See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259452929

Rock Mass Rating System for

Predicting TBM Utilization
Conference Paper September 2013
DOI: 10.1201/b15683-158

CITATIONS

READS

86

4 authors, including:
Saffet Yagiz
Pamukkale University
78 PUBLICATIONS 596 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Seyed Rahman Torabi

Shahrood University of Technology
29 PUBLICATIONS 97 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Omid Frough

Retrieved on: 12 October 2016

Rock Mechanics for Resources, Energy and Environment Kwasniewski & ydzba (eds)
2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00080-3

A Rock Mass Rating system for predicting TBM utilization

S. Yagiz
Pamukkale University, Department of Geological Engineering, Denizli, Turkey

T. Kim
Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York City, NY, USA

O. Frough & S.R. Torabi

Faculty of Mining, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

ABSTRACT: Prediction of utilization based on rock mass properties is critical for any mechanized tunneling
project, since the utilization have an influence on duration and costs of project. Using some case studies including
Queens, Milyang, Manapouri, Karaj, Varzo, Maen, Pieve mechanized tunneling project around the world, the
attempt is made to estimate utilization via Rock Mass Rating (RMR) System herein. It is concluded that the
machine utilization has some reasonable correlations with RMR; however, this relationship is depend on not only
rock mass properties but also machine specifications. In other words, the utilization may change with both rock
mass conditions and utilized machine type. Due to that rock properties and other related downtimes should be
examined together to obtain the reliable equations for predicting the utilization. Further, developed relationships
may be used for similar rock type to estimate utilization from RMR.

INTRODUCTION

Utilization (U) is defined as the percentage of machine

boring time to the shift time. It is summarily the
function of the advance rate, (AR) and the rate of penetration, (ROP), (U = AR/[ROP Shift Hour]). In this
function, the ROP is the ratio of excavated distance to
the operating time during continues excavation phase,
while the AR is the ratio of both mined and supported actual distance to the total time (Yagiz 2008).
In mechanical tunneling, type of operation, management, maintenances, geological conditions, capacity
of the backup system and other factors that cause
downtimes -including the times of support installation,
re-gripping, grouting, maintenance, machine break
down, cutter change, mucking delays, stoppage caused
by geological adverse conditions and other components such as shift changes- to the operation, have an
influence on the utilization.
A wide variety of TBM performance prognosis
models and principles with special focus on rate of
penetration are introduced in the literature since the
early use of TBM. Some methods simply focus on
rock parameters such as uniaxial compressive strength
and rock abrasion value, while other methods consider a combination of comprehensive laboratory, field
and machine data. Although CSM, NTNU and QTBM
models have suggested some equations and graphs for
estimating the utilization factor (Rostami & Ozdemir
1993, Bruland 1998, Barton 1999, Yagiz 2002), there

are a few documents in the literature about estimating

TBM utilization with relevant parameters.
Also several researchers have applied different soft
computation techniques for TBM performance prediction. Benardos & Kaliampakos (2004) correlate
TBM performance with geological and geotechnical
site conditions by using artificial neural network. Kim
(2004) developed a utilization predictor model based
on fuzzy logic method. Also two-dimensional numerical analyses were performed to explore the effect of
joint orientation and joint spacing on rock fragmentation by a TBM (Gong et al. 2005). Yagiz (2008)
developed an empirical equation to estimate the rate
of penetration by the use of rock mass properties.
Khademi Hamidi et al. (2010) studied the relationship between the RMR and TBM performance. Frough
et al. (2012) also made attempts to develop the relationship between RMR and some TBM performance
parameters.
The present study is attempted to develop the relationship between the RMR and TBM utilization using
the data obtained and examined from seven different
tunnel sites around the world.

CASE STUDIES

To estimate the utilization via RMR system, the case

studies are examined and the result of findings is

921

introduced herein. Following projects are examined

for this purpose.
2.1

Queens Tunnel (USA)

The Queens Water tunnel was constructed to improve

distribution of freshwater throughout the City of New
York, especially in district of Queens (Yagiz 2002). The
Queens Water tunnel was located in New York City
where the geological formation was highly complex
and composed of different type of metamorphosed
igneous rock with shear zones, faults, joints and other
local fractures. The combination of mineral assemblage and rock texture demonstrated that the rock had
several episodes of high degree metamorphic recrystallizations. The tunnel site composed of rhyodacite
dyke, granitic gneiss intermixed with orthogneiss,
gneiss, amphibolite, pegmatite, and the combination
of gneiss-schist (Yagiz 2002, 2008).
2.2

Manapouri Tunnel (New Zealand)

The second tailrace tunnel of the Manapouri hydro

project that is an underground hydroelectric power station located in the Fiordland area of southwestern New
Zealand. The objective of adding the tailrace tunnel
was to increase the overall cross-sectional area of flow,
thereby reducing the flow velocities and associated
frictional head losses (Yagiz et al. 2010).
The Paleozoic age metamorphic rocks dominate
the region of the Fiordland National Park, which
is bounded by the tectonic boundary between the
Australian and the Pacific crustal Plates in New
Zealand. The principal rock types were: gneiss with
varying degrees of intrusion by pegmatite and other
granitic rocks; gabbro; diorite and minor amounts of
mixed meta-sediments like marble, quartzite and calcsilicates (Kim 2004, MacFarlane et al. 2008, Yagiz
et al. 2009, 2010).
2.3

Milyang Tunnel (South Korea)

The Milyang tunnel was constructed to deliver clean

water from Milyang dam to Yangsan area through 2.6
m-diameter hydro-tunnel in South Korea (Kim 2004,
Yagiz et al. 2010). According to geological site investigation studies, most of the tunnel alignment consisted
of igneous rocks, such as granite and andesite (Kim
2004). The rock formations were generally composed
of biotite-rich and fine to medium grained granite
(Kim 2004, Yagiz et al. 2010).
2.4

Karaj Tunnel (Iran)

The KarajTehran water conveyance tunnel with 30

km length is located northwest of Tehran in Iran,
between Karaj and Tehran, and was designed for transferring 16 m3 /s of water from AmirKabir dam to
Tehran (Frough et al. 2012). The Karaj Water tunnel
is divided into two sections: Data collected from first
section of the tunnel that is 16 km long at the southeast

end is used for this study. The lithology of this section

of the tunnel consists of a sequence of Karaj formations
and is composed of variety of pyroclastic rocks, often
interbedded with sedimentary rocks (Hassanpour et al.
2010, Frough et al. 2012).
2.5 Maen Tunnel (Italy)
Rock units consist of meta-ophiolites (serpentinite,
metagabbro, metabasite, chlorite schist, talc schist)
and meta-sediments (calc-schist and silicate marble)
belonging to the Zermatt-Saas Zone of the Pennidic
Domain (Dal Piaz 1988, Reinecke 1991). The parent rocks were carbonate pelagic sequences and mafic
crystalline rocks that underwent high-pressure lowtemperature metamorphism during the early phases of
the alpine orogenesis. Schists and serpentinites show
a foliated texture a metagabbro and metabasite are
generally weakly foliated (Sapigni et al. 2002).
2.6 Varzo Tunnel (Italy)
The Varzo tunnel is excavated entirely in the Antigorio Gneiss Formation, a massive or weakly foliated
rock generated by high-grade metamorphism of granite and granodiorite rocks (Milnes 1973, Steck 1987).
Metaaplite and metabasite dikes locally traverse the
tunnel axis, but the area may be considered essentially
homogenous. The geological structure is a monocline
gently dipping in a southerly direction, slightly complicated by folds and minor fault zones related to the
Sempione-Centovalli fault, a major tectonic structure
located 2 km to the south (Mancktelow 1985, Sapigni
et al. 2002).
2.7 Pieve Tunnel (Italy)
Most of the Pieve Vergonte tunnel is located in
the Sesia-Lanzo Zone of the Austroalpine Domain
(Reinhardt 1966, Compagnoni et al. 1977). Excavated rocks consist of two metamorphic complexes
made up of gneiss and micaschists separated by a
meta-diorite intrusive body with minor masses of
meta-quartzdiorite and metagabbro. The geological
structure is complicated by multiple folding associated with shear zones and brittle fault zones (Sapigni
et al. 2002).
In this study, analyzing the data obtained from literature (such as Maen andVarzo) and collected data from
the sites (i.e., Queens and Manapouri), some correlations is obtained between the RMR system and rock
mass related TBM utilization that is one of the main
parameters to estimate the cost and time of mechanical
tunnels.
3 TBM RMR INTERACTION
Seven tunnel projects were studied to examine the
relationship between the RMR and TBM utilization.

922

Table 1. RMR and utilization obtained from relevant projects (Sapigni et al. 2001, Yagiz 2002, Kim 2004, Hasanpour et al.
2010, Forough et al. 2012).
Karaj
RMR
21
35
46
49
50
57
63
64
72

Varzo
U
0.09
0.23
0.16
0.21
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.22
0.17

RMR
28
32
45
55
64
74
85
94

Maen
U
0.23
0.25
0.31
0.19
0.31
0.37
0.51
0.53

RMR
16
23
36
44
56
65
74
85
93

Pieve
U
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.12
0.10
0.16
0.20
0.17

RMR
29
34
47
54
65
74
83
92

U
0.32
0.26
0.25
0.39
0.41
0.43
0.44
0.42

Manapouri

Milyang

RMR
39
40
48
58
69
75
85
90
94

RMR
42
51
57
62
70
76
85
93
95

U
0.21
0.28
0.33
0.38
0.42
0.46
0.505
0.52
0.55

Queens
U
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.29
0.32
0.37
0.405
0.41
0.42

RMR
29
36
43
53
62
71
76
91
95

U
0.18
0.22
0.23
0.34
0.39
0.41
0.42
0.46
0.48

Table 2. Machine specifications for relevant projects (Sapigni et al. 2001, Yagiz 2002, Kim 2004, Hasanpour et al. 2010,
Frough et al. 2012).
Karaj

Varzo

Maen

Pieve

Manapouri

Milyang

Queens

Tunnel length (km)

Cutterhead dia (m)
Cutters dia (mm)
Cutter disk spacing (mm)
TBM Model

16
4.66
432
70

Herrenknecht,
Double

6.6
4.05
432
75

Robbins
1214-240-1

9.6
4.05
432
75

Robbins
1111-234-3

Number of cutters
Cutterhead speed (rpm)
Max cutterhead thrust (kN)

31
11
17000

27
4.58.6
8827

1.75
4.2
432
66
Wirth
340/420E
Open
36
5.511
7920

9.6
10.05
432
82

Robbins
Model
323288
68
2.535.07
18165

5.4
2.6
432
65
Wirth,
TB260E
Open
22
13
4300

7.6
7.1
482
82
Robbins,
235282
Open
50
8.3
15500

27
11.3
4602

Double shield.

According to the dataset, it is observed that the

RMR values rages from around 16 to 95, while the
utilization rages from 9 to %53 in the dataset. Each tunnel case includes different rock type and also machine
specification that used for excavation. Due to that, the
wide range of utilization in these dataset is likely as
wanted (Table 1).
Tunnel boring machines (TBMs) for these projects
are various from open type through double shield
machine. Also, their cutter size, thrust, rpm, torque
and other specifications are also different as the diameter and length of studied tunnels. The specifications
of utilized TBMs for studied tunnels are given in
Table 2. Manapouri tunnel has the maximum cutter
size and number, while the Varzo and Pieve tunnels
have the minimum cutter size and numbers among the
examined projects.
Even though TBM performance parameters such
as the rate of penetration and advanced rate together
with utilization are evaluated for these projects, but
only the utilization and RMR system relationships are
examined herein.

DISCUSSION

Seven tunnel projects examined have variety of rock

mass properties and conditions. It is found that the

rock mass properties and TBM performance has some

relationship. In this study, rock mass properties via
RMR system and TBM utilization that is related to
rock mass properties are examined using regression
analysis.
Various regression equations are developed and
some meaningful relationship is obtained among
the RMR and TBM utilization. In this study, linear (y = ax + b); non-linear (y = axb ); exponential
(y = aex ); polynomial (y = ax2 + bx + c) and logarithmic (y = a + lnx) relationships are examined in order
to develop the most reliable and accurate empirical
equations between the RMR and the utilization. In
fact, the simple regression is developed to estimate
the utilization as a function of RMR.
In this approach, the RMR is independent input
variable whereas measured utilization is dependent
variable. So, the statistics were used to generate different regression models among the variables. Eventually
the maximum coefficient of determination (r2 ) was
obtained between the RMR and utilization by the use
of quadratic regression. Due to that, the obtained relationships are introduced as quadratic in Table 3 and so
in Figure 1.
So, the obtained relationships among the variables
are quadratic but developed empirical equations are
different due to variety of excavated rock mass properties and utilizedTBM specifications. So, the utilization

923

Table 3. Obtained quadratic relationship between RMR and utilization for

each project.
Project

U(%) = f(RMR)

r2

Queens
Manapouri
Milyang
Karaj
Pieve
Maen
Varzo

U = 5 105 RMR2 + 0.01 RMR 0.95

U = 4 105 RMR2 + 0.01 RMR 0.90
U = 3 105 RMR2 + 0.009 RMR 0.17
U = 9 105 RMR2 + 0.0095 RMR 0.049
U = 1 105 RMR2 + 0.0045 RMR + 0.15
U = 2 105 RMR2 0.0003 RMR + 0.071
U = 1 104 RMR2 0.0075 RMR + 0.38

0.93
0.97
0.98
0.44
0.69
0.85
0.88

Figure 1. The relationship between the RMR and TBM

utilization for each project.

depends on rock mass properties and machine specifications rather than only RMR.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study seven mechanical tunnel projects is evaluated from the scope of relationship between the RMR
and percentage of TBM utilization. It is found that
the RMR and utilization shows various correlations
for each project. The best correlations are obtained
between the utilization and RMR in quadratic for
all tunnels. That means the relationship seems to be
quadratic between the variables. However, the utilization depends on excavated rock type, RMR, machine
specifications, maintenance, tunnel support time, and
so. Due to that, U (%) may be estimated using machine
specifications and rock mass properties rather than
only RMR. However, the obtained empirical relationship may be useful for same type of project and rock
type in early stage of the tunneling.
REFERENCES
Barton, N. 1999. TBM Performance estimation in rock using
QTBM . Tunnels and Tunneling International 31(9): 3033
Benardos, A.G. & Kaliampakos, D.C. 2004. Modelling TBM
performance with artificial neural networks. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology 19: 597605.

Bruland, A., 2000. Hard Rock Tunnel Boring, Vol.

3 Advance Rate and Cutter Wear. Doctoral Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim,
Norway.
Compagnoni, R., Dal Piaz, G.V., Hunziker, J.C., Gosso, G.,
Lombardo, B. & Williams, P.F. 1977. The Sesia-Lanzo
Zone, a slice of continental crust with alpine high pressurelow temperature assemblages in the Western Italian Alps.
Rend Soc Ital Mineral Petrol 33: 281334.
Dal Piaz, G.V. 1988. Revised setting of the Piedmont zone
in the northern Aosta valley, Western Alps. Ofioliti 13:
15762.
Frough, O., Torabi, S.R., Yagiz, S. & Tajik, M. 2012. Effect
of rock mass conditions on TBM utilization factor in
KarajTehran water conveyance tunnel. In N. Phienwej &
T. Boonyatee (eds), Tunnelling and Underground Space
for a Global Society, Proceedings of ITA-AITES World
Tunnel Congress & 38th General Assembly, 9 p. May
1823, 2012, Bangkok. Engineering Institute of Thailand.
Gong, Q.M., Zhao, J. & Jiao, Y.Y. 2005. Numerical modeling
of the effects of joint orientation on rock fragmentation by TBM cutters. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 20(2): 183191.
Hassanpour, J., Rostami, J., Khamechian, M. & Tavakoli,
H.R. 2010. TBM performance analysis in pyroclastic
rocks: case history of Karaj water conveyance tunnel. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering 43(4): 427445.
Khademi Hamidi, J., Shahriar, K., Rezai, B. & Rostami, J.
2010. Performance prediction of hard rock TBM using
rock mass rating (RMR) system. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 25(4): 333345.
Kim, T. 2004. Development of a Fuzzy Logic Based Utilization Predictor Model for Hard Rock Tunnel Boring
Machines. PhD Thesis, 254 p., Colorado School of Mines,
Colorado USA.
MacFarlane, D.F., Watts, C.R. & Nilsen, B. 2008. Field
applica-tion of NTH fracture classification at the Second Manapouri Tailrace tunnel, New Zealand. In M.F.
Roach et al. (eds), Proceedings of North American Tunneling Conference: 236242. Littleton: Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration.
Mancktelow, N. 1985. The Simplon line: a major displacement zone in the western Lepontine Alps. Eclogae Geol
Helv 78: 7396.
Milnes, A.G. 1973. Structural reinterpretation of the classic
Simplon Tunnel Section of the Central Alps. Geol Soc Am
Bull 84: 26974.
Reinecke, T. 1991. Very-high-pressure metamorphism and
uplift of coesite-bearing meta-sediments from the
Zermatt-Saas zone, Western Alps. Eur J Mineral 3: 717.
Reinhardt, B. 1966. Geologie und Petrographie der Monte
Rosa-Zone, der Sesia-Zone und des Canavese im Gebiet
zwischen Valle dOssola und Valle Loana (Prov. di Novara,
Italien). Schweiz Mineral Petrogr Mitt 46: 553678.

924

Rostami, J. & Ozdemir, L. 1993. A new model for performance prediction of hard rock TBMs. Rapid Excavation
and Tunneling Cogress. 793-809. Boston, USA.
Sapigni, M., Berti, M., Bethaz, E., Busillo, A. & Cardone,
G. 2002. TBM performance estimation using rock mass
classification. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39: 771778.
Steck,A. 1987. Le massif du Simplon Rflexions sur la cinmatique des nappes de gneiss. Schweiz Mineral Petrogr
Mitt 67: 2745.
Yagiz, S. 2002. Development of Rock Fracture and Brittleness Indices to Quantifying the Effects of Rock Mass
Features and Toughness in the CSM Model Basic Penetration for Hard Rock Tunneling Machines. PhD Thesis,
289 p., Colorado School of Mines, Colorado, USA
Yagiz, S. 2008. Utilizing rock mass properties for predicting
TBM performance in hard rock condition. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 23: 326339.

Yagiz, S. 2009. Assessment of brittleness using rock strength

and density with punch penetration test. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 24: 6674.
Yagiz, S., Rostami, J., Kim, T., Ozdemir, L. & Merguerian,
C. 2009. Factors influencing performance of hard rock
tunnel boring machine. In I. Vrkljan (ed.), Rock Engineering in Difficult Ground Conditions Soft Rocks
and Karst, Proceedings of Eurock 2009 The ISRM
Regional Symposium, Cavtat, Croatia: 695700. Leiden:
CRC Press/Balkema.
Yagiz, S., Merguerian, C. & Kim, T. 2010. Geological controls on the breakthrough of tunnel boring machines in
hard rock crystalline terrains. In J. Zhao et al. (eds),
Rock Mechanics in Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Proceedings of Eurock 2010 The ISRM Regional Symposium, Lausanne, Switzerland: 401404. Leiden: CRC
Press/Balkema.

925