See

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

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/43460983

Benchmark drill and blast and

mechanical excavation advance rates
for underground hard-rock mine
development

ARTICLE · JANUARY 2006

Source: OAI

CITATION DOWNLOADS VIEWS

1 382 822

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Abolfazl Ramezanzadeh
Amirkabir University of Technology
1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

P. Knights
University of Queensland
48 PUBLICATIONS 92 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Available from: P. Knights

Retrieved on: 13 September 2015
Benchmark Drill and Blast and Mechanical Excavation
Advance Rates for Underground Hard-Rock Mine
Development
1 1 1
P Stewart , A Ramezanzadeh and P Knights

ABSTRACT
Faster development rates in underground mines would generate value by reducing the
time from capital expenditure (development) to revenue generation. This paper
compares advance rates and costs for drill and blast and mechanical development
methods based on mining and construction case studies. The drill and blast cycle
consists essentially of three sets of series-linked processes:
1. drilling, charging, blasting, and ventilation,
2. mucking, and
3. scaling and installation of preliminary ground support.
Mechanical excavation is inherently a faster process as excavation, mucking and
ground support can be executed as parallel processes. This is reflected in average
advance rates that vary between 4 to 9 m/day for drill and blast operations for typical
section areas, as compared to between 8 and 45 m/day for mechanical excavation. As
ground conditions become more difficult, the productivity of mechanical excavation
systems generally decline as roof support activities become the critical path. The paper
examines process re-engineering opportunities for drill and blast methods and
concludes that, at best, even if all three of the above process could be performed in
parallel, the theoretical limit to drill and blast development is approximately 19 m/day.
The paper identifies a number of process re-engineering opportunities including the
possibility of further investigating ‘hybrid’ excavation methods that combine the
flexibility and risk mitigation of drill and blast with the speed of mechanical excavation.

BACKGROUND
Increased underground development rates can add value to a mining project by reducing the time to
market and accelerating the project’s cash flow. For hard-rock, metalliferous underground mining, drill
and blast is the most commonly used development method, while mechanical excavation (continuous
miner) is the most commonly used method for underground coal mine development. While mechanical
tunnelling through fair to hard-rock conditions is common practice in civil engineering, there are
limited examples of mechanical excavation in hard rock mines.
However, in the last decade there have been significant improvements in mechanical excavation
tunnelling technology. These improvements present an opportunity to re-examine the potential of
mechanical excavation technology to generate a step change in underground hard-rock development
rates.

1. Smart Mining Systems respectively, The University of Queensland and CRCMining, Brisbane, 2436 Moggill Road, Pinjarra
Hills Qld 4069.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 41

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this paper is to review rapid development methods for hard-rock underground mines to:
• determine the range of advance rates for current technology;
• identify opportunities for incremental improvements in drill and blast advance rates;
• determine the theoretical limits for drill and blast advance rates; and
• identify opportunities for step change improvement in underground development rates using new
equipment and methods.
To meet these objectives it was necessary to challenge conventional wisdom and the current state of
general consensus on rapid underground development.
This paper is structured in the following way: initially methods, benchmarks, re-engineering
opportunities and theoretical limits to advance of drill and blast methods are reviewed; this is followed
by a review of mechanical excavation methods, and more specifically, the benchmarks, re-engineering
opportunities and theoretical limits to advance of tunnel boring machines (TBMs). A comparison of
drill and blast and TBM selection criteria is then presented. The implications of the work and proposes
future research directions are then discussed; followed by conclusions.

DRILL AND BLAST DEVELOPMENT METHODS

The critical path for the drill and blast cycle includes the following processes:
1. drilling,
2. charging and blasting,
3. ventilation (clearing blasting fumes),
4. mucking, and
5. preliminary ground control (eg hydro-scaling and shotcrete).
Final ground control (eg bolting and grouting), haulage, services, road maintenance and face
mapping usually occur off the critical path. Because each step is associated with different equipment
and teams of people, most improvements to drill and blast development rates involve improvements to
one of these processes in isolation from other processes. However, over the past ten to 15 years
improvements to drill and blast advance rates have focused on the following areas:
• faster drills;
• long round drilling (rounds greater than 5 m and requiring directional drilling and tunnel guidance
systems to ensure accuracy (Chitombo and Trueman, 1997));
• operational and process improvements (dedicated development teams and equipment, use of
contract development teams and independent firing);
• emulsions explosive loading; and
• innovative ground support technologies.

Faster drills
The introduction of high frequency drills by Atlas Copco has resulted in 50 per cent increase in drilling
rates. This is achieved by significantly increasing the blow rate frequency from 60 to 100 Hz whilst
maintaining the energy per percussive blow. The increased frequency is achieved with a new spool
valve system and redesigned hydraulic flow channels together with the impact piston design that

42 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

enables faster piston movement. In 2005 Atlas Copco’s 3038 high frequency drills were trialled at
Malmberget mine in Sweden. They achieved penetration rates of 5.3 m/minute in granite as opposed to
3.5 m/minute with an Atlas Copco 1838 standard drill.

Long round drilling

The basic principles and requirements for long round drilling in mining have been established and
demonstrated at mines in Canada and at LKAB’s Malmberget and Kiruna mines in Sweden. LKAB has
standardised 7.5 m to 7.8 m rounds at the Malmberget and Kiruna operations (Cameron, 2000). In
Canada, long round drilling was conducted by a mining contractor, Dynatec, using a 250 mm diameter
relief hole (Chitombo and Trueman, 1997). The rock mass conditions that suit long round drilling are
yet to be clearly defined (Chitombo and Trueman, 1997). The optimal length of the relief hole for this
250 mm diameter size was found to be 32 m (Chitombo and Trueman, 1997). In cases where a long
relief hole was used the amount of damage and overbreak was found to be equivalent or less that that for
rounds of regular length (Cameron, 2000).
In Canada, CAMIRO studied the effect of round length (5 m, 6 m and 7.5 m) using simulations in
different scenarios compared to a conventional base case (CAMIRO, 2002a). These scenarios combined
multiple scenarios, which CAMIRO termed ‘synergies’, but each scenario considering firing only at end
of shift. Depending on the scenario modelled, the effect of increasing round length ranged from
decreasing the advance rate by 3.9 m/day to increasing it by 5.0 m per day. To benefit from long round
development, it is clear that flexible firing times are required (in Australia, independent firing (blasting at
will) is common when developing new mines or orebodies). For the synergistic scenario described above,
it may be possible to achieve advance rates of up to 14.9 m/day with independent firing.

Operational and process improvements

In addition to the technical limits and specifications of equipment, development rates are affected by
operational delays. The introduction of designated development and charging equipment and crews
resulted in a step change improvement in development rates as the development crews/teams were able
to better manage and resource the overall drill and blast cycle rather than the individual processes.

Emulsions explosives loading

The introduction of emulsion loading trucks at Kidd Creek mine had the following effects (Neumann,
2001):
• reduced the number of holes drilled from 60 to 47,
• reduced incidence of undesirable back and wall conditions,
• reduced drilling and loading time by 1.5 hours,
• reduced scaling time by 0.5 hours, and
• cycle time was reduced by two hours to 16.25 hours.

Innovative ground support technology

Conventional ground support for mine development includes:
• bolts, including: point anchor (resin and mechanics anchor), grouted rebar, friction bolts, cone bolts
and cablebolts (intersections); and
• surface support: welded mesh, straps, shotcrete and fibrecrete.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 43

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

Depending upon ground conditions and size of the heading, the potential exists to carry out bolting
in parallel with drilling advance. CAMIRO’s drill and blast cycle simulations indicated that eliminating
ground support time would increase advance rates from 5.4 m/day to 6.9 m/day (29 per cent) – for
blasting at will scenarios (CAMIRO, 2002a).
The moveable face shield (CAMIRO, 2002b) concept aims to make preliminary ground support a
parallel process with mucking. The shield is described as follows:
• shield constructed in three panels that pivot on each other,
• each panel is 6.0 m long,
• each shield section supported on legs, and
• a cylinder is incorporated in each leg that allows each section to be raised or lowered by up to 1.0 m.

Hydro-scaling and in-cycle shotcreting

Hydro-scaling was first developed in Sweden for mining and civil engineering applications.
Experimental research has also been undertaken at the Colorado School of Mines (Jenkins et al, 2005).
Waroonga mine in Western Australia undertook a three month trial of hydro-scaling in combination
with in-cycle shotcrete. As Table 1 shows, the trial results indicate that hydro-scaling and in-cyle
fibrecrete is 39 per cent faster than jumbo scaling, bolts and mesh (Jenkins et al, 2005).

TABLE 1
Comparison of conventional bolting and mesh times with hydro-scaling and in-cycle fibrecrete (Jenkins et al, 2005).

Conventional bolts and mesh (six sheets) Hydro-scale and in-cycle fibrecrete
Time to scale (mechanical jumbo) 33 minutes Time to hydro-scale 21 minutes
Time to bolt and mesh 158 minutes Time to fibrecrete 37 minutes
Time to bolt 59 minutes
Total support time 191 minutes Total support time 117 minutes

Self-drilling bolts
Golser et al (1993) describe the use of self-drilling continuous thread bolts in the civil tunnelling. Atlas
Copco has combined MAI self drilling bolts with Swellex (Swellex Hybrid bolt). At present, there is no
published literature to indicate that self-drilling bolts result in faster ground support times than
conventional two stage installation.

Thin spray on liners

Thin sprays on linings are made from a variety of materials including; polyurethanes (Urylon
MineguardTM), polyurethane/polyuria hybrids (Futura RockguardTM) and polyureas (Spray-on
Coatings RockwebTM). These thin sprays on liners started to be used in the Canadian mines in the early
2000s (Archibald, 2000). Following a comprehensive study of ground support requirements for rapid
development, Kaiser et al (2003) concluded that rapid curing thin spray on liners TSLs provided the
best opportunity for safe rapid development and need to be embraced by the industry. However,
confidence in the reliability and performance of thin spray on liners as a replacement for mesh, as well
as issues with fumes, has affected the adoption of thin-spray on liners.

44 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

MIRARCO support guidelines for safe rapid development

The Geomechanics Research Centre (GRC) of MIRARCO (Kaiser et al, 2003) developed guidelines
on support selection for safe rapid development for CAMIRO. The aim guidelines aim to optimise
ground support by minimising the time required to install adequate support. Guidelines are written as a
‘how to handbook’ with example case studies, while a WIZARD interface provides the user with
alternatives for support and anticipated support cycle rates. Guidelines were developed based on the
following principles (Kaiser et al, 2003):
• Improved rock mass classification system, including number of adjustments to the formulation Q.
(The Q System is a rock mass rating system.)
• Developed joint persistence correction factor, Jd.
• Careful construction – blast damage called construction factor, Cf.
• Optimal support selection – based on rock mass quality and stress conditions.
• Staged support selection when support component can be delayed or fraction of total planned
support is needed (European tunnelling practice).
• Assess risks to support performance such as adhesion of thin spray on liners, viability of structural
wedges and sensitivity to stress driven failure.

BENCHMARKING DRILL AND BLAST ADVANCE RATES

It is difficult to find open literature detailing advance rates for drill and blast development projects.
Twelve such case studies were found and are listed in Table 2. The median advance rate for the 12 cases
was 7.0 m/day and the average was 6.8 m/day. It is important to note that the data contains both single
and multiple heading development case studies. Multiple heading developments have faster average
advance rates because of better equipment utilisation. Differences between mines can also be attributed
to differing operational, productivity and cost priorities (Neumann, 2001). This means that the lower
values may represent scenarios where rapid development was not a priority.

TABLE 2
Drill and blast benchmark case studies.

Case study Country Average advance rate

Common infrastructure project – PT Freeport Indonesia 9.0 m/day (270 m/month)
(Barber et al, 2005)
Craviale Tunnel (Kalamaras et al, 2005) Italy 5.5 m/day (165 m/month)
Kidd Creek mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 5.3 m/day (159 m/month)
Holt McDermott mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 7.2 m/day (216 m/month)
Creighton mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 5.0 m/day (150 m/month)
Brunswick mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 5.8 m/day (174 m/month)
Dome mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 7.4 m/day (222 m/month)
Musselwhite mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 8.9 m/day (267 m/month)
Birchtree mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 4.1 m/day
Stobie mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 7.9 m/day (237 m/month)
Golden Giant mine (Neumann, 2001) Canada 6.7 m/day (202 m/month)
Golden Grove Catalpa Decline (Roche Mining, 2006) Australia 8.3 m/day (249 m/month)

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 45

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

For the past 30 years the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, formerly
known as NTH, has been collating, analysing and reporting on tunnelling design, performance and cost
data for both drill and blast and TBM tunnelling (Johannesson, 1995). NTNU Report 2B-95 provides a
method for estimating tunnelling advance rates using drill and blast and is based on the following
assumptions:
• data was sourced from well organised drill and blast tunnels in the Norwegian civil tunnelling industry,
• hydraulic drilling jumbo,
• button bits (45 mm),
• parallel hole cut,
• Atlas Copco COP 1838 hammer drill,
• 5 m rounds,
• large diameter relief holes (102 mm), and
• for faces greater than 25 m2 scaling done by jumbo.
The NTNU prognosis for drill and blast development rates has been used to produce a drill and blast
cycle with the following characteristics (Figure 1):
• 30 m2 face,
• rock drillability (DRI) = 48,
• blastability, SPR=0.47,
• twin boom jumbo,
• assumes shotcreting is not on the critical path, and
• assumes 15 bolts per round.

Bolting, 90 Drilling,
128.3

Scaling, 30

Lost time,
13.2 Charging
time, 27
Fixed lost
Loading and
time, 19.6
hauling, Rig time,
106.5 12.5
Ventilation,
17

FIG 1 - Critical path process times for drill and blast development for a 6 m by 5 m face based on
NTNU prognosis for 30 m2 prognosis. Total cycle time = 375 minutes.

46 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

DRI is given by the drilling rate index and is based on brittleness, S20 and Sievers J-value
(Johannesson, 1995). The brittleness, S20 is a measure for rock resistance to crushing from repeated
impacts. Sievers J-value (SJ) is a measure for rock resistance to miniature drill penetration (surface
hardness). A DRI of 48 is considered medium drilling conditions. For example; granite has a DRI of 48.
The prognosis total cycle time is 375 minutes and the average weekly advance based on the NTNU
prognosis model is 10.4 m/day. Based on the mining case studies (best case 8.9 m/day), 10.4 m/day
would be considered a high average development rate.

DRILL AND BLAST PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING OPPORTUNITIES

Multiple processes at face (parallel processing)

European experience suggests that it is possible to undertake multiple tasks at the face when the face
size is greater than 50 m2 (Kaiser et al, 2003). 50 m2 corresponds to a face approximately 7.2 m by
7.0 m. Most underground development is around 5.5 m by 6.0 m. Even though most underground
development is less than 50 m2, the possibility exists to undertake ground support in parallel with
development if equipment could be designed to work within the limited space available. The moveable
face shield and the parallel ground support rig concepts are both examples of equipment that would
facilitate multiple processes at the face.
Both rig time (three per cent of drill and blast cycle (Johannesson, 1995)) and ventilation time
(seven per cent of drill and blast cycle (Johannesson, 1995)) could be reduced by introducing multiple
processes at the face. Rig time includes: time to drive to face, hose down pile, collection of scaled rock
and connecting services. For example, rig and ventilation times could be reduced by installing water
sprays at face that are turned on at the same time as ventilation (after blasting). Water sprays would
simultaneously hose/wet down/flush pile and reduce ventilation time.

Alternative ground support processes

As discussed previously, hydro-scaling in combination with shotcreting has already proven successful
at the Waroonga mine at reducing ground support time by 39 per cent. Further reductions may be
possible if the thin-spray on liners can be safely implemented.

DRILL AND BLAST THEORETICAL LIMITS TO ADVANCE

CAMIRO’s drill and blast simulations provide a good basis for assessing limits to advance using drill
and blast (CAMIRO, 2002a). The first sets of simulations are single parameter analyses whilst the
second set of simulations looks at interactions and synergies between scenario combinations. The base
case for independent firing is only 5.4 m/day; this is substantially lower than 7.0 m/day average for the
12 case studies listed in Table 2. The results of the single parameter simulations show that eliminating
ground support time has the largest potential to improve drill and blast advance rates. In the case of
developing a new orebody, independent blasting is standard practice. Under this scenario elimination
of ground support time has the potential to increase development rates by 29 per cent.
The results of the multiple parameter simulations indicate that an specific scenario (halved set-up
times, elimination of ground support time, reduced drilling preparation time, three-boom jumbo and
explosive charging time decreased by 30 minutes) with independent firing times has the potential to
increase development rates by 90 per cent to 10.2 m/day (from base case 5.4 m/day). If the 90 per cent
improvement directly translates to the average advance rate for the drill and blast case studies
(6.8 m/day), this scenario would increase advance rates to 12.9 m/day.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 47

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

The effect of long rounds (7.5 m) with this scenario, with independent firing and using a container
truck†, indicated an increase of 178 per cent to 14.9 m/day (from base case 5.4 m/day). If this 178 per
cent increase directly translates to the 6.8 m/day average, then this scenario would increase advance
rates to 18.9 m/day.
Based on the benchmarking studies and CAMIRO’s drill and blast simulations it has been possible
to estimate a theoretical limit to advance of approximately, 19 m/day. This theoretical limit assumes
that it is theoretically possible to achieve the following technical developments and advances:
• shielding to eliminate ground support time,
• successful long round drilling in all ground conditions,
• halve set-up times,
• three-boom jumbo can be configured to operate effectively at cross-sectional area of 35 m2 to 40 m2,
• container truck, and
• reduce explosive loading time by 30 minutes.

TUNNEL BORING MACHINES

The first tunnel boring machine (TBM) was constructed and used to excavate a tunnel below the
Thames at London 1825 - 1842 (Backbolm et al, 2004). The modern TBM as a mechanical rotary
excavator was developed in the 1950s. Since then thousands of kilometres of tunnels have been
excavated worldwide in a range of rock conditions and in diameters from around 2 m up to 15 m.
The TBM tunnelling method can be characteristics as follows:
• Cutters are mounted on a rotating cutterhead.
• Grippers press against the rock and hydraulic cylinders are used to generate thrust.
• Rock cuttings are delivered to a belt-conveyor, which transfers the muck to the rear of the machine.
• New machines are designed so cutters can be replaced from the back of the cutterhead. Machines
are commonly equipped with 17 to 19 inches face and gauge cutters.
• The ‘main beam’ TBM configuration allows for continuous steering capability throughout the actual
boring cycle that is an important feature for curve boring (radius of 150 to 200 m is achievable). The
minimum time required from ordering machine to installation is usually between ten and 12 months.
• Maximum gradient is limited by the material handling system. With monorail or hoisting, 15 to
20 per cent declines have been completed with TBMs. With hoisting, 30 to 110 per cent inclines
have been completed with TBMs.

Types of tunnelling machines

The practically infinite number of combinations of rock, soil and environmental conditions which may be
encountered during tunnel excavation has had a great influence on the types and characteristics of
mechanical excavation systems available. There are many different schemes for classification of

† Container trucks are essentially modular truck trays similar to scrap metal refuse bins that permit continuous LHD mucking.
The container truck system of mucking has been used in Japan for the construction of over 50 km of tunnel (CAMIRO,
2002a). The trays used on these projects are too large for most mine projects; however MTI in Canada manufactured a 16 ton
container truck suitable for use on a 5.5 m wide development heading. Four such container trucks were used at INCO’s
Thompson mine.

48 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

tunnelling machines. For examples the AITES/ITA working group No 14 (mechanisation of excavation)
is currently working on the definition of an internationally acceptable classification for mechanised
excavation systems with the purpose of establishing terminology and guide lines for the optimum choice
of the machine (Barla and Pleizza, 2000) (Table 3).

TABLE 3
General classification scheme for tunnelling machines (Barla and Pleizza, 2000).

Support Excavation Reaction Machine

Force
Location System Method Tool Catagory Type
Cavity Face
Partial Face Various None or Special Rock Tunnelling
None Excavating Grippers Machines – Mobile Miner –

Rock Machines
Machines (PFM) Continuous Miner – Other
Full Face Cutting disk Grippers Unshielded TBM
Rotating Cutting Special Unshielded TBM
Head (TBM)
Cutting disk/ Thrust Jacks Single Shielded TBM
Cutting bits/ (DS-TBM)
Cavity

Cutting knives & teeth

None
Cutting disk Grippers and Double Shielded TBM
Thrust Jacks (DS-TBM)
PFM Road header/ Thrust Jacks Open Shield
Back hoe/
Manual excavation
Mechanical TBM Cutting bits/ Mechanical Supported
Cutting knives & teeth Closed Shield
PFM Road header/ Mechanical Supported
Shield

Back hoe Open Shield

Soft Ground Machines

Compressed TBM Cutting bits/ Compressed Air Closed

Air Cutting knives & teeth Shield
PFM Road header/ Compressed Air Open
Back hoe/ Shield
Face and cavity

Thrust Jacks

Manual excavation
Fluid

Slurry TBM Cutting disk/ Closed Slurry Shield –

Cutting bits/ Slurry Shield –
Cutting knives & teeth SS-Hydroshield
PFM Road header/ Open Slurry Shield –
Back hoe/ Special Open - Slurry Shield
Earth TBM Cutting disk/ Earth Presssure Balance
Pressure Cutting bits/ Shield – EPBS Special
Balance Cutting knives & teeth EPBS

None or None or slurry Combined Shield – Mix

fluid or Earth Pressure Shield – Polishield
Balance

Based on the classification scheme shown in Table 3, it is possible to make the following comments:
• stability conditions of the host rock are a key factor affecting choice of excavation method and
machine type;
• if there are generally good rock condition in face and walls, full face tunnel boring machines and
partial face excavating machines (such as road header, mobile miner, continuous miner, etc) can be
used successfully; and

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 49

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

• it is clear that shield machines are not applicable for mine development purposes due to need for
permanent support system (precast concrete) and special mucking system.
Many mining engineers have the perception that TBMs are suited to weak rock conditions and are
not suited to hard rock. This perception probably stems from a historical association of mechanical
excavation with civil engineering projects (shallow depths associated with softer rock and soil
conditions) and coal mining.

TBM applications in mining

The use of tunnel boring machine in mines is about as long as the history of TBMs. Early trials dating
back to 1957 had limited success in hard-rock mines because the machines specifications were
inappropriate for the rock conditions. In coal mines in Germany, during the late 1970s where the rock
conditions were more suited to TBM, the success rate was higher (Friant, 1995). At Westfalen and
Blum enthal mines average advance rates were just under 15 m/day. A Robbins 214 machine
accomplished a steep decline in Selby mine in England averaging 11.1 m/day. Water, mud, broken and
soft ground reduced its progress continuously. Rock strength varied from 25 to 90 MPa (Friant, 1995).
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were a number of attempts to use TBMs in deep level gold
mines in South Africa. These attempts were unsuccessful (Pickering et al, 1999).
A successful TBM application was that of Magma Copper where a TBM was used to develop 9826 m
at the San Manuel mine over three levels. The development started at a depth of 1048 m and was
accessible only by shaft (VanDerPas and Allum, 1995). A Robbins 4.62 m diameter machine equipped
with 33 disc cutters (432 mm diameter) and 1259 kW installed power has been used for all development
work. The minimum turning radius of TBM was 105 m. Components of the TBM had to meet size and
weight requirements constrained by the limits of shaft and its hoisting equipment. The rock mass
consisted of stable quartz monzonite, with UCS values ranging from 150 MPa to 180 MPa unconfined
compressive strength mainly and crossed the San Manuel fault six times and the Virgin fault five times.
TBM progress in the initial 1829 m of tunnel did not meet expectations due to numerous problems
including; fractured ground conditions, steering problems and some machine problems (VanDerPas and
Allum, 1995). To improve TBM performance some modifications were made which greatly improved
the performance of the TBM in all areas (Cigla et al, 2001). Table 4 compares TBM performance before
and after the modifications.

TABLE 4
Comparison of machine performance (Cigla et al, 2001).

Before After
Average daily advance (m) 6.46 22.6
Best shift (m) 19.2 21.6
Best day (m) 37.5 44.5
Best week (m) 141.7 263
Best month (m) 333.5 831.2

Stillwater mining company successfully used a TBM to develop a 5650 m tunnel with a plus 1.5 per
cent grade to access the Stillwater mine in Montana, USA. In general, the unconfined compressive
strength test results show a wide range of values from 60 MPa to over 190 MPa. Because of the
successful application of TBM for initial mine development, Stillwater mine decided use TBMs for all
development work for the mine (Cigla et al, 2001).

50 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

TBM applications in hard-rock conditions

In the city of Bergen a 3500 m twin tunnel was one of the first hard-rock TBM tunnels. The extremely
hard and sparsely fractured gneiss had a compressive strength of 250 MPa (Rygh, 1994). The following
list describes rock mass conditions for a number of case studies presented at the Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference 2005:
• Chesman (2005) compared 12.9 km drill and blast stretch of a NYC Water Tunnel to a 17 km TBM
stretch. Based on this study (Chesman, 2005) concluded that blocky rock can cause problems for
TBMs unless the blocky conditions are considered in cutterhead and mucking system design.
• Chesman (2005) reports on New York City tunnelling and how TBMs are now used in geological
formations that would previously have been excavated with drill and blast.
• Hutton et al (2005) described the Nancy Creek Tunnel in Atlanta. The 4.9 m diameter tunnels was
excavated through mylonite (fine-grained fully welded metamorphic rock) with site investigations
suggesting UCS values ranging from 255 MPa to 540 MPa. Actual UCS values were thought to be
lower than indicated by site investigations. The average advance rate for the RM Clayton Tunnel
was 23.2 m/day, while the average advance rates for the Roswell Road Drive were 26.4 m per day.

Road headers

A road header uses picks mounted on a rotating head as shown in Figure 2. The road header technology
is generally used for softer rock where restrictions are posed by the picking tool resistance against
shock load at extremely high rock strength (resulting in breakage of the tungsten-carbide tips) or their
resistance against abrasive wear when encountering rock with high content of hard minerals.
Significant advances have been made recently as a result of a four year research project sponsored by
the EU/Brite Euram, conducted to develop a new range of cutting tools for hard rock. Tests were carried
out in sandstone and porphyrite rocks with compressive strengths of 130 - 170 Mpa, quartz content
varying from 31 - 53 per cent and Cerchar abrasivity index of 1.4 - 3.7 (Bullock, 2000). The test results
compared standard cutting systems with the new improved system. On a Voest Alpine 105 machine, the
results showed a drop in specific cutting energies from 14 to 6 kWh/m3, and an increase in production rate
from 28 to 35 - 50 m3/day, and an impressive drop in pick consumption from 1 to 0.25 pick/m3.

Mobile miner

The Mobile Miner is a partial face machine (Figure 3) with many similarities to the road headers
commonly used in coal mines and other mines with weak rock (Guan, 1997). The significant difference
is the use of disc cutters and gauge cutters rather than bits (Guan, 1997). The Mobile Miner uses only
one row of cutters which are mounted on a beam that may move in two directions. Because only a
portion of the face is in contact with the cutter-wheel at any time so that the reaction forces are lower
than for a TBM. This design feature allows for a smaller, more manoeuvrable machine which can cut a
curve of minimum radius 20 m (Turner and Carey, 1993).
The first commercial Mobile Miner (MM120) was tested at Mt Isa in 1984 and was used to develop
a 22 m2 decline (Guan, 1997). The rock excavated consisted mainly of quartzite, siliceous greenstone
and greenstone. The quartzite ranged in strength up to 430 MPa and was highly abrasive. The machine
achieved instantaneous penetration rates of up to 1.5 m/hour and the best single shift was 3.66 m (Guan,
1997).

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 51

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

FIG 3 - Photograph of Mobile Miner on the surface at

FIG 2 - Sandvik Voest Alpine road header (AHM 105). Broken Hill mine (UNSW, 2006).

Pasminco Mining and Robbins Company developed the next generation Mobile Miner (MM130 –
Figure 3). Based on the Mt Isa experience the MM130 was made more than ten times stronger in both
the swing and thrust directions than the MM120 (Willoughby, 1991). The MM130 performed
successfully in rocks ranging in strength from 100 MPa to 300 MPa (Forrester, 1996). The MM130 was
capable of excavating an opening 4.1 m high and between 5.5 m to 8.0 m wide. By 1992 the MM130
was achieving advance rates of up to 1.2 m/hour in face. The Mobile Miners mode of cutting resulted in
significant cutter wear and loss (Guan, 1997; Hood and Alehossein, 2000) and machine availability and
cutter cost issues associated with this wear and damage remain to be resolved.

Continuous mining machine

The Wirth Company of Germany developed a hard-rock mobile excavator, called the Continuous
Miner Machine (CMM) (Figure 4). The CMM is equipped with four booms, attached on a common
rotating mounting. One boom is positioned in the centre of the mounting and the other three are spaced
equally around the circumference. Each boom can be swung radially inwards and outwards and is fitted
with a disc cutter (Stack, 2005; Wirth, 2006). The centre arm makes the first pass pseudo pilot hole.
This shallow pilot hole is then enlarged by the three cutting arms which cut the rock in tension from the
periphery to the centre and back again.
The CMM is capable of cutting a number of different tunnel shapes, including a square-shaped
tunnel with rounded corners. The maximum excavation height and width are 4.5 m and the minimum
curve radius that can be excavated is 25 m. The desired profile can be cut automatically, according to a
pre-set computer program. It is unclear why this machine did not complete its trials at a nickel mine in
Canada and hence the concept remains largely unproven (Hood and Alehossein, 2000).

Reef miner

The ARM1100 is a disc cutting mining machine designed for mining narrow reefs of hard and abrasive
rock typical of the South African platinum orebodies (Figure 5). The ARM1100 was designed as a
combination of the principles of VOEST-ALPINE road headers and VOEST-ALPINE tunnel borers,
resulting in a machine with high performance rates in hard and abrasive rock conditions.

52 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

FIG 4 - Wirth Continuous Miner Machine – CMM FIG 5 - Voest Alpine Reef Miner ARM 1100.
(Wirth, 2006).

The machine is electrically powered and can be used on a 15 degree incline and needs 50 m radius
to navigate. The excavation height is controlled by cutterhead diameter which is 1.1 m in this model
(ARM 1000 brochure, Sandvik website). The ARM uses the undercutting technique like the CMM.
This technique tries to combine the efficiency of the drag bit with the robustness of the disc cutter
(Hood and Alehossein, 2000). The ARM Project has been cutting in the UG2 platinum reef on the 25
level of Rowland shaft at on of Lonmin’s mines since 2002. During this development period, the
machine has proven itself as a capable hard-rock cutting machine system, with cost per tone, the main
variable to be refined.

Oscillating disc cutter

As with CMM and reef miner, this cutting system uses the disc cutter to undercut the rock. The cutter
system also employs high pressure water jets to assist with the rock breakage process and to keep the
tools cool during the cutting operation (Hood and Alehossein, 2000). The main objectives of this
technology is to reduce the forces acting on disc cutter and also the thermal loading of discs to preserve
cutter life and having the possibility for the development of small, manoeuvrable light weight machines
capable for use in mining purposes.

FIG 6 - Excavation by TBM and drill and blasting (Consult, 1993).

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 53

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

Hybrid excavation methods

Hybrid excavation refers to conceptual methods where mechanical and drill and blast development
methods are both used. Figure 6 illustrates a combined TBM and drill and blast methods (Consult,
1993). This method was originally proposed for tunnelling in the Austrian Alps. The combined system
was called ‘shield and blasting excavation system’ and the main objective of this method was to reduce
costs compared to a full face TBM. Under the system shown in Figure 6 the pilot hole requires support.
Therefore this type of system is unlikely to result in improved development advance rates unless it is
possible to excavate the pilot hole remotely and eliminate the need for ground support for the pilot hole.
Assuming it was technically possible to operate the pilot hole drilling and stripping stages as parallel
operations it may be possible to achieve higher rates of development than is possible with a single
stage.

Novel excavation methods

Novel excavation methods include excavation methods that for reasons of cost, energy efficiency or
practicality are only rarely if ever applied. Novel excavation methods include:
• Water jet assisted drilling – CRCMining is currently undertaking research in the area of water jet
assisted drilling. Recent laboratory trials conducted by CRCMining have shown that water jet
assisted drills in soft rock (eg sandstone) achieve significantly higher penetration than normal
drilling. However, in the case of hard rock, water jets resulted in only marginal improvements in
penetration rates.
• Water jet cutting – (Hood et al, 1992) reviewed water jet cutting and concluded that early water jet
excavation trials were affected by hard zones (eg ‘bands’, ‘boulders’, ‘pebbles’). While these issues
were overcome to some extent by the introduction of ‘cavitation bubbles’ and ‘packets of water’.
The efficiency of water jets in rock excavation is between one and two orders of magnitude less than
mechanical tools.
• Thermal spalling – Thermally induced fracture of rock is one of the oldest rock breakage techniques
known to man. Primitive underground miners used heat to crack rocks as early as the third century
BC (Carstens, 1972). The main advantage of heat based rock excavation methods is that there is no
direct contact between the heating device and the rock. This means there is no need for a large
reaction force. These devices have limited application because most rocks will not thermally spall
(Commission on Geosciences, 1994; Maurer, 1968, 1980).
• Lasers and electron beams – In the 1970s the ability of high power lasers to deliver high levels of
heat to the face at energy levels 1 to 10 MW/in.2 was seen as an advantage because the energy
intensity enabled higher instantaneous penetration rates and could cut any rock type (Carstens,
1972). Despite high penetration rates in the laboratory tests, in practice it has proven difficult to
develop drills capable of delivering sufficiently high energy density intensity to achieve rapid
penetration rates (Carstens, 1972; Commission on Geosciences, 1994).
Table 5 compares the specific energy requirements for various rock drilling methods. It is clear that
both thermal spalling and lasers have specific energy requirements far higher than rotary drilling. In the
case of thermal spalling the specific energy requirements is 15 times that of rotary drilling, while in the
case of melting and vaporisation the thermal energy requirements are 50 and 120 times, respectively
more than of rotary drilling. It is for these reasons that thermal and laser methods are not practical as a
primary excavation method.

54 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

TABLE 5
Specific energy requirements for rock drilling (Maurer, 1968).
3
System Specific energy (joules/cm )
Rotary bit 100
High-pressure jets 1000
Thermal spalling 1500
Melting 5000
Vaporisation 12 000

Ground control for TBMs

Mechanical excavators are particularly sensitive to ground conditions. While it is possible to design
and build a TBM and ground support systems for all ground conditions, the difficulty is in predicting
ground conditions from limited drill hole information. Ground conditions represent a significant
operational risk to mechanical excavation methods. In contrast, drill and blast advance rates are only
moderately affected by ground conditions (support time, number of holes, redrilling of holes).

BENCHMARKING TBM ADVANCE RATES

Published case studies provide the basis for benchmarking mechanical excavation advance rate in
different rock conditions. These case studies are based on tunnels bored between 1980 and 2004. The
mean and median advance rates for the TBM benchmarking case studies were 20.1 and 18.4 m/day,
respectively.
Because advance rates have increased over time, a second set of statistics was calculated for case
studies before and after 1995. The mean and median for the case studies post 1995 were 23.8 m/day and
23.2 m/day, respectively. These values are respectively, 7.27 m/day and 6.5 m/day higher than the
pre-1995 cases. Figure 7 (left) shows a possible trend in advance rate over time. It should be noted that
the TBM advance rates are influenced by factors such as tunnel diameter, geological conditions etc.
Hence, the production rate can be considered as normalised factor which includes tunnel cross-section.
Figure 7 (right) demonstrates that TBM production rate show increasing improvement over time.

FIG 7 - TBM advance and production rate trends over time.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 55

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

TBM PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING OPPORTUNITIES

Optimised design characteristics for TBM

Incorrect TBM specification is the source of the vast majority of advance rate issues encountered by
TBM. Careful thought should be given to matching the machine technical characteristics and design
specifications, especially available thrust and installed power for cutter head, with the anticipated
geologic conditions.

Improvement of machine utilisation and availability

Utilisation and availability are of prime importance to the tunnel contractor and will determine the
speed, efficiency and cost of the construction. Cutter replacement rates can greatly affect machine
utilisation. Redesigning TBM boring mechanisms to reduce cutter forces presents opportunities for
reducing the required cutter head thrust and power and consequently much more flexible machine and
longer life for disc cutter. For example, using the undercutting technique drastically reduces the forces
required to break the rock.

TBM THEORETICAL LIMITS TO ADVANCE

The limitations of TBM application can be placed into the following categories (Robbins, 1995;
Bruland, 1998a):
• Very hard rock – hard-rock tunnel boring machines have been designed to achieve penetration rates
comparable with drill and blast, even in the hardest of rock types. In very hard-rock TBM design
constraints can be defined as follows:
• The current cutter rings which are made from a high strength alloy steel can fail when they are
subjected to the high thrust loads.
• This high thrust requirement must be supplied through a main bearing supporting the rotating
cutterhead of the machine. High capacity main bearing systems are a point of development and
may prove to be a limitation in the future.
• The drive system consisting of motors, gear reducers, drive pinions and the main bull gear
mounted to the machine’s cutterhead are required to withstand high torque and power together
with high levels of shock loading.
• Structural integrity and fatigue life of the machine’s main elements are more important in a high
thrust environment of hard-rock boring.
• Poor ground conditions – poor ground condition can be defined as unstable rock which will cave in at
the face, crown or walls due to faulting, jointing, weathering or ground stress. Machines capable of
systematically supporting the rock achieve advance rates comparable with machines in good rock.
• Fair ground conditions – modern hard-rock tunnel boring machines have the power and thrust
available to penetrate fair/weak rock at extremely high advance rates. Therefore, if muck removal
systems are not designed to support high advance rates, they will limit advance rates.

COMPARISON OF DRILL AND BLAST AND TBM DEVELOPMENT

Table 6 compares drill and blast tunnelling to TBM tunnelling.

56 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

TABLE 6
Comparison of drill and blast method versus TBM tunnelling.

TBM Drill and blast

Advance rate
Overbreak
Risk
Tunnel shape
Capital investment
Cost
Transport rigging and erection
Flexibility of development profile
Required time to design and
manufacture of equipment, assembly
and dismantling
Mucking requirements
Other headings, eg truck loading bays, No
pump stations, diamond drilling cuddy.
Flexibility (curvature, gradient, shape, Very low. Minimum radius for TBM is
rock support, mixed ground, etc)
Ground support requirements
Required experienced human
Safety
Rock support
Optimal/minimum tunnel length
(economical point of view)
Very fast compared to drill and blast,
Benchmarking Average 20.12 m/day
(standard deviation = 9.12)
Less overbreak compared to drill and blast
Higher risks as evidence by higher
benchmark standard deviation
Circular
High (Holen, 1998)
Costs affected by penetration which can
vary from 1 m/hour to 6 m/hour. Cutter
costs can vary from very little to US$50/m
(Holen, 1998)
Heaviest piece 50 to 100 tons (Holen,
1998). Large cranes required for erection.
No flexibility. Need to modify profile to Highly flexible
suit mine vehicles. May need stripping at
lower corners.
Near to one year (Holen, 1998)
Trackless equipment is only feasible for
radius >7 m
40 m to 80 m. Minimum radius for backup
equipment when boring is 150 m to
450 m.
Normally less than drill and blast. If well
equipped can carry out bolting, grouting
and lining during boring (Holen, 1998).
Relatively high
High
30 - 50 per cent reduced under normal
condition (Holen, 1998)
8/3 km
Slowed compared to TBM,
Benchmarking Average 6.8 m/day
(standard deviation = 1.61)
Neumann (2001) reports on overbreak
ranging from 4 to 35 per cent
Lower risk as evidenced by lower
benchmark standard deviation
Any shape
Low
Costs are relatively invariant (Holen,
1998) and are less prone to risk.
Drill rig can be transported as is.
Short delivery time (Holen, 1998)
Trackless feasible at any development
profile.
Yes
High
Higher level of support required due to
blast damage. Also, can not carry out
ground support at the same time as
excavation (Holen, 1998)
Low
Low
3 km is optimal but no minimum length
(Holen, 1998)

Comparison of advance rate

Because TBM advance rates are highly susceptible to ground conditions, TBM advance rates have been
evaluated using the NTNU prognosis (Bruland, 1998b) method for different ground condition. Table 7
described the four ground condition scenarios modelled using the NTNU method. The assumed tunnel
and TBM specifications are described. Table 8 summarises the results. On average, TBMs can be
expected to exceed drill and blast development rates (NTNU prognosis 10.4 m/day) for good
(23.7 m/day), fair (17 m/day) and poor ground (18 m/day) conditions. In the case of very hard and
abrasive rock, the average advance rates were very close, 10.4 m/day and 10.0 m/day for drill and TBM
methods respectively. The utilisation factors assumed significantly impact these results.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 57

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

TABLE 7
Typical rock mass characteristics, assumed tunnel data and TBM specifications.
Tunnel data

Tunnel diameter (m) 6.2 Rock type Rock 1 Rock 2 Rock 3 Rock 4
2
Tunnel cross-section (m ) 30 General description Very good Good Fair Poor
Tunnel length (m) 4000 RMR 90 70 50 30

Disc cutter diameter (mm) 431.8 UCS (Mpa) 250 175 75 35

Number of cutter 44 JS (cm) 200 120 40 20
Cutter head (rpm) 7 RQD (%) 95 80 60 35
TBM data

Installed power (kW) 1600 DRI 80 60 50 30

Available thrust (kN) 10 120 CLI 10 30 50 80
Average cutter spacing 75 Quartz (%) 30 30 10 10
Working hour per day 20
Monthly working day 25
Mucking system Belt conveyor

TABLE 8
Summary results of NTNU TBM performance prediction model for assumed rock types.

Rock type Rock Type 1 Rock Type 2 Rock Type 3 Rock Type 4
General description Very hard and abrasive rock Good Fair Poor
RMR = 90 RMR = 70 RMR = 50 RMR = 30
Power (kw) 800 1234 1140 1177
Penetration rate(m/h) 1.2 2.84 2.91 3.09
Advance rate (m/h) 0.6 1.42 1.0185 1.0815
Utilisation factor (%) 50% 50% 35% 35%
†
Advance rate (m/day) 10.0 23.7 17.0 18.0

† Advance rates in m/day were converted from m/month by assuming 30 days per month.

Figure 8 provides boxplots of the TBM and drill and blast benchmark advance rates. Seventy five
per cent of the advance rates achieved by TBM are significantly higher than those achieved by drill and
blast. The median of achieved TBM advance rate is two times higher than the maximum drill and blast
advance rate. The wider range of TBM data is explained by greater number of case histories with
different ground conditions and tunnel diameters.

Cost per metre

Based on the NTNU model, TBM costs per metre ranged from US$2760/m to US$4530 for the
scenarios described in Table 7. Assuming a 0.75 exchange rate, TBM costs in Australian dollars range
from $3680 to $6040. This is significantly higher than the $2500 to $3500 budgeted by Australian
mines for development. In 1998 Codelco budgeted US$2895/m (A$3980/m) for the El Teniente mine
in Chile (Tobar, 1998).

58 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

FIG 8 - Boxplots for advance rates for drill and blast and TBM case histories.

DISCUSSION

Hybrid development methods

It is speculated that creating a high speed pilot excavation in advance of drill and blast operations could
significantly improve development advance rates. The creation of a vertical slot along the centre axis of
a drive would create two parallel faces that, equipment permitting, may be able to be drilled and
mucked concurrently. The available face for ground control measures, drilling and loading explosives
would be limited only by pilot excavation advance. For example, if the pilot excavation were kept
40 metres ahead of the full face, drilling and loading could be carried out on 20 metres of horizontal
face whilst mucking was undertaken on another tunnel segment. Slot advance and conveyor mucking,
drilling and mucking to full tunnel profile could be conducted as parallel processes. Under this type of
system either the pilot excavation rate or the mucking and support of the final development profile
would be the limiting factor on advance rate.
Possibilities considered for pilot excavation methods include the reef miner type system or a new
slotting machine. The Alpine Reef Miner combines road header and TBM technology, using gripper
system to transfer thrust. The Alpine Reef Miner’s production rates are currently being assessed as it
was only released on to the market in early 2005. Based on 4000 tones per month production rate
estimates for Merensky mine, Impala Platinum in South Africa, it can be estimated that the Alpine Reef
Miner could average approximately, 16.3 m/day assuming a 1.3 m high by 4.5 m horizontal slot
(SG = 2.8 and utilisation factor = 50 per cent). A scaled up version of the machine would probably
achieve higher advance rates, although significant redesign is required in order to execute vertical slots.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 59

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

Combination excavation method systems have the following advantages:

• development processes are conducted in parallel;
• flexibility – possible to switch to only drill and blast if necessary for some sections of development;
and
• assuming high speed pilot excavation can be achieved the system offers advance rates of over 25 m
per day.
It is difficult to assess the potential of the hybrid tunnelling method until further work is done to
assess the theoretical limits of such a system. For example, issues with maintaining access to the pilot
hole after blasting (swell of broken rock blocking access) need to be resolved. However, with electronic
initiation enabling better control on blasting direction it is possible. A second issue that would need to
be resolved is the extra ground support required for slot drilling unless the slot excavation can be
conducted fully automatically with no need for man-access.

Mechanical excavation development trends

Mine development in hard-rock mines will undergo a major revolution when machines are available to
tunnel continuously and productively. TBM manufacturers have seen some movement in that direction
but progress has been slow to fill the needs of the mining industry (Robbins, 2000). Research and
development objectives for mechanical excavation can be summarised as follows:
• faster development,
• risk minimisation,
• increase the flexibility of mechanical excavators,
• reduce capital cost,
• improve machine specification methods, and
• safer development.
The most important of these objectives are faster development, risk minimisation and reduced cost.
Modern TBMs are being fitted with electronic systems to provide early detection of impending
component failures and wear on critical components. Electronic systems are used for the automatic
steering of machines as well as optimisation of machine performance in response to changes in rock
and ground conditions. In particular with the use of variable frequency AC drive systems, the
cutterhead RPM and the thrust pressure can be continuously varied to allow maximum penetration at all
times during the advance cycle. Electronics systems are also aiding in the scheduling and control of
various operations at the tunnel heading and the backup/transport systems (Friant and Ozdemir, 1993).
Development efforts are also underway for TBMs with capability to make short radius turns, as well
as a capability for boring through existing intersections. These machines are primarily directed to
mining applications where the short radius turn feature (as small as 20 m) is desirable. The machines
can also make turnouts from existing tunnels (Ozdemir, 1995).
Cutter technology is an important issue for TBM tunnelling in hard rock. The development in cutter
technology for hard-rock TBMs has concentrated on increasing the cutter diameter to be able to sustain
the cutter loads required to break the rock. In this process there are two main topics: Ring steel and
bearings (Bruland, 1998). For the largest cutters (483 - 500 mm), experience shows that the ring steel is
not able to utilise the thrust capacity of the machine. Plastic deformation and/or macro fracturing of the

60 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

edge have both been observed (Friant and Ozdemir, 1993). To get an acceptable cutter life, the average
thrust level has been reduced to 80 - 85 per cent of the design thrust of the machine (Bruland, 1998).
Norwegian experiences in homogenous rock show that the penetration rate will be reduced by 50 per
cent if the thrust level is reduced by 15 per cent. This indicates a large potential for reduced excavation
costs by only small improvements in the ring steel quality (Bruland, 1998).
Analysis of the TBM case studies shows that adequate knowledge of ground conditions in advance
of tunnelling is critical to success. It is essential to locate and map faults, weak zones, squeezing ground
and swelling clays in advance of commencing a TBM project. In mining, development work is often
carried out in a data poor environment. This favours drill and blast techniques, which are able to be
readily adapted to changing ground conditions. The use of TBMs in mining requires that mines invest
more initially to fully characterise the host rock mass prior to commencing development.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There appear to be three main options for increasing underground development rates:
• The first approach is to pursue incremental innovations to enable the 19 m/day theoretical limit to
drill and blast to be achieved. Notable efforts in this regard are the development of thin spray-on
liner technology, self drill bolts, shields and high frequency percussive drills.
• The second approach is to develop compact, versatile continuous mining system by using
undercutting technologies such as the oscillating disc cutter. Such systems must be capable of
handling a range of ground conditions if they are to be successfully adapted to mining.
• The third, and most novel approach, is to investigate the potential of hybrid development systems
that combine the flexibility of drill and blast with the speed of mechanical slot excavation. Slot
excavation in advance of drilling would create extended parallel faces on which to drill and muck.
While European experience with conventional drill and blast equipment suggests that multiple
tasks are limited to faces greater than 50 m2, it is speculated that new equipment and concepts can
be developed to enable parallel processing at smaller faces.

REFERENCES
Archibald, J F, 2000. Validation of rock reinforcement capacity offered by spray-on mine coatings, in 102nd AGM of
the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum [CD ROM] p 9 (Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum: Montreal).
Backbolm, G, Christiansson, R and Lagerstedt, L, 2004. Choice of rock excavation methods for the Swedish deep
repository for spent nuclear fuel (SKB, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co).
Barber J, Mennie, B, Poedjono, R and Coad, G, 2005. Common infrastructure project – Development for the Future
of PT Freeport Indonesia, in Proceedings Ninth Underground Operators’ Conference 2005, pp 313-322 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Barla, G and Pleizza S, 2000. TBM tunneling in difficult ground conditions, in Proceedings GeoEng2000, p 20
(Politecnico di Torino).
Bruland, A, 1998a. Future Demands and Development Trends (Norwegian Tunneling Society, NFF).
Bruland, A, 1998b. Hard-Rock Tunnel Boring, Advance Rate and Cutter Wear (Norwegian University of Science
and Technology NTNU: Trondheim).
Bullock, R L, 2000. Trends in non-coal underground mining technology at the close of the millennium, in Mining
in the New Millennium – Challenges and Opportunities, Poland.
Cameron, A, 2000. Safe Rapid Development Project – Blast Modifications, Camiro.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 61

P STEWART, A RAMEZANZADEH and P KNIGHTS

CAMIRO, 2002a. CAMIRO Safe Rapid Underground Development Simulations (Canadian Mining Industry
Research Organization: Sudbury).
CAMIRO, 2002b. Moveable Face Shield, CAMIRO Mining Division (Canadian Mining Industry Research
Organization: Sudbury).
Carstens, J P, 1972. Thermal fracture of rock – A review of experimental results, in Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference, pp 1363-1392 (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc: Littleton).
Chesman, S, 2005. Case study in rock mass behavior: TBM versus drill and blast, pp 689-703, Seattle, WA, United
States (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Littleton).
Chitombo, G and Trueman, R, 1997. Long round drilling – State-of-the-art, Centre for Mining Technology and
Equipment (CMTE), Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC), AMIRA P475-Scoping Study,
Brisbane.
Cigla, M, Yagiz, S and Ozdemir, L, 2001. Application of tunnel boring machines in underground mine
development, in International Mining Congress, Turkey.
Commission on Geosciences EaR, 1994. Drilling and Excavation Technologies for the Future (The National
Academies Press).
Consult, M, 1993. Design based on numerical modelling a requirement for an economical tunnel construction, in
Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC), pp 367-379 (Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
Forrester, D, 1996. Underground continuous mining – an overview, CIM Bulletin, 89:32-37.
Friant, J E, 1995. Full Face TBMs in Mine Application (Colorado School of Mines: Golden).
Friant, J E and Ozdemir, L, 1993. Tunnel boring technology – Present and future, in Proceedings Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
Golser, J, Riedmuller, G and Schubert, P, 1993. Tunneling concepts for heterogenous and weak rock, in
Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC), pp 333-366 (Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
Guan, Z, 1997, Mechanics of rock/tool/machine interaction. PhD thesis, The University of Queensland.
Holen, H, 1998. TBM Versus Drill and Blast Tunneling (Norwegian Tunneling Society, NFF).
Hood, M and Alehossein, H, 2000. A development in rock cutting technology, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37:297-305.
Hood, M, Knight, G C and Thimons, E D, 1992. A review of jet assisted rock cutting, Transactions of the ASME,
114:196-206.
Hutton, R, Bonner, J and Nonaka, T, 2005. The Nancy Creek Tunnel: hard-rock tunneling in Atlanta, in Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference 2005 (eds: J D Hutton and W D Rogstad) pp 642-653 (Society for
Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
Jenkins, P A, Mitchell, J and Upton, B, 2005. Improved ground control using scaling and in-cycle shotcrete, in
Proceedings Ninth Underground Operators’ Conference, pp 255-263 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Johannesson, O, 1995. Tunneling prognosis for drill and blast project report, Norwegian University Science and
Technology, Trondheim, 2B-95, Trondheim.
Kaiser, P, Suorineni, F, Henning, J, Diederichs, M, Mine, C, Tannant, D and Hajiabdolmajid, V, 2003. Guidelines
on support selection for safe rapid drift development, MIRARCO, CAMIRO, Sudbury, Ontario.
Kalamaras, G, Carlo, A, Dinu, C, Cirvegna, G, Paolo, P and Santucci, C, 2005. Up-to-date excavation, support,
and lining solutions meet timing requirements for the first two tunnels of the 2006 winter Olympic games.
Seattle, WA, United States, pp 201-212.
Maurer, W C, 1968. Novel Drilling Techniques (Pergamon: Oxford).
Maurer, W C, 1980. Advanced Drilling Techniques (Petroleum Publishing: Tulsa).

62 26 - 27 September 2006 Australian Mining Technology Conference

 BENCHMARK DRILL AND BLAST AND MECHANICAL EXCAVATION ADVANCE RATES

Neumann, M, 2001. CAMIRO Safe and Rapid Development Project – Benchmarking of 12 Canadian Mine
(Neumann Engineering and Mining Services).
Ozdemir, L, 1995. Mechanical excavation – today and tomorrow, in Mechanical Mining Technology short course,
Golden, Colorado (Colorado School of Mines: Golden).
Pickering, R G B, Watson, I C, Klokow, J W and Knoetze, A F, 1999. Practical feasibility of using TBMs in deep
level gold mines, in Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) (Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
Robbins, R J, 1995. Tunnel machines in hard rock, in Mechanical Mining Technology for Hard Rock (ed:
L Ozdemir) (Colorado School of Mines: Golden).
Robbins, R J, 2000. Mechanization of underground mining: a quick look backward and forward, International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37:413-421.
Roche Mining, 2006. Project report [online]. Available from: <http://www.downeredi.com> [Accessed: 20 July
2006].
Rygh, J A, 1994. Norwegian Facilities in Rock (Norwegian Tunneling Society, Norconsult International, Sandvika,
Norway).
Stack, B, 2005. Encyclopedia of Mining, Tunnelling and Drilling Equipment (Muden Publishing Company: Hobart).
Tobar, P, 1998. Macrozanjas – un método de explotación alternativo al panel caving en Mina El Teniente, in 49th
Annual Convention of Institute of Mining Engineers of Chile, Marbella Resort, 27-31 October, Chile.
Turner, J and Carey, D, 1993. Automation of a mobile miner, in Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Conference (RETC) (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
UNSW, 2006. [online] Available from: <http://www.mining.unsw.edu.au/WhatsNew> [Accessed: 15 July 2006].
VanDerPas, E and Allum, R, 1995. TBM technology in a deep underground copper mine, in Proceedings Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC), p 14 (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration:
Littleton).
Willoughby, R, 1991. Pasminco’s expectations of the Mobile Miner, in Proceedings International Symposium on
Mine Mechanisation and Automation, Colorado School of Mines, Golden (eds: L Ozdemir and K Hanna) pp
10-29.
Wirth, 2006. Mine development, production and shaft construction, in Wirth Mining Solution brochure [online].
Available from: <http://www.wirth.com>.

Australian Mining Technology Conference 26 - 27 September 2006 63