See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264942493

D&B versus TBM: Review of the parameters for a right choice of

the excavation method

Conference Paper · May 2014

CITATIONS READS

6 4,989

2 authors:

Javier Macias Amund Bruland

JMConsulting-Rock Engineering AS Norwegian University of Science and Technology
39 PUBLICATIONS   187 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   1,234 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Prediction model for drill and blast tunnelling View project

Hard Rock Tunnel Boring: Performance Predictions and Cutter Life Assessments View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Javier Macias on 26 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Rock Engineering and Rock Mechanics: Structures in and on
Rock Masses – Alejano, Perucho, Olalla & Jiménez (Eds)
© 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, London, 978-1-138-00149-7

D&B versus TBM: Review of the parameters for a right choice

of the excavation method

F.J. Macias & A. Bruland

Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, Norwegian University
of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

ABSTRACT: The right choice of the excavation method is essential in hard rock underground projects. The
Drill and Blast (D&B) and Hard Rock Tunnel Boring Method (TBM) are widely and successfully used. Selecting
the most appropriate excavation method is not simple as it is depending of several parameters and particular
conditions. The purpose of this paper is to make a review of the parameters involved in the selection of proper
excavation method. The applicability and level of convenience of each excavation method in function of every
parameter defined will be briefly discussed. A final resume of the excavation method comparison is presented
and proposed to be general guidelines at the early stages in hard rock tunnelling.

1 INTRODUCTION been divided into groups according to the parameters

Underground construction industry has been experi-
encing a strong development with enormous techno-
logical improvement. In hard rock projects, drill and
blast excavation method (D&B) and tunnel boring
machine method (TBM) are widely used with success.
In hard rock tunnelling the selection of the exca-
vation method is not a simple issue. It may result in
catastrophic situations as experience has shown.
The choice is more complex than a simple eco-
nomic issue and rarely clear from the early stages of
the projects. It is necessary to have an entire overview
of the parameters involved in the excavation method
choice.
Many parameters are involved with different role
in every project case; project characteristics and pur-
pose, environmental aspects or even social issues are
involved. Every project is unique and a comprehensive
and detailed study should be carried out.
The excavation methods are not mutually exclusive.
Hybrid solutions should be considered taking advan-
tage of them whenever circumstances allow (Barton,
2013).
In the present paper, through a wide literature
review, the main parameters involved in the selec-
tion of the excavation method are briefly discussed.
The extension of the discussion is limited due to the
space available on the paper. A further research is
considered.
The existing literature related to the excavation
method choice in hard rock tunnelling is normally
based on particular cases studied and many “sub-
jective” statements are done. The discussion has
involved in the excavation method choice.
A final summary in table forms is achieved. It has
been attempted to quantify the parameters based on
literature when possible.
The summary of the comparison is proposed to be
general guidelines in the selection of the excavation
method for tunnels in rock at the early stages.
2 PARAMETERS FOR THE EXCAVATION
METHOD CHOICE
2.1 Introduction
The parameters involved on the excavation method
choice are grouped according to the main topics. A
briefly discussion is carried out following.
2.2 Project design considerations
The geometry of the excavation in the TBM method
is limited to a circular shape while the drill and
blast method allows almost “any” excavation geome-
try. With “any” excavation is meant within reasonable
contour tunnel.
The cross section area is defined from the early
stages of design and it can hardly be changed.
This great versatility of the shapes suppose an
advantage of the drill and blast method in projects with
a variety in the cross section shapes whileTBM method
is more appropriate for projects with constant shapes
(Ehrbar, 2008).

823
 With both methods the cross section area available
to excavate are similar, e.g. TBM method can be used
from 2–3 meters diameter and up to approx. 15 m
according to Hansen (2008). Nowadays, tunnel boring
method can even be used in smaller excavation areas
using micro tunnelling. In hard rock conditions it may
be successful from 900 mm. (Nicholas, 2006).
TBMs are more competitive for tunnels with small
cross sections (Nord et al., 1988, 2006; Gütter et al.,
2011). There are limitations in the both methods for
very small diameters (Nord. et al., 1988).
Regarding to the general layout, e.g. curve radius,
slope…, the TBM method has more limitations
(Holen, 1998; Stewart et al., 2006). However, the D&B
method has almost no limitations (Holen, 1998; Jodl,
2011; Stewart et al., 2006).
The length of the tunnel is a key parameter from
the technical and economical point of view. The TBM
method is more competitive for long tunnels while
D&B method is for short tunnels (Nord, 1988; Holen,
1998; Ehrbar, 2008; Jodl, 2011).
It would be risky to define lengths since every
project has its particular characteristics. It is largely
accepted in the literature that in 3 km length there is a
tipping point.
In a large number of projects the excavation of
niches, branch tunnels, cavern and/or extended cross
sections excavation are required. Since normally drill
and blast is the technique applied, it creates interfer-
ences in the boring operation resulting in machine
downtimes (Holen, 1998). Extra cost in drilling equip-
ment and workers with special drill and blast skills has
to be considered.
From the authors opinion it should be considered
that in the TBM method, the initial part of the tunnel
is normally performed by D&B technique.
2.3 Final purpose considerations
The excavation geometry and the final quality required
are considerations to consider for the final use of the
underground project.
In water tunnels, the head loss due to wall fric-
tion between unlined TBM tunnels and drill and
blast is substantial. Cross section reductions between
33% (Hansen, 2008) and 40% (Holen, 1998) can
be achieved. In road tunnels, the circular excavation
profile is not optimal.
Since in the D&B method “any” shape is possible,
it is more adapted to any final purpose of the project
(Ehrbar, 2008).
The final operation facilities of the tunnels, as water
and frost protection, can be simplified and optimized,
since systems can be mounted on an even and exact
profile using the TBM method (Hansen, 2008).
2.4 Start-up time
The start-up time in the TBM project is much longer
than in the D&B method. This is due to longer delivery
824
time equipment, time consumption in assembling and
start-up (Lislerud, 1988).
For a new TBM, the delivery time is 6–12 months
(Holen, 1998) or 10–12 months (Stewart et al., 2006;
Hansen, 2008). For a new drill-jumbo 5–6 months
(Stewart et al., 2006).
The erection time of a TBM and backup, small and
medium hard rock TBMs, takes usually 3–6 weeks
depending local conditions and machinery available
(Holen, 1998). Erection times are highly variable
worldwide and should be considered with caution.
It is also important to consider that TBM method
needs a more comprehensive study in the design phase
with widely geological pre-investigation.
2.5 Health, safety and working
environment
There are almost no worldwide historical data supports
in the literature to say that one method is safer than
the other (Holen, 1998, Tarkoy, 1995), but it is widely
accepted that less numbers of accidents occur with the
TBM method.
By used of the tunnel boring excavation method
serious accident risk from storing or handling explo-
sives are avoided (Hansen, 2008, Holen, 1998) and
the safety is higher in the face and work area (Tarkoy,
1991). In practically all types of TBM the rock support
is installed from protected areas.
2.6 Advance rate
The advance rate has a high impact in the total
construction time and excavation cost.
In normal conditions, it is accepted for many
researchers that the advance rate in the TBM method is
much higher than with drill and Blast method (Kaiser,
1994, Tarkoy, 1995, Holen, 1998, Stewart et al., 2006,
Nord, 2006, Hansen, 2008, Ehrbar, 2008).
The excavation rate, in normal conditions, with
TBM method is estimated 4–6 times faster than with
D&B method (Tarkoy, 1995), 1.5–5 (Holen, 1998) or
nearly to 1–3 times according to Stewart et al. (2006).
The author’s opinion is that would be risky to define a
ratio due to conditions variability worldwide.
However with the D&B method it is easier to
advance in crushed zones due to the high versatility
of the method (Lislerud, 1988).
The influence of rock in TBM excavation makes
the advance rate estimation much more difficult and
uncertain (Nord et al., 2006).
2.7 Flexibility
Flexibility in an excavation method is related to the
ability of adapting it to changes in the layout profile
and in the rock mass conditions.
The TBM method is less or even not flexible than the
D&B method. Changes of the TBM diameter is almost
limited depending on the machine design, and align-
ment during the construction stage (Hansen, 2008;
Stewart et al., 2006).
The Drill and Blast method advance easier in
crushed zones (Lislerud, 1988). This easier advance
involves a low safety and ground stability risk.
D&B method is the best excavation method for
underground projects with highly variable rock con-
ditions or variable shapes (Ehrbar, 2008).
2.8 Risk
Tunnelling, included D&B and TBM method, is
exposed to greater risks especially because the ground
to excavate and its behavior knowledge is limited
(Thomas et al., 2007).
TBM method has higher advance risk (Stewart et al.,
2006). The TBM risk takes particular significance in
the case of long and deep hard rock tunnels (Barton,
2000).
TBM method requires a more complete and detailed
geological investigation, mapping and testing during
the planning stage. More time and cost in the design
phase is necessary to evaluate the project viability
(Hansen, 2008; Bruland, 2010).
Highly variable rock conditions favor the choice of
the blasting method (Ehrbar, 2008).
2.9 Ground stability
Circular excavation is the most favorable shape from
the point of view of ground stability; therefore the
TBM method has more rock stability under normal
conditions (Hansen, 2008).
In case of water inflow under high pressure, D&B
method is more suitable (Ehrbar, 2008), due to the high
flexibility in the application of auxiliary constructions
methods and rock support applications.
In case of high rock stress conditions the TBM
method may result in important delays.
However, the excavation with TBM method causes
less damage in the rock mass around the excava-
tion. The rock support required, compared with D&B
method, is significantly reduced in the same geologi-
cal conditions (Tarkoy, 1991, Holen, 1998, Nord, 2006,
Hansen, 2008).
D&B method alloy a great variability and excava-
tion sequences depending the rock conditions (Ehrbar,
2008) while in the TBM method is fixed.
2.10 Operation and construction crew
For operation and crew, the TBM method is more
advantageous than D&B method.
The tunnel boring operation is a continuous (non-
cyclical) operation, so is a repetitive process; crew
perform repetitive activities with limited competences
and skills which facilities training and learning is con-
tinually reinforced (Tarkoy P.J., 1995), which means
less human factor.
825
2.11 Costs
Construction time and cost detailed studies must be
made at the earliest project stages and have to be
updated periodically Ehrbar (2008).
In TBM method, capital cost or initial investment
are higher while marginal cost for the excavation
phase are less (Holen H., 1998).This means important
finance and negative cash flows at the beginning of the
project which is a disadvantage for the TBM method.
In addition, the excavation cost for TBM method has
large variability (Holen, 1998),
However, life time costs, operation and mainte-
nance, for TBM excavation may be significantly less
than for a D&B tunnels (Hansen A.M., 2008).
The most extraordinary cost saving that can be done
with TBM excavation is the possibility of eliminating
temporary excavation structures such as access adits
according Tarkoy (1995).
As already mentioned, TBM method reduces the
rock support. The amount of rock support and concrete
lining are more predictable in the TBM method for
normal conditions (Hansen, 2008). This means lower
rock support costs and more predictable rock support
and lining costs.
Anyway, tunnel cost estimation in the TBM method
is much more difficult and uncertain (Nord et al.,
2006).
2.12 Overbreak and tunnel profile quality
Most of the authors agree that tunnel boring exca-
vation produces less geological overbreak compared
to drill and blast (Nord G., 2006; Stewart P. et al.,
2006). The overbreak with TBM method is near elim-
ination (Tarkoy P.J., 1995). With D&B method should
be predicted not less than 10% overbreak.
When the geology is not favorable, the overbreak
is very difficult to control, but always is much lower
with TBM.
2.13 Environmental disturbance
Using the TBM method, less environmental distur-
bances, noisy and vibrations, are caused in the sur-
rounding areas (Holen H., 1998; Hansen A.M., 2008).
TBM method will be easier acceptable from an envi-
ronmental point of view due a lower construction time
and adits with roads and porwerlines may be omitted
(Holen H., 1998).
2.14 Temporally access and implantation layout
TBM method has a higher potential when it is neces-
sary to avoid or have no possibilities to make additional
adits or being able to start a heading from the opposite
end of the tunnel (Hansen, 2008). One example of this
is the AMR project (India) where with only two adits
it will perform more than 40 km of tunnel by TBM
method.
However, TBM method has increased requirements
for mobilization and demanding infrastructure as well
as TBM requires more electric power than drill and 3 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS
blast (Hansen, 2008).
In projects with difficult access, complicated orog- A summary in table form of the parameters involved
raphy or urban areas, D&B method is especially in the excavation method choice discussed earlier are
appropriated (Ehrbar, 2008). TBM method is more shown in the following.
suitable for projects with a good accessibility.
Table 3. Comparison between D&B and TBM method
2.15 Contractual considerations in the choice of related to health, safety and working environment.
the excavation method
D&B Method TBM Method
High risks are involved in underground construction.
Uncertainties in the rock conditions and behavior, Safety Lower Higher
unforeseen conditions, dependency of the excavation Storage Terrorism and Avoided
method and the high construction risk are associated explosives accident risk
Handling Serious accident Avoided
with this type of construction. Therefore is very impor-
explosives rick
tant a specific and differently contracting practices Rock support No protected area Protected area
(Ehrbar H., 2008). installation
The choice of the excavation method should be Working Temporary worse Improved
responsibility of the contractor, always based on the environment Toxic gases Dust
owner’s comprehensive design, except in special cases Principal safety Handling and Cutter changes
with project restrictions (Ehrbar H., 2008). risk storage explosives
The level of initial investigation should be adapted Loading and
to the excavation method requirements. hauling
The total investment and delivery time for new
machines emphasizes the need for reliable prognoses
of rock conditions (Barton, 2000). Table 4. Comparison between D&B and TBM method
related to advance rates.

Table 1. Comparison between D&B and TBM method D&B Method TBM Method
related to the project design considerations.
Higher
D&B Method TBM Method Lower (1.5–6 times)
Lower std. dev. Higher std. dev.
Geometry “Any” shape∗ Circular (24 %)∗ (45 %)∗∗
Almost same range∗∗ Better prediction Uncertain prediction
2 2
3 m –180 m Advance rate Low potential High potential
TBM micro tunnelling: 0.9–3 m2 Rock mass Lower Much higher
Cross Section Not competitive influence
Area small Competitive small
General layout Almost Restrictions ∗ ∗∗
, , Case stories (Stewart et al. (2006).
no restrictions
Tunnel Length Shorter Longer
Optimal 3 km (5 km–25 km) Table 5. Comparison between D&B and TBM method
Start-up Time Shorter Much longer related to flexibility.
5–6 months 6–12 months
(new machine) (new machine) D&B Method TBM Method
Niches and Less problematic More problematic
Branch Tunnels Profile Highly Not flexibility
Layout, rock support. . . High Very low
∗
“any shape” excavation means within reasonable contour Advance in crushed Easier Very difficult
tunnel. zones
∗∗
Commonly cross section areas used. Profile variability High Fairly limited
in construction

Table 2. Comparison between D&B and TBM method

related to final purpose considerations.
Table 6. Comparison between D&B and TBM method
D&B Method TBM Method related to risk.

Purpose by Any purpose Variably suitable D&B Method TBM Method

geometry Road Water
Purpose by Lower Higher Geological risk Lower Higher
quality Rock mass conditions Any Optimal midrange

826
Table 7. Comparison between D&B and TBM method Table 11. Comparison between D&B and TBM method
related to ground stability. related to the environmental disturbance.

D&B Method TBM Method D&B Method TBM Method

Ground stability Lower Higher Noise and vibrations Higher Significantly

Water inflow Higher Lower 50–75% lower
induced reduction Environmental impact More difficult Easier
Water pressure Lower Higher acceptable acceptable
influence Blasting fumes Continuously Not
Rock stress Lower delay risk Higher delay risk Avoid Contamination Not possible Reduction
conditions potential
Rock support Increased Reduced 30–90%
required Less predictable More predictable
Excavation variations Great variability No variability
Auxiliary support Much easier More difficult
Table 12. Comparison between D&B and TBM method
Faster Slower
related to the adits and implantation layout.

D&B Method TBM Method

Table 8. Comparison between D&B and TBM method
related to operation and construction crew. Temporally access Necessary Omitting or
reducing
D&B Method TBM Method Portal space Little Ample
Electrical power Lower Higher
Operation Cyclical Continuous Difficult access Especially Not appropriate or
(repetitive) appropriate not allowed
Manpower Almost same manpower
per volume excavated
Exc./support Interfere Not interfere
operation 4 CONCLUSIONS
Equipment Inappropriate Appropriate
for mucking non continuous continuous
Construction All skills required Less skills required There is not too much research about the selection of
crew More difficult Easier training the excavation method, D&B versus TBM, based on
training field data. Many “subjective” statements are done.
Most of the authors agree that the main advan-
tages of the D&B method are high flexibility of the
method, almost no restrictions in the general layout,
Table 9. Comparison between D&B and TBM method great adaptability to unexpected situations or lower
related to construction costs. start-up and initial investments.
In the TBM method case, most of the authors agree
D&B Method TBM Method
in the most suitability for longer tunnels, has high
Design cost Lower Higher potential in advance rate, high potential reducing of
Initial investment Lower Higher the rock support and overbreak with a concrete lin-
Adits impact: High Limited ing more predictable, the possibility of omitting and
investment and cost reducing temporally access or less skills and easier
Marginal rate More increased Less increased training of the crew. As well as most of them have a
Construction costs Not vary Highly variable wide acceptance that the disadvantages of the TBM
very much method are a high geological risk, high cost design
Life time cost Higher Significantly and initial investments or long start-ups.
lower
The choice is more complex than a simple economic
issue and rarely the selection is clear from the early
stages of the projects. Depending on the particular cir-
Table 10. Comparison between D&B and TBM method cumstances of a project, the parameters that in a case
related to overbreak and tunnel profile. are not even considered may be decisive in the choice
for others.
D&B Method TBM Method Hybrid solutions, considering the excavation meth-
ods advantages, D&B & TBM, should be considered
Overbreak Higher 15–25 cm. Much lower whenever circumstances allow.
<10 cm. A further work it will consist in the application of
Tunnel profile Difficult Nearly total
the risk matrix method considering all the parame-
quality
Filling concrete High extra cost Limited extra cost ters described in the present paper. Application of the
Concrete lining Less predictable More predictable matrix can be utilised in the decision of the excavation
method in future tunnelling projects.

827
REFERENCES
Barton, N. 2002. TBM tunnelling in jointed and faulted rock.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 5809 341 7
Barton, N. 2012. Reducing risk in long deep tunnels by
using TBM and Drill and Blast methods in the same
project-the hybrid solution. Journal of Rock mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering. 2012, 4 (2): 115–126.
Barton, N. 2013. Hybrid TBM and Drill-and-Blast from the
start. Tunnelling Journal, December 2012/January 2013.
Bauer, F.; Hödl, K.J,; Lemmerer, J.; Obermeier, O. & Zwit-
tnig, G. 2011. Widening of the Westbahn line to four
tracks: Experience in the selection of the tunnelling
method. Geomechanics and Tunnelling, August, 2011,
No 4, 285–294.
Blindheim, O. T.; Johansen, E. D. & Hegrenæs, A. 1998.
Bored Road Tunnels in hard rock. Publication NO.11,
Norwegian Tunnelling Society.
Bruland, A. 1998. Hard Rock Tunnel Boring. PhD The-
sis.The Norwegian University of Science and Technology
(NTNU). Trondheim, Norway.
Bruland, A. 2010. Pre-investigations and prediction for TBM
tunnels-the NTNU model. Seminar: TBM Applications,
2010. Norwegian Tunnelling Society, Bergen, Norway.
Hansen, A.M. 2008. TBM vs D&B – Pros and Cons, AMH
Consult AS. Personal communication.
Kaiser, P.K. & McCreath, D.R. 1994. Rock Mechanics Con-
siderations for Drilled or Bored Excavations in Hard Rock.
Tunnelling and Underground Space technology, 1994,
Vol.9 No.4, pp 425–437.
Ehrbar, H. 2008. Gothard Base Tunnel, Switzerland. Expe-
riences with different tunnelling methods. 2 Congresso
Brasileiro de Tuneis e Estructuras Subterraneas.
Ehrbar, H.; Beeler, P.; Neuenschwander, M. & Bianchi, M.
2008. Tough decisions for mega-projects. A methodol-
ogy for decision making on time-relevant measures at
the Gothard Base Tunnel. WTC (ITA/AITES) Vancouver,
Canada (2010).
Ehrbar, H.; Sala, A. & Wick, R. 2012. Drives in the Gothard
Base Tunnel – A review. Findings and lessons learned from
the client’s viewpoint. Swiss Tunnel Congress (2012).
Eskesen, S. D.; Tenborg, P.; Kampmann, J. & Veicherts, T.H.
2004. Guidelines for tunnelling risk management: Inter-
national Tunnelling Association, Working Group No. 2
(ITA/AITES). Tunnelling and Underground Space tech-
nology, 2004, Vol.19 pp 217–237.
Gütter, W.; Jäger, M.; Rudigier, G. & Weber, W. 2011.
TBM versus NATM from the contractor’s point of view.
Geomechanics and Tunnelling, August, 2011, vol. 4,
327–336.
Holen, H. 1998. TBM vs Drill & Blast Tunnelling. Publica-
tion NO.11, Norwegian Tunnelling Society.
828
View publication stats
Jodl, H.G. & Resch, D. 2011. NATM and TBM – comparison
with regard to construction operation. Geomechanics and
Tunnelling, vol. 4, August, 2011, No 4, 337–345.
Lieb, R.H. & Ehrbar, H. 2011. Gothard Base Tunnel. Risk
Management of the World’s Longest Railway Tunnel:
Lessons learnt. W T C (ITA/AITES) Helsinki, Finland
(2011).
Lislerud, A. 1988. Hard Rock Tunnel Boring: Prognosis and
Costs. Tunnelling and Underground Space technology,
1988, Vol.3 No.1, pp 9–17.
Maidl, B.; Schmid, L.; Ritz, W. & Herrenknecht, M. 2008.
Hard Rock Tunnel Boring machines. Ernst & Sohn.
Moritz, B.; Wagner, H.; Mussger, K.; Handke, D. & Harer
G 2011. Criteria for the selection of tunnelling method
through the example of the Koralm Tunnel. Geomechanics
and Tunnelling, vol. 4, August, 2011, No 4, 305–316.
Myrvang, A.; Blindheim, O.T. & Johansen, E. D. 1998.
Rock stress problems in bored tunnels. Publication NO.11,
Norwegian Tunnelling Society.
Nicholas, P. 2006. Micro tunnelling – Methods and Devel-
opment. International Conference and Exhibition on
Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology, Malaysia (2006).
Nord, G. & Stille, H. 1988. Bore and Blast Techniques
in Different Types of rock: Sweden’s Experience. Tun-
nelling and Underground Space technology, 1988, Vol.3,
pp 45–50
Nord, G. 2006. TBM versus Drill and Blast, the choice of
tunnelling method. International Conference and Exhibi-
tion on Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology, Subang,
Selangor, Malaysia.
Spiegl, M.; Sander, P.; Pellar, A.; Maidl, U.; Herdina, J. &
Feistmantl, K. 2011. The conclusions of risk analysis as
a basis for deciding between variants through the exam-
ple of Contract H8. Geomechanics and Tunnelling, vol. 4,
August, 2011, No 4, 295–304.
Stewart, P.; Ramezanzadeh, A. & Knights, P. 2006. Bench-
mark Drill and Blast and Mechanical Excavation Advance
Rates for Underground Hard-Rock Mine Development.
Australian Mining Technology Conference: 41–63.
Tarkoy, P.J. 1995. Comparing TBMs with drill+blast excava-
tion. Tunnels & tunnelling. October, 1995.
Tarkoy, P. & Byram, J.E. 1991. The advantages of tunnel bor-
ing: a qualitative/quantitative comparison of D&B and
TBM excavation. Hong Kong Engineering, 1991.
Thuro, K. & Plinninger, R.J. 2003. Hard Rock tunnel bor-
ing, cutting, drilling and blasting: rock parameters for
excavability. ISRM2003-Technology roadmap for rock
mechanics, South African Institute of Mining and Met-
allurgy.
Thomas A.H. et al. 2007. Risk Management of the construc-
tion of tunnels using Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs).
Underground Space – the 4th Dimension of Metropolises.