TUNNELS 8c D E E P SPACE

Hard Rock Tunnel Boring: Prognosis and Costs

Arne Lislerud

Abstract--This paper is drawn from [our project reports, dealing
with: (1) hard rock tunnel boring; (2) drill-and-blast tunnelling--
prognosis; (3) drill-and-blast tunnelling--costs; and (4) a drillability
and drilling rate index catalogue. The project reports are based on
jobsite follow-up work o[ both bored and blasted tunnels. This paper
summarizes some developments in T B M and cutter design, [actors
influencing the boring process and [actors that aI[ect tunnelling costs,
e.g. the increased productivity possible with TBMs.
R6sum6--Cet article est bask sur les rapports de quatre pro jets traitant
les sujets suivants: (1) percement de tunnel dans les roches dures; (2)
pronostic des mkthodes tunnelibres par percement et par explosion;
(3) co~ts des mbthodes tunnelibres par percement et par explosion; et
(4) catalogue d'indexes de possibilitb de percement et de taux
d'avancbe de percement. Les rapports de projet sont basks sur le suivi
des travaux sur site pour gtla ]ois des tunnels percbs et explosks. Ce
rapport rbsume quelques dbveloppements e]Iectuks sur les tunneliers,
sur la conception de dkcoupe, sur les [acteurs in[luenqant le procbdb
de perloration, et sur les [acteurs qui a[Iectent les co~ts de tunnelage
(comme un accroissement possible de la productivitb des tunneliers).

he first tunnel boring in Scandi- T a b l e 1. R e v i e w o f T B M drives in Scandinavia.

T navia was done in medium to

soft ground conditions, i.e.
micaschists and limestones. Today,
Country Completed T B M s on
jobsite
however, most machines bore in hard
rock, i.e. granite and gneiss. Faroe Islands 1 1
Table 1 provides a review of tunnel Norway 34* 5
boring machine (TBM) drives in Sweden 3 1
Scandinavia. Drives accomplished by
different manufacturers are summarized TOTAL 38 7
in Table 2. Table 3 compares drill-and-
blast to tunnel boring meterage in *Includes two midi full-facers.
Norway.
Although most tunnelling in Norway For this study, j o i n t i n g has been frequency and orientation to tunnel
is carried out in connection with the classified, with regard to penetration, in axis provide the basis for calculating the
construction of new hydro power the following four groups or classes j o i n t factor k~. T h e joint factor k~ for
plants, road and highway tunnel based on joint openness, roughness, and fissures and foliation planes is shown in
meterage is increasing. continuity. Fig. 1. Penetration rates are more or less
(1) S y s t e m a t i c a l l y f r a c t u r e d rock proportional to the joint factor k,.
mass:
Geology--TBM Performance • Parallel-oriented joints (rated
sP)
In contrast to drill-and-blast tunnel- • Parallel-oriented fissures T a b l e 2. T B M drives in S c a n d i n a v i a
ling in hard rock, tunnelling perform- (rated St) by di[[erent manu[acturers.
ance of TBMs is highly dependent on • Foliation planes or bedding
geological conditions. T h e significance planes (partings) (rated St). Atlas Copco (and Jarva) 8*
of geological and machine parameters (2) Non-fractured rock (rated St O). Bouygues 2
in relation to TBM performance is rated (3) Marked single joints (rated ESP). Demag 2
as shown in Table 4. (4) Crushed zones Robbins 26
The interaction between rock mass • G r o u n d support work prob- Wirth 7
properties and machine parameters is ably will be needed.
described in project report 1-83 of the *Includes two midi full-facers.
Joint rating combined with joint
Norwegian Institute of Technology
(1983). T a b l e 3. C o m p a r i s o n o] drill-and-blast to t u n n e l b o r i n g meterage in N o r w a y .

Rock Mass Jointing Cross-section 1983 1984 1985

Most rock is jointed or fractured to 2 - 10 m 2 32,818 17,990 21,871
some degree. Rock mass j o i n t i n g must
be m a p p e d and put into use through a 10 - 30 m 2 51,603 35,740 34,997
workable system developed by the 3 0 - 60 m 2 25,958 51,270 53,643
engineering geologist. 6 0 - 100 m 2 2019 1210 2108
> 100 m 2 1455 950 2990

Present address: Arne Lislerud, Norwegian TOTAL 111,853 107,160 115,509

Institute of Technology, 7034 Trondheim- m bored 26,708 15,390 14,136
NTH, Norway.

Tunnelling mid I 'nderground Space Technology, Voi. 3, No. 1, pp. 9-17, 1988. 0886-7798/8S $3,00 + .00
P ] i n w d in ( ;w ar Bill;fin. P e l g a m o n Plvss p h 9
Table 4. Rated rock mass and machine factors influencing T B M performance.
Rock mass factors
Rock mass jointing (k,)
- - Type and continuity
- - Frequency
- - Orientation
Rock porosity
Rock drillability (DRI)
Stress in rock
Rock hardness/
abrasiveness (CLI)
Figure 1. Correction factor k~ as a f u n c t i o n of fissure class and angle between tunnel
axis and planes of weakness.
Rock Drillability
The ease with which rock can be
bored is measured by an indirect
method. The Drilling Rate Index (DRI)
is a combination of the rock brittleness
value ($20) and Siever's miniature drill
test (SJ). The test methods are described
in the Drillability and Drilling Rate
Index Catalogue (Norwegian Institute
of Technology 1981).
The SJ value expresses rock surface
hardness. A useful correlation between
SJ and a calculated rock Vickers
Hardness from mineral content has
been found. T h e SJ value is very useful
for determining the degree of rock
weathering.
10 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOGY
Machine factors
Thrust per cutter (M)
Cutter edge bluntness (b~)
Cutter spacing (,4)
Cutter diameter (d)
Torque capacity and RPM
The machine's capacity for
handling large chips or
blocks
General solidity against blows
and vibrations
Cutterhead curvature and
diameter (D)
Backup equipment
The Sz0 value includes the effect of
rock brittleness and, therefore, grain size
and grain boundary strength. However,
the effect of rock porosity is not
included in the test.
Recent follow-up work carried out in
vesicular basalt on the Faroe Islands
shows that porosity in the range 3-t2%
has a considerable effect on penetration
rates and rock blastability. The bedrock
in Norway normally has little or no
porosity.
The relationship between the compres-
sive strength and the DRI is shown in
Fig. 2 for 65 parallel tests grouped
according to rock type. The plot shows
that the compressive strength used for
rating drillability seems to underestimate
the toughness (or lack ot IJriltlem's~)ot
~ertain rock tylWS.
Machine Factors--
T B M Performance
TBM performance is highly dependent
on machine design. Machine factors
that influence boring performance are
listed in Table 4.
Net Penetration
The basic penetration in systematic-
ally jointed rock is shown in Fig. 3.
Net penetration is found by using the
following formula:
i = it," k~ (mm/rev.)
I = i" RPM • 60/1000 (m/h).
The prognosis model for an earlier
project report (Norwegian Institute of
Technology 1983), did not combine
jointed and non-fractured rock in one
diagram (see Fig. 1). As a result, the
revised prognosis model is based on a
different concept, in which non-
fractured rock is easily included. The
influence of cutter spacing and cutter
bluntness also is included.
The 1987 project report model is
based on normalized penetration tests.
A typical test result in non-fractured
granite for a 15.5-in. cutter is shown in
Fig. 4.
The penetration test curve is normal-
ized to a power function:
i = (M/MI) ~' (mm/rev.)
M = thrust per cutter (kN)
M~ = "critical thrust" (the thrust
needed to bore 1.0 [mm/rev.])
b = slope of curve (b is an expression
for the chipping frequency).
Penetration parameters b and M~ are
dependent variables. A plot of b as a
function of M~ is shown in Fig. 5.
Likewise, a raw plot of M~ vs joint factor
k~ is shown in Fig. 6.
The work of finding the relationships
between b , A, d, DRI and k~ to M~ and b
in mathematical terms will be completed
in 1987.
It should be noted that cutter
bluntness has its greatest effect on the
slope b, i.e. chipping frequency.
Medium-Pressure Water Jets
Recent boring tests with medium-
pressure water jets (300-350 bar) in non-
fractured granite showed little or no
effect on boring performance. On the
other hand, all of the water introduced
by the water jets into the muck resulted
in operating problems with the backup
equipment.
Torque Demand
Required torque to rotate the cutter-
head depends on:
• Cutterhead diameter.
• Number and position of cutters.
• Thrust per cutter.
• Cutter coefficient k.
Volume 3, Number 1, 1988
 I ~~ ~ ~I ' I : [I I
!I I I' ~ ] ride, especially when the degree of
; il;:=ii =
=:;,, "
'=ii',;iiii']i!ii::iiiiii • .". . . i~,ili , il !i I r l
: iil jointingincreases.
;, ! ii :ili I' i;l! !=1 : I !~il: '!ll;!:l
, I ' iil T h e cutter coefficient k is normalized
:: .':[*, ; Amphibolitlc gneiss i~ i!i ! i i~
~'~ , ,
,~, to the f o l l o w i n g r o l l i n g resistance
::~ :"~ !I!II! i expression by the cutter c o n s t a n t C (see
2ool i!i i;i~!!i! ':l,~lll lill;:l;I
'~;!i i!!![:~i i:ll ! Fig. 7):
'i I :' :;::;:1 ,:1 i, I ! I,! !t'i! I
~. i ] ::!_"--:!: ;il ~i I : I i,!l :i I
I :::2;2;
O 100 !i i ::.....
:~ ~ .I,
~, G r e,e,n, s t o n e --:::~ ! : !~!! i i i ii i i l
~oo : -*,~ . . . . . . . :,,1,' k=S/M=tan(C'Arctan~).
! . . . . .![!ll
. . . . ! ,'-Y"T~,
~ m~ ~ M~Vo0e
!!!i :: 'o ....' I ,*,n,
~i~= I!il
' !i:i ii!:i;
, ~=," : i~
]iii:i;~
r-z

~ C"ic]']]. . ]. . ' ]ilS""'"

I ]J m I 'li~ ~ T o r q u e demand is found by the
2O 3O 4O 5O 6O 70 so 9O IO0 2o 3o 4o so 6o 70 so so ~oo f o l l o w i n g expression:
Drilling Rate Index,DRI Or'illing Rate Index , DRI

Db = f " R • N " M • k (kNm)

~li,:li: :, lil [r I I ! J = m e a n cutterhead radius factor.
~3oo !ill i; '
t i ?: !
i300 I ii ]. Cutter Ring Life
T h e cutter r i n g life p r o g n o s i s m o d e l
'=~2oo ' i .
i
.,, .,~ ,il!! i '
ill was developed by b a c k m a p p i n g tunnels
Coarse "-'; : : : , ,, ,I;; and correlating geological c o n d i t i o n s to
Mica ~ ~/~ i e d i u m to f i n e o b t a i n cutter r i n g life.
-~ g r a i n e d g r a n i t e
A F O R T R A N p r o g r a m u s i n g data
I

U 100 ~ _ g n e i s s ~ ~.
~-. . P. h. y .l l i.t e I' ~" ic; :i ' t ' from the cutter shift reports determines
~lii ; : ;i!.;i i
20
!;
30
;:[i
i]
60
,
50 60
. ! l . ~ .,
70 80
.
90
I ShaIe
100
; i
. . . . . . . . . . . . . [ : ', :~-.~ Siltston, i --- the average cutter r i n g life a l o n g the
tunnel.
Drilling Rate Index,DRI Drilling Rate Index, DRI T h e expression used is:

[i
Figure 2. Relationship between Drilling Rate Index (DRI) and compressive strength
o~ (NTH), grouped according to rock type.
g h= (h/cutter)
=1
a i I I
ii l
JIIII
IlmlII
ImIIml
ImIml
iamm
Niinl
Hi = m a c h i n e hours for cutter No. i.
|IIIH
Haiti
IIIm
| I | Therefore, the average r o l l i n g distance
i li i I I Ni u ~ ~ i iniii ii ION ~ iiu i p - ~ n
per cutter is:
'- ~ ,ii ii~ ,~i ~, ." I ii~,~i i
i :,
:: jil;
~ !~ii i:;::"
~i :i. = "ir! ~ ! !! . . . ~ . 1 8 o -
RD = J 2rc R " RPM " 60 " Lh (m)
,, /r! , , ! Because cutter r i n g life Lh is an average
for the cutterhead, the effect of the ratio
g,, il. i:i:,-,;',, g r _ .1~ of center and g a u g e cutters to face
a!! 4"!! ,~
cutters has been included. T h i s ratio is
,, =,., -; ( . . .... the basis for the T B M d i a m e t e r
correction factor k~,.
Cutter c o n s u m p t i o n in m s is deter-
'" I~.~ ..... '~ L, ! : : m i n e d by six factors:
iJ~ , 7!! ,, ,"r ( 1) A m o u n t of wearable steel on discs.
(2) T i m e - d e p e n d e n t rock p o w d e r
ir . . abrasion on steel discs.
(3) R o c k hardness, w h i c h indirectly
~,, oo: determines where edge wear will take
"-, ,~-~ , ~.,.~ , ,'v"-
."4."
.. ~ ii ~ . . . - - ~ -
place, e.g. at the tip, sides or both.

i
-

_~..,,..,._,-
... "YT2!
.. : : _: _ ~' .m.
!: ; :: ~: ~ - (4) R o c k mass j o i n t i n g and rock
-
b o u n d a r y zones.
.,.......
(5) Cutterhead curvature and dia-
:::.. ti: ~,iiii i! '~ ,.~: '.~i i~; ; meter.
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(6) Penetration rate ( m / h ) .
T h e Cutter Life I n d e x (CLI) includes
DPilling Rate Index, DRI both rock hardness and rock abrasiveness
i
on disc steel (see Fig. 8).
T h e prognosis for average cutter r i n g
Figure 3. Basic penetration ib in m m / rev. as a [unction of Drilling Rate Index (DRI), life in h o u r s is given by the f o l l o w i n g
average gross thrust per disc and cutter diameter. e q u a t i o n (see Fig. 9):

T h e cutter coefficient k is the ratio • Degree of j o i n t i n g . Lh = kd • C L I • k," kQ" kRPm

between the d r a g force S and thrust M • Skidding.
o n the cutter. T h e cutter coefficient • M u c k removed from invert. Mineral c o m p o s i t i o n m u s t be taken
depends on: In p r i n c i p l e , the cutter coefficient is the into c o n s i d e r a t i o n for rocks h a v i n g
• T y p e of cutter (diameter and r o l l i n g resistance of the cutter. However, Q < 14%. I m p r o v e m e n t s are still needed
bluntness). the b u g g y wheel effect is also evident, o n the prognosis m o d e l in this area.
• I n d e n t i o n (or penetration). i.e. a larger disc results in a s m o o t h e r Recently there has been a renewed

V o l u m e 3, N u m b e r 1, 1988 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY 11

 E

IOO

Thrust per cutter (kN/cl

Figure 4. Interpretation o] a T B M penetration test.

12 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOf;Y V o l u m e 3, N u m b e r 1, 1988

 ~* ~ ~ + [I ; [ : i,i~ ~i~'iiii:~:~lll i ~
it i I 'i~!-:::; Illl i i ....
I:

~ : :: -..~-'-,, :::

o ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :[l !. ,_,. ili~i

F ! ! ! i!!i!!liii''!!!! i!i~ :':.!!! ?~;!l:iiil "

~ _ ;,,3~
~ ~:lJ 'iiii

- i ! {j!:::~!!!~::::: !~:: :;:: ;;:::~ T

+ "-'T-"I
H-+I "'~i ""

• • • : t -,, : Y'l!" g /,I,*'~I,~T~ '~, t'l

q:ttl
I 11 l
] ~ t , li l [ i l [ '
t!]]
I0 i
,i .W"

;:!:tii, P!?t:i!i
3 4 S
i~ 6 719 Io0
I I!1
I!~!
[qll
200
I:
[Ill
[i]
lit
I
3
I I I I I I I I I I I I
MI
Figure 5. Cutterhead characteristic curve.

-4-~-1- .-+H-

:- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ , ~ - - L -':J.............
l q I : : : : I ~ : I II v,i, r r-I , i-~'~-r=~;:=~r-

• : : :::: : : :" :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ -P-4---~--.~--~-~++~:l:~+.,-i-I-I~

~ - ] ~ , - : . : : ; ; . . ; . . . . . . . : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '.--- "~+--~-',~-~1-~: ! .~, :'-t~*~!l [ l ~ : : : : ~

0.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91.0 2 3 4 5
I I I I I I I I 1 I I i [ I

Joint Factor, k s

Figure 6. Raw plot o[ some M[ data as a [unction o[ join t [actor ks and cutter diameter•

Volume 3, N u m b e r l, 1988 TUNNELLING

AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY 13
 - 1,0 (k) Surveying (normally no waiting
- 9
IIIUIllr, IIr,IIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIHIIII lllIIIIIIllll IIIIiiIIIIlllllllnll IIllllIl involved, except when boring in
llllIII IIHIUIIIIIIIII IIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIUlHIII I
- 8 lllllIIIIIIIUlIIIIIIII l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I l l l P I i l P~I~I~ curves).
7
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllIIIIIlllIIIIIIIIIIlJ~uIII[I
ii B I l l iiiii iIiii i i ii i i I i i i i i i i i i IiIII m ~ - l l l I I I (1) Major machine breakdown, e.g.
l l B l l l l l l ~ l l l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I l l l l I l l f --IllIlll~ . I I

- 6
====-::::::::::======:--------======--:,=:=::==,:~=i'"!
II IIIll I I I I I IIIHII I I I I I I I I I l l l I I I I I llr ~llllllII ~
main bearing failure.
II inllU
ii lllIl
IiiIflI
ilmg
IIHI
IIIII
BiB i I H I
IIIII I I I I
llgIll I I II
ii
II
II
i i i l l llIPf.dil
I I l l I I ~ I ~ l l I
I I i I W % . dIIlll
lllil
IIIP--
l ~ .liB I H I I
~IIlll l i I I l
I I W % dll I I I I I I I I l l
H I l l
IIIII
lllli
(m) Ground support work.
Illlll=lllIllllIIllllllI~--~-ll;~I~llIlllllllll=l Operations a - d above are (anne(ted
- 5 II liIll lllll llIII I I I I Ii I ~ - - i l l IP5~"~I111~IIIII I I I I I IIIII
ilmmuilllllllllllliii~,iiii ~. ~.biImil¢ llllIIIlllilli with the boring process itself, whereas
I I I I I I I lilil IIIII i I ~ ~,,,I, i I I I P P - ~,dd I I l l l II llllIlllIlllll
II lllllllllI UIUP~'~.,IIII I ~ d I I I I I I l
_-f:_-~ : t 2"I:_~[:2[: ~[ ~L'~"~Z"a_--- . , ~ i n i l U U l P ~ d
IlIlllllIIllllllI
IlNlllllIllll IIIII
e-k are related to the remaining
- 4 llnUllllllll nnlllp~ ¢i IIUmp~dllnlllnllllllIllllllIll tunnelling operations. Operation 1 and
t- inulIIIIIIllIIIII p~dl II iIi~c-,aiIIUIlllIIIIIllIIIIlllnII
_ ~ _~._~._a__~._ .L _ ~ "-"e''~: ~r- ~ ~'r-~--'r- - r ' " r " ~ : l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l I I I m are not included in the machine
IIIIIII lllllUIal IIII II lllllIllIIIlllllllIIIIIllll
IIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIII~IIUlIIIIIIIII utilization percentage, but rather are
- 3 IIl U l l IIIN I n l I III l l l m l l l ~lliIIIIII l U l l l llIll
HI
II
iIIII
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
IIHI I
IIlll I
I
I
I I
i I
Ii I m
Ii I i
m i l i n
I i I i I I I I
II iI
II
IIIIIIIHIIIIII
IIIliIIIIIiIIl
included as additional time on the total
O I I i I I I I I I I l l l l l l l i I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I| IIIIIIIHIIIIII
project time-plan.
i I I I l IIl II I I llI l i II li I I I I I I

L
iiliii!iili!!ii!iiiiiiiiii|iiiiii
iiii,
HHIHIHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIHIII
I IIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIHIII
A unit time for the listed operations
can be determined. These unit times
- 2 I I I lllIIIIIIIlll I ! l[ ]Ill
: f i l l] (h/kin) seem to vary little with regard to
4~ ;;~;I] ' I I i I I l [ I I I IllllIL]llll l [ ] [
i II i I~LLlLLlll !&-L4',!!l]!!li!i!i!!!l [ __tsAJ]
~I~ TBM diameter; rather, they vary with
~J I t[ll',;[il!i[ll
I I []l!i!illllll i i ------sharp cutters crew motivation and quality of jobsite
I IEIlilllllllll administration.
IIIN III111111 dull cutters
I IIIl!ll[llllll Table 5 provides an example of how
Illlltl][ll]lll I i ii_iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiii iiiii to predict normal machine utilization
0,1
I }lllllltlllltl 4 I I ll]]]l]llllllIl[ll[lll IIIII through the use of unit operation time,
I 1 I i l i I I I given the following assumptions about
0,3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1,0 2,0 3 4 5
the tunnelling methods to be used:
I I I I I I I I I I I 1 Diameter of TBM 4.5 m
Joint Factor, ks Penetration rate 2.0 m / h
Cutter life 70 m ~
Figure 7. Envelope curves for the cutter constant C as a [unction of joint [actor k~, Boring stroke 1.5 m
cutter diameter and bluntness. Regrip time 5 min
Cutter change and
inspection time 40 min./cutter
L i mestone
Backup equipment 2 track.
Ca Icerous shale Trackless transport of muck is possible
and desirable for large-diameter TBMs,
Gr"een schist i.e. diameter > 7.3m. Martin and Wallis
Phyllite (1985) have described muck transport on
the Floyfjell twin-bore highway tunnels.
Mica schist
Mica gneiss
Boring vs Drill and Blast
Gr"ani te g n e i s s
In c o m p a r i n g boring with drill-and-
Amphibol. gneiss blast tunnelling in hard rock, each has
Quar"tz schist some specific advantages and dis-
Quar"tzite advantages. T o fully utilize the advan-
tages of each tunnelling method in
rqi te ,
tKondhje
uuart2 dtor'i tel construction planning, it is important
that the different methods be taken into
10 20 30 z¢0 50 60 70 80 90 100
account at an early stage (see the
Holandsfjord power plant example,
Cutter" Life Index CLI
below). Comparative advantages and
Figure 8. Cutter LiJe Index (CLI) Jar various rock types. disadvantages of the two methods are
listed in Table 6.
interest in i m p r o v i n g ring life by using longer period, depends on the net
carbide disc cutters. Unlike the case advance rate and the number of boring Tunnelling Costs
with steel disc cutters, carbide cutter hours during that period.
f a i l u r e f r e q u e n c i e s are i n f l u e n c e d Machine utilization is net boring It is difficult to write a short, general
immensely by utilized thrust. T o help time expressed in percent of total and interesting comparison of tunnel-
solve this problem, research and testing tunnelling time. Total tunnelling time ling costs. Each project is unique, with
of new steel alloys in discs are includes: specific considerations that must be
increasing. For discs to be used (a) Boring. taken into account.
successfully in hard and abrasive rock, (b) Regrip, including collaring (2- T h e Holandsfjord hydro power plant
the steel disc must be capable of 8 min. each time). project illustrates the different construc-
withstanding high cutter loads without (c) Inspection and change of cutters. tion, ownership and operating costs
c h i p p i n g , while at the same time (d) Service and maintenance of TBM that must be optimized in p l a n n i n g a
keeping the edge width as narrow as and backup equipment. major hydro project. 2
possible to enhance penetration. (e) Waiting for muck cars.
(f) Ventilation. Holandsfjord Hydro Power Plant
Machine Utilization--
(g) Installation of track (normally no Holandsfjord is the largest project of
waiting involved). the Svartisen Hydro Power Scheme,
Weekly Advance
(h) Maintenance of track. with an installation of 2 x 300 MW and
Gross advance rate, expressed in (i) Electrical installations. an average production of 2077 G W h / y r .
meters per week as an average for a (j) Travelling time, change of shift. T h e 7040-m-long headrace tunnel has

14 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY Volume 3, Number 1, 1988

Figure 9. Cutter ring li]e as a ]unction o] the Cutter Li]e Index (CLI) and correction
]actors k, and kQ

Volume 3, Number 1, 1988 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOGY 15

 Table 5. Exarnple of determining machine utilization for a project through the
use of unit operation times.

Operation Unit time Machine

(h/kin) utilization (%)

Boring 1000 + 2.0 -- 500 49.5

1000 (5 + 60)
Regrip - 44 4.4
1.5
Cutter change 1000 "'(40~'~4.52 _- 151 15.0
and inspection \ 60 / 4 x 70
Downtime TBM 95 9.4
Downtime backup 115 11.4
equipment
Miscellaneous downtime 105 10.4
SUM 1010 100.1

Additional downtime
- - Main bearing failure 65
- - Ground support in:
Granite and gneiss 5-20
Continuous spelling 30-80
Crushed zones per zone

Table 6. Comparative advantages and disadvantages of drill-and-blast vs tunnel

boring methods.
Drill and Blast
Advantages:
• Versatile equipment, can be
easily allocated to dissimilar
jobs.
• Relatively low capital costs.
• Little or no machine risk.
• Easier to tunnel through
difficult crushed zones.
T u n n e l Boring
Advantages:
• Greatly reduced cross-sections for
hydro power, sewer and water tunnels.
• Rapid excavation; shorter construction
time results in lower interest for the
client.
• Low ground support costs on the
average.
• Short (< 700 m) and small (< 1.5 m)
nearly horizontal tunnels can be easily
bored with raise boring equipment,

Disadvantages:
• Uneven tunnel contour, with
loss of head in unlined hydro
power, water and sewer
tunnels.
• Higher average ground
support costs, especially for
poor jobsite client
administration.
• Medium to low advance
rates.
Disadvantages."
• High capital costs (although the
importance of capital costs can be
reduced by leasing).
• Long delivery time for new machines if
suitable refurbished machines are not
available.
• Heavy equipment, time- and cost-
consuming startup.

• Problems with ventilation of • High geological risk with regard to

small and long tunnels.
The latter two disadvantages
often result in a need for
extra edits and jobsites.
advance rates, cutter consumption and
costs.
• Major machine downtime risk, such as
main bearing failure.
• Although ground support costs are low
on the average, tunnelling costs can be
exceedingly high and the going difficult
in bad crushed zones if the contractor is
not well-prepared or motivated to
handle these situations.

16 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY V o l u m e 3, N u m b e r 1, 1988

a drill-and-blast, 87-m 2 cross-section. Table 7. Comparative costs o[ drill-and-blast vs tunnel boring [or the
The headrace tunnel is to be driven from Holandsljord project.
two adits, one just above the power
station, the other at intake Storglomvatn Optimum cross-section
(see Fig. 10). Adit Storglomvam is Drill & Blast 87 m 2
necessary to permit the startup work on Boring 2 • E~ 6.1 m
Construction time
Drill & Blast 5.5 years (both agg•)
SVARTiSEN
• GLACIER Boring 3•2 years (agg• 1 )
4.9 years (agg. 2)
m.o.h, ~ ~

STOR- < 0 Drill and blest TBM

GLOM-
" VATN
Construction costs 87 m 2 2.~6.1 m
• t*OO / " (mil. Nok) (mill. Nok)

.o :
< st. ¢ Adit Holandsfjord
Jobsite, roads, adit 17.5 20.8
F=87 m = o r
5820
2x6.1m TB
20~ 43590O
Tunnelling towards Storglomvatn 66.2 93.4
Ground support 23.2 7.5
Tunnel to pressure shaft, 29.7 29.7
(3(3 2X" . . . . . including ground support
STORGLOM" Gate installation 5.0
VATN ~ " g = 87m~

~ - - Gate house Adit Storglomvatn

ADIT
Jobsite, roads, adit, gate
installations 25.3
HOLANDSFJORD

Sum, jobsite costs 169.9 156.4

General costs 59.9 57.9
I "HOLAND~ Interest during construction 41.3 23.9
period
Capitalized loss of head costs 55.2 38.0
Figure 10. Plan o[ the Holandsljord TOTAL COSTS (in million Nok) 318.3 276.2
hydro power plant.
the gate to begin within a reasonable changes in income and operating Norwegian Institute of Technology. 1981.
time. This adit lies in a very harsh conditions of the power plant• Drillability, drilling rate index catalogue.
climatic zone and difficult road- Table 7 provides a projected cost PR 8-79. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian
b u i l d i n g terrain. analysis of the Holandsfjord project, Institute of Technology.
T h e geologic conditions, which showing comparative costs for drill- Norwegian Institute of Technology. 1983.
include a rock mass of micaschist and Hard rock tunnel boring. PR 1-83. Trond-
and-blast vs tunnel boring methods. [] heim, Norway: Norwegian Institute of
micagneiss with high horizontal tectonic
Technology.
stresses, are unfavourable for drill-and- Norwegian Institute of Technology. 1984a.
blast tunnelling. Therefore, a tunnel Drill and blast tunnelling--prognosis.PR
boring alternative was introduced to Acknowledgments
5-83. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian
reduce construction time and ground We hereby thank the major Norwegian Institute of Technology.
support costs. contractors, the State Power Board, the Norwegian Institute of Technology. 1984b.
The alternative called for dividing the Road Department, SEV and TBM Drill and blast tunnelling--costs.PR 6-83.
cross-section in two, and boring one Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute
manufacturers represented in Norway
tunnel at a time. T h e site geology favors of Technology.
for their help and financial support over
boring, which will permit high weekly a n u m b e r of years. None of these project
advance rates. Gate installation will reports could have been undertaken Notes
begin after first bore is completed. without their wholehearted assistance. An updated catalogue, to be published in
T u n n e l 2 will be bored while aggregate
1987, will include data available for
1 is being installed. personal computers.
Construction of the Holandsfjord References
2 For general meteragecalculations refer to
headrace tunnel is scheduled to begin in Martin, D. and Wallis, S. 1985. Cut and Norwegian Institute of Technology
1988. The headrace tunnel will be bored thrust at Bergen. Tunnels dr Tunnelling project reports 1-83 (boring), 5-83 (drill
using only one 8.5-m TBM due to 17: 10, 14-18. and blast) and 6-83 (drill and blast).

Volume 3, Number 1, 1988 TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUNDSPACE TECHNOLOGY 17