Arab J Geosci
DOI 10.1007/s12517-011-0339-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
Assessing prediction models of advance rate in tunnel boring
machines—a case study in Iran
Kazem Oraee & Bahram Salehi
Received: 9 December 2010 / Accepted: 10 April 2011
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2011
Abstract Tunnel boring machine applies in tunnel construc-
tion and in mining operation. During the last years, different
methods have been introduced to analyze and assess suitable
operations of digging systems presented. These methods are
divided in two groups: (1) the first group is based on
mathematical equations and shear strength applied on each
cutter, (2) the second group is based on databanks and
experimental relationship. This paper compares and analyzes
two experimental methods as introduced by Barton and
Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTNU) as well as using
a mathematic model introduced by Colorado School of Mines
and analyzed the validity scope of each of them. A case study
is made in the 16-km Karaj–Tehran water supply tunnel. At
the end, it is concluded that mathematical models are not
suitable because they are highly dependent on the results of
special laboratory tests; also, it attends less to rock mass
characteristics. In jointed or nonhomogen rocks, as well as in
this project with less value of laboratory data, using Barton
model is more creditable. It enjoys high ability for definite
measurement. Also, NTNU model attend to machine
parameters and in case of availability of laboratory tests
data, NTNU model is a suitable method. According to the
available information and executing conditions of Karaj–
Tehran water supply tunnel project including geology of
area, experimental parameters, etc, the Barton method is
more valid than the other methods.
K. Oraee
Stirling University,
Stirling, Scotland, UK
e-mail: sko1@stir.ac.uk
B. Salehi (*)
P.O.R Consulting Tehran/Iran,
No. 4, Farvardin Allay, West Nikahd Allay, Pirozie Street,
Tehran 17646-64141, Iran
e-mail: salehi_emg@yahoo.com
Keywords Advance rate . QTBM . NTNU . CSM . Tunnel .
Validation
Introduction
Tunnel boring machines enjoy special position in boring of
tunnels with more than 3 km length due to their high speed
of excavation. Since 1990, usage of mechanized tunnel
methods has increased. Hence, the prediction capability of
operations and performances in these machines, especially
in the long-term projects, has received higher importance.
There are already many techniques for that. Example of
which are Colorado School of Mines (CSM) model which
are introduced by Colorado University and QTBM intro-
duced by Barton and NTNU by Norwegian University of
Science and Technology method Association (2005).
Tarkoy (1987) developed an empirical relationship
between hardness and TBM penetration rate. Cassinelli et
al. (1982) used a rock structure rating (RSR) system for
evaluation of tunnel boring machine (TBM) performance.
Nelson and O’Rourke (1983) studied TBM performance at
several tunneling projects mainly in sedimentary rock
formations with comparing the instantaneous penetration
rate achieved by different rock properties. Aeberli and
Wanner (1978) studied effects of schistosity on TBM
performance. Barton (1999, 2000) reviewed a wide range
of TBM tunnels to establish databases required estimate
penetration rate, advance rate, and utilization of TBM. In
order to estimate the TBM penetration rate, Barton slightly
modified the Q rock classification system and produced a
new equation, defined as QTBM which is used in this paper.
CSM has developed a semi-theoretical model, based on
the measurement and evaluation of cutting forces on an
individual cutter (Ozdemir 1977). Rostami and Ozdemir
(1993a, b) improved this model theoretically by estimating

cutting forces as a function of intact rock properties,
including uni-axial compressive and tensile strength of
rock and cutter geometry. The shortage of this model was
that it did not quantitatively consider rock mass properties,
including planes of weakness, fracture orientations, and
rock brittleness. Yagiz and Ozdemir (2001) and Yagiz
(2002) modified the CSM model by adding brittleness of
intact rock and fracture properties of rock masses as indices
for this the model.
NTNU has developed a comprehensive empirical perfor-
mance prediction model which considers intact rock and rock
mass properties as well as machine parameters (Lislerud 1988;
Bruland 1999). In this model, the machine specifications
along with laboratory measured indices (drilling rate index,
brittleness index, and cutter life index), and rock fracture
data are used to estimate the penetration rate (Norwegian
Institute of Technology 1995).
Rostami et al. (1996) compared CSM and NTH method
for hard rock TBM tunneling. Based on the results, CSM
model can be used to estimate the basic penetration and
provide the ability to improve machine design and the NTH
model applied to adjust CSM estimate and incorporate the
effects of discontinuities and rock mass.
This paper has analyzed the validity limits of two
experimental models: NTNU, QTBM, and a mathematical
model that manipulated and introduced by Colorado School
of Mine University. In addition, it will evaluate the
prediction capability of advance rate on the Karaj–Tehran
water supply tunnel. Because consumption of drinking and
industrial water will increase on future decades, many
projects including this tunnel have been designed and are
being implemented. This tunnel was excavated by a boring
machine with 4.56 m diameter in 16 km length. It supplies
16 m3/s water from Amir Kabir dam to Tehran refinery
(treating system) no.6.
Definitions
A. The definition of advance rate in this paper is as
follow:
An advance rate is length of tunnel which is ready for
operation (Salehi 2007b). In other words, it is a length of
tunnel which all excavation, support, and pavement and
other necessity operation are performed. Hence, the
dimension of this parameter is of speed type. So it
express on meter per certain time (i.e., a day). This
parameter expressed by advance rates (AR).
In mathematics, advance rate is a result of penetration
rate (PR) multiplied by performance index.
B. PR: it represents the penetration speed of boring
machine cutter into rock with boring and express as
millimeter per rotary of cutter head (mm/rotary) or as
Arab J Geosci
meter per hour (m/h). The penetration rate is dependent
closely on the speed of cutter head. On the other hand,
this speed is limited by the machine and ground
characterize. It is evident that speed of cutter penetrates
in soft rock is more than hard and stiff rocks. The PR
represents the penetration rate.
C. “Utilization or performance or productivity” means profit
making, suitability and success or achievement (Oraee
and Peymandar 2003). In other words, it means the
percentage of available resources and or quotient of
output per production factors. Utilization is an index for
measuring the performance of a unit or operation. In this
paper, utilization is shown by U. Utilization is also
expressed in two kinds: total and ingredient utilizations.
Total utilization is a rate between all products of a system
per input parameters in to system. If it is expressed as a
part of total performance, it will constitute by proportion
between ingredients. Also in tunnel boring machine, time
performance is an acceptable index to represent total
performance of a machine.
Character of models
The experimental models for predicting the AR have been
provided based on the results of boring machines operation.
The main objective is to integrate physical parameters of
machine and the ground condition. It should be noted that the
experimental models are sensitive to old data in databanks; the
limited prediction of models which shall be deteriorated with
time passage. In other words, predict capability of old models
will be decreased due to rapid advances of technology.
Mathematical models are often introduced in accordance
with shearing theories and force rules. These models have
been presented according to Newton laws and forces
applied by machine and rock reactions. Due to non-use of
databanks, these models do not pertain only to a unique
region. Also, they can be used in all geological and
technological situations. Of course, any mathematical
model cannot cover carefully all effective parameters on
the machine advance’s and the connection between them.
Table 1 shows the results of capability of prediction models
in order to consider the effective parameters.
Members of both groups or teams of experimental and
mathematical methods have strengths and weaknesses.
Mathematical methods are suitable for introducing one's
initial point of view. But for a more accurate designing,
experimental methods can respond more properly and
precisely. As it was mentioned, experimental methods have
been enforced based on databank and findings of old
projects; execution of which was conducted in a specific
area. For this reason, finding of these methods are highly
Arab J Geosci

Table 1 Capability of AR
prediction models for Parameters Mathematical models Experimental models
consideration of effective
parameters Shearing force Yes No
Material, form, and pattern of cutting tools Yes Indirect
Forces applied to cutting tools Yes Little
Machine designing parameters Yes Little
Depending on technological level No Much
Fault recognition ability and design modification Yes No
Rock strength Yes Little
Rock Quality Index Little Yes
Geological conditions Indirect Yes
Jointed conditions Indirect Yes
Utilization prediction Yes Yes
Estimation of cutting tool effective life Yes Yes
Sensitive to operator No Some case
Depend to experimental data Yes Little

fluctuating that may be very successful to predict an
advance rate in a project but presents a misguiding result
in another project.
Experimental models
Plamstrom introduces RMI system to explain the con-
ditions of rock mass. Based on this model, the penetration
speed is estimated with combination of the characters of
rock drillability and rock mass joint as well as machine
factors.

Q classification is on base drill and blast tunneling and Mathematical models

introduced by Barton. After some field researches, he
introduced tunnel quality index model as follows after The CSM is a mathematical model that has been
some field researches. Also, he developed this model by introduced by Earth Mechanics Institute (EMI) of Colorado
means of some other parameters to estimate the advance School of Mine for advance estimation and penetrating
rate of boring machines: rates based on a 25-year theory, experimental, and
operational study.
RQDo Jr Jw SIGMA 20 q sq
QTBM ¼       To establish detailed database for the development of
Jn Ja SRF F 10
9 CLI 20 5
20 model, EMI has collected extensive field data and con-
ð1Þ ducted full-scale laboratory cutting tests to serve as a basis
for model development and validation. This data collection
In which:
effort was complemented based on extensive theoretical
RQDo rock quality index on direction of tunnel analysis of rock failure under the action of TBM cutters. All
excavation these efforts successfully led to the development of initial
Jr/ja value related to discontinuities, joints and sheets formulation of the CSM model in late 1970s by Ozdemir.
of rocks which participate in most digging and Subsequently, Rostami and Ozdemir (1993a, b) modified
excavation trends the model in the early 1990s. At the CSM, an empirical
Jw/SRF the same Q value (unchanged) modified CSM model has been developed to describe rock
Sigma equivalent factor of rock mass strength fractures, brittleness, and to quantify their effect on TBM
F average cutter load. It extract from machine performance. Incorporating these adjustment factors into
catalog as tnf the existing CSM model basic penetration rate has led to a
CLI cutter life index more accurate TBM performance prediction for given rock
q quartz in percent conditions (Yagiz 2002).
σθ induced biaxial stress on tunnel face (MPa) This model is based on to determine the forces applied to
in the same zone, normalized to an approximate disk (cutter) for a certain penetration, advancing force
depth of 100 m (=5 MPa; Barton 1999). momentum and necessary power of cutter head. To estimate
amount of forces applied in disk, shearing tests must be
NTNU model is developed by Norwegian University carried on a real scale the method of which is accurate and
of Science and Technology since 1970s. In 1995, trustworthy. This type of tests contains all controlling

parameters. Some of these parameters are: rock strength, rock
brittleness, disk (cutter) details, spaced joints, continuity, and
joints gradient (slopes).
Validation study on methods
CSM methodology
One of the most sensitive parameter of CSM model is the
penetration force of each disk (cutter). This parameter can be
estimated by laboratory testing. If it is not determined as
accurate as possible, the results of calculation will be wrong.
The Colorado School of Mine has proposed many equations
to calculate the penetration rate. The most important of which
are Cassinelli equation (Eq. 2), Innaurato equation (Eq. 3),
and Graham equation (Eq. 4).
P ¼ 0:0059 RSR þ 1:59 ð2Þ
Innaurato is involved the unit − axial strength of rock in
addition to RSR.
P ¼ s 0:437
c  0:047 RSR þ 3:15 ð3Þ
3; 940 FN
P¼ ð4Þ
UCS
Which in:
RSR Rock structure rating
σc Uniaxial pressure strength of rock (MPa)
P penetrating rate in Innaurato and Cassinelli
equations on m/h and Graham equation mm/rev
Fn penetration force of any disk on kN
UCS rock pressure strength on kPa
In Karaj–Tehran water supply tunnel, penetration rate is
calculated by all three methods. Figure 1 shows the results.
Innaurato equation in two regions lacks validity (nega-
tive value). In the Cassinelli equation, the rock strength has
not been considered and it only classified the rock structure.
Furthermore, in both equations that have been introduced
based on databanks in years 1986 and 1991, the rotation
speed of cutter head has been considered based on earlier
1990s technology. As mentioned above, the application of
these two equations in modern projects will not be valid
highly.
The Graham equation has a higher validity than to others
because of its frequent use in the USA and Norway in CSM
methodology. This equation considers simultaneously the
characteristics of rock mass and machine. This will also be
used to calculate Karaj–Tehran water supply tunnel project.
Arab J Geosci
The CSM model evaluates the utilization of any region
without considering time. Furthermore, the standard values
that have been presented based on databank have extensive
ranges. This issue is the reason for accuracy decrease of
calculations as accomplished by this method. Also, the
section in CSM model which use for performance calcula-
tion, cannot estimate accurately for the present time
because the results of field studies are dependent on the
machine technology. So, they have lost their creditability
for performance calculation with the technology advance.
For that reason, the results obtained by this method are not
adaptable to the facts.
QTBM
This method, as already mentioned, is based on Q model
which invented by Barton. The six parameters shared by two
models have been designed to undertake any conventional (Q)
and TBM excavation (QTBM) except index of Rock Quality.
RQD index in QTBM model, as opposed to earlier model
must be measured on direction of the tunnel axis. The RQD
parameter can be measured through drilling with a diamond
bit and by using Eq. 5.
P
Length of core pieces > 10 cm length
RQD ¼  100 ð5Þ
Total length of core run
The SIGMA parameter can be calculated with the related
UCS and tension strength of rock (or I50) and Q. The numerical
value of SIGMA parameter is closely related to the angle
between the discontinuity and tunnel axis. A parallel or
semiparallel structure with the tunnel axis (perpendicular to
face) not only can alleviate the PR but also decreases the time
utilization rate since longer sections of rock are necessary to
support the operations on the face are harshly crushed and fall.
Also, the presence of the synchronous jointed structure that is
normal in tunnel axis (parallel to face) will influence
positively on PR, U, and AR. This structure shows a better
stability in boring the rock with TBM.
The CLI index depends on rock condition in addition to
the alloy materials applied. The presence of abrasive
minerals such as quartz causes to depreciation increase of
cutter and to less its long life. This index is presented in
estimated figure by the manufacturers of cutting tools.
However, exact measuring is necessary to test the abrasion
and drillability (Salehi 2007a).
It is evident that there is a direct correlation between the
strength of rock mass and vertical stresses. Barton has included
the σθ in the equation in order to consider the bidimensional
mode of stress. It must be noted that considering the value of
parameter σθ in 100 m depths or the equivalent by tangential
stress is a much generalized and enjoys a lesser precision. So,
it must be considered when use numerical value of σθ.
Arab J Geosci
Fig. 1 Comparing the results taken from a calculated PR in CSM methodology
In the QTBM model, utilization of machine at the special
time is depended on the tunnel diameter, CLI, rock mass
quartz content, and porosity. Indeed, QTBM model knows
the self-support of tunnel as well as excavation capability
impressed by four mentioned parameters. Utilization is
exercised in reducing factor form. In other words, U is
considered as a negative exponent of special time range.
NTNU method
This method influence parameters such as joint characteristics,
rock mass strength, thrust of cutters, etc and also contributes to
the AR. However, this method considers equivalent value of
parameters as well rather than using their numerical values.
In this model, the joint characteristics of mass rock by
six parameters are introduced. In NTNU model, the
classification of joints was based on their spacing and all
parameters such as joints condition and DRI as computed
by joint equivalent factor.
In NTNU model, the basis penetration rate can be
computed by availability of the numerical value of joint and
thrust of cutting equivalent factors. Databank of this
Table 2 The factors influencing
the AR (Salehi 2007b) Features
Earth
Geometry and tunnel design
Local factors
Management system
Machine capability
method shows some parameters such as the cutting tool
spacing and diameter with constant value. Therefore, in
cases where the parameters of a project is different that
databank, correction coefficients are used. By applying
aforementioned correction coefficient, the pure or opera-
tional penetration rate is calculated.
Performance of machine is impressed by the time of the
technical service and machine driving which is proposed
for special time range.
Comparing the methods
The present paper divides factors influencing AR of fully
sectional machines according to Table 2.
As it is observed, careful quantifying of some of the
aforementioned parameters such as labor force is impossible.
As Table 3 shows, in the QTBM method, effects of
geological conditions are of much importance than the
features of system. The CLI index is the only reflecting
parameter of machine features in this methodology. This is
a two-dimensional factor and is impressed by the geological
properties in excavation area.
Components
Tensile and pressure strength, geological condition, rock physical
properties, groundwater, and discontinuity
Final section tunnel, diameter, and length
Work force, local laws and provisions, and working time
Work force, how to use a machine, maintenance and replacement,
and safety
Weight of TBM, driving force, power, effective moment, cutter
diameter and maintenance system installing
 Arab J Geosci

Table 3 Comparing the

influences factors in Parameters QTBM NTNU
excavating
Geotechnical and Tunnel Parameters
Rocks pressure strength Indirect Very little
Rack tensile strength Indirect Ignored
Groundwater conditions Direct Ignored
Number of discontinuities Direct Indirect
Rock quality index Yes Little
Discontinuities orientation Indirect Indirect
Discontinuities filling Little Indirect
Discontinuities spacing To some extent Indirect
Discontinuity general condition Direct Indirect
(roughness, alteration…)
Type of rock mass Indirect Very little
Porosity and brittleness Indirect Ignored
Tunnel section morphology Databank has been made Databank has been made
based on circular tunnels based on circular tunnels
Tunnel diameter Indirect Indirect
Stand up time Indirect Ignored
Abrasive minerals Direct Indirect
Machine Parameters
Cutting tool diameter Little Indirect
Cutting tool material Indirect Indirect
Thrust on cutting tool Direct Indirect
Cutting tools geometry Ignored Ignored
Cutting tools pattern Ignored Indirect
Speed of cutter head Ignored Direct
Maintenance operation Little Direct
Adaptability to modern technology Not dependent on tech To some extent
Correction of constant coefficient With no constant coefficients Yes
Man power operation Yes No
Utilization or performance or productivity Can be calculated at every Can be calculated
range for every Length
Estimation of cutting tool effective life Ignored Yes
Critical factors identification Very much Ignored

So it cannot be a good sample to introduce the capability
and operation of the machine. Of course, its independency
from machine characterize will cause independency from
technological conditions. In Barton method, those factors
which are effective in operation is carried out and affected by
geological conditions and manpower operations have been
ignored. Geological conditions are the only parameters that
have been cared for a little less than joints filling. This defect is
seen in earlier model of rock tunneling index (Q).
Parameters in QTBM method was estimated by observa-
tion and using tables and equations. The CLI parameter is
necessary to accurately estimate with complicated tests
(abrasion value steel and Sievers’ J value).
The NTNU model shows that the boring machine
features are of higher importance. As already it was
mentioned, most impressed parameters of this model are
computed in an indirect way and through equivalent factors
and correction coefficients. These features have provided to
some extent a suitable adaptability to the updated techno-
logical conditions for this methodology. However, these
coefficients and rates are limited and the effects of
groundwater conditions were ignored in this method.
Also, the thrust factor and DRI are of higher importance.
Such the numerical value of this index is caused indirectly
considerable changes in calculation results. The factor equiv-
alent to thrust and DRI index can be measured through test.
Case study
Karaj–Tehran water supply project, with length of 16 km, is
under construction by tunnel boring machine. It is of a double-
shield type machine with a 4.566 m diameter. According to
geological characteristics of this region, the whole excavation
Arab J Geosci

Table 4 Geotechnical zones in the Karaj–Tehran water tunnel

Gta Sts Tsh Mdg Crz

1 2 3 4 1 2
Zone length (m) 520 750 1,410 3,670 620 3,280 1,200 2,300 2,230
Rock type Tuff, conglomerate Clay, schist, tuff Conglomerate, mudstone, tuff Mudstone, tuff, siltstone Crushed zone
Parameter

Density (t/m3) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.55 2.6 2.8 –
Over Burden (m) 200 350 350 500 150 250 150 100 300
C (Mpa) 0.85 1.8 2.83 7.1 2.71 4.7 1.14 1.9 0.45
Φ (degree) 43.7 44.4 50.8 53.9 57.7 56.1 51.3 63.7 25.1
E (Gpa) 5–10 10–15 10–15 12.18 10–15 17–25 5–10 15–20 –
RQD 25–50 30–60 50–75 90–100 50–75 75–100 50–70 70–85 <25
UCS (MPa) 30 75 100 120 120 120 60 90 <30
Q 10–20 10–20 10–20 10–20 20–30 20–30 20–30 20–30 0–5

area has been divided into nine zones (Table 4). Figures 2 and
3 show the results obtained from PR, AR, as well as the real
operation of a workshop in 1 year.
Given the length of any geotechnical area and compu-
tation, the construction time of project has been calculated
according to Table 5.
The AR as calculated by QTBM method shows different
value at different geological areas. This is technically
acceptable, while NTNU presents a relatively same AR
for all nine regions.
The values produced by CSM are more than two other
models. In CSM, the utilization has been calculated on the
databank basis and also according to time periods required
for excavation and other services. It should be noticed that
the all models are critical to the old data available in
databanks and if they do not amend, the limited prediction
of these models will be deteriorated within the passage of
time. So, the numbers recommended in CSM model are
restriction for lateral operations.
Conclusion
Mathematical and experimental methods cannot be consid-
ered to be the same as rocks classification system.
Generally, mathematical methods are suitable to provide
the initial insight in order to specify the limits. However,
making more scrutinized calculation requires the applica-
tion of experimental methods and it is recommend for more
precious computation.
In the CSM model, construction time in the Karaj–
Tehran water supply tunnel project was estimated at
15 months (Table 3). The CSM model also is necessary for
some essential tests that should be conducted to identify the

Fig. 2 PR calculation results of the Karaj–Tehran tunnel project

 Arab J Geosci

Fig. 3 AR calculation results of the Karaj–Tehran tunnel project

cutter thrust and determine the initial PR. But these kinds of
tests have not been conducted in the present project. This
model considers the geological characteristics in an indirect
mode and by using laboratory findings. It is evident that
inaccurate quantities of parameters such as cutter thrust cause
a less creditability in the results as obtained from this method.
Furthermore, the CSM model estimates the utilization process
for all regions independent from time interval (as opposed to
Barton model). It is one of the weaknesses of CSM. Generally,
the PR as obtained from this model can be relied if the
required tests have been conducted carefully and completely.
Among experimental methods, NTNU model needs
accurate value of DRI and equivalent factor of cutter thrust.
Also, the calculation complications will be intensified because
engineering judgment calculator differs as well as different
correction factors. Wherein, carry out tests is possible to
recognize the drill ability, Bit Wear Index, equivalent cutter
thrust, etc., NTNU method will produce more accurate results
because this method considers not only the ground condition
but also the characteristics of boring machines.
Certainly, NTNU method cannot find a reliable answer
exclusively because numbers of effective factors is not
considered such as groundwater conditions and tunnel self-
supporting. The required time for execution of the project
was estimated to be 56 months (Table 5).
Factors of QTBM model except CLI do not need to apply
intricate tests. As for no.1 equation, it is observed that this
index has been applied inversely with power 1. Hence,
approximating this factor with specific limits will not
provide gross changes in the results. With its extended
databank based on rock mass quality (Q) and repeated use
of it in both mining and civil projects, it is possible to assay
accurately the geological factors. The time to implement the
project has been calculated about 52 months by using
Barton model.
In projects with various joint structures, where expensive
testing conducted is not possible, the use of QTBM is more
suitable. Of course this method has weaknesses because of
lesser effect of boring machine details and joint filling
factor in their equations.

Table 5 Time required

advancing at any geotechnical area
geotechnical area
Gta Sts Tsh Mdg Crz

Parameter 1 2 3 4 1 2

Length of area (m) 2,230 2,300 1,200 3,280 620 3,670 1,410 750 520
QTBM
Time of execution (month) 2.33 4.8 2.67 13.67 1.6 23.53 1.13 1.4 0.8
CSM
Time of execution (month) 1.33 1.83 1 3.64 1 3.22 1 0.6 0.62
NTNU
Time of execution (month) 6.17 6.73 6.67 10.93 3.47 11.77 4.13 4.17 1.73
Arab J Geosci
The data that are available in the Karaj–Tehran water supply
tunnel conform more to Barton model capabilities because,
tests of drill ability, abrasion, etc. were not implemented.
Therefore, Barton model is higher creditability than the two
other methods. The results of accomplished calculation by
using Barton in this project indicated that the outcomes of this
method are more similar to implementation facts.
Acknowledgment The author thanks Hara Institute for preparing
information about Karaj–Tehran water supplying tunneling project,
unsparingly.
References
Aeberli U, Wanner H (1978) On the influence of geologic conditions
at the application of tunnel boring machines. In Proc. 3rd Int.
Cong., Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. Madrid. 2: 7–14
Barton N (1999) TBM performance estimation in rock using QTBM.
Tunnels Tunnelling Int 31(9):41–48
Barton N (2000) TBM tunneling in jointed and faulted rock. Balkema:
Netherlands. 173 pp
Bruland A (1999) Hard rock tunnel boring advance rate and cutter
wear. Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, p 183
Cassinelli F, Cina S, Innaurato N et al (1982) Power consumption and
metal wear in tunnel-boring machines: analysis of TBM
operation. Hard Rock Tunneling 82:73–81
Lislerud A (1988) Hard rock tunnel boring: prognosis and costs.
Tunneling Undergr Space Technol 3(1):9–17
Nelson P, O’Rourke TD (1983) tunnel boring machine performance in
sedimentary rocks. Report to Goldberg-Zoino Associates of New
York, P.C., by School of Civil and Environmental of Civil
Engineering. Cornell University. Geotechnical Engineering Report
83–3. Ithaca. New York, 438
Norwegian Institute of Technology (1995) Hard rock tunnel boring.
Project Report 1–94. In Trondheim. Norway, 164
Norwegian Soil and Rock Engineering Association (2005) Norwegian
tunneling, publication no .2, pp 26
Oraee K, Peymandar M (2003) Analyzing and calculating utilization,
Amir Kabir, Tehran, Iran, pp. 3–16
Ozdemir L (1977) Development of theoretical equations for predicting
tunnel borability. Thesis, Colorado School of Mines: Golden,
CO, USA
Rostami J, Ozdemir L (1993a) A new model for performance
prediction of hard rock TBM. In: Proceedings of the Rapid
Excavation and Tunnelling Conference. Chapter 50, Boston, MA,
USA, 793–809
Rostami J, Ozdemir L (1993b) Computer modeling for cutter head
design and layout of mechanical excavators. In: Proceedings of
the Annual Technical Meeting of the Institute of Shaft Drilling
Technology. Las Vegas, NV. USA
Rostami J, Ozdemir L, Nilson B (1996) Comparison between CSM
and NTH hard rock TBM performance prediction models. In
Proceeding of the Annual Conference the Institution of Shaft
Drilling Technology, Las Vegas, pp. 1
Salehi B (2007a) Calculation of productivity and the optimum
advance rate in Karaj–Tehran water transport tunnel, M.Sc
Thesis, Tehran, Iran, pp. 57
Salehi B (2007b) Tunneling technique with TBM, In Sanaei, Tehran,
Iran, pp 80–88
Yagiz S (2002) Development of rock fracture and brittleness indices to
quantify the effects of rock mass features and toughness in the
CSM Model Basic penetration for hard rock tunneling machines.
Thesis, Colorado School of Mines. Golden, CO, USA
Yagiz S, Ozdemir L (2001) Geotechnical parameters influencing the
tbm performance in various rocks. In: Program with abstracts.
44th Annual Meeting of Association of Engineering Geologists.
Technical Session 10, Engineering Geology for Construction
Practices; Saint Louis, MO, USA