ITA/AITES

ITA/AITES – Training Course

TUNNEL ENGINEERING

PERFORMANCE PREDICTION OF
MECHANICAL EXCAVATORS IN TUNNELS
Prepared by “Nuh BILGIN, Cemal BALCI”

Istanbul - 2005

date 1/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Index
Introduction

2
Impact Hammers

3
Roadheaders

4
Tunnel Boring Machines TBMs

5 Conclusions and references

2/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Introduction
THE PERFORMANCE OF MECHANICAL
EXCAVATORS
2 Why the performance of a mechanical excavator is
important?
It defines the job duration and tunnel drivage economy
3 The performance of a tunneling machine mainly
depend on
4 1. Rock mass properties, rock strength and
abrasivity, inclination and orientation of
geological discontinuities, water income etc.
2. Machine parameters, design of cutting head,
5 type of cutters, machine power etc.
3. Mode of experience, operator and contractor
experience, job organization, machine facilities
etc. 3/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 Terms Related to Machine Performance

Shift time = Boring time + Machine delays

+ Non-machine delays
Utilization = Boring time/Shift time
Availability = (Boring time +Non-machine
delay time) / Shift time
Reliability = Machine delay time/Shift time
Advance rate = Penetration rate x Utilization

4/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Impact Hammers in Tunnel Drivage
Hydraulic 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,
2 Bilgin 1998).

5/43
Performance prediction
Typical of mechanical
view excavators
of an impact hammer in (Courtesy
tunnels by of
Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Schaeff)
 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).

6/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Mechanical Parameters Effecting the Performance
of Impact Hammers (Wayment 1976, Bilgin 1989)
mV 2 E = Single blow energy (Joule) Pinp = Oil supply requred x Operating pressure
E= M = Weight of piston (kg) Poutput= Impact rate x Impact energy
2 V =Speed of piston (m/sec) Effiency of impact hammer η=Poutput/Pinput

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

160 x10 −3 m 3 x14kg / cm 2 160 x10 −3 m 3 x1400kN

Pinp = = 2
= 37.3kW
60 s 60 sxm
3.5kNmx500 29.2
Pout = = 29.2kW η= = 0.78
60 37.3
7/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 The Modes of Operation in Impact Hammer Applications
(Courtesy of Sandvik Tamrock Corp.)

Two-phase tunneling with two hammers.

8/**
HammerPerformance prediction
working sequence of mechanical
when rock layersexcavators in tunnels
are inclined. by Bilgin,N
Hammer working& Balci,C.
sequence from floor to roof.
 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.
−0.567
IBR = 4.24 P(RMCI)
RMC = σc(RQD/100)2/3

Where,
IBR = Instantaneous or net breaking rate, m3/h
P = Cutting power of the machine, HP
RMCI = Rock mass cuttability index, MPa
σc = Uniaxial compressive strength, MPa
RQD = Rock quality designation, %

9/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 Jack hammer having a power of 30 HP
45
40 RQD
Net Breaking Rate (m /h)
3 35 25%
30 50%
25 75% The relationship between rock
20
100% compressive strength and
15
instantaneous breaking rate of jack
10 hammers for a given
5 RQD and power of the hammer
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock (MPa)
Jack hammer having a power of 60 HP
100
90 RQD
Net Breaking Rate (m /h)

80
3

25%
70 50%
60 75%
50 100%
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock (MPa) 10/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
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 shotcrete
were 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 tunnel
drivage 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. Shotcrete
takes almost 27 %of the total time.
11/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 The overall performance of impact hammers in Istanbul Tunnels

Performance of impact hammers

in Metro Tunnels Phase 1.

Overall performance of impact hammers

in Metro Tunnels Phase 2.

12/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Roadheaders

2 The first roadheaders

were used for mining in
3
the 1960’s since then they
4 have been widely used
both in civil and mining
5
industries.
13/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 Transverse Type Roadheader

Cutting Mode of a Transverse Type

Roadheader

14/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 Axial Type Roadheader

Cutting Mode of an Axial Type

Roadheader

15/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 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 especially
in bedded sedimentary rock.

16/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 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 overbreak
regardless 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.

17/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 Classification of roadheaders

Range of
Range of Operation
Roadheader Cutterhead max. cross RQD
weight max UCS
Class power (kW) section (%)
(t) (MPa)
(m2)

Light 8-40 50-170 25 40-60 Any

Medium 40-70 160-230 30 60-90 Any

Heavy 70-110 250-300 40 90-110 <80

Extra heavy > 100 350-400 45 110-140 <60

18/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Methods for predicting cutting performance of roadheader

Core cutting test rig in Istanbul Technical University

Tool width of 12.7 mm

Depth of cut of 5 mm
Core cutting test Rake angle of (-5°),
Back clearance angle of 5°
19/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Core cutting test application to roadheader performance
prediction

Correlation between laboratory specific energy and the in-situ cutting rates
20/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Empirical methods for roadheader performance
prediction

ICR = 0.28 ⋅ P ⋅ (0.974) RMCI

2
 RQD  3
RMCI = σ c ⋅  
 100 

ICR is instantaneous cutting rate of roadheaders in m3/h

RMCI is rock mass cuttability index
σC is uniaxial compressive strength in MPa
P is power of cutting head in HP

21/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader
from rock mass cuttability index
Instantaneous Cutting Rate (m /h) 30
3

25 Roadheader, 95 Hp

20 -0.0263x
y = 26.127e
15 R2 = 0.7331

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Rock Mass Cuttability Index (MPa)

The variation of instantaneous cutting rate with Rock Mass Cuttability Index
22/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from machine
power and machine weight

ICR = Instantaneous Cutting Rate, m3/hr W = Roadheader Weight, metric ton

RPI = Roadheader Penetration Index P= Cutterhead Power, kW
UCS = Uniaxial Compressive Strength, MPa e = Base of the Natural Logarithm
23/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from full
scale cutting tests

24/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from full
scale cutting tests

P
ICR = k ⋅
SE opt
ICR = Instantaneous cutting rate in m3/h
k = Energy transfer ratio
P = Cutting power of cutting head in kW
SEopt =Optimum specific energy in kWh/m3

System efficiency of some common mechanical excavators

Tool Spacing and Its Effect on Specific Energy
Tunnel Boring Machine η = 0.85 - 0.90
Roadheader η = 0.45 - 0.55
Raise Borer η = 0.60 - 0.70
Shaft Drill η = 0.55 - 0.70
Continuous Miner η = 0.70 - 0.80

25/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Comparison of the predicted values from full scale cutting
tests and actual values obtained in Kucuksu Tunnel

14 P
12 ICR = k
SE
S E(kWh/m 3 )

10
8
90kW
6
ICR = 0.4
4
2
7 kWh / m 3

0 1 2 3 4
s /d
5 6 7 8
ICR = 5.1m 3 / h

26/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Prediction of instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader from
destruction work (After Thuro)

Estimation of the specific destruction

work Wz from the stress-strain Cutting performance, correlated with
curve of a rock sample under destruction work of 26 rock samples
unconfined compression (argillaceous slates and quarzites,
Zeulenroda sewage tunnel).

27/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 Overall performance of roadheaders in Kucuksu Tunnel

HORIZONTAL AND DRY ZONE INCLINED WET STICKY ZONE

Machine pull Machine pull Waiting for

Breakfast/ Waiting for and site material and
and site material and
lunch/dinner Ring montage surveying muck truck
surveying muck truck
break 20% 4% 9%
8% 9%
17%
Machine Breakfast/ Cutting head
breakdown /lunch /dinner stuck due to
Muck loading
maintenance break clay
13%
15% 17% 5%

Machine Rail addition

breakdown and water
Excavation maintenance Muck loading drainage
Excavation
38% 17% 10% 10%
8%
Chainage 25-50 m Chainage 70-80 m

INCLINED WET ZONE INCLINED AND DRY ZONE

Machine pull Machine pull Waiting for
Waiting for
and site and site material and
material and
Ring montage surveying Ring montage surveying
muck truck muck truck
20% 4% 13% 6%
9% 13%
Stoppages due Breakfast/ Rail addition,
Breakfast/
to safety /lunch/dinner longer distance
/lunch /dinner
concern break transportation
break
5% 17% 10%
17%
Rail addition
Machine Machine Stoppages due
and water
breakdown breakdown to safety
drainage
maintenance Muck loading maintenance concern
Excavation 10% Excavation Muck loading
17% 10% 15% 8%
8% 8% 10%
Chainage 90-150 m Chainage 150-275 m

28/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs)

The use of tunnel boring machines for

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

29/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 Tunnel Boring Machines TBMs

Single Gripper-TBM: Double Gripper-TBM:

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

30/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Cutters Used for Mechanical Excavators

Disc cutters for TBMs

Soft rock medium rock hard rock

Conical cutters
31/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Performance prediction using Full scale linear cutting tests

Hypothetical relationship between specific energy and spacing/depth ratio

32/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
A typical example Tuzla-Dragos Tunnel in Istanbul

The profiles of constant cross section (CCS) disc cutters

4
(kWh/m3)
SE

3 CCS

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

The relationship between specific energy and s/d ratios

33/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
Machine performance prediction for Tuzla-Dragos Tunnel
Optimum specific energy value from Figure, is SE=2.1 kWh/m3 and s/d = 8-10
As a result of cutting tests it was found that FT = 8.4 kN/mm, FR = 0.64 kN/mm
From machine specification cutter spacing is s=7.5cm
For s/d= 8; d=7.5/8=1cm
For s/d=10; d=7.5/10=0.8cm
For d=8mm, total machine thrust is 36×8×8.34=2400 kN
For d=10mm, total machine thrust is 36×10×8.34=3000 kN
Total machine thrust must change between 2400 kN and 3000kN
6
Expected power of the machine for cutting depth of 10 mm. P = 2π 60 x317 kW; P = 200 kW

6
Expected power of the machine for cutting depth of 0.8 mm. P = 2π x253 kW; P = 160 kW
60
P (kW)
Net excavation rate (m 3 /h) = k
SE (kWh/m 3 ) •Net excavation rate=60∼70 m3/h

In competent rock an average machine

16 h x 60 m3 x 0.3
utilization factor of 30% ≅ 15 m/day
and 16 hours working time 25 2
hxπ m
per day will result a daily advance rate of 4
34/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
PERFORMANCE PREDICITION USING THE METHOD
DEVELOPED IN THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES

The CSM model for TBM performance prediction was developed by

the Earth Mechanics Institute (EMI) over a time period extending
over 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 as

input 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.
35/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
PERFORMANCE PREDICITION USING THE METHOD
DEVELOPED IN THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES

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.

36/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
PERFORMANCE PREDICITION USING THE METHOD
DEVELOPED IN THE NORWEGIAN UNIVESITY OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY (NTNU MODEL)
The prediction model is based on job site studies and statistics from 33
job sites with 230 km of tunnels. Data have been carefully mapped
systematized 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 for
performance 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.

37/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
A Typical Overall performance of TBMs
Backup downtime
3%
Cutter inspection
TBM downtime
6%
3%
TBM Boring Time
TBM re-grip time 41%
11%

Cutter change
14% Downtime - Other
causes
22%

38/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Conclusions and references
The performance of a mechanical excavators plays and important
role in tunnel drivage which manly depends on:
2 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,
3 machine power etc.
c) Modes of operation, operator and contractor experience, job
organization, maintenance facilities etc.
4
In this presentation rock mass properties and some machine
parameter affecting the performance of impact hammers,
roadheaders and TBMs are widely explained including most
5 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.
39/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Conclusions and references
Balci,
Balci, C., Demircin,
Demircin, M.A., Copur,
Copur, H. & Tuncdemir,
Tuncdemir, H. 2004. Estimation of optimum specific energy based on rock properties
properties for
assessment of roadheader performance. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 104 (11): 633- 633-
643.

2 Bilgin N, Yazici,
Yazici, S. & Eskikaya,
drivages.
Eskikaya, S.1996. A model to predict the performance of roadheaders and impact hammers in tunnel
drivages. In: Barla G, editor. Proceedings of the Eurock ’96 on Prediction and Performance in Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 2: 715-
Engineering, 715-720.
Bilgin, N., Balci, C., Acaroglu, O., Tuncdemir, H., Eskikaya, S.,
S., Akgul, M. & Algan, M. 1999 Performance Prediction of a TBM
in Tuzla-
Tuzla-Dragos Sewerage Tunnel, World Tunnel Congress,
Congress, Oslo 29th May –3rd June, Rotterdam: Balkema.
Balkema.
Bilgin, N., Kuzu, C. & Eskikaya, S. 1997. Cutting performance of rock hammers and roadheaders in Istanbul Metro drivages. drivages.
People: 455-
Proceedings, Word Tunnel Congress’97, Tunnels for People: 455-460. Rotterdam: Balkema.
Balkema.
Bilgin,N.,
Bilgin,N., Dincer,
Dincer, T. & Copur,
Copur, H., 2002. The performance prediction of impact hammers from Schmidt
Schmidt hammer rebound values in

3 Istanbul metro tunnel drivages,

Bilgin,N.,
Bilgin,N., Dincer,
Dincer, T., Copur,
drivages, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 17:
Copur, H., Erdogan,
17: 237–
237–247
Erdogan, M. 2004. Some geological and geotechnical factors affecting the
roadheder in an inclişned tunnel, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 19: 629–636.
19: 629–
the performance of a

Copur H, Rostami J, Ozdemir L & Bilgin N. 1997. Studies on performance prediction of roadheaders based on field data in mining
and tunnelling projects. In: Gurgenci H, Hood M, editors. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Mine
Automation, Brisbane, Queensland. A4-
Mechanization and Automation, A4-1/A4-
1/A4-7.
Dunn, P.G., Howarth,
Howarth, D.F., Scmidth,
Scmidth, S.P.J. & Bryan, I.J. 1997. A review of non explosive excavation
excavation projects for the Australian

4 metalliferrous mining industry. In: Gurgenci H, Hood M, editors. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Automation, Brisbane, Queensland. A5-
Mine Mechanization and Automation,
Evans, I. 1974. Energy requirements for impact breakage of rocks.
A5-2/13
rocks. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying and
Tunnelling, London:1-8
Tunnelling, IMM London:1
Farmer, I.W. & Garrity,
Garrity, P. 1987. Prediction of roadheader cutting performance from fracture toughness considerations. In: Herget
G, Vongpaisal S, editors. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Rock Mechanics.
Mechanics. 621–
621–624.
Fowell,
Fowell, R.J. & Johson,
Johson, S.T. 1982. Rock classification and assessment of rapid excavation.
excavation. In: Farmer I, editor. Proceedings of the

5
Mechanics, Newcastle Upon Tyne: 239-
Symposium on Strata Mechanics, 239-242.
Fowell,
Fowell, R.J, Johson,
Johson, S.T. & Speight, H.E. 1984. Boom tunneling machine studies for improved excavation performance. In: Brown
ET, Hudson JA, editors. Proceedings of the International ISRM Congress on Design and Performance
Performance of Underground
Excavations, Cambridge.305-
Excavations, Cambridge.305-312.
Friant, E.J., Ozdemir, L. 1993. Tunnel Boring Technology - Present and Future, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference
Proceedings, Boston, USA.
(RETC) Proceedings,

40/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Conclusions and references
Gaskell, J & Phillips, R. A. 1974. The Gullick Dobson impact ripper. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying
and Tunneling, IMM London: 73-82
Hughes, H. 1972. Some aspects of rock machining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.(9):205-11.

2 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

3 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

4 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.
McFeat – Smith, I. & Fowell,
Fowell, R.J. 1977. Correlation of rock properties and cutting performance
performance of tunneling machines. In: Potts
ELJ, Attewell PB, editors. Proceedings of the Conference on Rock Engineering,
Engineering, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.
582–
582–602.
McFeat – Smith, I. & Fowell,
Fowell, R.J. 1979. The selection and application of roadheaders for rock tunneling. In Maevis AC, Austrulid
WA, editors. Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation Tunn Congress,
Congress, Atlanta. 261–
261–279.

5
McKelvey,
McKelvey, J.G., Schultz, E.A. & Blindheim,
Blindheim, O.T. 1996, Geotechnical analysis in S. Africa, World Tunnelling,
Tunnelling, November, 377-
377-
390.
Mellor, M. 1972. Normalization of specific energy values. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.(9):661
Sci.(9):661--663.
Merguerian, C., Ozdemir, L. 2003. Rock Mass Properties and Hard Rock TBM Penetration Rate Investigations, Queens Tunnel
Complex, NYC Water Tunnel #3, Stage #2", Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) Proceedings.
Proceedings.
Nilsen,
Nilsen, B., Ozdemir,
Ozdemir, L. 1993. Hard rock tunnel boring prediction and field performance,
performance, Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Proceedings, Chapter 52, Boston, USA,
Conference (RETC) Proceedings, USA, 13-
13-17.

41/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
1 Conclusions and references
Ozdemir,
Ozdemir, L., Miller, R.J. & Wang, F.D. 1978 Mechanical Tunnel Boring Machine
Machine Prediction and Machine Design, NSF APR73- APR73-
07776- A03, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA.
07776-A03,
Ozdemir,
Ozdemir, L. 1991.Performance Prediction for Mechanical Excavators in Yucca Yucca Mountain Tuff, Task Report to Sandia National

2 Laboratories, Contract 35-

Laboratories,
Pelizza, S., Patrucco,
35-0039.
Patrucco, M. & Benedetto, G. 1994. Workplace environmental conditions and innovative Tunnel driving techniques.
Measurement air contro.
contro. Proceedings, Tunneling and Graund Conditions: 617-617-623 Rotterdam: Balkema.
Balkema.
Pool, D. 1987. The effectiveness of tunnelling machines. Tunnels and Tunnelling.19:66
Tunnelling.19:66--67.
Rodford,
Rodford, I.G. 1974. Experience with impact units. Proceedings, Fluid Power Equipment in Mining, Quarrying and Tunnelling, Tunnelling,
London: 57-
IMM London: 57-66
Rostami,
Rostami, J. & Ozdemir,
Ozdemir, L. 1994. Roadheader performance optimization for mining and civil construction. In: DeMers JE, et all.,
editors. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Technical Conference, Institute of Technology, Las Vegas, Nevada.

3
of Shaft Drilling Technology,
Rostami, J., Ozdemir L & Neil D. 1994. Performance prediction: a key issue in mechanical hard rock mining. mining. Mining
Engineering.Nov.:1264-
Engineering.Nov.:1264-1267.
Rostami,
Rostami, J., Ozdemir,
Ozdemir, L. 1993 A New Model For Performance Prediction Of Hard Rock TBMs, TBMs, Proceedings of RETC,RETC, Boston
MA, June 13-
13-17.
Schimazek,
Schimazek, J. & Knatz,
Knatz, H. 1970. The influence of rock composition on cutting velocity and chisel wear of tunnelling machines.
Gluckauf:
Gluckauf: 106. 274-
274-278.
Sekula, F, Krupa V & Krepelka F. 1991. Monitoring of the rock strength characteristics in the course of full of face driving

4 Thuro,
process. In: Rakowski Z, editor. Proceedings of the International Conference on Geomechanics.
Geomechanics. 299-
Thuro, K & Plinninger RJ. 1998. Geological limits in roadheader excavation four case studies. In: Loky,
Congress, Vancouver.2:3545-
8th International IAEG Congress, Vancouver.2:3545-3552.
299-303.
Loky, editor. Proceedings of the

Thuro,
Thuro, K & Plinninger RJ. 2003. Hard rock tunnel boring, cutting, drilling and blasting:
blasting: rock parameters for excavatability.
excavatability. In:
Merwe JN, editor. Proceedings of the 10th International ISRM Congress on Technology
Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics,
Metallurgy. 1227-
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 1227-1253.
Thuro,
Thuro, K, &Plinninger
&Plinninger RJ. 1999. Predicting roadheader advance rates. Tunnels and Tunnelling
Tunnelling.;31:36
.;31:36--39.

5
Thuro,
Thuro, K, &Plinninger
&Plinninger RJ. 1999. Roadheader excavation performance - geological and geotechnical influences, 9th ISRM
Congress Paris, August, 25th - 28th, Theme 3: Rock dynamics and tectonophysics / Rock cutting and drilling
Verhoef,
Verhoef, P.N.W. 1997. Wear of rock cutting,
cutting, 327, Rotterdam: Balkema
Wayment,
Wayment, W & Grantmyre,
Grantmyre, I. 1976. Development of high blow energy hydraulic impactor.
impactor. Proceedings, Rapid Excavation and
Conference: 611-
Tunnelling Conference: 611-626
West, G. 1989. Technical Note - Rock Abrasiveness Testing for Tunnelling.
Tunnelling.- Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.&
Sci.& Geomech. Abstr.,
Geomech. Abstr.,
26(2), 151-
151-160.
Wyllie, B. 1985. Hydraulic breakers. Mining, March:
breakers. International Mining, March: 18-
18-24

42/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.
 ITA/AITES

Clause de non-responsabilité pour les rapports des groupes de travail de l'AITES

L’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).
43/43
Performance prediction of mechanical excavators in tunnels by Bilgin,N & Balci,C.