Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Estimating torque, thrust and other design parameters of different type

TBMs with some criticism to TBMs used in Turkish tunneling projects
Ugur Ates, Nuh Bilgin ⇑, Hanifi Copur
Istanbul Technical University, Mining Engineering Department, 34469 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It is crucially important to select a proper TBM and define its basic specifications such as installed cutter-
Received 16 April 2013 head torque and TBM thrust capacities for a special job. Underestimation of these parameters would
Received in revised form 9 September 2013 reduce excavation performance. In order to generate a general guidance on determination of some of
Accepted 19 September 2013
TBM specifications, a database including 262 TBMs’ design parameters is established. The statistical rela-
Available online 15 October 2013
tionships between the design parameters of 262 TBMs (72 open, 24 single shield, 41 double shield, 86 EPB
and 39 slurry TBMs) manufactured after 1985 in the world are investigated and theoretical concepts
Keywords:
behind the relationships between TBM diameter and installed thrust capacity, nominal cutterhead torque
TBM selection
TBM specifications
capacity, total weight, maximum rotational speed of cutterhead, and number of disc cutters are dis-
Thrust cussed. Some of the correlations between these parameters are found to be strong. The results are sum-
Torque marized in a table given upper and lower limits of predicted values. At the end, some data obtained in
TBM diameter different 30 tunnels excavated in different geological conditions with different TBMs in Turkey are dis-
Weak ground cussed to test the validity of predictor equations developed within the frame of this study.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction common types. EPB and slurry TBMs make possible to give a face
pressure to counterbalance the earth pressures to provide for sta-
Tunnel boring machine (TBM) technology has been improved bility at face and on surface, and safety of machine and crew in
steadily and the use of TBMs has been increased after introduction unstable weak grounds under water table.
of modern tunnel boring machines in early 1950s. TBMs provide a Two important design parameters, which are available cutter-
safe working area for crew, high advance rates in favorable ground head torque and TBM thrust capacity, should also be properly de-
conditions and minimal ground disturbance. When ground condi- fined for any project in addition to proper selection of TBM type.
tions are reasonably good, a TBM may be two or four times faster There were many projects driven by different types of TBMs suf-
than drilling and blasting (Barton, 1999). However, initial capital fered from inadequate cutterhead torque and/or TBM thrust capac-
cost of a TBM is very high and manufacturing process takes too ity (Farmer et al., 1987; Nelson et al., 1992; Jancsecz et al., 1999;
long time making the proper selection and design of a TBM a very Bilgin and Algan, 2012). Therefore, prediction of these two param-
important factor in decision making for specific geological eters is very important for a successful TBM driven tunneling
parameters. project.
Suitable TBM type for a project should be selected to avoid Many studies were performed for predicting thrust and torque
problems; however, a universal method for TBM selection has requirement of open type hard rock TBMs. Farmer et al. (1987)
not been developed yet. German Committee for Underground Con- analyzed the variation of TBM torque, power, thrust, and penetra-
struction DAUB (1997) and AITES-ITA Working Group No. 14 tion rate with the rock strength and TBM diameter for hard rock
(2000) published general guidelines for TBM selection. In general, TBMs using V-type disc cutters. Norwegian Institute of Technology
types of TBMs can be separated into two groups: hard rock TBMs (NTH) generated a large hard rock TBM database for developing an
and soft ground TBMs. Hard rock TBMs can be generally classified empirical performance prediction model including torque and
into two groups as open type and shielded type (single shield and thrust estimations (Lislerud, 1988; NTH, 1994). Nelson et al.
double shield). Although there are some other types, soft ground (1992) analyzed a large TBM project database in terms of machine
TBMs can be classified into two general groups such as earth pres- utilization time, advance per revolution and thrust forces for hard
sure balance (EPB) TBMs and slurry TBMs, since they are the most rock applications. Rostami and Ozdemir (1993) developed a force
estimation model based on a database of laboratory rock cutting
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 212 2856159; fax: +90 212 2856131. tests by using constant cross section disc cutters, of which the
E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Bilgin). model was also suggested to be used for V-type disc cutters for a

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.09.004
 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63 47

given tip width or blunting width, and used the tool forces for 2. Background on prediction of cutterhead torque and TBM
deterministic estimation of thrust and torque requirement of hard thrust capacities
rock TBMs. Howarth (1994) gave some results of a large database
of TBM driven tunnel projects, which included some general scat- 2.1. Cutterhead torque requirement of slurry and EPB TBMs for soft
ter plots related to tunnel lengths, TBM diameters, and project real- ground
ization years. Stack (1995) established a very comprehensive
database of TBM specifications including the ones manufactured The most widely used empirical model for predicting installed
up to 1995. Askilsrud and Moulton (1998) gave deterministic rela- cutterhead torque of soft ground TBMs is as follows (JSCE, 2007):
tionships for estimation of torque, power and thrust requirement
hard rock TBMs. Kahraman (2007) analyzed statistically some of T ¼ a  D3 ð1Þ
TBM design parameters for the TBMs manufactured from 1953 to where (T) is cutterhead torque (kN m), (D) is excavation diameter of
1994 and found some relationships between some of design the TBM (m) and (a) is torque factor. The torque factor depends on
parameters without distinguishing the type of TBMs. machine properties and soil conditions. It is generally taken be-
Barton (1999) and Barton (2000) reviewed a wide range of TBM tween 10 and 25 for EPB TBMs, 8 and 20 for slurry TBMs (JSCE,
tunnels and established a database for creating a new TBM perfor- 2007). However, this estimation gives a quite rough estimate in a
mance prediction model based on Q rock mass classification sys- very wide range for especially large diameter TBMs. Underestima-
tem for shielded hard rock TBMs. tion of the torque factor leads an insufficient torque which would
TBMs used in squeezing ground conditions require more thrust cause cutterhead blockages and its overestimation leads unneces-
and cutterhead torque than other TBMs. Comprehensive studies sarily powerful TBM which would cost more.
were made and empirical methods were developed for predicting Shi et al. (2011) suggested a theoretical model for estimation of
thrust and torque requirement of TBMs used in squeezing and/or net cutterhead torque requirement of EPB TBMs as sum of 8
swelling ground (Farrokh et al., 2006, 2009; Ramoni, 2010; Ramoni components:
and Anagnostou, 2010a,b,c; Ramoni and Anagnostou, 2011; Bilgin
and Algan, 2012). Barla (2000) and Barla and Pelizza (2000) made T EPB ¼ T 1 þ T 2 þ T 3 þ T 4 þ T 5 þ T 6 þ T 7 þ T 8 ð2Þ
some recommendations about TBM excavation in difficult ground where (TEPB) is total (net) cutterhead torque requirement of an EPB
conditions. TBM, (T1) is friction torque on frontal surface of cutterhead plate,
There are also some empirical methods developed for predict- (T2) is friction torque on circular side surface of cutterhead, (T3) is
ing thrust and torque requirement of soft ground TBMs (Maidl friction torque on back surface of cutterhead plate, (T4) is torque
et al., 1996; German Committee for Underground Construction of cutting the ground by cutting tools, (T5) is shearing torque on cut-
(DAUB), 2005; Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), 2007, Bilgin terhead openings, (T6) is torque of agitating the ground by mixing/
et al., 2008; Bilgin and Algan, 2012), in addition to theoretical ones stirring bars, (T7) is torque of rotation of main bearing, and (T8) is
(Song et al., 2010; Shi et al., 2011). Also, TBM manufacturers have torque of cutterhead sealing. The estimation of 8 torque compo-
their own confidential estimation methods for TBM design nents is explained below as suggested by Shi et al. (2011).
parameters. Friction torque on frontal surface (T1) is estimated as:
Analysis of the literature indicates that estimation/prediction
models of installed TBM thrust and cutterhead torque for different p  D3
T1 ¼  ðK 0 Þ  l1  c  H  ð1  gÞ ð3Þ
types of TBMs are either very complicated requiring many machine 12
features, which are very difficult to obtain or unknown before the where (K0) is coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, (l1) is fric-
construction or bidding process, or they are out of date since the tion coefficient between cutterhead and earth material, (c) is unit
TBM technology has been improved. On the other hand, there is weight of ground, (H) is overburden depth, (g) is opening ratio of
not much model or information about some other parameters such the cutterhead.
as TBM weight, number of cutters, and maximum cutterhead rota- Friction torque on circular side surface of cutterhead (T2) is esti-
tional speed. Therefore, any databases on TBM specifications mated as:
should be renewed from time to time, and the data should be well
classified based on purpose of end use. p  D2
T2 ¼  ð1 þ K 0 Þ  l1  c  H  t ð4Þ
A large database of specifications of different types of TBMs and 4
project information along with the geological conditions to some
where (t) is thickness of the circular side surface of cutterhead.
extend and excavation performance is generated in this study.
Friction torque on back surface of cutterhead plate (T3) is esti-
The database includes design parameters/specifications of total
mated as:
262 TBMs (72 open, 24 single shields, 41 double shields, 86 EPB,
and 39 slurry TBMs) manufactured after 1985 in the world until p  D3
now. Relationships between TBM specifications are analyzed sta-
T3 ¼  K 0  l1  c  H  ð1  gÞ  fDp ð5Þ
12
tistically. Simple statistical models are developed for predicting
where (fDp) is coefficient related to the difference between chamber
some of TBM design parameters such as installed cutterhead tor-
and earth pressures, which can be assumed to be unity for a well-
que, TBM thrust, TBM total weight (shield + backup), number of
controlled face pressure case.
cutters, and maximum cutterhead rotational speed by using cut-
Torque of cutting the ground by cutting tools (T4) is estimated
terhead (excavation) diameter as the only predictor. Results of
as:
the models developed are compared with results of the theoretical
models given in literature. Effects of some parameters used in the- X
m
b m
oretical models on TBM design parameters are analyzed. Finally, T4 ¼ ½c þ K  c  ðH  Li Sin hi Þ  tan u  w    tan a  Li ð6Þ
i¼1
360 n
the model estimations are validated based on a large number of
case histories (more than 30 cases) in connection with some geo- where (Li) is the distance between the (ith) cutter and the center of
logical properties. It is expected that this study would give a gen- cutterhead, (m) is the number of the cutters fixed on cutterhead, (hi)
eral and simple (preliminary) guidance to decision makers on is the angle of (ith) cutter with respect to the horizontal plane, (u) is
selection of TBM type and determination of its basic design param- internal friction angle of the soil, (v) is the thrust (advance) speed of
eters for any given geological condition and TBM diameter. EPB shield, (n) is the rotational speed of cutterhead, (b) is the angle
48 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63

between two adjacent cutters in the circular direction, (w) is the torque requirement, and does not suggest any safety factor leaving
width of cutter, (a) is the front rake angle of the chisel type cutting it to the manufacturers.
tool. It should also be noted that for estimation of cutterhead torque,
Shearing torque on cutterhead openings (T5) is estimated as: only soil pressure should be used; buoyancy effect of the water on
the soil load and weight of the water are not taken into consider-
p  D3 ation. According to the best knowledge of the authors, TBM manu-
T5 ¼  kq  g  s ð7Þ
12 facturers perform their estimations by using only soil pressure;
where (s) is shear modulus of soil and (kq) is a coefficient related to however, there is not any suggestion in literature on this respect.
shear area.
Torque of agitating the ground by mixing/stirring bars (T6) is 2.2. Cutterhead torque requirement for open, single and double shield
estimated as: TBMs
nb
X
T6 ¼ c  ðH  Rb Sin hi Þ  Db  Lb  fc  nb  Rb ð8Þ Cutterhead torque requirement of an open TBM (TOPEN) can be
i¼1 determined by only calculating cutting torque (T4-OPEN). Since open
TBMs are used for excavation of hard rocks, the estimation of
where (Rb) is distance between the bar and the centerline of shield,
(T4-OPEN) is suggested as follows (Bilgin et al., 2008):
(hi) is angle of the plane through the axes of the bar and the shield
with respect to the horizontal plane, (Db) is diameter of the bar, (Lb) XNC
D
is length of the bar, (fc) is friction coefficient between the earth and T OPEN ¼ T 4-OPEN ¼ ri  F R  F L  NC  F R   F L ð11Þ
i¼1
4
the steel bar, and (nb) is number of bars.
Torque of rotation of main bearing (T7) is estimated as: where (TOPEN) is total (net) cutterhead torque requirement of an
open TBM (due to cutting the rock), (ri) is distance of (ith) cutter
T 7 ¼ F  lr  Rt þ W c  Rr  lr ð9Þ
from the cutterhead center, (NC) is number of cutters, (FR) is mean
where (F) is thrust force of applied to the cutterhead, (Rt) is distance rolling (cutting) force acting on a disc cutter for a given advance
from the thrust acting point to the centerline of shield, (lr) is coef- (depth of cut) per revolution of cutterhead, (FL) is a constant for
ficient of rolling resistance, (Wc) is weight of cutterhead, and (Rr) is loses due to friction between cutters and excavated earth material
radius of radial roller bearing. and can be taken as 1.2 for disc cutters. Mean rolling force acting
Torque of cutterhead sealing (T8) is estimated as: on a cutter (FR) can be found by rock cutting experiments, theoret-
ical and/or empirical estimations (Rostami and Ozdemir, 1993). The
T 8 ¼ 2p  R2s  F s  ns  ls ð10Þ estimation given in Eq. (11) is for net cutterhead torque of hard rock
where (Fs) is positive pressure applied on the sealing rings, (Rs) is TBMs, does not include losses in reduction gears and main bearing,
radius of the sealing ring, (ns) is number of the sealing rings, (ls) and requires a safety factor.
is frictional coefficient between sealing material and steel. Estimation of net cutterhead torque requirement of single or
Shi et al. (2011) considered that the most important torque double shield TBMs (TSS-DS) requires only torque components of
components were T1, T2, T3 and T6 for EPB TBMs. These 4 compo- T1-SS-DS, T2-SS-DS, and T4-SS-DS as follows (Wen et al., 2012):
nents cover between 57% and 89% of total torque (Song et al., T SS-DS ¼ T 1-SS-DS þ T 2-SS-DS þ T 4-OPEN ð12Þ
2010; Shi et al., 2011). Since agitating torque is lower in slurry
TBMs, due to lower unit weight of the muck in pressure chamber, where (TSS-DS) is total (net) cutterhead torque requirement of a sin-
T1, T2 and T3 are the most important components of torque for slur- gle or double shield hard rock TBM, (T1-SS-DS) is cutterhead torque
ry TBMs. Moreover, opening ratio of the cutterhead deeply affects requirement due to friction between frontal surface of cutterhead
T1 and T3. Estimating the sum of only these 4 components and and excavated ground (muck), (T2-SS-DS) is cutterhead torque
increasing the result by multiplying with a factor between 1.1 requirement due to friction between circular side surface of cutter-
and 1.7 would give upper and lower limits for total torque require- head and ground, and (T4-OPEN) is cutterhead torque requirement of
ment of TBM and make the estimations simpler, since the estima- an open or shielded hard rock TBM for cutting the rock as given in
tions of other torque components require detailed knowledge of Eq. (11). According to the best knowledge of the authors, there is no
TBM specifications which is usually difficult to obtain for a contrac- suggested method in literature for estimation of (T1-SS-DS) and
tor company before manufacturing the TBM. However, the range of (T2-SS-DS); however, it can be noted that these torque values are de-
correction factor being between 1.1 and 1.7 is still a wide range pended on how much blocky of the excavated ground and frictional
similar to the range of torque factor (a) being between 10 and 25. coefficient between the loosened ground and cutterhead metal
The other issue with the theoretical torque estimation sug- surfaces.
gested by Shi et al. (2011) is that estimation of earth pressures
based on overburden depth (H) and unit weight of soil (c). They 2.3. Thrust requirement of slurry and EPB TBMs for soft grounds
suggested estimating total pressure by using whole overburden
depth (H) instead of using only arching height ignoring the arching Total thrust requirement of the soft ground TBMs is suggested
effect and effect of ground water. The arching overburden due to as sum of 5 thrust components by Japan Society of Civil Engineers
plasticization of a zone around the tunnel opening as a result of JSCE, 2007:
a stress relief generates a load carrying zone. Only this zone is car-
F ¼ F1 þ F2 þ F3 þ F4 þ F5 ð13Þ
ried by the tunnel support, not the whole overburden. The height
of this zone is usually around 2 times the tunnel diameter, where (F) is total thrust (normal) force requirement of the soft
although it might be very smaller or higher depending on the geo- ground TBMs, (F1) is thrust force required to overcome friction
logical conditions. The experimental setup of Shi et al. (2011) for (adhesion) between shield and ground due to earth pressure, (F2)
validation purpose was arranged so that overburden depth was is thrust force required to overcome the chamber pressure acting
around 4 times of TBM diameter (D). Taking the overburden height on bulkhead, (F3) is thrust force required to overcome the drive
as being 4D would result in overestimated values of earth pres- force caused by direction changes in curved alignments (If the tun-
sures for many cases. On the other hand, the method does not in- nel is straight; (F3) is taken to be 0), (F4) is thrust force required to
clude any losses on reduction gears, which can be assumed as net overcome the frictional force acting between the segments and the
 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63 49

tail seals, and (F5) is thrust force required to overcome the hauling with one exception that is thrust force required to overcome cham-
force of trailing (backup) units (If the backup is self-propelled; (F5) ber pressure acting on bulkhead (F2), which is not necessary for any
is taken to be 0). The estimation of 5 thrust components is ex- type of hard rock TBMs.
plained below as suggested by JSCE, 2007. Open TBMs have no shield and the main component of total
Thrust force required for overcoming friction (adhesion) be- thrust is normal force acting on the cutters for a given advance
tween shield and ground due to earth pressure (F1) is estimated by: (penetration) per revolution of cutterhead. For this reason, esti-
mating only pulling force required for backup trailers (F5), which
F 1 ¼ l1  ðp  D  Ls  P m þ W e Þ for sandy soils ð14Þ
has very little effect on total thrust, and thrust force required to
overcome the penetration force of cutting tools into the ground
F 1 ¼ C a  p  D  Ls for clayey soils ð15Þ
(F6) are enough for determining the thrust requirement of open
where (l1) is coefficient of friction between shield and ground, (D) TBMs.
is shield (or excavation) diameter, (Ls) is shield length, (Pm) is aver-
age earth pressures acting on shield, (We) is weight of shield ma- 2.5. Cutterhead torque and thrust estimation in difficult ground
chine, and (Ca) is adhesion force (between shield and cohesive soil). conditions
Thrust force required to overcome chamber pressure acting on
bulkhead (F2) is estimated by: The TBM performance in swelling grounds is badly affected and
p  D2 requires increased thrust and torque. If the ground has squeezing
F 2 ¼ rT  ð16Þ and/or swelling characteristics or heavily fractured and/or faulted,
4
it can be considered as a difficult ground. These geological condi-
where (rT) is face pressure acting on excavation chamber. tions should be taken into consideration for cutterhead torque
Thrust force required to overcome the drive force caused by and thrust estimations.
direction changes (F3) is estimated by: In squeezing and swelling grounds, overcutting and duration
Ls q time become important factors. The effect of squeezing and swell-
F 3 ¼ l1  D   ð17Þ ing conditions on TBM performance was investigated by Barla and
2 2
Pelizza (2000), Farrokh et al. (2006, 2009), Ramoni (2010), Ramoni
where (q) is pressure imposed by shielded TBM direction change. and Anagnostou (2010a,b,c, 2011), and Bilgin and Algan (2012).
Thrust force required to overcome the frictional force acting be- The main reason of TBM squeezing is swelling clay minerals like
tween the segments and the tail seals (F4) is estimated by: smectite minerals. The type of cation present in clay minerals af-
F 4 ¼ l2  p  Do  Lsc  Pm ð18Þ fects the degree of swelling to a great extent, hence swelling pres-
sure. Na+, for example, will cause a high degree of swelling, while
where (l2) is coefficient of friction between seals and segments, Ca+ will cause a lower one. Usually under wet tunneling conditions
(Do) is outer diameter of segments, and (Lsc) is length of contact be- swelling pressure increases, blocking TBM shield and in most case
tween segment and tail. breaking concrete of support system. In such conditions, the need
Thrust force required to overcome the hauling force of trailing of thrust and torque to move the cutterhead increases
(backup) units (F5) is estimated by: tremendously.
F 5 ¼ l3  G ð19Þ
where (l3) is coefficient of friction between wheel and rail, and (G) 3. TBM database and statistical analysis
is weight of trailing gears (backup).
Thrust force to overcome the penetration force of the cutting A large database is generated in this study including specifica-
tools, assuming (F6), should also be added to the thrust require- tions of different types of TBMs and project information along with
ment estimation for a scientific completeness. Although (F6) is very the geological conditions to a limited extend and excavation per-
low compared to the other thrust components for soft grounds, it formance. The database includes design parameters/specifications
can be estimated by (Bilgin et al., 2008): of total 262 TBMs (72 open, 24 single shield, 41 double shield, 86
EPB, and 39 slurry TBMs) manufactured after 1985 in the world un-
F 6 ¼ NC  F N  F L ð20Þ til now. TBMs manufactured before 1985 are not used in this study,
where (NC) is number of cutters, and (FN) is mean normal force act- since these TBMs utilize V-type disc cutters, which has an impor-
ing on a cutter for a given advance (depth of cut) per revolution of tant effect on TBM’s thrust and torque. After 1985, manufacturers
cutterhead and can be obtained by experimentally or estimated by started to use constant cross-section (CCS) disc cutters and V-type
theoretical or empirical approaches, (FL) is a constant for loses due disc cutters only used in special conditions (Bilgin et al., 2012a).
to friction between cutters and excavated earth material and can be Moreover, TBM designs have also been changed/improved in paral-
taken as 1.2 for disc cutters, assuming the value of 1.2 of (FL) is valid lel to technological developments. It should also be mentioned that
for ripper cutters. the database contains TBMs with diameter larger than 4 m, with a
Similar to torque, not all of these parameters have a big influ- few exception of smaller diameters.
ence on total thrust and F1, F2 and F3 cover the largest proportion
of the total thrust requirement of a soft ground TBM. In order to 3.1. Correlations between TBM design parameters
make the estimations simpler, only these three parameters can
be used. This estimation method also requires a safety margin. Relationships between TBM diameter and other specifications
Maidl et al. (1996) gave also some recommendations for estima- are analyzed statistically in this section, since the literature survey
tion of thrust requirement, which is similar to estimations given indicates that TBM excavation diameter is very significant param-
by JSCE (2007). eter for defining the design parameters of any type of TBM along
with geological and geotechnical properties of excavated forma-
2.4. Thrust requirement of open, single and double shield TBMs tions. Simple statistical models are developed for predicting some
of TBM design parameters such as installed cutterhead torque, in-
Estimation of thrust requirement for single and double shield stalled TBM thrust, TBM total weight (shield + backup), number of
TBMs is considered to be similar to the ones for soft ground TBMs cutters, and maximum cutterhead rotational speed by using
50 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63

cutterhead (excavation) diameter as the only predictor. Different Earth pressure is a very important parameter affecting thrust
types of functions are tried for curve fitting and the one with the requirement of soft ground TBMs and it is used for estimation of
highest (R2) value is selected as a predictive equation. F1, F2, F3, and F4 having the largest proportion of total thrust
Correlations between TBM diameter and installed cutterhead requirement. The other important parameter is frictional coeffi-
torque are very strong for EPB and slurry TBMs (Fig. 1), which cient between shield and ground. By using lubrication, thrust
means that the TBM diameter has a very big effect on torque requirement can be reduced up to 50% (Gehring, 1996). It should
requirement of soft ground TBMs. This can be explained by work- also be noted that thrust requirements of slurry and EPB TBMs
ing principles of these TBMs. It is noticeable that the installed cut- are very close to each other (Fig. 2).
terhead torque of EPB TBMs, especially for large diameters, is far Thrust requirement of open TBMs, as expected, does not have
more than the other types of TBMs. This is considered to be related any significant correlation with diameter (Fig. 2), since normal
with the conditioned muck, which is used for face stabilization on force acting on a cutter (FN) is the most effective factor on estima-
EPB TBMs. The higher values of unit weight of the muck require tion of thrust requirement for these types of TBMs and it is directly
higher torque values on EPB TBMs compared to slurry TBMs, espe- related with rock strength and geological discontinuities.
cially for agitating the muck in the excavation chamber. There are 2 different thrust requirement/capacity for double
Strength of the relationships between TBM (excavation) diame- shield TBMs: main thrust and auxiliary thrust as seen in Fig. 2.
ter and installed cutterhead torque for hard rock TBMs are moder- Double shield TBMs use main thrust cylinders in ‘‘gripper mode’’
ate (Fig. 1). As expected, physical and mechanical properties of the and auxiliary thrust cylinders in ‘‘single shield mode’’. Since single
excavated rocks are important for hard rock TBMs and diameter shield mode used in fractured/unstable ground conditions which
alone cannot be used for estimation of cutterhead torque calcula- increases friction between shield and ground, and thrust cylinders
tion. Open TBMs have the lowest torque capacities. Single shield requires pushing forward both front and rear shields auxiliary
TBMs stand between open and double shield TBMs in terms of tor- thrust of a double shield TBM is higher than its main thrust. Main
que capacity. It is noticeable that some of the torque capacities of thrust capacity of double shield TBMs has a very close and similar
single and double shield TBMs are quite higher than the average. trend with open TBMs. However, because of the long and heavy
These TBMs are used in highly fractured (blocky) ground condi- shield, their main thrust capacity is slightly higher than thrust
tions and they have special design to cope with these ground types. capacity of open TBMs. It is also noticeable that auxiliary thrust
It should be remembered that there are very limited number of capacity of double shield TBMs has a very similar trend with thrust
data on the database for single and double shield TBMs, especially capacity of EPB TBMs; even it is higher than the thrust capacities of
for larger diameters which affects the correlations. all other types of TBMs. This could be related to the weights of dou-
Strength of the relationships between TBM (excavation) diame- ble shield TBMs, which is generally heavier than the other types
ter and TBM thrust capacity for different types of TBMs are not as and longer shield designs, which increases friction forces in frac-
strong as the relationship between TBM (excavation) diameter and tured and blocky geological conditions.
cutterhead torque capacity as seen in Fig. 2. This indicates that There are strong correlations between installed cutterhead tor-
other parameters such as geological and geotechnical parameters que and TBM thrust (Fig. 3), except for single and double shield
are more important than TBM diameter for determination of thrust TBMs, which can be related with limited number of data or their
capacities of different types of TBMs. Some of these geological and special designs. Depending on TBM type, the relationships between
geotechnical parameters are fractures in the rock, rock grain size, installed cutterhead torque and TBM thrust capacities are in the
uniaxial compressive strength, shear strength, and tensile strength. form of linear and power functions.
However, it was not possible to add these parameters in the pre- Correlations between TBM diameter and total TBM weight
dictor equations within the scope of this paper, since each project (shield machine + backup trailers) are presented in Fig. 4 for differ-
is not possible to be represented with a single value of these ent types of TBMs. Weight of TBMs increases with TBM diameter.
parameters. Open TBMs are generally the lightest ones in any size because of

Fig. 1. Relationships between TBM (excavation) diameter and installed torque capacity for different types of TBMs.
 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63 51

Fig. 2. Relationships between TBM (excavation) diameter and installed TBM thrust capacity for different types of TBMs.

Fig. 3. Relationships between installed cutterhead torque and installed TBM thrust capacities for different types of TBMs.

their design and double shield TBMs are the heaviest ones. All cutters than other types, while single shield TBMs have the least
TBMs have generally similar/close weights up to around 8–9 m cutter number. The open TBMs stand between double and single
TBM diameter. As the diameter increases, especially over 8–9 m shield TBMs. Up to around 10 m of diameter, disc cutters number
of TBM diameter, weight difference between TBM types increases of EPB TBMs are lower than the disc cutter number of open, single
for a given diameter. All TBMs have relationships with the diame- and double shield TBMs; however, they use more cutters than
ter in the form of power or exponential functions. these types of TBMs after around 10 m of diameter. Fig. 5 also indi-
There is a strong linear correlation between TBM diameter and cates that TBM manufacturers are arranging similar line spacings
number of disc cutters (Fig. 5), as expected. By analyzing the rela- between the disc cutters for all types of TBMs, except for EPB TBMs.
tionships between TBM diameter and number of disc cutters, it is Correlations between TBM diameter and maximum cutterhead
possible to say that for hard rock TBMs cutter numbers are gener- rotational speed are presented in Fig. 6 for different types of TBMs.
ally same for a given diameter. However, for EPB and slurry TBMs, As the TBM diameter increases maximum cutterhead rotational
the number of disc cutters varies in a wide range, and because of speed reduces. It should be noted that rotational speeds vary in a
the limited data on number of disc cutters of slurry TBMs, any cor- wide range and only correlation for open TBMs is strong. Maxi-
relations cannot be found. Double shield TBMs have slightly more mum cutterhead rotational speed of hard rock TBMs are close to
52 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63

Fig. 4. Relationships between TBM diameter and total TBM weight (machine + backup) for different types of TBMs.

Fig. 5. Relationships between TBM diameter and number of disc cutters for different types of TBMs.

each other and they are quite higher than of the soft ground TBMs Especially geological and geotechnical parameters are very impor-
for especially smaller diameters. For the same diameter, the revo- tant to make a reliable prediction. It should be remembered that
lution in double shield TBM is higher than in single shield TBM. some geological conditions, like weak and fractured ground, need
This is mostly because the insufficient number of data on the special TBM design for reasonable advance rates (Ramoni, 2010;
TBM database used in this study. As similar, maximum cutterhead Ramoni and Anagnostou, 2010a,b,c, 2011).
rotational speeds of slurry and EPB TBMs are also close to each
other. The difference between the maximum cutterhead revolution 3.2. Comparison between the results obtained from statistical
speeds is basically due to their cutters that they utilize. Maximum equations derived from the database and the results obtained from
allowable cutter speed is around 150–180 m/min for disc cutters theoretical concepts
(Ozdemir, 1995), while it is 15 to 20 m/min for ripper cutters used
in soft ground TBMs (JSCE, 2007). Results obtained from theoretical concepts and statistical equa-
Significant correlations are found between TBM diameter and tions derived from the database are compared for installed cutter-
other TBM specifications. For all TBM types, installed cutterhead head torque and TBM thrust in this section. Without a detailed
torque and TBM thrust increase with increasing TBM (excavation) geological data, which is partly available on the database, installed
diameter. However, as can be seen from the scatter of the data, it cutterhead torque and TBM thrust cannot be predicted accurately.
may be concluded that diameter is not the only important param- For this reason, some general assumptions are made for the
eter for determining installed cutterhead torque and TBM thrust. required geotechnical parameters and all of the assumed
 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63 53

Fig. 6. Correlations between TBM diameter and maximum cutterhead rotational speed for different types of TBMs.

Fig. 7. Comparison of installed and estimated torque for open TBMs.

geotechnical parameters are presented in the related figures and values. This indicates that open TBMs are usually designed for
within the manuscript. The model developed by Rostami and Ozd- approximately 150 MPa of UCS.
emir (1993) is used for estimation of rolling force (FR) and normal A similar estimation is performed for single and double shield
force (FN) acting on a disc cutter. TBMs. The data for TBMs used in fractured formations are sepa-
rated from the others, and new correlations are found between
TBM diameter and installed cutterhead torque for weak ground
3.2.1. Comparison of installed cutterhead torque conditions.
Only cutting torque (T4-OPEN) (Eq. 11) is used for comparison for For comparison, only cutting torque (Eq. 11) is first estimated
open TBMs. Different cutting torque values are estimated for differ- and plotted in Fig. 8. Then, friction torques on frontal surface and
ent TBM diameters and different uniaxial compressive strength circular side surface of the cutterhead (Eqs. 3 and 4) is estimated
(UCS) values. For torque estimations, the number of disc cutters and added to cutting torque for weak zone conditions causing face
for each TBM diameter is estimated by using the relationships gi- collapses and jamming of the TBM cutterhead (T = T1 + T2 + T4-OPEN).
ven in Fig. 5 and disc diameter and width of disc cutters are taken However, from the field data, it was not apparent to differentiate
as 432 mm (17 in.) and 13 mm, respectively. The results are plotted between two concepts. Parameters used in the estimations are gi-
in Fig. 7. As it is seen, installed cutterhead torque values from the ven in Fig. 8 as being overburden depth (H) of 2D, cutter spacing (s)
database stand between the estimated values for different UCS of 8 cm, penetration (p) of 10 mm, cutterhead opening ratio (n) of
54 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63

Fig. 8. Comparison of installed and estimated torque for single and double shield TBMs.

20%, frictional coefficient (l1) of 0.25, soil unit weight (c) of 26 kN/ cutterhead torque, only soil pressure should be used; buoyancy ef-
m3, and coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K0) of 0.5. fect of the water on the soil load and weight of the water are not
Using only cutting torque in estimations gives close results to taken into consideration.
the installed cutterhead torque for some of the TBMs. However, The additives used to condition the muck can make the soil
it is far beyond the installed torque in some cases. The data indi- plasticized and reduce the friction on EPB and slurry TBMs (Her-
cates that, in these cases, TBMs are generally used in highly frac- renknecht, 1994; Nomoto et al., 1999; Shi et al., 2011). Therefore,
tured grounds, which increases friction between cutterhead and friction coefficients are used for lubricated conditions (0.1 and
rock. Moreover, in highly fractured grounds, rocks flow through 0.15 for slurry TBMs, 0.1, 0.15 and 0.2 for EPB TBMs) in the estima-
the openings on the cutterhead, which requires very high torque tions. Lubrication process on EPB TBMs heavily depends on the
values. By analyzing Fig. 8, it can be said that cutting torque foam and additives used to condition the muck; thus, a higher fric-
(T4-OPEN) can be used alone for torque calculation for generally sta- tion coefficient (0.2) is also used for calculations.
ble conditions and friction forces acting on cutterhead (T1 and T2) Comparison of installed and estimated cutterhead torque for
must be added to the cutting torque for weak and fractured slurry TBMs is presented in Fig. 9 for 100, 300 and 500 kPa of hor-
conditions. izontal earth pressures (rh), cutterhead opening ratio (n) of 40%,
Frictional torque on cutterhead’s frontal (T1), circular (T2) and and cutterhead thickness (t) of 0.7 m. Since the slurry mixture
back surface (T3) (Eqs. (2-4)) are used for estimation of installed lubricates the cutterhead, lubricated dynamic friction coefficients
cutterhead torque for EPB and slurry TBMs. Although the agitating (0.1 and 0.15) are used for estimations and horizontal earth pres-
torque (T6) is also an important parameter, it is not used here since sure values at the center of the cutterhead are varied to see the ef-
it requires some variables being very difficult to obtain and varying fect of geology. As seen, the installed cutterhead torque trend falls
based on different manufacturers, e.g. diameter, number, position, on to the trend estimated for 0.15 of frictional coefficient at
and length of agitating bars. Then, the results are increased by 25% 100 kPa of horizontal earth pressure up to the 11 m of TBM diam-
for slurry TBMs and 35% for EPB TBMs to add the effects of the eter, and then, approaches to the trend estimated for 0.1 of fric-
other parameters. Although the geology could be very different, tional coefficient at 300 kPa of horizontal earth pressure for TBM
assuming that the geological conditions are the same, only fric- diameters greater than 11 m.
tional coefficients and TBM diameter are varied in the estimations. Installed and estimated torque comparison for EPB TBMs is seen
According to estimations made by Song et al. (2010) and Shi et al. in Fig. 10 for 100, 300 and 500 kPa of horizontal earth pressures
(2011) for EPB TBMs, frictional torque on back surface (T3) of the (rh), cutterhead opening ratio (n) of 30%, and cutterhead thickness
cutterhead is between 37% and 96%, with an average value of (t) of 0.7 m. Similar to slurry TBMs, different friction coefficients
64%, of the frictional torque on cutterhead’s frontal surface (T1). and earth pressure values are used in estimations. It is possible
Thus (T3) is taken as 65% of the (T1) for EPB TBMs, and since the to say that the installed values are between the limits of estimated
unit weight of the soil in pressure chamber of a slurry TBM is lower values being closer to the upper limits. EPB TBMs are used in prac-
and it is more liquid than the soil in an EPB TBMs pressure cham- tice up to 500 kPa of face pressure, which supports the calculations.
ber, (T3) is taken as 50% of the (T1) for slurry TBMs. It should also be It should be remembered that dynamic friction coefficients for
remembered that as explained in the Section 2 for estimation of estimations and nominal torque values for comparisons are used.
 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63 55

Fig. 9. Comparison of installed and estimated torque for slurry TBMs.

Fig. 10. Comparison of installed and estimated torque for EPB TBMs.

To estimate breakout torque, which is required torque for restart Therefore, only (F6) is used for thrust estimations for open TBMs
the cutterhead after a standstill, static friction coefficients should (Eq. 20). Similar to torque estimations, only UCS of the rock and
be used. diameter of the TBM are varied and the estimations are compared
with installed nominal torque values from the database (Fig. 11).
3.2.2. Comparison of installed TBM thrust To add pulling force for the backup trailers and to add a safety mar-
The biggest proportion of the total thrust of an open TBM comes gin, results are increased by 25%. As can be seen in Fig. 11, installed
from the thrust force required to push disc cutters to the rock (F6). thrust values stands between the estimated values for line spacing
56 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63

Fig. 11. Comparison of installed and estimated thrust for open TBMs.

Fig. 12. Comparison of installed and estimated installed thrust for single and double shield TBMs.

(s) of 8 cm and penetration (p) of 10 mm. Average installed thrust shield is important, friction coefficient is varied along with TBM
values are close to the values estimated by using 150 MPa of UCS, diameter to see its effect on estimated installed thrust values.
which is similar to torque estimations. Estimated and installed thrust values for single and double
Thrust force required for overcoming friction between shield shield TBMs are presented in Fig. 12 for overburden depth (H) of
and ground (F1) consists of a very big proportion of total torque 2D, cutter spacing (s) of 8 cm, penetration (p) of 10 mm, cutterhead
on single and double shield TBMs. Therefore, this parameter is opening ratio (n) of 20%, soil unit weight (c) of 26 kN/m3, coeffi-
added to cutting thrust (F6) and the results are multiplied by a cient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K0) of 0.5, and frictional coef-
safety factor of 1.2. Since the friction between the ground and ficients (l1) of 0.12 (for lubricated dynamic case), 0.25 (for not
 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63 57

lubricated dynamic case) and 0.45 for (static friction case). For the increases. It should be noted that the earth pressure is also a func-
estimations, TBMs used in weak and fractured formations are sep- tion of TBM diameter, since the arching height, and thus the earth
arated, new correlations are found between TBM diameter and in- pressure, is a function of the size of the excavated opening. How-
stalled thrust for single and double shield TBMs. It is possible to say ever, for the sake of simplicity, they are considered as independent
that the friction coefficient clearly effects total thrust requirement of each other in these estimations.
of a TBM. This indicates that lubrication is a very important factor
as indicated by Gehring (1996). These results are in well agreement 3.3. Summary of statistically derived equations
with the findings of Ramoni and Anagnostou (2010a,b) and Bilgin
and Algan (2012). Moreover, it is also possible to say that thrust Summary of the statistically derived equations from accumu-
force required to cut the rock has also very limited effect on total lated data are presented in Table 1 for a quick reference to calcu-
thrust, which can clearly be seen in Fig. 12. late mean values of TBM thrust capacity, installed cutterhead
It should be remembered that jamming is also related with torque, total weight, number of disc cutters, and maximum rota-
overcutting and it is a time dependent phenomenon (Ramoni, tional speed within upper and lower limits (+/%) for all types of
2010; Ramoni and Anagnostou, 2010a,b). Thus, increasing overcut- TBMs for a given TBM diameter. Limits of equations are empirically
ting can reduce the required thrust in weak and fractured grounds; derived by manual drawings over the scatter diagrams covering
however, too much overcutting can cause misalignments. 100% of the data. And then, the related TBM design parameter is
It is also possible to say that TBMs used in highly fractured, estimated for several diameter values of arbitrarily selected. Final-
weak and fractured grounds have higher thrust values than esti- ly, the percent differences from the average estimated values are
mated ones. Thrust force required for these types of grounds can averaged to set the limits. The basic advantage of this approach
be estimated by increasing the arching height according to geol- is that it covers 100% of the data, in contrast to using a certain con-
ogy. Sometimes in these types of formations, arching height can fidence level. On the other hand, it has a basic disadvantage of hav-
be a lot higher than average. ing a wide range of estimated values. However, the results of such
Estimated and installed thrust capacities for slurry and EPB an approach can be used for preliminary/general purposes by the
TBMs are presented in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. To see the ef- decision makers at the far beginning of an excavation project.
fect of friction and geology, different frictional coefficients (l1 of Some of the statistical relationships are strong while others are
0.2 and 0.4) and earth pressures (Pm) values (100, 200, 300, 500, quite weak. The weak relationships are mainly due to some data
700, and 1000 kPa) are used for estimations. Unit weight of the soil gaps (insufficient data) and due to the dependency of the excava-
(c) is assumed to be 20 kN/m3 and coefficient of lateral earth pres- tion performance on geotechnical and geological conditions.
sure at rest (K0) is assumed to be 0.5. soil unit weight of 26 kN/m3, Therefore, the proposed correlations should be used cautiously
coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K0) of 0.5, and frictional and they are mainly derived to give the designer or practical engi-
coefficients (l1). neer a preliminary guide in decision making.
It is possible to say that the installed thrust values from the
database are generally between estimated values for all types of 4. Validation of the models for different types of TBMs used in
TBMs. Moreover, it should be remembered that face pressure is Turkey
an important parameter for thrust values, especially for slurry
TBMs, which can be used under 1200 kPa of pressure. As the face TBM specifications and project data of 31 tunnels currently
pressure increases, required thrust to overcome this pressure also under construction or completed in the past are summarized in

Fig. 13. Comparison of installed and estimated installed thrust capacities for slurry TBMs.
58 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63

Fig. 14. Comparison of installed and estimated thrust capacities for EPB TBMs.

Table 2 along with the installed cutterhead torque and TBM thrust in Ilicadere volcanites and Deveron volcanites (dacite, andesite,
values estimated by using the empirical equations given in Table 1. agglomerate and tuff). The mean daily advance rate changes be-
The data includes a variety of geological conditions from very hard tween 15.6 m and 20.9 m (including all stoppages) for 3 TBMs with
rock to soft soils and fractured-weak to squeezing formations, as a maximum daily advance rate of 63 m. Advance rates given are
well as every type of different TBMs. It is clearly seen in Table 2 the values obtained until April 2013; however, after this date,
that the installed cutterhead torque and thrust capacities are with- one of the machine faced with a tremendous water ingress and
in the upper and lower predicted values with few exceptions espe- the advance rates decreased dramatically.
cially in weak ground conditions. There are 5 cases (2 EPBs and 3 The main reason of selecting double shield TBM for this project
double shield TBMs with diameters between 3 and 5.5 m) out of was to obtain maximum advance rate in competent rock and to
more than 30 cases that the installed cutterhead torque values cope with problems encountered in the contact area of two differ-
are underestimated by the predictive equations. Only one case ent geologic formations. The contact zones between two different
(single shield) is overestimated by the predictive equations. These geological formations are usually weak and highly fractured caus-
cases are considered as the scatter of data on the database. The ing tunnel face collapses, jamming of the cutterhead and causing
validity of the predictor equations developed within this research sometimes several weeks to rescue the TBM. However, the perfor-
study will be criticized below separately for a few projects along mance values of TBMs are still within the best ones obtained in
with the detailed geological conditions. Gerede Tunnels, Kargi Turkey. As it will be noticed in Table 2, the installed TBM thrust
Water Tunnel, and Eskisehir-Kosekoy T26 Tunnel are under and cutterhead torque values are higher and stay in upper limits
construction; Bursa – Uluabat Hydropower Tunnel and Istanbul – of the mean values estimated by using predictor equations found
Beykoz Utility Tunnel has been completed. in this study. The main reason of this is the high demand of thrust
and torque values in the contact zones of two different rock
formations.
4.1. Ankara water project, gerede tunnels

It consists of driving 3 tunnels having total length of 31.5 km. 4.2. Kargi power tunnel
The tunnel excavations started in Gerede in 2012 and planned to
be terminated in Camlidere in 2014. It is intended to collect The Kargi Hydroelectric Power Plant consists of an earth dam
226  106 m3 of water in Gerede Basin to convey it to Camlidere approximately 500 m long and the intake to the power plant in
Dam for Ankara. A total length of 13 km of tunnels is excavated its northern end. An 11.8 km tunnel will be excavated from the in-
by the end of January 2013. take and northwards. A double shield Robbins TBM of 9.88 m
Three Herrenknecht double shield TBMs (S-690, 691, 692) of diameter is being currently working in the Western Tunnel; TBM
5.57 m in diameter are being currently used in the area. Uludere is equipped with 432 and 483 mm (17 and 19 in.) disc cutters.
pyroclastics (volcanic breccias, tuff), Markusa Formation (sand- The geology consists of Eocene aged Beynamaz volcanites
stone, shale, limestone, and volcanic sedimentary units) are domi- mainly of agglomerate, andezite, basalt and tuff and Kunduz Meta-
nant in the area where S-690 is progressing. S-691 is excavating in morphites and 2500 m mélange of Kirazbasi-Kargi Ophiolites and
Uludere pyroclastics, Markusa Formation, Sogukcam formation graphitic schist. Tunnel is intended to be finished in 36 months.
(limestone with cherts), and Ilicadere volcanites (agglomerate, To finish the tunnel in time, TBM should have a mean daily ad-
volcanic breccias, basalt, andesite and tuff). S-692 is progressing vance rate of 11 m. However, due to the geological difficulties,
 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63 59

Table 1
Statistically derived equations for prediction of TBM design parameters by using TBM diameter.

TBM type Installed TBM Installed cutterhead Total weight (ton) Number of disc cutters Maximum rotational
thrust (kN) torque (kN m) cutterhead speed (rpm)
Open F = 1777.1x + 377.7 T = 1089.3x  4188.8 W = 13.242x1.9076 NC = 5.5221x + 7.9216 RPM = 28.010x0.6641
R2 = 0.40 R2 = 0.63 R2 = 0.73 R2 = 0.95 R2 = 0.88
n = 72 n = 72 n = 34 n = 34 n = 11
Lower limit %37 Lower limit %53
Upper limit +%48 Upper limit +%47
Single shield F = 1459.8x1.4156 T = 187.7x1.6390 W = 14.482x2.0056 NC = 5.6216x + 4.9722 RPM = 0.629 + 11.409
R2 = 0.42 R2 = 0.66 R2 = 0.92 R2 = 0.95 R2 = 0.66
n = 18 n = 18 n = 14 n = 14 n = 16
Lower limit %62 Lower limit %45
Upper limit +%54 Upper limit +%59
Double shield Fa = 6435.1x – 20,032 T = 38.12x2.3546 W = 113.55e0.2752x NC = 6.0679x + 5.3588 RPM = 39.776x  0.8763
R2 = 0.63 R2 = 0.79 R2 = 0.71 R2 = 0.95 R2 = 0.37
n = 32 n = 32 n = 23 n = 21 n = 24
Lower limit %64 Lower limit %38
Upper limit +%71 Upper limit +%48
Fb = 2862.8x1.3569
R2 = 0. 97
n=7
Lower limit %34
Upper limit +%22
Single shield TBM in F = 635.83x2.3139 T = 7.99x3.3784 – – –
weak and fractured zone R2 = 0.87 R2 = 0.93
n=6 n=6
Lower limit %18 Lower limit %32
Upper limit +%23 Upper limit +%26
Double shield TBM Fa = 422.6x2.2254 T = 260.27e0.4504x – – –
in weak and R2 = 0.79
fractured zone n=4 R2 = 0.98
Lower limit %20 n = 11
Lower limit %28
Upper limit +%23 Upper limit +%11
Fb = 1066.4x2.0136
R2 = 0. 94
n = 10
Lower limit %24
Upper limit +%21
EPB F = 8972.6e0.2208x T = 13.438x3.154 W = 9.673x2.1956 NC = 8.8708x  24.142 RPM = 0.180x + 4.846
R2 = 0.79 R2 = 0.85 R2 = 0.87 R2 = 0.79 R2 = 0.17
n = 86 n = 86 n = 31 n = 24 n = 46
Lower limit %40 Lower limit %63
Upper limit +%47 Upper limit +%55
Slurry F = 10269e0.1997x T = 442.51e0.2925x W = 13.104x1.9784 – RPM = 0.289x + 6.258
R2 = 0.61 R2 = 0.88 R2 = 0.71 R2 = 0.24
n = 39 n = 39 n = 21 n = 27
Lower limit %46 Lower limit%38
Upper limit +%52 Upper limit +%56

Note: Equations having (R2) less than 0.7 need further studies and more parameters should be added into the predictor equations to get better (R2) values.
(x) is TBM diameter in m.
a
Main thrust.
b
Auxiliary thrust.

TBM could reach only a mean daily advance rate of 4.3 m by the Karakaya formation is the main formation in tunneling area with
August 2013. To reach to predetermined job duration time, it is Pazarcik mélange. Tunnel will pass through the pre-dominated
decided to open another tunnel from Eastern part of the tunnel line graphitic schist. Graphitic schist includes frequently chlorite schist
with drill and blast method which is in progress now. As it will be with size of some tens of meters and rarely marble shear bodies
noticed from Table 2, the installed torque and thrust values are with dimension of some few tens of meters. Graphitic schist is
underestimated and TBM jammed seven times in 2192 m of the medium weathered to fresh and very weak to weak and extremely
excavated length. Due to problems TBM’s torque was increased sheared along the foliation surface. Therefore, schistose surface is
to 41,000 kN m. polished and coated with clay. Thin quartz veins with size varying
from some centimeters to few centimeters are also foreseen.
4.3. Eskisehir-Kosekoy T26 tunnel for high speed railway project A hard rock single shield TBM was selected for this tunnel. Sev-
eral problems were encountered during tunnel drivage due to the
This is one of the most problematic tunnel ever been excavated jamming characteristic of the ground and machine was converted
with a TBM in Turkey. The tunnel is still in progress and only lim- to EPB and thrust and torque values of TBM were increased. Some-
ited data could be obtained for this tunnel due to current disputes times the geology encountered during tunneling is complex such
between the contactor, job owner, and TBM manufacturer. as in case of T26 tunnel in this paper. In such cases, it is strictly
Table 2

60
TBM projects from Turkey and comparison with statistical equations.

Project name TBM TBM type Diameter Installed Estimated Installed Estimated installed Maximum Estimated Mean Geological conditions and/or
(m) cutterhead cutterhead thrust thrust (kN) (rpm) Max. daily reference for detailed geological
torque (kN m) torque (kN m) (kN) (lower-upper) (rpm) advance conditions
limits rate (m)
Gerede Water Tunnel Herrenknecht S-690 Double shield 5.57 5200 1348–3218 24,400 5692–27,038A 10 9.0 20.9 This paper (Section 4.1)
Gerede Water Tunnel Herrenknecht S-691 Double shield 5.57 5200 1348–3218 24,400 5692–27,038A 10 8.8 16.3 This paper (Section 4.1)
Gerede Water Tunnel Herrenknecht S-692 Double shield 5.57 5200 1348–3218 24,400 5692–27,038A 10 8.8 15.6 This paper (Section 4.1)
Kargi Power TunnelC Robbins Double shield 9.88 22,300 5198–12,407d 52,040 15,667–74,465A d
5 5.3 4–6 This paper (Section 4.2)
Increased to 16,045–24,736e 93,000A 55,303–85,029A e

41,000
42,279–78,151B,d
81,616–129,962B,e
Suruc Water Tunnel Seli Double shield 7.88 4000 3051–7284 20,000 11,044–52,457A 7 6.5 15.7 Marl and clayey limestone
having sticking characteristics

U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63

causing clogging of the
cutterhead (Ilci et al., 2013)
Mavi Water Tunnel Seli Double shield 4.88 2367 987–2357 8544 4094–19,445A 10.9 15.1 Limestone, dolomite, sandstone,
volcanites, and shale
Tuzla Utility Tunnel Robbins 165-162 Double shield 5 1600 1046–2496 7850 4372–20,765 6 9.7 6.2 Shale and limestone, which are
cut frequently by diabase dykes
(Bilgin et al., 1999a,b)
Baltalimani Utility Tunnel Robbins 145-168 Open 4.5 1000 335–1048 7500 5276–12,395 10 10.3 7.2–3.1 Micritic and nodular limestone
and carbonate riche shale (Bilgin
et al., 1993)
Ermenek Power Tunnel Wirth Open 6.7 2020 1462–4572 112,00 7738–181,80 – 7.9 13.8 Limestone, mudstone,
sandstone, and serpentine
(Kocbay, 2007)
Istanbul Ankara High Speed Herrenknecht S-627 Single shield 13.77 16,100 7595–21,956b 84,426 22,717–92,064 4 2.7 – This paper (Section 4.3)
Railway Project T26C
Breakout: 38,267–70,907c 225,182–337,773c
24,100
Baltalimani – Sariyer Utility Herrenknecht Single shield 2.9 720 591–1709 3750 2504–10,148 10 10.1 11.5 Limestone, shale, sandstone,
Tunnel siltstone
Ayazaga – Cayirbasi Water Herrenknecth Single shield 3.115 1400 660–1906 11,000 2752–11,152 10 9.9 12 Sandstone, mudstone, and
Tunnel diabase and andesite dykes
(Balci and Ozaydin, 2012)
Beykoz Utility Tunnel Robbins Single Shield 3.2 530 694–2008 9950 2879–11,666 12 9.9 6.4 This paper (Section 4.5)
Uluabat Power TunnelC Herrenknecht Single shield 5.05 2500 822–3442a 29,000 16,418–40,225a 6.25 3.9 8.6 This paper (Section 4.4)
(open mode –
EPB mode)
1291–2393c 22,106–33,158c
Kozyatagi–Kadikoy Metro Herrenknecht-S- Single shield 6.57 5018 1884–7893a 42,575 22,966–56,265a 5 3.7 6.0 Sandstone, mudstone, and shale
Tunnel 360,S-363 (Open Mode – cut with several andezite and
EPB Mode) diabase dyke every 30–70 m
(Bilgin et al., 2008, 2009)
Uskudar-Umraniye- Herrenknecht-S- Single Shield 6.57 5018 1884–7893a 42,575 22,966–56,265a 5 3.7 6.0 Sandstone, arcosic sandstone,
Cekmekoy Metro Tunnel 360,S-363 (Open Mode – mudstone, siltstone, shale,
EPB Mode) limestone, andesite, and
quartzitic conglomerate (Namli
et al., 2013)
Kozyatağı-Kartal Metro Herrenknecht S- Single shield 6.57 5200 1884–7893a 42,500 22,966–56,265a 5.5 3.7 12.5 Limestone, mudstone and shale
505,S-506 (Open Mode –
EPB Mode
Kozyatağı-Kartal Metro Herrenknecht S- Single shield 6.57 5200 1884–7893a 42,500 22,966–56,265a 5.5 3.7 13.5 Limestone, mudstone and shale
505,S-506 (Open Mode –
EPB Mode
 Istanbul Ankara High Speed Herrenknecht S-627 Converted to 13.77 35,300 19,442–81,445 180,000 112,591–275,848 1.2 2.4 – This paper (Section 4.3)
Railway Project T26C EPB
Breakout: Max:
40,100 270,000
Ambarlı Utility Tunnel Herrenknecht EPB 4.6 3100 612–2565 16,625 14,865–36,421 7.2 4.0 13.7 Consolidated clay, claystone and
sand (Bilgili et al., 2007)
Selimpasa Utility Tunnel Herrenknecht EPB 2.966 1020 153–644 9650 10,363–25,389 6 5.9 14.2 Sandstone, shale, and claystone
(Copur et al., 2012)
Melen Water Tunnel Herrenknecth EPB 6.15 3600 1530–6409 49,260 20,932–51,282 6.5 3.7 8.2 –
Otogar – Kirazli Metro Herrenknecht EPB 6.5 4400 1822–7631 35,000 22,613–55,403 3 3.7 5.4 Clay, claystone, sand, and gravel
Tunnel (Ocak and Bilgin, 2009)
Otogar – Kirazli Metro Lovat EPB 6.5 4500 1822–7631 54,000 22,613–55,403 3 3.7 5.6 Clay, claystone, sand, and gravel
Tunnel (Ocak and Bilgin, 2009)
Basaksehir – Ikitelli Metro Lovat EPB 6.5 6600 1822–7631 54,000 22,613–55,403 2.1 3.7 3.5 Clay, claystone, sand, and gravel
Tunnel (Ocak and Bilgin, 2009)
Basaksehir – Ikitelli Metro Lovat EPB 6.5 6600 1822–7631 54,000 22,613–55,403 2.1 3.7 4.6 Clay, claystone, sand, and gravel
Tunnel (Ocak and Bilgin, 2009)

U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63

Marmaray Metro Tunnel Lovat EPB 6.5 2100 1822–7631 62,500 22,613–55,403 2 3.7 13.5 Consolidated clay, mudstone and
(Kazlicesme – Yenikapi) sandy-clayey formations
Marmaray Metro Tunnel Lovat EPB 6.5 2100 1822–7631 62,500 22,613–55,403 2 3.7 8.2 Consolidated clay, mudstone and
(Kazlicesme – Yenikapi) sandy-clayey formations
Marmaray Metro Tunnel Hitachi-Zosen TBM Slurry 7.85 4800 2726–6859 75,000 26,591–74,850 2 4.0 3.5 Interbedded sandstone, shale,
(Ayrilikcesme – Uskudar) 1 mudstone, and claystone (Bilgin
et al., 2012b)
Marmaray Metro Tunnel Hitachi-Zosen TBM Slurry 7.85 4800 2726–6859 750,00 26,591–74,850 2 4.0 6.4 Interbedded sandstone, shale,
(Ayrilikcesme – Uskudar) 2 mudstone, and claystone (Bilgin
et al., 2012b)
Marmaray Metro Tunnel Hitachi-Zosen TBM Slurry 7.85 4800 2726–6859 75,000 26,591–74,850 2 4.0 5.1 –
(Yenikapi – Sirkeci) 3
Marmaray Metro Tunnel Hitachi-Zosen TBM Slurry 7.85 4800 2726–6859 75,000 26,591–74,850 2 4.0 7.5 –
(Yenikapi – Sirkeci) 4
A
Main thrust.
B
Auxiliary thrust.
C
Weak/fractured ground.
a
Estimated by using statistical equations for EPB TBMs.
b
Estimated by using statistical equations for single shield TBMs.
c
Estimated by using statistical equations for single shield (weak/fractured) TBMs.
d
Estimated by using statistical equations for double shield TBMs.
e
Estimated by using statistical equations for double shield (weak/fractured) TBMs.

61
62 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63

advised to increase the number of drill holes during the site inves- and torque values are underestimated resulting in several times of
tigations for proper selection of TBM. Table 2 contains the charac- jamming of cutterhead, and hence, very low advance rates. In a few
teristics of the TBM in two modes and the predicted values are tunnels, using slurry TBMs in hard and fractured rock formations
found to be close to installed values. gave unsatisfactory results regarding to daily advance rates,
although their installed thrust and cutterhead torque were in esti-
4.4. Bursa – Uluabat hydropower tunnel mated limits.
It is hoped that the results of this study would give a quick and
Uluabat power tunnel with a length of 11.4 km is situated on preliminary reference to select a proper TBM for a given geological
the South of Uluabat Lake. The tunnel was excavated with a single condition. However, one should bear in mind that the TBM diame-
shield TBM of 5.05 m, operating in open and closed modes. The ter is not just enough to estimate design parameters of the ma-
geology mainly consists of Triassic aged metadetritics like fine chine. Extreme conditions like residual tectonic stresses, the
grained meta-claystone, meta-sandstone, schist, etc. (Bilgin and frequency of the dykes to be encountered along the tunnel route,
Algan, 2012). TBM jammed 18 times in different places due to swelling pressure of the smectite minerals in wet tunneling condi-
highly squeezing characteristics of the ground. The situation is well tions, quick changing of the geology and geotectonic conditions to
studied by Ramoni (2010) and Ramoni and Anagnastou (2010b,c). be expected, the existence of zones having very high strength val-
As it will be noticed from Table 2, the installed thrust and torque ues should be considered in selecting the design parameters of a
values of TBM are underestimated. TBM.

4.5. Istanbul – Beykoz utility tunnel

References
Sewerage tunnel between Kavacik and Beykoz is a part of an AITES-ITA Working Group No. 14, 2000. Recommendations and Guidelines for
environmental protection project concerning of renewing the inad- Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs). <www.ita-aites.org>.
equate network around Beykoz and to collect the waste water in a Askilsrud, O.G., Moulton, B.G., 1998. Tunnel boring machines. Mechanical
Tunnelling, Raise Boring and Shaft Drilling Short Course, February 21–22,
treatment plant and to clean the polluted water of Istanbul Bos- Colorado School of Mines, Golden.
phorus. The tunnel having a length of 7 km was excavated with Balci, C., Ozaydin, Y., 2012. Analysis of the tunnel boring machine (TBM)
3.175 m diameter single shield TBM in difficult ground conditions. performance parameters in Ayazaga-Cayirbasi Water Tunnel Project
(Section III) in Istanbul. EUROCK 2012, Stockholm.
The ground changes between quartzite (to a small extend) to med- Barla, G., 2000. Lessons Learnt from the Excavation of a Large Diameter TBM Tunnel
ium hard sedimentary rocks having different degree of fracturing, in Complex Hydrogeological Conditions, GeoEng2000. In: International
alluvium, semi hard clayey to muddy ground. During the excava- Conference on Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, 19–24 November 2000,
Melbourne, Australia.
tion, some of the openings around the cutterhead were closed to
Barla, G., Pelizza, S., 2000. TBM tunnelling in difficult ground conditions. In:
protect the cutterhead from face collapses. As seen in Table 2, GeoEng2000, International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological
the installed torque of the machine is underestimated compared Engineering, 19–24 November 2000, Melbourne, Australia.
Barton, N., 1999. TBM performance estimation in rock using QTBM. Tunnels and
to predicted value explaining the low mean daily advance rates
Tunnelling International 31, 30–34.
(Guclucan et al., 2008, 2009; Bilgin et al., 2012a). Barton, N., 2000. TBM Tunneling In Jointed and Faulted Rock, Balkema, Rotterdam,
p. 173.
Bilgili, E., Ayyildiz, M., Turp, O., 2007. The use of an EPB machine in Ambarli
5. Conclusions Sewerage Tunnel. In: Bilgin, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2th Symposium on
Underground Excations for Transportation, Istanbul, pp. 105–111.
Bilgin, N., Algan, M., 2012. The performance of a TBM in a squeezing ground at
In this study a data base of covering 262 different type TBMs are Uluabat, Turkey. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 32, 58–65.
analyzed statistically and the relationships between the TBM Bilgin, N., Erkin, N., Cigla, M., 1993. Stability problems effecting the performance of
diameter and installed TBM thrust capacity, installed cutterhead a full face tunnel boring machine in Istanbu-Baltalimani Tunnel. In:
Pasamehmetoglu, et al. (Eds). Assessment and Prevention of Failure in Rock
torque capacity, total TBM weight (machine + backup), number of Engineering, Balkema.
disc cutters, and maximum rotational speed of cutterhead are Bilgin, N., Balci, C., Tuncdemir, H., Eskikaya, S., Akgul, M., Algan, M., 1999a. The
investigated. Although some of the relationships are strong, some performance prediction of a TBM in difficult ground condition. In AFTES,
Journees d’Etudes Internationales de Paris, 25–28 October, pp. 115–121.
others are weak or moderate. The weakness of the relationships
Bilgin, N., Balci, C., Acaroglu, O., Tuncdemir, H., Eskikaya, S., Akgul, M., Algan, M.,
mostly comes from the dependency of the excavation performance 1999b. The performance prediction of a TBM in Tuzla-Dragos Sewerage Tunnel.
on geological and geotechnical conditions, and sometimes from the The World Tunnel Congress’99, Oslo, 31 May – 3 June, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.
lack of enough data points. However, obtaining general tendencies 817–822.
Bilgin, N., Copur, H., Balci, C., Tumac, D., Akgul, M., Yuksel, A., 2008. The selection of
and estimations are possible for all TBM types for general/preli- a TBM using full scale laboratory tests and comparison of measured and
minary purposes. predicted performance values in Istanbul Kozyatagi-Kadikoy metro tunnels. In:
Statistical analyses are compared with some theoretical con- Kanjlia, et al. (Eds.), World Tunnel Congress – Underground Facilities for Better
Environment and Safety, Agra, India, pp. 1509–1517.
cepts to understand better the role of geological and geotechnical Bilgin, N., Ozbayir, T, Sozak, N., Eyigun, Y., 2009. Factors affecting the economy and
characteristics of the formations to be excavated. Significant corre- the efficiency of metro tunnel drivage with two TBM’s in Istanbul in very
lations are found between TBM diameter and other design param- fraccured rock. ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, Budapest, Hungary, 23–28
May, 10 p.
eters, especially for soft ground TBMs. However, it should be Bilgin, N., Copur, H., Balci, C., 2012a. Effect of replacing disc cutters with chisel tools
emphasized that geological parameters and friction coefficients on performance of a TBM in difficult ground conditions. Tunnelling and
are playing also very important role in predicting thrust and torque Underground Space Technology 27 (1), 41–51.
Bilgin, N., Balci, C., Copur, H, Tumac, D., Avunduk, E, 2012b, Rock Mechanics Aspects
values. EPB TBMs generally have the highest installed cutterhead Related to Cutting Efficiency of Mechanical Excavators, 25 Years of Experience
torque and TBM thrust, whereas the open TBMs have the lowest in Istanbul. Eurock 2012, Stockholm.
values for a given TBM diameter. Copur, H., Cinar, M., Okten, G., Bilgin, N., 2012. A case study on the methane
explosion in the excavation chamber of an EPB-TBM and lessons learned
The data of around 30 tunnels excavated in the past or currently
including some recent accidents. Tunnelling and Underground Space
under construction in Turkey are analyzed to test the validity of Technology 27, 159–167.
the predictor equations. It is concluded that the installed TBM DAUB, 2005. Recommendations for static Analysis of Shield Tunnelling Machines.
thrust and cutterhead torque lie between upper and lower limits <www.daub-ita.de>.
DAUB (German Committee for Underground Construction), 1997.
of the predicted values. However, it is concluded than in a few tun- Recommendations for selecting and evaluating tunnel boring machines.
nels constructed in weak and fractured ground, the installed thrust <www.daub-ita.de>.
 U. Ates et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 46–63 63

Farmer, I., Garrity, P., Glossop, N., 1987. Operational characteristics of full face Maidl, B., Herrenknecht, M., Anheuser, L., 1996. Mechanised Shield Tunnelling. Ernst
tunnel boring machines. Proceedings of RETC, 188–201. & Sohn.
Farrokh, Ebrahim., Rostami, Jamal., 2009. Effect of adverse geological condition on Namli, M., Cakmak, O., Pakis, I.H., Tuysuz, L., Talu, D., Dumlu, M., Balci, C., Copur, H.,
TBM operation in ghomroud tunnel conveyance project. Tunnelling and Bilgin, N., 2013. A methodology of Using Past Experiences in the Performance
Underground Space Technology 24-4, 436–446. Prediction of a TBM in a Complex Geology. World Tunnelling Congress, Geneva,
Farrokh, Ebrahim, Mortazavi, Ali., Shamsi, Gholamreza, 2006. Evaluation of ground Switzerlend.
convergence and squeezing potential in the TBM driven Ghomroud tunnel Nelson, P.P., Jalil, Y.A., Laughton, C., 1992. Analysis of performance measures of
project. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 21–5, 504–510. tunnel boring machines. Eurock ’92, London, pp. 408–413.
Gehring, K.H., 1996. Design criteria for TBMs with respect to real rock pressure. In: Nomoto, T., Imamura, S., Hagiwara, T., Kusakabe, O., Fujii, N., 1999. Shield tunnel
Tunnel Boring Machines: Trends in Design and Construction of Mechanical construction in centrifuge. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Tunnelling, Proceedings of the International Lecture Series, first ed. Taylor & Engineering 125, 289–300.
Francis, pp. 43–53. NTH, 1994. Hard rock tunnel boring. Project Report I-94, Trondheim: the Norwegian
Guclucan, Z., Meric, S., Palakci, Y., Bilgin, N., Balci, C., Tumac, D., Algan, M., Namli, M., Institute of Technology, 159p.
Bilgin, A.R., 2008. The use of a TBM in difficult ground conditions in Istanbul Ocak, I., Bilgin, N., 2009. The performance of two EBP Machines in Istanbul Metro
(Beykoz–Kavacik) sewerage, World Tunnel Congress, September 22–24, Agra, Tunnel drivages in soft and shallow ground. ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress
India, pp. 1630–1638. Budapest, Hungary, 23–28 May, 8p.
Guclucan, Z, Meric, S., Palakci, Y., Bilgin, N., Balci, C., Copur, H., Namli, M., 2009. The Ozdemir, L., 1995. Mechanical Mining Short Course. Colorado School of Mines,
use of theoretical rock cutting concepts in explaining the cutting performance Golden.
of a TBM using different cutter types in different rock formations and some Ramoni, M., 2010. On the Feasibility of TBM Drives in Squeezing Ground and the
recommendations. ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, Budapest, Hungary, 23– Risk of Shield Jamming. ETH, Zurich, Switzerland, 212 p.
28 May, 10p. Ramoni, M., Anagnostou, G., 2010a. Thrust force requirements for TBMs in
Herrenknecht, M., 1994. EPB or slurry machine: the choice. Tunnels and Tunnelling squeezing ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 25, 433–455.
International 26, 35–36. Ramoni, M., Anagnostou, G., 2010b. Tunnel boring machines under squeezing
Howarth, D.F., 1994. Database of TBM projects undertaken between 1950 and 1990 conditions. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 25, 139–157.
and an assessment of associated ground-strength limitations. Tunnelling and Ramoni, M., Anagnostou, G., 2010c. The interaction between shield, ground and
Underground Space Technology 9 (2), 209–213. tunnel support in TBM tunnelling through squeezing ground. Rock Mechanics
Ilci, N., Temel, M., Sezgin, S., Akpinar, T., Guarasio, S., Polat, C., Bilgin, N., 2013. and Rock Engineering 44, 37–61.
Clogging and squeezing effect of marl-clayey limestone on the performance of a Ramoni, M., Anagnostou, G., 2011. TBM Tunnelling in Squeezing Ground – Basic
hard rock TBM in Suruc Tunnel, Turkey. World Tunnelling Congress, Geneva, Considerations and Decision Aids. In: Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Switzerlend. Conference Proceedings, San Francisco, California, USA, pp. 219–233.
Jancsecz, S., Krause, R., Langmaack, L., 1999. Advantages of soil conditioning in Rostami, J., Ozdemir, L., 1993. A new model for performance prediction of hard rock
shield tunneling, experiences of LRTS Izmir. In: Proceedings of the World Tunnel TBMs. Proceedings of RETC. Boston, 793–809, June 13–17.
Congress, Oslo, pp. 865–875. Shi, H., Yang, H., Gong, G., Wang, L., 2011. Determination of the cutterhead torque
JSCE (Japan Society Of Civil Engineers), 2007. Standard Specifications For Tunneling for EPB shield tunneling machine. Automation in Construction 20, 1087–1095.
– Shield Tunnels. Song, X., Liu, J., Guo, W., 2010. A cutter head torque forecast model based on
Kahraman, S., 2007. Historical review of tunnel boring machine (TBM) data. CIM multivariate nonlinear regression for EPB shield tunneling. In: International
Bulletin 100, No. 1099. Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, pp. 104-
Kocbay, A., 2007. The effect of the geological condition on perfrmance of tunnel 108.
boring machines-a case study: Ermenek Dam and HEPP. In: Bilgin, et al. (Eds.) Stack, B., 1995. Encyclopaedia of Tunnelling, Mining and Drilling Equipment. Muden
Proceedings of the 2th Symposium on Underground Excations for Pub. Co., Hobart, Tasmania.
Transportation, Istanbul, pp. 93–99. Wen, Sen, Liu, Han Zhou, Zhao, Li Min, 2012. Risk analysis on the accident of TBM’s
Lislerud, A., 1988. Hard rock tunnel boring: prognosis and costs. Tunnelling and Cutterhead jamming caused by collapse of tunnel. Advanced Materials Research
Underground Space Technology 3 (1), 9–17. 446–449 (January), 2246–2250.