Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 595–603

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

A new hard rock TBM performance prediction model for project planning
J. Hassanpour a,⇑, J. Rostami b, J. Zhao c
a
SCE Company, Tehran, IRAN, P.O. Box 16765-3465, Iran
b
Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
c
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Among the models used for performance prediction of hard rock tunnel boring machines two stand out
Received 12 October 2010 and are often used in the industry. They include the semi theoretical model by Colorado School of Mines
Received in revised form 27 March 2011 and the empirical model by Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim (NTNU).
Accepted 9 April 2011
While each have their strong points and area of applications, more accurate prediction has been sought
Available online 4 May 2011
by modifying one of the existing models or introduction of a new model. To achieve this, a database of
actual machine performance from different hard rock TBM tunneling projects has been compiled and
Keywords:
analyzed to develop a new TBM performance prediction model. To analyze the available data and offer
TBM performance
Rock mass boreability
new equations using statistical methods, relationships between different geological and TBM operational
Field Penetration Index parameters were investigated. Results of analyzes show that there are strong relationships between geo-
logical parameters (like UCS, joint spacing and RQD) and TBM performance parameters specially Field
Penetration Index (FPI). In this study, a boreability classification system and a new empirical chart, for
preliminary estimation of rock mass boreability and TBM performance is suggested.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in different ground conditions, many researchers have worked to

Hard rock tunnel boring has become more or less the standard
method of tunneling for tunnels of various sizes with lengths over
1.5–2 km. With more efficient and powerful machines, TBMs have
been used in various ground conditions from extremely hard and
massive to broken and blocky grounds. To justify the use of TBM
in any project and for planning purposes, a reasonably accurate
estimation of rate of penetration (ROP), daily rate of advance
(AR), and cutter cost/life estimate is necessary. Various models
have been offered throughout the years for offering such estimates,
which in some cases were successful with pin point accuracy, and
in other instances, off by a good margin. This has been the source of
interest to better understand machine-rock interaction and to de-
velop a more accurate model for performance estimate of hard rock
TBMs.
Currently, two models, including Colorado School of Mines or
CSM (Rostami and Ozdemir, 1993; Rostami, 1997) and Norwegian
University of Science and Technology or NTNU (Blindheim, 1979;
Bruland, 1998) models are the most recognized TBM performance
prediction and prognosis models in use around the world. In the
last couple of decades, with growing use of TBMs in the world
and the necessity to accurately predict performance of machines
⇑ Corresponding author. Mobile: +98 912 2279442; fax: +98 21 22524502.
E-mail addresses: Jafar_hassanpour@yahoo.com, Jafar.hassanpour@gmail.com (J.
Hassanpour).
develop new prediction models or adjustment factors for the
common existing models. Research works by Barton (1999,
2000), Yagiz (2002, 2007), Sapigni et al. (2002), Gong and Zhao
(2009), Hassanpour (2009, 2010), Hassanpour et al. (2009, 2010),
etc. are the most recent works on this topic.
Barton (1999, 2000) reviewed a wide range of TBM tunnels to
establish a database for proposing a new model based on Q rock
mass classification system and adding some new parameters to
the existing system to be able to use it for TBM applications. This
new model, namely QTBM uses many input parameters (such as
RQD, joint condition, Stress condition, intact rock strength, quartz
content and TBM thrust) for estimating QTBM and consequently
penetration rate and advance rate of the machine. Yagiz (2002)
modified the CSM model adding rock mass properties as input
parameters into the model. Ramezanzadeh (2005) has also fol-
lowed up on this work and developed a database of TBM field per-
formance for over 60 km of tunnels. He too, offered adjustment
factors for CSM models to account for joints and discontinuities.
Sapigni et al. (2002) studied the empirical relation between RMR
and penetration rate. Also Ribacchi and Lembo-Fazio (2005) evalu-
ated the relationship between RMR and performance of a double
shield machine in the Varzo tunnel. Yagiz (2007) performed statis-
tical analyzes on data obtained from Queens’s tunnel, in New York
and proposed an empirical model to predict TBM penetration rate.
He has related four rock mass parameters (UCS, Punch test index or
PTI, spacing and orientation of joints) to penetration rate of

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2011.04.004
596 J. Hassanpour et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 595–603

machine. In a similar research work, Gong and Zhao (2009) by per-
forming a nonlinear regression analysis on data obtained from two
tunnels excavated in granitic rock masses in Singapore developed
an empirical equation to estimate boreability of rock mass. They
proposed a relationship between four rock mass parameters
(UCS, brittleness, joint count number, and orientation of joints)
and boreability index of the rock mass.
In a more recent study by the authors (Hassanpour, 2009, 2010;
Hassanpour et al., 2009, 2010), based on data obtained from main
tunneling projects in Iran and investigating relationships between
rock mass properties and actual machine performance, some new
empirical equations have been proposed for estimation of TBM
performance in the given ground conditions.
The above models, of course, have their advantages and disad-
vantages because of their origin and background. Some of them
like original CSM model don’t consider the main influencing
parameters and some of them like NTNU model require special
experiments originated from the drilling. These tests are not com-
monly available outside Norway. Also some of the models like QTBM
are too complicated. QTBM model originates from Q system and in-
cludes too many parameters for practical application. In addition,
some parameters are overlapped in this model (Gong and Zhao,
2009). On the other hand growth of TBM manufacturing technol-
ogy and existence of some shortcomings in the prediction models
have made it necessary to perform more research on the develop-
ment of the new models.
In this study, compiled field data obtained from three main tun-
neling projects in Iran (SCE Company, 2004, 2006, 2008) as well as
the Manapouri tunnel project recently completed in New Zealand
(URS Company, 2003), were used to establish a new concept for
rock mass boreability classification and a more general model for
TBM performance estimation.
geological zones of Iran and Manapouri second tailrace tunnel
were selected for this study. The main characteristics of these
TBM tunneling projects are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
As can be seen in the Table 2, these tunnels have been con-
structed in different rock types including sedimentary, igneous
and metamorphic rocks with a wide range of rock strength.
3. TBM field performance database
In this study data on geological and ground conditions, TBM
operational parameters and machine performance represented by
rate of penetration were collected during pre-construction and
construction phases. The data were arranged in a special database
including 158 tunnel sections of four selected projects (Table 1)
where the ground conditions and machine performance informa-
tion were valid and could be verified. The data sets comprised
two main categories. The first category included machine perfor-
mance parameters like net boring time, length of mined section
and also the average of machine operational parameters (thrust,
RPM, power and applied torque) throughout the section. These
parameters were obtained from the daily operating records and
the TBM data logger. Also the most important performance param-
eters including average rate of penetration (ROP), penetration per
revolution (P), Field Penetration Index (FPI, Tarkoy and Marconi,
1991), and specific energy (SE) have been calculated using formu-
lae (1)–(4) as listed below:
Lb
ROP ¼ ð1Þ
tb
ROP  1000
P¼ ð2Þ
RPM  60

Fn
2. Description of the projects used for this study FPI ¼ ð3Þ
P
For developing a more accurate TBM performance prediction 200  NTBM  rmc F r
model that can be applied in different geological conditions, data SE ¼  ð4Þ
3  dTBM P
from different projects with different rock mass conditions were
collected and compiled in a database. As mentioned above, three where ROP is rate of penetration (m/h), Lb is boring length (m), tb is
long water conveyance tunnels recently constructed in different boring time (h), P is cutter penetration in each cutterhead

Table 1
Main characteristics of tunneling projects.

No Project Tunnel length Available data TBM type and manufacturer Construction TBM diameter
(km) (km) period (m)
1 Karaj water conveyance tunnel, Lot 1 (Iran) 15.9 15.9 Double shield (Herrenknecht) 2006–2009 4.65
2 Ghomrood water conveyance tunnel, Lots 2, 24.5 24.5 Double shield (Wirth) 2003–2009 4.525
3 & 4 (Iran)
3 Zagross water conveyance tunnel, Lot 2 26 5.3 Double shield (Herrenknecht) 2006–present 6.73
(Iran)
4 Manapouri second tailrace tunnel (New 10 9.7 Main beam open TBM (Robbins, 1997–2002 10.05
Zealand) Kvaerner-Markham)

Table 2
Geological characteristics of tunneling projects.

No Project Geologic zone Formation Lithology UCS Max.

range overburden
(MPa) (m)
1 Karaj tunnel, Lot 1 Central Alborz Pyroclastic rocks of Karaj formation Tuffs, Shaly and Sandy Tuffs, Agglomerate, 30–150 600
...
2 Ghomrood Sanandaj-Sirjan Jurassic metamorphic rocks (low to medium Limestone, Shale and sandstone, Slate, 25–150 700
tunnel, Lots 2, 3 & metamorphic belt grade) and Cretaceous Limestone Phyllite, Schist with quartzitic veins
4
3 Zagross, Lot 2 Zagross Simply Carbonate-Argillaceous rocks of Pabdeh, Limestone, Shale and Limy Shales 15–150 650
folded zone Gurpi and Ilam Formations
4 Manapouri tunnel – Paleozoic metamorphic and igneous rocks Gneiss, calc-silicate and quartzite and the 100–225 1200
of the Fiordland Complex intrusive rocks (gabbro and diorite)
 J. Hassanpour et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 595–603 597

Fig. 1. Distribution curve and frequency histogram of rock mass and TBM performance parameters in the database.

Table 3
Summary results of determination of regression coefficients of different geological and geomechanical parameters with FPI.

Parameter Regression coefficients (R2) Regression type Relationship

UCS (Mpa) 0.699 Exponential FPI = 6.883 e0.013UCS
Joint frequency
Spacing (m) 0.788 Power FPI = 63.267 Sp0.847
RQD0 (%) 0.688 Exponential FPI = 3.490 e0.027RQD
Rock mass classification systems
Basic RMR 0.531 Quadratic FPI = 0.053BRMR2  4.205BRMR + 92.068
GSI 0.455 Exponential FPI = 4.619 e0.023GSI
Q 0.487 Power FPI = 15.309 Q0.304
Rock mass strength parameters
Qc 0.601 Power FPI = 17.389 Q 0:269
C
Sigmacm (Mpa) 0.541 Exponential FPI = 8.317 e0.042Sigmacm
0.011RMCI
RMCI 0.619 Exponential FPI = 10.525 e
598 J. Hassanpour et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 595–603

Fig. 2. Correlation between different rock mass properties and FPI.

revolution (mm/rev), RPM is cutterhead revolutions (rev/min), FPI is
Field Penetration Index (kN/cutter/mm/rev), Fn is cutter load or nor-
mal force (kN), SE is specific energy (MJ/m3), Fr is cutter rolling force
(kN), dTBM is TBM diameter (m), NTBM is number of cutters on the
cutterhead and rmc is the weighted average cutter distance from
center of rotation (m).
The second part of database or category of information included
some geological parameters such as intact rock properties (Com-
pressive and tensile strength, quartz content, porosity), discontinu-
ity characteristics such as spacing, NTH class or fracture class
developed in NTNU (Bruland, 1998), surface condition and also re-
sults of calculation of some rock mass parameters (like RQD, RMR,
 J. Hassanpour et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 595–603 599

Table 4
(a) Variables and summary of the generated model for forward stepwise regression analysis; (b) significance of r-value and coefficients for generated model and (c) analysis of
variance for the significance of regression for generated model.

(a) Model summary

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. error of the estimate
1 0.888 0.788 0.785 0.41195
(b) Coefficients
Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig.
B Std. error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.384 0.093 14.914 0.000
UCS 0.008 0.001 0.494 8.658 0.000
RQD 0.015 0.002 0.452 7.925 0.000
(c) Anova
Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
1 Regression 97.630 2 48.815 287.654 0.000
Residual 26.304 155 0.170
Total 123.934 157

It should be noted that, since most of the selected tunnels have

been excavated by shielded machines and lined with precast seg-
mental linings, there were many limitations for mapping of the
geological features in total length of the tunnels. So, just tunnel
sections where reliable geological data were available were se-
lected for the database. In these selected tunnel sections geological
data were obtained directly from tunnel rock face observations and
measurements or by investigating drilled boreholes logs and core
boxes and related laboratory tests on core samples.
Graphs presented in Fig. 1 show the histograms and distribution
curves of different geological and TBM performance parameters re-
corded in the database.
As can be seen in the graphs, geological and performance
parameters have wide ranges of variations. Actually, in the devel-
oped database some tunnel sections have been excavated in weak
and very poor quality rock masses (UCS < 20 MPa and RQD < 25%)
and some others have been excavated in very strong and massive
rock masses (UCS > 150 MPa and RQD = 100%). Also, ranges of vari-
ations of TBM performance parameters are very wide and for
example FPI ranges from min. 2.75 to max. 145.6 kN/cutter/mm/
rev. These wide ranges of geological and performance parameters
Fig. 3. Comparison of actual FPI values with predicted values.
helped in developing a more comprehensive TBM performance
Q and GSI) and rock mass strength parameters in selected tunnel prediction model which has covered different geological
sections. Some of the most important rock mass strength parame- conditions.
ters are calculated indices like Qc (Barton, 2000), rock mass com-
pressive strength or UCSrm (Hoek, 2007), rock mass strength or
Sigmacm (Barton, 2000) and rock mass cuttability index or RMCI 4. Developing empirical equations
(Bilgin et al., 1997) which can be calculated using Eqs. (5)–(8):
In this study, both single and multi-variable regression analyzes
UCS were used to investigate relationship between engineering rock
Qc ¼ Q  ð5Þ
100 properties and TBM performance parameters and finally to develop
empirical equations.
UCS
RMCI ¼ ðRQDÞ2=3 ð6Þ As indicated in previous publications (Hassanpour, 2009, 2010;
100 Hassanpour et al., 2009, 2010), among the selected machine
parameters (including P, ROP, FPI and SE) the Field Penetration In-
Sigmacm ¼ 5  c  Q 1=3 ð7Þ dex or FPI which is a composite parameter (Eq. (3)) shows the best
correlations with geological parameters. Consequently, FPI is se-
UCSrm ¼ UCS  sa ð8Þ lected as a suitable machine performance parameter for develop-
where ing empirical relationships with geological parameters in the
current study as well. Results of correlations of FPI with different
100  GSI rock mass parameters are summarized in Table 3 and Fig. 2.
s ¼ Exp ð9aÞ
9  3D As shown in Table 3, among the geological parameters, some
simple parameters like Spacing, RQD and UCS show good correla-
1 1 GSI=15
a¼ þ ðe  e20=3 Þ ð9bÞ tions with FPI (R2 > 0.68). Also, among composite geological
2 6 parameters, RMCI shows a good correlation with FPI (Table 3). This
In Eq. (9a), D is disturbance factor (D = 0 in TBM projects) (Hoek, parameter (Eq. (6)) represents two of the main rock mass parame-
2007) and c is density of rock. ters, namely UCS and RQD and the developed equation shows a
600 J. Hassanpour et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 595–603
Fig. 4. Chart for estimating FPI based on rock mass properties driven from Eq. (10).
Table 5
Previous equations developed by authors for each tunnel project separately.
Project Main Lithology Equation
Karaj tunnel Pyroclastic rocks FPI = exp
Zagross tunnel Carbonate-argillaceous rocks FPI = exp
Ghomrood tunnel Low grade metamorphic rocks FPI = exp
Manapouri tunnel Igneous and metamorphic rocks FPI = exp
reasonable correlation between the performance and geological
parameters. Using FPI and RMCI encompasses some of the most
influential parameters including UCS (intact rock strength), RQD
(degree of fracturing of the rock mass), average cutter thrust,
which is the most important TBM operational parameter and main
controlling parameter for machine performance, and penetration,
which is the result of these interacting parameters. It should be
noted that in calculating FPI, machine penetration or P (mm/rev)
is used and that allows for scaling the results to any size machine
using the cutterhead rotational speed, or RPM. Obviously, this
equation can be a useful and comprehensive tool for predicting
ROP for hard rock TBMs.
As mentioned before, in this study, multi-variable regression
analysis was also used to find an empirical equation to relate FPI
as a function of machine performance parameters to geological
parameters. For this purpose, four rock mass properties including
UCS, joint spacing, RQD, and a (angle between tunnel axis and dis-
continuity) were used as independent variables and the recorded
FPIs were treated as dependent variable. Influence of each variable
on the FPI was evaluated using forward stepwise regression ana-
lyzes. Statistical analyzes were performed by Version 11.5 of SPSS
Regression coefficients (R2) Reference
(0.005UCS + 0.002RQD + 2.129) 0.523 Hassanpour et al. (2010)
(0.004UCS + 0.008RQD + 2.077) 0.645 Hassanpour et al. (2009)
(0.004UCS + 0.023RQD + 1.003) 0.874 Hassanpour (2010)
(0.005UCS + 0.020RQD + 1.644) 0.488 Unpublished
software (2002). After consideration of different combinations of
parameters, it appears that the best results could be obtained by
excluding the two parameters a and spacing. The results show
good correlation between Ln(FPI) as response parameter and UCS
and RQD as predictors, in a linear combination with a 95% confi-
dence level. As a result, a new equation was introduced as follows:
FPI ¼ expð0:008UCS þ 0:015RQD þ 1:384Þ ð10Þ
As shown in Table 4, the regression coefficient (R2) for this equation
is 78.5%. It indicates that the above regression model explains 78.5%
of the total variance of the 158 datasets. A simple t-test and F-test
analysis of the results indicates that the correlations are real and
the coefficients are true (Table 4).
To evaluate accuracy of the model, the measured and calculated
values of FPI are compared in Fig. 3. As shown, most of the pre-
dicted values of FPI especially when FPI < 25 kN/cutter/mm/rev
are close to actual values.
To facilitate using of Eq. (10), a FPI prediction chart is also devel-
oped and presented as Fig. 4. This chart can be used for quick esti-
mation of range of values for FPI in grounds with different rock
strength and rock quality. As shown in this chart, different rock
 J. Hassanpour et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 595–603 601

Table 6
Summary of ground conditions for various boreability classes.

Boreability FPI range Rock mass Stability condition TBM excavatability (relative Example
class (kN/mm/ boreability difficulty of ground for TBM use)
rev)
B-0 >70 Tough Completely stable Tough Very strong and massive quartzitic veins , intrusive and
metamorphic rocks
B-I 40–70 Fair-tough Stable Fair Massive igneous and metamorphic rocks
B-II 25–40 Good-fair Minor instabilities Good Blocky and jointed Tuffs, Tuffites, Limestones
B-III 15–25 Good Only local structural Very good Alternations of Sandstones, limestones and Shales
instabilities
B-IV 7–15 Very good Some major Good Alternations of thin bedded Shale and Sandstone layers
instabilities
B-V <7 Excellent Collapse, gripper May be problematic Highly foliated and schistose metamorphic rocks (Slate,
problems, squeeze, Phyllite, Graphite schist), Shale, Marlstone, thick fault zones
etc.

units in the selected tunnel projects have a specific range of FPI

based on their strength and fracturing degree (or RQD).
The proposed equation in this study (Eq. (10)) is similar to the
equations of Table 5 obtained by the analysis of data for each tun-
nel project separately (Hassanpour, 2009, 2010; Hassanpour et al.,
2009, 2010). As shown in Table 5 the coefficient of UCS ranges from
0.004 to 0.005, while coefficient of RQD varies from 0.002 to 0.023
and constant ranging from 1 to 2.1 but all positive.

5. Classification of rock mass boreability

Boreability is the term commonly used to express the ease or

difficulty of rock mass excavation by a tunnel boring machine. In
tunneling projects, ground characteristics or boreability of the rock
mass is an important parameter for selecting machine type and Fig. 5. Variation range of UCS in different boreability classes.
specifications. It is clear that proper evaluation of rock mass bore-
ability can also play a major role in machine operation to achieve
the best performance.
In a given project, rock mass properties have direct influence on
boring difficulty of ground and FPI values. Usually stronger and less
fractured rock masses are more difficult for cutting by disk cutters
and boring by TBM and require use of higher thrusts to achieve a
certain level of penetration. Therefore higher values of FPI are usu-
ally recorded in strong and massive rock masses like massive intru-
sive sills, dikes, and thick quartzitic veins (typically higher than
70 kN/cutter/mm/rev). On the other hand, in poor quality rock
masses such as very foliated and schistose rocks (shale, slate, phyl-
lite), there is no need to apply high thrust values for reasonable
penetration and therefore FPI values are small and typically less
than 10 kN/cutter/mm/rev. So, FPI can be selected as an index for
categorizing rock mass boreability. In this study based on actual
FPI values measured in selected tunnel sections, six rock mass
boreability classes, from most difficult for boring or B-0 class
(Tough) to easiest for boring or B-V class (Excellent) were defined Fig. 6. Variation range of RQD in different boreability classes.
(Table 6).
Clearly, rock mass quality is different in these boreability clas-
ses. Range of UCS and RQD values in each class were evaluated from lower utilization and usually result in lower daily advance
by statistical analyzes on data in the available TBM field perfor- rate.
mance database and the results are presented in Figs. 5 and 6. To better illustrate the FPI range for each boreability class and
Table 6 also presents general stability conditions of different facilitate application of the model in estimation of machine perfor-
rock mass boreability classes. As shown, stability conditions in dif- mance in the future, the chart presented in Fig. 4 has been con-
ferent classes vary from completely stable rock masses to problem- verted to a rock mass boreability prediction chart (Fig. 7). In this
atic grounds. Tunnel wall instabilities have negative influences on new chart FPI has been related to rock strength and a more visual
utilization factor of the machine and operational parameters dur- geological characteristic of rock masses or rock mass structure,
ing excavation of the tunnel. So, advance rate of a TBM in rock according to an idea presented by Hoek (2007) to evaluate geolog-
masses with very good to excellent boreability (B-IV and B-V clas- ical strength index (GSI). Rock mass structure can be evaluated in
ses) can result in high instantaneous penetration rate but due to the field by an engineering geologist more easily and offer a quick
instability problems and some machine limitations they suffer sense of rock mass behavior.
602 J. Hassanpour et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 595–603

Fig. 7. Rock mass boreability prediction chart with actual FPI range for different geological units in the database.

Table 7 shows examples of TBM performance estimation in rock 0:06  200  7

masses with different boreability classes. In this table penetration
rate and advance rate of TBM in six assumed rock masses (A–F in
Fig. 7) with boreability classes from B-0 to B-V have been
estimated using the proposed model. As shown, the first step is
to predict FPI from the chart in Fig. 4 or Fig. 7, or alternatively
calculate it from Eq. (10). This offers a specific value of FPI for each
rock mass. This is followed by assuming a practical value for
average disk cutter load (Fn) and RPM (rev/min), to calculate ROP
(m/h) and P (mm/rev). For example, for an assumed Fn = 200 kN/
cutter and RPM = 7 rev/min the ROP is calculated as:
ROP ðm=hÞ ¼ ð11Þ
FPI
Finally, by assuming an average utilization factor of 25%, ad-
vance rate or AR (m/day) of the machine in each class can be esti-
mated. As can be seen in part A of Table 7, advance rate of the
machine in different classes ranges from 5.3 m/day in class B-0
to more than 73 m/day in class B-V. Actually, there are large differ-
ences between advance rates of machine in different classes.
Normally, achieving high values of advance rate in rock masses
with classes B-IV and B-V is very rare and difficult due to ground

Table 7
Example of machine performance estimation using developed model.

Rock mass A B C D E F
Rock mass boreability class B-0 B-I B-II B-III B-IV B-V
UCS (MPa) 210 160 100 75 50 30
RQD (%) 100 100 80 60 40 20
A: Theoretical machine performance
Theoretical advance rate
FPI (kN/cutter/mm/rev) (Fig. 3) 96 64 29 18 11 7
Assumed thrust (kN/cutter) 200
Assumed RPM (rev/min) 7
P (mm/rev) 2.08 3.11 6.78 11.18 18.44 29.20
ROP (m/h) 0.88 1.31 2.85 4.70 7.74 12.27
Assumed U (%) 25
AR (m/day) 5.3 7.8 17.1 28.2 46.5 73.6
B: Practical machine performance
Actual advance rate
FPI (kN/cutter/mm/rev) (Fig. 3) 96 64 29 18 11 7
Assumed thrust (kN/cutter) 220 180 180 180 80 50
Assumed RPM (rev/min) 7 7 7 7 4 3
P (mm/rev) 2.29 2.80 6.10 10.06 7.37 7.14
ROP (m/h) 0.96 1.18 2.56 4.23 1.77 1.29
Assumed U (%) 25 5
AR (m/day) 5.8 7.1 15.4 25.4 2.1 1.5
 J. Hassanpour et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 26 (2011) 595–603
stability issues and due to some limitations of machine and back-
up system such as capacity of conveyor belt. In general, more com-
petent and stronger rocks indicated in classes B-0 and B-I coincide
with higher utilization rate due to minimal ground support
requirement and related stoppages and downtime. On the opposite
side of the scale, lower utilization rate is often experienced in
unstable grounds typical of class B-IV and B-V which reduces the
utilization rate drastically and causes higher downtime and delays.
In addition, in softer grounds, operator reduces cutterhead thrust
to prevent cutterhead jamming due to high torque, minimizing
the chance of face collapse, and reducing the possibility of over-
loading of conveyor belt. This simply means that same levels of ap-
plied cutter load are not used in soft ground (as it applies to
stronger rocks) and by default the use of lower applied load will
ease off the extremely high rates of penetration. Therefore, in part
B of Table 7, by considering more practical values for utilization
factor, thrust and RPM in such grounds, more realistic values for
penetration rate and advance rate of machine can be estimated.
By reducing utilization rate, thrust and RPM to 5%, 80 kN/cutter
and 4 rpm in class B-IV and to 5%, 50 kN/cutter and 3 rpm in class
B-V, estimated penetration rate and advance rate, have reduced
considerably. This is more in line with the practical application
of TBMs in the field.
However it is concluded that highest values of advance rate can
be achieved in rock masses categorized as classes B-II and B-III. In
such grounds, combined conditions of rock mass boreability and
stability of the surrounding rock are in the optimum condition
for excavating the tunnel by TBM.
6. Conclusion
Rock mass boreability depends on a number of influencing
parameters including intact rock/rock mass properties, machine
specifications and operational parameters. In this paper a simple
model is proposed to evaluate rock mass boreability and TBM per-
formance range. In the developed model, machine performance has
been related to two main rock properties (UCS and RQD) and two
operational parameters (average cutterhead thrust and RPM).
These Input parameters of the model are typical parameters usu-
ally are available even in the preliminary stages of the tunnel de-
sign and planning. So, proposed model can be applied as a useful
tool for quick estimation of TBM performance in projects with dif-
ferent geological conditions and machine diameters.
This paper also introduces a new boreability classification based
on rock masses characteristics to allow for prediction of FPI values.
Various ground conditions are categorized in six different classes
from B-0 as tough boring ground to B-V as easy ground for boring.
Combining stability conditions which controls machine utilization
and boreability characteristics of different rock types and ground
condition allows for development of a new concept for classifica-
tion of TBM excavatability or ‘‘Relative difficulty of ground for
TBM application’’. As mentioned, required FPI for boring the rock
mass, decreases from B-0 to B-V class. It means that from B-0 to
B-V class, less cutterhead thrust is required to achieve a given rate
of penetration. It is also concluded that rock masses with class B-II
and B-III due to optimum conditions of stability and boreability are
most favorite grounds for TBM application.
The Developed empirical model is based on analyzing data ob-
tained from four tunneling projects with total length of 55 km and
boring diameter of 4.5–10 m which have been excavated in differ-
ent geological conditions. So, it can be considered a TBM perfor-
mance prediction model which is applicable in a wide range of
geological conditions including layered and jointed sedimentary
rocks, blocky – jointed pyroclastic and carbonate rocks, foliated
and schistose metamorphic rocks, massive igneous and metamor-
603
phic rocks and fractured rock masses. This model must be applied
with caution in highly fractured rock masses (or fault zones) and
water sensitive rocks like marlstones and mudstones.
Acknowledgments
Authors wish to thank SCE Company, especially our colleagues
in the Tunneling Division for their help in the collection of required
data.
References
Barton, N., 2000. TBM Tunneling In Jointed and Faulted Rock. Balkema, Rotterdam,
173.
Barton, N., 1999. TBM performance estimation in rock using QTBM. Tunnels and
Tunneling International 31 (9), 30–33.
Bilgin, N., Kuzu, C., Eskikaya, S., 1997. Cutting performance of rock hammers and
roadheaders in Istanbul metro drivages. In: Golser, J., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of
World Tunnel Congress 97 and 23th World Assembly of ITA: Tunnels for People,
Vienna, Austria, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 455–460.
Blindheim, O.T., 1979. Boreability Predictions for Tunneling. Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Geological Engineering, The Norwegian Institute of Technology,
p. 406.
Bruland, A., 1998. Hard Rock Tunnel Boring. Ph.D. Thesis, vol. 1–10, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Gong, Q.M., Zhao, J., 2009. Development of a rock mass characteristics model for
TBM penetration rate prediction. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Science 46 (1), 8–18.
Hassanpour, J., Rostami, J., Khamehchiyan, M., Bruland, A., 2009. Development new
equations for performance prediction. Geo Mechanics and Geoengineering: An
International Journal 4 (4), 287–297.
Hassanpour, J., 2009. Investigation of the Effect of Engineering Geological
Parameters on TBM Performance and Modifications to Existing Prediction
Models. Ph.D. Thesis, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
Hassanpour, J., Rostami, J., Khamehchiyan, M., Bruland, A., Tavakoli, H.R., 2010. TBM
performance analysis in pyroclastic rocks, a case history of Karaj Water
Conveyance Tunnel (KWCT). Journal of Rock mechanics and Rock Engineering 4,
427–445.
Hassanpour, J., 2010. Analysis of actual TBM performance in Ghomrood project,
Bulletin of Iranian tunneling Association, No 9 (article in Persian).
Hoek, E., 2007. Rock Engineering, Course notes by Evert Hoek, p. 339, http://
www.Rocscience.com.
Ramezanzadeh, A., 2005. Performance analysis and development of new models for
performance prediction of hard rock TBMs in rock mass, Ph.D. Thesis, INSA,
Lyon, France, p. 333.
Ribacchi, R., Lembo-Fazio, A., 2005. Influence of rock mass parameters on the
performance of a TBM in a Gneissic formation (Varzo tunnel). Rock Mechanics
and Rock Engineering 38 (2), 105–127.
Rostami, J., Ozdemir, L., 1993. A new model for performance prediction of hard rock
TBM, In: Bowerman, L.D., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of RETC, Boston, MA, pp. 793–
809.
Rostami, J., 1997. Development of a Force Estimation Model for Rock Fragmentation
with Disc Cutters Through Theoretical Modeling and Physical Measurement of
Crushed Zone Pressure. Ph. D. Thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden,
Colorado, USA, P. 249.
Sapigni, M., Berti, M., Behtaz, E., Busillo, A., Cardone, G., 2002. TBM performance
estimation using rock mass classification. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts 39,
771–788.
SCE Company, 2004. Geological and Engineering Geological Report for Ghomrood
Water Conveyance Tunnel Project (Lots 3 & 4), Unpublished report.
SCE Company, 2006. Geological and Engineering Geological Report for Karaj Water
Conveyance Tunnel Project (Lot1), unpublished report.
SCE Company, 2008. Geological and Engineering Geological Report for Zagross
Water Conveyance Tunnel Project (Lot 2). Unpublished report.
SPSS Software, 2002. Statistical Package, version 11.5, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA,
<http://www.spss.com>.
Tarkoy, P.J., Marconi, M., 1991. Difficult rock comminution and associated
geological conditions. In: Tunneling 91, Sixth International Symposium, 14–
18 April 1991, Hovotel, London, England, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 195–207.
URS Company, 2003. Manapouri Power Station Second Tailrace Tunnel Engineering
Geological Construction Report, Prepared for Meridian Energy Ltd., Unpublished
report.
Yagiz, S., 2002. Development of Rock Fracture and Brittleness Indices to Quantify
the Effects of Rock Mass Features and Toughness in the CSM Model Basic
Penetration for Hard Rock Tunneling Machines. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
Mining and Earth Systems Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden,
Colorado, USA, p. 289.
Yagiz, S., 2007. Utilizing rock mass properties for predicting TBM performance in
hard rock condition. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 23 (3),
326–339.