Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Predicting TBM
excavability 40
+74% +44%
Open TBM
80 60 40 20
RMR
ver 500 case histories were Top: Fig 1 - Evinos Tunnel advance rate
m=0.30 m=0.10
Tough
Maen
Pieve
Name of Tunnel..............................................................................................................................
Initial chainage of section............................... Final chainage of section...................................
Length of section..............................m (should be > 40 m)
Duration of excavation (days)............................................................ (number + 1 decimal)
Above: Fig 3 - Correlation between RME 4) Stand up time.....................hours 5) Groundwater inflow at tunnel face..............liters/sec
index and the average rate of advance
for double-shield TBMs (Bieniawski et Rock Mass Excavability RME range.....................................average.....................
al., 2006). The colour symbols represent
individual tunnels TBM PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
10 a
m 40 It is important to note that a tunnel section have been standardised in the tunnelling
8 ck
6 Ro studied for RME is defined as a geological industry and are performed by commercial
30
5 structural region of the tunnel, that is, the or university laboratories.
4 RMR
20
3 60
70 80 same section for which the RMR is Figure 4 shows the RMR chart for
2 2 50 determined, and within which uniform estimation of the Stand-Up Time parameter.
40
characteristics exist, such as discontinuity Since this chart was originally developed for
No support
1 30 spacing and conditions, the same rock type drill-and-blast tunnels, a correlation is
required
20 lithology and the RMR not varying by more available between the RMRD&B and
0 than half-class (10 points). A section is not RMRTBM based on work by Alber[9] for
10-1 1 10 100 103 104 105 106
Stand-up time (hrs)
arbitrarily delineated by the number of full TBM tunnels. The following equation is
days tunnelled or by having only the same applicable:
Above: Fig 4 - Stand up time as a rock material. In fact, the section selected
function of RMR and unsupported tunnel should be preferably longer than 40m, the RMRTBM = 0.8 x RMRD&B + 20
span (Bieniawski, 1989). Red squares time of excavation should be given in days
represent tunnelling cases, green to one decimal fraction and the TBM Construction by TBM generally results in
squares are mining data utilisation should not be less than 30%. All higher RMR values than for the same tunnel
Rating 0 1 2 4 5
60
The RME index is obtained from summation 1) Influence of the TBM crew:
10
of the five input parameters in Table 2 In tunnel construction, it seems evident
(above) which tabulates the ratings that the qualifications and experience of the 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
appropriate for the ranges listed. Note that TBM crew, who handle the tunnelling RME07
the values given are the average ratings, for machine every day, have an important Abdalajis Gilgel Gibe II - Inlet Guadarrama
a more precise determination of these input influence on the performances achieved.
ratings, convenient graphs can be found In order to include this effect, the Above: Fig 5 - RME data for three tunnels
elsewhere[12]. Once the RME is determined, experience gained during the construction of excavated with double-shield TBMs in
a TBM average rate of advance (ARA) may the Guadarrama tunnels was used and is rock with strength σc < 45MPa
be estimated from figure 3 or the latest ones defined as shown in Table 3.
that follow. In addition, other correlations 2) Influence of the excavated length: 60
have also been obtained by the authors[13]
Average rate of advance (ARAT) (m/day)
Double shield working with performance versus excavability index In this case, in better exacavability
50 telescopic shield
RME for open and double-shield TBMs conditions, RME > 75, the use of open
40 boring in rock with strength σc < 45MPa TBMs clearly gives better performance than
by double shield TBMs.
30 figure 5 depicts the ARAT values, in m/day, However, in terrains whose excavability is
for three tunnels. The correlation co-efficient between 65 < RME < 75 both types of
20
of R=0.867 is significantly high. The data tunnelling machines provide similar results.
Open TBM
10 from one tunnel in Ethiopia has been kindly Finally, in terrains whose excavability is
provided by Dr Remo Grandori of SELI. between 50 < RME < 65, double-shields
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 For open-type TBM excavation of 49 allow better performance than open TBMs.
RME07 tunnel sections, figure 6 shows the ARAT
values for the San Pedro Tunnel in Spain, Future lines of research
excavated in rock having a σc > 45MPa. The To complete this research it is proposed to
60
Average rate of advance (ARAT) (m/day)
correlation co-efficient of R=0.763 is also analyse correlation between RME and ARAT
50 high. for single-shield TBMs, mainly in the tunnel
Open TBM
Analyses are not yet completed for sections excavated in low strength rocks, σc
40 tunnels excavated with single-shield TBMs. < 45MPa; where this kind of tunnelling
This will be featured in Part II of this series. machines can provide better results.
30
For this task, data will be used from
20 Double-shield and open TBMs sections excavated by single-shield TBMs
Double shield It was found that improved correlations are as well as those excavated working with
working with
10 telescopic obtained when one differentiates between double-shield TBM working in single-shield
shield
case histories featuring rocks with the mode.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 uniaxial compressive strength of the intact These aspects and further case histories
RME07
rock σc > 45MPa and those σc < 45MPa. will be included in Part II of this series.
Above: Fig 8 - Comparison of TBM This is due to an increasing and decreasing
performance versus excavability index trend in the ratings of the σc parameter, Conclusion
RME for open TBMs and double-shield reaching the favourable average value for In closing, the case histories database for
TBMs in rock with strength σc > 45MPa TBM excavability at 45MPa. the Rock Mass Excavability (RME) index has
Figure 7 shows the regression lines which been increased significantly since its
for the typical hard rock TBMs, namely; open were obtained for the machines excavating introduction a year ago. The results obtained
TBMs; single shield TBMs; and double in ground with σc < 45MPa. to date are promising and we welcome
shield TBMs. It is clear that in this case double shield comments and suggestions to:
We started with the analyses of the tunnel TBMs always give better results than open prof-ztb@mindspring.com T&T
sections excavated by double shield TBMs TBMs, if the intact rock strength is less than
because most of the case histories in the 45MPa. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
database involved this type of machine. Figure 8 shows the regression lines for the
Thus, for double-shield TBM construction, machines operating in the ground with σc > The authors wish to express their gratitude
to the Railway Infrastructure Corp in Spain
REFERENCES (ADIF) for allowing the use of the information
from the Guadarrama, Abdalajís and San
1. GE Wickham, HR Tiederman, EH Skinner, 1972. “Support determination based on geologic Pedro tunnels and to Dr Remo Grandori of
prediction” RETC, New York, p43 SELI, Italy for providing the data on tunnels
2. ZT Bieniawski, 1989. “Engineering Rock Mass Classifications - a Complete Manual” Wiley of hydroelectric complex Gilgel Gibe II, in
3. N Barton, 1988. “Rock mass classification using the Q-system” ASTM Tech Pub 984 Ethiopia.
4. HAD Kirsten, 1982. “A classification for excavation in natural materials”. Civil Eng in S Africa. They also wish to thank the Spanish
5. PJ Tarkoy, 1991. “Determining total hardness for TBM boreability” Canadian Symp Rock Mech construction companies ACS, FCC,
6. PP Nelson, 1993. “TBM performance analysis wrt rock properties” Comp Rock Eng, p261 Ferrovial-Agroman and Vias y
7. L Ozdemir, B. Nilsen, 1993. "Hard rock tunnel boring prediction". Proc. RETC, Boston, p.833. Construcciones; SACYR and San Pedro
8. N Barton, 2000. “TBM Tunneling in Jointed and Faulted Rock”. AA Balkema. UTE for their collaboration in the acquisition
9. M Alber, 2000. “Advance rates for hard rock TBMs”. TUST 15 (1). of data from Guadarrama, Abdalajís West
10. OT Blindheim, 2005. “A critique of QTBM”. T&TI, June ‘05. and San Pedro tunnels, respectively.
11. M Sapigni, M Berti, F Bethaz, A Bustillo, G Cardone, 2002. “TBM performance estimation using Finally, we wish to recognise the
rock mass classifications”. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 39, p771 dedicated contributions of the first two
12. A Palmström, E Broch, 2006. “Use and misuse of QTBM”. TUST 21, p575 recipients of the Bieniawski Scholarship for
13. ZT Bieniawski, B Celada, JM Galera, M. Álvares, 2006. “Rock Mass Excavability (RME) index” tunnelling research at the Superior School of
ITA World Tunnelling Congress, Korea. Mines, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid:
14. ZT Bieniawski, B Celada, JM Galera, 2007. “TBM Excavability: Prediction and Machine-Rock Doña María Álvarez Hernández - who was
Interaction”, RETC, Toronto, p1118 involved in the first year of this research,
15. R Grandori, M Jäger, F Antonini, L Vigl, 1995. “Evinos-Mormos Tunnel - Greece” RETC, San and subsequently Don José Carballo
Francisco, p747 Rodrígez - who developed the statistical
16. N Dela Valle, 2006. “Barcelona’s new backbone tunnel”. TBM Tunnelling Symposium, Madrid analysis of the data from the latest case
17. www/drillability.com/13A-98eng.pdf “Rock tunnel boring: Drillability test methods” histories.