International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

TBM performance estimation using rock mass classifications

M. Sapignia, M. Bertib,*, E. Bethazc, A. Busillod, G. Cardonee
b

a
Enelpower S.p.A., Via Torino 16, 30172 Venezia-Mestre, Italy
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e Geologico-Ambientali, Universita" di Bologna, Via Zambonii 67, 40126 Bologna, Italy
c
Enelpower S.p.A., Ciso Regina Margherita 267, 10143 Torino, Italy
d
SELI S.p.A., Viale America 93, 00144, Roma, Italy
e
SOGIN S.p.A., Via Torino 6, 00184, Italy

Accepted 1 June 2002

Abstract
Three tunnels for hydraulic purposes were excavated by tunnel-boring machines (TBM) in mostly hard metamorphic rocks in
Northern Italy. A total of 14 km of tunnel was surveyed almost continually, yielding over 700 sets of data featuring rock mass
characteristics and TBM performance. The empirical relations between rock mass rating and penetration rate clearly show that
TBM performance reaches a maximum in the rock mass rating (RMR) range 4070 while slower penetration is experienced in both
too bad and too good rock masses. However, as different rocks gives different penetrations for the same RMR, the use of
Bieniawskis classification for predictive purpose is only possible provided one uses a normalized RMR index with reference to the
basic factors affecting TBM tunneling. Comparison of actual penetrations with those predicted by the Innaurato and Barton models
shows poor agreement, thus highlighting the difficulties involved in TBM performance prediction.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Since James S. Robbins built his tunnel-boring
machine (TBM) in 1954, the TBM designs have
improved greatly, in an effort to tackle ever-wider
ranges of rock conditions at higher advance rates.
Todays TBMs can reach extremes of 1000 m/month [1]
but advance rates of less than 50 m/month may be
experienced in adverse geologic conditions or when
support measures fail to maintain tunnel stability until
the final lining [2].
A reliable estimation of excavation rates is needed for
time planning, cost control and choice of excavation
method in order to make tunnel boring economic in
comparison with the classical drill and blasting method.
As a consequence, great efforts have been made to
correlate TBM performance with rock mass and
machine parameters, either through empirical approach
or physically based theories [37].

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-051-209-4546; fax: +39-051-20945-22.

E-mail address: berti@geomin.unibo.it (M. Berti).

Performance prediction of TBM drives requires the

estimation of both penetration rate (PR) and advance
rate (AR). Penetration rate is defined as the distance
excavated divided by the operating time during a
continuous excavation phase, while advance rate is the
actual distance mined and supported divided by the
total time and it includes downtimes for TBM maintenance, machine breakdown, and tunnel failure [8].
Even in stable rock, the rate of advance AR is
considerably lower than the net rate of penetration
PR; and utilization coefficients (U AR=PR) in the
order of 3050% have been reported by many authors
mainly due to TBM daily maintenance [911]. In lowquality rock, the penetration rate can be potentially very
high but the support needs, rock jams and gripper
bearing failure result in slow advance rate, with
utilization coefficients as low as 510% or less [2].
Simple performance correlations have been developed
from data on conventional rock strength testing at the
laboratory scale. These equations relate the penetration
rate with intact rock parameters like the uniaxial
compressive strength [12,13], the rock tensile strength
[14] or the rock fracture toughness [15], showing
good predictive ability in the case of homogenous

1365-1609/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 5 - 1 6 0 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 6 9 - 2

772

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

low-fractured rocks. Belonging to these is the predictive

model proposed by the Colorado School of Mines [16],
in which TBM penetration and utilization are computed
by means of a force equilibrium approach on the basis
of cutter geometry and uniaxial and tensile strength of
intact rock.
In jointed rocks the presence of discontinuities
reduces the rock mass strength increasing the rate of
penetration for a given TBM thrust [1719]. Predictive
equations should be based on rock mass properties
rather than intact rock strength, for example, relating
TBM performance with rock mass strength derived by
standard geomechanical classifications [2024].
Barton [23,24] made the most progress in this
direction. He proposed an expanded version of his
well-known Q-system [25] in which additional rock
machinerock mass interaction parameters were introduced in order to take into account both the rock
conditions and the reaction of TBM to the conditions.
QTBM allows one to estimate TBM penetration and
advance rate in a wide range of rock conditions even if,
as pointed out by the same author, improvements and
corrections are possible by testing new case records.
As far as we know, less attention has been paid to the
correlation between TBM performance and Rock Mass
Rating [26], despite the wide use of this geomechanical
classification in daily practice [10,2729]. The basic
features of the correlation with rock mass rating (RMR)
are presented in this paper, referring to three tunnels
excavated in the Italian Alps in medium to hard
metamorphic rocks. Fourteen kilometer of TBM tunnels
were classified and analyzed, yielding over 700 sets of
data featuring rock mass quality, TBM penetration,
thrust and utilization coefficient.

2. Case studies
2.1. Sites characteristics
Data for TBM-performance analysis have been
obtained from three tunnels excavated in metamorphic
rocks for hydraulic purposes. The three tunnels (Fig. 1)
are located in the northwestern Alps (Italy) and consist
of one inclined tunnel for the installation of a penstock
(Maen) and two horizontal diversion tunnels (Pieve and
Varzo). Descriptive information on the tunnel projects
and tunneling equipment are summarized in Table 1
while Table 2 reports the main strength and drillability
parameters determined through laboratory tests on
intact rock samples.
2.1.1. Maen
The area rock units consist of meta-ophiolites
(serpentinite, metagabbro, metabasite, chlorite schist,
talc schist) and meta-sediments (calc schist and silicate

marble) belonging to the Zermatt-Saas Zone of the

Pennidic Domain [30,31]. The parent rocks were
carbonate pelagic sequences and mafic crystalline rocks
that underwent high-pressure low-temperature metamorphism during the early phases of the alpine
orogenesis. Schists and serpentinite show a foliated
texture while metagabbro and metabasite are generally
weakly foliated. The attitude of rock units is more
or less uniform throughout the tunnel, at N2202701E/
35451 (dip direction/dip), so that the longitudinal axis
of the inclined tunnel (plunging direction N1281E) is
almost normal to the schistosity.
A major shear zone, 20 m in thickness, is encountered
within the tunnel. It is composed of massive blocks of
serpentinite and metagabbro (0.51.5 m3) embedded in a
sheared matrix of talc and chlorite schists associated
with cataclastic bands. Even if the fault zone was clearly
recognized by the geological investigations, as soon as
the excavation reached the adverse stretch, massive
blocks jammed the TBM cutterhead. In the attempt to
move back the TBM, a large face and roof collapse
occurred involving an estimated volume of 150200 m3
of loosened rocks. The accident caused 4 months
stoppage over the 14 months total construction time
and it required an extensive grouting of the failed mass
to be undertaken [32,33].
Dataset for performance analysis consists of 330
records featuring TBM parameters (head thrust, net
boring time, total boring time) and rock mass classification indexes (RMR and Q). The open-type TBM
allowed continuous surveying of the rock mass all over
the tunnel length: RMR and Q were independently
logged by surveying adjacent tunnel sections 5 m in
length; penetration rate and advance rate were computed dividing the length of the surveyed section (5 m)
by the net boring time and the total boring time,
respectively.
2.1.2. Pieve vergonte
Most of the Pieve Vergonte tunnel is located in the
Sesia-Lanzo Zone of the Austroalpine Domain [3436].
Excavated rocks consist of two metamorphic complexes
made up of gneiss and micaschists separated by a
metadiorite intrusive body with minor masses of metaquartzdiorite and metagabbro. The first upstream reach
(1.5 km) crosses the metagranite belonging to the
Pennidic Domain (M. Rosa tectonic unit) and, for a
short reach approximately 100 m in length, chlorite and
amphibole schists which separate the Austroalpine from
the Pennidic Domain. Micaschists, chlorite schists and
amphibole schists are characterized by a foliated texture,
gneiss and metamorphic rocks of the intrusive complex
are non-foliated or weakly foliated.
The geological structure is complicated by multiple
folding associated with shear zones and brittle fault
zones, but the general attitude of rock units forms a

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

Fig. 1. Geological sections along the three tunnels.

773

774

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

monocline dipping at N1401801E/30601 (dip direction/

dip), so that the longitudinal axis of the tunnel (direction
N070050E) is mainly parallel to the schistosity.
Due to the continuous segmental lining, rock mass
survey was possible only during the daily maintenance
of the boring machine, accessing the excavation
face beyond the TBM cutterhead. We then had to
assume that the rock mass surveyed in the short reach

Table 1
Summary description of tunnel projects and tunneling equipment

Total tunnel length (m)

Total excavation time
(days)
Surveyed section
length (m)
Excavated diameter (m)
Tunnel slope (1)
TBM model
TBM type
Number of cutters
Cutter spacing (mm)
Cutter diameter (in)
Maximum thrust (kN)
Boring stroke (m)
Cutterhead curvature
Cutterhead rotation
rate (rpm)

Maen

Pieve

Varzo

1750
413

9600
809

6600
468

1750

6400

5800

4.20
2435
Wirth 340/
420 E
Open

4.05
D0
Robbins
11112343
Double
shield
27
75
1700
4602
0.63
Flat
11.3

4.05
D0
Robbins
1214240/1
Double
shield
27
75
1700
8827
0.63
Flat
4.58.9

36
66
1700
7920
1.5
Domed
5.511

between the rock face and the cutterhead (1 m) was

representative of the whole section bored over a working
day (17 m on average); a rather hard assumption that it
was finally accepted, given the homogeneity of the rock
mass and the high surveying frequency.
The dataset consists of 301 daily records describing
rock mass quality, mean head thrust, net boring time,
and excavated length for the first 6.4 km of the tunnel.
RMR was logged in all the surveyed sections, Q in only
44 sections regularly spaced along the tunnel axis (15%
of the dataset). Penetration rate and advance rate were
computed by dividing the daily excavated length by the
net boring time and the total boring time (24 h),
respectively.
2.1.3. Varzo
The Varzo tunnel is excavated entirely in the
Antigorio Gneiss Formation, a massive or weakly
foliated rock generated by high-grade metamorphism
of granite and granodiorite rocks [37,38]. Metaaplite
and metabasite dikes locally traverse the tunnel axis, but
the area may be considered essentially homogenous.
The geological structure is a monocline gently dipping
(10201) in a southerly direction, slightly complicated by
folds and minor fault zones related to the SempioneCentovalli fault, a major tectonic structure located 2 km
to the south [39]. In general, the schistosity follows the
attitude of the overall structure and, is therefore, mainly
parallel to the longitudinal axis of the tunnel (plunging
direction N080EN070E).

Table 2
Main characteristics of excavated rocks
Tunnel

Rock type

Uniaxial
compressive
strength
(MPa)

Tensile
strength
(MPa)

Hardness
Indenter
(u.c.)

Knoop
hardness
(GPa)

Drillability
(mm"1)

Tangent
Youngs
modulus
(GPa)

Maen

Serpentinite

124
(64174)
180
(104289)
17

15
(929)

26
(1340)

6.2
(4.38.3)

0.040.10

65
(3794)

1012

13

5.1

39

124215
171221
146296

59
813
0.77

7.59.7
11
7.17.4

5.28.5
6.27.0
710

0.110.22
0.030.05
0.060.09

28
46100
2438

161
(90260)
115
(82217)

16
(924)
17
(725)

3.7
(2.24.8)
3.8
(2.53.3)

9
(613)

Metabasite
Chlorite
schist

(0.939)
138
(113163)
75
(29134)

Metagabbro
Calc schist

Pieve

Micaschist
Metadiorite
Metagranite

Varzo

Gneiss

> Schist.
//Schist.

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

Also, in this latter case, the use of double shield TBM

with segmental lining prevented a continuous surveying
of excavated rocks. Geomechanical classification was
then performed during the maintenance downtimes
(almost every day), and the surveyed quality was extended to the whole section bored in that day as
described for Varzo. Resulting dataset consists of 103
daily records featuring rock mass quality (RMR=all
sections; Q 16 sectionsE16% of the dataset), mean
head thrust, net boring time, and daily excavated length
(15 m on average).

775

quency distributions are negatively skewed (relatively

fewer frequencies at low RMR values) with most of the
values falling in the good-quality classes (I and II RMR
classes). Low quality reaches (IVV RMR class) are
related to fault zones, composed of highly fractured
rocks, softened chlorite and talc schists and groundwater dripping from major planes.
RMR is well correlated with Q (Fig. 3) and
the experimental distribution follows very closely
the correlation line proposed by Bieniawski [26] for
tunnels.

2.2. Rock mass classification

3. Empirical relationships
Most of the excavated rock masses exhibited good
strength and a relatively low degree of fracturing. Rarely
more than three discontinuity sets were encountered,
and usually only two were found at any location,
typically characterized by planar, smooth and tight,
unweathered or slightly weathered joint walls.
The general good quality of the rock masses is evident
by the frequency distributions of rock mass rating
depicted in Fig. 2. RMR values are based on the 1989
version of the classification [26] taking into account the
adjustment factor for discontinuity orientation. Fre-

3.1. Penetration rate

3.1.1. Testing the regression model
Typical relation between PR and RMR is depicted in
Fig. 4. As can be seen the scatter is rather wide, leading
to uncertainties about which regression model, for
example quadratic or linear, is appropriate to fit
experimental data. Published works typically show that
empirical relations seem to follow a bell-shaped curve
more than a linear trend, with maximum performance

Fig. 2. Frequency distributions of the excavated rocks in the three tunnels.

776

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

Fig. 3. Correlation between RMR and Q values logged in the three tunnels. Dotted lines include 80% of the 111 case histories analyzed by
Bieniawski [26].

Fig. 4. A statistical analysis of variance was performed in order to attain a significant regression models of performance data. Example refers to
Maen tunnel.

for medium-quality rock masses and lower penetration

for poor and very hard rock masses [3,8,10,40].
In order to attain a significant regression model of
performance data, a statistical analysis of variance was
performed [41]. The analysis consists of a set of three F
tests aimed to verify: (i) the significance of the linear fit;
(ii) the significance of the quadratic fit; (iii) the
significance of increase of quadratic over linear fit.
If the computed F value for each of the three tests
falls in the critical region, that is if it exceeds the critical

value of F (Fcrit ) at the selected level of significance (for

example, a 0:05; see [41]), we conclude that our model
is correct. On the other hand, if F oFcrit we must accept
the null hypothesis stating that the variance about the
regression is no different to the variance in the
observations, and conclude that our model is not
correct. In the example of Fig. 4, all the three tests give
F > Fcrit ; so we can state that: (i) the linear regression is
significant; (ii) the quadratic regression is also significant; (iii) the quadratic term is making a significant

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

contribution to the regression model and should be

retained. This means that the quadratic equation fits
performance data more closely than a straight line does.
If performance data were linearly distributed with
RMR; we would obtain a significant regression
(F > Fcrit ) both for the linear and the quadratic model
(a quadratic equation may also fit a linear distribution),
but the third test on the contribution of the quadratic
model over the linear one would have given negative
response (F oFcrit ). It was then suggested that we adopt
the linear regression model.
In the right chart of Fig. 4, data have been grouped in
10 RMR classes and plotted as bar charts, the central
point of each bar indicating the mean and the length two
times the standard deviation of the values falling in each
class. This simple averaging technique allows the trend
to be seen more clearly, and it will be used throughout
the paper to enhance charts readability. However,
statistical analyses and correlation coefficients will
always refer to unaveraged values.
3.1.2. Empirical relations for different rocks
The analysis of variance has been performed for the
predominant rock types encountered in the three tunnels
and both for RMR and Q classification methods. Fig. 5
summarizes the results obtained for RMR system.
In general, the penetration rate increases with
decreasing rock mass quality until RMR values of about
5070. The performance drop below that range reflects
bad boreability in adverse rock masses, where mucking
problems and face instability reduce the potentially high
penetration rate. On the contrary, low PR recorded in
very good rock masses (RMR>8090) depend on the
high strength of the intact rock and by the low
discontinuity frequency in the rock mass, which reduce
the ability of roller cutter indentation and chips
formation by a fracture mechanism. An approximate
quadratic trend also characterizes the correlation
between penetration rate and Q (Maen only) on a
logarithmic scale, with maximum performance in the
range Q 5215 and slower penetration for both higher
and lower Q-values.
In most cases, the curvilinear regression model fits
performance data better than the linear one, with the
only exceptions of mostly bad (Chlorite and Talc
SchistsMaen Tunnel) or good rocks (Metadiorite
Pieve Tunnel) characterized by a range of RMR values
too narrow to depict the whole curvilinear trend. The
more or less quadratic relation between penetration rate
and RMR is seen despite the steady linear increase of
TBM thrust with rock mass strength (Fig. 6), indicating
that the observed trend does not imitate the applied
force but that it is the result of the TBMrock mass
interaction. A similar trend of decreasing penetration
with increasing thrust has been observed by Grandori
et al. [22] for Hong Kong granites, in which the available

777

thrust per cutter was insufficient because of the very

strong rock.
3.1.3. Average trend
Performance data for all the excavated rocks in the
three tunnels are summarized in Fig. 7 (upper) as a
function of Rock Mass Rating. Once again, a quadratic
relation between PR and RMR is suggested, both for
single tunnels and the cumulative dataset. The correlations are significant from the statistical point of view,
and almost identical results have been obtained
correlating the penetration rate with the basic RMR
index, that is RMR unadjusted for discontinuity
orientations [26].
However, the high dispersion of recorded data should
be noted (shaded area in Fig. 7). Although some of the
scatter is obviously due to the cumulative analysis of
different rocks excavated by different machines, we
believe the dispersion is an intrinsic feature of penetration data, and that it mostly arises from the difficulty in
maintaining a constant thrust. In fact, similar scatter
may be also seen considering individual rock types
(Fig. 5) or normalizing the penetration rate according to
the net thrust per cutter and rpm of a specific TBM
machine (Fig. 7 lower). Relevance of data scatter to
performance prediction will be discussed in Section 5.
As regards, the applicability of our results to other
TBM projects, correlations depicted in Fig. 7 are
probably significant in terms of shape (best performance
in medium-quality rocks) but not for numerical prediction. The RMR-system, in fact, does not account for
rockmachine interaction parameters, so any empirical
relation based on this system is inevitably limited to the
rockmachine combinations considered in the original
dataset.
3.2. Utilization coefficient
The fraction of total construction time that the TBM
has been utilized for boring (utilization coefficient, U) is
given by the ratio of AR and PR: As pointed out by
Barton [24] the advance rate declines with time
following a rather uniform logarithmic trend, so that
declining utilization is seen as the unit of time (day,
week, month) increase (see also [11]). The trend is
described by the equation U T m ; where T is expressed
in hours and the negative gradient m is a function of
rock and machine parameters (see Section 4.2), and it
indicates the increasing likelihood that unfavorable
extreme conditions (both exceptionally poor and exceptionally good) are encountered as tunnel length
progresses.
In our case, TBM utilization has been derived from
daily data (T 24) and mean values for the three
tunnels are depicted in Fig. 8 as a function of Rock
Mass Rating. The three lines show that even in

778

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

Fig. 5. Relationships between RMR and penetration rate for the predominant rock types encountered in the three tunnels. The small table in the
corner of each plot summarizes the results of the analysis of variance: F > Fcrit states that the model is correct (the null hypothesis must be accepted
(A); F oFcrit states that the model is not correct (the null hypothesis must be rejected (R).

favorable conditions the utilization coefficient is less

than 55% and that values as low as 510% may be
experienced in bad conditions. The corresponding mean
advance rate ranges from 0.7 to 1.0 m/h in good rocks
and from 0.2 to 0.3 m/h in highly jointed faulted rocks.

These values are well in the range of published daily

utilizations [9,10,40], although the average gradients m
back-calculated in the three cases (Maen="0.43;
Pieve="0.30; Varzo="0.33) are lower than the typical
gradient m "0:20 indicated by Barton. That is to say

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

Fig. 6. Mean TBM thrust linearly increase with Rock Mass Rating for
individual rocks (Maen tunnel).

779

Fig. 8. Utilization coefficient derived from daily average data.

cutter wear from abrasive rocks at Pieve and Varzo, and

to the steeply inclined excavation at Maen.

4. Comparison with existing predictive models

Actual penetrations may be compared with those
predicted by the empirical equations proposed by
Innaurato et al. [3,21] and Barton [23,24], which relate
TBM performance with rock classification indexes.
Purpose of the comparison is to test the predictive
capabilities of these models when detailed data, closely
surveyed at the excavation face, are available. To some
extent we are dealing with ideal conditions, so we expect
good predictions.
4.1. Penetration rate
4.1.1. The RSR model
Innaurato et al. [3,21] found a strong correlation
between PR; rock structure rating (RSR) [42] and
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of intact rock:
PR 40:41UCS"0:44 0:047RSR 3:15;

Fig. 7. Relation between TBM penetration and Rock Mass Rating.

Excavated rocks include serpentinite, metabasite, chlorite schist, talc
schist, calc schist, metagabbro, mica schist, metadiorite, metagranite,
and gneiss, involving a total length of about 14 km.

that we experienced slower performance compared to a

typical project. Rather low-utilization coefficients might
be due to the non-optimal cutter spacing and the severe

where PR is in mm/round and UCS in MPa. For a given

rock with constant UCS the relation predicts penetration as a linear function of RSR; faster boring being
expected in low-quality rock masses. The database used
by Innaurato consists of five tunnels (total
lengthD19 km) excavated in igneous, sedimentary, and
metamorphic rocks with average UCS in the range
50150 MPa.
The RSR is related to RMR by the following [26]:
RSR 0:77RMR 12:4

780

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

which has been used by Innaurato to derive RSR when

not available.
Using Eq. (1) and the mean UCS values listed in
Table 2, the theoretical penetrations for Maen, Pieve
and Varzo have been computed and compared with the
recorded ones. The comparison is shown in Fig. 9 in
terms of difference between simulated and measured
penetrations (DPR) as a function of RMR: As can be
seen, predicted penetrations are consistently higher than
the measured ones, the difference increasing in poor
rock where the mean error rises up to 100% of the real
value.
It is likely that the poor agreement is due to the
absence of any TBM-related factor in the predictive
model, which limits the applicability of Eq. (1) to rock
machine combinations similar to those considered in the
original database. This is especially true in poor rock,
where the TBMrock mass interaction is of paramount
importance.
4.1.2. The QTBM model
The method recently proposed by Barton [23] is based
on an expanded Q-system of rock mass classification, in
which the average cutter force, abrasive nature of the
rock, and rock stress level is accounted for. The new
parameter QTBM is a function of 20 basic parameters,
many of which can be simply estimated by an
experienced engineering geologist:
QTBM

RQD0 Jr Jw SIGMA 20 q sy
;
Jn Ja SFR F 10 =209 CLI 20 5

where RQD0 is the conventional RQD interpreted in the

tunneling direction; Jn ; Jw ; and SFR are unchanged from
conventional Q; Jr and Ja are also unchanged but they
should refer to the joint set that most assists (or hinders)
boring; SIGMA is the rock mass strength (MPa); F is

the average cutter load (tnf); CLI is the cutter life index;
q is the quartz content (on percentage); sy is the average
biaxial stress on tunnel face (MPa).
From the analysis of numerous projects (145 cases),
Barton derived a simple relationship between penetration rate and QTBM :
PR 5QTBM "0:2

which predicts a power increase of penetration with

decreasing of QTBM : As clearly stated by the author (see
[24], pp. 73 and 99), the relation gives meaningful results
only for QTBM > 1; as in very poor rock masses the
operator would usually reduce the penetration rate due
to the bad rock conditions.
At the time of the construction of the tunnels (from
early 1998 to middle 2000) we were not aware of the new
method developed by Barton, therefore geomechanical
data were collected according to conventional RMR and
Q systems (see Section 2). The problem behind a late-inthe-project QTBM analysis is that the new term QTBM has
additional rockmachinerock mass interaction parameters that should be explicitly evaluated for TBM
tunneling, while conventional classification procedures are
focused on tunnel stability and support measurements.
In our case, however, at least for Maen tunnel in
which conventional Q-values were continuously logged,
the available dataset seems adequate for a posteriori
evaluation of QTBM : This belief is supported as follows:
*
*

Jn ; Jw ; SFR are unchanged from conventional Q:

RQD0 coincides with conventional RQD, since
scanlines for spacing measurements were oriented
along tunnel alignment.
Jr and Ja ; are essentially unknown, but the error
related to the use of conventional joint factors can be
estimated.

Fig. 9. Difference between recorded and computed penetration rate as a function of RMR. Predictions are based on the empirical equations
proposed by Innaurato et al. [21] and Barton [23].

781

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

*
*

In principle, the use of conventional Jr and Ja

values is a potential source of large error in a late-inthe-project QTBM analysis. Logged values for conventional Q; in fact, refer to the joint set that most
influence tunnel stability, which is usually the set
whose strike is parallel to the tunnel axis, while QTBM
draws the attention to the joint set that most
influence boring, which is typically a dominant
jointing or anisotropic structure parallel to the tunnel
face [24,43].
Based on our geomechanical surveys, the worst
scenario we could have faced in Maen is that, at a
given tunnel section, the difference in Jr =Ja ratio
between the joint set critical for stability (logged) and
that critical for boring (required by QTBM ) was very
high, let us say Jr =Ja 5 for the first and Jr =Ja
0:13 for the latter. This unfavorable combination
would have caused QTBM to be modified by a factor
up to 40.
Reanalyzing the original data sheets we have
estimated that such a large error should not affect
more than 10% of the dataset, while it should range
from 0 to 20 in a further 20%, and it is almost
negligible in the remaining 70%, both because only
one set or a dominant set were present (55%) and
because the rock mass was so highly fractured that
average logged values were suitable both for boring
and stability analysis (15%).
SIGMA was estimated on the basis of Q0 (the
conventional Q with oriented RQD0 ) and rock
density as proposed by Barton [24] (Table 3).
F was continuously recorded during excavation.
CLI values were defined with reference to the typical
values published by NTH for 12 different rock types
[18]. Obviously, the NTH table does not deal with a
great variety of rocks texture and composition, so the
choice of appropriate values was sometimes ambig-

uous. To overcome this problem and in order to

reduce subjectivity, an estimate of CLI was supported by petrographic analyses and laboratory tests
performed on numerous rock samples collected at the
tunnel face during excavation.
In particular, mean Mohs hardness and rock
abrasivity were useful for this purpose. The first
was estimated by determining the proportional of
each mineral in the rock and then multiplying the
hardness value assigned to that mineral by the Mohs
scale [44]; the latter from the relation between mean
Mohs hardness and steel point abrasiveness test
value [44].
Estimated hardness and abrasivity values are listed
in Table 3 with corresponding CLI: As can be seen,
the maximum uncertainty range of CLI is about 40
(serpentinite and calc schist), which might cause
QTBM to be modified by a factor of 2. Relevance of
this uncertainty to QTBM predictions has been
investigated with a sensitivity analysis.
The quartz content q was obtained from petrographic
analysis. Values are less than 2030% for most of the
excavated rocks, as they result from metamorphism
of igneous and sedimentary rocks with low quartz
content. However, severe cutters wear was observed
in garnet-rich rocks (metabasite) and in rocks
containing more than 6070% amphiboles and
olivine (metagabbro), suggesting that an equivalent
quartz content would be more suitable for our
purposes.
Three different values of q were then considered for
each lithotype: (i) the true quartz content; (ii) the
equivalent quartz content, computed on the basis of
the quartz-equivalence of the rock-forming minerals
[45]; (iii) the percentage of minerals with Mohs
hardness grade higher than 7, which is the nominal
hardness of quartz. Computed values are summarized

Table 3
Relevant parameters for QTBM analysis. Italic values are those giving the best agreement between recorded and computed penetrations from
sensitivity analyses. (1)(3) refer to the three methods for estimating the quartz-content described in the text
Tunnel

Rock type

SIGMA
(MPa)

Mean Mohs
hardness

Abrasiveness
(1/10 mm)

CLI

q (%)
(1)

(2)

(3)

Maen

Serpentinite
Metabasite
Talc and chlorite schists
Metagabbro
Calc schist

41716
72731
874
75727
42712

3.6
6.2
2.8
6.0
3.6

1.9
5.0
1.0
4.8
1.9

3070
1020
6090
1525
3070

5
8
5
5
20

28
63
23
56
37

5
26
5
5
20

Pieve

Micaschist
Metadiorite
Meta quartzdiorite
Metagranite and metaaplite

50718
65723
68724
56724

4.1
5.1
6.4
6.6

2.5
3.7
5.2
5.5

1570
1540
15
10

30
5
15
40

51
53
80
85

30
5
15
40

Varzo

Gneiss

48726

5.8

4.5

1525

40

75

40

782

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

in Table 3 and have been used as inputs for a

sensitivity analysis.
The comments above apply to Pieve and Varzo as
well, but with three important differences: (i) conventional Q was not logged except in a few sections (see
Section 2); (ii) RQD0 was derived from joints spacing
measurements at the tunnel face; (iii) due to continuous
segmental lining, the rock mass is known with less
accuracy than in Maen.
Of these three, the first is the most important
limitation, since we should derive Q (Q0 ) from RMR
(RMR0 ) [26] in order to compute QTBM ; and although
RMR and Q are well correlated (Fig. 3) the procedure is
questionable and results cannot be used for testing
model capabilities. However, QTBM was computed in the
cases of Pieve and Varzo as well, with the purpose of
evaluating model response when the available dataset is
neither comprehensive nor tailored for performance
analysis. It is logical to expect the model would perform
worse than in the case of Maen.
A first series of sensitivity analyses was done on CLI;
q and Jr =Ja : The results showed that, over the selected
ranges, QTBM is only slightly influenced by CLI and q;
while it is very sensitive to Jr =Ja changes. We then
decided to use single values for CLI and q (chosen to
obtain best predictions; see Table 3) and error bars on
the graphs to help capture the uncertainty in Jr =Ja ratio.
The difference between predicted and measured
penetrations at Maen is plotted in Fig. 9 as a function
of RMR: Unlike the Innaurato model, QTBM apparently
gives good results, the difference in penetration rate
varying around zero on the average. However, when we
compare actual and theoretical penetrations as a
function of QTBM (Fig. 10 upper) the apparent good
match disappears into statistical noise: measured points
elongate over an almost horizontal axis, indicating low
sensitivity of QTBM :
We can explain this different outcome looking at the
term SIGMA=F 10 =209 of Eq. (3). Following Barton
[24], this ratio should allow QTBM to predict PR in poor
rocks, expressing the possibility of reduced penetration
(high QTBM values) with decreased rock mass strength
(SIGMA) if cutter force (F ) decreases more consistently.
From this point of view, the ratio performed well in our
case: much higher values were obtained in poor rocks
(up to 105) than in hard rocks (102 and lower), with a
progressive decrease of the ratio for increasing QTBM :
However, an unwelcome reduction in QTBM sensitivity
was observed, as it is evident by plotting mean Q and
QTBM values as a function of RMR (Fig. 11). The slope
of the QTBM 2RMR correlation line, in fact, is remarkably higher than the slope of the conventional relation
between Q and RMR [26], with the result that a wide
range of our RMR values (10oRMRo70) falls into a
narrow range of QTBM indexes (100oQTBM o700). In

this narrow range, the theoretical curve in Fig. 10 cuts

the experimental distribution close to its mean axis,
which is why the model seems to predict the mean PR in
Fig. 9 well.
It may be tempting to explain these unsatisfactory
results with the uncertainties inherent in our late-in-theproject analysis, but we must remember that the error is
probably negligible at least for 70% of the Maen dataset
(single points in Fig. 10); we probably could not do
much better even logging QTBM during tunnel excavation. On the other hand, the new Barton model is based
on data from 145 TBM projects and its reliability cannot
be judged by an individual case. A short discussion on
this point will be given later in the paper.
4.2. Advance rate
The QTBM -system also allows the estimate of advance
rate (AR) as follows [24]:
AR PR T m ;

where T is the time in hours and m is a negative gradient

which express the decelerating average advance rate as
the unit of time increase. The gradient m is a function of
cutter life index (CLI), quartz content (q), porosity of
the rock (n), tunnel diameter (D) and of a parameter
(m1 ) tabulated as a function of Q [24]:
!
"
20 0:15 # q $0:10 #n$0:05
m m1
:
6
CLI
20
2

From his case record analysis, Barton obtained a typical

value m "0:20 and an approximate ranges from
"0.15 to "0.45, the least negative value referring to
good rock conditions. In the case of Maen, the mean
value is m 20:17 and 95% of the computed gradients
fall between "0.30 and "0.10; similar results have been
obtained for Pieve and Varzo, the mean gradients being
0.18 and 0.22, respectively.
As expected given the data in Fig. 10 for PR; the
correlation between QTBM and daily AR (T 24 h) is
unsatisfactory as well, the experimental points spreading
parallel to the abscissa without a significant trend
(Fig. 12). Moreover, the majority of experimental points
fall below the two theoretical curves computed using the
extreme values of the gradient m; thus the predicted
advance rate is somehow overestimated. However, it is
very probable that our data are not suitable for this
comparison because of the non-optimal design of the
machines (Pieve and Varzo) and the steeply inclined
excavation (Maen) already mentioned for explaining the
low-utilization coefficients (Section 3.2).
4.3. Specific penetration
Alber [28] proposed an interesting correlation between uniaxial rock mass strength, derived from RMR

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

783

Fig. 10. Comparison of recorded penetrations in the three tunnels (Maen, upper; Pieve and Varzo, lower) with predictive equation proposed by
Barton [23]. Classes indicate relative difficulty of ground for TBM use.

using the Hoek-Brown failure criterion, and the specific

penetration SP, which is more suitable than the
penetration rate for comparing different TBM projects.
The correlation is based on the analysis of 55 km TBM
tunneling involving five different TBMs (1700 disc size)
and may be used for a probabilistic estimate of project
economics. Unfortunately, the comparison of recorded
and predicted penetrations is rather unsatisfactory,
actual data falling below the correlation line of the
10% percentile (Fig. 1, [28]). The presence of high
abrasive rocks and the non-optimal cutter spacing may

possibly explain lower penetration velocities experienced

in our cases.

5. Discussion
As previously described, empirical relations between
mean penetration rate and rock mass rating clearly
reveals the strong dependence of TBM performance on
rock type (Fig. 5). Even considering the same TBM
machine and the same RMR class, lower penetration

784

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

Fig. 11. Relationship between Q; QTBM and RMR for Maen tunnel.

Fig. 12. Comparison of advance rate in the three tunnels with predictive equation proposed by Barton [23].

rates are experienced in stronger rocks, as shown, for

example, by the comparison of the two predominant
rock types encountered in Maen and Pieve tunnels
(Fig. 13). Reductions in mean penetration rate are seen
despite the increased thrusts that were utilized for
stronger rocks, suggesting that rock-related factors
(joint spacing, tensile strength, joint or fabric orientation) may dominate the mechanism of rock crushing and
chip formation in hard rock.
Based on this simple observation we can conclude that
the conventional RMR system is inadequate for TBM
performance prediction, which is not surprising if we
consider that rock mass rating, like most of the

geomechanical classifications used in daily practice, has

been developed to provide support guidelines for underground openings excavated with drill-and-blast method.
A logical development would be to define a normalized RMR index with reference to the basic factors
affecting penetration rate, for example, uniaxial compressive strength, tensile strength, brittleness, abrasion,
or rock hardness, that is factors controlling rock
resistance to cutter penetration and fracture propagation: ideally, different rocks would depict a unique curve
on a PR-normalized RMR plot. Our data do not allow
us to define a suitable normalization factor but some
indications can be given.

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

785

Fig. 13. Different penetrations are experienced in different rocks for the same RMR. Examples refer to the two predominant rock types in Maen and
Pieve tunnel.

Fig. 14. The variation of mean penetration rate (DPR) is much better correlated with mean Mohs hardness than with uniaxial compressive strength
of the intact rock (UCS). The ten data points plotted in each chart derive from the one-by-one comparison of the five rock types encountered in Maen
tunnel (serpentinite, metabasite, chlorite and talc schists, calc schist, metagabbro).

Fig. 14 compares the difference of mean penetration

rates recorded for predominant rock types in Maen at
the same RMR value (RMR 60) with the difference in
UCS and mean Mohs hardness (Section 4.1). Interestingly, the variation of mean penetration rate is much
better correlated with mean Mohs hardness (r 0:81)
than with UCS (r 0:16), and in the former case the
regression line passes close to zero indicating that two
rocks with same mean Mohs hardness should ideally
give the same penetration rate (for the same RMR).
Similar results have been obtained for RMR values in
the range 4090 and by normalizing UCS and Mohs
hardness with reference to the mean TBM thrust, F :
Mohs hardness scale, however, is neither linear, nor
do the minerals selected provide a uniform scale of

hardness increase when the minerals are evaluated using

modern hardness testing instruments, so Mohs hardness is not really the ideal candidate for RMR normalization. Beside the most logical choice of using some
measurable drillability parameter, for example, the
Drilling Rate Index [46], the Rock Drillability Index
[47], or the Stamp Test [48], also quantitative measure of
rock texture describing grain shape, orientation, interlocking and relative proportions with matrix (e.g. the
Texture Coefficient proposed by Howarth and Rowlands [49,50]) are worthy of attention. As stated by
Sanio [43] these parameters can be linked to the fracture
propagation mechanism caused by the TBM rolling
cutters, which is strongly dependent on rock fabric
orientation. Numerous rock samples collected during

786

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

tunnels excavations are freely available to everyone

wishing to start a collaborative research on this topic.
The last point of discussion concerns the large scatter
showed by recorded penetrations. As said above, we
believe this scatter mostly depends on the difficulty in
maintaining a constant thrust during excavation, which
causes the net penetration to vary up to 50% of the
mean values for the same rock type and the same RMR
value (Fig. 4, 5 and 7; see also [51]). In Maen, for
example, the 50 m tunnel section from 1+100 to
1+150 m is characterized by a low-fractured, homogenous serpentine rock mass in which 10 identical RMR
values have been logged (RMR 89; continuous
surveying with 5 m steps), but despite this apparent
homogeneity, the mean thrust averaged over the 5 m
steps (nominal data recorded every 0.2 m) varies from
4500 to 6000 kN, and the penetration rate from 2.0 to
2.6 m/h (note that the variation of TBM thrust is too
large to be explained by an unnoticed variation of rock
mass quality; see Fig. 6). Operator sensitivity and hardto-capture interactions between rock mass and TBM
cutterhead are the possible source of data scatter, which
seems to be unavoidable even for an experienced team.
In fact, similar dispersions have been obtained in many
different tunneling projects [22,52,53], apparently in the
form of a random error superimposed to a simple trend.
Assuming the scatter is normally distributed around
the mean, performance prediction might be focused on
the mean trend, neglecting the complicated pattern of
real data. But if we just deal with a rough estimate of the
average penetration, do we really need a large number of
parameters in our prediction models?
Table 4 gives a preliminary answer to this question.
Following the approach recently proposed by Sundaram
et al. [53], the table summarizes TBM performance data
and corresponding correlation levels with main geomechanical classifications and basic rock mass and intact
rock properties. As can be seen, even if the strongest
correlation coefficients are those related with rock mass
conditions (RMR; Q; rock mass uniaxial strength)
rather good correlation is also shown by a basic
parameter like the uniaxial compressive strength of the
intact rock.
A large number of parameters is probably essential
when the relative importance of discontinuities over
intact rock properties is high, but we should consider the
difficulties involved when many rock mass parameters
are involved. The correlation coefficient of QTBM ; for
example, which contains factors of special relevance to
TBM penetration, is even slightly lower than conventional Q: As the objective of the prediction (penetration
rate) exhibits such a large random scatter, simple
parameters probably give similar or even better results
than comprehensive indexes.
This conclusion agrees with the results presented by
Morgan et al. [56] on the TBM construction of the

Table 4
Correlation values (r) of machine parameters with average intact rock
(UCS) and rock mass properties
Machine parameters

UCS

UCSRMa

UCSRMb

Penetration rate
Field penetration index

0.36
0.40

0.46
0.48

0.44
0.40

Machine parameters

RMR

Log(Q)

Log(QTBM )

Penetration rate
Field penetration index

0.42
0.44

0.41
0.50

0.37
0.26

Rock mass uniaxial compressive strength following Hoek and

Brown [54].
b
Rock mass uniaxial compressive strength following Singh [55].

Kielder tunnel, where it was found that Schmidt

hammer rebounds were much better correlated with
TBM performance than conventional classification
indexes, and that better correlations emerge using an
averaging method over geological lengths of the tunnel,
a way to smooth out the inherent scatter of penetration
data.

6. Conclusions
Data from the three tunnels excavated in predominately hard metamorphic rocks support the following
conclusions:
(1) The correlation between penetration rate and Rock
Mass Rating is significant from a statistical point of
view and can be approximated by a second-degree
polynomial curve. Best performances have been
recorded in fair rock (RMR 40270) whilst slower
penetrations were experienced both in too bad
(RMRo30 " 40) or too good (RMR > 70 " 80)
rock masses, as a consequence of thrust reduction
in the former case and reduced ability of cutter
indentation and chips formation in the latter.
(2) Despite the significant correlation, empirical relations are of very limited use in terms of predicting
machine performance, even for a specific rock
machine combination. The scatter about the mean
trend is in fact remarkably high, the penetration
rate varying up to 50% of mean value for a given
RMR: Literature review confirms this scatter is not
a limitation of our dataset; rather, it is a common
feature in many TBM projects, and it is probably
related to the difficulty in maintaining a constant
thrust during excavation.
(3) Several improvements should be made to the
conventional RMR-system if it is to predict TBM
performance. Different penetrations have been
obtained in different rocks for the same RMR
value, suggesting the need of RMR normalization

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788

with reference to parameters of special relevance to

bored tunnels. As regard rock properties, simple
analyses of our data showed that rock hardness
could be suitable for this purpose.
(4) Comparison of actual penetrations with those
predicted by the Innaurato [21] and Barton [23]
model showed poor agreement. As regards the
Innaurato model, the mismatch is probably due to
the absence of machine-related factors, which limits
its application to rockmachine combinations
similar to those considered by the author. In the
case of the Barton model the poor result is much
more difficult to explain, as the new term QTBM has
additional rockmachine interaction parameters of
special relevance for TBM applications. In particular, QTBM shows low sensitivity to penetration
rate, and the correlation coefficient with recorded
data is even worse than conventional Q or other
basic parameters like the uniaxial compressive
strength of the intact rock. Obviously, the reliability
of the Barton model cannot be judged by an
individual case, but the mismatch underlines the
difficulties involved in performance prediction when
so many factors (rock mass condition, machine and
muck removal system characteristics, human experience) are involved.
Finally, it is important to note that empirical relations
discussed above are based on rock mass surveying
during the excavation, that is considering the rock mass
conditions at depth. At the design stage instead,
especially for deep tunnel, performance prediction
mostly deal with geomechanical surveys of outcropping
rocks, whose characteristics may be significantly worse
as a consequence of superficial weathering and stress
removal effects [57]. A preliminary analysis involving
more than 20 km of TBM tunnels has shown that an
increase of rock mass quality is experienced both in
terms of Q and RMR: For example, an increase up to
1520 RMR points may be expected at depth, the entity
of the variation being a function of the RMR value
itself. The detailed analysis of this effect is still in
progress and it will be the topic of a future paper.
In order to promote refinements of existing predictive
models and to facilitate the comparison with other
experiences, the authors are happy to place the data set
used in this paper at everyones disposal. Data files may
be downloaded from our web page: www.geomin.unibo.it/ORGV/geoappl/TBM Performance.htm.

Acknowledgements
Authors wish to thank the colleagues of Maen, Pieve
Vergonte, and Varzo sites for their help in the collection
of machine performance data and their support in

787

fieldwork. We are also grateful to the reviewers for their

careful reading of our manuscript and their many
helpful comments.

References
[1] Wallis S. Record setting TBMs on Chinas long Yellow River
drives. Tunnel 1999;1:1926.
[2] Barla G, Pelizza S. TBM tunnelling in difficult ground conditions.
GeoEngineering 2000, International Conference on Geotechnical
and Geological Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, 2000.
[3] Innaurato N, Mancini R, Stragiotti L, Rondena E, Sampaolo A.
Several years of experience with TBM in the excavation of
hydroelectric tunnels in Italy. International Congress on Tunnel
and Water, Madrid, 1988.
[4] Lislerud A. Hard rock tunnel boring: prognosis and cost.
Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 1988;3(1):917.
[5] Nelson PP. TBM performance analysis with reference to
rock properties. In: Hudson JA, editor. Comprehensive rock
engineering, vol. 4 (10). New york: Pergamon Press, 1993.
p. 26191.
[6] US Army Corps of Engineers. Manual No. 1110-2-2901
Engineering and DesignTUNNELS AND SHAFTS IN
ROCK, 1997, http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/engmanuals/em1110-2-2901/toc.htm.
[7] Norwegian Tunnelling Society (NFF). Norwegian TBM Tunnelling. Publication No. 11, 1998.
[8] Alber M. Prediction of penetration, utilization for hard rock
TBMs. Proceedings of the International Conference of Eurock
96, Balkema, Rotterdam, 1996. p. 7215
[9] Nielsen B, Ozdemir L. Hard rock tunnel boring prediction and
field performance. In: Proceedings of the RECT. Boston,
Littleton, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
1993. p. 83352.
[10] Dolcini G, Fuoco S, Ribacchi R. Performance of TBMs in
complex rock masses. North American Tunnelling 96, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1996. p. 14554.
[11] Boniface A. Tunnel Boring Machine performance in basalts of the
Lesotho Formation. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol
2000;15(1):4954.
[12] Graham PC. Rock exploration for machine manufacturers. In:
Proceedings of the Symposium on Exploration for Rock
Engineering, vol. 1, Johannesburg, Balkema, 1976. p. 17380.
[13] Hughes HM. The relative cuttability of coal measures rock.
Mining Sci Technol 1986;3:95109.
[14] Farmer IW, Glossop NH. Mechanics of disc cutter penetration.
Tunnels Tunneling 1980;12(6):225.
[15] Nelson PP, Ingraffea AR, ORourke TD. TBM performance
prediction using rock fracture paramaters. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci Geomech Abstr 1985;22(4):18992.
[16] Sharp W, Ozdemir L. Computer modelling for TBM performance
prediction and optimization. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Mine Mechanization and Automation, CSM/
USBM, vol. 1(4), 1991. p. 5766.
[17] Wanner H, Aeberli U. Tunnelling machine performance in jointed
rock. Proceedings of the Fourth ISRM Congress, vol. 1,
Montreaux, Balkema, 1979. p. 5739.
[18] Johannessen O, et al. NTH Hard rock tunnel boring. Project
Report 194, NTH/NTNU Trondheim, Norway, 1994.
[19] Johannessen O, Jacobsen K, Ronn PE, Moe HL. Tunnelling costs
for drill and blast. Project Report 2C-95, Unit-NTH, Department
of Building and Construction Engineering, 1995.
[20] Cassinelli F, Cina S, Innaurato N, Mancini R, Sampaolo A.
Power consumpion and metal wear in tunnel-boring machines:

788

[21]

[22]

[23]
[24]
[25]

[26]
[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]
[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

M. Sapigni et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 39 (2002) 771788
analysis of tunnel-boring operation in hard rock. Tunnelling 82,
London, Inst. Min. Metall., 1982. p. 7381.
Innaurato N, Mancini R, Rondena E, Zaninetti A. Forecasting
and effective TBM performances in a rapid excavation of a tunnel
in Italy. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress
ISRM, Aachen, 1991.
Grandori R, Jaeger M, Antonini F, Vigl L. Evinos-Mornos
Tunnel, Greececonstruction of a 30 km long hydraulic tunnel in
less than three years under the most adverse geological conditions.
Proceedings of the RECT, San Francisco, Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration, 1995. p. 74767.
Barton N. TBM performance in rock using QTBM. Tunnel
Tunnelling Int, Milan, 1999;31:418.
Barton N. TBM tunnelling in jointed and faulted rock.
Rotterdam: Balkema, 2000.
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J. Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 1974;
6(4):189236.
Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classifications. New York:
Wiley, 1989.
Eusebio A, Grasso P, Mahtab A, Innaurato A. Rock characterization for selection of a TBM for a railway tunnel near Geneva,
Italy. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mine
Mechanics and Automation, CSM/USBM, vol. 1(4), 1991.
p. 2535.
Alber M. Advance rates of hard rock TBMs and their effects on
project economics. Tunnelling Underground Space Technol 2000;
15(1):5564.
Park CW, Park C, Synn JH, Sunwoo C, Chung SK. TBM
penetration rate with rock mas properties in hard rock.
Proceedings of the AITES-ITA 2001 World Tunnel Congress,
Milan, 2001. p. 4139.
Dal Piaz GV. Revised setting of the piedmont zone in the
northern Aosta valley, Western Alps. Ofioliti 1988;13:15762.
Reinecke T. Very-high-pressure metamorphism and uplift of
coesite-bearing metasediments from the Zermatt-Saas zone,
Western Alps. Eur J Mineral 1991;3:717.
Bethaz E, Fuoco S, Mariani S, Porcari P, Rosazza Bondibene E.
Scavo in rimonta con TBM: lesperienza del cunicolo di Maen.
Gallerie e Grandi Opere Sotterranee 2000;61:6775.
Bethaz E, Peila D, Innaurato N. Prevision of hard rock TBM
boring time. Proceedings of the AITES-ITA World Tunnel
Congres, 2001.
Reinhardt B. Geologie und Petrographie der Monte Rosa-Zone,
der Sesia-Zone und des Canavese im Gebiet zwischen Valle Ossola
und Valle Loana (Prov. Di Novara, Italien). Schiez Mineral Petrol
Mitt 1966;46:553678.
Dal Piaz GV, Hunziker JC, Martinotti G. La Zona Sesia-Lanzo e
levoluzione tettonicometamorfica delle Alpi nordoccidentali
interne. Mem Soc Geol Ital 1972;11:43366.
Compagnoni R, Dal Piaz GV, Hunziker JC, Gosso G, Lombardo
B, Williams PF. The Sesia-Lanzo Zone, a slice of continental crust
with alpine high pressure-low temperature assemblages in the
Western Italian Alps. Rend Soc Ital Mineral Petrol 1977;33:
281334.

[37] Milnes AG. Structural reinterpretation of the classic Simplon

Tunnel Section of the Central Alps. Geol Soc Am Bull 1973;
84:26974.
[38] Steck A. Le massif du Simplon. Reflexions sur la cin!ematique des
nappes de gneiss. Schweiz Mineral Petrogr Mitt 1987;67:2745.
[39] Mancktelow N. The Simplon line: a major displacement zone in
the western Lepontine Alps. Eclogae Geol Helv 1985;78:7396.
[40] Scolari F. Open-face borers in Italian Alps. World Tunnelling
1995:8;3616.
[41] Davis J. Statistics and data analysis in geology. New York: Wiley,
1973.
[42] Wickham GE, Tiedmann HR, Skinner EH. Ground control
prediction modelRSR concept. Proceedings of the Rapid Exc.
and Tunnelling Conference, AIME, New York. 1974. p. 691707.
[43] Sanio HP. Prediction of the performance of disc cutters in
anisotropic rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1985;22(3):15361.
[44] West G. A review of rock abrasiveness testing for tunnelling.
International Symposium on Weak Rock, vol. 1, Tokyo, 1981.
p. 5845.
[45] West G. Rock abrasiveness testing for tunnelling. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1981;26(2):15160.
[46] Suana M, Peters Tj. The Cerchar Abrasivity Index and its relation
to rock mineralogy and petrography. Rock Mech 1982;15:17.
[47] Movinkel T, Johannesen O. Geological parameters for hard rock
tunnel boring. Tunnels Tunneling 1986:458.
[48] Bruland A, Dahl! TS, Nilsen B. Tunnelling performance
estimation based on drillability testing. Proceedings of the Eighth
ISRM Congress, vol. 1, Tokyo, Balkema, 1995. p. 1236.
[49] Wijk G. The stamp test for rock drillability classification. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1989;26(1):3744.
[50] Howarth DF, Rowlands JC. Quantitative assessement of rock
texture and correlation with drillability and strength properties.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 1987;20:5785.
[51] Innaurato N, Oggeri C, Oreste P. Validation techniques in
tunnelling: the complementary approach of modelling, monitoring and excavation performance evaluation. Proceedings of the
AITES-ITA 2001 World Tunnel Congres, 2001. p. 21726.
[52] McKelvey JG, Schultz EA, Helin TAB, Blindheim OT.
Geomechanical analysis in S. Africa. World Tunnelling, 1996;9:
37790.
[53] Sundaram NM, Rafek AG. The influence of rock mass properties
in the assessment of TBM performance. Proceedings of the Eighth
IAEG Congress, Vancouver, Balkema, 1998. p. 35539.
[54] Hoek E, Brown ET. Underground excavations in Rock. The
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Longon, 1980.
[55] Singh B. Norwegian method of tunnelling workshop. New Delhi:
CSMRS, 1993.
[56] Morgan JM, Barratt DA, Hudson JA. Tunnel Boring Machine
performance and ground properties. Transportation and Road
Research Laboratory, Supplementary Report 469, 1979.
[57] Gonzalez De Vallejo LI. A new rock classification system for
underground assessment using surface data. Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Eng Geol Underground Constr,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1983. p. 8594.