TBM performance

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnelsPerformance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.

PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF MECHANICAL EXCAVATORS IN TUNNELSMECHANICAL EXCAVATORS IN TUNNELS

ITA/AITES ITA/AITES –– Training Training CourseCourseTUNNEL ENGINEERING TUNNEL ENGINEERING

ITA/AITESITA/AITES

date 11//4343

Prepared by Prepared by ““Nuh BILGIN, Cemal BALCINuh BILGIN, Cemal BALCI””

Istanbul Istanbul -- 20052005


5Conclusions Conclusions and and referencesreferences

ImpactImpact HammersHammers

RoadheadersRoadheaders

IntroductionIntroduction

TunnelTunnel BoringBoring MachinesMachines TBMsTBMs

Index

2

3

4

1

22//4343


Introduction

It defines the job duration and tunnel drivage economyThe performance of a tunneling machine mainly

depend on 1. Rock mass properties, rock strength and

abrasivity, inclination and orientation of geological discontinuities, water income etc.

2. Machine parameters, design of cutting head, type of cutters, machine power etc.

3. Mode of experience, operator and contractor experience, job organization, machine facilities etc. 33//4343

22

33

44

55

11THE PERFORMANCE OF MECHANICAL

EXCAVATORS

Why the performance of a mechanical excavator is important?


Terms Related to Machine Performance

Shift time = Boring time + Machine delays + Non-machine delays

Utilization = Boring time/Shift timeAvailability = (Boring time +Non-machine

delay time) / Shift timeReliability = Machine delay time/Shift timeAdvance rate = Penetration rate x Utilization

44//4343


Impact Hammers in Tunnel DrivageHydraulic impact hammers have been used widely in mining industry and civil engineering applications since 1960 (Rodford 1974; Pelizza 1994). Almost 11 km of metro tunnels were driven in Istanbul with impact hammers (Bilgin 1996, Bilgin 1998).

55//4343Typical view of an impact hammer (Courtesy of Schaeff)

22

33

44

55

11


Working Principle of Impact Hammers

The working principle of a modern hydraulic hammer is simple. There is a piston moving up and down and striking against to tool end. To produce big energy pulses during downwards strokes, the hammer is equipped with an accumulator that is able to supply needed oil volume in a very short time. The accumulator is charged continuously by a hydraulic pump.

The technical process makes today available very highly powered machines (up to 150 kW for hammers weighting more than 78 tons) with impact energy values up to more than 12 kJ/blow, (Pelizza 1994).

66//4343


Mechanical Parameters Effecting the Performance of Impact Hammers (Wayment 1976, Bilgin 1989)

Pinp = Oil supply requred x Operating pressurePoutput= Impact rate x Impact energyEffiency of impact hammer η=Poutput/Pinput

77//4343

2

2mVE =E = Single blow energy (Joule)M = Weight of piston (kg)V =Speed of piston (m/sec)

Numerical Example:Impact rate = 500 impact/minImpact energy = 3500 J (350 kgxm)Oil supply required = 160 lt/minOperating pressure = 14 MPa

kWsxm

kNxmxs

cmkgxmxPinp 3.3760

14001016060

/14101602

33233

===−−

kWkNmxPout 2.2960

5005.3 == 78.03.372.29 ==η


The Modes of Operation in Impact Hammer Applications

88//****Hammer working sequence from floor to roof.

Two-phase tunneling with two hammers.

Hammer working sequence when rock layers are inclined.

(Courtesy of Sandvik Tamrock Corp.)


Prediction of Net Breaking Rate on Impact Hammer

The following empirical equation were obtained using a database on the application of impact hammers in different tunnel

applications.

99//4343

0.567 P(RMCI)4.24IBR −=RMC = σc(RQD/100)2/3

Where,IBR = Instantaneous or net breaking rate, m3/hP = Cutting power of the machine, HPRMCI = Rock mass cuttability index, MPaσc = Uniaxial compressive strength, MPaRQD = Rock quality designation, %

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnelsPerformance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.1010//4343

Jack hammer having a power of 30 HP

05

1015202530354045

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock (MPa)

Net

Bre

akin

g R

ate

(m3 /h

)25%50%75%100%

RQD

Jack hammer having a power of 60 HP

0102030405060708090

100

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock (MPa)

Net

Bre

akin

g R

ate

(m3 /h

)

25%50%75%100%

RQD

The relationship between rock compressive strength and

instantaneous breaking rate of jack hammers for a given

RQD and power of the hammer


The application of Impact Hammers in Istanbul Metro Tunnel Drivages

New Austrian Tunneling Method (NATM) has been used since the tunnel diameter and ground structure changes frequently along the route. 3-4 m long rock bolts, wire mesh and shotcretewere used as temporary tunnel support. Depending on tunnel diameters the final lin-ing is undertaken with 35-45 cm thick in-situ cast concrete.

Single track tunnel type A has a cross section of 36 m2 and excavated in two steps. The up-per bench of 28 m2 is excavated first and the lower bench of 8 m2 is excavated later, which is 30 m behind of the first bench. The overall performance of the tunneldrivage in Phases 1 and 2 are summarized in Figures 2-3. As seen from these Figures, the utilization of impact ham-mers in average is 22 % and 17 % of the total time is spent to mucking. Shotcretetakes almost 27 %of the total time.

1111//4343

Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnelsPerformance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.1212//4343

Performance of impact hammers in Metro Tunnels Phase 1.

Overall performance of impact hammersin Metro Tunnels Phase 2.

The overall performance of impact hammers in Istanbul Tunnels


Roadheaders

The first roadheaderswere used for mining in the 1960’s since then they have been widely used both in civil and mining industries.

1313//4343

22

33

44

55

11


Transverse Type Roadheader

1414//4343

Cutting Mode of a Transverse TypeRoadheader


Axial Type Roadheader

1515//4343

Cutting Mode of an Axial TypeRoadheader


Advantages and disadvantages on longitudinal and transverse cutting heads (Sandvik Handbook)

1. Transversal cutter heads cut in the direction of the face. Therefore, they are more stable than roadheaders with longitudinal heads of comparable weight and cutter head power.

2. At transversal heads majority of reactive force resulting from the cutting process is directed towards the main body of the machine.

3. On longitudinal cutter heads, pick array is easier because both cutting and slewing motions go in the same direction.

4. Roadheaders with transversal-type cutter heads are less affected by changing rock conditions and harder rock portions. The cutting process can make better use of parting planes especiallyin bedded sedimentary rock.

1616//4343


Advantages and disadvantages on longitudinal and transverse cutting heads (Sandvik Handbook)

1. If the cutter boom’s turning point is located more or less in the axis of the tunnel, a cutter head on longitudinal booms can be adapted to cut with minimum overbreak. For example, cutter booms in shields where the demand can be perfectly met are often equipped with the same type of cutter head. Transverse cutter heads always cause a certain overbreakregardless of machine position.

2. Most longitudinal heads show lower figures for pick consumption, which is primarily a result of lower cutting speed.

3. The transverse cutter head offers greater versatility, and with the proper layout and tool selection, has a wider range of applications. Its performance is not substantially reduced in rock that presents difficult cutting (for example, due to the high strength or ductile behavior).

4. Additionally, the reserves inherent in the concept offer more opportunities for tailoring the equipment to existing rock conditions.

1717//4343


Classification of roadheaders

1818//4343

<60110-14045350-400> 100Extra heavy

<8090-11040250-30070-110Heavy

Any60-9030160-23040-70Medium

Any40-602550-1708-40Light

RQD(%)

Operation max UCS

(MPa)

Range of max. cross

section (m2)

Cutterheadpower (kW)

Range of weight

(t)

Roadheader Class


Methods for predicting cutting performance of roadheader

1919//4343

Core cutting test

Core cutting test rig in Istanbul Technical University

TToolool width of 12.7 mmwidth of 12.7 mmDDepthepth of cut of 5 mmof cut of 5 mmRRakeake angle of (angle of (--5°), 5°), BBackack clearance angle of 5°clearance angle of 5°


Core cutting test application to roadheader performance prediction

2020//4343Correlation between laboratory specific energy and the in-situ cutting rates


Empirical methods for roadheader performance prediction

2121//4343

RMCI(0.974)P0.28ICR ⋅⋅=

32

c 100RQDσRMCI

⋅=

ICR is instantaneous cutting rate of roadheaders in m3/hRMCI is rock mass cuttability indexσC is uniaxial compressive strength in MPaP is power of cutting head in HP


Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheaderfrom rock mass cuttability index

2222//4343

y = 26.127e-0.0263x

R2 = 0.7331

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Rock Mass Cuttability Index (MPa)

Inst

anta

neou

s C

uttin

g R

ate

(m3 /h

)

Roadheader, 95 Hp

The variation of instantaneous cutting rate with Rock Mass Cuttability Index


Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from machinepower and machine weight

2323//4343

ICR = Instantaneous Cutting Rate, m3/hrRPI = Roadheader Penetration IndexUCS = Uniaxial Compressive Strength, MPa

W = Roadheader Weight, metric ton P= Cutterhead Power, kW e = Base of the Natural Logarithm


Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from fullscale cutting tests

2424//4343


Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from fullscale cutting tests

2525//4343

Tool Spacing and Its Effect on Specific EnergySystem efficiency of some common mechanical excavators

η = 0.70 - 0.80Continuous Miner

η = 0.55 - 0.70Shaft Drill

η = 0.60 - 0.70Raise Borer

η = 0.45 - 0.55Roadheader

η = 0.85 - 0.90Tunnel Boring Machine

optSEPkICR ⋅=

ICR = Instantaneous cutting rate in m3/hk = Energy transfer ratio P = Cutting power of cutting head in kW

SEopt =Optimum specific energy in kWh/m3


Comparison of the predicted values from full scale cutting tests and actual values obtained in Kucuksu Tunnel

2626//4343

2468

101214

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

s /d

SE(k

Wh/

m3 ) SE

PkICR =

3/7904.0

mkWhkWICR =

hmICR /1.5 3=


Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader fromdestruction work (After Thuro)

2727//4343

Estimation of the specific destruction work Wz from the stress-strain curve of a rock sample under unconfined compression

Cutting performance, correlated with destruction work of 26 rock samples

(argillaceous slates and quarzites,Zeulenroda sewage tunnel).


Overall performance of roadheaders in Kucuksu Tunnel

2828//4343

HORIZONTAL AND DRY ZONE

Machine breakdown

maintenance15%

Breakfast/ lunch/dinner

break17%

Excavation38%

Waiting for material and muck truck

9%

Muck loading13%

Machine pull and site

surveying8%

Chainage 25-50 m

INCLINED WET STICKY ZONE

Ring montage20%

Excavation8%

Machine breakdown

maintenance17%

Muck loading10%

Breakfast/ /lunch /dinner

break17%

Cutting head stuck due to

clay5%

Rail addition and water drainage

10%


9%


surveying4%

Chainage 70-80 m

INCLINED WET ZONE


surveying4%


9%

Rail addition and water drainage

10%

Stoppages due to safety concern

5%

Breakfast/ /lunch /dinner

break17%

Muck loading10%

Machine breakdown

maintenance17%

Excavation8%

Ring montage20%

Chainage 90-150 m

INCLINED AND DRY ZONE

Excavation8%

Ring montage13%

Breakfast/ /lunch/dinner

break17%

Machine breakdown

maintenance15%

Rail addition, longer distance transportation

10%

Stoppages due to safety concern

8%Muck loading

10%


13%


surveying6%

Chainage 150-275 m


Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs)

The use of tunnel boring machines for underground construction has been increasing steadily for the last 30 years. However the efficient and economic use of these high capital cost machines, necessitates an intensive side and laboratory studies. The proper and correct machine performance prediction basically depends on the quality and quantity of the geological and geotechnical data collected before making the final decision.

2929//4343

22

33

44

55

11


Tunnel Boring Machines TBMs

3030//4343

Double Gripper-TBM:Single Gripper-TBM:

Shielded-TBM with articulation joint: Double Shield-TBM:


Cutters Used for Mechanical Excavators

3131//4343

Disc cutters for TBMs

Soft rock medium rock hard rock

Conical cutters


Performance prediction using Full scale linear cutting tests

3232//4343Hypothetical relationship between specific energy and spacing/depth ratio


A typical example Tuzla-Dragos Tunnel in Istanbul

3333//4343

The profiles of constant cross section (CCS) disc cutters

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22s/d

SE

(kW

h/m

3 )

CCS

The relationship between specific energy and s/d ratios


Machine performance prediction for Tuzla-Dragos Tunnel

3434//4343

Optimum specific energy value from Figure, is SE=2.1 kWh/m3 and s/d = 8-10As a result of cutting tests it was found that FT = 8.4 kN/mm, FR = 0.64 kN/mmFrom machine specification cutter spacing is s=7.5cmFor s/d= 8; d=7.5/8=1cmFor s/d=10; d=7.5/10=0.8cmFor d=8mm, total machine thrust is 36×8×8.34=2400 kNFor d=10mm, total machine thrust is 36×10×8.34=3000 kNTotal machine thrust must change between 2400 kN and 3000kN

Expected power of the machine for cutting depth of 10 mm. kW 200P kW; x3176062πP ==

Expected power of the machine for cutting depth of 0.8 mm. kW 160P kW; x2536062πP ==

)(kWh/m SE(kW) Pk/h)(m rate excavationNet 3

3 = •Net excavation rate=60∼ 70 m3/h

In competent rock an average machine utilization factor of 30% and 16 hours working time per day will result a daily advance rate of

m/day 15 m

425 h x π

0.3 x m 60h x 162

3

≅


PERFORMANCE PREDICITION USING THE METHOD DEVELOPED IN THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES

3535//4343

The CSM model for TBM performance prediction was developed by the Earth Mechanics Institute (EMI) over a time period extendingover 25 years. The development efforts on the CSM model began with a theoretical analysis of cutter penetration into the rock without any adjacent cuts or free-faces.

CSM model, rock compressive and tensile strengths were used asinput to characterize the rock boreability by disc roller cutters. The compressive strength was used to describe the rock crushing beneath the cutter tip while the tensile strength accounted for the chip formation between adjacent cuts. Hence, using these two rock properties, a correlation was developed between cutters thrust force and the depth of penetration achieved as a function of cutter edge geometry and the cutter diameter.


PERFORMANCE PREDICITION USING THE METHOD DEVELOPED IN THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES

3636//4343

The CSM model predicts the penetration rate without any consideration given to the influence of existing joints/fissures in the rock. To account for these effects, the model makes use of the correlation factors developed for joint effects by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NTNU). Depending on joint/fissure spacing and angle that these weakness planes make with the tunnel axis (i.e. the alpha angle), NTNU has derived a set of relationships between TBM penetration rate and the fracturing factor. The CSM model results are then adjusted accordingly to account for the joint/fissure effects using the relationships similar to those developed by NTNU.


PERFORMANCE PREDICITION USING THE METHOD DEVELOPED IN THE NORWEGIAN UNIVESITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (NTNU MODEL)

3737//4343

The prediction model is based on job site studies and statistics from 33job sites with 230 km of tunnels. Data have been carefully mappedsystematized and normalized. The methodology is well explained in ITA recommendations and guidelines for tunnel boring machines working group no 4. Specific tests such as drilling rate index, Siever J-value SJ, angle between tunnel axis and plane of weakness, fracturing factor and several correction indexes are need forperformance estimation.

Mckelvey and co-workers in their comparative studies included that generally predicted penetration rates from NTNU model were significantly more comparative than the achieved penetration values.


A Typical Overall performance of TBMs

3838//4343

TBM Boring Time41%

Downtime - Other causes

22%

Cutter change14%

TBM re-grip time11%

Cutter inspection6%

Backup downtime3%

TBM downtime3%


Conclusions and referencesThe performance of a mechanical excavators plays and important

role in tunnel drivage which manly depends on: a) Rock mass properties, rock strength and abrasivity, inclination

and orientation of geological discontinuities, water income, inclination of tunnel etc.

b) Machine parameters, design of cutting head, type of cutters, machine power etc.

c) Modes of operation, operator and contractor experience, job organization, maintenance facilities etc.

In this presentation rock mass properties and some machine parameter affecting the performance of impact hammers,roadheaders and TBMs are widely explained including most common performance prediction models. Some numerical examples on calculating instantaneous breaking and cutting rates are also given. Overall performance of different mechanical excavators is summarized for some tunnels.

3939//4343

22

33

44

55

11


Conclusions and referencesBalciBalci, C., , C., DemircinDemircin, M.A., , M.A., CopurCopur, H. &, H. & TuncdemirTuncdemir, H. 2004. Estimation of optimum specific energy based on rock p, H. 2004. Estimation of optimum specific energy based on rock properties for roperties for

assessment ofassessment of roadheaderroadheader performance. performance. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and MetallurgyJournal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 104 (11): 633104 (11): 633--643.643.

BilginBilgin N, N, YaziciYazici, S. & , S. & EskikayaEskikaya, S.1996. A model to predict the performance of, S.1996. A model to predict the performance of roadheadersroadheaders and impact hammers in tunnel and impact hammers in tunnel drivagesdrivages. In: . In: BarlaBarla G, editor. G, editor. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the EurockEurock ’96 on Prediction and Performance in Rock Mechanics and Rock ’96 on Prediction and Performance in Rock Mechanics and Rock EngineeringEngineering, 2: 715, 2: 715--720.720.

Bilgin, N., Balci, C., Acaroglu, O., Tuncdemir, H., Eskikaya, S.Bilgin, N., Balci, C., Acaroglu, O., Tuncdemir, H., Eskikaya, S., Akgul, M. & Algan, M. 1999 Performance, Akgul, M. & Algan, M. 1999 Performance Prediction of a TBM Prediction of a TBM in Tuzlain Tuzla--DragosDragos SewerageSewerage Tunnel, Tunnel, WorldWorld TunnelTunnel CongressCongress, Oslo 29th May , Oslo 29th May ––3rd June, 3rd June, Rotterdam: Rotterdam: BalkemaBalkema..

Bilgin, N., Kuzu, C. & Eskikaya, S. 1997. Bilgin, N., Kuzu, C. & Eskikaya, S. 1997. Cutting performance of rock hammers andCutting performance of rock hammers and roadheadersroadheaders in Istanbul Metro in Istanbul Metro drivagesdrivages. . Proceedings, Word Tunnel Congress’97, Tunnels for PeopleProceedings, Word Tunnel Congress’97, Tunnels for People: 455: 455--460. Rotterdam: 460. Rotterdam: BalkemaBalkema..

BilginBilgin,N., ,N., DincerDincer, T. & , T. & CopurCopur, H., 2002. The performance prediction of impact hammers from Sc, H., 2002. The performance prediction of impact hammers from Schmidt hammer rebound values in hmidt hammer rebound values in Istanbul metro tunnel Istanbul metro tunnel drivagesdrivages, , TunnellingTunnelling and Underground Space Technology and Underground Space Technology 1717: : 237237––247247

BilginBilgin,N., ,N., DincerDincer, T., , T., CopurCopur, H., , H., ErdoganErdogan, M. 2004. Some geological and geotechnical factors affecting th, M. 2004. Some geological and geotechnical factors affecting the performance of a e performance of a roadhederroadheder in an in an inclişnedinclişned tunnel, tunnel, TunnellingTunnelling and Underground Space Technology and Underground Space Technology 1919: 629: 629––636.636.

CopurCopur H, H, RostamiRostami J, J, OzdemirOzdemir L & L & BilginBilgin N. 1997. Studies on performance prediction ofN. 1997. Studies on performance prediction of roadheadersroadheaders based on field data in mining based on field data in mining and and tunnellingtunnelling projects. In: projects. In: GurgenciGurgenci H, Hood M, editors. H, Hood M, editors. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Mine Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Mine Mechanization and AutomationMechanization and Automation, Brisbane, Queensland. A4, Brisbane, Queensland. A4--1/A41/A4--7.7.

Dunn, P.G., Dunn, P.G., HowarthHowarth, D.F., , D.F., ScmidthScmidth, S.P.J. & Bryan, I.J. 1997. A review of non explosive excavatio, S.P.J. & Bryan, I.J. 1997. A review of non explosive excavation projects for the Australian n projects for the Australian metalliferrousmetalliferrous mining industry. In: mining industry. In: GurgenciGurgenci H, Hood M, editors. H, Hood M, editors. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Mine Mechanization and AutomationMine Mechanization and Automation, Brisbane, Queensland. A5, Brisbane, Queensland. A5--2/132/13

Evans, I. 1974. Energy requirements for impact breakage of rocksEvans, I. 1974. Energy requirements for impact breakage of rocks. . Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying and Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying and TunnellingTunnelling, IMM London:, IMM London:11--88

Farmer, I.W. & Farmer, I.W. & GarrityGarrity, P. 1987. Prediction of, P. 1987. Prediction of roadheaderroadheader cutting performance from fracture toughness considerations. In:cutting performance from fracture toughness considerations. In: HergetHergetG, G, VongpaisalVongpaisal S, editors. S, editors. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Rock MechanicsProceedings of the 6th International Congress on Rock Mechanics. 621. 621––624.624.

FowellFowell, R.J. & , R.J. & JohsonJohson, S.T. 1982. Rock classification and assessment of rapid excavat, S.T. 1982. Rock classification and assessment of rapid excavation. ion. In: Farmer I, editor. Proceedings of the In: Farmer I, editor. Proceedings of the Symposium on Strata MechanicsSymposium on Strata Mechanics, Newcastle Upon Tyne: 239, Newcastle Upon Tyne: 239--242.242.

FowellFowell, R.J, , R.J, JohsonJohson, S.T. & Speight, H.E. 1984. Boom tunneling machine studies for , S.T. & Speight, H.E. 1984. Boom tunneling machine studies for improved excavation performance. In: Brown improved excavation performance. In: Brown ET, Hudson JA, editors. ET, Hudson JA, editors. Proceedings of the International ISRM Congress on Design and PerProceedings of the International ISRM Congress on Design and Performance of Underground formance of Underground ExcavationsExcavations, Cambridge.305, Cambridge.305--312.312.

Friant, E.J., Ozdemir, L. 1993. TunnelFriant, E.J., Ozdemir, L. 1993. Tunnel BoringBoring Technology Technology -- PresentPresent andand Future, Future, RapidRapid ExcavationExcavation andand TunnelingTunneling Conference Conference (RETC) Proceedings(RETC) Proceedings, Boston, USA., Boston, USA.

4040//4343

22

33

44

55

11


Conclusions and referencesGaskell, J & Phillips, R. A. 1974. The Gullick Dobson impact ripper. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying

and Tunneling, IMM London: 73-82Hughes, H. 1972. Some aspects of rock machining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.(9):205-11.Johanessen, O. 1995, Hard rock tunneling boring, University of Trondheim, The Norwegian Institute of Technology 165.Johson, S.T. & Fowell, R.J. 1984. A rational approach to practical performance assessment for rapid excavation using boom-type

tunneling machines. In: Dowding CH, Singh MM, editors. Proceedings of the 25th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Illinois. 759-766.

Johson, S.T. & Fowell, R.J. 1986. Compressive strength is not enough. In: Hartman HL, editor. Proceedings of the 27th US Rock Mechanics Symposium. 840-845.

Krupa, V. Krepelka, F. & Imrich, P. 1994. Continuous evaluation of rock mechanics and geological information at drilling and boring. In: Olieveira at al., editors. Proceedings of the 7th International Congress, International Association of Engineering Geology. 1027-30.

Krupa, V. Krepelka, F. Bejda, J. & Imrich, P. 1993. The cutting constant of the rock does not depend on scale effect of rock mass jointing. In: Cunha APD, editor. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Scale Effect on Rock Masses. 63-6.

Krupa, V., Krepelka, F., Sekula, F. & Kristova, Z. 1993. Specific energy as information source about strength properties of rock mass using TBM. In: Anagnostopoulos A, et all., editors. Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils-Soft Rocks. 1475-7.

Levetus, F.B & Cagnioncle, G. 1974. Completely hydraulic rotary-percussive rock drills. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying and Tunnelling, IMM, London, :67-78

Lislerud, A. 1988. Hard rock tunnel boring, prognasis and costs. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology (3)1, 9-17.Matti, H. Editor, 1999. Rock Excavation Handbook , Sandvik Tamrock Corp.McFeatMcFeat –– Smith, I. &Smith, I. & FowellFowell, R.J. 1977. Correlation of rock properties and cutting performa, R.J. 1977. Correlation of rock properties and cutting performance of tunneling machines. In: Potts nce of tunneling machines. In: Potts

ELJ,ELJ, AttewellAttewell PB, editors. PB, editors. Proceedings of the Conference on Rock EngineeringProceedings of the Conference on Rock Engineering, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. , University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. 582582––602.602.

McFeatMcFeat –– Smith, I. &Smith, I. & FowellFowell, R.J. 1979. The selection and application of, R.J. 1979. The selection and application of roadheadersroadheaders for rock tunneling. Infor rock tunneling. In MaevisMaevis AC,AC, AustrulidAustrulidWA, editors. WA, editors. Proceedings of the Rapid ExcavationProceedings of the Rapid Excavation TunnTunn CongressCongress, Atlanta. 261, Atlanta. 261––279.279.

McKelveyMcKelvey, J.G., Schultz, E.A. &, J.G., Schultz, E.A. & BlindheimBlindheim, O.T. 1996, Geotechnical analysis in S. Africa, , O.T. 1996, Geotechnical analysis in S. Africa, WorldWorld TunnellingTunnelling, November, 377, November, 377--390.390.

Mellor, M. 1972. Normalization of specific energy values.Mellor, M. 1972. Normalization of specific energy values. IntInt J RockJ Rock MechMech MinMin SciSci.(9):661.(9):661--663.663.Merguerian, C., Ozdemir, L. 2003. Rock Mass Properties and Hard Merguerian, C., Ozdemir, L. 2003. Rock Mass Properties and Hard Rock TBM Penetration Rate Investigations, Queens Tunnel Rock TBM Penetration Rate Investigations, Queens Tunnel

Complex, NYC Water Tunnel #3, Stage #2", Complex, NYC Water Tunnel #3, Stage #2", Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) ProceedingsRapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) Proceedings..NilsenNilsen, B.,, B., OzdemirOzdemir, L. 1993. Hard rock tunnel boring prediction and field performa, L. 1993. Hard rock tunnel boring prediction and field performance, nce, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Rapid Excavation and Tunneling

Conference (RETC) ProceedingsConference (RETC) Proceedings, Chapter 52, Boston, USA, Chapter 52, Boston, USA, 13, 13--17.17.

4141//4343

22

33

44

55

11


Conclusions and referencesOzdemirOzdemir, L., Miller, R.J. & Wang, F.D. 1978 Mechanical Tunnel Boring Ma, L., Miller, R.J. & Wang, F.D. 1978 Mechanical Tunnel Boring Machine Prediction and Machine Design, chine Prediction and Machine Design, NSF APR73NSF APR73--

0777607776--A03A03, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA., Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA.OzdemirOzdemir, L. 1991.Performance Prediction for Mechanical Excavators in Yu, L. 1991.Performance Prediction for Mechanical Excavators in Yucca Mountain Tuff, cca Mountain Tuff, Task Report toTask Report to SandiaSandia National National

LaboratoriesLaboratories, Contract 35, Contract 35--0039.0039.Pelizza, S.,Pelizza, S., PatruccoPatrucco, M. & Benedetto, G. 1994. , M. & Benedetto, G. 1994. Workplace environmental conditions and innovative Tunnel drivingWorkplace environmental conditions and innovative Tunnel driving techniques. techniques.

Measurement airMeasurement air controcontro. . Proceedings, Tunneling andProceedings, Tunneling and GraundGraund Conditions: Conditions: 617617--623 Rotterdam:623 Rotterdam: BalkemaBalkema..Pool, D. 1987. The effectiveness ofPool, D. 1987. The effectiveness of tunnellingtunnelling machines. machines. Tunnels andTunnels and TunnellingTunnelling.19:66.19:66--67.67.RodfordRodford, I.G. 1974. Experience with impact units. , I.G. 1974. Experience with impact units. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying andProceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying and TunnellingTunnelling, ,

IMM LondonIMM London: 57: 57--6666RostamiRostami, J. &, J. & OzdemirOzdemir, L. 1994., L. 1994. RoadheaderRoadheader performance optimization for mining and civil construction. In:performance optimization for mining and civil construction. In: DeMersDeMers JE, et all., JE, et all.,

editors. editors. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Technical Conference, Institute oProceedings of the 13th Annual Technical Conference, Institute of Shaft Drilling Technologyf Shaft Drilling Technology, Las Vegas, Nevada., Las Vegas, Nevada.Rostami, J., Ozdemir L & Neil D. 1994. Rostami, J., Ozdemir L & Neil D. 1994. Performance prediction: a key issue in mechanical hard rock miniPerformance prediction: a key issue in mechanical hard rock mining. Mining ng. Mining

Engineering.Nov.:1264Engineering.Nov.:1264--1267.1267.RostamiRostami, J., , J., OzdemirOzdemir, L. 1993 A New Model For Performance Prediction Of Hard Rock , L. 1993 A New Model For Performance Prediction Of Hard Rock TBMsTBMs, , Proceedings of RETCProceedings of RETC, Boston , Boston

MA, June 13MA, June 13--17.17.SchimazekSchimazek, J. & , J. & KnatzKnatz, H. 1970. The influence of rock composition on cutting velocity, H. 1970. The influence of rock composition on cutting velocity and chisel wear of and chisel wear of tunnellingtunnelling machines. machines.

GluckaufGluckauf: 106. 274: 106. 274--278.278.Sekula, F, Krupa V & Krepelka Sekula, F, Krupa V & Krepelka F. 1991. F. 1991. Monitoring of the rock strength characteristics in the course ofMonitoring of the rock strength characteristics in the course of full of face driving full of face driving

process. In: process. In: RakowskiRakowski Z, editor. Z, editor. Proceedings of the International Conference on Proceedings of the International Conference on GeomechanicsGeomechanics.. 299299--303.303.ThuroThuro, K & , K & PlinningerPlinninger RJ. 1998. Geological limits inRJ. 1998. Geological limits in roadheaderroadheader excavation four case studies. In: excavation four case studies. In: LokyLoky, editor. , editor. Proceedings of the Proceedings of the

8th International IAEG Congress8th International IAEG Congress, Vancouver.2:3545, Vancouver.2:3545--3552.3552.ThuroThuro, K & , K & PlinningerPlinninger RJ. 2003. Hard rock tunnel boring, cutting, drilling and blastiRJ. 2003. Hard rock tunnel boring, cutting, drilling and blasting: rock parameters for ng: rock parameters for excavatabilityexcavatability. In: . In:

MerweMerwe JN, editor. JN, editor. Proceedings of the 10th International ISRM Congress on TechnologProceedings of the 10th International ISRM Congress on Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, y Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, South African Institute of Mining and MetallurgySouth African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 1227. 1227--1253.1253.

ThuroThuro, K, &, K, &PlinningerPlinninger RJ. 1999. PredictingRJ. 1999. Predicting roadheaderroadheader advance rates. advance rates. Tunnels andTunnels and TunTunnellingnelling.;31:36.;31:36--39.39.ThuroThuro, K, &, K, &PlinningerPlinninger RJ. 1999. RJ. 1999. Roadheader excavationRoadheader excavation performance performance -- geologicalgeological andand geotechnicalgeotechnical influences, influences, 9th ISRM 9th ISRM

CongressCongress Paris, August, 25th Paris, August, 25th -- 28th, 28th, Theme 3: RockTheme 3: Rock dynamicsdynamics andand tectonophysics / Rocktectonophysics / Rock cuttingcutting andand drillingdrillingVerhoefVerhoef, P.N.W. 1997. , P.N.W. 1997. Wear of rock cuttingWear of rock cutting, 327, Rotterdam: , 327, Rotterdam: BalkemaBalkemaWaymentWayment, W & , W & GrantmyreGrantmyre, I. 1976. Development of high blow energy hydraulic , I. 1976. Development of high blow energy hydraulic impactorimpactor. . Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and

TunnellingTunnelling ConferenceConference: 611: 611--626626West, G. 1989. Technical Note West, G. 1989. Technical Note -- Rock Abrasiveness Testing for Rock Abrasiveness Testing for TunnellingTunnelling..-- Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. SciSci.& .& GeomechGeomech. . AbstrAbstr., .,

26(2), 15126(2), 151--160.160.Wyllie, B. 1985. Hydraulic breakersWyllie, B. 1985. Hydraulic breakers. International Mining. International Mining, , MarchMarch: 18: 18--2424

4242//4343

22

33

44

55

11


ITA/AITESITA/AITES

4343//4343

Clause de non-responsabilité pour les rapports des groupes de travail de l'AITESL’Association Internationale des Travaux en Souterrain (AITES) publie ce rapport, conformément à ses Statuts, pour faciliter les échanges d’informations afin :

d’encourager l’utilisation du sous-sol au profit du grand public, de l’environnement et du développement durable;

de promouvoir les progrès dans la planification, le projet, la construction, l’entretien, la réhabilitation et la sécurité des tunnels et de l’espace souterrain en rassemblant et confrontant les informations, ainsi qu’en étudiant les questions qui s’y rapportent.

Cependant, l’AITES décline toute responsabilité en ce qui concerne les informations publiées dans ce rapport.

Ces informations :

sont exclusivement de nature générale et ne visent pas la situation particulière d’une personne physique ou morale;

ne sont pas nécessairement complètes, exhaustives, exactes ou à jour ;

proviennent parfois de sources extérieures sue lesquelles les services de l’AITES n’ont aucun contrôle et pour lesquelles l’AITES décline toute responsabilité ;

ne constituent pas un avis professionnel or juridique (si vous avez besoin d’avis spécifiques, consultez toujours un professionnel dûment qualifié).

Disclaimer for the reports of ITA working groups The International Tunnelling Association (ITA) publishes this report to, in accordance with its statutes, facilitate the exchange of information, in order:

to encourage planning of the subsurface for the benefit of the public, environment and sustainable development

to promote advances in planning, design, construction, maintenance and safety of tunnels and underground space, by bringing together information thereon and by studying questions related thereto.

However ITA accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the material published in this report.

This material is:

information of a general nature only, which is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual or entity;

not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date;

sometimes collected from external sources over which ITA services have no control and for which ITA assumes no responsibility;

not professional or legal advice (if you need specific advice, you should always consult a suitably qualified professional).

Documents

TBM performance