Tunnelling Machine Selection for Tunnel Excavation in

Rock, Using the AHP Method: CASE STUDY: Line 1 of the

Esfahan Metro Project

Ali Taheri
Managing Director, ZaminIanavaran Consulting Engineers, EsIahan, Iran

Heshmat Allah Mansoori Borujeni
Tunnelling/Mining Engineer, Amir-Kabir University oI Technology, Tehran, Iran


ABSTRACT
Tunnel construction projects oIten include complex series oI events and technical systems. Geomechanical
properties oI the rock mass that inIluence the tunnelling machine selection are very complex and associated with
large uncertainties. Consequently, decision problems within the tunnelling machine selection may be diIIicult to
solve and wrong decisions may lead to unwanted risks. The purpose oI this study is to develop a system oI rating Ior
selecting the tunnelling machine. To accomplish this aim, all the tunnelling machines that can be used in the rock
conditions were determined and the perIormance oI each machine in the various conditions was studied perIectly.
To establish the proposed system oI rating, the Analytical Hierarchy Process method (AHP) was chosen.
At the Iirst, all the parameters that inIluence the tunnelling machine selection were perIormed. From all the
mechanized tunnnelling projects that have been done all over the world, some oI those projects were chosen. In each
project, due to unsuitable condition, continuation oI the tunnelling operation was impossible. In these projects,
unsuitable conditions were studied perIectly and the obtained results have been used Ior expressing each machine
perIormance in the various conditions. By using the AHP method, the perIormances oI the tunnelling machines were
compared in a pair way in relevant to each parameter and the preIerence value oI each machine was determined.
Finally, preliminary system oI rating Ior the tunnelling machine selection was developed. The results oI this study
show that there are some limitations Ior using oI AHP method Ior the tunnelling machine selection and these values
must be deIined on the basis oI the experience and engineering judgment.
Finally, the proposed system oI rating was used Ior selecting the tunnelling machine Ior excavating line 1 oI the
EsIahan metro tunnel (Irom Azadi square to SoIIeh terminal). According to these results, the (hard rock) Earth
Pressure Balance shield machine (EPB) get the highest score and the open TBM recognized as unsuitable machine
Ior construction oI the proposed tunnel.
1-Introduction
Engineering science aims at doing things. Hereby,
engineers continuously have to make decisions on
what to do and usually they can not predict with
absolute certainty what the result oI the decision will
be. Today, many decisions are made intuitively
without analysis oI the possible consequences.
Because underground construction involves many
diIIicult decisions in deIerent phases oI the project,
an engineer may involuntarily take risks that he or
she really wants to avoid. (Struck et al, 1996)
Mechanized tunnelling method represents a big
investment in an unIlexible but potentially very Iast
method oI excavating and supporting a rock tunnel
(Barton, 1996). When unIavorable conditions are
encountered without warning, time schedule and
practical consequences are oIten Iar greater in a
mechanized tunnelling method than in a drill and
blast method. So a wrong decision Ior selecting the
tunnelling machine may lead to unwanted risks.
(Barla et al, 2002)
This paper introduces a system oI rating Ior
selecting the tunnelling machine Ior excavating the
tunnel in rocky ground by the Analytical Hierarchy
Process method (AHP). By using this practical
system oI rating a designer can select a Iavorable
tunnelling machine at any rock geological conditions
at the preliminary phase oI the project.
2-Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (Saaty, 1981)
provides a means oI making decisions or choices
among alternatives, particularly where a number oI
objectives have to be satisIied (multiple criteria or
multi-attribute decision making). The theoretical
derivation oI the method is here discussed. It`s worth
noting that the method can be applied even iI not all-
theoretical results are known. Let`s assume that n
items are being considered with the goal oI providing
and quantiIying judgments on the relative weight
(importance, priority, size) oI each item with respect
to all the other items. The Iirst step (design phase) set
the problem as a hierarchy, where the topmost node
is the overall objective oI the decision, while
subsequent nodes at lower levels consist oI the
criteria used in arriving at this decision. The bottom
level oI the hierarchy consists oI the alternatives,
Irom which the choice is to be made, i.e., the n items
we wish to compare. (Santillo, 2000)
The second step (evaluation phase) is a pair way
comparison to be made between each two items (oI
the given level oI the hierarchy), with respect to their
contribution towards the Iactor Irom the level
immediately above them. The comparisons are made
by posing the question OI two elements i and j,
which is more important / larger with respect to the
given Iactor and how much more?` The strength oI
preIerence is expressed on a ratio scale oI 1-9. A
preIerence oI 1 indicates equality between two items
while a preIerence oI 9 (absolute importance)
indicates that one item is 9 times larger or more
important than the one to which is being compared.
This scale was originally chosen, because in this way
comparisons are being made within a limited range
where perception is sensitive enough to make a
distinction. (Saaty, 1980)
Figure 1. Generic hierarchv scheme. (Santillo, 2000)

These comparisons result in a reciprocal n-by-n
matrix A, where 1 =
ii
a (i.e., on the diagonal) and
fi
a 1/
if
a (reciprocity property, i.e., assuming that iI
element i is 'x-times more important than item j, then
necessarily item f is '1/x-times more important, or
equally 'x-times less important than item i).
Suppose Iirstly that we provide only the Iirst
column oI the matrix A, i.e., the relative importance oI
items 2, 3, ..., n, with respect to item 1. II our
judgments were completely consistent, the remaining
columns oI the matrix would then be completely
determined, because oI the transitivity oI the relative
importance oI the items. However we do not assume
consistency other than by setting
fi
a 1/
if
a .
ThereIore we repeat the process oI comparison Ior
each column oI the matrix, making independent
judgments over each pair. Suppose that at the end oI
the comparisons, we have Iilled the matrix A with the
exact relative weights; iI we multiply the matrix with
the vector oI weight ( )
n
w w w W ...
2 1
= , we
obtain:

=
=

=
n n n n n n
n
n
n nn n n
n
n
w
w
w
n
w
w
w
w w w w w w
w w w w w w
w w w w w w
w
w
w
a a a
a a a
a a a
AW
... ...
...
... ... ... ...
...
...
...
...
... ... ... ...
...
...
2
1
2
1
2 1
2 2 2 1 2
1 2 1 1 1
2
1
2 1
2 22 21
1 12 11



So, to recover the (overall) scale Irom the matrix oI
ratios, we must solve the problem:
Awnw, or (A-nI)w0 (1)

That is a system oI homogenous linear equations (I
is the unitary matrix). This system has a nontrivial
solution iI and only iI the determinant oI (A-nI)
vanishes, i.e., n is an eigenvalue oI A. Notice that A
has unit rank since every row is a constant multiple oI
the Iirst row and thus all its eigenvalues except one are
zero. The sum oI the eigenvalues oI a matrix is equal
to its trace and in this case, the trace oI A is equal to n.
Thus n is an eigenvalue oI A and we have a nontrivial
solution, unique to within a multiplicative constant,
with all positive entries. Usually the normalized vector
is taken, obtained by dividing all the entries
i
w by
their sum. Thus given the comparison matrix we can
recover the scale. In this exact case the solution is any
column oI A normalized. Note also that in the exact
case A is consistent, i.e., its entries satisIy the
condition
kf
fi
a
a
fk
a = (transitivity property). However
in the real cases we cannot give the precise values oI
f
i
w
w
but estimates oI them, the judgments, which in
general are diIIerent Irom the actual weights` ratios.
From matrix theory we know that small perturbation oI
the coeIIicients implies small perturbation oI the
eigenvalues. ThereIore, we still expect to Iind an
eigenvalue, with value near to n: this will be the largest
eigenvalue (
max
), since due to the (small) errors in
the judgment, also other eigenvalues are diIIerent Irom
zero, but still the trace oI matrix (n) is equal to the sum
oI eigenvalues (some oI which can be complex).
The solution oI the largest eigenvalue problem, i.e.,
the weight eigenvector W corresponding to
max
,
when normalized, gives a unique estimate oI the
underlaying ratio scale between the elements oI the
studied case. Moreover, the matrix whose entries are
f
i
w
w
is still a consistent matrix, and is a consistent
estimate oI the 'actual matrix A. A itselI need not be
consistent (Ior example the judgments could have
stated that item 1 is more important than item 2, 2 is
more important than 3, but 3 is more important than
1!). It turns out that A is consistent iI and only iI
max
n and that we always have n
max
. That`s
why we take as a 'consistency index (CI) the
(negative) average oI the remaining eigenvalues,
which is exactly the diIIerence between
max
and n,
divided by the normalizing Iactor (n-1):
1 1
max 2

=
n
n
n
CI
n
i
i

,
1 max
= (2)
To measure the error due to inconsistency, we can
compare the CI oI the studied case with the average CI
obtained Irom corresponding random matrices with
order n. Table 1 shows the random average
consistency indexes Ior various n (
n
CI ). Revisions in
the comparisons are recommended iI the consistency
ratio (CR) between the studied CI and the
corresponding
n
CI is considerably higher than 10.

Table 1- Consistencv indexes of random reciprocal matrices of order n.
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
n
CI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

This consistency ratio CR simply reIlects the
consistency oI the judgments and shows the degree to
which various sets oI importance relativities can be
reconciled into a single set oI weights. In the above
example, (1 larger than 2, 2 larger than 3, and 3
larger than 1) the consistency score would be poor,
and would be considered a violation oI the axiom oI
transitivity. AHP tolerates inconsistency through the
amount oI redundancy oI judgments. For a matrix oI
dimension n only (n-1) comparisons are required to
establish weights Ior the n items. The actual number
oI comparisons that can be perIormed in AHP is n(n-
1)/2. This redundancy is conceptually analogous to
estimating a number by calculating the average oI
repeated observations. The resulting set oI weights is
less sensitive to errors oI judgment. A quick way to
Iind the weight vector, iI one cannot solve exactly the
largest eigenvalue problem, is that oI normalizing
each column in A, and then average the values across
the rows. This 'average column is the normalized
weight vector w. We then obtain an estimate oI
max
dividing each component oI Aw (
max
w) by
the corresponding component oI w, and averaging.
Finally, we can compute CI (and the corresponding
CR) Irom this estimate oI
max
in order to veriIy the
goodness oI the judgments.
So Iar, we have illustrated the process Ior only one
level in the hierarchy. When the model consists oI
more than one level then hierarchical composition is
used to weight the eigenvectors by the weights oI the
criteria. The sum is taken over all weighted
eigenvector entries corresponding to those in the
lower level, and so on, resulting in a global priority
vector Ior the lowest level oI the hierarchy. The
global priorities are essentially the result oI
distributing, or propagating, the weights oI the
hierarchy Irom one level to the next level below it.
3- Rock Tunnelling Machines
3.1- Machines not providing immediate
support
Machines not providing immediate support are
necessarily those working in ground not requiring
immediate and continuous tunnel support.
3.1.1- Roadheader
A roadheader in its standard layout covers the
Iunctions oI rock cutting, gathering oI excavated
muck and its transIer to secondary conveying
equipment and machine tramming. This machine has
a selective excavation arm Iitted with a tool oI some
sort. It works the Iace in a series oI sweeps oI the
arm. The penetration Iorce oI the tools is resisted
solely by the weight oI the machine.
(Heikkonen, 1998)
3.1.2- Hydraulic Impact Hammer
Hydraulic Impact Hammers have been used
widely in mining and tunnelling industry since 1960
(RodIord, 1974; Pelizza et al, 1994). The Impact
Hammers may be mounted in any type oI excavator
and operated easily. Since the initial capital
investment was relatively lower than other tunnelling
machines, these machines can be used widely Ior
excavating the tunnel in Iractured rock Iormations.
The working principle oI a modern Hydraulic Impact
Hammer is simple. There is a piston moving up and
down and striking against the cutting tool end. To
produce big energy pulses during downward strokes,
the hammer is equipped with an accumulator that is
able to supply needed oil volume in a very short time.
The accumulator is charged continuously by a
hydraulic pump. DiIIerent research works
demonstrated that speciIic energy deIined as the
energy to break the unit volume oI the rock is
inversely proportional to below energy. Since then
continuations works have been done to increase
piston speed and piston weight to have higher blow
energy values. (Bilgin et al, 2002)
3.1.3- Open TBM
An open TBM has a cutter head that excavates the
Iull tunnel Iace in a single pass. The trust on the
cutter head is reacted by bearing pads (or grippers)
which push radially against oI the rock oI the tunnel
wall. The machine advances sequentially in two
phases: (AFTES, 2000)
1-Excavation (the gripper unit is stationary)
2- Regripping
3.2- Machines providing immediate
peripheral support
In these machines, while they excavate the tunnel
they also support the sides oI the tunnel but the
tunnel Iace not supported.
3.2.1- Open-face segmental shield TBM
(Single shield TBM)
This type oI the machine Ieatures a complete
circular shield and is used when a tunnel is to be
completely lined. Segments are placed directly
behind or within the tail oI the machine. It develops
its trust by pushing oII the previously set lining.
(Janes et al, 1993)
3.2.2- Double shield TBM
Double shield is a TBM with a Iull-Iace cutter
head and two sets oI trust rams that react against
either the tunnel wall (radial grippers) or the tunnel
lining. The trust method used at any time depends on
the type oI ground encountered. With longitudinal
trust, segmental lining must be installed behind the
machine as it advances. The machine has three or
more cans connected by articulations telescopic
central unit, which relays trust Irom the
gripper/trusting system used at the time to the Iront oI
the machine. (AFTES, 2000)
3.3-Machines providing immediate
peripheral and frontal support
simultaneously
These tunnelling machines that provide immediate
peripheral and Irontal support simultaneously belong
to the closed Iace group.
These machines excavate and support both the
tunnel walls and the tunnel Iace at the same time.
3.3.1-Earth Pressure Balance shield
(EPB)
An Earth pressure Balance shield machine (EPB)
has a Iull-Iace cutter head. ConIinement is achieved
by pressurizing the excavated material in the cutter
head chamber. Muck is extracted Irom the chamber
continuously or intermittently by a pressure relieI
discharge system that takes it Irom the conIinement
pressure to the ambient pressure in the tunnel. These
tunnelling machines can also operate in open mode or
with compressed air conIinement iI especially
equipped. (AFTES, 2000)
4- Parameters affecting the tunnelling
machine selection
All the parameters that inIluence the tunnelling
machine selection are grouped into three main Iorms
as Iollow:
Economical parameters
Environmental parameters
Practical parameters (Include geological
parameters and geometrical parameters oI the tunnel)
In this research work, just the practical parameters
have been studied as Iollows.
4.1-Practical parameters
4.1.1- Geological parameters
Geological parameters that aIIect the tunnelling
machine selection can be listed as Iollow: (Sinha,
1989)
Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rock
material
Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
Weathering of rock mass
Faulting
Spacing of the discontinuity (Block size)
Underground water
Underground chamber
Subsidence occurrence
Quartz content of rock material
One oI the main limitations Ior using the boom
type machines is high bit consumption according to
the high abrasive mineral (such as quartz content).
Only Iew authors have worked on the correlation
between abrasivity and the mineral content oI rocks
and the relationship is not Iully understood by now.
(Thuro et al, 1999)
The quartz content in connection with the
unconIined compressive strength seems to be the
only reliable Iunction. Figure 2 shows a simple
diagram Ior the prediction oI bit consumption.
Although this diagram seems to work in most usual
rock conditions, the correlation is only valid Ior
scraping and cutting oI rock material. II the cutter
head is ripping blocks out oI the tunnel Iace or moves
jerkily at the Iace (e.g. because oI extreme hard
layers in the rock strata), the tool wear may be much
higher. By using this diagram, maximum tolerable
quartz content oI the rock Ior a roadheader can be
determined.




















Figure 2. Connection between bit consumption, unconfined compressive strength and quart: content (according
to Atlas Copco Eickhoff companv information).

Squeezing condition
There are some limitations Ior using the tunnel
boring machines (TBMs) in squeezing rock
condition. It is generally agreed at the present stage
that experience and technology have not progress Iar
enough to recommend without some reservations
machine excavation in such conditions. The major
diIIiculties can be listed as Iollow:
Instability oI the tunnel Iace
Problems with trust due to reduced gripper
action in soIt or heterogeneous ground
TBM blockage in squeezing ground
Generally, instability oI the tunnel Iace is Ielt not
to be a problem. Because, when the machine is not
moving a head, the presentation oI the cutter head is
suIIicient to provide some Iorm oI Iace support.
The problems associated with excessive
deIormations oI the tunnel walls in squeezing
conditions are oI great concern Ior designers. As well
known, the type and the magnitude oI tunnel
convergence are diIIicult to anticipate.
On the other hand, the danger oI the TBM
blockage in a squeezing zone decreases with
increasing advance rate. A question open to debate
when mechanized excavation is to be used and
squeezing rock conditions are expected to be
encountered along the tunnel length is the type oI the
machine to adopted, i.e. shielded or not shielded
TBMs? Shielded TBMs are notoriously sensitive to
rapid convergence and to the risk oI the blockage by
converging rock, iI special precautions are not taken
into account. For the open TBMs, wherever large
convergence occurs in a number oI cases, problems
oI support installation and gripping may occur,
hampering the progress oI excavation. Today`s, some
solutions have been done Ior decreasing the risk oI
machine blockage. (Barla, 2002)
A number oI approaches have been proposed by
various authors, based on practical experience and
documented case histories, to identiIy squeezing rock
conditions and potential tunnel squeezing problems.
In this study, Hoek and Marinouss approach
(2000) has been used Ior expressing the inIluence oI
squeezing condition on tunnelling machine selection.
According to Hoek and Marinouss approach (2000):
0
852 . 1
15 . 0 ()
P t
cm

=

(3)

Where:
cm
Rock mass uniaxial compressive strength
0
P In situ stress
t
Tunnel strain
According to this approach, Hoek (2000) reported
Iollowing classiIication Ior surrounding rock oI the
tunnel in connection with squeezing condition.

Table 2- Ground classification in connection with squee:ing condition
Class no. Squeezing level Tunnel strain ()
1 No squeezing (Few support problem) <1
2 Light squeezing (Minor squeezing) 1-2.5
3 Fair squeezing (Severe squeezing) 2.5-5
4 Heavy squeezing (Very severe squeezing) 5-10
5 Very heavy squeezing (Extreme squeezing) >10



Swelling
The large deIormations associated with squeezing
may also occur in rocks susceptible to swelling.
Although the cases resulting in either a behavior or
the other one are diIIerent, it is oIten diIIicult to
distinguish between squeezing and swelling, as the
two phenomena may occur at the same time and
induce similar eIIects. (Barla, 2002)
Swelling ground displaces into the tunnel opening
as result oI volume change due to water adsorption
and absorption eIIects. (Wittacker et al, 1990)
Swelling behavior oI the rock can be described as
Iollow:

0
J
J
A

= (4)

A Swelling magnitude
J Rock volume change due to water absorption
0
J Initial rock volume
For expressing the ground classiIication in
relevant to the swelling condition, a constant length
oI the tunnel (L) is assumed. For this tunnel length,
Iollowing equation can be written:
L R J
2
= (5)
0
J
J
A

= (6)
t R
R
A 2 2 = =

(7)
Since, the eIIects oI swelling and squeezing
behavior are similar, so Iollowing classiIication Ior
ground in relevant to swelling condition is
considered:

Table 3- Ground classification in relevant to
swelling
Swelling class A()
No swelling <2
Mild swelling 2-5
Moderate swelling 5-10
High swelling >10

4.1.2- Geometry of the tunnel
Geometrical parameters oI the tunnel that
inIluence the tunnelling machine selection can be
listed as Iollow:
Tunnel diameter
Tunnel length
Vertical gradient oI the tunnel
Horizontal alignment oI the tunnel
Tunnel depth
5- Proposed system of rating
By using the Analytical Hierarchy Process method
(AHP) the perIormance oI the tunnelling machines
were compared in a pair way in relevant to each
parameter and the preIerence value oI each tunnelling
machine was determined. From all the mechanized
tunnelling projects that have been done all over the
world, some oI those projects were chosen. In each
project, due to unsuitable conditions, continuation oI
the tunnelling operation was impossible. For this aim,
in each project, unsuitable conditions were studied
perIectly and the gained results have been used Ior
expressing each machine perIormance in the various
conditions.
Finally, a system oI rating was developed as two
tables (tables 4 and 5). In these tables, the preIerence
value oI (-1) Ior a tunnelling machine reIers that the
machine not suitable in this condition and a bigger
value reIers to more suitable.
5.1-Recommendations for using rating
system
At the Iirst, all the tunnel length must be divided
into some sections oI the same practical properties.
According to the length oI each tunnel section and by
using the AHP method, the important ratio oI each
tunnel section is estimated.
By using table 4, Ior each section oI the tunnel, the
preIerence value oI each tunnelling machine will be
gained as Iollow:

=
f
if ik
w W (8)
Where:
ik
W PreIerence value oI the machine i on section k
oI the tunnel
if
w PreIerence value oI the machine i in relevant to
parameter j
By using table 5, Ior the entire tunnel, the
preIerence value oI each tunnelling machine will be
gained as Iollow:

=
f
if i
w W
*
(9)
Finally, preIerence value oI each tunnelling
machine will be gained by Iollowing equations:
L W W L W W
i k k
k
ik it
* * *
*
+ =

(10)
Where:
it
W Total preIerence value oI machine i
ik
W PreIerence value oI the machine i on section k
oI the tunnel
k
L Length oI section k oI the tunnel
k
W Important ratio Ior section k oI the tunnel
*
i
W PreIerence value oI the machine i (Table 4)
L Total length oI the tunnel
NOTE:
BeIore using this rating system, it is necessary to
pay attention to Iollowing notes:
1- II the preIerence value oI a machine in
relevant to a parameter is (-1) (Not suitable), the
preIerence value oI the machine will be (-1) and
other values do not interIere.
2- II the length oI a tunnel section is greater
than one-third oI the total tunnel length (l~1/3L)
and a tunnelling machine is not suitable
(PreIerence value -1), the preIerence value oI this machine will be (-1) Ior entire tunnel.

Table 4- Preference value for each tunnelling machine (For each tunnel section)
Hammer Road header EPB
Double
Shield
Single
Shield
Open TBM Parameter
0.008 0.003 -1 0.017 -1 0.029 -15

0.017 0.005 0.003 0.017 0.003 0.029 -15 -8
0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 -8 10
0.017 0.003 -1 0.022 -1 0.025 ~10
Tunnel grade
()
0.106 0.106 0.168 0.074 0.106 -1 UCS6, (1)
0.171 0.171 0.171 0.082 0.171 -1 UCS6, (2)
0.172 0.172 0.172 0.153 0.172 -1 6-40
0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 40-80
0.032 0.032 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.040 80-120
-1 -1 0.142 0.154 0.142 0.185 120-180, D6m
0.005 0.018 0.139 0.151 0.139 0.182 120-180, D~6m
-1 -1 0.142 0.154 0.142 0.185 ~180 UCS
Uniaxial compressive
strength (Mpa)
0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.039 0-25
0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.035 25-50
0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 ~50
RQD ()
0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.021 0.018 Moderate
0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.039 0.021 High
0.107 0.107 0.107 0.085 0.085 0.034 Completely
Weathering
0.585 0.585 0.195 0.405 0.195 0.585 Very Large
0.557 0.557 0.276 0.330 0.276 0.557 Large
0.092 0.092 0.082 0.084 0.082 0.037 Moderate
0.182 0.182 0.182 0.152 0.152 0.014 Small
0.343 0.343 0.343 0.238 0.238 -1 Very small
Block Size
0.534 0.534 0.347 0.396 0.347 0.396 Mild Swelling
0.579 0.579 0.243 0.275 0.243 0.365 Moderate Swelling
0.597 0.597 0.135 0.171 0.135 0.305 High Swelling
Swelling
0.534 0.534 0.347 0.396 0.347 0.396
Class
0.579 0.579 0.243 0.275 0.243 0.365
Class
0.597 0.597 0.135 0.171 0.135 0.305 Class IV,V
Squeezing
0.485 0.485 0.600 0.281 0.281 0.216
Water Flow Greater than
17 Lit/s/Tunnel Diameter
0.175 -1 0.175 0.175 0.175 0.175 Quartz Content
(1) UCS6 Mpa , clay material content is greater than 25 and wet media
(2) UCS6 Mpa , clay material content is less than 25 or dray media

Table 5- Preference value for each tunnelling machine (For total tunnel length)
Hammer Road heder EPB
Double
Shield
Single
Shield
Open TBM Parameter
0.591 0.591 0.667 0.351 0.263 0.191 Subsidence
0.092 0.092 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.050 Underground Chamber
0.251 0.251 0.251 0.251 0.251 0.251 W0.1D
(1)
0.533 0.533 0.533 0.293 0.293 0.215 0.1DW0.5D
0.572 0.572 0.572 0.233 0.233 -1 0.5DWD
0.584 0.584 0.584 -1 -1 -1 W~D
Fault (Fault strict
parallel to the tunnel
line)
0.251 0.251 0.251 0.251 0.251 0.251 W3It
0.540 0.540 0.540 0.287 0.287 0.203 3W30It
0.592 0.592 0.592 0.225 0.225 -1 W~30It
Fault (Fault strict
crossed by the tunnel
line)
-1 -1 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 D3
0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 3D8
0.015 0.015 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 8D11
0.028 0.028 0.011 0.015 0.015 0.018 11D14
0.021 0.021 -1 -1 -1 -1 D~14
Tunnel Diameter (m)
0.540 0.518 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 L1000
0.032 0.032 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.017 1000L2500
0.017 0.017 0.020 0.020 0.023 0.023 2500L6000
0.002 0.015 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 L~6000
Tunnel length
(m)
0.032 0.032 -1 -1 -1 -1 R10D
0.025 0.025 -1 -1 -1 0.011 10DR20D
0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 R~20D
Horizontal Alignment
(m)
0.166 0.166 0.166 0.094 0.094 0.067 H5D
0.189 0.189 0.077 0.109 0.077 0.189 H~1000
Tunnel Depth (m)
(1) D Tunnel diameter, W Width oI the Iault zone, R Radius oI the line curvature

6-Case study: Line 1 of the Esfahan
Metro project (From Azady Square to
Sofeh Terminal)
The southern part oI the line 1 oI the EsIahan
metro project (From Azadi Square to SoIIeh
terminal) consist oI a 7 meter diameter twin tunnel,
with a total length oI 3317 meters. Geometrical
properties oI these tunnels are given in table 6.

Table 6- Geometrical properties of the Esfahan metro
tunnel
Tunnel
Length
(m)
Depth
(m)
Curve
Radius
Tunnel
Slope
()
Azadi-Daneshgah 716 8-11 R~20D 3.7
Daneshgah-Kargar 870
12.5-
17
R~20D 4
Kargar-Khabgah 949
7.5-
22.5
R~20D 3.9
Khabgah-SoIeh 536 6.5-11 R~20D 3.2
6.1- Geology
An extensive geotechnical exploration was
undertaken to investigate ground conditions along the
proposed tunnel route.
The lower Jurassic (Lias) deposits (Shemshak
Iormation), comprising Shale and Sandstone
alteration, Iorm the bedrock oI the project area. This
Iormation is over line by the Quaternary aged alluvial
Ian deposits. The proposed tunnel will be driven
totally in the bedrock.
According to the geotechnical investigation
results, the rock mass has been divided into 6 classes.
Further, there are two Iault zones, crossing the
tunnel line between Daneshgah and Kargar stations
with around 50 to 60 meters width.


Table 7- Jisual propertv description of the rock mass
Weathering
Thickness oI Layers
(m)
Fracture
Intercept (m)
Rock Strength
(Mp)
Block Size (m)
W0 Intrusive Rock F1~2
0

S56
V.L.BS~2
W1 L1~2
2

F2~0.6 6

S420 2

L.BS~0.6
W2
2

L2~0.6 0.6

F3~0.2 20

S360 0.6

M.BS~0.2
W3
0.6

L3~0.2 0.2

F4~0.06 60

S2200 0.2

S.BS~0.06
W4
0.2

L4~0.06 F5

0.06 S1

200 0.06

V.S.BS
W5
L5

0.06
ISRM ANON 1981 ANON 1981 Hoek 1981 ANON 1977

Table 8- Rock classes that encountered the tunnel line
Quartz
Content ()
RQD
Basic
Geotechnical
Description
Block Size Weathering Rock Type
Rock
Class
35-40 25 - 50 L
3
.F
3-4
.S
3 (L- M).BS. W
1-2-3
Quartzic Sand stone(SS) I
35-40 0 25 L
4-3
.F
4
.S
3-5 S.BS. W
1-4
Alternation oI shale and
sand stone (s/sh)
II
35 0 25 L
5
.F
5
.S
5
(Vs
S).BS
W
0-1-4
Quartzic shale (sh) III
30 0 L
5
.F
5
.S
5 VS.BS. W
2-3
Sand rock (SI) IV
30 25 50 L
5
.F
5
.S
5 S.BS. W
2-3
SoIt sand stone (s) V
35-40 25 50 L
1-5
.F
1-5
.S
5 (L-S).BS. W
3
Alternation oI soIt and
hard sandstone (s/ss)
VI
6.2-Preference Value of the Each
Tunnelling Machine
According to the length oI each rock class which
will encounter at the tunnel Iace and by using AHP
method, the important ratio oI each tunnel section are
estimated (Table 9). By using tables 4 and 5 as well
as equations (8) and (9), preIerence values oI each
tunnelling machine are estimated. In table 10, the
preIerence values oI each tunnelling machine Ior
excavating this part oI the EsIahan metro tunnel are
shown. By using equation (10), the preIerence value
oI each tunnelling machine is estimated. (Table 11)





Table 9- Important Ratios of each tunnel section
Rock Class Length Important Ratio
I 151 0.080
II 2132.4 0.401
III 1749.8 0.200
IV 628.8 0.100
V 1059.2 0.119
VI 634.6 0.100





Table 10- Preference values of each tunnelling machine at each tunnel section
Hammer
Road
Header
EPB
Double
Shield
Single
Shield
Open TBM Rock Class
0.642 0.642 0.361 0.415 0.361 0.613 I
0.487 0.487 0.549 0.403 0.435 -1 II
0.713 0.713 0.713 0.497 0.586 -1 III
0.580 0.580 0.642 0.443 0.475 -1 IV
0.371 0.371 0.435 0.311 0.343 -1 V
0.748 0.748 0.529 0.489 0.467 -1 VI


Table 11- Total preference values of each tunnelling machine
Practical
Parameter
Open TBM Single Shield Double Shield EPB Road Header Hammer
Previous table -6348.800 684.140 621.633 852.097 804.408 804.408
Fault - 1542.277 1428.030 3757.306 3757.306 3757.306
Subsidence - 1669.208 2227.727 4233.316 3750.958 3750.958
Tunnel Depth - 596.600 596.600 1053.568 1053.568 1053.568
Tunnel Length - 158.670 158.670 158.670 93.202 12.694
Final -6348.800 4650.895 5032.660 10054.957 9459.442 9378.934
8- Conclusion
According to the above results, the preIerence
value oI each tunnelling machine is determined as a
percent (Table 12). As shown in table 12, the (hard
rock) Earth Pressure Balance shield machine (EPB)
get the highest score and the open TBM recognized
as unsuitable machine Ior construction oI the
proposed tunnel.

Table 12- Preference value of each tunnelling machine as a percent
Tunnelling Machine Open TBM Single Shield TBM Double Shield TBM EPB Road Header
Hydraulic
Hammer
PreIerence
Value()
0 11.2 12.6 26.5 25.0 24.7































References

A.F.T.E.S., (2000) New Recommendations on
Choosing Mechani:ed Tunnelling Techniques,
www.usace.army.mil.
Amberg, F., (2001)' Gotthard Base Tunnel, TBM
Heading Equipment Requirements, Progress in
Tunneling AIter 2000, AITES-ITA 2001, World
Tunnel Congress.
Barla, G., (1995) Squee:ing Rocks in Tunnels, ISRM
News Journal, /, pp. 44-49
Barla, G., (2002) Tunnelling Under Squee:ing Rock
Conditions, www.polito.it.
Barla, G., Peliza, S., (2002)' TBM Tunneling in
Difficult Ground Conditions, www .polito.it.
Baton, N., (2000) TBM Tunnelling in Jointed and
Faulted Rock, Balkema, Rotterdam,
BROOKFIELD, VT 05036-9704
Bickel, 1.O., Kuesel, T.R. (eds), (1996). ' Tunnel
Engineering Handbook, Second Edition,
CHAPMAN & HALL Publication.
Bilgin, N., Dincer, T. & Copur, H., (2002) The
Performance Prediction of Impact Hammers from
Schmidt Hammer Rebound Jalues in Istanbul
Metro Tunnel Drivages, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology (2002), pp. 237-
247, www.elsevier.com.
Butkus, C., Fluker, T.R., Gardiner, T., Ratcliffe., T.,
(1999)' Tunneling, www.courseware.vt.edu.
Cigla, M., Yagiz, S. & Ozdemir, L., (2000),'
Application of Tunnel Boring Machines in
Underground Mine Development,
www.mines.edu.
Copur, H., Ozdemir, L., Rostami, 1., (1998)
Roadheader Applications in Mining and Tunnelling
Industries, www.mines.edu.
DAUB Groups, (2001). 'Recommendations for
Selecting and Evaluating Tunnel Boring Machines,
www.msdgc.org.
Dave, N., Ozdemir, L., (1991) Considerations for
Development of Hard Rock Roadheader, Int.
Sym. On Mine Mechanization and Automation
Finnsson, S., (2001) Two Tunnel Boring Machine for
Lesotho. A Design and Case Studv, Progress in
Tunneling AIter 2000, AITES-ITA 2001, World
Tunnel Congress.
Forman, E.H., (1985) Decision Support for Executive
Decision Makers`, InIormation Strategy: The
Executives Journal, Summer 1985, pp. 4-14.
Fowell, R.1., Richardson, G., Gollick, M.1.,
(1991) Rock Cutting with Roadheader Int. Sym.
On Mine Mechanization and Automation, Vol. II,
pp. 785-798.
Freeland, Phil, (1992)' Cole Park Detection
Vault, NORTH AMERICAN TUNNELING,
May 1992, pp. N5-N10.
Friant, 1., Ozdemir, L., (1993)' Tunnel Boring
Technologv Present and Future, 1993 RETC
Proceedings, PP 869-888.
Grandori, C., (1987) Development and Current
Experience with Double Shield TBM, 1987
RETC Proceeding, pp. 509-514.
Grandori, R., 1ager, M., Antonini, F. & Vigle, A.,
(1995) Evinos-Mornos Tunnel-Greece, 1995
RETC Proceeding.
Grob, G., (1998)' Heavv Dutv Roadheader used for
Subwav Tunneling in the Citv of Nuremberg and
Furth, Tunnel Construction Proceeding.
Guetter, W., Weber, W., (2001)' Two Tunnels in
Totallv Different Geological Formations Driven
bv the Same 7M Double Shield TBM with an
Extremelv Thin-Walled Monoshell Honevcomb
Segmental Lining Svstem, 2001 RETC
Proceedings, pp. 241-260.
Heikkonen, P., (1998) Performance in Tunnelling,
WORLD TUNNELLING, March 1998, pp. 69.
Herrenknecht, M., Bappler, K., (2001) The Latest
Developments Tunnelling Technologv, Progress in
Tunneling AIter 2000, AITES-ITA 2001, World
Tunnel Congress.
Hertzen, M.V., (1987) Use of Hvdraulic Hammer
in Tunnelling, Internal Report No.
0171e/MH/PEH oI Rammer Oy, Finland, Oct. 23,
1987, pp. 1-13.
Hoek e. and Marinous P., (2000)' Prediction Tunnel
Squee:ing Problems in Weak Heterogeneous Rock
Masses, Tunnel and Tunneling International, PP 45-
51: Part One, PP 33-36: Part Two.
Hoek, E., (2000) Big Tunnels in Bad Rocks, DraIt oI a
Paper to be Submitted in the ASCE Journal oI
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
2000 Terzaghi Lecture, Seattle.
Hunter, P.W., Aust, M.I.E. (1987). 'Excavation of
Mafor Tunnel bv Double Shield TBM through
Mixed Ground of Basalt and Clavev Soils, 1987
RETC Proceedings, Volume 1, PP 527-551.
Hustrulid, W.A., (1982) 'Underground Mining Method
Handbook The American Institute oI Mining,
Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. ISBN O-
89520-049-X.
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM)
(1975) Suggested Methods for the Description of
Rock Masses, Jointed and Discontinuitv, Int. Soc. oI
Rock Mecha., 2
nd
DraIt, Lisbon.
1anzon, H. & Buechi, E., (1987). ' Record of
Performance TBM in the 13.5 km Amlash Tunnel,
Austria .In Jacobs & Hendricks (eds), Proc. RETC.
New Orleans LA.2: 1251-1267. Littleton, CO: Soc.
For Mining, Metallurgy. And Exploration. Inc.
1ohannessen, O. (1995) Hard Rock Tunnel Boring,
Profect Report 1-94. NTH, University oI
Trondheim, The Norwegian Institute oI Technology.
Kessler, P.N., Moore, C.1., (1998),' Tunneling bv
Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), www
.wileyeurope.com.
Klados, G., (1998)' Experience with Hard Rock
Shielded TBMs in Special Conditions, Tunnel
Construction Proceeding.
Kogelmann, W.1., (1992)' Super collider Update,
NORTH AMERICAN TUNNELING, September
1992.
Kovari, B., (1998) Tunnelling in Squee:ing Rock,
Tunnel 5, pp. 12-31
Ladanyi, B., (1993) Time Dependent Response of Rock
Around Tunnels, Comprehensive Rock Engineering,
Pergamon Press J.A.Hudson., Vol. 2, pp. 78-112.
Lampiano, M., Nicola A., Fogli E., (2001)' Shanxi
Wanfia:hai Yellow River Diversion Profect LOT
II & III, Progress in Tunneling AIter 2000,
AITES-ITA 2001, World Tunnel Congress.
Lauffer, H. (1989) Boring Tunnels in Rock Subfect to
High Ground Pressure- Requirements to be met bv
the TBM of the Future. 2
nd
International Tunnelling
Symposium, WORLD TUNNELLING, April 1989.
Maidl B., Herrenknecht M., (1996) 'Mechanised
Shield Tunnelling Ernst & Sohn VCH Publishing
Group.
Mitsugi, K., Kajiwara, Y., (2001) Construction of the
3
RD
Longest Mountain Tunnel in the World-
Excavation of Swollen and Soft Mudstone Lavers`,
Progress in Tunneling AIter 2000, AITES-ITA 2001,
World Tunnel Congress.
Neil, D.M., Rostami, 1., Ozdemir, L., Gertsch, R.,
(1998)' Production Estimating Techniques for
Underground Mining Using Roadheader,
www.mines.edu.
Pakes, G., (1991) Selection of Method, WORLD
TUNNELLING, November 1991, pp. 399-403.
Pearse, G., (1992) Roadheading Machines, WORLD
TUNNELLING, October 1992.
Pelizza , S., (1999) TBM Bored Long Rock
Tunnels, www.ita-aites.org.
Pelizza, S., Patrucco, M., Benedetto, G., (1994) World
place environmental conditions and innovative tunnel
driving techniques`, Measurement air contro.
Proceeding, Tunnelling and ground conditions,
Balkema, PP.617-623.
Pikering, R.G.B., Watson, I.C., Klokow, 1.W. &
Knoetze, A.F., (1999) Practical Feasibilitv of
Using TBMs in Deep Level Gold Mines. In Hilton &
Samuelson, (eds), Proc. RETC. Orlando, FL. Ch. 55:
981-992, Littleton, CO: Soc. For Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.
Robbins, R.1., (1997) Hard Rock Tunnelling Machines
for Squee:ing Rock Conditions. Three Main
Concepts`, Tunnels Ior People, 23th Assembly oI the
ITA, Vienna, Golser, Hinkel and Schubert eds., pp.
633-638.
Rodford,I.G., (1974) Experience with impact units`,
Proceeding, Fluid power equipment in mining,
Quarrying and tunnelling, IMM, London, PP.57-66.
Rostami, 1., (2001) Rock Cutting Tools for Mechanical
Mining, SME 2001 Annual Meeting, Feb. 26-28,
2001, Denver, Colorado.
Saati, T.L., (1980) The Analvtical Hierarchv Process`,
Mc Graw Hill, New York.
Saati, T.L., (1990) Decision Making for Leaders`,
RWS Publications, USA.
Santillo, L. (2000) Earlv FP Estimation and the
Analvtical Hierarchv Process. WWW.dpo.it
Schuber, W., (1996) Dealing with Squee:ing
Conditions in Alpine Tunnels, Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering, 29(3), pp. 145-153.
Settini, D., Cueille, G., Glynn, 1., (1998)' Marseille
Tunnel, Tunnel Construction Proceeding.
Sinha, R.S., (1989) Underground Structures, Design
and Instrumentation Elsevier Science Publisher,
B.V., 1989.
Sturk, R., Olsson, L., & 1ohansson, 1., (1996) Risk
and Decision Analvsis for Large Underground
Profect, as Applied to the Stockholm Ring Road
Tunnels, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 157-164, Elsevier
Science Ltd.
Taheri A. & Associates, (2002). 'Geotechnical
Longitudinal Section (From A:adi square to the
Soffeh Terminal), EsIahan Urban Railway
Organization.
Thuro, K., Plinninger, R.1., (1998a) Geological Limits
in Roadheader Excavation-Four Case Studies, 8th
International IAEG Congress, 1998 Balkema,
Rotterdam, ISBN 9054109904.
Thuro, K., Plinninger, R.1., (1998b) Roadheader
Excavation Performance-Geological and
Geotechnical Influences, 9
th
ISRM Congress Paris,
August, 25
th
28
th
, 1998.
Tseng, Y.Y., Wong, S.L., Chu, B. & Wong, C.H.,
(1998) The Pinglin Mechanised Tunnelling in
Difficult Ground. In Moor & Hunger (eds), Proc. 8
th

IAEG congress, Vancouver. 3529-3536. Rotterdam:
Balkema.
Vigl, L., 1ager, M., (1997)' Double Shield TBM and
Open TBM in Squee:ing Rock A Comparison,
Tunnels Ior People, Golser, Hinkel & Schubert
(eds), 1997 Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN
9054108681.
Voerckel, M., (2001) Tunnelling with TBM, State of the
Art and Future Development, Progress in Tunneling
AIter 2000, AITES-ITA 2001, World Tunnel
Congress.
Wallis, S. (1998a) Pinglin Perseverance in Taiwan,
Tunnel 7/98. 10-24. Koln: STUVA.
Wallis, S., (1998b) China Railwav at Qinling,
WORLD TUNNELLING, May 1998.
Whittaker B.N., Frith R.C., (1990) ' Tunneling.
Design, Stabilitv and Construction, Institution oI
Mining and Metallurgy.
Will, M., (1989) Excavation of Large Cross Section
Tunnels in Accordance with the Basic Principles of
the, New Austrian Tunnelling Method, with
Particular Regard for the Use of Boom-Tvpe
Tunnelling Machines`, 2
nd
International Tunnelling
Symposium, WORLD TUNNELLING, April 1989.
Zaminfanavaran Consulting Engineers, (2004)
Geotechnical Report of the Line 1 of the Esfahan
Metro Profect, Southern Section`.