 80 m in front of the second TBM in Line 1.
Figure 4.14 The variation of SE with penetration in rock, with the TBM behind the second TBM in Line 2.
Figure 4.15 The variation of SE with penetration in silty clay with the TBM 80 m in front of the second TBM in Line 1.
Figure 4.16 The variation of SE with penetration in silty clay, with the TBM 80 m in front of the second TBM in Line 2.
Figure 4.17 The variation of SE with penetration in sand, with the TBM 80 m in front of the second TBM in Line 1.
Figure 4.18 The variation of SE with penetration in sand, with the TBM 80 m in front of the second TBM in line 2.
5 Selection of cutter type for difficult ground conditions
Figure 5.1 The profiles of V-type and CCS discs tested [2].
Figure 5.2 The relationship between thrust force and depth of cut for different cutters [2].
Figure 5.3 The relationship between rolling force and depth of cut for different cutters [2].
Figure 5.4 The relationship between specific energy and s/d ratios [2].
Figure 5.5 Process of replacing disc cutters with chisel cutters (top) and chisel cutters used (bottom) [6].
Figure 5.6 Relationship between uniaxial compressive strength of rocks and penetration index of TBM for chisel tools and disc cutters [6].
Figure 5.7 Relationship between uniaxial compressive strength of rocks and torque index (torque of TBM per unit depth of cut per revolution) of TBM for chisel tools and disc cutters [6].
Figure 5.8 Relationship between advance per revolution of TBM cutterhead and consumed specific energy for chisel tools and disc cutters for mean values of compressive strength of rocks [6].
Figure 5.9 Worn tungsten carbide studded disc cutters from the Marmaray project.
Figure 5.10 Worn tungsten carbide studded disc cutter from the Marmaray Project.
6 Effects of North and East Anatolian Faults on TBM performances
Figure 6.1 North and East Anatolian Faults in Turkey [1].
Figure 6.2 The geological map of Kargi Tunnel [2a, 2b].
Figure 6.3 The geological cross-section of Gerede (Isiklar) tunnels.
Figure 6.4 Broken segments and the material inflow into the tunnel advancing from the Ankara side in Gerede tunnel.
Figure 6.5 Geological profile of Dogancay project and the evidence of tectonic stresses on the rock samples [5].
Figure 6.6 The variation of the TBM torque/thrust ratio with ring numbers within squeezing zone in Dogancay tunnel [5]
Figure 6.7 Geologic cross-section of the tunnel between chainage 13+450 and 12+400 km in Nurdagi tunnel [6]
Figure 6.8 Geological map of the Uluabat energy tunnel and the areas where bypass tunnels were opened to rescue the TBM [6].
Figure 6.9 General view of the squeezing ground around the TBM shield in Uluabat tunnel [6].
7 Effect of blocky ground on TBM performance and the mechanism of rock rupture
Figure 7.1 Correlation between FPI blocky and volumetric joint count Jv. The trend lines for mean, maximum and minimum FPI blocky values are also shown, after Delisio et al. [1].
Figure 7.2 Comparison between actual and predicted values of the FPI blocky, after Delisio et al. [1].
Figure 7.3 Percentage time related to each identified downtime category at the SMTT (Second Manapouri Tailrace Tunnel), after Delisio and Zhao [2].
Figure 7.4 The general layout of the Kartal–Kadikoy metro line [3].
Figure 7.5 Big rock blocks coming from the tunnel face [4].
Figure 7.6 Big rock blocks coming from the tunnel face [4].
Figure 7.7 Collapse in front of cutterhead [3].
Figure 7.8 The variation of thrust force in open mode in Kartal Formation [3].
Figure 7.9 The variation of torque in open mode in Kartal Formation [3].
Figure 7.10 The variation of penetration index in open mode in Kartal Formation [3].
Figure 7.11 The change of TBM thrust force around collapsed zone [4].
Figure 7.12 The change of TBM torque around collapsed zone [4].
Figure 7.13 The change of TBM penetration around collapsed zone [4].
Figure 7.14 The variation of field penetration index within collapsed zone covering rings 250–270.
Figure 7.15 TBM Performance in Line 2, during 1 July – 31 December 2008.
Figure 7.16 TBM Performance in Line1, during 1 July – 31 December 2008.
8 Effects of transition zones, dykes, fault zones and rock discontinuities on TBM performance
Figure 8.1 The general layout of Beykoz sewerage tunnel.
Figure 8.2 Geological profile of the tunnel for the first 4,500 m of the Beykoz Tunnel [2, 3].
Figure 8.3 TBM used in the area [1].
Figure 8.4 Typical muck size distribution in different geological formations in the Beykoz tunnel [2, 3].
Figure 8.5 Andesite dyke stalling TBM cutterhead and the gallery opened to clean the head in Beykoz tunnel [2, 3].
Figure 8.6 Rescue gallery opened at chainage 0+810 km in the transition zone between Kusdili formation and alluvium fillings in the Beykoz tunnel [2, 3].
Figure 8.7 Muck in the transition zone between Kusdili formation and alluvium fillings at chainage 0+810 km in the Beykoz tunnel [2, 3].
Figure 8.8 Transition zone between hard clay and carbonated shale-limestone at chainage 1+208 km, and the rescue gallery opened for the salvage of the trapped TBM in the Beykoz tunnel [2, 3].
Figure 8.9 Fault zone, and the gallery opened to rescue the trapped TBM at chainage 3+222 km.
Figure 8.10 The layout of the Bostanci–Kadikoy metro tunnels within the main Kartal–Kadikoy metro line [5].
Figure 8.11 TBM blockages between 4+500 and 8+463 km in the Kadikoy–Kozyatagi metro tunnels [5].
Figure 8.12 TBM blockages between 0+000 and 4+500 km in the Kadikoy–Kozyatagi metro tunnels [5].
Figure 8.13 The first TBM blockage occurred at chainage 8+366 km, ring 73 [6].
Figure 8.14 Big rock blocks coming from the TBM face at chainage 8+366 km [6].
Figure 8.15 TBM cutterhead before the modification (left), and TBM modified with grizzly bars (right) [6].
Figure 8.16 Face collapse that occurred within the fault zone in complex geology at chainage 4+046 km (ring 2.272) [6].
Figure 8.17 Face collapse that occurred in the transition zone between alluvium and Kartal formation at chainage 6+385 km (ring 1.349) [6].
Figure 8.18 The collapse in highway with tunnel chainage 6+385 km (ring 1.349) and concrete mixture filling operation [6].
Figure 8.19 The change of TBM thrust force to penetration ratios at 30–115 rings [6].
Figure 8.20 The change of TBM torque to penetration ratios at 30–115 rings [6].
Figure 8.21 The change of specific energy at 30–115 rings [6].
9 Squeezing grounds and their effects on TBM performance
Figure 9.1 Deformation against time on the left wall of the tunnel at km 0+323 [1, 2].
Figure 9.2 General view of the ground encountered in Uluabat tunnel [1, 2].
Figure 9.3 The geology of the Uluabat tunnel [1, 2].
Figure 9.4 Monthly advance rates obtained [24].
Figure 9.5 Work distribution in February 2007.
Figure 9.6 Uneven disc wear in weak geologic formations in Uluabat tunnel [2].
Figure 9.7 General view of the squeezing ground around the TBM shield [1, 2].
Figure 9.8 The increase of TBM thrust in squeezing zone A–A1, gallery 2 [1, 2].
Figure 9.9 The variation of machine utilization with Q values in Uluabat Tunnel [25].
Figure 9.10 The effect of stopping time on the increase of TBM thrust force in very weak formation at 7056–7093.2m (29.10.2008–11.11.2008) [1, 2].
Figure 9.11 The effect of stopping time on the increase of TBM thrust force in more competent rock formation at 6779–6827m (16.09.2008–21.09.2008); jamming of TBM did not occur within these intervals of time [1, 2].
Figure 9.12 The change of TBM thrust force within 7143–7969.2 m after the injection of bentonite through the shield [2].
Figure 9.13 Distribution of TBM stoppages in Kargi tunnel [7].
Figure 9.14 The variation of thrust and torque values in the jamming area no (1).
Figure 9.15 The variation of thrust and torque values in the jamming area no (2).
Figure 9.16 The variation of thrust and torque values in the jamming area no (3).
Figure 9.17 The variation of thrust and torque values in the jamming area no (4).
Figure 9.18 The variation of thrust and torque values in the jamming area no (5).
Figure 9.19 The variation of thrust and torque values in the jamming area no (6).
Figure 9.20 The variation of thrust and torque values in the jamming area no (7).
10 Clogging of the TBM cutterhead
Figure 10.1 Typical example of clogging of discs in the Mahmutbey–Mecidiyekoy metro tunnel in Istanbul.
Figure 10.2 Clogging potential for slurry-supported shield drives, modified classification diagram according to Thewes with value pairs from face samples from a hydroshield drive with massive clogging problems, Hollman and Thewes [2, 3].
Figure 10.3 Universal classification diagram according to Hollmann and Thewes for the evaluation of possible critical conversion of soils [2, 3].
Figure 10.4 Anti-clay additive limits to stop clogging of the muck, after Langmaack and Ibarra [4].
Figure 10.5 Location of Suruc Tunnel [7].
Figure 10.6 General view of the rock in the tunnel [7].
Figure 10.7 Muddy characteristic of the rock [7].
Figure 10.8 Excessive water within the tunnel [7].
Figure 10.9 Clogging muck [7].
Figure 10.10 Effect of cutterhead clogging on TBM thrust and torque [7].
Figure 10.11 Effect of clogging on net excavation rate [7].
Figure 10.12 Effect of clogging on depth of cut (penetration per revolution) and specific energy [7].
Figure 10.13 Size distribution of the claystone sample [9].
Figure 10.14 Place of the claystone sample on the plasticity chart given by Thewes [10].
Figure 10.15 Variation of penetration depth with FIR at water content of 45% [9].
Figure 10.16 Variation of net power consumption with water content in mixing tests [9].
Figure 10.17 Place of the claystone sample on the clogging risk chart given by Thewes [10].
Figure 10.18 Mixing test with anti-clay agent [9].
Figure 10.19 Grain size distribution of soil sample [13].
Figure 10.20 Place of the sample on the plasticity chart [13].
Figure 10.21 Place of the sample on the clogging risk chart (left) and the consistency chart (right) for open mode EPB applications given by Holmann and Thewes [13].
Figure 10.22 Power requirement versus water content in mixing tests [13].
Figure 10.23 Sticking amount (adhesion to mixing blade) versus water content in mixing tests.
Figure 10.24 Cone penetration versus water content.
Figure 10.25 Power requirement for three foam types in mixing tests.
Figure 10.26 Sticking amount versus FIR in mixing tests.
Figure 10.27 Penetration versus FIR in mixing tests.
11 Effect of high strength rocks on TBM performance
Figure 11.1 The change of TBM penetration index and torque per unit penetration for disc cutters [4].
Figure 11.2 The variation of penetration index with compressive strength for CCS and V-type disc cutters [4].
Figure 11.3 Relationship between instantaneous cutting rate and net cutterhead power for Nurdagi project based on laboratory rock cutting tests [5].
Figure 11.4 Relationships between instantaneous cutting rate and net cutterhead power for Nurdagi project based on laboratory rock cutting tests [5].
Figure 11.5 General view of cutterhead of EPB-TBM [8].
Figure 11.6 Monthly advance rates in Beylerbeyi–Kucuksu wastewater tunnel [8].
Figure 11.7 Relationship between advance per revolution and thrust force in the Beylerbeyi–Kucuksu wastewater tunnel [8].
Figure 11.8 Relationship between advance per revolution and cutterhead torque in the Beylerbeyi–Kucuksu wastewater tunnel [8].
Figure 11.9 Relationship between cutterhead speed and advance per revolution in the Beylerbeyi–Kucuksu wastewater tunnel [8].
Figure 11.10 Job time utilization distributions in the Beylerbeyi–Kucuksu wastewater tunnel [8].
Figure 11.11 Distribution of TBM related stoppages in the Beylerbeyi–Kucuksu wastewater tunnel [8].
Figure 11.12 Relationship between uniaxial compressive strength of the rocks and advance per revolution in the Tuzla-Akfirat wastewater tunnel [10].
12 Effect of high abrasivity on TBM performance
Figure 12.1 Disc cutter damage type examples in the Uskudar–Umraniye–Cekmekoy–Sancaktepe metro tunnel in Istanbul [6].
Figure 12.2 General disc cutter usage based on their positions on the cutterhead [8].
Figure 12.3 Drawings of the most widely used Cerchar abrasivity testing devices [10].
Figure 12.4 Cutter life index (CLI) values of different rocks [21].
Figure 12.5 Relationship between cutter life index (CLI) and basic average cutter ring life (H0) depending on disc cutter diameter [21].
Figure 12.6 Correction for TBM diameter (kD) [21].
Figure 12.7 Correction for quartz content (kQ) [21].
Figure 12.8 Cutterhead rotational speed vs TBM diameter as a function of cutter diameter [21].
Figure 12.9 Standard cutter number vs TBM diameter as a function of cutter diameter [21].
Figure 12.10 Graph for predicting CCS type 17″ single-disc cutter consumption as a function of uniaxial compressive strength and Cerchar abrasivity index [22].
Figure 12.11 Geological cross-section of the Tuzla wastewater tunnel between chainages of 1+000 and 2+500 km [25].
Figure 12.12 General view of cutterhead of the EPB-TBM used in the Tuzla-Akfirat wastewater tunnel [23].
Figure 12.13 Unusual abrasion on the rings of a monoblock double-disc cutter [23].
Figure 12.14 Disc cutter replacements based on cutter positions between 1+200 and 1+982 km [23].
Figure 12.15 Linear cutter life based on cutter positions between 1+200 and 1+982 km [23].
Figure 12.16 Volumetric cutter life based on cutter positions between 1+200 and 1+982 km [23].
Figure 12.17 Rolling life based on cutter positions between 1+200 and 1+982 km [23].
Figure 12.18 Wear speed based on cutter positions between 1+200 and 1+982 km [23].
Figure 12.19 Relationship between uniaxial compressive strength and Cerchar abrasivity index between 1+200 and 1+982 km.
Figure 12.20 Relationship between penetration per revolution and wear speed between 1+200 and 1+982 km [23].
Figure 12.21 Relationship between penetration per revolution and volumetric cutter life between 1+200 and 1+982 km [23].
Figure 12.22 Relationship between field specific energy and wear speed between 1+200 and 1+982 km [23].
Figure 12.23 Relationship between field specific energy and volumetric cutter life between 1+200 and 1+982 km [23].
Figure 12.24 Relationship between wear speed and distance to cutterhead center (disc position) between 1+200 and 1+982 km [23].
Figure 12.25 Geological cross-section of the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Figure 12.26 Photographs of the outcrop of the excavated formation in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Figure 12.27 Photograph of the Robbins double-shield TBM used in the first stage energy tunnel of the Yamanli II HEPP [24].
Figure 12.28 Monthly advance rates in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Figure 12.29 Number of cutter ring replacements based on cutter ring positions in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Figure 12.30 Average linear cutter ring life based on cutter ring positions in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Figure 12.31 Average rolling ring life of cutters based on cutter ring positions in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Figure 12.32 Average volumetric life of cutters based on cutter ring positions in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Figure 12.33 Excavation face with voids (occurred due to lamination) affecting damage types in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Figure 12.34 Damaged cutters in the Yamanli II HEPP tunnel [24].
Figure 12.35 Protective metal piece increasing cutter life [24].
Figure 12.36 Sludgy formation encountered between the shafts AT2 and S6 in the Beykoz sewerage tunnel [27].
Figure 12.37 Typical disc cutter damage type in sludgy formation between the shafts AT2 and S6 in the Beykoz sewerage tunnel [27].
Figure 12.38 EPB-TBM used in the Buyukcekmece wastewater tunnel [28].
Figure 12.39 New (left) and worn (right) center cutter in the Buyukcekmece wastewater tunnel [28].
Figure 12.40 Classification of wear-damage types of the disc cutters for Lines 1 and 2 between Carsi and Umraniye stations [6].
13 Effect of methane and other gases on TBM performance
Figure 13.1 Structural and sedimentary gas traps [1].
Figure 13.2 Structural geological map of the Selimpasa Tunnel alignment [3].
Figure 13.3 EPB-TBM used for excavation of the Selimpasa wastewater tunnel.
Figure 13.4 Position of the EPB-TBM when explosion occurred.
Figure 13.5 Methane emission through the fractures and pores at the face.
Figure 13.6 Muck blow out under discharge gate of the screw conveyor.
Figure 13.7 Automatic gas measurement and warning system.
Figure 13.8 Daily ring installations in July 2010 after the accident in gassy ground conditions.
Figure 13.9 Daily ring installations in recordbreaking month April 2011.
Figure 13.10 Monthly advance rates in the Selimpasa wastewater tunnel.
Figure 13.11 Location of the Silvan irrigation tunnel.
Figure 13.12 Structural geological map of the Silvan irrigation tunnel alignment [9].
Figure 13.13 Anticline type petroleum and natural gas trap.
Figure 13.14 Double-shield TBM used for excavation of the Silvan irrigation tunnel.
Figure 13.15 Monthly advance rates in the Silvan irrigation tunnel [10].
14 Probe drilling ahead of TBMs in difficult ground conditions
Figure 14.1 Geological cross-section of the Melen tunnel.
Figure 14.2 TBM cutterhead jammed in the Beykoz–Istanbul sewerage tunnel within dyke zone.
Figure 14.3 Effect of discontinuities on muck size.
Figure 14.4 Methodology of using probe drilling in the Melen project.
Figure 14.5 Probe drilling equipment used in the Melen project.
Figure 14.6 Meta-siltstone with typical cleavages (Ring 435, chainage 4+842 km). [Qtz: quartz, Cl: clay, RF: rock fragment].
Figure 14.7 Altered andesite (Ring 441, Chainage 4+836 km) [Op: opaque, Hb: hornblende, Fs: feldspar].
Figure 14.8 Meta-siltstone (Ring 464, Chainage 4+807 km) [Cl: clay, Qtz: quartz, Rf: rock fragment].
Figure 14.9 Siltstone with high carbonate content, 75% calcite (Ring 544, chainage 4+711 km) [Cal: calcite, Op: opaque, Qtz: quartz].
Figure 14.10 Carbonated siltstone, 50% carbonate, plenty Fossils, mainly coral (Ring 574, chainage 4+676 km).
Figure 14.11 Siltstone, quartz content 30–40%, feldspat 20% (Ring 582, chainage 4+666 km) [Cl: clay, Fs: feldspar, Qtz: quartz, Op: opaque].
Figure 14.12 Siltstone, pyrite mineral with tension traces (Ring 605, Chainage 4+699 km) [Op: opaque, Qtz: quartz].
Figure 14.13 Alternated andesite (Ring 635 Chainage 4+603 km) [Op: opaque, Fs: feldspar].
Figure 14.14 Fine-grained sandstone (Ring 660 Chainage 4+571 km) [Qtz: quartz, Op: opaque].
Figure 14.15 NCB cone indenter used for strength tests.
Figure 14.16 Variation of normalized drilling rate per bar thrust with uniaxial compressive strength of rock samples.
Figure 14.17 Variation of normalized probe drilling rate per bar thrust with tunnel chainage.
Figure 14.18 Variation of normalized drilling rate per bar torque with uniaxial compressive strength of rock samples.
Figure 14.19 Variation of normalized probe drilling rate per bar torque with tunnel chainage.
Figure 14.20 Variation of normalized probe drilling rate per bar thrust with TBM thrust index.
Figure 14.21 Geological cross section of Kargi Tunnel.
Figure 14.22 Variation of TBM and probe drill parameters with geological formation between chainages 6+200 and 5+900 km.
Figure 14.23 Variation of TBM and probe drill parameters with geological formation within chainages 5+880 and 5+820 km.
Figure 14.24 Frequency of TBM thrust for different rock formations within tunnel chainages of 7+420 and 7+320 km.
Figure 14.25 Frequency of TBM thrust for diff erent rock formations within tunnel chainages of 7+420 and 7+320 km.
Figure 14.26 Frequency of probe drilling rate for different rock formations within tunnel chainages of 7+420 and 7+320 km.
Figure 14.27 Variation of TBM thrust with probe drill rate.
Figure 14.28 Variation of TBM thrust/probe drilling rate ratio with probe drilling rate.
Figure 14.29 Variation with TBM torque with probe drilling rate.
Figure 14.30 Variation of TBM torque/probe drill rate ratio with probe drilling rate.
15 Application of umbrella arch in the Kargi project
Figure 15.1 Main characteristics of umbrella arch technique used in Abdalajis tunnel Grandori [14].
Figure 15.2 Ports for drilling around shield.
Figure 15.3 Arrangements of drill rods for umbrella arch in the Kargi tunnel, Clark [2].
Figure 15.4 Drilling for the umbrella arch.
Figure 15.5 Overlapping of pipes for the umbrella arch.
Figure 15.6 Polymer binding loose rocks.
Figure 15.7 Typical drawing of a bypass tunnel in the Kargi tunnel, Clark [2].
Figure 15.8 Port number, probe drilling rate and cumulative injection quantity at chainage 9+701 km, umbrella arch 3.
Figure 15.9 Increasing of torque when excavating ring 1430, and application of umbrella arch 1.
Figure 15.10 Increasing of torque when excavating ring 1436, and application of umbrella arch 3.
Figure 15.11 Increasing of torque when excavating ring 1516, and application of umbrella arch 3.
Figure 15.12 Umbrella arch cycle.
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
C1
III
IV
V
VII
IX
XI
XIII
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
TBM Excavation in Difficult Ground Conditions
Prof. Dr. Nuh Bilgin Prof. Dr. Hanifi Copur Prof. Dr. Cemal Balci
Istanbul Technical University Faculty of Mines, Mining Engineering Department 34469 Maslak/Istanbul Turkey
Cover: Methane Explosion in the Pressure Chamber of a Tunnel Boring Machine Photo: Bilgin/Copur
Library of Congress Card No.: applied for
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at <http://dnb.d-nb.de>.
© 2016 Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Rotherstraße 21, 10245 Berlin, Germany
All rights reserved (including those of translation into other languages). No part of this book may be reproduced in any form – by photoprinting, microfilm, or any other means – nor transmitted or translated into a machine language without written permission from the publishers. Registered names, trademarks, etc. used in this book, even when not specifically marked as such, are not to be considered unprotected by law.
Print ISBN: 978-3-433-03150-6 ePDF ISBN: 978-3-433-60722-0 ePub ISBN: 978-3-433-60720-6 eMobi ISBN: 978-3-433-60721-3 oBook ISBN: 978-3-433-60719-0
This book is dedicated to our lovely wives Ayfer Bilgin, Nurten Copur and Nurgul Balci and our beloved children Damlanur Bilgin, Serkan and Busra Copur and Cem Eren Balci
The use of tunnel boring machine (TBM) tunneling has increased considerably in the past ten years in Turkey. It is planned to excavate 200 km of tunnels in the near future in Istanbul alone, and 100km of tunnels in other parts of Turkey. Thirty new TBMs are predicted to start working in Istanbul during 2017.
The geology of Turkey is complex, and the country is in a tectonically active region; on a broad scale, the tectonics of the region are controlled by the collision of the Arabian Plate and the Eurasian Plate. The Anatolian block is being squeezed to the west. The block is bounded to the north by the North Anatolian Fault and to the south-east by the East Anatolian Fault. The effects of these faults are seen clearly on the performance of TBMs used in these regions.
This book is written with the intention of sharing the tunneling experiences gained during several years in difficult ground and complex geology. The methane explosion in an earth pressure balance (EPB) TBM chamber, the clogging of a TBM, the need to change disc cutters to chisel cutters, the need to change CCS-type discs cutters to V-type disc cutters, excessive disc cutter consumption, the optimum selection of TBM type in complex geology, magmatic inclusions or ‘dykes’, the effect of blocky ground on TBM performance, the mechanism of rock rupture in front of TBMs, TBM face collapses and blockages, the effect of opening ratio in EPB-TBMs in fractured rock, squeezing of the TBM or jamming of the cutterhead, probe drilling and the use of umbrella arching ahead of TBMs are discussed within this book.
We hope that the experiences shared in this book may help project designers and practicing engineers dealing with TBM drivages in complex geology in different parts of the world.
Istanbul, June 2016
Nuh Bilgin Hanifi Copur Cemal Balci
The contents of this book were discussed at some of the World Tunneling Congresses organized by the ITA, and some of the data has been published in different technical journals such as Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering and International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. However, the topics in this book include more data and it has been analyzed more comprehensively. We are grateful to the organizers of the World Tunneling Congresses and cited journal authorities who gave us the chance to discuss the subject in advance.
The following contractors and state organizations have given us the opportunity to access field data and have helped in analyzing tunneling performances. Without their generous help it would have been impossible to write this book.
Contracting companies: Aga Enerji Celikler-Akad JV Dogus E-Berk Eferay-Silahtaroglu JV Fugro-Sial Gulermak Gulermak-Kolin-Kalyon JV Intekar-Biskon JV Kolin Mosmetrostoy NAS-YSE JV NTF Ozka-Kalyon Construction JV Sargin Construction Statkraft STFA Unal Akpinar Yapi Merkezi Yertas
Government organizations: Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB) State Hydraulic Works (DSI) State Railway Organization (TCDD) Istanbul Water and Sewerage Administration (ISKI)
Our thanks are also due to Istanbul Technical University authorities and Mining Engineering Department Staff, especially to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Deniz Tumac, and PhD students Emre Avunduk, Aydin Shaterpour Mamaghani and Ugur Ates. Finally we must thank also to Prof. Dr. Ergin Arioglu who has always encouraged us to write papers, articles and books since our school days.