CHOICE BETWEEN TUNNEL BORING
MACHINE AND DRILL & BLAST SYSTEM
S. Paul. Singh, Ph. D., P. Eng.
Mining Engineering Department – Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Derek A. Zoldy, P. Eng., MCIP, RPP
AECOM, Markham, Ontario, Canada
ABSTRACT
Traditionally, tunnels have been excavated by drilling and blasting method, but now with the advent of road
headers and Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs), there has been a significant increase in the rate of excavation and
improved safety record. Often in problematic reaches, drill and blast methods come to the rescue and are handy
(Ramamurthy, 2008). When unfavourable or changed conditions are encountered without warning, it has a far greater
impact on the rate of advance, construction costs and schedule delays in a TBM driven tunnel than in a drill and blast
tunnelling.
The choice between TBM and drill and blast is an often faced dilemma. It is not surprising as these two methods
have been competing for more than thirty years (Nord, 2006). During this time period both methods have made major
technical advances. The main difference between conventional mechanized drill and blast and TBM tunnelling is
related to the process cycle and operational continuity. There are only a few tunnelling projects where the excavation
method can be selected before a proper investigation and estimations have been made. The choice between the two
methods is an open question before the bottom line on risks, time and cost is arrived at.
In this paper, the conditions for the judicious selection of the excavation method have been highlighted and
discussed considering the following factors:
A. Tunnel Design Parameters: Diameter, length, inclination and shape.
B. Rock Mass Characteristics: Strength, geological features, abrasiveness, hydrogeology and rock mass rating.
C. Performance Factors: Rate of advance, boreability, over-break, support requirements and skill of the available
labour.
D. Contract Related Factors: Environmental and safety constraints, cost and quality.
RÉSUMÉ
Traditionnellement, les tunnels ont été creusé en entraînant et exploser la méthode, mais maintenant avec la
venue d'en-têtes de route et de Tunnel Ennuyant des Machines (TBMs), il y a eu une augmentation significative dans le
taux d'excavation et de rapport de sécurité amélioré. Souvent dans les portées problématiques, les méthodes
d'exercice et explosion viennent au secours et sont pratique (Ramamurthy, 2008). Quand les conditions défavorables
ou changées sont rencontrées sans l'avertissement, il a un plus grand impact éloigné sur le taux d'avance, les coûts de
construction et les retards de plan dans un TBM le tunnel motivé que dans un exercice et une explosion qui creuse un
tunnel.
Le choix entre TBM et l'exercice et l'explosion est un dilemme souvent fait face à. Il n'étonne pas comme ces deux
méthodes ont concouru pour plus de trente ans (Nord, 2006). Pendant cette période que les deux méthodes ont fait
des avances techniques majeures. La différence principale entre l'exercice et creuser un tunnel d'explosion et TBM
mécanisé conventionnel est relatée au cycle de processus et à la continuité opérationnelle. Il y a peu de creusant un
tunnel des projets où la méthode d'excavation peut être avant choisie qu'une investigation et les jugements corrects ont
été faits. Le choix entre les deux méthodes est une question ouverte avant le résultat sur les risques, le temps et le
coût sont arrivés à.
Dans ce papier, les conditions pour la sélection judicieuse de la méthode d'excavation ont été soulignées et ont
été discutées in Vu les facteurs suivants :
A. Paramètres de Conception de Tunnel d'a.: Le diamètre, la longueur, l'inclination et forme.
B. Caractéristiques de Masse de Rocher : de la force, les caractéristiques géologiques, la rudesse, la masse de
hydrogeology et rocher qui évalue.
C. L'Exécution de c. Factorise: Le taux d'avance, boreability, la sur-coupure, soutenir des conditions et la
compétence du travail disponible.
D. Le Contrat de d. A Relaté des Facteurs: Contraintes écologique et de sécurité, le coût et la qualité.
1 INTRODUCTION Although TBMs have excavated tunnels more than
15m diameter, yet it is better to limit the size of the
Traditionally, tunnels have been excavated by drilling tunnel due to the following reasons:
and blasting method, but now with the advent of road The success potential of a TBM in hard rock
headers and Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs), there has decreases with increasing diameter (Kovari et
been a significant increase in the rate of excavation and al., 1993; Bruland, 1998).
improved safety record. Often in problematic reaches,
drill and blast methods come to the rescue and are There are technological limits for the maximum
handy (Ramamurthy, 2008). When unfavourable or dimensions of some major TBM components
changed conditions are encountered without warning, it e.g. the bearing and the head (Nord,2006).
has a far greater impact on the rate of advance, The intensities of both the instability
construction costs and schedule delays in a TBM driven phenomena and the induced convergence also
tunnel than in a drill and blast tunnelling.
increase with increasing diameter of excavation
It appears that TBMs and drill and blast method
(DBM) are expected to provide constructability options (Tseng at al., 1998; Barla G. and Barla M.,
for contractors to be competitive. In the tunnelling 1998)
industry, where market conditions continue to demand A TBM drive requires a pre-determined (fixed) tunnel
higher advance rates and lower costs, TBMs offer diameter but it can excavate a circular profile with a high
numerous benefits, including higher advance rates, degree of accuracy. However with the drill and blast
continuous operation, less rock damage, uniform muck system, the tunnel cross-section can be driven to any
characteristics, greater safety and potential for remote required size or shape and most importantly the tunnel
automated operation. On the other hand, the drill and size and shape can be changed along the length of the
blast method is very flexible and adaptable. The definite drive.
answer to which tunnelling method should be chosen is
always a tough question.
Proper choice of the tunnelling method is crucial for
the engineers and contractors, as mistakes or
misjudgements can have serious consequences, both for
the economic viability and the overall success of the
project. Tunnelling engineers have to make judicious
choices on a case-by-case basis considering the site
conditions and expected outcome. When both TBM and
DBM are feasible, a careful assessment of the risks must
be made, particularly, in terms of safety, economy and
productivity.
1.1 Factors Affecting the Choice of Tunnel Method
A. Tunnel Design Parameters: Diameter, length,
inclination and shape.
B. Rock Mass Characteristics: Strength, geological
features, abrasiveness, hydrogeology and rock
mass rating.
C. Performance Factors: Rate of advance, boreability,
over-break, support requirements and skill of the
available labour. Figure 1. Diameter of the tunnel vs. Average Advance /
D. Contract Related Factors: Environmental and month
safety constraints, cost and quality.
1.2.2 Length
1.2 Tunnel Parameters
1.2.1 Diameter Since the mobilization cost of TBM is high, it
requires a long tunnel to justify a large capital
investment. Therefore TBMs will be used where tunnels
are to be long and of uniform cross-section and profile.
The conventional drill and blast method is therefore most
often used on shorter tunnels. Table 1. Preference of the tunnelling method based upon
In the case of long tunnels with favourable geology, the tunnel parameters.
relatively high advance rates can be achieved with a
TBM. However as soon as the geology becomes complex 1.3 Shape
and there are zones of disturbance, drill and blast
performance can become significantly better as The drill and blast system is very adaptable and
compared with a TBM. flexible in regards to the excavation of any tunnel cross-
A simple indicator on when a TBM solution might be section (Grimscheid and Schennayder, 2002). A circular
suitable is to make a simple estimate as shown below. profile can be excavated with a high degree of accuracy
The formula simply says by a TBM. However, with drill and blast system the
tunnel cross-section can be created to any required
Tunnel length (m)/Tunnel dia. (m) x (UCS in shape or size and most importantly the tunnel shape and
1/3
Pascals) > 1.5 (Nord, 2006) size can be changed along the length of the drive.
That if the tunnel length divided by the tunnel
diameter and the unconfined compressive strength of the The suggestions for choice between tunnel boring
rock at power of one third and the result is larger than machine and drill and blast system have been presented
1,5 it might be worthwhile to check the TBM alternative. in table 1.
The trigger value of 1.5 using the above formula is not as
accurate as it might seem and perhaps it would be better 1.4 Rock Mass Characteristics
to say that when the result is 3, the TBM option is 1.4.1 Strength
definitely a viable solution and when the value is less
than 1, the TBM option should be considered less The TBM excavation with respect to advance rate is
favourable than the DBM. Please note that this by far much more depending on the strength
expression has no scientific back up. Poor ground characteristics of the rock than drill and blast.
conditions are not foreseen here and nor is abrasive rock
considered (Nord, 2006). 1.4.2 Geological Features
Based on the research at the Swiss Federal Institute Geological conditions to be encountered such as,
of Technology, TBM technology shows excellent cost faults and ground water can have a major impact on
efficiency in the case of tunnels longer than machine performance, application, operation and the
approximately three kilometers. The exact length production rate. These parameters must be accounted
depends upon the rock mass characteristics, tunnel for when estimating the machine utilization, which is a
parameters, labour cost and utilization factor. key parameter in scheduling. Analysis of field
performance of different TBM projects is the foundation
PARAMETER RANGE METHOD REMARKS for estimating the effect of these geological features in
Length (Km) <0.5 DBM Strongly the rock mass.
recommended The opinion is that drill and blast method offers a
0.5-1.0 DBM Recommended higher flexibility and consequently better opportunities to
1.0-2.0 DBM Preferred cope up with unforeseen conditions. According to Nord
2.0-3.0 DBM or and Stille (1988), variable rock conditions favour the
TBM choice of the blasting method. Water conditions affect
>3.0 TBM Preferred both methods, but the TBM is more hampered than the
Diameter (m) <3.0 DBM Preferred drill and blast system if pre-grouting has to be done. The
3-10 TBM Preferred variation in tunnelling speed when excavating in
favourable versus unfavourable ground conditions is also
>10 DBM Preferred
less for the drill and blast than the TBM method.
Inclination in <6 TBM or
In the case of TBM, massive rock is unfavourable for
Degrees DBM
fast penetration, while for DBM , it is obviously
>6<30 DBM Recommended
favourable due to the lack of tunnel support needs and
Curvature <30m DBM can be drilled at reasonable speed despite the lack of
radius jointing.
>30m TBM or
radius DBM 1.4.3 Rock Type
Shape Circular TBM Preferred
Non- DBM Strongly The overall composition of the rock mass holds a
circular recommended first order control on TBM penetration. The more mafic
Cross-section Uniform TBM or (Iron and magnesium rich) the rock mass the lower the
DBM penetration. Some rock types (such as fine grained or
Variable DBM Strongly glassy dike rocks, amphibolites, pegmatite, intrusive,
recommended garnetiferous zones, quartz veins) have important
bearing on TBM penetration and these should be The choice between TBM and DBM on the basis of
identified and categorized accurately. Unique igneous geological and hydrogeological considerations have been
and metamorphic textures can make or break a suggested in Table 2.
tunnelling contract (Merguerian, 2005).
1.5 Performance Factors
1.4.4 Abrasiveness 1.5.1 Rate of Advance
The abrasiveness of a rock or soil is its potential to In the case of drill and blast system, equipment is
cause wear on a tool. It is an important parameter to available in various sizes and are selected to fit the
assess the technical and economical aspects of a actual tunnel size. In a larger tunnel, more drilling
tunnelling method. machines can operate in parallel and larger unit can be
deployed for mucking and hauling. Therefore, there is no
PARAMETER RANGE METHOD direct relationship between tunnel size and advance rate
Geology Variable DBM for drill and blast operations.
Compressive <300 TBM or DBM Dr. Nick Barton analysed a large number of TBM
strength, MPa >300 DBM driven tunnels and has concluded that there is a major
Strength and Variable DBM variation in the rate of advance and penetration rate
hardness depending on the rock quality. He suggested a tunnel
Rock Quality 30-80 TBM Preferred stability relationship based on Penetration Rates vs.
Designation <30 or <80 DBM Preferred Rock Quality Designation for TBMs. (Barton, 2000).
‘Q’ System <0.1 DBM Preferred Since the time that this was developed by Barton, we
0.1-10 TBM most have not seen any recent research to suggest that the
competitive TBM technology has advanced in terms of penetration
rates based on Barton’s work.
10-15 TBM preferred
100-1000 DBM
Barton (2000) also made a comparison between
recommended
advance rates of TBMs and DBM as shown in Figure 2.
RMR System 40-80 TBM Preferred
Although this relationship suggests a relationship based
<40 or >80 DBM Preferred on project based information. That being said, TBM and
Ground water Severe DBM Preferred DBM equipment improvements over the past decade
problems have increased the equipment efficiencies and as such
the relationship between Rock Quality and advance rate
Table 2. Preference of the tunnelling method based upon for TBM and DBM should be updated.
geological and hydrological conditions.
1.4.5 Rock Mass Rating
Nick Barton (2000) found that the TBM technique is
most competitive time wise versus drill and blast when
rock conditions are in the Q-range 0.1 to 10 on his rock
quality scale (Figure 2).
It should be pointed out that this is a hypothetical
statement but it does points on to the difficulties the TBM
excavation faces when entering into a very poor ground..
Many cases have been recorded where TBM technique
has to be abandoned in favour of the drill and blast
technique. But also on the very end of the quality scale
the TBM excavation will be difficult due to monolithic
character of the rock yielding only few joints.
In low quality rock, the penetration rate can be
potentially very high but the support needs, rock jams Figure 2. Comparison of advance rates for TBM and
and gripper bearing failure result in slow advance rate, DBM (After Barton, 2000).
with utilization coefficient as low as 5 – 10% or less
(Barla and Pelizza, 2000). 1.5.2 Boreability
Grandori (1995) correlated the advance rate of the
TBM with RMR value. It showed that RMR class III When the TBM cannot penetrate the face to a
provided a peak in production for a double shield TBMs, sufficient rate and/or the wear of the cutting tools
while they would not be recommended for neither class V exceeds an acceptable limit, it is an indication that rock
(very poor) nor class I (very good rock masses). is not borable. The penetration rate per revolution of the
cutter head which can be achieved under the maximum
thrust is the main index describing the capacity of a TBM Table 3. Preferred tunnelling method based upon on the
to excavate a given rock. A limit of penetration per boreability of rocks.
revolution below which a rock shall be considered non-
borable is influenced by the abrasivity of the rock, the 1.5.3 Support Requirements
diameter of the tunnel and the geology of the rock
formation. The high abrasivity associated with low Most tunnels will require support to ensure its long
penetration dictates frequent changes of cutters, term stability. The type and magnitude of the support is
increases the cost of excavation per unit of rock, in determined by the rock mass characteristics, water
addition to the time lost in replacing the cutters. conditions and state of stress. In general, less support is
The penetration rates below 2-2.5 mm/rev of the needed for a TBM than a drill and blast operation. In
cutter head is a signal of boreability problems. An cases where drill and blast requires only little support,
excavation process starts to be efficient when the the TBM in similar conditions may require no support. In
penetration rate crosses 3-4 mm/ rev. cases where heavy support is needed for drill and blast
When the diameter of the tunnel increases, three operations, the support measures and stabilization ahead
different effects make the situation worse (Barla and of the face will not be less for TBM technology. In fact,
Pelizza, (2000): they may be even larger and certainly take much more
The rotational speed of the cutter head should time due to the difficulties with installations of supports
decrease for an equal penetration per revolution, right behind and ahead of the cutter head. When heavy
because the bearings and seals of the disk cutters support is needed, TBM operations will provide lower
advance rates than the DBM system (Barla and Pelizza,
permit only a maximum speed equivalent to 150
2000).
m/min.
The number of cutters to be changed per meter of 1.5.4 Equipment Utilization
tunnel advance increases, therefore, increasing the
stopping time required for such operations. The TBM operations experience down time due to
changes of cutters, regripping, maintenance and down
The state of average wear of the cutters mounted on
time etc. All this down time adds up to 40-60% of the
the head increases, thus decreasing the penetration available operating time.
per revolution.
Under extreme conditions, each one of the above 1.5.5 Skilled Labour
three factors excites the other one bringing the progress
rate down to unacceptable values. For these reasons, a One crew is required for a single TBM working face
rock type may be borable for a TBM of small diameter, but TBM crew will be larger. Crew needs higher skill
but not for a TBM of large diameter. level, but are easily trainable because operations are
more consistent and continuous.
If ROP is the average rate of penetration, then
The suggestions for the choice between TBM and
ROP = boring length in meters/ boring time in hours DBM on the basis of operating requirements are given in
Penetration per revolution, Pr = (ROP x1000)/ table 4.
(RPM x 60) mm/rev.
REQUIREMENT PREFERRED REMARKS
RPM is cutter head revolutions per minute METHOD
Equipment DBM
Field Penetration Index, FPI =Fn / Pr KN/cutter/mm/rev.
mobility
Fn is the cutter head load or normal force in KN Easy TBM
housekeeping
The choice between TBM and DBM on the basis of Short lead times DBM
work done by Barla and Pellizza, (2000) and Hasanpour
Almost uniform TBM Crushed
et al, (2011) is given in table 3.
muck size fines and
PARAMETER RANGE PREFERRED chips
METHOD
Field penetration 7-70 TBM Table 4. Preferred tunnelling method based upon the
index(FPI) operating requirements.
>70 and DBM
(Kn/cutter/mm/revolution <7
2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY
Penetration per <3 DBM CONSTRAINTS
revolution (mm) >3 TBM 2.1 Overbreak
Overbreak is the excavation of the rock beyond the REQUIREMENT METHOD
designed profile. Overbreak increases the cost of Low vibrations TBM
mucking, support and concrete lining. Overbreak is Minimum Overbreak TBM
generally influenced by the lithology, rock mass Low accidental risks TBM
properties and quality of blasting. Overbreak caused by Low ventilation costs TBM
geological instabilities is generally larger when tunnelling Tunnel stability TBM (except in very poor
by drill and blast than TBM. In some cases, however, it is rocks)
more complicated during TBM excavation to support Skill of the Semi-skilled DBM
ahead and right behind the tunnel face and as a result of work force Highly skilled TBM
that support is installed at a very late stage resulting in
larger collapses. These collapses have sometimes led to
Table 5. Preferred tunnelling method, based upon
the complete burial of the TBM. Out fall behind the
environmental and safety constraints.
gripper pads of the TBM is another form of geological
overbreak linked to the TBM operation. The overall
experience is that TBM will generate less geological
2.4 Cost
overbreak (Nord, 2006).
Although a TBM tunnel project requires more
demanding infrastructure in terms of roads, power
2.2 Vibrations
supply, muck handling, work areas for storage and
robust transportation needs, there are normally higher
This is a major concern when tunnelling by drill and
costs and longer times required for TBM mobilization.
blast method in an urban environment. If the
Transporting of the equipment to the site also needs
surroundings are highly sensitive to vibrations, there may
additional time and cost. TBM tunnel projects require
be constraints in the amount of explosives that can be
more electric power than DBM projects.
used per delay. This may limit the progress of the DBM.
However the problem is alleviated with latest advances in
2.5 Tunnel Quality
drill and blast technology. In case of TBMs, there are
significantly less disturbances to the surroundings.
During TBM excavation, it may be easier to ensure
2.3 Safety and Environmental Risks
accurate alignment. The periphery of a TBM tunnel is
smooth and usually has less overbreak. As such, tt is
Tunnelling is not a risk free technology. Drilling and
possible to maintain excavation preciseness with TBMs.
blasting system is quite challenging when tunnelling in
Based upon the cost and quality requirements, the
populated areas. Not only is the work closer to people,
suggestions for the choice between a TBM or a DBM
structures and utilities, but environmental concerns about
tunnel are given in table 6.
blasting effects on flora fauna and water resources need
to be considered. In addition, government scrutiny of
REQUIREMENT PREFERRED REMARKS
commercial explosives activities due to terrorist incidents
and continuing threats have increased public fears METHOD
regarding the applications of explosives in urban Low capital cost DBM Mobilization for
environment. DBM is much
faster than
On the other hand, premature surrender to TBMs, TBM tunnels
sometimes becomes a costly decision. The sensitivity of Low supporting TBM Except in very
TBMs to changes in actual conditions increases the cost poor rocks
probability of involved risks. During excavation, the Accurate alignment TBM DBM can be
situation can become critical at any minute, meter and accurate with
under any circumstance. In some cases, the failure of a survey QA/QC
TBM necessitates the last minute switch to DBM. When Smooth tunnel TBM
blasting methods are introduced at the last minute Excavation TBM Generally less
without having proper planning and controls in place, the preciseness overbreak with
risks of blasting problems are increased. TBM drive
During TBM excavation, the rock support in general Table 6. Preferred tunnelling method based upon the
is installed from within protected and shielded areas. costs and tunnel quality requirements.
Absence of blasting fumes and related problems inside
the tunnel provides improved working environment. 5. CONCLUSIONS
Suggestions for the choice between TBM and DBM TBM tunnel excavation represents a large
on the basis of environmental and safety requirements investment in the decision making process with
have been given in table 5. inflexibility with regard to changes in diameter and small
radius curves and challenging vertical and horizontal
alignments. As such, the use of TBMs for near 9. Merguerian, Charles, 2005, “Lithologic and structural
horizontal excavation alignments can be a potentially constraints on TBM tunnelling in New York City”,
rapid excavation and rock support method for rock Rapid excavation and tunnelling conference, 2005,
tunnels. Proceedings Society of Mining , Metallurgy and
On the other hand, DBM is very flexible and Exploration, Seattle, USA, pp. 704-724.
adaptable with comparatively lower advance rates. That 10. Nord, Gunnar, 2006, “TBM Vs drill and blast, the
being said, there is a need for careful planning for the choice of tunnelling method”, International
optimum selection of tunnelling alternatives, because a conference and exhibition on tunnelling and
wrong choice can lead to costly and time consuming trenchless technology, March 7-9, Malaysia, pp.
consequences. 205-218.
In this study, the suggestions for the selection of a 11. Nord, G. and Stille, H., 1988, “ Bore and blast
tunnelling method based upon tunnel parameters, techniques in different types of rocks: Sweden’s
boreability, geological conditions, equipment operating Experience” Tunnelling and underground space
requirements, power needs, environmental and safety technology, Vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 45-50.
constraints, costs and tunnel quality requirements have 12. Ramamurthy, T., 2008, “Penetration rates of TBMs”,
been made. The suggestions made in this paper may World tunnelling conference 2008- Underground
help facilitate the selection of the tunnelling method for a facilities for better environment and safety, India, pp.
project or produce further investigation into the selection 1552-1563.
criteria and viability for each method during the design 13. Tseng Y., Wong, S., Chu, B., Wong, C., 1998, “The
th
and contract bidding stages. Further research and Pinglin mechanized tunnelling in difficult ground”, 8
review of project specific case studies in North America congress of IAEG, September 21-25, Vancouver
should to be investigated to determine the validity of the Canada, 6 pages.
penetration rates when rock quality has been a factor in
the tunnel equipment selection decision making process.
6. REFERENCES
1. Barla, G. and Barla, M., 1998, “Tunnelling in difficult
conditions”, Int. conf. on Hydro power development
in Himalayas, April 20-22, Shimla, India, 19 pages.
2. Barla, G. and Pelliza, S., 2000, “TBM tunnelling in
difficult ground conditions” GeoEngineering 2000,
International conference on Geotechnical and
geological engineering, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 1-
20.
3. Barton, N., 2000, “Rock mass classification for
choosing between TBM and srill and blast system or
a hybrid solution”, Tunnels and underground
structures, Ed. Zhao , Shirlaw and Krishnan, pp. 35-
50.
4. Bruland, A. 1998, “Future demands and
development trends”, Norvegian TBM tunnelling,
publication no. 11, NFF, Oslo, pp. 99-103.
5. Grandori, R., Jager, M., Antonini, F., Vigl, L., 1995,
“Evinos-Mornos Tunnel-Greece. Construction of a 30
km long hydraulic tunnel in less than three years
under the most adverse geological conditions”,
Rapid excavation and tunnelling conference, San
Fransisco, pp. 747-767.
6. Grimscheid, Gerhard and Schexnayder, Cliff, 2002,
“Drill and blast tunnelling practice” Practice
periodical on structural design and construction,
August 2002, pp. 125-133.
7. Hassanpour, J., Rostami, J. and Zhao, J., 2011, “A
new hard rock TBM performance prediction model
for project planning”, Tunnelling and underground
space technology, 26 (2011), pp. 595-603.
8. Kovari K., Fechtig R., Amstad Ch., 1993,
“Experience with large diameter tunnel boring
machines in Switzerland” Int congress, Option for
tunnelling, ITA, Amsterdam, 14 pages.
