Farmer, I W (1996) Performance of chain trenchers in mixed ground. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(2), pp. 115-124. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Chain trenchers were used to cut moderately strong sandstone bedrock, compressive strength 6-9,000 psi (41-62 MN/m2), of varying thickness up to 17 ft (5,1 m), beneath desert alluvium in Sedona, Arizona. Data from the case history indicated an inverse relation between trencher performance expressed as a cutting rate or volume excavation rate and the thickness of rock cut. This was compared with curves derived from a simple balance of the cutting energy available from the trencher and the energy required to break a unit volume of rock. The closeness of the fit provides a basis for understanding the mechanics of chain-trencher cutting performance and for the prediction of performance in rocks of different strengths and thicknesses. The main conclusions are that: (1) The design of chain trenchers is such that power available for cutting remains constant and low; and (2) machine productivity in terms of traverse speed or excavation rate is inversely proportional to the strength and thickness of any rock cut.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | productivity, thickness, excavation, compressive strength, history |
| Subjects: | construction operations, materials science, management, architectural and construction history, material analysis and testing |
| Topics: | Site Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here