Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1 382 822
3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Abolfazl Ramezanzadeh
Amirkabir University of Technology
1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE
P. Knights
University of Queensland
48 PUBLICATIONS 92 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
ABSTRACT
Faster development rates in underground mines would generate value by reducing the
time from capital expenditure (development) to revenue generation. This paper
compares advance rates and costs for drill and blast and mechanical development
methods based on mining and construction case studies. The drill and blast cycle
consists essentially of three sets of series-linked processes:
1. drilling, charging, blasting, and ventilation,
2. mucking, and
3. scaling and installation of preliminary ground support.
Mechanical excavation is inherently a faster process as excavation, mucking and
ground support can be executed as parallel processes. This is reflected in average
advance rates that vary between 4 to 9 m/day for drill and blast operations for typical
section areas, as compared to between 8 and 45 m/day for mechanical excavation. As
ground conditions become more difficult, the productivity of mechanical excavation
systems generally decline as roof support activities become the critical path. The paper
examines process re-engineering opportunities for drill and blast methods and
concludes that, at best, even if all three of the above process could be performed in
parallel, the theoretical limit to drill and blast development is approximately 19 m/day.
The paper identifies a number of process re-engineering opportunities including the
possibility of further investigating ‘hybrid’ excavation methods that combine the
flexibility and risk mitigation of drill and blast with the speed of mechanical excavation.
BACKGROUND
Increased underground development rates can add value to a mining project by reducing the time to
market and accelerating the project’s cash flow. For hard-rock, metalliferous underground mining, drill
and blast is the most commonly used development method, while mechanical excavation (continuous
miner) is the most commonly used method for underground coal mine development. While mechanical
tunnelling through fair to hard-rock conditions is common practice in civil engineering, there are
limited examples of mechanical excavation in hard rock mines.
However, in the last decade there have been significant improvements in mechanical excavation
tunnelling technology. These improvements present an opportunity to re-examine the potential of
mechanical excavation technology to generate a step change in underground hard-rock development
rates.
1. Smart Mining Systems respectively, The University of Queensland and CRCMining, Brisbane, 2436 Moggill Road, Pinjarra
Hills Qld 4069.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this paper is to review rapid development methods for hard-rock underground mines to:
• determine the range of advance rates for current technology;
• identify opportunities for incremental improvements in drill and blast advance rates;
• determine the theoretical limits for drill and blast advance rates; and
• identify opportunities for step change improvement in underground development rates using new
equipment and methods.
To meet these objectives it was necessary to challenge conventional wisdom and the current state of
general consensus on rapid underground development.
This paper is structured in the following way: initially methods, benchmarks, re-engineering
opportunities and theoretical limits to advance of drill and blast methods are reviewed; this is followed
by a review of mechanical excavation methods, and more specifically, the benchmarks, re-engineering
opportunities and theoretical limits to advance of tunnel boring machines (TBMs). A comparison of
drill and blast and TBM selection criteria is then presented. The implications of the work and proposes
future research directions are then discussed; followed by conclusions.
Faster drills
The introduction of high frequency drills by Atlas Copco has resulted in 50 per cent increase in drilling
rates. This is achieved by significantly increasing the blow rate frequency from 60 to 100 Hz whilst
maintaining the energy per percussive blow. The increased frequency is achieved with a new spool
valve system and redesigned hydraulic flow channels together with the impact piston design that
enables faster piston movement. In 2005 Atlas Copco’s 3038 high frequency drills were trialled at
Malmberget mine in Sweden. They achieved penetration rates of 5.3 m/minute in granite as opposed to
3.5 m/minute with an Atlas Copco 1838 standard drill.
Depending upon ground conditions and size of the heading, the potential exists to carry out bolting
in parallel with drilling advance. CAMIRO’s drill and blast cycle simulations indicated that eliminating
ground support time would increase advance rates from 5.4 m/day to 6.9 m/day (29 per cent) – for
blasting at will scenarios (CAMIRO, 2002a).
The moveable face shield (CAMIRO, 2002b) concept aims to make preliminary ground support a
parallel process with mucking. The shield is described as follows:
• shield constructed in three panels that pivot on each other,
• each panel is 6.0 m long,
• each shield section supported on legs, and
• a cylinder is incorporated in each leg that allows each section to be raised or lowered by up to 1.0 m.
TABLE 1
Comparison of conventional bolting and mesh times with hydro-scaling and in-cycle fibrecrete (Jenkins et al, 2005).
Conventional bolts and mesh (six sheets) Hydro-scale and in-cycle fibrecrete
Time to scale (mechanical jumbo) 33 minutes Time to hydro-scale 21 minutes
Time to bolt and mesh 158 minutes Time to fibrecrete 37 minutes
Time to bolt 59 minutes
Total support time 191 minutes Total support time 117 minutes
Self-drilling bolts
Golser et al (1993) describe the use of self-drilling continuous thread bolts in the civil tunnelling. Atlas
Copco has combined MAI self drilling bolts with Swellex (Swellex Hybrid bolt). At present, there is no
published literature to indicate that self-drilling bolts result in faster ground support times than
conventional two stage installation.
TABLE 2
Drill and blast benchmark case studies.
For the past 30 years the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, formerly
known as NTH, has been collating, analysing and reporting on tunnelling design, performance and cost
data for both drill and blast and TBM tunnelling (Johannesson, 1995). NTNU Report 2B-95 provides a
method for estimating tunnelling advance rates using drill and blast and is based on the following
assumptions:
• data was sourced from well organised drill and blast tunnels in the Norwegian civil tunnelling industry,
• hydraulic drilling jumbo,
• button bits (45 mm),
• parallel hole cut,
• Atlas Copco COP 1838 hammer drill,
• 5 m rounds,
• large diameter relief holes (102 mm), and
• for faces greater than 25 m2 scaling done by jumbo.
The NTNU prognosis for drill and blast development rates has been used to produce a drill and blast
cycle with the following characteristics (Figure 1):
• 30 m2 face,
• rock drillability (DRI) = 48,
• blastability, SPR=0.47,
• twin boom jumbo,
• assumes shotcreting is not on the critical path, and
• assumes 15 bolts per round.
Bolting, 90 Drilling,
128.3
Scaling, 30
Lost time,
13.2 Charging
time, 27
Fixed lost
Loading and
time, 19.6
hauling, Rig time,
106.5 12.5
Ventilation,
17
FIG 1 - Critical path process times for drill and blast development for a 6 m by 5 m face based on
NTNU prognosis for 30 m2 prognosis. Total cycle time = 375 minutes.
DRI is given by the drilling rate index and is based on brittleness, S20 and Sievers J-value
(Johannesson, 1995). The brittleness, S20 is a measure for rock resistance to crushing from repeated
impacts. Sievers J-value (SJ) is a measure for rock resistance to miniature drill penetration (surface
hardness). A DRI of 48 is considered medium drilling conditions. For example; granite has a DRI of 48.
The prognosis total cycle time is 375 minutes and the average weekly advance based on the NTNU
prognosis model is 10.4 m/day. Based on the mining case studies (best case 8.9 m/day), 10.4 m/day
would be considered a high average development rate.
The effect of long rounds (7.5 m) with this scenario, with independent firing and using a container
truck†, indicated an increase of 178 per cent to 14.9 m/day (from base case 5.4 m/day). If this 178 per
cent increase directly translates to the 6.8 m/day average, then this scenario would increase advance
rates to 18.9 m/day.
Based on the benchmarking studies and CAMIRO’s drill and blast simulations it has been possible
to estimate a theoretical limit to advance of approximately, 19 m/day. This theoretical limit assumes
that it is theoretically possible to achieve the following technical developments and advances:
• shielding to eliminate ground support time,
• successful long round drilling in all ground conditions,
• halve set-up times,
• three-boom jumbo can be configured to operate effectively at cross-sectional area of 35 m2 to 40 m2,
• container truck, and
• reduce explosive loading time by 30 minutes.
† Container trucks are essentially modular truck trays similar to scrap metal refuse bins that permit continuous LHD mucking.
The container truck system of mucking has been used in Japan for the construction of over 50 km of tunnel (CAMIRO,
2002a). The trays used on these projects are too large for most mine projects; however MTI in Canada manufactured a 16 ton
container truck suitable for use on a 5.5 m wide development heading. Four such container trucks were used at INCO’s
Thompson mine.
tunnelling machines. For examples the AITES/ITA working group No 14 (mechanisation of excavation)
is currently working on the definition of an internationally acceptable classification for mechanised
excavation systems with the purpose of establishing terminology and guide lines for the optimum choice
of the machine (Barla and Pleizza, 2000) (Table 3).
TABLE 3
General classification scheme for tunnelling machines (Barla and Pleizza, 2000).
Rock Machines
Machines (PFM) Continuous Miner – Other
Full Face Cutting disk Grippers Unshielded TBM
Rotating Cutting Special Unshielded TBM
Head (TBM)
Cutting disk/ Thrust Jacks Single Shielded TBM
Cutting bits/ (DS-TBM)
Cavity
Thrust Jacks
Manual excavation
Fluid
Based on the classification scheme shown in Table 3, it is possible to make the following comments:
• stability conditions of the host rock are a key factor affecting choice of excavation method and
machine type;
• if there are generally good rock condition in face and walls, full face tunnel boring machines and
partial face excavating machines (such as road header, mobile miner, continuous miner, etc) can be
used successfully; and
• it is clear that shield machines are not applicable for mine development purposes due to need for
permanent support system (precast concrete) and special mucking system.
Many mining engineers have the perception that TBMs are suited to weak rock conditions and are
not suited to hard rock. This perception probably stems from a historical association of mechanical
excavation with civil engineering projects (shallow depths associated with softer rock and soil
conditions) and coal mining.
TABLE 4
Comparison of machine performance (Cigla et al, 2001).
Before After
Average daily advance (m) 6.46 22.6
Best shift (m) 19.2 21.6
Best day (m) 37.5 44.5
Best week (m) 141.7 263
Best month (m) 333.5 831.2
Stillwater mining company successfully used a TBM to develop a 5650 m tunnel with a plus 1.5 per
cent grade to access the Stillwater mine in Montana, USA. In general, the unconfined compressive
strength test results show a wide range of values from 60 MPa to over 190 MPa. Because of the
successful application of TBM for initial mine development, Stillwater mine decided use TBMs for all
development work for the mine (Cigla et al, 2001).
In the city of Bergen a 3500 m twin tunnel was one of the first hard-rock TBM tunnels. The extremely
hard and sparsely fractured gneiss had a compressive strength of 250 MPa (Rygh, 1994). The following
list describes rock mass conditions for a number of case studies presented at the Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference 2005:
• Chesman (2005) compared 12.9 km drill and blast stretch of a NYC Water Tunnel to a 17 km TBM
stretch. Based on this study (Chesman, 2005) concluded that blocky rock can cause problems for
TBMs unless the blocky conditions are considered in cutterhead and mucking system design.
• Chesman (2005) reports on New York City tunnelling and how TBMs are now used in geological
formations that would previously have been excavated with drill and blast.
• Hutton et al (2005) described the Nancy Creek Tunnel in Atlanta. The 4.9 m diameter tunnels was
excavated through mylonite (fine-grained fully welded metamorphic rock) with site investigations
suggesting UCS values ranging from 255 MPa to 540 MPa. Actual UCS values were thought to be
lower than indicated by site investigations. The average advance rate for the RM Clayton Tunnel
was 23.2 m/day, while the average advance rates for the Roswell Road Drive were 26.4 m per day.
Road headers
A road header uses picks mounted on a rotating head as shown in Figure 2. The road header technology
is generally used for softer rock where restrictions are posed by the picking tool resistance against
shock load at extremely high rock strength (resulting in breakage of the tungsten-carbide tips) or their
resistance against abrasive wear when encountering rock with high content of hard minerals.
Significant advances have been made recently as a result of a four year research project sponsored by
the EU/Brite Euram, conducted to develop a new range of cutting tools for hard rock. Tests were carried
out in sandstone and porphyrite rocks with compressive strengths of 130 - 170 Mpa, quartz content
varying from 31 - 53 per cent and Cerchar abrasivity index of 1.4 - 3.7 (Bullock, 2000). The test results
compared standard cutting systems with the new improved system. On a Voest Alpine 105 machine, the
results showed a drop in specific cutting energies from 14 to 6 kWh/m3, and an increase in production rate
from 28 to 35 - 50 m3/day, and an impressive drop in pick consumption from 1 to 0.25 pick/m3.
Mobile miner
The Mobile Miner is a partial face machine (Figure 3) with many similarities to the road headers
commonly used in coal mines and other mines with weak rock (Guan, 1997). The significant difference
is the use of disc cutters and gauge cutters rather than bits (Guan, 1997). The Mobile Miner uses only
one row of cutters which are mounted on a beam that may move in two directions. Because only a
portion of the face is in contact with the cutter-wheel at any time so that the reaction forces are lower
than for a TBM. This design feature allows for a smaller, more manoeuvrable machine which can cut a
curve of minimum radius 20 m (Turner and Carey, 1993).
The first commercial Mobile Miner (MM120) was tested at Mt Isa in 1984 and was used to develop
a 22 m2 decline (Guan, 1997). The rock excavated consisted mainly of quartzite, siliceous greenstone
and greenstone. The quartzite ranged in strength up to 430 MPa and was highly abrasive. The machine
achieved instantaneous penetration rates of up to 1.5 m/hour and the best single shift was 3.66 m (Guan,
1997).
Pasminco Mining and Robbins Company developed the next generation Mobile Miner (MM130 –
Figure 3). Based on the Mt Isa experience the MM130 was made more than ten times stronger in both
the swing and thrust directions than the MM120 (Willoughby, 1991). The MM130 performed
successfully in rocks ranging in strength from 100 MPa to 300 MPa (Forrester, 1996). The MM130 was
capable of excavating an opening 4.1 m high and between 5.5 m to 8.0 m wide. By 1992 the MM130
was achieving advance rates of up to 1.2 m/hour in face. The Mobile Miners mode of cutting resulted in
significant cutter wear and loss (Guan, 1997; Hood and Alehossein, 2000) and machine availability and
cutter cost issues associated with this wear and damage remain to be resolved.
The Wirth Company of Germany developed a hard-rock mobile excavator, called the Continuous
Miner Machine (CMM) (Figure 4). The CMM is equipped with four booms, attached on a common
rotating mounting. One boom is positioned in the centre of the mounting and the other three are spaced
equally around the circumference. Each boom can be swung radially inwards and outwards and is fitted
with a disc cutter (Stack, 2005; Wirth, 2006). The centre arm makes the first pass pseudo pilot hole.
This shallow pilot hole is then enlarged by the three cutting arms which cut the rock in tension from the
periphery to the centre and back again.
The CMM is capable of cutting a number of different tunnel shapes, including a square-shaped
tunnel with rounded corners. The maximum excavation height and width are 4.5 m and the minimum
curve radius that can be excavated is 25 m. The desired profile can be cut automatically, according to a
pre-set computer program. It is unclear why this machine did not complete its trials at a nickel mine in
Canada and hence the concept remains largely unproven (Hood and Alehossein, 2000).
Reef miner
The ARM1100 is a disc cutting mining machine designed for mining narrow reefs of hard and abrasive
rock typical of the South African platinum orebodies (Figure 5). The ARM1100 was designed as a
combination of the principles of VOEST-ALPINE road headers and VOEST-ALPINE tunnel borers,
resulting in a machine with high performance rates in hard and abrasive rock conditions.
FIG 4 - Wirth Continuous Miner Machine – CMM FIG 5 - Voest Alpine Reef Miner ARM 1100.
(Wirth, 2006).
The machine is electrically powered and can be used on a 15 degree incline and needs 50 m radius
to navigate. The excavation height is controlled by cutterhead diameter which is 1.1 m in this model
(ARM 1000 brochure, Sandvik website). The ARM uses the undercutting technique like the CMM.
This technique tries to combine the efficiency of the drag bit with the robustness of the disc cutter
(Hood and Alehossein, 2000). The ARM Project has been cutting in the UG2 platinum reef on the 25
level of Rowland shaft at on of Lonmin’s mines since 2002. During this development period, the
machine has proven itself as a capable hard-rock cutting machine system, with cost per tone, the main
variable to be refined.
TABLE 5
Specific energy requirements for rock drilling (Maurer, 1968).
3
System Specific energy (joules/cm )
Rotary bit 100
High-pressure jets 1000
Thermal spalling 1500
Melting 5000
Vaporisation 12 000
TABLE 6
Comparison of drill and blast method versus TBM tunnelling.
TABLE 7
Typical rock mass characteristics, assumed tunnel data and TBM specifications.
Tunnel data
Tunnel diameter (m) 6.2 Rock type Rock 1 Rock 2 Rock 3 Rock 4
2
Tunnel cross-section (m ) 30 General description Very good Good Fair Poor
Tunnel length (m) 4000 RMR 90 70 50 30
TABLE 8
Summary results of NTNU TBM performance prediction model for assumed rock types.
Rock type Rock Type 1 Rock Type 2 Rock Type 3 Rock Type 4
General description Very hard and abrasive rock Good Fair Poor
RMR = 90 RMR = 70 RMR = 50 RMR = 30
Power (kw) 800 1234 1140 1177
Penetration rate(m/h) 1.2 2.84 2.91 3.09
Advance rate (m/h) 0.6 1.42 1.0185 1.0815
Utilisation factor (%) 50% 50% 35% 35%
†
Advance rate (m/day) 10.0 23.7 17.0 18.0
† Advance rates in m/day were converted from m/month by assuming 30 days per month.
Figure 8 provides boxplots of the TBM and drill and blast benchmark advance rates. Seventy five
per cent of the advance rates achieved by TBM are significantly higher than those achieved by drill and
blast. The median of achieved TBM advance rate is two times higher than the maximum drill and blast
advance rate. The wider range of TBM data is explained by greater number of case histories with
different ground conditions and tunnel diameters.
FIG 8 - Boxplots for advance rates for drill and blast and TBM case histories.
DISCUSSION
edge have both been observed (Friant and Ozdemir, 1993). To get an acceptable cutter life, the average
thrust level has been reduced to 80 - 85 per cent of the design thrust of the machine (Bruland, 1998).
Norwegian experiences in homogenous rock show that the penetration rate will be reduced by 50 per
cent if the thrust level is reduced by 15 per cent. This indicates a large potential for reduced excavation
costs by only small improvements in the ring steel quality (Bruland, 1998).
Analysis of the TBM case studies shows that adequate knowledge of ground conditions in advance
of tunnelling is critical to success. It is essential to locate and map faults, weak zones, squeezing ground
and swelling clays in advance of commencing a TBM project. In mining, development work is often
carried out in a data poor environment. This favours drill and blast techniques, which are able to be
readily adapted to changing ground conditions. The use of TBMs in mining requires that mines invest
more initially to fully characterise the host rock mass prior to commencing development.
REFERENCES
Archibald, J F, 2000. Validation of rock reinforcement capacity offered by spray-on mine coatings, in 102nd AGM of
the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum [CD ROM] p 9 (Canadian Institute of Mining,
Metallurgy and Petroleum: Montreal).
Backbolm, G, Christiansson, R and Lagerstedt, L, 2004. Choice of rock excavation methods for the Swedish deep
repository for spent nuclear fuel (SKB, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co).
Barber J, Mennie, B, Poedjono, R and Coad, G, 2005. Common infrastructure project – Development for the Future
of PT Freeport Indonesia, in Proceedings Ninth Underground Operators’ Conference 2005, pp 313-322 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Barla, G and Pleizza S, 2000. TBM tunneling in difficult ground conditions, in Proceedings GeoEng2000, p 20
(Politecnico di Torino).
Bruland, A, 1998a. Future Demands and Development Trends (Norwegian Tunneling Society, NFF).
Bruland, A, 1998b. Hard-Rock Tunnel Boring, Advance Rate and Cutter Wear (Norwegian University of Science
and Technology NTNU: Trondheim).
Bullock, R L, 2000. Trends in non-coal underground mining technology at the close of the millennium, in Mining
in the New Millennium – Challenges and Opportunities, Poland.
Cameron, A, 2000. Safe Rapid Development Project – Blast Modifications, Camiro.
CAMIRO, 2002a. CAMIRO Safe Rapid Underground Development Simulations (Canadian Mining Industry
Research Organization: Sudbury).
CAMIRO, 2002b. Moveable Face Shield, CAMIRO Mining Division (Canadian Mining Industry Research
Organization: Sudbury).
Carstens, J P, 1972. Thermal fracture of rock – A review of experimental results, in Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference, pp 1363-1392 (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc: Littleton).
Chesman, S, 2005. Case study in rock mass behavior: TBM versus drill and blast, pp 689-703, Seattle, WA, United
States (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Littleton).
Chitombo, G and Trueman, R, 1997. Long round drilling – State-of-the-art, Centre for Mining Technology and
Equipment (CMTE), Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC), AMIRA P475-Scoping Study,
Brisbane.
Cigla, M, Yagiz, S and Ozdemir, L, 2001. Application of tunnel boring machines in underground mine
development, in International Mining Congress, Turkey.
Commission on Geosciences EaR, 1994. Drilling and Excavation Technologies for the Future (The National
Academies Press).
Consult, M, 1993. Design based on numerical modelling a requirement for an economical tunnel construction, in
Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC), pp 367-379 (Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
Forrester, D, 1996. Underground continuous mining – an overview, CIM Bulletin, 89:32-37.
Friant, J E, 1995. Full Face TBMs in Mine Application (Colorado School of Mines: Golden).
Friant, J E and Ozdemir, L, 1993. Tunnel boring technology – Present and future, in Proceedings Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
Golser, J, Riedmuller, G and Schubert, P, 1993. Tunneling concepts for heterogenous and weak rock, in
Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC), pp 333-366 (Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
Guan, Z, 1997, Mechanics of rock/tool/machine interaction. PhD thesis, The University of Queensland.
Holen, H, 1998. TBM Versus Drill and Blast Tunneling (Norwegian Tunneling Society, NFF).
Hood, M and Alehossein, H, 2000. A development in rock cutting technology, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37:297-305.
Hood, M, Knight, G C and Thimons, E D, 1992. A review of jet assisted rock cutting, Transactions of the ASME,
114:196-206.
Hutton, R, Bonner, J and Nonaka, T, 2005. The Nancy Creek Tunnel: hard-rock tunneling in Atlanta, in Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference 2005 (eds: J D Hutton and W D Rogstad) pp 642-653 (Society for
Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
Jenkins, P A, Mitchell, J and Upton, B, 2005. Improved ground control using scaling and in-cycle shotcrete, in
Proceedings Ninth Underground Operators’ Conference, pp 255-263 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Johannesson, O, 1995. Tunneling prognosis for drill and blast project report, Norwegian University Science and
Technology, Trondheim, 2B-95, Trondheim.
Kaiser, P, Suorineni, F, Henning, J, Diederichs, M, Mine, C, Tannant, D and Hajiabdolmajid, V, 2003. Guidelines
on support selection for safe rapid drift development, MIRARCO, CAMIRO, Sudbury, Ontario.
Kalamaras, G, Carlo, A, Dinu, C, Cirvegna, G, Paolo, P and Santucci, C, 2005. Up-to-date excavation, support,
and lining solutions meet timing requirements for the first two tunnels of the 2006 winter Olympic games.
Seattle, WA, United States, pp 201-212.
Maurer, W C, 1968. Novel Drilling Techniques (Pergamon: Oxford).
Maurer, W C, 1980. Advanced Drilling Techniques (Petroleum Publishing: Tulsa).
Neumann, M, 2001. CAMIRO Safe and Rapid Development Project – Benchmarking of 12 Canadian Mine
(Neumann Engineering and Mining Services).
Ozdemir, L, 1995. Mechanical excavation – today and tomorrow, in Mechanical Mining Technology short course,
Golden, Colorado (Colorado School of Mines: Golden).
Pickering, R G B, Watson, I C, Klokow, J W and Knoetze, A F, 1999. Practical feasibility of using TBMs in deep
level gold mines, in Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC) (Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
Robbins, R J, 1995. Tunnel machines in hard rock, in Mechanical Mining Technology for Hard Rock (ed:
L Ozdemir) (Colorado School of Mines: Golden).
Robbins, R J, 2000. Mechanization of underground mining: a quick look backward and forward, International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37:413-421.
Roche Mining, 2006. Project report [online]. Available from: <http://www.downeredi.com> [Accessed: 20 July
2006].
Rygh, J A, 1994. Norwegian Facilities in Rock (Norwegian Tunneling Society, Norconsult International, Sandvika,
Norway).
Stack, B, 2005. Encyclopedia of Mining, Tunnelling and Drilling Equipment (Muden Publishing Company: Hobart).
Tobar, P, 1998. Macrozanjas – un método de explotación alternativo al panel caving en Mina El Teniente, in 49th
Annual Convention of Institute of Mining Engineers of Chile, Marbella Resort, 27-31 October, Chile.
Turner, J and Carey, D, 1993. Automation of a mobile miner, in Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Conference (RETC) (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton).
UNSW, 2006. [online] Available from: <http://www.mining.unsw.edu.au/WhatsNew> [Accessed: 15 July 2006].
VanDerPas, E and Allum, R, 1995. TBM technology in a deep underground copper mine, in Proceedings Rapid
Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC), p 14 (Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration:
Littleton).
Willoughby, R, 1991. Pasminco’s expectations of the Mobile Miner, in Proceedings International Symposium on
Mine Mechanisation and Automation, Colorado School of Mines, Golden (eds: L Ozdemir and K Hanna) pp
10-29.
Wirth, 2006. Mine development, production and shaft construction, in Wirth Mining Solution brochure [online].
Available from: <http://www.wirth.com>.