Thesis 2016-17 Review - 4 , Faculty of Technology

Productivity studies of
Tunneling Projects
By Siddharth Patel UC3212
Guided By:- Prof. Devanshu Pandit
Contents
1.1 Need, objective, scope of work 1 - Introduction
1.2 Research methodology
1.3 Expected outcome and limitation 2 Literature Review
Literature review
Data collection
3 Data Collection
Data analysis
Conclusion
Research findings 4 Data Analysis
Work schedule
5 - Conclusion
1 - Introduction 2 Literature Review 3 - Data Collection 4- Data Analysis 5 - Conclusion

Title - Productivity studies of Tunneling

Projects
Need of the study
Although the tunnelling technique has been used all over the world, the factors
influencing the success of construction process are not completely clear among
industry parties (M. Y. Hegab & Salem, 2010).
No such generalize factors are listed considering actual case studies and
quantitative approach.
It is necessary to develop a new model as only few studies have been done till
now in India related to TBM performance rates-PR (Penetration rate) and AR
(Advance rate).
 Perticular project DMRC CC 27 Per day Penetration rate of TBM
14.00
TBMs used in CC 27
2.87 12.24

Productivity in meter per day

CREG 6.6
12.00
THI 2 3 3.6
10.00
THI 1 4.2 8.02
6.6 8.00 7.25
HITACHI 5 Actual 6.00 5.30
4.5 4.20
STEC 3 3.6 Planned 4.00 3.10 2.68
2.00
0 2 4 6 8
Productivity per day in meter 0.00
CC34 CC - 24 - CC - 24 - CC 32 CC23 CC 27 CC 30
Objective 1 2
DMRC Projects

1. To find the factors affecting productivity of tunnelling work and rank the
identified importance according to their impact on performance of
tunnelling using quantitative approach.
2. To find the performance indicators, Working productivity, Efficiency and
Utilization rate of TBM and to develop a performance prediction model of
Penetration rate-PR and Advance rate-AR of TBM.
 Scope of work
Studying the quantitative (questionnaire) responses on factors
affecting productivity and raking them according to their importance
Pilot survey followed by Questionnaire survey of appropriate
sample size.
Hypothesis testing by P and F-test
Time cycle, ground conditions and parametric observation study for
tunnelling using Tunnel Boring Machine being adopted at various
stretches of Delhi MRTS Phase III corridor currently under
construction or already been constructed. (5 case studies)
Research methodology
Research
methodology
 Limitations
This research work is restricted to Delhi metro projects. All the data
were gathered especially from Delhi metro.
The efficiency and prediction model are applicable to ground
conditions having UCS value between 20-260 Mpa and EPB Single
shield TBM.
However, both scenario can be applied to different conditions
specified but result might vary.
According to Delhis geological conditions, ground water table is not
above the bottom of the excavation level except at very few regions.
Literature Review
From the literature review of articles, journals, periodicals, books,
pilot survey and on-site observation, total 148 factors are identified.
According to each factors characteristics and from the primary
guidance of experts, all 148 factors were divided into five groups as
shown below.
The aim of this classification is to compress all factors under
respective group so that one can identify factors in the more arranged
way. The following are the 5 classifications of factors.
 Management Environmental Physical
Breakdown TBM Parameters
conditions Conditions conditions
Geological Type of TBM and
Managerial skills Lining of tunnel TBM Mechanic
Conditions technique
Technical &
Efficiency of Hydrological Alignment of
TBM Hydraulic operational
work conditions tunnel
Parameters
Geological
Maintenance Obstructions Site condition TBM Electric
Parameters
Safety Back-up Supporting
regulations Mechanic parameters
Logistics
Back-up Electric
management
Financial Back-up
parameters Hydraulic
Other
Breakdown
Productivity Productivity is defined It is the ratio of
Efficiency of time

Utilization rate
Efficiency
as the ratio of Index of AR(m/day) to
can be calculated by
output to the PR(m/day) (Jamal
dividing time spent
corresponding index for all of the Rostami & Ozdemir,
of aggregate input 1993).
excavation process
(Thomas and by the total Utilization ratio is an
mathews, 1986). excavation timeindicator of TBM
Measured in m/day (Oraee, 2012). performance in terms
and mm/min for TBM of how much TBM is
It is the ratio of
Working productivity utilized in one day
productive time to
in terms of only time doing only the
net time but here
is calculated in excavation work since
minimum delays are
percentage(%) (Kasap considered by breakdowns and
et al., 2013) delays cause negative
comparing various
impact on productivity
results of inputs and
outputs. (Frough, Torabi, &
Tajik, 2012).
Quality should not be compromised to increase the above mentioned performance
indicators of TBM.
 Data Collection

Primary Data Quantitative work

Data Collection
Case study data
Secondary Data
selection
Primary data collection
Sample Data
Survey form Pilot Main
size collection
preparation survey survey
calculation of forms
Type of sampling - Stratified sampling of 3 stratum Engineers, Operators, Skilled
personnel
Total population of projects - 126 Hydro Tunnels of length 220 Km 8 projects and
Metro projects in Delhi-5, Chennai-2, Jaipur-2 are under construction. (Kanjlia et al.,
2008)
Targeted projects- 5 projects - CC 34 - HCC-Samsung JV, CC 24 J Kumar-CREG JV, CC 32
ITD-ITD Cem JV, CC 27 L&T SUCG JV, CC 23 FEMC-Pratibha JV.
From the five targeted projects, the population size of 304 was calculated
and from that 64 respondents were targeted to get actual sample size of 32
considering response rate of 0.5.
Primary data collection
Sample Data
Survey form Pilot Main
size collection
preparation survey survey
calculation of forms

Engineer Operator Skilled Engineer Operator Skilled

Sampling
Total population Targeted population
Site Staff
Contractor 125 35 75 26 7 16
Cilent 15 3
Project Office Staff
Contractor 30 6
Cilent 24 5
194 35 75 41 7 16
Total
304 64
 Sample Data
Survey form Pilot Main
size collection
preparation survey survey
calculation of forms

Details of each strata

1. Engineer - Having a particular skill, education and practical knowledge
especially in a tunneling field . (Minimum experience = 5 years) like
engineers, in charges etc.

2. Operator Person from the TBM operator crew having continuous

experience of 10 years.

3. Skilled personnel A skilled experience person having continuous

experience of 10 years. (Like a person from subcontracting firm doing
the tunneling work since many years, onsite supervisor).
 Primary data collection
Sample Data
Survey form Pilot Main
size collection
preparation survey survey
calculation of forms
In order to achieve the stated objective, 5 pages survey questionnaire was circulated
among tunneling contractors and clients to get it ranked.
The survey form was divided into 2 parts, 1st was detailed personnel information, work
experience and current status of work and responsibility of work awarded at job and
2nd was ranking of factors according to Likert scale.
 Primary data collection
Sample Data
Survey form Pilot Main
size collection
preparation survey survey
calculation of forms

A pilot survey should be conducted of 10% of total sample projected for the main
survey to test the questionnaire. (9 respondents) (Connelly, 2008)
After pilot survey, 1 parameter Financial parameter was added.
61 personnel were approached to conduct the main survey.
The respondents were preidentified and approached in order to that. All the
respondents were from Delhi Metro projects only.
9 responses were collected by mail and 34 survey forms were being filled out by
visiting the respondents personally. (Response rate = 70.4%)
 Primary data collection
Sample Data
Survey form Pilot Main
size collection
preparation survey survey
calculation of forms
Engineer Operator Skilled Engineer Operator Skilled
Sampling
Targeted population Respondents
Site Staff
Contractor 26 7 16 21 4 12
Cilent 3 2
Project Office Staff
Contractor 6
Cilent 5 4
41 7 16 27 4 12
Total Actual sample size = 32, Total responses =
64
43
Selection of Secondary data collection
case studies
Same minumum
radium of
curvature & lesser
Selection of
Type of alignment Grond water
Tunnel drive
tunneling - EPB differences table below
Single Shiled excavation
TBM level of tunnel
Data
collection
Selected
UCS value of
case study - Same cross-
geology
5 TBMs of section of
between 20 to
Data CC-27, Tunnel
260 Mpa
compilation DMRC
Selection of Secondary data collection
case studies

No. of TBMs deployed in project CC-27, DMRC Phase-III

Selection of
Tunnel drive

Drive
Case No. of Name
Drive location Length
Study TBM of TBM
Data (m.)
collection 1 TBM 1 THI 01 Munirka to R.K. Puram 1066 m
2 TBM 2 THI 02 Vasant Vihar to Munirka M.S. 1241 m
3 TBM 6 STEC Shankar Vihar to Mid shaft V.V. 712 m
4 TBM 8 CREG Vasant Vihar to Munirka 1241 m
Data 1 TBM 1 THI 01 Munirka to Munirka M.S. 350 m
compilation
5 TBM 7 Hitachi Vasant Vihar to Mid shaft V.V. 712 m
Selection of Secondary data collection
case studies
For regression analysis, Parametric observations and UCS value data
with PR and AR of respected 68 days were selected.

Selection of DMU week

Tunnel drive Type of data Screened data
In weeks In days
CREG
Day and Night 10/12/2015
2 14
Day and Night 30/12/2015
Data THI1
3 case studies Day and Night 1/9/2015
collection 14 98
DEA METHOD Day and Night 24/11/2015
THI 2
Day and Night 1/9/2015
13 91
Day and Night 30/11/2015
Data k = 29 203 days-6.75 months Total
compilation Official Holidays were excluded.
 Total Time 24 hours
Development
of DEA
database-Time Net time = Total Break
breakup break time time
Productive Time Non-productive
Mining and Time -Delays and Break time
Ring build time breakdowns
 Data analysis
1. Ranking of factors 2. Finding TBM 3. Developing
Steps of affecting tunneling performance prediction model
analysis productivity indicators for PR and AR
Test of soundness Efficiency Hypothesis testing
of data

Testing of Performance of TBM in

Productivity
Hypothesis various types of soil

Utilization rate Single variable regression

RII- Relative
of UCS, CT and SC with PR
Importance
and AR
Index Improvements in
performance Multi-variable regression
indicators analysis Permutations
and Combinations
Validation of developed
model
 Ranking of Factors affecting tunneling productivity
Test of soundness of data
Test of sound
measurement

Test of Test of Test of

validity reliability practicality

Coefficient of Internal
Economy
correlation Consistency

Pearsons Cronbach
Convenience
co-efficient Alpha

Spearman
Interpretability
co-efficient
 Ranking of Factors affecting tunneling productivity

Hypothesis Testing
P-value is the smallest level of
significance that would lead to rejection
of the null hypothesis Ho with the given
data (Kothari, 2004).

It is clear that P-value is less than
0.05 and F-value is 8.19 which is
1 :
greater than 2.03< F, k, n-p = F0.05, 23, 22
The hypothesis testing was done at 0.05
significance level () and equal variance
< 2.07.
of each parameter is considered. Thus, it shows that there was enough
evidence to reject the null hypothesis
and accept alternate hypothesis
 Ranking of Factors affecting tunneling productivity

Responders analysis 1, 3% Experience-wise responses

Stratum-wise responses 7, 16% Less than 5 years

5-10 years
19, 44%
Engineer 10-20 years
12, 28% 16, 37%
Over 20 years
Operator
4, 9% 27, 63%
6, 14% Organization-wise responses
Skilled

Client

37, 86% Contractor

 Ranking of Factors affecting tunneling
productivity

Management
conditions
5
4
Importance 3
TBM 2 Environment
Analysis of Parameters 1 al Conditions
all factors 0

Physical
Breakdown
conditions

Radar chart of overall categories

 Ranking of Factors affecting tunneling productivity
Statistical Treatments
No. Factors
Mean Std. Dev. Vari. Total Var. N Pearson Spearman
Overall Factors
1 Management conditions 4.3 0.752 0.566 0.575 0.730
2 Environmental Conditions 4.5 0.798 0.637 0.718 0.836
3 Physical conditions 3.1 0.710 0.504 3.498 0.575 0.730
43 0.741
4 Breakdown 4.3 0.882 0.777 0.547 0.707
5 TBM Parameters 3.6 1.007 1.014 0.659 0.794
Total 18.5 3.562 12.684
For all parameters
1. Management conditions except Physical condition, the
1.1 Managerial skills 4.2 -value
0.871 0.759is greater than 0.6. Streiner,2007
0.754 0.860
1.2 Efficiency of work 4.0 0.925 0.855 that -value is affected
suggested 0.715
by length0.834
of
1.3 Maintenance 4.2 0.871 0.759 0.700 0.824
1.4 Safety regulations 3.8 test i.e.
0.965 0.931 fewer number
4.987 of items(k=3)
43 0.708 0.716 reduce the
0.835
1.5 Logistics management 4.1 value
0.947 0.896. 0.717 0.835
1.6 Financial parameters 3.7 0.887 0.787 0.815 0.898
Total 23.9 4.021 16.171
3. Physical conditions
3.1 Lining of tunnel 3.1 1.342 1.801 5.215 0.862 0.926
3.2 Alignment of tunnel 3.5 1.454 2.113 0.927 0.962
43 0.582
3.3 Site condition 3.7 1.141 1.301 0.851 0.919
Total 10.3 3.475 12.073
 Ranking of Factors affecting tunneling productivity
Stratum wise Experience wise Org. wise
No. Factors
RII E O S 1 2 3 4 C R
Overall Factors Nomenclature
1 Management conditions 0.870 0.840 1.000 0.867 0.600 0.884 0.850 0.914 0.800 0.881
Personnel No.
2 Environmental Conditions 0.898 0.848 0.933 0.983 0.800 0.916 0.838 1.000 0.833 0.908
Stratum wise
3 Physical conditions 0.628 0.584 0.700 0.683 0.400 0.632 0.625 0.657 0.467 0.654
E = Engineer 27
4 Breakdown 0.856 0.768 0.967 0.983 1.000 0.853 0.800 0.971 0.700 0.881
O = Operator 4
5 TBM Parameters 0.712 0.672 0.700 0.800 0.400 0.758 0.638 0.800 0.533 0.741
S = Skilled 12
1. Management conditions
Experience wise
1.1 Managerial skills 0.833 0.880 0.633 0.833 0.800 0.874 0.813 0.771 0.867 0.827
1 = less than 5 years 1
1.2 Efficiency of work 0.791 0.800 0.733 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.788 0.771 0.800 0.789
2 = 5-10 years 19
1.3 Maintenance 0.833 0.832 0.767 0.867 1.000 0.811 0.850 0.829 0.833 0.832
3 = 10-20 years 16
1.4 Safety regulations 0.758 0.760 0.633 0.817 1.000 0.726 0.775 0.771 0.700 0.768
4 = Over 20 years 7
1.5 Logistics management 0.819 0.840 0.700 0.833 0.800 0.832 0.813 0.800 0.900 0.805
Organization
1.6 Financial parameters 0.740 0.736 0.633 0.800 0.800 0.705 0.775 0.743 0.633 0.757
2. Environmental Conditions C = Client 6
2.1 Geological Conditions 0.814 0.840 0.633 0.850 R= Contractor
1.000 0.832 0.750 0.886 0.967 37
0.789
2.2 Hydrogeological conditions 0.688 0.632 0.533 0.883 0.800 0.642 0.638 0.914 0.700 0.686
2.3 Obstructions 0.753 0.744 0.633 0.833 1.000 0.737 0.688 0.914 0.800 0.746
 Ranking of Factors affecting tunneling productivity
Stratum wise Experience wise Org. wise
No. Factors
RII E O S 1 2 3 4 C R
3. Physical conditions
3.1 Lining of tunnel 0.619 0.640 0.400 0.683 1.000 0.663 0.500 0.714 0.567 0.627
Nomenclature
3.2 Alignment of tunnel 0.698 0.744 0.533 0.683 0.800 0.747 0.625 0.714 0.733 0.692
Personnel No.
3.3 Site condition 0.744 0.784 0.633 0.717 0.800 0.811 0.650 0.771 0.700 0.751
Stratum wise
4. Breakdown
E = Engineer 27
4.1 TBM Mechanic 0.833 0.816 0.933 0.817 0.800 0.874 0.800 0.800 0.833 0.832
O = Operator 4
4.2 Back-up Mechanic 0.698 0.664 0.833 0.700 0.600 0.747 0.650 0.686 0.733 0.692
S = Skilled 12
4.3 TBM Hydraulic 0.767 0.752 0.700 0.833 0.800 0.811 0.675 0.857 0.767 0.768
Experience wise
4.4 Back-up Hydraulic 0.577 0.560 0.500 0.650 0.600 0.537 0.563 0.714 0.633 0.568
1 = less than 5 years 1
4.5 TBM Electric 0.735 0.712 0.933 0.683 0.600 0.789 0.688 0.714 0.733 0.735
2 = 5-10 years 19
4.6 Back-up Electric 0.609 0.560 0.600 0.717 0.600 0.589 0.563 0.771 0.500 0.627
3 = 10-20 years 16
4.7 Other Breakdown 0.516 0.496 0.533 0.550 0.600 0.516 0.488 0.571 0.533 0.514
5. TBM Parameters 4 = Over 20 years 7
5.1 Type of TBM and technique Organization
0.744 0.712 0.700 0.833 0.800 0.758 0.750 0.686 0.833 0.730
Technical & operational C = Client 6
0.800 0.832 0.867 0.700 0.800 0.821 0.825 0.686 0.800 37
R= Contractor 0.800
5.2 parameters
5.3 Geological parameters 0.865 0.912 0.767 0.817 1.000 0.884 0.888 0.743 1.000 0.843
5.4 Supporting parameters 0.656 0.680 0.667 0.600 0.800 0.653 0.725 0.486 0.733 0.643
 Ranking of Factors affecting tunneling productivity
Conclusion of RII
Max. and min. RII value of factors
Code No. Factor RII
2 Environmental Conditions 0.898 Max.
3 Physical conditions 0.628 Min.
1.1 Managerial skills 0.833 Max.
1.6 Financial parameters 0.740 Min.
2.1 Geological Conditions 0.814 Max.
2.2 Hydrogeological conditions 0.688 Min.
3.1 Lining of tunnel 0.619 Max.
3.3 Site condition 0.744 Min.
4.1 TBM Mechanic 0.833 Max.
4.7 Other Breakdown 0.516 Min.
5.3 Geological parameters 0.865 Max.
5.4 Supporting parameters 0.656 Min.
 Finding TBM performance indicators
Productive Inefficient Nonproductive Working Improved
DMU Progress in m/week-Output Efficiency in % Improved hours
time time - Input Productivity in % input
1 21.00 27.56 130.00 17.49 0.33 25.08 104.92
2 50.00 61.64 101.31 37.83 0.74 57.09 44.22
3 31.50 50.93 108.54 31.94 0.53 40.85 67.69
4 10.50 17.67 139.70 11.23 0.08 9.94 129.76
5 0.00 8.67 146.33 5.59 0.00 0.01 146.32
6 1.50 56.00 102.96 35.23 0.01 1.43 101.53
7 27.00 80.18 79.83 50.11 0.43 32.80 47.03
8 13.50 61.33 98.68
9 1.50 76.00 82.00 Here,38.33
48.10
0.17
TBM had worked
0.09
12.78
for more
1.42 hours85.90
i.e.
80.58
10 0.00 44.59 111.41 28.58 0.00 0.02 111.39
11 1.50 55.63 100.17 more35.71
productivity0.12but the output
1.42 is lesser
98.75
12 0.00 38.33 120.67 24.11 0.00 0.03 120.64
13 18.00 40.17 117.83 25.42 than 200.27
and 21 weeks.
23.56 94.27
14 43.50 61.16 92.84 39.71 0.57 43.98 48.86
15 54.00 69.40 84.60 45.06 0.93 71.38 13.22
16 52.50 59.00 97.00 37.82 1.00 97.00 0.00
17 12.00 54.83 101.17 35.15 0.32 24.80 76.37
18 12.00 63.18 91.66 40.80 0.15 12.13 79.53
19 10.50 36.67 118.33 23.66 0.09 10.67 107.66
20 37.50 81.50 77.50 51.26 1.00 77.50 0.00
21 81.00 83.50 76.66
Here, more
52.14
output is attained
1.00
but there
76.66
were
0.00
22 49.50 37.83 117.67 more delay
24.33 times than0.66 week 16 which was
53.26 64.41
23 46.50 57.15 82.50 36.87 0.79 65.58 16.92
24 64.50 68.84 86.66 having similar
44.27 output and 1.00 working productivity
86.66 0.00
25 51.00 34.35 124.45 21.63 0.81 72.19 52.26
26 51.00 56.84 102.59 35.65 0.70 57.24 45.35
27 40.50 37.16 117.84 23.97 1.00 117.84 0.00
28 13.50 30.01 123.99 19.49 0.17 12.78 111.21
29 58.50 76.43 82.50 48.09 1.00 82.50 0.00
 Finding TBM performance indicators

Scenario of productivity
4000.0 70.00%
3500.0 3390.7 74.37
3032.7 60.00%

Productivity in %
3000.0 50.00%
Time in Hours

2500.0
40.00%
2000.0
1526.5 33.48% 30.00%
1500.0 1168.6
1000.0 20.00%
500.0 10.00%
0.0 0.00%
Original Efficient
Productive Time Non-productive time Productivity
 Finding TBM performance indicators
Result of DEA analysis
Break- Productive Non-productive time
Management Environmen Machinery External
time Time Total Net time Productivity
Delays tal delays delays delays
Delay in hrs. 1562.37 54.01 1263.577 152.78
312.570 1526.547 4872 4559.284 33.48%
- Original 3032.737
% of each
6.42% 31.33% 32.07% 1.11% 25.94% 3.14%
category
625.049 40.782 419.768 82.966
312.570 1526.547
1168.565
Delay in hrs. Chance of
Decrease in delay
- Efficient improvement for 1864.172 61%
time in %
productive time
312.570 3390.72 1168.565 4872 4559.3 74.37%
% of each
6.42% 69.60% 12.83% 0.84% 8.62% 1.70%
category
Inefficiency 60.0% 24.5% 66.8% 45.7%
Efficient time in % of original 40.0% 75.5% 33.2% 54.3%
 Finding TBM performance indicators
1800.00 Overall scenario of inefficiency of TBM 80.00%
1600.00 1562.37
70.00%

Percentage in-efficiency
67%
1400.00 1263.58 60.00%
Delay time in hrs.

60%
1200.00
50.00%
1000.00 46%
40.00%
800.00 625.05
419.77 30.00%
600.00 19.24% 24% 17.32% 20.00%
400.00
54.01 152.78 82.97
200.00 40.78 10.00%
1.43%
0.00 0.00%
0.27%
Management Environmental Machinery External delays
Delays delays delays
Delay factors
Original Efficient Weighted Inefficiency Inefficiency
Parameter Original Efficient Parameter Original Efficient Parameter Original Efficient
Breaktime 313 313 Breaktime 313 313 Breaktime 313 313
Productive Productive
1527 2387 1527 3390.72 Productive Time 1527 66-238
Time Time
Managerial skills 319 190
Efficiency of work 141 27
Management Maintenance 659 459
1562 625
parameters Safety regulations and
284 198
Inspection-CI
Logistics management 159 134
Environ. delays 54 40.78 Environmental delays 54 40.78
Non-
TBM Mechanic 169 130
Productive 3033 2172
Back-up Mechanic 82 63
time
TBM Hydraulic 291 277
Machinery Back-up Hydraulic 171 134
1264 419.77
delays TBM Electric 103 87
Back-up Electric 63 42
Other delays 319 220
TBM Parameters 67 60
External delays 153 82.966 External delays 153 82.966
Total 4872 4872 4872 4872 4872 4872
Parameter Original Efficient Parameter Original Efficient Parameter Original Efficient
Breaktime 313 313 Breaktime 313 313 Breaktime 313 313
Productive Productive
1527 2387 1527 3390.72 Productive Time 1527 66-238
Time Time
Managerial skills 319 190
Efficiency of work 141 27
Management Maintenance 659 459
1562 625
parameters Safety regulations and
284 198
Inspection-CI
Logistics management 159 134
Environmental
54 40.78 Environmental delays 54 40.78
Non- delays
Productive 3033 2172 TBM Mechanic 169 130
time Back-up Mechanic 82 63
TBM Hydraulic 291 277
Machinery Back-up Hydraulic 171 134
1264 419.77
delays TBM Electric 103 87
Back-up Electric 63 42
Other delays 319 220
TBM Parameters 67 60
External delays 153 82.966 External delays 153 82.966
 Finding TBM performance indicators
90.0%
80.5% Individual factor-wise efficiency breakup
80.0%
Inefficiency in % Contribution in % of total time Weighted inefficiency
70.0%
60.0%
Percentage

50.0%
40.4%
40.0%
30.4% 30.3% 32.7% 30.9%
28.6%
30.0%
21.6% 23.1% 23.5% 21.3%
20.0% 14.5% 15.9% 15.9%
6.4%
10.0% 7.0% 6.2% 1.4% 7.0%10.3%
3.1% 3.5% 1.2% 3.7% 1.8% 4.9% 3.7% 2.3% 1.5% 3.4%
0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% 0.1% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4% 0.7% 0.4%
0.0% 2.8% 2.5% 4.4% 1.9% 1.4%

Factors
 Finding TBM performance indicators
Utilization rate Here , R2 value of AR empirical equation is
lower so that Utilization rates was found.
Utilization factor is the ratio of AR to PR Therefore by multiplying U% to PR we can
(Frough et al., 2012a) (Rostami, J.,
Ozdamir, 1993). Database of 1085 days. get AR which has higher R2 value of 0.93.
60.00 30%
PR, AR and U% for different geology

Average % of Utilization ratio

Average value of PR and AR

50.00 52.0025% 25%

40.00 21% 20%

42.25 20% 19%
17%
30.00 33.55 15% 15%
18.75 12%
20.00 24.35 10%
12.90
9.43
10.00 6.89 14.47 5%
3.73
6.711.94 2.910.93
0.00 0%
<50 50-80 80-120 120-150 150-200 200-240 240-260
Range of UCS in Mpa
PR (mm/min) AR (m/day) Utilization ratio in %
 Conclusion of DEA analysis
It was concluded that through sensitivity analyses breakdown and delay times could be
decreased by an average of 61.57 % and working productivity determined by the
company could be increased from 33.50 % to 74.37%.
Managerial skill, efficiency of work, maintenance, safety regulation & inspections and
Back up-hydraulic breakdowns are the most prominent factor which causes inefficiency
while TBM Hydraulic and mechanic breakdown has the least impact on efficiency.
1. In order to eliminate inefficiency state, the machinery and equipment used in
excavation should be serviced in proper intervals and possible breakdowns should
Suggested be detected and prevented in advance.
techniques 2. Also, in order to repair the breakdowns that might occur despite the precautions as
to improve
soon as possible, it is vital that enough spare parts and qualified personnel are
efficiency
present in the site.
3. An effective working organization is required to minimize unavoidable delay times
when there is no work due to procedures. Therefore, there will be reductions in
excavations costs while capacity utilization rates and profitability will increase.
 3. Developing prediction model for PR and AR
Hypothesis testing in Multiple Linear equation
Test for significance of regression by ANOVA and P-value
H0 : C0 = C1 = C2= C3 = C4 = 0 (Null Hypothesis)
H1 : Any Constant CO/C1/C2/C3/C4 is not To reject null hypothesis, F > F,k,n-p
equal to 0. (Montgomery & Runger, 2003)
AND P vale of each variable < 0.05
F-distribution = 139.288 where f = F-Distribution value
F0.05,4,63 = 2.526 i.e. F > F,k,n-p = (1-0.95(confidence interval-95%)=0.05
P-value for all variable is < 0 so that k= number of inputs = 4
n= number of data sets=68
H0 is rejected. p= Total variables = 5
P-value
Intercept 1.89E-13
Avg UCS 3.1E-16
CUTTER HEAD TORQUE IN KNM 0.021117
TRACTION PRESSURE IN MPA 0.001296
SCREW CONVEYOR ROTATION SPEED IN
RPM 0.000291
 3. Developing prediction model for PR and AR

Performance of
TBM in various
types of geology

Zone PR (mm/min) AR (m/day) UCS Value in Mpa Code

52 13.125 <50 1
Silt
43.64 11.26 50-80 2
33.88 7.70 80-120 3
Mix Strata
24.31 6.85 120-150 4
Moderately Weathered Rock 14.04 3.83 150-200 5
Hard Rock 7.19 1.95 200-240 6
Full Face Rock 1.09 0.39 240-260 7
 3. Developing prediction model for PR and AR

Matrix Plot of AR in m/day, UCS, CUTTER HEAD TORQUE, SCREW CONVEYOR ROTATION
2 4 6 0 8 16

10

AR in m/day
AR in m/day 5

4
UCS in Mpa
UCS

3000

Cutter head
CUTTER HEAD TORQUE IN KNM 1500
torque -CT in KNm
0
16

Screw conveyor
8 SCREW CONVEYOR ROTATION SPEED I
rotation SC in RPM
0
0 5 10 0 1500 3000
 3. Developing prediction model for PR and AR
PR - PENETRATION RATE in mm/min
Regression
Parameter 2 Regression Type Relationship
coefficient (R )
Polynomial 2nd
UCS (Mpa) 0.9145 PR = 0.4629*UCS2 -12.38*UCS+66.277
degree-Quadratic
Cutter head Polynomial 3rd PR = 1E-08*CT3 - 6E-05*CT2 +
0.3582
torque (KNm) degree-Cubic 0.0851*CT - 11.941
Screw conveyor
0.5188 Linear PR = 2.299*SC+2.3703
rotation (RPM)
AR - ADVANCE RATE in m/day
Polynomial 3rd AR = -0.0407*UCS3 + 0.5059*UCS2 -
UCS (Mpa) 0.678
degree-Cubic 3.5619*UCS + 15.368
Cutter head Polynomial 3rd AR = 2E-09*CT3 - 1E-05*CT2 +
0.3203
torque (KNm) degree-Cubic 0.0151*CT - 0.4437
Screw conveyor Polynomial 3rd AR = -0.0034*SC3 + 0.0645*SC2 +
0.2847
rotation (RPM) degree-Cubic 0.2166*SC + 2.0897
 3. Developing prediction model for PR and AR

Surface Plot of PRSurface

in mm/mplot
inof
vsPR
SCininmm/min
RPM, UCS in M
v/s UCS in Mpa and CT in KNm
45

PR in mm/min 30

15 3
3000

0 2000
CT IN KNm
1000
2
4
6 0
UCS in M pa
45

PR in mm/min 30

15 1
15

10
Surface plot of PR in mm/min 0
S C in R PM
5
v/s UCS in Mpa and SC in RPM 2
4 0
6
UCS in M pa
 3. Developing prediction model for PR and AR
Regression
Output Input independent Regression
coefficient Relationship
variable variables Type
(adj. R2)
UCS (Mpa)
PR = 50.4708-
PR in Cutter head torque (KNm) Linear
0.9381 7.4238*UCS+00016*CT
mm/min Screw conveyor rotation multivariable
+02464*SC
(RPM)
UCS (Mpa)
AR = 13.49026-
Cutter head torque (KNm) Linear
AR in m/day 0.785 1.7302*UCS+0.0009*C
Screw conveyor rotation multivariable
T-0.1348*SC
(RPM)
PR in UCS (Mpa)-1500 days Linear single PR = 56.3125-
0.953
mm/min data variable 7.9434*UCS
UCS (Mpa)-1500 days Linear single AR = 6.3451-
AR in m/day 0.899
data variable 0.4111*UCS
 3. Developing prediction model for PR and AR

Validation of the model

For all developed model, validation is 60

done in the same manner which UCS Line Fit Plot-PR

50
includes

PR in mm/min
1. Model adequacy checking 40
2. Standardized ,studentized residual 30
analysis and Cooks distance
formula 20
3. Model normality check 10
4. Check for multicollinearity y = -0.0143x2 - 8.0706x + 58.02
R = 0.99
5. Normal P-P Plot of residuals 0
0 2 4 6 8
6. Line Fit plots
UCS in Mpa
Actual PR in mm/min
 3. Developing prediction model for PR and AR
Regression Model Adequacy checking
Residual Analysis
A residual is the vertical
distance between a data
point and the regression
line. Each data point has
one residual.
They are positive if they
are above the regression
line and negative if they
are below the regression
line. If the regression line
actually passes through
the point, the residual at
that point is zero. (Montgomery & Runger, 2003)
Standardized residuals
The standardized residuals
are more useful than
ordinary residuals when
assessing residual magnitude.
For instance outliers
(observations that do not
appear to fit the model that
well) can be identified as
those observations with
standardised residual values
above 3.3 (or less than -3.3).
(Montgomery & Runger, Outlier
2003)
Day 64 is having standardized residual < -3.3 so this can be
called as an erroneous observation to this model. This data
should be further checked by statistical formulas
 3. Developing prediction model for PR and AR
Influential observation(Montgomery & Runger, 2003)

r64 = -4.04967

A value of cooks distance

D>1 indicates that it is
influential

But here D64 < 1 so it does not identify any

D64 = 0.46787
potential influential observation. (Applicable for
all 68 day data) although it reduces R2 value.
 3. Developing prediction model for PR and AR
Model normality
check
The plot is a check on
normality; the
histogram is
appearing normal; a
fitted normal
distribution is
observed.
 Check for multicollinearity
In most regression problems, however, we find that there are also
dependencies among the regressor variables. In situations where these
dependencies are strong, it is said that multicollinearity exists.
(Montgomery & Runger, 2003)
Multicollinearity can have serious effects on the estimates of the
regression coefficients and on the general applicability of the estimated
model. Here in this model no multicollinearity is found

It is checked by
variance inflation
factor VIFs should not
exceed 4 or 5.
(Montgomery &
Runger, 2003)
 Box Plot of PR v/s UCS code range

It shows that there is no such values which

are too far from the predicted line so that it
seems to be normal
Conclusion of performance model
The higher value of regression co-efficient shows that the developed
model is reliable and accurate. Planners and engineers can use these
equations to predict PR and AR.

Research Findings
1. Factor affecting tunneling productivity were found and ranking of all factors
was done.
2. Effectiveness of identified factors to the inefficiency in TBMs performance
and area of improvements were stated which helps to improve productivity
and utilization rate.
3. An empirical models to predict PR and AR related to UCS (Unconfined
Compressive strength) and significant machine parameters were developed.
Drafting

Corrections
Conclusions
Survey Forms
Literature review

Compiling of Data
Schedule of
submissions &

Planning of thesis work

Reviews
Work schedule

Analysis of data & Hypothesis testing

Case study approval & Data collection

Developing prediction eq. and validation

9-Nov Initial
16-Nov Proposal
28-Dec Final Proposal
2-Jan 1st Review
12-Jan
22-Jan
6-Feb 2nd Review
14-Feb
25-Feb
6-Mar 3rd Review
14-Mar
23-Mar
3-Apr 4th Review
12-Apr Sample copy
28-Apr Final
4-May submission
17-May Final Jury
 Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods & Techniques. New Age International (P) Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
References
S. Durdyev, S. I. & B. (2010). Factors causing cost overruns in construction of residential projects-Case study of Turkey. Asian Journal of
Management Research, 1(1), 312.
C. M. Tam and Z. M. Deng, S. X. H. (2000). Quest for continuous quality improvement for public housing construction in Hong Kong. Journal
of Construction Management and Economics, 18(1), 437446.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbachs alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 5355.
https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
A.P. Chan, Ho. C., D. C. . and T. C. M. (2001). Design and build project success factors-Multivariate analysis. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management.2, 127(2), 93100.
Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 122.
Spearman, C. (1904). Spearmans rank correlation coefficient. Amer. J. Psychol., 15, 72101. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7327
Kasap, Y., Beyhan, S., & Karata, U. E. (2013). The effects of breakdown and delay times on TBM progress efficiency. Acta Montanistica
Slovaca, 18(4), 207216.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Preparing your data for analysis. Research Methods for Business Students, (April), 550553.
Coelli, T. (1996). A Guide to DEAP Version 2.1: A Data Envelopment Analysis (Computer) Program. CEPA Working Papers, 150. Retrieved
from https://absalon.itslearning.com/data/ku/103018/publications/coelli96.pdf
Ozcan, Y. A. (2008). Health Care Benchmarking and performance evaluation. International Series in operations reserach & management
science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75448-2
Nathans, L., Oswald, F., & Nimon, K. (2012). Interpreting Multiple Linear Regression: A Guidebook of Variable Importance - v17n9.pdf.
Practical Assesment Research & Evaluation, 17(9), 19. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004525
Montgomery, D. C., & Runger, G. C. (2003). Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers.