World Tunnel Congress 2008 - Underground Facilities for Better Environment and Safety - India

Evaluation of TBM performance in a Himalayan tunnel

R.K. Goel
Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Roorkee, India

SYNOPSIS: An estimation of excavation rate is needed for time planning, cost control and choice of
excavation method in order to make tunnel boring economic in comparison with the conventional drill and
blast method. As a consequence, efforts have been made to correlate TBM performance in terms of
penetration and advance rates with rock mass and machine parameters, either through empirical approach or
physically based theories.
The TBM performance has been evaluated using the QTBM and rock mass excavability (RME) index in the
head race tunnel (HRT) of a hydroelectric project in the Himalayas and presented in the paper alongwith the
description of QTBM and RME index.
Keywords: TBM; Himalayan tunnelling; QTBM; RME index; Quartzites.
1.

INTRODUCTION

Tunnel boring was originally attempted over 150

years ago. The original attempts are generally
considered failures, except for the 1.5km
Shakespeare tunnel in Dover, a part of original
Channel tunnel, bored over 100 years ago [1].
Another major attempt to establish tunnel boring
was made in the United States during the early
1950s and continuing into the 1960s with some
success in soft rocks. The use of tunnel boring
machines (TBMs) increased into the 1960s and
1970s with technological advances that allowed
successful tunnel boring in harder as well as less
competent rocks at higher advance rates. Since then,
the development of TBM has made a great progress.
Rapid development in technology improves the
capacities of thrust and torque of TBM. Different
TBM types, such as gripper, open face, earth
pressure balance (EPB), slurry, single and double
shield, mixed shield and convertible shield are
designed to suit for the different ground conditions
[2]. TBM technology practically has now reached a
stage of development where a tunnel can be bored
in any rock and ground.
Todays TBMs can reach extremes of
1000m/month [3] but advance rates of less than
50m/month or even less may be experienced in
adverse geological conditions or when support
measures fail to maintain tunnel stability until the
final lining [4]. The Lotschberg base tunnel in

Switzerland with an overburden depth of up to

2000m was partially excavated by a gripper rock
TBM with diameter of 9.4m. It achieved 40.5m
advancement in 20 hours in hard rock of 160280MPa. Tunnelling requiring TBMs with larger
diameter than ever before challenges TBM
technology constantly. A TBM with diameter of
11.74m was used for Pinglin tunnel in Taiwan [5]
and a TBM with diameter of 12.84m was used for
Hida tunnel in Japan [6]. At the Kuala Lumpur
SMART tunnel in Malaysia, the TBM has a
diameter of 13.20m. The largest rock TBM at
moment is 14.4m in diameter to be used for the
excavation of the Niagara tunnel in Canada in
limestone, sandstone and shale with strength up to
180MPa [2].
TBM excavation represents a big investment in
an unflexible but potentially very fast method of
excavation and supporting a rock tunnel. When
unfavourable conditions are encountered without
warning, time schedule and practical consequences
are often far greater in a TBM driven tunnel than in
a drill and blast tunnel [4]. The unfavourable
conditions can be produced by either a rock mass of
very poor quality causing instability of the tunnel or
a rock mass of very good quality (i.e. strong and
massive rock mass) determining very low
penetration rates.
A reliable estimation of excavation rates is
needed for time planning, cost control and choice of
excavation method in order to make tunnel boring

1522

economic in comparison with the classical drill and

blasting method. Performance of a TBM is
measured in terms of both the penetration rate and
the advance rate. Penetration rate (PR) is defined as
the distance excavated divided by the operating
time during a continuous excavation phase, while
advance rate (AR) is the actual distance mined and
supported divided by the total time and it includes
the downtime for TBM maintenance, machine
breakdown, and tunnel failure [7]. Even in a stable
rock, the rate of advance AR is considerably lower
than the net rate of penetration PR, and utilization
coefficient (U = AR/PR) in the order of 30-50%
have been reported mainly due to TBM daily
maintenance [8]. In low quality rock, the
penetration rate can be potentially very high but the
support needs, rock jams and gripper bearing failure
result in slow advance rate, with utilization
coefficient as low as 5 10% or less [4].
Simple performance correlations have been
developed from data on conventional rock strength
testing at the laboratory scale. These equations
relate the penetration rate with intact rock
parameters like the uniaxial compressive strength,
the rock tensile strength or the rock fracture
toughness, showing good predictive ability in the
case of homogeneous low-fractured rocks. In
jointed rocks the presence of discontinuities reduces
the rock mass strength increasing the rate of
penetration for a given TBM thrust [8]. Moreover,
as studied by Zhao and Gong [2] the penetration
rate is influenced by the joint orientation with
respect to tunnel axis and the joint spacing. Hence,
it is understood that the predictive equations should
be based on rock mass properties rather than intact
rock strength, for example, relating TBM
performance with rock mass strength derived from
the standard rock mass classifications.
Efforts have been made to correlate TBM
performance with the rock mass and machine
parameters. Two such approaches rock mass
quality for TBM (QTBM) developed by Barton [9]
and rock mass excavability (RME) index proposed
by Bieniawski [10] have been briefly discussed in
the paper. Subsequently, the TBM performance in a
Himalayan tunnel has been evaluated using these
two empirical approaches.
2.

THE QTBM

The QTBM method proposed by Barton [9] is based

on an expanded Q-system of rock mass

classification, in which the average cutter force,

abrasive nature of the rock, and rock stress level is
accounted for. The new parameter QTBM is a
function of 20 basic parameters, many of which can
be simply estimated by an experienced engineering
geologist [8]:

where
RQD0

Jn,Jr,Ja,Jw
and SRF

=
cm

or

tm

cm

tm

I50

CLI

=
=

=
=

RQD (%) interpreted in the

tunnelling direction. RQD0 is also
used when evaluating the Q-value
for rock mass strength estimation
Ratings of Barton et al. [11] and are
unchanged, except that Jr, Ja, should
refer to the joint set that most assists
(or hinders) boring
Average cutter load (tnf) through the
same zone, normalized by 20 tnf,
Compressive and tensile rock mass
strength estimates (MPa) in the
same zone (the choice between cm
depend on the angle
and
tm
between tunnel axis and the major
discontinuities or foliations of the
rock mass to be bored),
5 (Qc)1/3 in MPa for unfaovurable
orientation, where Qc = Q( c/100),
Uniaxial compressive strength of
intact rock material in MPa,
5 (Qt)1/3 in MPa for favourable
orientation, where Qt = Q(/I50/4),
Point load index on 50mm dia core
in MPa,
Unit weight of the rock mass in g/cc,
Cutter life index (e.g. 4 for
quartzites, 90 for limestone),
Quartz content in percentage terms,
and
Induced biaxial stress on tunnel face
(approx. MPa) in the same zone,
normalized to an approximate depth
of 100m ( = 5MPa).

Major discontinuities would be faovourable

or unfavourable depending upon the angle
between the discontinuity and the tunnel axis or
boring direction. In case the angle between the
boring direction and the major discontinuity is more
than 45+ /2, the condition is unfavourable other
wise the condition is favourable. Here is the angle
of internal friction of the material [9].

1523

Figure 1 is between QTBM and AR & PR.

Penetration rate decreased with increase in QTBM
value. The advance rate on the other hand increases
up to QTBM = 1 and thereafter it decreases. There are
three curves for AR for different time T. With
increase in the TBM utilization time, the advance
rate decreases. Conditions like tough, fair, very
problematic, etc. at the top of the Fig. 1 suggest the
ease or difficulty of boring.

2.2 Cutter wear

The final gradient (-)m may be modified by the
abrasiveness of the rock, which is based on a
normalized value of CLI, the cutter life index.
Values less than 20 give rapidly reducing cutter life,
and values over 20 tend to give longer life. A
typical value of CLI for quartzites might be 4 and
for shale 80. Because of additional influence of

Figure 1. Suggested relation between PR, AR and QTBM [12]

2.1 Penetration and advance rates
The ratio between advance rate (AR) and
penetration rate (PR) is the utilization factor U,
AR = PR.U

(2)

The decelerating trend of all the data of PR and

AR may be expressed in an alternative format:
AR = PR. Tm

(3)

where T is total time in hours and the negative

gradient (m) values are obtained using Fig. 1 and
Eqn. (1).

quartz content (q %) and porosity (n %), both of

which may accentuate cutter wear, these are also
included in Eq. 4 to give fine tuning to the
gradient.
It has also been felt necessary to consider the
tunnel size and support needs. Although large
tunnels can be driven almost as fast (or even faster)
as small tunnels in similar good rock conditions,
more support-related delays occur if the rock is
consistently poor in the larger tunnel [13].
Therefore, a normalized tunnel diameter (D) of 5m
is used to slightly modify the gradient (m). (QTBM is
already adjusted for tunnel size by the use of
average rated cutter force.)

1524

The fine tuned gradient (-)m is estimated as

follows:
Where D is the diameter of tunnel in meters, q
is the quartz content in per cent and n is the porosity
in per cent.
Sometimes, PR becomes too fast due to the
logistics and muck handling. There may be a local
increase in gradient from 1 hr to 1 day as a more
rapid fall occurs in AR.
2.3 Penetration and advance rate
Development of a workable relationship between
penetration rate PR and QTBM was based on a
process of trial and error using case records [9].
Striving for a simple relationship, and rounding
decimal places, the following correlation was
obtained:
PR

5 (QTBM)-0.2

(5)

From Eq. 3 one can therefore also estimate AR

as follows:
AR

5 (QTBM)-0.2. Tm

(6)

One can also check the operative QTBM value

by back-calculation from penetration rate [12]:

open-type TBMs. Excavability is defined as the rate

of excavation expressed in machine performance in
meteres per day.
Bieniawski et al. [14] found that the
parameters with stronger influence in the average
rate of advance (ARA), expressed in m/day, are
abrasivity (or drillability), discontinuity spacing and
the stand-up time. In addition, it was decided to
include the two basic rock mechanics parameters uniaxial compressive strength of the rock material
and water inflow because in some cases these two
factors influence strongly the TBM advance. Once
the five parameters were selected, a weighted
distribution was performed. These weights have
been statistically analyzed, minimizing the error in
the ARA prediction and resulting in the ratings
shown in Table 2. Thus the RME index is based on
the five input parameters listed in Table 2, together
with the ratings associated with each.
Out of the five parameters listed in Table 2,
three parameters uniaxial crushing strength,
discontinuities in front of tunnel and groundwater
inflow can be easily obtained by an experienced
engineering geologist. Stand up time for TBM
excavated tunnels has been obtained from RMRTBM.
Construction by TBM generally results in
higher RMR values than for the same tunnel section
excavated by drilling and blasting because of the
favourable circular shape and lesser damage to the

Table 1. QTBM estimated from mean PR values, using Eq. 7

PR (m/hr)
QTBM

QTBM

0.1
3.1 x 108

(5/PR)5

0.5
105

1.0
3125

(7)

A large range of QTBM is obtained from Eq. 7

for different value of PR as shown in Table 1.
The QTBM approach can be used for used for
performance prediction and back analysis. Barton
[12] emphasized that improvements and corrections
are possible in the suggested QTBM model as more
and more case records are available and tested.
3.

ROCK MASS EXCAVABILITY (RME)

INDEX

Bieniawski [10] analyzed over 500 case histories to

develop the rock mass excavability (RME) index to
estimate the performance of double-shield and

5
1

10
0.03

surrounding rock mass by the process of machine

boring. Following correlation is available between
the RMRD&B and RMRTBM based on the work by
Alber [15].
RMRTBM = 0.8 x RMRD&B + 20

(8)

Using RMRTBM and the roof span of the

tunnel, the stand up time is obtained from Fig. 2.
The RME index is obtained from summation
of the five input parameters in Table 3 which
tabulates the ratings appropriate for the ranges
listed. Using the RME index in the following Eq. 9
one can estimate the theoretical average rate of
advance (ARAT) in m/day of TBM [14].

1525

ARAT = 0.422 x RME - 11.61

(9)

Table 2. Input parameters rating for the RME index [10]

Uniaxial Compressive Strength of intact rock [0-25 points]
<5
5 - 30
c (MPa)
Rating
4
14
Drillability Drilling Rate Index [0-15 points]
DRI
<80
80 - 65
Rating
15
10
Discontinuities in front of the tunnel face [0 30 points]
Homogeneity
Number of joints per meter

30 -90
25

90 - 180
14

>180
0

65 - 50
7

50 - 40
3

<40
0

Orientation with respect to tunnel axis

Homogeneous

Mixed

0-4

4-8

8-15

15-30

>30

perpendicular

Oblique

Parallel

Rating

15

10

10

Stand up time for TBM excavated tunnels [0 -25 points]

Hours
<5
5 - 24
Rating
0
2
Groundwater inflow [0 5 points]
Litre/sec
>100
70 - 100
Rating
0
1

24 - 96
10

96 - 192
15

>192
25

30 - 70
2

10 - 30
4

<10
5

(ii) Influence of the excavated length (FA): It has

been seen that as the tunnel excavation increases the
TBM performance is increased. This is believed to
be because of the adaptation of the machine and the
quantitative effect of this adjustment adaptation
factor (FA) is given in Table 4.
(iii) Influence of tunnel diameter (FD): Equation 9
was derived for tunnels with diameter close to 10m.
In order to take into account the influence of
different tunnel diameters, D (in meters), on the
advance rate of TBM, a coefficient FD is proposed
as given in Eq. 10 (Bieniawski, 2007).
FD = 0.007D3 + 0.1637D2 1.2859D +
4.5158
(10)

Figure 2. Stand-up time vs. roof span for various rock

massclasses as per RMR (RMR in the figure is RMRTBM) [16]

Subsequently, to get real average rate of

advance (ARAR) of TBM from theoretical average
rate of advance, Bieniawski [10] suggested three
adjustment factors as follows:
(i) Influence of the TBM crew (FE): It is
experienced that the TBM crew who handles the
tunnelling machine every day have an important
influence on the performance achieved. The
influence of TBM crew is as give in Table 3 [10].

Therefore, for D=10m, FD = 1.0, while for

D=8m, FD = 1.2 but for D=12m, FD = 0.5, that is,
one-half of the coefficient for D=10m.
Combining the effect of the three adjustment
factors, the real average rate of advance (ARAR)
can be estimated from Eq. 11.
ARAR = ARAT. FE . FA . FD

Table 3. Adjustment factor for the influence of TBM crew (FE)

on TBM advance rate [10]
Effectiveness of the crew handling TBM
and terrain
Less than efficient
Efficient
Very efficient

1526

Crew Factor
(FE)
0.88
1.0
1.15

(11)

Table 4. Adjustment factor for the influence of

excavated length (FA) on TBM advance rate [10]
Tunnel length
excavated (km)
0.5
1.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12 0

Further, Bieniawski [10] evaluated Eq. 11 and

found that the equation gives reliable results for
double-shield TBM in rock with strength less than
45 MPa and open type TBM in rock with strength
more than 45MPa.
4.

TBM TUNNELLING IN THE HIMALAYAS

Past experience of TBM tunnelling in the

Himalayas is not encouraging. This is due to
varying geology and presence of folds, faults, shear
zones, water charged formations, etc. Therefore, the
designers were hesitant to use TBM for tunnel
excavations in the Himalayas. But, with the
development of more advanced TBMs which have
capability of drilling probe holes, grouting the rock
mass, etc. the use of TBMs is now picking up in the
Himalayan projects also.
TBM performance in the head race tunnel of
Parbati Hydroelectric Project Stage II has been
evaluated in the paper using the QTBM and RME
index. The information of the Parbati Project Stage
II, the head race tunnel and the TBM for this study
has been extracted from the papers of Madan and
Kumar [17] and Dodeja et al. [18].
4.1 The Project
The Parbati Hydroelectric Project Stage II near
Kullu in Himachal Pradesh has been utilizing TBM
for the part excavation of head race tunnel (HRT)
and the inclined penstock tunnels. The project
envisages utilization of water from Parbati river to
obtain a gross head of 862 m between dam site at
Pulga and power house site on the right bank of
river Sainj. Out of the total length of 31.5km head
race tunnel (HRT), 9.05km was planned to excavate
by TBM. TBM used for HRT excavation is an
open-type Atlas Copco model TBM MK 27 of 6.8
m diameter.

Adaptation
Factor
(FA)
0.68
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.08
1.12
1.16
1 20

4.2 Geology and other rock properties

The area lies in lesser Himalaya between latitude
31 40N to32 15N and longitude 77 15E to
77 50E. The HRT passes through the upper section
of the lesser Himalayas having the rocks from metasedimentary to crystalline type. Being very close to
main central thrust (MCT), the rocks along HRT
have undergone intense compression and thus are
folded, faulted, foliated and jointed which is the
typical characteristics of the Himalayan rocks.
The TBM section of HRT mostly comprises of
granites/gneissose granites (RD19354 15700m)
followed by quartzites (RD 15700 - 10300m).
Bands of biotite schist, talc chlorite schist or
metabasics can be expected along the entire length
of the TBM drive. The granites are hard and
massive exhibiting a well developed foliations in
some areas [17]. The quartzites (locally known as
Manikaran quartzites) are moderately to extremely
hard. The schists, varying in thickness from one to
tens of metres, are softer with altered clay observed
at places. No exploratory drilling was done along
the TBM section due to high rock cover. Numerous
lineaments representing large joint fractures or
faults crossing the HRT have been interpreted from
satellite imagery and aerial photos. Total
overburden along the TBM section varies from
100m at Hurla Nala (near Adit 2) to 1300m.
The orientation of the foliation planes in
granite / gneissose granite is given as 060 /045
(dip direction / dip slope) and the foliation surfaces
are described as very persistent (10-50m) and as
rough/planar. The chlorite schist bands generally
occur parallel to the foliation. With roughly northsouth alignment of the HRT (N190 in drive
direction) the schist bands will show an apparent
dip transverse to the tunnel, which could have an
unfavourable effect locally on wall stability,
requiring immediate rock support.

1527

The Manikaran quartzites is exposed as thick

litho-stratigraphic unit in the area. The quartzites
are tectonically overlain by carbonaceous
phyllite/phyllitic schist of Kullu formation and
underlain by green bed member comprising of
metabasics and chlorite schists of Banjar formation.
The quartzites are folded into major overturned fold
and the strike of unit is cutting obliquely to the
tunnel alignment. The rock mass being fine grained,
hard and compact in nature with high vertical cover
is prone to create problems like rock bursting and
popping. At places where sericitic mineral content
has increased, the rock mass seems to be schistose
in nature. Presence of chlorite schist bands in such
rock with varying thickness from few centimeters to
few meters was anticipated and observed also
during tunnelling. There are four sets of joints with
some random joints observed in the quartzites. The
average orientation and properties of these joints is
as under (Table 5).

front and rear bearing housing, together with the

drive shaft and bearings. It is a refurbished machine.
The maximum machine thrust is 18,550 kN and
considered suitable for hard rocks. The machine is
open type high performance with six 525kW main
drive motors. There are 49 cutters of 432mm (17)
diameter; maximum recommended operating load
per cutter is 267 kN. Nominal cutter spacing is
65mm, the installed cutter head capacity is 3159kW
and stroke length is 2.05m. Cutter-head drive
includes six variable speed drive motors (VFD).
Maximum cutter-head rotating speed is 5.77rpm.
Maximum total gripping force is 55600kN carried
over 4 gripper pads with 3.6m height and 1.4m
width resulting in maximum rock pressure of
3.22MPa. TBM conveyor of 1000mm width has
normal capacity of 875cum per hour. The conveyor
has a straight alignment without the down dip in the

Table 5. Properties of joints of Manikaran quartzites[18]

Set
no.
1
2
3
4

Average
Orientation
060o/052o to
055o/070o
225o/050o to
240o/040o
310o/052o to
330o/070o
135o/072o to
160o/040o

Persistence

Aperture

Spacing

Condition

1 to 10m

Mostly tight, at places

open 5 to 30mm
Generally tight, at
places open 1 to 5mm
Tight to 5mm

5 to 50cm at places
open 5 to 30mm
Generally tight, at
places open 1 to 5mm
Tight to 5mm

Slightly
rough/planar
Smooth/planar

Tight to 5mm

Tight to 5mm

0.5 to 3m rarely
exceed > 10m
2 5m
1 5m at places >
10m

Petrographical analysis shows that the

quartzites are fine grained and compact, essentially
consisting of quartz (92 - 95%) with accessory
minerals muscovite (2 - 4%) and chlorite (2 3%).
The per cent of strained quartz is 68 75%. At
places the quartz grains are thrusted into each other
indicating a penetrative deformation. It is observed
that fine flakes of mica and chlorite are present as
clusters along with fine grained crushed quartz [18].
Other properties of Manikaran quartzites are given
in Table 6.
4.3 TBM for HRT
The TBM being used for HRT is Atlas Copco Jarva
MK 27 of 6.8m diameter. The main structure of
TBM consists of the main body, torque tube with

Slightly
rough/smooth planar
Smooth planar

cutter head location. The machine is equipped with

ring-mounted probe drilling equipment, which can
cover 360 of tunnel. The machine also has two
number probe drills. Maximum probe length is
about 120m. The probe drilling is found to be quite
useful in Himalayan tunnels to ascertain the
geology ahead of the working face. The probe drills
are also intended for use in the installation of drain
holes and for rock grouting. TBM has arrangement
of rock bolting, wet and dry shotcreting and ring
beam erector for erection of heavy steel arches. The
high performance injection grouting plant is also
equipped with the machine.

1528

Table 6. Geotechnical properties of Manikaran quartzites [18]

Properties
Unconfined compressive strength
( c), MPa
Brazilian tensile strength, MPa
Modulus of Elasticity, GPa
Poissons ratio
Porosity (n), %
Water absorption, %
Density ( ), g/cc
Schmidt hardness number
Chercher abrasivity index (CAI)
Brittleness index (BI)
Siever j value (Sj)
Drilling rate index (DRI)

Direction of Test with Respect

to Foliation
Parallel to foliation
Perpendicular to foliation
Parallel to foliation
Perpendicular to foliation
-----------

Location of Samples
Surface samples
121.45
267.2
16.2
24.6
12.5
0.21
1.74 2.75
0.89 1.31
2.68 2.74
45 49
4.02 5.00
74*
9.15 10.50
71 73

Tunnel samples
80-150
6-13
--0.4 7 (say 2.0)
0.1 0.9
2.5 2.7 (2.6)
50 60
4.96 5.13
77
7.1
78

* BI value assumed to determine DRI value for surface samples

5.

TBM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The performance of Atlas Copco Jarva MK 27

TBM in Manikaran quartzites has been evaluated
using the QTBM and RME index. Various details of
actual TBM working in tunnel obtained from
Dodeja et al. [18] in quartzites are as follows:

per the geological and geotechnical information of

Manikaran quartzites. Values of various parameters
of QTBM are listed in Table 7.
The penetration rate from Eq. 5 for QTBM =
290 works out to be equal to 1.6m/hr. The advance
rate for ideal conditions from Fig. 1 is
approximately 1.0 m/hr for T=24 hrs.

Total excavation of TBM till October 2006

Total time in days
Total time in hours
TBM Utilization for different activities
(i)
Cutting time
(ii)
Rock support time
(iii)
Extra rock support time
(iv)
Shotcrete/Backfill
(v)
Cutter change
(vi)
Cutter inspection
(vii) Maintenance time
(viii) Probing time
(ix)
Delays
Total cutting time in hours (@10.31%)
Advance Rate (Excavated length/total time in hrs)
Penetration Rate (Excavated length/cutting time in hrs)
It may be seen in the above that maximum
TBM utilization time has gone in to delays and then
in maintenance. Out of total time of 5232 hours,
only 539 hours the TBM was actually used.
5.1 Estimation of advance rate by QTBM
Equation 1 is used for estimating QTBM. The rating
of all the parameters has been obtained/estimated as

510m
218 days
5232 hrs

10.31%
2.95%
11.48%
11.14%
7.11%
3.55%
13.26%
1.27%
38.93%
539 hrs
0.097m/hr
0.946m/hr

For estimating the advance rate using Eq. 6,

gradient m is estimated using Eq. 4 and the tunnel
diameter D = 6.8m, quartz content of 93.5%,
porosity n = 0.4% and m1 = -0.5 for Q = 0.176 from
Table 1. Accordingly m = -0.73.
Using the value m = -0.73 and PR = 1.6m/hr,
the advance rate of TBM is estimated using Eq. 6
for different time T in hours as given in Table 8.

1529

Table 7. Estimation of QTBM

Parameter
RQD0
Jn
Jr
Ja
Jw
SRF
Q
(MPa)
(g/cc)
cm(MPa)
F (tnf)
CLI
q
(MPa)
c

QTBM

Description
60% (Evaluated as per above details and using details
collected by the author; tunnel axis orientation in TBM
length is N10E- S10W)
Four plus random joints
Slightly rough planar to smooth
Unaltered to slightly altered chloritic coating
Moist
Rock strength 80-150MPa, rock cover around 1000m,
rock bursting is experienced
(RQD/Jn)(Jr/Jn)(Jw/SRF)
80-150, average 115 (Table 6)
From Table 6
5 (Q. c /100)1/3
Assumed as 15
Quartzites is mainly composed of quartz
92-95%; average 93.5%
2 *rock cover in meters (rock cover is assumed as
1000m)
Eq. 1

It may be seen that the advance rate obtained

from Fig.1 and from Eq. 6 is different. This is
because of the time-dependent fine tuning suggested
by Barton [12] considering the effect of the size of
the tunnel, the hardness of the rock to be bored and
the porosity.
5.2 Estimation of Advance Rate by RME Index
Out of the five parameters for estimating the RME
index (Table 3), the stand-up time is to obtained
from the RMRTBM and the Fig. 2. Accordingly, first
of all RMRD&B is estimated to get RMRTBM from
Eq. 8. Subsequently, the rating of RME index
parameters is obtained as indicated in Table 9.
The real average rate of advance (ARAR) for
the TBM as estimated by the RME index is 0.45
m/hr (Table 9).
6.

COMPARISON OF TBM PERFORMANCE

The actual penetration and advance rates of TBM in

the 510m length through the Manikaran quartzites
in the HRT of Parbati stage II Project are reported
as 0.956 m/ hr and 0.097 m/hr respectively [18].
The penetration rate and the advance rate as
obtained by QTBM are 1.6m/hr and 0.157 m/hr for 24
hrs (Table 9) respectively. The advance rate, on the
other hand, by RME index is 0.45m/hr.

Rating/value
60

15
1
1
0.66
15
0.176
115
2.6
7.63
15
4
93.5
52
289.85 (290)

In fact more than 50 % of the TBM utilization

time is consumed in the delays because of some or
the other reasons and in the maintenance, which has
also adversely affected the advance rate. In case the
time because of the delays (39%) only is discarded,
the advance rate can be increased to 0.16m/hr. This
is incidentally almost matching with the advance
rate estimated by QTBM for 24 hrs.
Table 8. Advance rate for different time T and PR = 1.6m/hr

Period
Time (T) Hours
AR (m/hr)

PR
1
1.6

1 shift
8
0.35

1 day
24
0.157

The actual penetration rate is 40% less than the

estimated value obtained from QTBM. As highlighted
by Dodeja et al. [18], following are some of the
reasons for low values of penetration and advance
rates of TBM.
High cutter consumption due to abrasive and
compact nature of the rock mass
Frequent detachment of rock mass in the zone
inaccessible for rock supporting, i.e. in face
and above cutter head
Rock bursting/ Popping
Occurrence of heavy water ingress
Absence of detailed geological exploration and
therefore
occurrence
of
unfavourable
conditions without warning.

1530

Table 9. Estimation of RME index

Parameter
RQD
Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
for RMR
Spacing of discontinuities
Condition of discontinuities
Water condition
Joint orientation with respect to tunnel
axis
RMRD&B
RMRTBM
Stand-up time
UCS rating for RME
DRI
Ground water
Discontinuities in front of face
RME
ARAT(m/day)
FD
FE
FA
Real Average
(ARAR), m/hr

Rate

of

Advance

Description
60%
Strong to very strong (80 150 MPa)

Rating/value
13
7

Moderate to close
Rough and slightly weathered, wall rock separation
<1mm
Moist
Fair

8 - 10
25

Total of all above 6 ratings

Eq. 8
9000 hrs
80 150 MPa
78 (Table 6)
<10 ltrs / sec
4 to 8 joints per meter

58 60 (59)
67
25
14
10
5
7
61
14.13 m/day
or 0.587m/hr
1.14
1.0
0.68
0.45

Eq. 9
Eq. 10 for D = 6.8m
Table 3
Tunnel length excavated = 510 m, using Table 4
Eq. 11

The above may not be covering all the reasons

for not getting the TBM performance as per the
estimated values.
In addition, there may be the possibility of
improving the QTBM and RME index for estimating
the TBM performance in the Himalayan tunnels.
More data from TBM tunnels in the Himalayas will
help in identifying the real problem and developing
a reliable TBM performance estimation technique
for Himalayan tunnels.
7.

CONCLUSIONS

Following conclusions are drawn from the study.

Experience of TBM excavation from a
Himalayan tunnel in quartzites is not
encouraging. More than 50 per cent of the
TBM utilization time is consumed in the
delays and in the maintenance. The actual
penetration and the advance rates of TBM
worked out were 0.956 m/ hr and 0.097 m/ hr
respectively for 510m long excavation.
Performance of TBM has been estimated by
using the empirical approaches of QTBM and
RME index. The results show that the actual

10
-5

penetration and the advance rates are less than

the estimated values.
More and more Himalayan TBM tunnelling
data is required to evaluate the empirical
approaches of estimating TBM performance
and, if required, to suggest some
modifications.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Author is thankful to all the researches,
academicians and publishers whose work is referred
in the paper. He is also thankful to Central Board of
Irrigation and Power for accepting the paper for
publication in WTC 2008 Proceedings. The views
expressed in the paper are of the author and not
necessarily of the Organization to which the he
belongs.
REFERENCES
1.

1531

Tarkoy P. J. and Byram, J. E. (1991). The

advantages
of
tunnel
boring:
a
qualitative/quantitative comparison of D&B and
TBM excavation, Hongkong Engineering, January.

13.

Dalton, F.E., DeVita, L.R., Macaitis, W.A. (1993).

TARP tunnel boring machine performance, Chicago,
Proc. RETC Conf Boston, US, SME, Eds.
Bowerman and Monsees, pp. 445-451.

14.

Bieniawski, Z. T., Caleda, B., Galera, J. M. and

Alvares, M.H. (2006). Rock mass excavability
(RME) index, ITA World Tunnel Congress (Paper
no. PITA06-254), April, Korea.

Barla, G. and Pelizza, S. (2000). TBM tunnelling in

difficult ground conditions, GeoEngineering 2000,
Int Conf on Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, Melbourne, Australia.

15.

Alber, M. (2000). Advance rates for hard rock

TBMs and their effects on project economics,
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 55-64.

5Tseng, Y. Y., Wong, S. L. and Chu, B. (1998). The

Pinglin mechanized tunnelling in difficult ground,
8th International IAEG Congress, A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 3529-3536.

16. Bieniawski, Z. T. (1989). Engineering rock mass

classification, Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 251.

2.

Zhao, J. and Gong, Q.M. (2006). Rock mechanics

and excavation by tunnel boring machine Issues
and challenges, Proc 4th ARMS and ISRM Int Symp
2006 on Rock Mech in underground construction,
November, Singapore, pp. 83-96.

3.

Wallis, S. (1999). Record settings TBMs on Chinas

long yellow river drives, Tunnel 1999, Vol. 1, pp.
19-26.

4.

5.

6.

Miura, K., Kawakita, M., Yamada, T. and Sano, N.

(2001). Study on the application of a large TBM to
Hida highway tunnel, Modern Tunnelling Science
and Technology, Adachi et al (eds), Swets and
Zeitlinger, pp. 481- 486.

7.

Alber, M. (1996). Prediction of penetration and

utilization for hard rock TBMs, Proc ISRM
International Symposium Eurock96, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 721-725.

8.

Sapigni, M., Berti, M., Bethaz, E., Busillo, A. and

Gardone, G. (2002). TBM performance estimation
using rock mass classification, Int J Rock Mech and
Min Sci, Vol. 39, pp. 771-788.

9.

Barton, N. (2000). TBM tunnelling in jointed and

faulted rocks, A.A. Balkema, p. 173.

10.

Bieniawski, Z. T. (2007). Predicting TBM

excavability, Tunnels and Tunnelling International,
September.

11.

Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J. (1974).

Engineering classification of rock masses for the
design of tunnel support, Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6,
No. 4, Pringer-Verlag, pp. 189-236.

12.

Barton, N. (1999). TBM performance estimation in

rock using QTBM, Tunnels and Tunnelling
International, September, pp. 30-34.

17. Madan, M.M. and Kumar A. (2004). Tunnel boring

machine (TBM) for construction of Parbati project
yunnel Problem faced during commissioning and
suggestions for future projects, Proc. Int Conf on
Tunnelling Asia 2004, December, New Delhi, Inida,
pp. VII45-VII61.
18. Dodeja, S.K., Mishra, A.K. and Virmani, R.G.
(2007). Performance of tunnel boring machine in
Manikaran quartzite with special reference to
construction of HRT at Parbati hydroelectric project,
Stage II, NHPC, Distt Kullu, H.P., India, Proc.
Workshop on Rock Mech and Tunnelling
Techniques, October, Gangtok, India, pp.153-168.
BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS OF THE AUTHOR
Dr. R.K. Goel post-graduated in
Applied Geology from University of
Roorkee (now IIT Roorkee) in 1982.
He obtained Ph.D. in Mining
Engineering (Tunnelling Technique) at
the VNIT, Nagpur. From 1982 he
worked for Central Mining Research
Institute (now Central Institute of
Mining and Fuel Research), specializing in the application
of engineering geology and rock mechanics in the design
of tunnels and underground space. Currently he hold the
position of Scientist F (Deputy Director).

1532