International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

TBM VERSUS DRILL AND BLAST, THE CHOICE OF TUNNELLING METHOD Gunnar Nord, Senior Advisor Construction Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB Sweden ABSTRACT The choice between Drill & Blast and TBM tunnelling is a non-ending topic. It is not surprising as the two methods have been competing for more than 30 years. During this time period both methods have made major technical advances. In this paper some specific differences of the two methods are dealt with from a general standpoint. Focuses are on time for the excavation, risks involved and to a minor extent costs. Statements are to some extent supported by references to cases. A simple guide line is also given for a first stage decision what excavation method to prefer. It is concluded that there are only few major rock tunnelling project where the excavation method can be established before a proper investigation and estimations have been made. The method is an open question before the bottom line on time and cost is arrived at. 1 INTRODUCTION The choice of excavation method for a defined tunnel is in many cases far from obvious. There are many conditions that have to be established and evaluated before a decision can be taken on the excavation method. Sometimes crucial facts are missing and replaced by guesses. In this paper the essential conditions for the choice of excavation method will be highlighted and discussed. The choice has been restricted to the two excavation methods Drill & Blast and TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine). Other mechanical methods like road header and hydraulic breaking have been omitted. The two selected methods are the dominating ones when it comes to tunnelling in rock Here focus will be on hard rock excavation and the TBM technology using EPB (Earth pressure balance) and slurry technology will not be dealt with. The purpose of the paper is to give tunnel builders that are used to the drill and blast technique a better understanding of what tunnelling by TBM means and vice versa and therefore this paper has been given the actual title. The two methods will be compared and discussions will be held on the suitability of one or the other from various aspects. By TBM is here meant a hard rock excavating machine with a circular rotating head equipped with disc cutters. The cutters are rolling along circular path on the tunnel face. The load on the cutters makes the rock fail and the loosened pieces fall by gravity down to the tunnel invert where they are picked up by buckets mounted along the periphery of the cutter head of the TBM. Only atmospheric pressure is acting on the tunnel face. By Drill and Blast is meant loosening of the rock by use of explosives that are applied in holes drilled from the tunnel face and ahead. The explosives in the individual holes are detonated in a preset sequential order. The loosened rock is loaded and transported away from the face. 205

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

For both methods regular support measures are taken to secure the stability of the underground opening. The paper will start with a general discussion on what conditions will influence the choice of method, after that a more detailed presentation will be given on some key issues and finally a few cases will be given where both TBM and Drill & Blast have been employed. 1. GENERAL In tunnelling as in most other manufacturing the most cost effective is the preferred one. The ambition of a buyer is to pay as little as possible for a defined product irrespective of it is a bicycle or a tunnel. The problem when it comes to tunnelling is that in many cases it is difficult to accurately predict the price tag. There are so many cost influencing conditions that are difficult or expensive to define beforehand. Furthermore a tunnelling project is normally running over several years and new unforeseen conditions may arise during this period. The calculated price tag varies depending on who is producing it and how the timing is. This statement is support by the results from bid openings on tunnel projects around the world. The amount of money that various contractors are asking for to produce a defined tunnel is very variable with spans as large as twice the price between the lowest and the highest bidder. In general it can be said that the drill and blast method gives less variation of the price. The opinion is that the drill and blast method offers a higher flexibility and consequently better opportunities to cope with unforeseen conditions. The variation in tunnelling speed when excavating in favourable versus unfavourable ground conditions is also less for the drill and blast than the TBM method. In tunnelling there is a very clear relation between time and money and this statement is valid for both of the two methods. When the tunnelling costs are split on time related and material related some 2/3: rd of the cost would be characterised as time related when it comes to drill and blast and the figure for TBM is in the same range. The variation in this split on time and material is though larger for the TBM alternative and that depends to a large extent on the status of the TBM itself. Is it hired, fully owned with no new commitments in sight, is it old or new and finally is the excavation carried out in a low cost or high cost region. 2. ADVANCE RATE OF THE TUNNEL HEADING Higher excavation speed is normally associated with TBM excavation and so are also the variations of it. What conditions are affecting the speed of the TBM excavation? This question is split in two. The first is, what sets the advance rate when the machine is running properly and the second how much time must be allocated for other activities that require a standstill of the machine. The advance rate is ruled by the penetration per revolution of the cutter head and the rotation speed of the cutter head. The easier the disc cutters penetrate the rock per revolution of the cutter head and the higher the revolution is, the faster is the advance rate. The penetration per revolution is ruled by the strength characteristics of the rock material and load on the cutters.

206

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

2.1 Rock strength and advance rate What are now strength characteristics in this respect? There are different means to measure and evaluate them. Certainly the unconfined compressive strength is an essential component and it is valid also for regular percussion drilling used in the drill and blast tunnelling method. Furthermore the brittleness of the rock is of importance. The higher the brittleness is the larger chips or fragments of rock are loosened when the rock fails under the load of the cutters. Weaknesses in the rock as joints and foliations will boost the excavation rate and there are empirical ways to establish what the penetration rate will be. The problem is to establish what the strength characteristics will be along the tunnel line. When the same strength characteristics affect the drilling rate in the two tunnelling methods they should face the same uncertainty with respect to prediction of the advance rate. However the percussion rate is only marginally affected by the weaknesses but the TBM cutter penetration is highly affected by it. In addition it is difficult to predict the character of the weaknesses especially when there is a large cover of rock along the tunnel line. When considering how much of the total time is spent on drilling and boring in the two methods a generalised figure is that the boring time in the TBM excavation is normally at least 3 times larger than in the drill and blast method. The conclusion of the discussion above is that the TBM excavation with respect to advance rate is by far much more depending on the strength characteristics of the rock than drill and blast. This makes the estimation of the advance rate and tunnelling cost much more difficult and uncertain. 2.2 Advance rate and tunnel size The cutters mounted on the cutter-head have two limitations namely the load that can be applied on them and the rotation speed. The load applied on the cutters and the strength characteristics of the rock are ruling how large the penetration per revolution of the cutter head will be. The maximum cutter load is though not always fully utilised. When a good penetration is achieved the limiting factor is often the installed power for the rotation of the cutter head. The TBM advance rate is than limited by the torque that can be applied on the cutter-head. The rotation speed is limited by the capacity of the bearings inside the cutter. A faster rotation than limited would reduce the service life of the bearings drastically. This means that the outer most placed cutter on the cutter-head is setting the periphery speed of the cutter head. Consequently the diameter of the TBM is directly affecting the RPM of the cutter head. A somewhat simplified conclusion is that a 7 meter TBM will only advance at half the speed of a 3,5 meter diameter TBM. What is now the situation for the drill and blast technique with respect to advance rate and tunnel size? The equipment being used in drill and blast tunnels are available in various sizes and are selected to fit the actual tunnel size. This means also that the larger the tunnel is the more drilling machines can operating in parallel at the tunnel face and for loading and hauling bigger units can be employed. This means that there is not a direct relation between tunnel size and advance rate for drill and blast tunnels.

207

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA 1 <2,45 2 2,50-2,95 3 3,00-3,45 4 3,50-3,95 5 4,00-4,45 6 4,50-4,95 7 5,00-5,45 8 5,50-5,95 9 6,00-6,45 10 6,50-6,95 11 7,00-7,45 12 7,50-7,95 13 8,00-8,95 14 9,50-9,95 15. >10,00 excavation cases

Average Monthly Advance rates

Metres per month 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Classified according to diameter

Figure 1. Average advance rates for a number of TBM tunnel

What does this mean on the choice of the two excavation methods? It is as simple as that the smaller the tunnel is the more difficult will it be for the drill and blast method to compete with TBM. Figure 1 above is meant to support this statement. Here a large number of tunnelling cases have been classified with respect to the diameter and each bar represent half a meter of the tunnel diameter. The diagram has two peaks, one at bar 6 and the other at bar 13. This is surprising as the rate should be continuously falling from the smallest diameter. The small TBM:s <3,5 meter diameters are hard to work on for full size men. There is not room enough and support work in the TBM area is cumbersome task. This drawback is most likely the explanation that it is difficult to achieve adequate advance rates for the real small TBM:s There are not very many TBM:s with diameters less than 3,5 m. It seems as if the 3,5 m represents a lower practical limit as the number of TBM:s being built with this diameter is relatively large. Still up to diameter 5,0 the larger space given is of great advantage specially for the support work. From 5 meters and onwards the reduction of advance rate can be observed. However at the diameter 8-9 meters a sudden increase is found. The explanation to this is the influence of the Channel tunnel TBM excavations as they are included in the statistics. There the geological conditions were very much one of a kind and the long headings made the influence of the normal start up problems on the average speed only marginal. This description is not scientifically correct as it is a mixture of projects over at least a 10 year period. It is however indicative. 2.3 Advance rate and other activities than excavation at the tunnel face The TBM excavation suffers from down time caused by changes of cutters, re-gripping, daily maintenance, break downs etc. All this down time added normally constitute more than half of the total available time and a normal figure is some 60 % giving only 40% (utilisation) left for excavation. Certainly there are numerous of cases where this utilisation figure is considerably. The 40% utilisation makes an instantaneous advance rate of some 5 metres / hour to go down to 2 meters / hour as a daily average. Still this is an advance rate that by far over rides what is normally achieved in drill and blast tunnelling.

208

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

The drill and blast technique is a sequential operation and the equipment is mostly fully utilised when it is operating at the face. The availability of the equipment is normally more than 90 % in tunnelling. The utilisation factor that so typical for the TBM technique is not applicable in drill and blast. 3. THE TWO TUNNELLING METHODS AND SUPPORT WORK Most tunnels will need support to ensure its long term stability. The type and magnitude of support is ruled by the rock and water conditions as well as the stress situation along the tunnel alignment. The first question is than Will there be any difference in the support measures for the two methods and the answer is Most likely yes. In literature on this topic numerous statements can be found on how much less support is needed when going with TBM instead of drill and blast. Certainly when drill and blast excavation requires only little support the TBM in similar conditions may require no support at all and consequently the reduction is 100 %. Whereas in other cases with real heavy support in drill and blast including stabilising ahead of the face the support measures will not be less using the TBM technology. In fact they might be even larger and certainly take much more time due to the difficulties with installations of support right behind and ahead of the cutter head. When heavy support is needed the TBM technology definitely will yield slower advance rates than the D & B technique. The conclusion is that it is almost impossible to present a general figure on how much less support is needed when excavating with TBM instead of drill and blast. Each tunnel case has to be given its own analysis. A summing up of the advance rates of the two techniques has been made by Dr Barton. He is considering the advance of the tunnel face as a function of the rock quality. Mr Barton et al are behind the so called Q-system often being used in characterisation and classification of rock. He has looked into a large number of tunnelling cases where TBM has been used and has concluded that there is a major variation in the relation advance rate and penetration rate depending on the rock quality (see figure 2). He has studied the advance rate of the Drill and Blast technique in the same way and found that the TBM technique is most competitive time wise versus drill and blast when rock conditions are in the Q-range 0,1 to 10 on his rock quality scale (see figure 3).

Figure 2 From Tunnels and Tunnelling Sept 1999 PR=penetration rate, AR= advance rate

209

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

[m/week]

TBM 200 Weekly Monthly 100 Yearly

Drill and Blast Weekly Monthly Yearly

150

50

0,01

0,1

10

100

1000

Q-value

Figure 3. Barton: Hypothetical comp. D&B versus TBM tunnelling

What that means is that TBM:s have an advantage primarily in rock qualities designated very poor, poor and fair (see figure above). It should be pointed out that this is a hypothetical statement from Dr Barton. Even though the statement is hypothetical it points onto the difficulties the TBM excavation faces when entering into real poor ground. Many cases have been recorded where the technique has been abandon in favour of the drill and blast technique. But also in the very good end of the quality scale the TBM excavation will be difficult due to the monolithic character of the rock yielding only few joints. Figure 3 is as clearly said hypothetical and this should be underlined as there are some results that can be disputed. The first is the drastic fall of the TBM advance rate at the higher end of the Q scale and the second is that in the low end of the Q scale, Drill and Blast excavation speed often out-scores the TBM speed but this is not clearly indicated in the figure. 4. CASES WITH APPLICATION OF DRILL AND BLAST AND TBM EXCAVATION The most common application of the TBM technique is in tunnels for water conveyance. These water tunnels are usually long with a moderate diameter often less than 6 m. For the water tunnels mostly a suitable route can be selected meaning that major geological obstacles can be avoided.

210

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

4.1 The Meraker TBM case Norway

Figure 4. The Meraker open TBM

A case of this kind is the Meraker hydro power project in Norway which was completed in the early 90: ties. The project was split in two contracts and one of them contained not less than 27 km of tunnels whereof a 10 km was planned for TBM excavation with a 3,5 m machine. The rock condition dominated by a phyllite giving high penetration and at the same time maintaining good stability. The total quantity of support was only 140 bolts and 44 m3 of Shotcrete over the 10 km tunnel reach. The utilisation was quite high for this advance rate and the explanation is most likely to find in the in the good discipline of the Norwegian labour as well as the incentive of having a footage part in the salary. As this case has one of the best performances of TBM excavations so far recorded a couple of pictures on the performance are shown below. The average advance rate was 253 m/week and that is as said in a report from the project almost 100 m more per week than ever before achieved in Norway.

Figure 5. Weekly advance rate at nominal work time of 100 hrs

211

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

Figure 6.Utilisation of the TBM as percentage of total time

There was also a drill and blast tunnel excavated in similar rock conditions and the advance rate per heading was some 80 metres / week including 250 bolts and 33 m3 of Shotcrete per 1000 m of tunnel. That means in this case that the TBM produced as much as 3 tunnel headings using the drill and blast technique. This is an unusual high relation and is explained by the favourable ground conditions with no geological obstacles at all and a small tunnel diameter. 4.2 The Svea tunnel at Spetzbergen Norway The tunnel was excavated by Drill and Blast up at Spetzbergen and partly in permafrost. The 5,7 km tunnel was built to allow for conveyor transport of coal from a mine to a shipping harbour. The tunnel cross section was 39 m2 and was given a horse shoe shape. The construction work took place in year 2002-2003. The rock material along the tunnel route was mainly sandstone and siltstone with bedding having an acute angle to the tunnel axis. The maximum overburden was 600 m. Stress related stability problems arose in form of both rock burst and squeezing depending on rock type. As the tunnel was partly overlain by a glacier strongly variations in water inflow was encountered depending on the prevailing season. The tunnel was excavated uphill from one portal only using modern but conventional drill and blast equipment. The overall advance rate of 108 m per week at a nominal working time of 134 hrs. The best week characterised by only minor support work meant that the capacity went up to not less than 150 metres. The weekly advance rates are shown in figure 7 below.

212

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

Figure 7. Weekly progress at the Svea tunnel Spetzbergen Norway (single face)

4.3 Glen Doe hydro power scheme Scotland A third case which is just about to start is located in Scotland. It is a hydro power project holding two longer tunnels and they are both some 8 km long. One tunnel is a head race tunnel of 5 meter diameter and the other is a conveyance tunnel of typically 3,5 m diameter. Both tunnels are meant for water transport. The head race tunnel is located at greater depth max some 400 meters and weathering along faults and joints are most likely only marginal. The conveyance tunnel with the smaller diameter is located close to the surface and the overburden is generally less than 50 meters. There is a great risk that the rock cover partly is very shallow and that soft ground in form of soil and weathered rock may go down to tunnel level. It is understood that the low bidder prefer to excavate the small diameter tunnel by drill and blast and the larger one by TBM. This decision might seem to be obstructing the rule of a thumb saying the smaller and the longer the tunnel is the more likely it is that TBM method is more competitive. In this case the contractor has decided that conventional excavation is the best alternative for the small tunnel. The reason for that decision can only be guessed. It is believed that the proximity to the ground surface is one reason with the risks mentioned above. The proximity offers also opportunities for easy additional accesses that make it possible to work on multiple headings. 4.4 Shielded TBM In order to reduce the influence of poor ground conditions on the progress rate the so called double shield TBM was designed. The TBM is built into a steel shell in the form of a telescopic tube. In the rear end inside the shield a lining in the form concrete segment can be erected. The segments form the primary lining which sometimes also is the final. The idea behind this design concept is to avoid the problems with installation of support right behind the cutter head. The potentially collapsing ground is resting on the shield and thereafter resting on the lining. As the shield is telescopic erection of segments can take place

213

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

simultaneously with the excavation. It should be pointed out that the shield is not pressurised. Atmospheric pressure will prevail at the tunnel face. Many successful tunnel projects have been performed using this TBM technique. It is however not a generally risk free operation. There are cases where shield is jammed due to squeezing or collapsing ground although it has the option to thrust from the tunnel wall or the erected segmental lining. One such a failure case is the Pinlin road tunnel project on Taiwan. Two some 12 km long dual lane road tunnels were to be excavated for the new the new motorway between the cities of Taipei and Pinlin. Beside the two tubes for traffic a smaller pilot tunnel was excavated ahead and underneath. It is believed that the purpose of the pilot bore was to acquire information of the ground and possibly also reduce the water pressure in the tunnelling area. The pilot excavation was done with a double shield TBM (see figure 8 below).

Figure 8. A Robbins double shield TBM for excavation of the Pinlin pilot bore

The pilot had a troublesome excavation with numerous stops due to jamming and embarrassing water ingresses. At these stops the TBM was bypassed by manual excavation to free the TBM and some times to grout ahead of the tunnel face in order to reduce the water influx. Although the problems faced in the pilot tunnel it was decided to go ahead with the same excavation technique for the larger road tunnels. The lining was here a pre-cast concrete segmental one supplemented with an inner in-situ concrete shell. After a few kilometres one TBM was stuck due to water bearing collapsing ground. The TBM could simply not be advanced. The TBM for the other tube advancing slightly behind was stopped as a safety measure. As for the pilot, manual excavation ahead of the TBM was performed after having by passed the shield. After a couple of years of struggle to re-launch the TBM excavation by drill and blast started.

214

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

4.5 The Neat tunnel excavations Switzerland A good example on proper analysis of the ground conditions before establishing excavation to be by TBM or Drill and Blast is the construction of the Neat tunnels. It is the two Alpine tunnels Ltschberg and Gotthardt. They are some 37 and 57 km long respectively with dual tunnels. The owners had already at the bidding stage established the reaches that should have TBM excavation and those that should have drill and blast excavation. Some 90 % of the Gotthardt tunnel was allocated for TBM excavation but only 1/3:rd for the Ltschberg tunnel. It was obvious that the awareness of the partly poor ground conditions changed what would by many be considered as a 100% excavation by TBM as tunnels of these lengths are predominantly built by use of the TBM technique. One of the major issues for the Gotthardt tunnel must have been, how will the partly high overburden (max more than 2 km) affect the excavation with a shielded TBM? A major zone with poor ground would certainly bring a TBM to a long still stand while bypassing with conventional tunnelling. It is of utmost importance to locate the zones of weak rock. The excavation at the Ltschberg tunnel is now completed and is understood to have been done within the given time frames. Partly ground conditions might have been worse than expected. The word might is used as it is not fully known what the owner had expected. What do these cases tell? Firstly each tunnel project is a unique undertaking. It is almost impossible to make any general statements that one of the two methods is superior to the other. It has to be established from case to case, 5. COST FOR TUNNELLING USING TBM AND DRILL AND BLAST. Here some items that affect cost will be discussed. Items that so covered have mainly been related to time. 5.1 When is TBM competitive to Drill and Blast To go for TBM excavation means that the tunnels must have reasonable lengths to motivate the large investment in a TBM. How much of the investment should be depreciated on the actual project is strongly linked to the market for used TBM:s of the actual size. Is it likely that the machine can be put into operation very soon on or will it be resting on a back yard for years before it will be active? This is often a difficult issue to deal with and cannot be given a general answer. Sometimes this question can be solved by buy back options given by the machine supplier. Another solution is to rent the machine if that option is available. There are a few companies dealing with rental of TBM:s. A simple indicator on when a TBM solution might be suitable is to make a simple estimate as shown below. The formula simply says

Tunnel length [m] 1,5 Tunnel diameter [m] x (Unconfined compressive strength [Pascal])^1/3

215

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

That if the tunnel length divided by the tunnel diameter and the unconfined compressive strength of the rock at power of one third and the result is larger than 1,5 it might be worth while to check the TBM alternative. For a 3,5 m tunnel in rock with a typical strength of 150 MPa the length should be more than 3 km and for a 7 m diameter tunnel more than 6 km is required. The figure 1,5 is not as accurate as it might seem and perhaps it would be better to say that when the result is 3 TBM is definitely a viable solution and forget TBM when the result is lower than 1. Please note that this expression has no scientific back up. Poor ground conditions are not foreseen here and nor is abrasive rock considered. 5.2 Over-break in TBM and Drill and blast excavation By over-break is meant excavation of rock outside the requested lines. Over-break means always cost for mucking out, extra support and sometimes back fill with concrete when lining is required. Over-break can be caused the excavation method itself or by poor geological conditions. There is a difference between the two excavation methods. Over-break caused by geological instabilities is generally larger when excavating by drill and blast than TBM. The shock waves generated by the blasting tend to loosen some of the poor rock that normally will stay in place at the smoother mechanical excavation. This is however not always the case. At TBM excavation it is much more complicated to support ahead and right behind the tunnel face than when going with Drill and Blast and therefore the support tends to be installed at a too late stage with the consequence that the collapses will be larger for the mechanical excavation. These collapses have sometimes led to complete burial of the TBM and large voids to be supported and back filled (see Pin Lin above). Out fall behind the gripper pads of the TBM is another form of geological over break linked to the TBM excavation. The overall experience is though that TBM will generate less geological over-break. Over-break caused by the excavation technique is for TBM limited to the oversize design of the cutter head to allow for the wear of the periphery cutters and the steering precision. They normally do not allow for more than 10 cm whereof the cutter wear s takes 1-2 cm and steering of the TBM can normally be managed within 5 to 10 cm. Drill and Blast will generate over-break typically in the range of 15 to 25 cm depending on the size of the tunnel.
Over & Under-break [m]

Contract 611, M RC Hong Kong T Over and Under-break.

0,500 0,400 0,300 0,200 0,100 0,000 -0,100

-0,200 Overbreak Underbreak

Tunnel 1-9 and all

Figure 9. Over-break and under-break on average for 9 tunnels on the MTR contract 611 in Hong Kong.

216

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

Certainly much larger over-break has been recorded for the drill and blast excavation and that is due to the use of old drilling rigs lacking modern guiding devices for the booms carrying the drilling machines but also the ambition of the tunnel management to have focus on low over-break. An example on over-break and under-break from some 9 tunnels of an underground metro project in Hong Kong is shown in the figure 9 above. The bars show the average over-break in metres on the radius. As can be seen the over-break is just around some 20 cm. The tunnel excavations were carried out in the late 90:s. Another picture below shows a typical section from the Vomp tunnel in Austria which was excavated by the contractor Jaeger-bau of Austria. This case shows higher ambitions to keep the over-break low and the average overbreak for the section is here some 16 cm (see figure 10). When over-break has to be back filled by concrete as is the situations when the tunnel is given a final inner concrete shell the cost for this replacement is not marginal. For a tunnel with a periphery length of say 20 m a difference on the over-break of 10 cm means some 2 cubic metres of concrete per lineal metre of tunnel. The excavated diameter of the TBM tunnel is normally fixed and that means that the diameter must be large enough to host the heaviest support installations along the tunnel route. This might mean over-break along major part of the tunnel where less support is needed. A few TBM cases are recorded where additional mobile periphery cutters are activated to allow for a temporary larger diameter to used in poor ground in order to avoid this over excavation. 5.3 Infrastructure at site Another cost item that is different between the Drill and Blast and TBM tunnelling is the site installations. A TBM site requires normally a more demanding infrastructure with respect to roads power supply, handling of the excavated muck and land at the portal areas for workshops storages and transport arrangements. This means normally higher cost and longer time for a TBM mobilisation. In addition to this comes the transportation of the equipment to the site. The larger units and the totally higher tonnage to be transported to a construction site for a TBM alternative means often request for better roads and higher load bearing capacities on bridges. This might not be a problem in built up areas but is definitely a challenge in remote areas and may mean increased costs.

217

International Conference and Exhibition on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology 7-9 March 2006, Subang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

Figure 10. Over-break as scanned from the Vomp tunnel Austria by Jaegerbau Austria

6. CONCLUSION This paper has put its focus on a number of differences between Drill and Blast Tunnelling and TBM. Each tunnel project is a unique undertaking and characterised by numerous different conditions. It is therefore impossible to give precise guidelines for the choice of excavation technique. It is the bottom line of the estimate showing the total time and cost for the excavation and required support work that will be guiding for which way to go. In addition to this comes the evaluation of the risks involved. Normally the TBM method is characterised by higher risks primarily linked to the uncertainties in the setting of the geological conditions along the tunnel route. The TBM alternative offers a wonderful production method but is lacking the flexibility of the Drill and Blast method to cope with variable ground conditions. It can however be stated that the smaller and the longer it is the more likely it is to be excavated by TBM. The environmental aspects have not been dealt with as the restrictions are very shifting around the world.

REFERENCES: Barton Nick, 1999. TBM performance estimation in rock using QTBM Tunnelling Sept 1999 Frode Nilsen Leonard Nilsen polarforhold

Tunnels and

& sonner AS: Svea tunnelen- Rekordinndrfter under

Marketing literature from the Robbins Company (Ex. Atlas Copco Robbins) Norwegian soil and rock engineering association Norwegian TBM tunnelling publication no 11

218