See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242325092

Estimation Model for Advance Rate in Drill and Blast Tunnelling

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

2 3,500

2 authors, including:

Amund Bruland
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
69 PUBLICATIONS   857 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Technical assessment of NATM excavation method in tunnels and comparison with Cut & Cover method- Case Study Tehran Tabriz- Railway Tunnel View project

Estimation of TBM Utilization in Soft ground using rock engineering systems approch View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amund Bruland on 22 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Symposium
on :
Utilization of underground space in urban areas
6-7 November 2006, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt

Estimation Model for Advance Rate in Drill and Blast Tunnelling

Shokrollah Zare, Amund Bruland

Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.

ABSTRACT

This paper deals with the NTNU advance rate model for drill and blast tunnelling. The estimation
model for advance rate is based on round cycle time consumption, and comprises drilling, charging,
blasting, ventilation, loading and hauling, scaling and rock support. The basis of the model is State-of-
the-art technology and equipment with Norwegian tunnelling experience.

Weekly advance rate as a function of tunnel cross section and equipment combination is presented, by
applying the model for 5 m drillhole length, 48 mm drillhole diameter, parallel hole cut, medium
blastability and drillability, medium rock wear quality and 101 working hours per week.

Weekly advance rate without rock support installation varies from 100 m/week for 10 m2 tunnel to 54
m/week for 120 m2 tunnel, depending on equipment combination and number of drilling hammers.

1. INTRODUCTION

Various applications of the drill and blast method in underground excavation necessitates updated
design and planning models for blast design, time scheduling and cost estimations.

The Department of Civil and Transport Engineering at NTNU has published models for such purposes
since 1975 and has developed models for blast design, advance rate and excavation costs (NTNU,
1995a; NTNU, 1995b; NTNU, 1995c).

The major part of around 5000 km of subsurface excavation in Norway has been excavated by the drill
and blast method (Norwegian Tunnelling Society, 2004) and from these a substantial amount of field
data have been used to develop the models.

Numerous authors have emphasised influence of time on construction cost, e.g. Newitt (2005) and
Grimstad (1999).

The model is applicable for small to large tunnel cross sections with different excavation method, i.e.
track tunnelling, trackless load and haul and trackless direct loading. Tunnel geometry, blast design
parameters such as drillhole diameter and length and type of explosives, as well as rock properties, i.e.
blastability, drillability and wear quality are considered in the model.
The paper deals with basic parts and results of the model, the complete model is presented in (NTNU,
2006).

2. ESTIMATION MODEL FOR ADVANCE RATE

The model is based on the round cycle time consumption. The round cycle is divided into four major
operations:

I Drilling and charging

II Ventilation
III Loading and hauling
IV Scaling and rock support

The operations I and III are divided into three different categories of time:

A. Fixed lost time (rig time)

All «unproductive» operations regularly repeated from round to round are collected here. The time
consumption is also fixed in the sense that it is almost independent with regard to variations in round
length, the number of crew members and the number of drilling hammers. Example: Driving the
drilling jumbo to and from the face.

B. Proportional operational time

Proportional operational time is productive time, such as drilling and loading time. The time used is
almost proportional to specific drilled metres and amount of broken rock, and inversely proportional to
the number and performance of the drilling hammers or size and capacity of the loader.

C. Incidental lost time

The incidental lost time covers the technically dependent lost time occurring at random during
tunnelling operations, for example machine breakdown. Personal time and delays connected to change
of shifts are also included.

A lost time of 6 minutes per hour is regarded as normal for well organized tunnelling. This constitutes
11.1% of A + B, i.e. 10% of total time consumption.

2.1 Drilling and charging

The overall drilling time per round includes:

o Drilling of charged and empty/large holes

o Moving between holes
o Changing of bits
o Lack of simultaneousness
o Rod adding ( for drilled length longer than approximately 6 m )

A set of equations are presented (NTNU, 2006) to calculate time consumption of the above items.
Number of holes, drillhole diameter, drillhole length, type and number of rock drills and Rock Drilling
Index, DRI (NTNU, 1998) are main influencing parameters on drilling time.

The charging time depends on:

o Number of holes
o Drillhole diameter and length
 o Explosives type and number of charging lines

For a 63 m2 tunnel with 92 charged holes of 48 mm diameter and 5 m length, when the holes are
charged by two charging lines, the charging time varies from 60 to 85 min per round depending on
explosives type.

2.2 Ventilation

Ventilation break is a necessary break in the round cycle for diluting and removing of the blasting
fumes. This is the time from blasting of the round until the concentration of nitrous gases (NOX) at the
tunnel face is under the Threshold Limit Value, TLV = 2 ppm.
Ventilation break varies from 5 to 30 min depending on tunnel cross section and explosives type.

2.3 Loading and hauling

In general, loading and hauling time is dependent on the volume of blasted rock per round and loading
capacity of loading and hauling equipment combination. The loading time is calculated by dividing the
volume of blasted rock to loading capacity.

Tunnel cross section, excavation method and combination of loading and hauling equipments are main
influencing parameters on loading capacity. The normalized loading capacity for different equipment
combinations are given based on field studies and normalization (NTNU, 2006). For a 63 m2 tunnel
and 5 m round length, the loading and hauling time may varies from 100 to 150 min per round.

2.4 Scaling and rock support

The scaling time covers time for scaling the round and checking of the rock face to allow further work.
Time for rock support is not included in the scaling time. The scaling time depends on tunnel cross
section, scaling method and rock blastability. For medium blastability (NTNU, 1995a) and 5 m round
length the scaling time varies from 10 to 90 min depending on tunnel cross section.

When using continuous rock support with bolts and/or shotcrete, it is common to include rock support
time in the round cycle. By utilizing the time when there is no excavation, the shotcrete can be sprayed
without being time-determinant. Time consumption for polyester anchored bolts as a function of
number of bolts per round is given in (NTNU, 2006) both for bolt drilling time and bolt mounting
time.

3. WEEKLY ADVANCE RATE

For the weekly advance rate it is differentiated between net, normal and gross advance rate. The net
advance rate is understood as the advance rate achieved for well organized tunnelling excluding time
for blasting of niches, correction for job-training and tunnel length, rock support etc. The net round
cycle time is the sum of the major operations (I- IV) excluding time consumption for rock support.

The normal advance rate is determined based on net round cycle time with additional time
consumption for blasting of necessary niches and correction for tunnel length and job-training effect.
Correction factor for tunnel length and job-training effect is given in (NTNU, 2006).

The gross advance rate is determined on the basis of the normal round cycle with additional time
consumption for rock support and unforeseen, depending on site conditions.
The normal weekly advance rate as a function of tunnel cross section for 3 km tunnel length is shown
in Fig.1. The following assumptions are considered:
150

1 Haggloader - Shuttlecar, 2 drilling hammers

140 2 Cat 972G - Load&haul, 2 drilling hammers
3 Cat 980G - Load&haul, 3 drilling hammers
130 4 Cat 973C - Truck, 3 drilling hammers
5 Cat 966G/972G - Truck, 3 drilling hammers
m/week
6 Cat 980G - Truck, 3 drilling hammers
120 7 Volvo L330E - 35t dump truck, 3 drilling hammers
8 Volvo L330E - 35t dump truck, 4 drilling hammers
110

100 1
3
2 5
90
4 7
6
80
8
70

60

50

40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

2
Cross section, m

Fig.1 Normal weekly advance rate as a function of tunnel cross-section

Rock conditions
Rock blastability, rock drillability and rock wear quality influence the advance rate. The numbers of
charged and empty holes are dependent to rock blastability. The drilling time is dependent to rock
drillability and rock wear quality. Normal weekly advance rate is calculated for medium blastability,
SPR = 0.47, medium drillability, DRI = 49, and medium rock wear quality, VHNR = 550.

Blast design parameters

The NTNU blast design model (NTNU, 1995a; Zare and Bruland, 2006) is used to calculate number of
charged and empty holes for different tunnel cross sections. Parallel hole cut is assumed, the diameter
of the empty hole(s) are 102 mm and the diameter of charged holes are 48 mm. The round length is
5m and the advance per round is assumed to be 91% of drilled length.

Drilling and charging

Nowadays, computerized drilling jumbos with different level of automation are widely used in drill
and blast tunnelling (Atlas Copco, 2004). The drilling time is dependent on type and number of
drilling hammers. 2 drilling hammers for cross section less than 20 m2, 3 drilling hammers for cross
sections 20- 80 m2 and 4 drilling hammers for cross sections larger 80 m2 is assumed. The penetration
rate is calculated based on the field performance data for COP 1838 rock drills.
Charging is assumed to take place after drilling. 2 charging lines for cross sections less than 80 m2 and
3 charging lines for cross sections greater than 80 m2, ANFO explosives for track tunneling and
emulsion explosives for trackless tunnelling are assumed.

Loading and hauling

It is assumed that the numbers of hauling units are sufficient to fully utilize the loading equipment.
Advance rate for the most efficient equipment combinations is presented.

Working time per week

In Norwegian tunnelling, the tunnel is normally excavated in 5 days per week, two shifts per day and
10 hours per shift. This results in an average of 101 working hours per week during a year.

4. APPLICATION FOR A TYPICAL ROAD TUNNEL

A road tunnel with the following inputs is considered.

o Tunnel geometry: 63 m2 cross section and 3 km length

o Blast design parameters: 92 charged holes of 48 mm and 3 large holes of 102 mm
o Rock support: 15 polyester anchored bolts per round
o Round length: 5 m

The normal and gross round cycle time are estimated to 371 and 431 min, which result in 74.3 m
normal weekly advance rate and 64 m gross weekly advance rate. Distribution of the gross round cycle
is shown in Fig.2.

Rock support
14%

Drilling
33%
Scaling
12%

Loading,hauling
Charging
24%
V entilation 14%
3%

Fig.2 Distribution of the gross round cycle time for 63 m2 road tunnel

The above results are subject to the assumptions specified in Section 3, in case of varying capacities
and/or different conditions for each operation, the result may significantly vary. E.g., different drilling
rate, varying working time per week, etc. Some results of such variations in advance rate are given in
Tables 1 to 3.
 Table1. The influence of drilling rate
Item Ratio
Drilling rate (m/min) 2.2 3 1.36
Drilling time (min) 145 119 0.8(1.22)
Gross advance rate (m/week) 63.9 67.7 1.06

Table2. The influence of loading capacity

Item Ratio
Loading capacity (asm3/h) 270 220 0.8
Loading time (min) 102 120 1.18
Gross advance rate (m/week) 63.9 61.3 0.96

Table3. The influence of working time

Item Ratio
Working time per week (hours) 101 144 1.42
Gross advance rate (m/week) 63.9 88.6 1.39
Excavation time(month) 13.2 9.6 0.7(1.37)

REFERENCES

Atlas Copco , 2004. Face Drilling, third edition, Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB, Sweden.

Grimstad, E., 1999. Experiences from excavation under high rock stress in the 24.4 km long Laerdal
tunnel, www.ngi.no/english/files/excavation_high_stress_-_eg_bangalo99.pdf.

Newitt, J.S., 2005. Construction Scheduling: Principles and Practices, Pearson/Prentice Hall, U.S.A.

Norwegian Tunnelling Society, 2004. Publication No. 14: Norwegian Tunnelling, Oslo.

NTNU, 1995a. Report 2A-95 TUNNELLING Blast Design, NTNU, Department of Civil and
Transport Engineering, Trondheim.

NTNU, 1995b. Report 2B-95 TUNNELLING Prognosis for Drill and Blast, NTNU, Department of
Civil and Transport Engineering, Trondheim.

NTNU, 1995c. Report 2C-95 TUNNELLING Costs for Drill and Blast, NTNU, Department of Civil
and Transport Engineering, Trondheim.

NTNU, 1998. Report 13A-98 DRILLABILITY Test methods, NTNU, Department of Civil and
Transport Engineering, Trondheim.

NTNU, 2006. Report 2B-05 DRILL AND BLAST TUNNELLING Advance Rate, NTNU,
Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, to be published in 2006.

Zare, S., Bruland, A., 2006. Comparison of tunnel blast design models, Journal of Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 21/5, pp 533-541.

View publication stats