Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

Challenges and opportunities of using tunnel boring machines in mining

Y.L. Zheng, Q.B. Zhang ⇑, J. Zhao
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia

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

Article history: Full-face tunnel boring machine (TBM) tunnelling has unparalleled advantages over conventional
Received 18 December 2015 drill-and-blast (D&B) techniques in terms of higher advance rates and lower risk levels in favourable
Received in revised form 18 January 2016 ground conditions. However, there are only a few successful TBM applications in mines. The aim of this
Accepted 20 January 2016
paper is to discuss the technical challenges of using TBMs in mining since the pioneering work in the
Available online 29 January 2016
1960s. It starts with a description on the genesis of hard rock mines and coal mines and the differences
of TBM tunnelling in mining and civil engineering projects. The historical applications of TBMs in mines
Keywords:
are critically reviewed and the reasons for the unsuccessful applications are summarised and analysed
TBM
Mining
from a geological point of view. Challenges, such as cutter wear, jamming and steering difficulties in
Difficult grounds difficult grounds with water inrush, fractured and faulted zones, high in-situ stresses, and gas, are
Challenges explored in depth through case histories. Moreover, the corresponding mitigations measures to cope with
Mitigation measures complex grounds in mines are provided. A prospect of TBM applications in mining is presented at the end.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Ever since the first modern TBM was developed and success-
fully used in the 1950s, over 10,000 TBMs have been applied to
construct tunnels for traffic, hydropower, sewerage and water,
underground storage and mining. With continuous development
of technologies, a wide variety of TBMs are now available to bore
tunnels of different diameters through ground conditions ranging
from hard rock to soft soil and grounds in between. On the basis
of ground and groundwater conditions (i.e., hard rock, soft soils,
mixed and changing grounds), tunnel face and wall stability, TBMs
can be broadly classified into seven types, as indicated in Fig. 1.
Excellent reviews of the historical development and opportunities
of using TBMs in hard rock and soft soil are provided by Stack
(1982) and Maidl et al. (2012, 2013).
Although TBMs in favourable ground conditions offer unparal-
leled advantages over drill and blast (D&B) in terms of higher
advance rates, lower risk levels and possible cost reduction, they
could experience great setbacks in adverse ground conditions,
which results in significant losses in safety, cost and schedule
(Barla and Pelizza, 2000). Adverse ground conditions can include
changing geology (Yamamoto et al., 2006; Zhao et al., 2007),
mixed-face grounds (Tóth et al., 2013), squeezing grounds
(Palmströ, 1995; Ramoni and Anagnostou, 2008), blocky grounds
(Delisio et al., 2013), high in-situ stressed grounds (Gong et al.,
2012; Yin et al., 2014), highly abrasive grounds (Gehring, 1994;
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: qianbing.zhang@monash.edu (Q.B. Zhang).
Liu and Liang, 2000), large/huge groundwater inrush (Font Capó,
2012), highly fractured and faulted grounds (Barton, 2000;
Paltrinieri, 2015) and gassy grounds (Copur et al., 2012). Under
some circumstances, several abovementioned adverse grounds
can be encountered at the same time.
Applications of TBMs in the mining industry have previously
been reviewed by Handewith (1980), Stack (1982), Robbins
(1984), Cigla et al. (2001), Home and Askilsrud (2011) and Brox
(2013). However, only brief introductions to TBM applications in
the mining industry (e.g. TBM type, diameter and tunnel length)
are presented and general technical considerations of using a
TBM are discussed. Conclusions are reached that TBM applications
in mines are far from satisfactory when compared with that in civil
engineering. Only a few out of about 100 TBM attempts in about 60
mines, e.g. the Stillwater mine (USA), the San Manual mine (USA)
and some coal mines, are accepted as successful. Therefore, this
paper attempts to explore a more detailed investigation into the
reasons of the unsuccessful TBM applications in the mining
environment and technical challenges and solutions that must be
considered for the future use of TBMs in the mining industry.
Following the introduction, Section 2 describes the genesis of
mines and the stemming geological difficulties for TBM tunnelling
and compares the differences of TBM tunnelling in the mining and
civil projects. Section 3 presents the historical use of TBMs in hard
rock mines and coal mines since the pioneering work in the 1960s
and discusses the general characteristics of these applications.
Sections 4 and 5 critically summarises technical challenges
encountered and suggested mitigation measures. A prospect of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.023
0886-7798/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
288 Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299
Fig. 1. A classification of TBMs.
using TBMs in mines is provided in Section 6, and finally a brief
summary is presented.
2. Comparison of TBM tunnelling in mining and civil
engineering
Before analysing TBM applications in mines, one needs to
understand the differences between TBM tunnelling in mines and
in civil projects, which are addressed from the geological point of
view in the following parts.
2.1. Geology of hard rock and coal deposits
Generally speaking, the conventional mining industry includes
metallic ore mining, coal mining and quarry mining. TBMs can be
used to access the underground orebodies or to explore the ore-
bodies. Non-conventional mining such as shale gas, natural gas
and oil involves significantly different mining techniques and nor-
mally needs no TBMs for tunnel excavation.
A metallic ore is a geochemical anomaly which enriches one or
more particular elements/minerals to a concentration that can be
economically mined. For example, the concentrations of copper
and gold in a rock have to be upgraded by about 80 times and
1000 times from their average concentration in the Earth’s Crust
before we can call the rock an ore. Generally they are formed by
the remove/transport-concentrate-preserve sequence. Based on
the contained elements, form of deposits, associated host rocks,
and interpreted genesis of the deposit ores, ore deposits are broadly
classified into syngenetic and epigenetic deposits, which can be fur-
ther divided into magmatic, metasomatic, hydrothermal epige-
netic, exhalative, marine-sedimentary and placer deposits
(McQueen, 2005). Epigenetic deposits show forms related to the
geometry of the fluid channelways such as veins or stockworks
along fractures while syngenetic deposits are commonly strata-
bound or stratiform (McQueen, 2005).
The deposits of coal are exclusively of sedimentary geology.
Coal seams and the underlying and overlying strata are commonly
layered and of relatively lower strength compared to ores and host
rocks of metal mines. That is why people differ coal mines from
metal mines even the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of coal
can exceed 100 MPa. The geology of coal mines is relatively simple
and easy to understand, thus will not be discussed in details in this
paper. As most quarries are mined from the surface, TBMs are sel-
dom applied in quarries.
2.2. TBM tunnelling difficulties in mining
Due to the ore genesis and tectonic activities, the geochemical,
geological and geomechanical properties in the orebodies present
high alteration from the surrounding host rocks (Brox, 2013). Even
the orebody itself can present high alteration. Fig. 2 shows the gen-
eralised alteration-mineralisation zoning pattern for telescoped
porphyry Cu deposits, illustrating the mineral difference between
the orebody and the host rocks. To mine the ores in dash-lined por-
phyry, different strata will have to be bored through.
Given the complex geological conditions of ore deposits, tun-
nelling in mines at depth, especially TBM tunnelling, is anticipated
to be more difficult than tunnelling in civil projects at shallower
depths with relatively homogenous ground conditions. Difficult
grounds mentioned in the Introduction Section are more likely to
be encountered in hard rock mines. For coal mines, the geological
hazards are mainly from weak grounds, water inrush and methane
explosion. As most of the TBMs used in hard rock and coal mines in
the early days are open-mode gripper TBMs, which are suitable for
competent moderately hard rock with no major water inflow, the
heterogeneity of the rock mass posed great challenges on the TBMs
(Home and Askilsrud, 2011). Zheng et al. (2014) found that those
geology-related problems accounted for over 70 per cent of TBM
failures/terminations in mines.
2.3. Comparison of TBM tunnelling in mines and civil projects
Table 1 provides a comparison of TBM tunnelling in mining and
civil projects. Apart from the difference in geology, TBM tunnelling
 Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299 289

Fig. 2. Generalised alteration-mineralisation zoning pattern for telescoped porphyry Cu deposits (Sillitoe, 2010).

in mines and civil projects are also different in some other aspects.
For example, it is difficult for a mine to carry out a thorough geo-
logical investigation before tunnelling. The terrain and depth of
mines make site preparation and logistics very challenging. More-
over, the mining industry may be reluctant to use TBM technology
due to the lack of skilled and experienced TBM workers.
3. Characteristics of TBM applications in mining
Given TBM applications in mining were not well documented
and published, very few detailed reports and papers are available
to the public. Efforts were made by the authors to collect informa-
tion on those projects. The purpose is to summarise the problems
encountered in those projects and to shed light on the underlying
causes and the possible avoidance/mitigation measures. In a
chronological order of construction, Tables 2 and 3 summarise
the respective use of TBMs in hard rock and coal mines with trace-
able project descriptions, especially geological data and problems
encountered. More technical discussion about those projects will
be done in Sections 4 and 5. Based on the two tables, a general
summary of TBMs used in mining is presented in Fig. 3, where lar-
ger circles represent larger TBM diameters and horizontal lines
represent the average bored lengths in hard rock and coal mines
before and after 1990. It can be seen that the historical peak of
TBM applications in the mining industry took place in the 1970s
when dozens of TBM projects were conducted to examine the fea-
sibility of TBMs in mining. From the 1970s onwards, there was a
drastic decrease in TBM applications in mining, especially in coal
mines. Since 1985, only two TBMs have been used in coal mines.
This was as a result of development of surface mining equipment
and low-grade ore processing technologies. However, after 2000
TBMs begun to pick up momentum in mining. If we consider
1990 as the turning point, the average diameter and bored length
of TBM projects before and after 1990 can be statistically
compared. The results are presented in Table 4 and will be further
discussed as below.
3.1. TBM diameters

Table 1 The diameters of TBMs used in the mining industry fall into the
Comparisons of TBM tunnelling in civil and mining projects. range of 2–8 m, with an average of 4.38 m. To meet the minimum
requirements of clearance and ventilation and maximise the tun-
Parameters Civil Mining
nelling productivity, the minimum TBM diameter should be 4 m
Number of TBMs Over 10,000 Around 100
(Brox, 2013). The average TBM diameter in hard rock mines
Types of TBMs All types Mainly grippers
Maximum TBM diameter (m) 17.6a 8b increased from 3.22 m before 1990 to 4.95 m after 1990 while coal
Maximum bored length (km) 13.5c 50d mine TBMs have kept at a relatively large diameter (5 m) from the
Maximum advance rate (m/month) 2163e 1627f very beginning. Since 2000, TBMs with larger diameters have been
a
Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel. Source: http://www.tunneltalk.com/ used in mines to excavate the main accesses and/or haulage road-
Discussion-Forum-Mega-TBMs.php. ways in high-production underground mines.
b
Grosvenor Coal Mine, Australia. Source:Belle and Foulstone (2015).
c
Selby Coalfield. Source:Athorn and Snowdon (1986). 3.2. Excavation lengths and advance rates
d
Channel Tunnel. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel.
e
Chicago Little Calumet. Source: The Robbins Company, http://www.therob-
binscompany.com/en/news-events/world-records/. Table 4 indicates that the average length of the TBM bored tun-
f
Tashan Coal Mine. Source:Gong (2004). nels in hard rock mines before 1990 is only 1233 m. It is short
Table 2

290
A summary of TBM applications in hard rock mines (modified from Zheng et al., 2014).

Year Mine TBM Tunnel Tunnel purpose Tunnel Overburden Geology Geo-problems Solutions/discussion Average
diameter lengtha gradient (m) advance rate
(m) (m)
1966–1969 Dragonby Iron Ore 5.49 N/A Trial project N/A N/A Iron ore Incompatibility of A top loading Good
Mine, UK (Rees and UCS: 27.2 MPa plate conveyor and scraper blade performance
Hughes, 1976) repeated breakages system installed
1967–1968 Mather B Iron Mine, 3.96 325 Main level N/A 1097 Unstable and Weak formation Grizzlies and 9.7 m/d in
USA (Beinlich, 1970) interbedded argillite resulted in caving, cutterhead plate good ground
and greywacke deformation and installed. Pinions 6 m/d in
featured by caving jamming of mucking and ring gear weak grounds
and spalling scoops and buckets, redesigned. Hand
conditions and low advance shovelling in
rate flowing grounds
1968 White Pine Copper 2.29 305 Pilot project N/A N/A Highly abrasive Dust problems was Krebs–Elbair 1.62 m/h
mine, USA (Stack, sandstone (55% encountered scrubber was
1982; Talvensaari, quartzite) UCS: installed in the

Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299
1974) 120 MPa ducting system
Laminated shale
formation
comprising
structural zones
UCS: 138–195 MPa
1969 Star Silver–Lead– 2.74 125 Exploratory N/A 2225 Hard, brittle, highly High in-situ stress TBM was abandoned 0.12 m/h
Zinc Mine, USA and fractured quartzite resulted in serious
(Tarkoy and development UCS: 69–351 MPa rock popping and
Marconi, 1991) drift slabbing and very
low penetration rate
1972–1973 Dillsworth Iron 5.18 244 Slope 30% N/A N/A Short cutter life N/A 3.35 m/d
Mine, USA (Uthus 28% High mortality of
and Crocker, 1976) motor bearings and
pump components
1974 Prince Lyell and 3.93 1060 Conveyor 11% N/A Coarse intensively Water and dirt Daily lubricating oil 46 m/wk
Cape Horn Copper decline weathered lithic tuff inflow due to main change
Mine, Australia massive andesites seal failure Drill and blast the
(Embery, 1976) with large boulders Cutterhead jamming boulders to free the
and shears and and conveyor cutterhead
faults system damage by
large boulders
1975 867 Haulage level N/A N/A Sheared Shield caught by free the shield by 75 m/wk
intermediate squeezing ground blasting
pyroclastics, Excessive ground Re-excavation and
sericite/chlorite/ deformation support by Dand B
quartz schist methods
1975 1050 (1990) Haulage level N/A N/A Intense cleavage Grade loss in Skidded the shield 70 m/wk
subparalleled to squeezing ground up steel ramps
tunnel direction Weak sides couldn’t Cut pilot hole by
supply enough men and reamed by
thrust machine
1975 Libanon Gold Mine, 3.35 170 (5000) Access drift N/A 2310 Hard quartzite Steering Various 0.8–2.1 m/h
South Africa under high ground Heat problem modifications
(Pickering et al., stresses subject to Popping/slabbing implemented but
1999; Tarkoy and popping and rock on sidewalls the trial was
Marconi, 1991) slabbing Cutterhead jamming terminated
UCS: 125–275 MPa and conveyor
damage
1976–1979 Free State Geduld 3.4 1150 Haulage level N/A 1627 Weak argillaceous Large rock chunks Alter the head 0.99 m/h
Gold Mines, South quartzite, strong jammed cutterhead buckets to prevent
Africa (Pickering fine-grained glassy Conveyor system large rocks from
et al., 1999; Taylor quartzite with with wet materials gathering
et al., 1977) intrusions of tough and spillage
dolomite dyke Low advance rate
UCS: 100–250 MPa and high cutter costs
1979 Vaal Reefs Gold 3.5 494 (2400) Level N/A N/A Various rock strata Cutter failure and Boring terminated N/A
Mine (Pickering including quartzite changes
et al., 1999) with UCS up to Forward and aft
Table 2 (continued)
Year Mine TBM Tunnel Tunnel purpose Tunnel Overburden Geology Geo-problems Solutions/discussion Average
diameter lengtha gradient (m) advance rate
(m) (m)
414 MPa beam connection
1980–1981 Sotiel lead–zinc– 3.81 1775 Access and 29% N/A Black shale with Low conveyor Change the 18–25 m/d
copper Mine, Spain conveyor haulage quartz pockets and performance conveyor type from (successful)
(Brockway, 1983) pyrites troughed belt to
chain
1981–1982 President Steyn Gold 3.4 700 (2300) Access drift N/A 1260 Quartzite with Front bearing failure Boring terminated 70 m/mon
Mine, South Africa pebble
(Pickering et al., conglomerates
1999) UCS: 27.5–300 MPa
1986 Kiena Gold Mine, 2.18 514 Development +0.4% 171 Competent Cutterhead cracking TBM was pulled out 5.6 m/d
Canada (Vanin, drift andesites and due to rock
1987) basalts hardness,
UCS: 41–252 MPa mechanical
malfunction,

Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299
excessive cutter
wear and low
advance rate
1986 862 Highly incompetent Caving and support Concrete plug ahead 10.7 m/d
and fractured installation of the cutter head
peridotite difficulties in
UCS: 7–54 MPa extremely poor
blocky peridotite
1988 Fraser Nickel– 2.44 1500 Exploration N/A N/A Brittle and Incompatibility of A full shield behind N/A
Copper Mine, drift homogeneous the machine ground the head was used
Canada (Rostami diorite and norites support devices to provide
and Ozdemir, 1997; UCS: up to 360 MPa Inadequate space for protection during
Sandstedt et al., support installation cutter change
1991) and cutter changes
1988–1991 Stillwater PGM 3.96 8055 4 levels N/A N/A Gabbro, norite, Band of weak mafic Construction of a Overall
mine, USA (Luxner troctolite and dikes and soft chamber with steel success
et al., 2012; Terbovic anorthosite regolith rock led to sets to deal with
and Luxner, 2012) UCS: 60–190 MPa pullout of the TBM squeezing grounds
at two levels
Soft grounds and
faults encountered
1992–1993 EI Teniente Copper 5.7 11,000 Water supply 0.23% 1200 Competent and very Initial low advance N/A 30 m/d
Mine, Chile (Darling, strong dioritic rock rate due to
1992) to incompetent rock underpower
Cutter shoe failures
Changing ground
conditions
1993–1995 San Manual Copper 4.62 12,800 Levels Max. 5.7% 1050 Orebody, Low advance rate Successful 22 m/d
Mine, USA monzonite, due to wet clay
(VanDerPas and porphyry, plugging the cutter
Allum, 1995) granodiorite with head at the Virgin
faults and dikes Fault
UCS: 150–180 MPa
1997 Cigar Lake Uranium 4.5 20,000 Access N/A 465–480 Unconformity Groundwater N/A N/A
Mine, Canada contact between the control, weak rock
overlying Formations and
sandstones and the high-radiation
metamorphic environment
basement rocks of
the shield.
1999–2011 East Boulder 4.62 8320 Access +0.5% N/A Sediment, gabbro, No problems Very successful 9.75 m/d
1998–2000 platinum mine, USA 4.58 5897 N/A norite, anorthosite, reported 8.5 m/d
(Luxner et al., 2012; troctolite
Terbovic and UCS: 55–131 MPa
Luxner, 2012)
2000–2001 Bafokeng Rasimone 2.1 340 Reef raise +25% (ave) N/A Pyroxenite with Steering problem Increase 2.54 m/d
Platinum Mine, +30% (max) anorthosite in the Scraper winch maintenance times
South Africa hanging wall and cleaning
(Stander et al., 2001) leuconorite in the Mechanical failures
footwall, and Flammable gas
Merensky reef

291
(continued on next page)
Table 2 (continued)

292
Year Mine TBM Tunnel Tunnel purpose Tunnel Overburden Geology Geo-problems Solutions/discussion Average
diameter lengtha gradient (m) advance rate
(m) (m)
UCS: 130–290 MPa
2003–2005 Monte Giglio Marl 4.88 8700 Conveyor belt link +1–21% N/A Flyschoid Three mid-sized Cavities filled with 19.3 m/d
Quarry, Italy (Busillo formations Karstic cavities silicate resin. (very successful)
et al., 2005) consisting of (25 m3, 60 m3, and Demolish jamming
alternations of 30 m3) filled with blocks operated in
sandstone and wet clayey material single mode
mudstones 8000 m were encountered
and limestones
locally selciferous
2008–2009 Ok Tedi Copper and 5.6 3300 (4800) Drainage +0.67% 550 (high grade TBM worked well in Drill and blast Max. 57 m/d
Gold Mine, PNG metamorphosed) the first 3300 m; the method was Ave. 30 m/d
(Douglas Partners, n. Siltstones, conditions became adopted to excavate
d.; Peach and mudstone, igneous so extreme that it the remaining
Sudgen, 2009) intrusion of eventually had to be 1500 m

Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299
monzodiorite with stood down
several faults
holding high water
pressure UCS:
20–300 MPa
2008 Los Bronces copper 4.5 8500 Exploratory/hydraulic N/A 650 Quartz monzonite, Face collapses Realignment of the 2.9–22.5 m/d
mine, Chile (Barioffi andesite, rhyodacite induced by fractured tunnel
et al., 2011) porphyry, rock mass Very
tourmaline breccia, heavy water ingress
chlorite breccia UCS:
75–200 MPa
2012– Stillwater–Blitz 5.5 6858 Haulage ventilation N/A N/A Competent norite Heavy water ingress Strong probing and N/A
PGM mine, USA rock between through major faults grouting capability
(Luxner et al., 2012; gabbro and installed
Terbovic and ultramafic rocks
Luxner, 2012) prone to intense
squeezing UCS: 83–
110 MPa
a
Number in the brackets in the Tunnel Length Column represents the planned length; N/A data not available.
Table 3
A summary of TBM applications in coal mines (modified from Zheng et al., 2014).

Year Mine TBM Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel Overburden Geology Geo-problems Solutions/discussion Average
diameter length purpose gradient (m) advance rate
(m) (m)
1971 Minister Stein Coal Mine, Germany 5.0 7001 Roadway N/A N/A Shale and sandstone Restricted diameter N/A N/A
1971 Amax Coal Mine, USA 5.18 900 Incline N/A N/A Limestone. Sandstone, N/A N/A N/A
shale
1972 Wabash coal mine, USA (Ingram 5.18 788 Slope 32% N/A Slightly laminated, Relatively low advance rate due to N/A 3.35 m/d
and Molinda, 1988; Uthus and medium to dark grey silty excessive cutter wear, breakdown
Crocker, 1976) mudstone or siltstone, of hoist system
limestone
1972 Sophia Jacoba Coal Mine, Germany 5.30 137 Trial project N/A N/A Sandstone N/A N/A N/A
(Uthus and Crocker, 1976)
1973–1979 Niederrhein Coal Mine, Germany 6.04 21,090 N/A N/A N/A Schist, sandstone and N/A Very successful 13 m/d
(Muirhead, 1982) (6 shale
sections) UCS:40–160 MPa
1973–1980 Rheinland and Friendrich Hrinrich 6.0 13,000 Conveyor belt N/A 885 Shale, coal, sandy shale Equipment wear and water ingress Rock reinforcement by quick 13 m/d

Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299
Colliery, Germany (Boldt and (5 link/access and sandstone with high in fissured sandstones setting cement Mortar injection
Henneke, 1981) sections) strength and abrasive Gripping problem in extremely soft into the cavities
minerals rock Manual mining to free the
UCS:40–160 MPa Overbreak and jamming in faults machine
UCS > 150 MPa for a large with water influx
section
1975 West Cliff Coal Mine, Australia 5.1 1600 Decline 33% 530 Horizontally bedded Main bearing failure Replace conveyor haulage by 27.6 m/wk
(White, 1978) strata including Unsuitable mucking system skips
sandstones, shale Water inflow Change the gauge cutters by disc
mudstone and coal seams Excessive cutter wear cutters
1975 Dawdon Colliery, UK (Stack, 1982) 3.65 1080 Exploratory +2.5‰ 476 m Undisturbed and At initial stage, excessive wear of Button cutters exchanged by disc 48.5 m/wk
1975 146 drift below sea competent Coal Measures button cutter on gauge position cutter 14.6 m/wk
1978 172 level mudstones with fine Mucking problems, roof instability Highly successful 21.5 m/wk
sandstone laminate and very low advance rate in the Ground reinforcement
UCS: 25–155 MPa faulted area Machine withdrew
Strongly sheared and
broken zones of coal,
shale mudstone and
seatearth
1978 Westmoreland Coal Mine, USA 3.05 317 Decline 30% N/A Shale with sandstone for Cutterhead incompatibility to the New cutterhead with revised 22 m/d
(Brockway, 1983) the first 180 m and hard grounds scraper design (successful)
sandstone for the last
137 m
1979–1981 Westfalen Colliery, Germany 6.5 19,000 Drift N/A N/A Sandstone and shale with Methane gas ignition Long forward exploratory N/A
1979 (Hudewentz and Lücker, 1983) 6.1 12,700 Drift N/A N/A high methane content borehole, pilot drilling and 11 m/d
UCS:40–160 MPa exhaust system
1980 Smelocta Coal mine, USA 4.27 335 Slope N/A N/A Sandstone N/A N/A N/A
UCS: 85–105 MPa
1980 Franz Haniel Coal Mine, Germany 6.05 8000 Roadway N/A 1000 60% of Sandstone 40% of Large amount of water and slurry Water and slurry cleaning and 9.7 m/d
(Hudewentz and Lücker, 1983) shale with a faulted zone broke in and forced back the special water mitigation
machine for 14 m measures
1981–1983 Selby Coalfield, UK (Athorn and 5.8 13,500 Roadways Max. 300–1100 Sandstone, mudstone, N/A N/A 79.7 m/wk
Snowdon, 1986; Massey, 1983; conveyor belts siltstone and coal seams
Tunnicliffe, 1982) UCS:50–148 MPa
1983–1984 Donkin-Morien Coal Mine, Canada 7.6 3522 Access Decline 20% 180 Sandstones, siltstones, Overall success except some roof Low operational cost (36% of 230 m/mon
(Marsh et al., 1986; Palmer et al., 10% mudstones, shales with instability D&B)
1985) 1.08% quartz grains and various Fast advance rate (four times of
gassy coal seams that of D&B)
UCS: 20–69 MPa
2003–2004 Tashan Coal Mine, China (Gong, 4.82 3400 Main access 2.2% Max. 300 Sandy, kaolin and Karst cave full of water was Dewatering and backfilling 1333 m/mon
2004; Su et al., 2004) carboniferous mudstone, encountered undertaken first, D&B used to
granite, silicon sandstone, mine through the cave
glutenite and
conglomerate
2013–2015 Grosvenor coal mine, Australia 8.0 2200 Declines for 12.5% 0–160 Mixed grounds ranging N/A N/A 70 m/wk
(The Robbins Company, 2014) transport and and from sand, clay and coal
conveyor 16.67% seams with possible
pockets of methane gas
UCS: up to 120 MPa

293
294 Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299
Fig. 3. TBM tunnelling in mines (size of circles represents the diameter of TBMs,
and the horizontal lines represent the average bored length).
Fig. 4. Rockburst during TBM tunnelling: (a) strainburst in hard rock due to stress
concentrations (modified from Ortlepp and Stacey (1994)), and (b) rockbursting at
Jinping II hydropower station in China (Home, 2009).
because many TBM trials were terminated after boring only hun-
dreds of metres. Since 1990, TBM tunnelling in hard rock mines
began to improve and the average length has increased to over
7000 m. Up to now, more than 220 km of tunnels have been exca-
vated by about 100 TBMs in about 60 mines worldwide. The long-
est TBM tunnel constructed in mines is the 13.5 km long roadway
in the Selby Coal Mine in the UK between 1981 and 1983. As the
initial capital cost of a TBM is high, a minimum length of TBM driv-
ing is necessary to justify the cost, which is normally at least
2.5 km (Home and Askilsrud, 2011).
3.3. Types of TBMs
Hard rock TBMs, especially open-mode gripper TBMs, are so far
the most widely used type of TBMs in hard rock and coal mines.
Although earth pressure balanced TBM and slurry TBM technology
has existed for about four decades, these two types of TBMs have
never been used in the mining industry until the Grosvenor coal
mine, Australia in 2013 (Belle and Foulstone, 2015). A multi-
mode (EPB and hard rock) TBM was successfully applied in this
project.
3.4. Tunnel gradients
The gradients of tunnels excavated by TBMs in mines so far
range from 51% (decline) to +40% (incline). As the gradients of
access and haul tunnels are normally less than 1:5, TBMs have
demonstrated capabilities for such declines and inclines. In some
rare cases, steeper ventilation shafts with a gradient of over 100%
can still be constructed by TBMs.
4. TBMS in hard rock mines
4.1. History of TBM applications and general problems
As TBM tunnelling in hard rock mines in the 1960s and 1970s
was of experimental purposes and TBM technology at that time
was in its infant stage, early TBMs were of small diameters and
the attempts in hard rock resulted in very short excavation lengths
(several hundred metres). Tarkoy and Marconi (1991) and
Pickering et al. (1999) presented the case studies of TBM tunnelling
in deep gold and iron mines in South Africa and USA in the 1960s
and 1970s. Better TBM performance in hard rock mines have been
achieved since 1990s. Two of the most notable applications were
the Stillwater PGM mine (USA) and the San Manual Copper Mine
(USA) where a total length of over 10 and 12 km were built by a
couple of TBMs, respectively (Cigla et al., 2001).
The main difficult grounds encountered by TBMs in hard rock
mines include fractured and jointed weak grounds, blocky grounds,
rock popping and bursting, and large water inflow. Other problems
such as heat, dust and TBM cutter wear and conveyor/bearing fail-
ure also exist. Various difficult grounds will be discussed in the fol-
lowing sections with case studies.
4.2. Weak and squeezing grounds
Weak grounds, referring to weak (sandstone, siltstone, shale,
mudstone, marl and chalk, tuff, agglomerate) and weathered
(hydrothermal and chemical) rocks of all types, could be caused
by jointing and shear zones or faults present in the rock mass
(Klein, 2001). The International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM, 1978) defines rocks with UCS ranging from 0.25 to
25 MPa as weak rocks (extremely weak to weak rock). According
to Ramoni and Anagnostou (2010), Schubert et al. (2006) and
Zheng et al. (2014), excavation face instabilities, such as collapses
 Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299
Table 4
TBM diameters and tunnel length before and after 1990 in mines (average value).
Period TBM diameter in hard rock mines (m) Bored length in hard rock mines (m)
1966–1990 3.22 1233
1990–2015 4.95 7061
a
Values are averages of Tashan Coal Mine and Grosvenor Coal Mine only.
b
Values are averages of Tashan Coal Mine and Grosvenor Coal Mine only.
Fig. 5. Mechanism of tunnel face instabilities in blocky grounds: (a) sliding of
blocks along discontinuity, and (b) buckling failure due to high vertical stresses
(Delisio et al., 2013).
and/or cave-ins and slabbing due to the low strength and high
deformability of the weak rock, excessive overbreak of tunnel con-
tour due to gripping difficulties and loss of position, possible jam-
ming of TBM cutterhead and shield in squeezing grounds, and large
water inflows, are the most common problems in weak grounds.
In the history of TBM tunnelling in hard rock mines, a substan-
tial portion of problems encountered are related to weak grounds
in which open-type gripper TBMs cannot work properly. For
example, a 3.96 m diameter TBM was used in Mather B Iron Mine
in the USA in 1967 to bore through unstable and interbedded argil-
lite and greywacke featured by caving and spalling conditions.
295
TBM diameter in coal mines (m) Bored length in coal mines (m)
5.02 5358
6.41a 2800b
Weak formation resulted in caving, deformation and jamming of
mucking scoops and buckets, and low advance rates (Beinlich,
1970). In 1976, a 2.18 m diameter TBM bored in highly incompe-
tent and fractured peridotite with a UCS of 7–54 MPa in the Kiena
Gold Mine of Canada. Caving and support installation difficulties
were experienced in extremely poor blocky peridotite (Vanin,
1987). In the Prince Lyell Copper Mine in Australia in 1974, the
TBM shield was caught by the squeezing grounds (Embery,
1976). Grouting and manual D&B were adopted to free the shield
and to drive through the weak zones. The latest TBM mining appli-
cation ending up with early termination due to weak grounds was
the Ok Tedi Copper and Gold Mine in Papua New Guinea in 2008.
The TBM worked well in the first 3300 m, however, the conditions
became so extreme that it eventually had to be stood down. The
drill-and-blast method was adopted to excavate the remaining
1500 m (Douglas Partners). Weak ground conditions were the big-
gest challenge to TBM tunnelling in the history, which have caused
more than one third of the downtimes.
Advanced probe drilling and ground conditioning as well as
effective support installation play vital roles in dealing with weak
and squeezing grounds. Home (2009) recommended advance
probe drilling to be carried out 30–40 m in advance of the face with
a 10 m overlay in all conditions on a 360° basis. After the geological
conditions are identified, ground treatment can be carried out by
either dewatering to lower the groundwater level and pressure
or by grouting to consolidate the grounds. Through effective grout-
ing, the strength of the rock mass can be increased, the permeabil-
ity and deformability reduced. The rock support including
shotcreting near the cutterhead, rock bolting, ring beam, steel
mesh and lagging, and the McNally system should be installed in
a prompt manner (Home and Askilsrud, 2011).
4.3. Highly stressed grounds
Considering the ore genesis, especially for the intrusive depos-
its, and the depth of the orebodies, high in-situ stress exists in
and around the orebody at great depth (more than 1000 m). Gen-
erally the vertical stress increases with depth while horizontal
stress increases with depth and tectonic intensity (Larsson,
2004). Excavation unloading due to TBM tunnelling breaks the
stress equilibrium state and leads to stress redistribution. In com-
petent hard rock, stress redistribution likely results in rock burst-
ing, notching, spalling and slabbing at the excavation face and
tunnel walls. Ortlepp and Stacey (1994) divided rockburst into five
types, namely, strainburst, buckling, face-crush-pillar burst, shear
rupture and fault rupture, based on the source mechanisms. Of
the five types, the strainburst is the most widely encountered for
TBM tunnelling in overstressed grounds (Ortlepp and Stacey,
1994). Fig. 4(a) illustrates the mechanism of the stainburst in mas-
sive hard rock masses, while Fig. 4(b) shows the rockbursting and
slabbing at Jinping II Hydropower Plant in China which can be
explained by the strainburst mechanism (Home, 2009). The sudden
release of energy can greatly affect the tunnel support installation
and tunnel structural integrity, damage cutter, cutterhead and con-
veyors, bring gripping and mucking difficulties and pose risks to
tunnel workers (Gong et al., 2012).
296 Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299

Fig. 6. Production level layout at the Palabora underground mine (TBMs can be used to reach the orebody 1800 m below the surface and build the perimeter drifts for access,
haul and exploration) (Calder et al., 2000).

Table 5
Comparison between two TBMs of the same diameter (Rauer, 2014).

Parameters White Pine Copper Mine (1971) Stillwater Copper Mine (2011)
TBM type Main beam Main beam
TBM diameter (m) 5.49 5.49
Disc cutter diameter (mm) 279 483
Maximum cutter loading capacity (kN) 85 312
Cutter power (kW) 895 1968
Cutterhead torque (mN) 2,332,767 3,095,000
Machine thrust (kN) 7031 10,898
Machine weight (t) 205 227
Ground support Two rotary percussive roof drill McNally slat support system, two roof bolt drill,
probe drill ring, core drills, ring beam erectors

One of the notable projects of rockbursting is the Star Gold
Mine, Idaho (USA) where a TBM was chosen for drilling exploratory
and development drifts in 1969. The lithology consists of quartzite
with a UCS of 69–351 MPa and a hardness of 83–225. During TBM
tunnelling at a depth of 2310 m, extremely serious stress-induced
rockbursting, popping and slabbing were encountered while pene-
tration rates were far below what was reasonable with available
cutter loads (Tarkoy and Marconi, 1991). The fact that the TBM
could apply a cutter load which was barely adequate or at times
inadequate for the encountered rock, was considered as the pri-
mary cause of the difficulties of boring. TBM tunnelling was termi-
nated after boring only 125 m (Tarkoy and Marconi, 1991).
Rockburst can be avoided or mitigated by adopting cautious
monitoring and appropriate mitigation measures. Through moni-
toring of micro-seismic activities and tunnel deformation, the
rockburst can be accurately predicted. Pilot tunnels by D&B can
be built to relieve the high in-situ stress. This has been demon-
strated as a very effective measure in the Jinping II Hydropower
Plant (Wang et al., 2012).
In more ductile materials, stress redistribution results in the
onset of plastic deformations and potentially high rates of conver-
gences that in some cases can squeeze and stall the TBM equip-
ment in situ (Sinha, 1986). In a worse scenario, the tunnel needs
to be re-excavated.
4.4. Blocky and fractured grounds
Blocky grounds refer to large breakout, detachment or rock
buckling from either the tunnel face or the sidewall as the result
of a single or combined effect of structurally controlled instability
and stress-induced damage (Delisio et al., 2013; Einstein, 2006).
Delisio et al. (2013) studied the mechanisms of tunnel face insta-
bility, as shown in Fig. 5. Depending on the rock mass structure
and field stresses, either sliding of rock blocks along persistent dis-
continuities or buckling of rock slabs produced by sub-vertical dis-
continuities parallel to the face would happen (Delisio et al., 2013).
The problems stemming from blocky grounds include cutterhead
or shield blockage, cutter damage or uneven/extensive wear and
 Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299
mucking/gripping difficulties. One of the cases with gripping diffi-
culties is the Libanon Gold Mine (South Africa) which utilised a
TBM to excavate access drifts. Another example is the Free State
Geduld Mine (South Africa) where large chunks measured about
0.6 m  0.4 m  0.3 m caused the head to jam and continually
damaged the front transfer chute (Taylor et al., 1977). Highly
stressed rocks were encountered and broke loose behind grippers
as they were released.
Before 1976, rock cutter-mounting brackets and muck buckets
were cantilevered forward from the flat faceplate. Large loose
and blocky rocks which may bind in the muck bucket or rip the
bucket, present serious problems to TBM tunnelling (Handewith,
2001). With the improved cutterhead design from flat plates to
low profiles, problems encountered in the Libanon and Free Geduld
Gold Mines can be easily avoided or mitigated. With larger size of
constant cross section disc cutters, modern TBMs are also more
wear resistant and more capable of dealing with blocky grounds.
In blocky or highly jointed rock, pre-ground conditioning is rec-
ommended to hold the rock in place. After excavation, tunnel lin-
ing should be quickly installed as near as possible to the tunnel
face. When TBM tunnelling in such grounds, the thrust force and
rotational speed of the cutterhead should be reduced to control
the dynamic load on the cutters and cutterhead. Cutter protection
mechanisms such as impact bars can be welded to avoid early
damage of cutters. The mucking buckets and belt conveyors should
also be modified accordingly.
5. TBMS in coal mines
5.1. History of TBM applications and general problems
Table 3 summarises the applications of TBMs in coal mines. It
can be seen that TBM tunnelling in coal mines was more successful
than compared with hard rock mines. Most of TBM tunnelling in
coal mines took place in the 1970s and 1980s. Germany is the
country that benefits the most from TBM tunnelling in coal mines.
It witnessed the first successful application of TBMs in coal mines
in the Minister Stein Colliery and the Schelklingen Colliery in the
1970 (Hudewentz and Lücker, 1983). From 1970 to 1986, more
than 100 km of coal mine drifts were successfully bored by TBMs
in German collieries (Rauer, 2014). In the UK, a 6.5 m diameter
TBM and a roadheader were used in the Selby Coal Mine in 1981
to build two 13.5 km long spine roadways and were compared
technically and commercially (Athorn and Snowdon, 1986). TBM
applications in coal mines experienced a halt between 1985 and
2000. The most recent coal mine that used a TBM is the Grosvenor
Coal Mine in 2013–2014 in Queensland, Australia.
Difficult grounds encountered in hard rock mines were also
reported to have taken place in coal mines. Aside from those
grounds discussed previously, many other challenges exist for
TBM tunnelling in coal mines. The problems of groundwater inrush
and methane explosion are discussed below.
5.2. Groundwater inrush
For coal mines, groundwater is the second largest challenge
after weak and squeezing grounds. Groundwater can be borne in
adverse geological bodies such as faults, karst caves, coal mine col-
lapse column and goaf (Li et al., 2015). Historically, water problems
have been reported when tunnelling in coal mines using open-
mode gripper TBMs. One of the textbook example is the Franz
Haniel Coal Mine in Germany where a roadway was driven by a
6.05 m diameter Demag TBM at a depth of 1000 m. The strata con-
sisted of 60% of sandstone and 40% of shale. There was a faulted
zone with smaller open cleats and one 1.5 m cleat filled with clay.
When TBM entered the cleat, large amounts of water and slurry
297
broke through and forced back the TBM for 14 m (Hudewentz
and Lücker, 1983). This led to a great loss in cost and schedule to
clean up the mess and fix the machinery.
To deal with ground water problems, advanced probing and
ground treatment and effective support installation should be con-
ducted. The ground probing techniques include predrilling, ground
penetrating radars, ground tomography methods, BEAM are widely
used techniques. Although both dewatering and ground treatment
can be used, the latter, typically at the tunnel face, is more cost
effective. With the development of hybrid and multi-mode TBMs,
which are able to change from one mode to another within a short
time, groundwater will become easier to deal with.
5.3. Gassy grounds
Hazardous environments of toxic, explosive and asphyxiating
gases are the second leading cause of injuries and fatalities in min-
ing and civil practices. Methane and hydrogen sulphide may be
encountered in many sedimentary rocks, especially in coal mea-
sures. Historically, many disastrous methane explosions have been
reported in both civil and mining projects. An excellent review on
this topic has been done by Copur et al. (2012). Methane ignitions
were reported in the Westfalen Colliery in 1981 when a TBM was
tunnelling through fissured sandstones with a high content of
methane at a depth of 1100 m. The direct consequences were con-
siderable fire extinguishing work, heavy material damage to the
TBM and downtime for 6 months (Hudewentz and Lücker, 1983;
Loehr, 1983).
To mitigate the methane explosion risk, the contractors need to
establish an explosion risk management system. Following are
measures that have been demonstrated effective: to carry out
extensive geological investigation by predrilling; to expand gas
monitoring and alarming system; to prevent inflow of gas bearing
water by pregrouting and grouting; to increase power ventilation
capacity; to use spark preventive equipment; to use nitrogen to
inertise the working environment; and to reduce advance rates.
6. Discussion and prospect
Although surface mining is the dominant mining method in the
past two decades, the future of the mining industry lies under-
ground as surface resources are depleting and open pits are
approaching their economic limits of stripping ratios and facing
ever increasing environmental constraints. This has been evidenced
by the Bingham Canyon Mine (United States) and the Chuquica-
mata Mine (Chile) which are now transitioning from surface to
underground (Botín et al., 2014; Carter and Russell, 2000). The bulk
mining methods such as block and panel caving are widely consid-
ered as the most cost-effective and productive way to extract low-
grade but huge-reserved metallic ore deposits (Albanese and
McGagh, 2011). On the other hand, worldwide longwall mining will
continue to be the most prevalent technique for underground coal
mining. However, the main bottleneck of mechanised bulk mining
is the long lead time before investment return due to the large
quantity of development and undercutting work and poor tunnel
advance rates using D&B techniques (Chitombo, 2000).
TBMs provide a competitive alternative to reach the deep bur-
ied orebodies. They can help to achieve earlier production start-
up and quicker investment return. Aside from tunnels/declines
for human and materials access and ore haulage, TBM can also
be used to develop large orebodies. For example, the block and
panel caving requires perimeter drifts to be driven surrounding
the orebody for exploration, logistic and access purpose. Let us take
the Palabora Underground Mine, Australia as an example. At Palab-
ora, the reserve extends to a depth of 1800 m over an area of 700 m
298 Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299
by 200 m (Calder et al., 2000). Consider a gradient of 1:6 (16.7%)
the access decline will be over 10 km long. Fig. 6 shows the layout
of the production level at Palabora. The accesses and service drives
as well as the declines can be constructed using a TBM.
Moreover, the extraction level needs numerous parallel drifts to
be excavated for ore extraction. The extraction levels are about
30 m from each other and can be as long as the width of the ore-
body (from several hundred metres to several thousand metres
depending on the geometry of the orebody). Traditionally, the
extraction drives connect sharply to the surrounding perimeter
drives. As can be seen from Fig. 6, the extraction drifts are about
300 m long. Existing TBMs which are long and require large turn-
ing radius will not work properly for such short drifts. New com-
pact TBMs with low turning radius can be developed. Apart from
these, the haulage tunnels below the extraction/production levels
can also be built by TBMs.
Auxiliary headings for ventilation are required for block caving
mines. Circular tunnels built by a TBM offer capital and operating
cost advantages since they reduce friction losses in ventilation and
allow a greater proportion of the cross section to be used for services
such as water, power and compressed air (Downing et al., 2007).
The TBM industry has achieved remarkable progress since the
last TBM application boom in the mining industry in the 1970s.
Table 5 compares the specifications of two TBMs of the same diam-
eter but used at different time, from which one can understand
how technologies have advanced in the past four decades. Modern
TBMs (i.e., EPBM, Slurry TBMs and convertible TBMs) with
improved cutter and cutterhead design, advanced monitoring, dril-
ling and ground treatment/support capability will be more applica-
ble to build tunnels in mines. Considering the benefits TBMs can
offer and the trends of the mining industry, the prospect of TBM
applications in mining is promising.
7. Concluding remarks
From the extensive literature review, it is found that around 100
TBMs have been used to excavate tunnels for access, conveyance,
exploration, drainage, water diversion, water supply and ventilation
in both soft and hard rock open pits and underground mines.
Although most of the early applications in hard rock mines in the
1960s and 1970s were unsuccessful, TBM performance in hard rock
mines has substantially improved since the 1970s. TBM projects in
hard rock mines in the last two decades saw benefits in budget,
schedule and safety. In contrast, TBM tunnelling in coal mines is
overall successful due to the relatively simple and stable geological
settings.
The paper presents the technical challenges stemming from the
difficult grounds in the mining context with the aid of real case
studies. It is hoped that the discussion can provide some insights
into the challenges and solutions of using TBMs in the mining
industry. Most of the problems encountered during TBM tunnelling
in mines come from adverse geological conditions. Therefore, it is
of vital importance to thoroughly investigate the geology of a pro-
ject to identify the potential challenges and to study the applicabil-
ity of a TBM. A TBM should be compatible with the ground
conditions. Universal TBMs that can deal with complex and
changing ground conditions need to be developed.
Acknowledgements
The first author would like to acknowledge the financial
support by the China Scholarship Council. The authors also wish
to thank the Scientific Research Fund of 2015 Engineering Seed
Funding Scheme at Monash University.
References
Albanese, T., McGagh, J., 2011. Future trends in mining. In: Darling, P. (Ed.), SME
Mining Engineering Handbook, third ed. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration (SME), pp. 21–36.
Athorn, M.-L., Snowdon, R.A., 1986. Performance of a TBM and a roadheader in the
coal measures. In: 27th U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics: Key to Energy
Production, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 771–774.
Barioffi, A., Fernandez, E., Ciocca, G., Grandori, R., 2011. DS Compact TBM dealing
with complex and unexpected geology in Los Bronces Exploratory Tunnel. In:
Redmond, S., Romero, V. (Eds.), Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference
2011. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Englewood, Colorado,
USA, pp. 1370–1382.
Barla, G., Pelizza, S., 2000. TBM tunneling in difficult ground conditions. In:
GeoEng2000 – An International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological
Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, p. 20.
Barton, N.R., 2000. TBM Tunnelling in Jointed and Faulted Rock. Taylor & Francis.
Beinlich, E.G., 1970. Mechanical raise and tunnel-boring experience at the Mather
Mine. Rapid Excavation – Problems and Progress. pp. 215–223.
Belle, B., Foulstone, A., 2015. Explosion prevention in coal mine TBM drifts – an
Operational Safety Knowledge Share. Proc. Earth Planet. Sci. 11, 15–28.
Boldt, H., Henneke, J., 1981. Tunnel boring under coal mining conditions. In: Bullock,
R.L., Jacoby, H.J. (Eds.), Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference-1981. SME,
San Francisco, pp. 722–737.
Botín, J.A., Campbell, A.N., Guzmán, R., 2014. A simulation model for the
optimization and risk management of preproduction mine development in a
block caving mining project. SME Annual Meeting 2014. SME, Salt Lake City, UT,
pp. 1–5.
Brockway, J.E., 1983. Incline/decline boring with tunnel boring machines. In:
Sutcliffe, H., Wilson, J.W. (Eds.), Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference
1983. SME, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 743–760.
Brox, D., 2013. Technical considerations for the application of TBMs for mining
projects. Trans. Soc. Mining Metall. Explor. 334, 498–505.
Busillo, A., Vizzino, D., Grandori, R., 2005. The Monte Giglio Tunnel in Bergamo
(Italy). FELSBAU/Rock Soil Eng. 23, 21–26.
Calder, K., Townsend, P., Russell3, F., 2000. The Palabora Underground Mine Project,
MassMin 2000, Brisbane, Qld, Australia, pp. 219–225.
Carter, C.J., Russell, F.M., 2000. Modelling and design of block caving at Bingham
Canyon, MassMin 2000, Brisbane, Qld, Australia, pp. 347-355.
Chitombo, G.P., 2000. Cave mining—16 years after Laubscher’s 1994 paper ‘Cave
mining – state of the art’. In: Potvin, Y. (Ed.), Caving 2010. Australian Centre for
Geomechanics (ACG), The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, pp.
45–61.
Cigla, M., Yagiz, S., Ozdemir, L., 2001. Application of tunnel boring machines in
underground mine development. In: International Mining Congress, Ankara,
Turkey.
Copur, H., Cinar, M., Okten, G., Bilgin, N., 2012. A case study on the methane
explosion in the excavation chamber of an EPB-TBM and lessons learnt
including some recent accidents. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 27, 159–167.
Darling, P., 1992. El Teniente: Chile’s thirsty giant. Tunn. Tunn. Int., 11–14
Delisio, A., Zhao, J., Einstein, H.H., 2013. Analysis and prediction of TBM
performance in blocky rock conditions at the Lötschberg Base Tunnel. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 33, 131–142.
Douglas Partners. Mining project profile: Ok Tedi Mine. <http://
www.douglaspartners.com.au/sectors.php?sectorid=12> (accessed on 10 May
2015).
Downing, B., Carter, T., Beddoes, R., Moss, A., Dowden, P., 2007. Use of Tunnel Boring
Machines at Depth: Extending the Limits, Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling
Conference 2007. SME, Toronto, pp. 1131–1142.
Einstein, H.H., 2006. Report on TBM – penetration, TBM wear, face instabilities, BLS
AlpTransit – Nachforderungen MaTrans.
Embery, B.D., 1976. Tunnel boring in the Mount Lyell Mine. In: Second Australian
Tunnelling Conference, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 193–202.
Font Capó, J., 2012. Interaction between Groundwater and TBM (Tunnel Boring
Machine) Excavated Tunnels. Departament d’Enginyeria del Terreny,
Cartogràfica i Geofísica, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.
Gehring, K., 1994. Experience with TBM-application under extreme rock conditions
in a South- African project leads to development of high-performance disk
cutters. 7th International IAEG Congress. Balkema, Rotterdam, Lisboa, Portugal.
Gong, Q., 2004. TBM roadway ripping machine used in adit construction. Coal Eng.,
27–28 (in Chinese)
Gong, Q.M., Yin, L.J., Wu, S.Y., Zhao, J., Ting, Y., 2012. Rock burst and slabbing failure
and its influence on TBM excavation at headrace tunnels in Jinping II
hydropower station. Eng. Geol. 124, 98–108.
Handewith, H.J., 1980. Mine applications of tunnel boring machines. CIM Bull. 73,
133–136.
Handewith, H.J., 2001. The mechanical boring of Rock – yesterday and tomorrow. A
Mining Odyssey – SME Annual Meeting. SME, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 1–7.
Home, L., 2009. Improving advance rates of TBMs in adverse ground conditions.
Verbesserung von TBM-Vortriebsleistungen bei ungünstigen
Gebirgsverhältnissen. Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 2, 157–167.
Home, L., Askilsrud, O.G., 2011. Tunnel boring machines in mining. In: Darling, P.
(Ed.), SME Mining Engineering Handbook, third ed. SME, USA, pp. 1255–1270.
Hudewentz, D.F.C., Lücker, A.H.F., 1983. Modern tunneling technology in deep
german coal mines under difficult ground conditions. In: Sutcliffe, H., Wilson, J.
 Y.L. Zheng et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 57 (2016) 287–299
W. (Eds.), Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference 1983. SME, Chicago,
Illinois, USA, pp. 910–924.
Ingram, D.K., Molinda, G.M., 1988. Relationship between Horizontal Stresses and
Geologic Anomalies in Two Coal Mines in Southern Illinois. U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines.
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), 1978. Suggested methods for the
quantitative description of discontinuities in rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 15 (6), 319–368.
Klein, S., 2001. An approach to the classification of weak rock for tunnel projects. In:
Hansmire, W.H., Gowring, I.M. (Eds.), Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Conference 2001, pp. 793–805.
Larsson, K., 2004. Seismicity in Mines: A Review. Luleå University of Technology, pp.
1–103.
Li, S. et al., 2015. Detecting and monitoring of water inrush in tunnels and coal
mines using direct current resistivity method: a review. J. Rock Mech. Geotech.
Eng. 7 (4), 469–478.
Liu, P., Liang, W.H., 2000. Design considerations for construction of the Qinling
Tunnel using TBM. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 15, 139–146.
Loehr, P., 1983. Specific problems connected with the application of full-face
tunnelling machines in German coal mines. In: Sutcliffe, H., Wilson, J.W. (Eds.),
Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference Proceedings 1983. SME, Chicago,
Illinois, USA, pp. 761–768.
Luxner, T., Deen, J., Koski, M., 2012. Use of tunnel boring machines at Stillwater
Mining’s underground PGM mines. 2012 SME Annual Meeting. SME, Seattle, pp.
321–326.
Maidl, B., Herrenknecht, M., Maidl, U., Wehrmeyer, G., Sturge, D.S., 2013.
Mechanised Shield Tunnelling. Wiley.
Maidl, B., Schmid, L., Ritz, W., Herrenknecht, M., Sturge, D.S., 2012. Hardrock Tunnel
Boring Machines. Wiley.
Marsh, J.C., Currie, D., Landry, G., Lamb, T., 1986. Cape Breton Development
Corporation’s experience with a tunnel-boring machine in coal measures. CIM
Bull. 79, 49–55.
Massey, C.T., 1983. Experience with a tunnel boring machine in the Selby Coalfield.
Eurotunnel ’83. Access Conference Ltd, Basle, Switzerland, pp. 115–121.
McQueen, K., 2005. Ore deposit types and their primary expressions, Regolith
expression of Australian ore systems: a compilation of exploration case
histories with conceptual dispersion, process and exploration models. CRC
LEME, Perth, W.A., pp. 1–14.
Muirhead, I.R., 1982. Mechanized excavation in mining – a challenge for tomorrow.
CIM Bull. Spec. Vol. 30: Rock Breakage Mech. Excavation, 68–85.
Ortlepp, W.D., Stacey, T.R., 1994. Rockburst mechanisms in tunnels and shafts.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 9, 59–65.
Palmer, J.H.L., Lovat, R.P., Marsh, J.C., 1985. Performance of a 7.6-m diameter full-
face tunnel-boring machine designed for a Canadian coal mine. In: Tunnelling
’85, the Fourth International Symposium, Brighton, England.
Palmströ, A., 1995. Characterizing rock burst and squeezing by the Rock Mass Index,
Design and Construction of Underground Structures, New Delhi, pp. 1–10.
Paltrinieri, E., 2015. Analysis of TBM tunnelling performance in faulted and highly
fractured rocks. EPFL, Lausanne.
Peach, T., Sudgen, N., 2009. Open pit TBM driven drainage tunnel – Ok Tedi Mine. In:
Almeraris, G., Mariucci, B. (Eds.), Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference
2009. SME, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp. 629–637.
Pickering, R.G.B., Watson, I.C., Klokow, J.W., Knoetze, A.F., 1999. Practical feasibility
of using TBMs in deep level gold mines. In: Hilton, Samuelson (Eds.), Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference 1999. SME, Orlando, pp. 981–992.
Ramoni, M., Anagnostou, G., 2008. TBM drives in squeezing ground – shield-rock
interaction. In: AFTES International Congress Monaco, Montecarlo, Monaco, pp.
163–172.
Ramoni, M., Anagnostou, G., 2010. Tunnel boring machines under squeezing
conditions. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 25, 139–157.
Rauer, M., 2014. Tunnel boring machines in mines – a brief review of past use with a
status report on use today in Australia. In: 15th Australasian Tunnelling
Conference 2014, Sydney, Australia, pp. 663–669.
Rees, P.B., Hughes, H.M., 1976. Full face tunnelling machines in British coal mines.
In: Tunnelling ’76 Conference. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp.
413–422.
299
Robbins, R.J., 1984. Future of mechanical excavation in underground mining. Min.
Eng. 36, 617–627.
Rostami, J., Ozdemir, L., 1997. Issues related to selection, design optimization, and
performance prediction of tunnel boring machines (TBM) for mining
applications. SME Annual Meeting 1997, 189 ed. SME, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Sandstedt, H., Lönnerberg, B., Pusch, R., Wichmann, C., 1991. Storage of nuclear
waste in long boreholes. Svensk kärnbränslehantering.
Schubert, W., Fasching, A., Goricki, A., 2006. Tunnelling in fault zones – state of the
art. In: Lee, I.-M., Yoo, C., You, K. (Eds.), ITA-AITES 2006 World Tunnel Congress
and 32nd ITA General Assembly, Seoul, South Korea.
Sillitoe, R.H., 2010. Porphyry copper systems. Econ. Geol. 105, 3–41.
Sinha, R.S., 1986. Tunnels: machine excavation, rate of progress, machine data.
Bureau of Reclamation Report No. REC-ERC-86-8.
Stack, B., 1982. Handbook of Mining and Tunnelling Machinery. J. Wiley.
Stander, M., Rhodes, K., Horrell, P., Sammons, D., Harrison, G., Dean, J., 2001. Reef
development with a tunnel boring machine on a South African platinum mine.
In: 6th International Symposium on Mine Mechanization and Automation.
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Sandton Convention Centre,
South Africa, pp. 43–48.
Su, H., Cao, G., Liu, Y., 2004. Construction technology of TBM excavating haulage
tunnel in coal mine. Mod. Tunn. Technol., 507–510 (in Chinese)
Talvensaari, R.D., 1974. Tunneling in a Copper Mine – Portents of Success from
Failure, Rapid Excavation And Tunneling Conference - 1974. SME, San Francisco,
pp. 1579–1598.
Tarkoy, P.J., Marconi, M., 1991. Difficult rock comminution and associated
geological conditions. Tunnelling ’91. Elsevier Applied Science, London,
England, pp. 195–207.
Taylor, J.G., Taylor, R.N., Hall, A.E., 1977. The introduction of a tunnel borer into a
South African gold mine. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 78, 188–198.
Terbovic, D., Luxner, T., 2012. Reef mining using tunnel boring machines in Nye,
Montana. In: Fowler, M., Palermo, R., Pintabona, R., Smithson, M.J. (Eds.), North
American Tunneling 2012. SME, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, pp. 46–53.
The Robbins Company, 2014. Robbins Brings Innovative Technology to Australian
Coal Mine. <http://www.therobbinscompany.com/en/news/grosvenor_launch/
> (accessed on 10 May, 2015).
Tóth, Á., Gong, Q., Zhao, J., 2013. Case studies of TBM tunneling performance in
rock–soil interface mixed ground. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 38, 140–150.
Tunnicliffe, J.F., 1982. Full-face Tunnelling at Selby, November. The Mining
Engineer, pp. 247–257.
Uthus, D.B., Crocker, T.J., 1976. Application of tunnel boring machines to coal mine
entry development. In: 1976 Rapid Excavation Tunnelling Conference, Las
Vegas, Nevada.
VanDerPas, E., Allum, R., 1995. TBM technology in a deep underground copper mine.
In: Williamson, G.E., Gowring, I.M. (Eds.), Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling
Conference. SME, Littleton, pp. 129–143.
Vanin, D., 1987. The application of a tunnel-boring machine for exploration drifting
at Kiena Gold Mines Limited, Val d’Or, Quebec. CIM Bull. 80, 41–47.
Wang, J., Zeng, X., Zhou, J., 2012. Practices on rockburst prevention and control in
headrace tunnels of Jinping II hydropower station. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 4,
258–268.
White, S., 1978. The use of a tunnel boring machine on a coal mine decline. In:
Australian Tunnelling Conference. Institution of Engineers, Australia, Barton,
ACT, pp. 66–70 (3rd: 1978: Sydney, N.S.W.).
Yamamoto, T., Shirasagi, S., Murakami, K., Nishioka, K., Descour, J., 2006. Imaging
changing ground in front and above a TBM using seismic reflector tracing: a
case study. In: The 41st U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics American Rock
Mechanics Association, Golden, Colorado, USA.
Yin, L.J., Gong, Q.M., Ma, H.S., Zhao, J., Zhao, X.B., 2014. Use of indentation tests to
study the influence of confining stress on rock fragmentation by a TBM cutter.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 72, 261–276.
Zhao, J., Gong, Q.M., Eisensten, Z., 2007. Tunnelling through a frequently changing
and mixed ground: a case history in Singapore. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
22, 388–400.
Zheng, Y., Gong, Q., Li, J., Zhao, J., 2014. A review of the applications of tunnel boring
machines in mines. In: 15th Australasian Tunnelling Conference 2014. The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Sydney, Australia, pp. 691–704.