Geosystem Eng.

, 4(2), 61 - 69, (June 2001)

A Comparative Study on Five Assessment Systems of TBM Tunnelling

Hyun-Koo Moon
Department of Geo-environmental System Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea (Received August 22, 2001 : Accepted November 10, 2001)

ABSTRACT : Five assessment systems for planning and evaluation of TBM tunnelling are introduced with detailed calculation steps. Their characteristic features and necessary input data sets are discussed and compared to cope with different levels of rock and rock mass information tunnel engineers have at different stages of project execution. Two systems are adequate for pre-planning and two are for post-evaluation of TBM performance. Another system provides probabilistic planning and evaluation. This study gives tunnel engineers the freedom to choose a particular system depending on their objectives and available input data. Key words : TBM, TBM performance, assessment system, penetration rate, advance rate, utilization, tunnelling time, boreability indices, rock mass, Q, QTBM, probabilistic performance.

INTRODUCTION
Three key elements one must consider in the planning and evaluation of TBM tunnelling are 1) the properties of rock as material, 2) the geologic structures and properties of rock mass, and 3) the structural and functional specifications of the machine. Excavation by TBM can be characterized by a rock-machine interaction during the cutting process on a small scale (i.e. associated with a single cutter), but on a large scale the interaction between the rock mass and TBM becomes very significant. Design engineers for TBM tunnelling may have various amounts of information on rock properties depending on what tests they perform. The engineers may also get different levels of information on rock mass properties and conditions depending on what classification schemes they adopt and how elaborate the field survey and measurement are. In addition, the planning and evaluation of TBM tunnelling are not a passing work but a continuing task until the completion of tunnelling. The procedure starts from a preliminary (or basic) design, followed by a detailed planning and design for practice and occasional modifications to cope with unforeseen ground conditions. In the course of such procedure the information on rock and rock mass will be accumulated and the capability of the machine be better understood. Therefore, the engineers need various design and evaluation tools appropriate for the information (or input data) they have in hand. In this study, five
61

assessment systems of different levels of sophistication are introduced for planning and evaluation of TBM tunnelling showing the details of calculation steps. TBMs are normally manufactured to perform the best for given tunnel projects having a specified range of rock and rock mass conditions. This case may be called forward path, since the manufacturers design of TBM concerning the size and capacity (e.g. thrust, torque, axial power, rotational power) of the machine is based on the projects requirements. The other is the case called reverse path dealing with the application of used TBMs to some tunnel projects other than the TBMs original project. As the number of new tunnel projects increases, the demand for reutilization of used TBMs increases, and so is the case of reverse path. It is essential to evaluate the TBM performance in terms of penetration rate PR, advance rate AR, and utilization U for the planning and management of tunnelling in newly encountered rock and rock mass. In this study, the basic input data necessary for each of the five assessment systems are discussed, and the characteristic features (advantages and shortcomings) of the systems are compared.

ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS OF TBM TUNNELLING

Assessment System (1) This section describes the assessment system restructured and modified from the one by Persson et al. (1993). The calculation in this system begins with the relation between the rotation rate and diameter of the cutterhead. In general, cutterhead rotation rate N (rpm) is inversely proportional to cutterhead diameter D (m) as follows. (1) N = kN /D where kN is the cutterhead rotation rate factor having a bandwidth of 30~45 (Nelson et al., 1991). The maximum value of kN can range from 45 to 50, but 80% of the maximum, i.e. a bandwidth of 36~40 is usual in practice (Jodl & Stempkowski, 1996). The second step of calculation deals with the penetration rate and the time (hours) required to excavate a tunnel meter. Penetration rate PR (m/hr) can be determined as follows. PR = 0.06 pe N = 0.06 pe kN /D (2) where pe (mm/rev) is penetration depth in mm per revolution of the cutterhead. Hence, the time required to bore

62

Hyun-Koo Moon

a tunnel meter, TB (hr/m), is TB = (PR)-1 = (16.7/kN) D/pe (3)

the fixed loss time per shift for travel and meal, which is usually 10% to 15% of the nominal shift time. The TS -tS represents the actual working time per shift. Advance rate per hour AR2 (m/hr) can be estimated as follows. AR2 = AR1 /TS = (TS -tS)/TS T (9)

The time required to change disc cutters is related to the cutter lifetime and total path length of all disc cutters per revolution of the cutterhead. Total path length L (m/ rev) is proportional to the number (nC) of disc cutters installed in the cutterhead and the effective rotational radius (R C) of the cutters. Hence, the L can be expressed as following. L = 2 R C n C = k C Da (4)

Finally, TBM utilization U (%) can be determined as following. U = 100 (AR2 /PR) (10)

If we use R C = 0.6 (D/2) and n C = 7 D as suggested by Jodl & Stempkowski (1996), then k C = 13.2 and a = 2. In this regard, Persson et al.(1993) has used somewhat different values, such as k C = 19.5 and a = 1.75. The time required to change disc cutters per tunnel meter, TC (hr/ m), depends on cutter lifetime (km) and the average time t C (hr) required to change a single cutter as following. T C = t C (L/ pe) = t C (k C / ) Da /pe (5)

where tC ranges from 0.5 to 1.5 hr per cutter in general. The loss time in TBM tunnelling consists of meterdependent loss time and fixed loss time per shift. The meter-dependent loss time can be estimated using the loss time per stroke recycle and the time spent for maintenance and repair of TBM. The loss time per cycle is due to such activities as mucking, gripper and thrust resetting, installing utility lines and surveying. The loss time per cycle should be divided by stroke ls (typically 1.5~2 m) of TBM to express this loss time per tunnel meter tL1 (hr/m). The maintenance and repair time for both scheduled and unscheduled cases is usually expressed in terms of the loss time per boring hour. Since the penetration rate (PR) depends on the rock and machine conditions, the loss time per boring hour must be divided by the PR to express this loss time per tunnel meter tL2 (hr/m). Hence, total loss time TL (hr/m) is TL = tL1 + tL2 (6)

Assessment System (2) This section describes the prognosis model for TBM tunnelling developed by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Bruland, 1998). The model is based on two groups of parameters: one is for the rock mass to be excavated and the other is for the TBM itself. The most important parameters defining the rock mass conditions for TBM tunnelling include: 1) equivalent fracturing factor (kf*), 2) drilling rate index (DRI), and 3) cutter life index (CLI). Three basic tests suggested by Blindheim & Bruland (1998) to quantify the boreability of rock material are the impact test to measure brittleness value S20, the Sievers miniature drill test to obtain Sievers J-value SJ, and the abrasion value test for abrasion value steel AVS. DRI can be determined from S20 and SJ values of rock, while CLI is calculated from SJ and AVS using the following relation: CLI = 13.84 (SJ/AVS)0.3847 (11)

where TL ranges from 0.3 hr to 0.7 hr per tunnel meter in general. Total time required for 1 m tunnel advance, T (hr/m), is sum of the boring time, cutter exchange time and loss time. Therefore, Eqs.(3), (5) and (6) give the followings. T = TB + TC + TL = [(16.7/kN) D + t C (k C / ) Da + TL pe]/pe

Although DRI and CLI are mainly concerned with the boreability of rock material, equivalent fracturing factor kf* takes into accounts the effects of weakness planes and discontinuities (fissures, joints and bedding planes) in rock mass. TBM performance depends on not only the degree of fracturing of rock mass but the orientation of the discontinuities with respect to the tunnel axis. Such effects of rock mass on TBM tunnelling are quantified by equivalent fracturing factor (kf*). The value of kf* depends on three conditions: 1) fracture class (FC) or the spacing (Sf) between joints (or fissures), 2) angle () between the tunnel axis and weakness planes, and 3) correction factor (kDRI) for DRI values different from 49. kf* = kf kDRI (12)

(7)

Advance rate per shift AR1 (m/shift) can be expressed as follows. AR1 = (TS - tS)/T (8) where TS is nominal shift time e.g. 8 hours, and tS is

where kf is fracturing factor before DRI correction and can be determined from FC (or Sf) and as shown in Fig. 1. The value of kf ranges from 0.36 for Sf > 1.6 m, irrespective of , up to 4.4 for Sf = 5 cm with = 90. The kf increases with increasing FC value i.e. decreasing joint (fissure) spacing. The value of kDRI ranges from 0.75 to 1.15 for kf 2 , and from 0.5 to 1.35 for k f 0.36, as DRI increases from 20 to 80. For multiple sets of joints (or fissures), the kf in Eq. (12) must be replaced by the following.

A Comparative Study on Five Assessment Systems of TBM Tunnelling

63

Fig. 1. Variation of fracturing factor kf with increasing angle for 7 fracture classes.

Fig. 2. Variation of penetration depth pe with increasing equivalent fracturing factor kf* and equivalent cutter thrust FT* .

kf = kfi -0.36 (nf -1)

and cutter change is estimated as follows: (13) TB(hr/km) = 1000 (PR)-1 (15)

where kfi is sum of kf values for individual joint (fissure) sets, and nf is total number of joint (fissure) sets. The most important machine parameters describing the operational conditions of TBM include: 1) equivalent cutter thrust (FT*) in kN/cutter, 2) cutter diameter (d) in mm, 3) average cutter spacing (S) in mm, and 4) cutterhead rotation rate (N) in rpm. Equivalent cutter thrust, FT*, can be determined from actual average cutter thrust FT measured in kN and two correction factors kd and kS for cutter diameter and cutter spacing. FT* = FT kd kS (14)

TC(hr/km) = nC tC (TB /Hcor) = 1000 nC tC /Hcor (PR) (16) where nC is the number of cutters on the cutterhead, tC is the average time (hr) required to change a single cutter, and H cor is corrected cutter life (hr/cutter) to be determined from H cor = H o k D k q k rpm k n (17)

where kd = -2.9 10-3 d + 2.4, and kS = -4.7 10-3 S + 1.327 approximately. The condition for kd = kS = 1 in particular, corresponds to cutter diameter d = 483 mm (19 inches) and average cutter spacing S = 69 mm (2.7 inches). Penetration depth per revolution of the cutterhead, pe (mm/rev), can be estimated from Fig. 2 using both kf* and FT*. Then, Eq. (2) is used to determine penetration rate PR from this pe and cutterhead rotation rate N. In assessment system (2), tunnelling time is estimated in hr/km instead of hr/m used in assessment system (1). Total tunnelling time is divided into six major activities: 1) boring time TB (hr/km), 2) cutter change time TC (hr/ km), 3) regripping time Treg (hr/km), 4) maintenance and service time Ttbm (hr/km) for TBM, 5) maintenance and service time Tbus (hr/km) for backup system, 6) time Tmis (hr/km) for miscellaneous activities such as surveying, installing utility lines, waiting for transport, laying tracks, rock supporting, changing crew, etc. The time for boring

where krpm = (50/D)/N, kn = nC /nnor, Ho (hr) is basic cutter life that depends on CLI and D, kD is correction factor for cutterhead diameter and shape, kq is correction factor for quartz content of rock, krpm is correction factor for cutterhead rotation rate, kn is correction factor for the number of cutters on the cutterhead, nnor is the normal number of cutters on the cutterhead. Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 provide the values of Ho , kD , kq and nnor necessary to determine the corrected cutter life Hcor. On the other hand, total loss time TL is estimated from TL (hr/km) = Treg + Ttbm + Tbus + Tmis (18)

where Treg (hr/km) = 1000 treg /ls , treg (hr) is the time for regripping, ls (m) is stroke length, Ttbm, Tbus and Tmis depend on penetration rate PR as shown in Fig. 7. Consequently, TBM utilization U (%), defined as the boring time in percent of total tunnelling time, can be determined from the following expression. U = 100 [TB /(TB + TC + TL)] = 100 [TB /(TB + TC + Treg + Ttbm + Tbus + Tmis)] (19)

64

Hyun-Koo Moon

Fig. 6. Variation of nnor with increasing cutterhead diameter D.

Fig. 3. Variation of basic cutter life Ho with increasing CLI and cutter diameter d.

Fig. 7. Variation of loss time Ttbm, Tbus and Tmis with increasing PR. Fig. 4. Variation of kD with increasing cutterhead diameter for 2 cutterhead types.

This section deals with the assessment system proposed by Jodl & Stempkowski (1996). Penetration depth pe (mm/rev) is estimated in consideration of maximum cutter thrust FT (kN) acted on individual disc cutter, critical cutter thrust Fcrit (kN) and penetration coefficient b as followings (Jodl & Stempkowski used the term drilling force or drilling pressure instead of cutter thrust). pe = (FT /Fcrit)b Fcrit = Fcrit-0 fDRI (21) (22)

Fig. 5. Variation of kq with increasing quartz content q.

Average advance rate AR (m/hr) is predicted from utilization U and penetration rate PR. AR = U (PR)/100 Assessment System (3) (20)

where Fcrit-0 (kN) decreases with increasing rock mass factor fg as shown in Fig. 8. The value of fg can be determined from Fig. 9 depending on rock mass condition and angle between the tunnel axis and sheeting (weakness plane). Rock mass is classified into five: B1 = friable, B2 = heavily friable, B3 = loose, C2 = squeezing, and C4 = yielding. The value of fDRI decreases with increased drilling rate index DRI as shown in Fig. 10. Penetration coefficient b depends on critical cutter thrust Fcrit as shown in Fig. 11. Penetration rate PR is then determined from Eq. (2) using the pe obtained from Eq. (21) and cutterhead rotation rate N estimated from Eq. (1). Jodl & Stempkowski introduced three kinds of TBM utilization (%) such as:

A Comparative Study on Five Assessment Systems of TBM Tunnelling

65

Fig. 8. Relation between Fcrit-0 and rock mass factor fg.

Fig. 11. Relation between coefficient b and critical cutter thrust Fcrit.

time, TT (hr/km) is total tunnelling time except for the installation time (the time for both assembling and dismantling of the TBM) and transport time, TT+ (hr/km) is total commission time including the time for installation and transport. General range of TBM utilization reported are: U1 = 40% ~ 70%, U2 = 30% ~ 50%, and U3 = 20% ~ 35%. The advance rate can be expressed on either monthly base or working-day base such as: AR3 = 7.2 U2 (PR), AR4 = 0.24 U2 (PR)

(24)

where AR3 (m/mo) is advance rate per month and AR4 (m/day) is advance rate per working day.
Fig. 9. Relation between rock mass factor fg and angle .

Assessment System (4) This section describes the assessment system proposed by Barton (1999). The tunnelling Q-system and associated rock mass classification have been widely used for tunnelling by drilling and blasting, particularly for NMT (Norwegian method of tunnelling). Barton suggested a new index QTBM by modifying the conventional rock mass quality index Q to predict TBM performance. QTBM is defined as follows. QTBM = Q {SIGMA/(FT10 /209)}{20/CLI}{q/20}{ /5} (25) where

Fig. 10. Relation between fDRI and DRI.

Q = (RQD0 /Jn) (Jr /Ja) (Jw /SRF) SIGMA = 5 (Qc)1/3 or SIGMA = 5 (Qt)1/3

(26) (27) (28) (29)

U1 = 100 (TB / TW), U2 = 100 (TB / TT), U3 = 100 (TB / TT+) where TB (hr/km) is boring time, TW (hr/km) is total working time which include the time for boring, relocation, and standstill except for the repair time and down(23)

Qc = Q(c /100) Qt = Q (I50 /4)

where Q is determined from the same expression as the conventional index Q, except that RQD0 (%) is the RQD (%) value measured in the direction of tunnelling and that Jr and Ja should refer to the joint set that most assists or

66

Hyun-Koo Moon

hinders boring. SIGMA (MPa) is rock mass strength estimate, FT (tnf) is average cutter thrust force, q (%) is quartz content of rock, (MPa) is induced biaxial stress on tunnel face, (g/cm3) is rock density, c (MPa) is uniaxial compressive strength of rock, and I50 (MPa) is point load strength of rock. Using the value of QTBM the ground is classified into six groups to express the relative difficulty of TBM tunnelling.
Table 1. Values of QTBM for different ground conditions Ground conditions very good ground good ground fair ground tough ground maybe problematic ground very problematic ground 1 ~ 10 0.3 ~ 1 and 10 ~ 30 0.1 ~ 0.3 and 30 ~ 100 100 ~ 1000 0.01 ~ 0.1 0.001 ~ 0.01 QTBM

operative QTBM, provided that the PR and AR data are collected from TBM operation in the field. QTBM = (5/PR)5 = [5 (T)m /AR]5 (35)

Assessment System (5) This section is concerned with the probabilistic estimation of penetration rate, advance rate and utilization of TBM proposed by Alber (1996, 2000). Alber introduced specific penetration rate SP (cm/rpm/MN) defined as SP = (pe /N FT) (36)

where pe is penetration depth in cm, N is cutterhead rotation rate in rpm and FT is cutter thrust in MN. He found the relationship between the uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass and specific penetration SP. According to Hoek-Brown strength criterion, uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass, cm is
cm = c s
1/2

(37)

Penetration rate PR (m/hr), advance rate AR (m/hr) and utilization U (%) of TBM are estimated as follows. PR = 5 (QTBM)-0.2 AR = PR (T) = 5 (QTBM)-0.2 (T)m U = 100 (AR/PR)
m

(30) (31) (32)

where T is the unit of time in hours to express different terms evaluating the advance rate (T = 24 hrs gives daily AR, T = 168 hrs results in weekly AR, T = 720 hrs gives monthly AR, and T = 8760 hrs gives yearly AR, etc.), and m depends on TBM performance such as: m -0.13~-0.17 for best performance, m -0.17 for good performance, m -0.19 for fair performance, m -0.21 for poor performance, m -0.25 for exceptionally poor performance. In consideration of the influence of the abrasiveness (CLI), quartz content q (%) and porosity n (%) of rock on TBM performance, the value of m is fine tuned as follows. m m1 (D/5)0.2 (20/CLI)0.15 (q/20)0.1 (n/2)0.05 (33)

where c is the uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock, s = e(RMR-100)/9, and RMR is the basic RMR (unadjusted for discontinuity orientations) with full rating for parameter groundwater. The RMR value may be increased for TBM tunnelling by: RMRTBM = 0.84 RMR + 21. Rock mass strength is grouped into three classes: (i) low strength: cm < 20 MPa, (ii) medium strength: 20 MPa < cm < 80 MPa, (iii) high strength: 80 MPa < cm < 140 MPa. The probability density functions of SP for these three rock mass strength classes are shown in Fig. 12. Once SP is determined from rock mass strength cm, penetration rate PR (m/hr) can be estimated as follows. PR = 0.6 (SP) (N) (FT) (38)

TBM utilization is determined from the factor of safety (FS) at the roof centerline of the tunnel. The factor of

where m1 is approximated from Q such as: m1 -0.9~-0.7 for Q = 0.001~0.01, m1 -0.7~ -0.5 for Q = 0.01~ 0.1, m1 -0.5~-0.22 for Q = 0.1~1, m1 -0.22~-0.17 for Q = 1~ 10, m1 -0.17~-0.19 for Q = 10~100, m1 -0.19~-0.21 for Q = 100~1000. Tunnelling time T (hr) required for a tunnel of length Lt (km) is estimated as followings. T = 1000 Lt /AR = (1000 Lt /PR)1/ (1+m) (34)
Fig. 12. Probability density functions of SP for 3 rock mass strength classes.

Eqs. (30) and (31) can be used to back calculate the

A Comparative Study on Five Assessment Systems of TBM Tunnelling

67

safety is defined as: FS = cm / = cm /(3 K0 -1)v (39)

where = (3 K0-1)v is the tangential stress at the roof centerline, K0 = h / v ,i.e. the ratio of average in-situ horizontal stress (h) to vertical stress (v). Tunnel stability is classified into three depending on the value of FS: (i) squeezing: FS < 1.25, (ii) friable: 1.25 < FS < 2, (iii) stable: 2 < FS < 6. The probability density functions of TBM utilization U (%) for these three stability classes are shown in Fig. 13. Finally, the variability of both penetration rate PR and utilization U is taken into account in the calculation of advance rate AR (m/day) = 24 (PR) (U) for the nine possible combinations of rock mass strength and tunnel stability classes, resulting in the probability density functions of AR for nine advance classes as shown in Fig. 14. The same probabilistic approach is taken to estimate the time (day) for completion of a tunnel as follows. T = ti = (li /ARi) (40)

script i denotes the ith tunnel section belonging to one of the nine advance classes, li (m) is the length of the ith section so that the total length of tunnel Lt (m) = li, and ARi (m/day) is the advance rate of the ith section.

DISCUSSION
The characteristics of above five assessment systems are compared on the basis of the input data required to evaluate the TBM performance. In assessment system (1), penetration rate PR is predicted from data set (D, pe, kN), then boring time TB is determined from this PR. The time TC for cutter change is predicted from data set (D, k C, a, t C, ). Total loss time TL is obtained from data set (loss time per cycle, ls, loss time per boring hour, PR). Total tunnelling time T in hr/m is the sum of TB, TC and TL. Advance rates per shift and per hour, AR1 and AR2, are predicted from data set (T, TS, tS). TBM utilization is determined from AR2 and PR. Hence, the basic input data set required is {pe, D, kN, ls, k C, a, t C, , TS, tS, loss time per cycle, loss time per boring hour}. The assessment procedure is summarized in Fig. 15. The major feature of assessment system (2) different from assessment system (1) comes from the procedure predicting penetration depth pe. The boreability of rock material, the orientation of fractures and disc cutter data are taken into account in the procedure. Equivalent fracturing factor kf* is obtained from data set (, FC, DRI, nf). Equivalent cutter thrust FT* is estimated from data set

where T (day) is total tunnelling time in days, sub-

Fig. 13. Probability density functions of U for 3 stability classes.

Fig. 15. Flowchart of assessment system (1).

Fig. 14. Probability density functions of AR for 9 advance classes.

68

Hyun-Koo Moon

Fig. 17. Flowchart of assessment system (3). Fig. 16. Flowchart of assessment system (2).

(FT, d, S). Penetration depth pe is estimated from data set (kf*, FT*). Penetration rate PR is predicted from data set (pe, N), then the boring time TB is calculated from this PR. Corrected cutter life Hcor is determined from data set (CLI, d, D, N, q, n C). Cutter change time TC is predicted from data set (n C, t C, TB, Hcor). Total loss time TL is predicted from data set (t reg, ls, PR). The sum of these TB, TC and TL is total tunnelling time in hr/km. TBM utilization U is predicted from data set (TB, TC, TL). The basic input data set for this assessment system is {DRI, CLI, q, , FC, nf, FT, d, S, nC, D, N, ls, t reg}. Shown in Fig. 16 is a summarized procedure of assessment system (2). In assessment system (3), penetration depth pe is estimated from data set (, rock mass class, DRI, FT). Penetration rate PR is predicted from data set (pe, D, kN). Boring time TB is determined from this PR. Total working time TW is estimated from data set (TB, relocation time, standstill time). Total tunnelling time TT is estimated from data set (TW, repair time, downtime). Total commission time TT+ is obtained from data set (TT, installation time, transport time). TBM utilization factors U1, U2 and U3 are then determined from data set (TB, TW, TT, TT+). Monthly and daily advance rates AR3 and AR4 are predicted from U2 and PR. Hence, the basic input data set for assessment system (3) consists of {DRI, , ground condition, FT, D, kN, relocation time, standstill time, repair time, downtime, installation time, transport time}. The procedure of this assessment system is summarized in Fig. 17. A distinct feature of assessment system (4) is a new index QTBM from which penetration rate PR can be predicted. The data set necessary to determine QTBM is (Q, c, I50, , q, CLI, FT, ). TBM performance depends on the negative gradient m which reflects the rock mass quality and boreability of rock material. The value of gradient m is determined from data set (Q, CLI, q, n, D). Advance rate AR of various period of tunnelling time is predicted from data set (PR, m, T). Tunnelling time T is also predicted from data set (PR, m, Lt), and advance rate AR from (QTBM, T, m). The basic input data set for assessment system (4) is {Q, c, I50, , q, n, CLI, FT, , D, Lt}. The calculation steps for this assessment system

Fig. 18. Flowchart of assessment system (4).

Fig. 19. Flowchart of assessment system (5).

are shown in Fig. 18. Assessment system (5) is characterized by its probabilistic treatments of PR and AR. Rock mass strength class is determined using the uniaxial compressive strength of rock mass cm calculated from data set (c, s). Specific penetration SP is determined from this rock mass class. Penetration rate PR is obtained from data set (SP, FT, N). The factor of safety FS is calculated from data set (v, K0, cm), and stability class is determined using this FS. TBM utilization is estimated from the stability class. Advance rate AR is predicted from PR and U. Tunnelling time is predicted from data set (ARi, li) for each ith tunnel section and summed for all sections to obtain total tunnelling time. The basic input data set required for assessment system (5) is {c, s, v, K0, FT, N, li}. The flow of this assessment system is shown in Fig. 19.

CONCLUSIONS
Five different assessment systems of TBM tunnelling

A Comparative Study on Five Assessment Systems of TBM Tunnelling

69

are introduced in detail with specified equations and figures necessary for step-by-step calculation of penetration rate PR, advance rate AR, utilization U and tunnelling time T. The characteristics of the five assessment systems are discussed and compared on the basis of their input data required. Suitable for the design and planning of TBM tunnelling before field operation are the assessment system (2) and (4), where PR, AR, U and T are estimated directly from given rock properties, rock mass conditions and disc cutter data. The assessment system (1) and (3), on the other hand, are suitable for post-evaluation of TBM performance, because the data on various loss time should be collected from TBM operation in the field. The assessment system (5) is suited for probabilistic design and planning of TBM tunnelling, although the probability density functions for SP, U and AR need more study for their generality. This study provides tunnelling engineers with the freedom to choose a particular assessment system depending on their objectives and available input data. In this regard, the basic input data set listed above for each assessment system gives the idea on what kinds of laboratory tests the engineers should performed, what kinds of operation data they should measure in the field and what machine data they need to get from machine manufacturer. The five assessment systems have intrinsic advantages and drawbacks with different levels of complexity. Hence, the development of a unified assessment system integrating these advantages is quite desirable in the future.

Bruland, A., 1998, Prediction Model for Performance and Costs, in Norwegian TBM Tunnelling, Norwegian Soil and Rock Engineering Association, Publication No. 11, p. 29-34. Jodl, H.G. and Stempkowski, R., 1996, Operations Research Aspects of TBM Drives-Case Study of the Wienerwald Tunnel, Proc. Int. Lecture Series TBM Tunnelling Trends, Austria, p. 69-79. Nelson, P.P., Sinha, R.S., and Handewith, H.J., 1991, Machine Excavation, in Underground Structures: Design and Construction, Ed. R.S. Sinha, Elsevier, p. 226-307. Persson, P., Holmberg, R., and Lee, J., 1993, Rock Blasting and Explosives Engineering, CRC Press, p. 43-53.

Hyun-Koo Moon, is a professor of the Department of Geoenvironmental System Engineering, College of Engineering, Hanyang University in Seoul, Korea. He received his BS (1974) from Seoul National University, MS (1983) and Ph.D. (1987) from the University of Utah in U.S.A. He has undertaken the postdoctoral research work in the MMRRI at the University of Utah. His area of special expertise is in rock mechanics, the numerical and analytic analyses of jointed rock masses in particularly. (hkmoon@hanyang.ac.kr)

REFERENCES
Alber, M., 1996, Prediction of Penetration and Utilization for Hard Rock TBMs, Proc. Eurock 96, Torino, Italy, Sept. 25, p. 721-725. Alber, M., 2000, Advance Rates of Hard Rock TBMs and Their Effects on Project Economics, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 55-64. Barton, N. 1999, TBM Performance Estimation in Rock Using QTBM, Tunnels & Tunnelling International, Vol. 31, No. 9, p. 30-34. Blindheim, O.T. and Bruland, A., 1998, Boreability Testing, in Norwegian TBM Tunnelling, Norwegian Soil and Rock Engineering Association, Publication No. 11, p. 21-27.

Hyun-Koo Moon