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

net/publication/280233012

Recommended rock testing methods for predicting TBM performance: focus

on the CSM and NTNU Models

Conference Paper · November 2008

CITATIONS READS

16 2,279

3 authors, including:

Saffet Yagiz Jamal I Rostami

Nazarbayev University Colorado School of Mines
112 PUBLICATIONS   3,018 CITATIONS    207 PUBLICATIONS   4,106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Tunnelware View project

Karaj - Tehran water conveyance tunnel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saffet Yagiz on 23 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISRM International Symposium 2008
5th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium (ARMS5), 24-26 November 2008 Tehran, Iran

RECOMMENDED ROCK TESTING METHODS FOR PREDICTING TBM

PERFORMANCE: FOCUS ON THE CSM AND NTNU MODELS

S. YAGIZ1, J. ROSTAMI2, L. OZDEMIR3

1
Pamukkale University, Geological Engineering Department, Denizli, Turkey
(e-mail of corresponding author: syagiz@pau.edu.tr)
2
Penn State University, Energy and Mineral Engineering, University park, PA, USA
3
Earth Mechanics Institute of Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO USA

Abstract
The performance and efficiency of tunnel boring machines (TBM) depend on the rock properties and geological structures, and
machine specifications and operational parameters. Several predictor models are currently available for estimation of TBM
performance in rock masses. Models developed by the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) and the Norwegian University of
Science and Technology (NTNU) are two most common predictors for estimating the TBM performance. Each model utilizes
different input parameter for predicting the TBM penetration rate. Also they use different rock testing methods to obtain related
rock properties. The CSM Model is based on force equilibrium method and uses intact rock properties including uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS), Brazilian indirect tensile strength (BTS) and abrasiveness of rock. The NTNU Model is empirical
method and focuses on geological structures such as joint, plane of weakness, bedding as well as porosity, brittleness, and
abrasiveness of rock. Also, the Modified CSM Model that were developed based on comparison of the predictions of the base
CSM Model and field data has been introduced by some researchers. The new model includes rock brittleness and the rock
fracture properties as adjustment factors into the existing model. These approaches are briefly discussed in this paper. This paper
will compares these models and their input parameters, their input variables as well as predicted performance results. Further
relevant rock properties and related laboratory testing methods will be highlighted.
Keywords: Tunneling, Tunnel Boring Rock testing; TBMs; CSM; NTNU, performance prediction.

1. Introduction behind it a groove and fractured and crushed

One of the most important parameters for
predicting the TBM penetration rate is
engineering properties of the rock mass. To
predict TBM performance, several models have
been developed by various researchers [1-
14].The two main group of models include
empirical and semi-theoretical approaches. The
interrelationship between cutter wear, machine
operation, continuous mucking, and support
installations requires an evaluation of many
factors affecting TBM performance. All
mechanical rock-cutting tools share the same
principles; hence, many efforts have been made
to develop performance prediction models and
theories offering explanations into the force-
penetration behavior of rocks [9, 14-20]. The
rock cutting process deals with the indentation of
a rock surface by a cutting tool. In the case of
disc cutters, which are the most common cutting
tool on hard rock TBMs, the indentation is
followed by a forward movement, leaving
rock [21].
The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and
Brazilian tensile strength (BTS) of the rock are
the most common rock properties in various
mining and civil construction projects. These
tests are often used as input parameters in TBM
performance prediction models. However, the
rock strength alone is not enough to predict
penetration rate of the TBM, where the fractured
faulted rock masses are to be encountered.
Therefore, various rock tests and data evaluation
techniques have been introduced to account for
rock mass properties [9, 13, 21-24]. The most
common models to predicting TBM penetration
rate are the Colorado School of Mines (CSM)
and the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU) performance models [1, 3].
Since their original developments, the models
have been improved and updated using available
additional dataset to improve their accuracy [4,
5, 9, 11 and 12]. This paper will review the rock

1523
properties that affect TBM performance and
compare the rock testing methods performed for
the original CSM, the Modified CSM, and the
NTNU models. An example tunnel will be
discussed to compare the result of these models.
2. Background
In general, the TBM penetration rate and cutter
wear are the important issues for TBM
application in tunnels, and they are a function of
rock strength, hardness, toughness, brittleness,
anisotropy and abrasivity. Any rock directional
properties caused by existing foliation, faults,
bedding, grain alignment or other defects, and
localized features may significantly influence the
crack initiation and development in the rock and
the resultant of rock chipping process.
The machine specifications, such as thrust and
power are the key to providing sufficient amount
of forces and torque to support the excavation
operation. Machine thrust should provide enough
force for the tools to efficiently penetrate into the
rock surface. Also, the cutterhead torque and
power must be sufficient to ensure rotation of the
head at the required penetration rate and
overcome the rolling force resistance of the
cutters.
As the cutter penetrates the rock, a crushed
zone is formed beneath the cutters due to
extremely high stress generated in the rock by
the concentrated forces at the cutter tip. The
tensile stresses generated by the crushed zone
causes radial crack to initiate and propagate in
the rock surface. The cracks continue to
propagation till the tensile stress at their tip falls
below the tensile strength of rock (Figure 1). If
the stress developed in the crushed zone is
sufficiently high, one or more crack extended far
enough to reach one of the tensile crack
developed from adjacent cut, causing rock
failure in the form of a chip [1, 4, 9]. The
laboratory or field testing should provide
relevant information on the rock properties
impacting this process.
1524
Figure 1. Rock Breaking and Failure Mechanism
3. Suggested Laboratory Tests for TBM
Performance Prediction
As discussed before, the most important rock
properties for investigating the TBM penetration
rate are strength, hardness, brittleness,
toughness, and also rock discontinuity properties
encountered during the tunneling. Thus, different
rock testing methods and evaluation techniques
were introduced in the literature.
In the original CSM model, UCS, BTS, and
Cerchar abrasivity Index (CAI) of rock is used,
while distance between plane of weakness
(DPW), alpha angle (α), the angle between plane
of weakness and TBM driven direction, and
punch penetration test (PSI) are the additional
factors used in the Modified CSM model.
Siever’s J-value (SJ), rock brittleness (S20),
abrasivity value (AV) , and porosity are the rock
properties used input parameters for the NTNU
model, together with rock mass properties
including joint orientation and spacing
encountered in the tunnel. Following is a brief
description of each test method.
3.1. Rock Sampling
One of the key factors for all TBM project
planning and predicting performance is careful
sampling of anticipated lithologies along the
tunnel from surface and subsurface
investigations. This is done to evaluate ground
conditions at the site which can impact machine
performance. The sample selection criteria
should focus on the physical and mechanical
properties of rocks after completing the
geological mapping. The number of samples
required depends on the complexity of the site
geology, tunnel length and also intended rock
test methods.
3.2. Rock Strength Tests (UCS and BTS)
The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rock
is performed according to the ISRM [25] and
ASTM [26, 27] suggested standards. The UCS is
the most commonly measured rock property to
evaluate the potential resistance of the rock
against the indentation of the cutting tool into the
rock surface. Thus, many of the developed
models and equations use UCS as input
parameters. However, to achieve the viable
relation between the rate of penetration (ROP)
and the UCS, the great attention must be paid to
sample failure mode. The samples that fail along
existing rock defects such as joints, bedding, and
schistosity should be classified as structural
failure. Where the sample failure is not
controlled by any defects and occurred in an
“intact” manner, the sample should be noted as
having failed in a non-structural and be
excluded. This is important since the structural
failures do not represent the actual rock strength
and should not be used for predicting TBM
performance. It must be noted that many
prediction models, rely on the UCS results, and
any discrepancies in the testing may produce
inaccurate results [28-29].
The Brazilian tensile strength (BTS) of the
rock is conducted according to the ISRM [25]
and ASTM [30] standards as well. The BTS is
also used in boreability predictions together with
the UCS. BTS is generally intended to provide
an indication of rock toughness/brittleness from
a viewpoint of crack propagation between
adjacent cuts. Like the UCS testing, the failure of
the rock under the tensile loading should be
carefully observed to identify the type of failure.
When the sample fails along the defect, the result
must be noted in the dataset used for the
prediction of TBM performance.
The both rock strength parameters (UCS and
BTS) are the main input variable for the CSM
model. However, the NTNU model does not use
these measurements in their prognosis.
1525
Meanwhile, rock porosity measured according to
the ISRM (1981) Suggested Testing Methods
has been used as one of input parameters into the
NTNU model but not into the CSM Model.
3.3. Rock Hardness Tests, (Sievers’ J-
Value)
All the minerals in rocks have distinctive scratch
hardness. The Moh’s hardness scale, used for
defining the hardness is divided into ten
increments, ranging from talc to diamond.
Besides, various rock testing methods including
the Schmidt rebound hardness, Shore
scleroscope hardness, Vickers hardness, Taber
abrasion and Siever’s J-value are also some
measure of the rock hardness used in various
applications.
The CSM model or the Modified CSM model
does not use any of these definitions of rock
hardness as input parameter. On the other hand,
the Siever’s J-value that is a measure of rock
surface hardness is utilized as input parameters
to estimate drilling rate index (DRI) in the
NTNU model (Figure 2). The Sievers’ J-value is
measured by miniature drilling with a bit
diameter of 8.5 mm. The depth of the hole after
200 revolutions, measured in 0.1mm, taken as
Siever’s J value for that test. The SJ value of the
rock is the mean of 4-8 tests, depending on the
consistency of the results. The precut surface of
the sample must be parallel or perpendicular to
the foliation of the rock; however, The Sievers’
J-value measured parallel to the foliation is used
to compute the DRI that may be described as the
brittleness value adjusted for the Sievers’ J-value
in the NTNU model as shown in Figure 3 [31-
32].

Figure 2. The Sievers’ J-Value Drill Test [31-32]
Figure 3. Computation of the DRI in the Model [32]
3.4. Rock Brittleness Test (BI and S20)
Punch penetration test is one of the methods to
measurement of the rock brittleness index (BI).
The brittleness is also one of the most effective
and required rock properties for estimating the
TBM rate of penetration. In general, the rock
cutting efficiency of any mechanical tool
improves with increasing brittleness exhibited by
rocks. Thus, the brittleness is a highly desirable
feature of the rock from boring point. Punch
penetration test does not have any institutional
standard, but is utilized according to industrial
standard of practice. The test is conducted to the
1526
measure rock brittleness and toughness. Data
evaluation techniques, usefulness and producers
of the test were discussed in detail for various
purposes by different researchers [9, 21, 23, 29,
and 33]. The test results that is the fluctuation of
the force-penetration profile obtained from the
test is indirectly used to evaluate the toughness
and brittleness of rock in the Modified CSM
model by visual observation of the force-
penetration curve. Later on, the brittleness index
(BI) was introduced as the slope of the obtained
graph from the origin to maximum applied force.
This index was developed and utilized as one of
the quantitative intact rock properties together
with the UCS and BTS of rock into the Modified
CSM model as given in Figure 4a, b [9].
The NTNU brittleness test (S20) is used to
define the drilling rate index (DRI) that is one of
the inputs for the prognosis model. The test gives
a measure of the ability of the rock to resist
fracturing from repeated impacts [31-32]. The
volume of the rock for testing corresponds to a
500 gram specimen obtained by sieving the
crushed rock sample and range 16-11.2mm in
size. The brittleness value equals the percentage
of materials passing the 11.2mm mesh sieve after
the aggregate has been crushed in the mortar.
The S-20 value is the mean value of 3-4 repeated
tests (Figure 5).
3.5. Rock Abrasiveness Tests (CAI and
AVS)
The Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) test is used
for measuring the abrasiveness of rock for
estimation of cutter wear [9, 31 and 34]. The test
is performed by scratching a freshly broken rock
surface with a sharp pin of heat-treated alloy
steel. The CAI could be computed as the average
values of the abraded tip of the steel pin in 0.1
mm after one cm of the travel across the rock
surface. The CAI value is the average of 10
measurements, 5 pins tested, diameter of flat
measured in two diagonal directions, Cerchar
Index is used in the CSM model to estimate
cutter wear and life that is directly related to the
resultant wear flats in the field.
 Figure 4a. Punch Penetration Test Set up [9, 33]
6.0 Figure 5. The NTNU Brittleness Test (S20) [31-32]
5.5
5.3
5.0 5.0 3.6. Petrography (Thin Section Analysis)
4.7
4.5 4.4
4.0 4.1 A reliable determining the microscopic
Brittleness Index (BI)

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.9
0.5 0.6
0.3
0.0 0.0
0 50
Peak slope of the test, PSI (kips)
Figure 4b. Computation of the BI as Function of Punch-
Penetration Tests in the Modified CSM Model [9]
In the NTNU model, abrasive value (AV) that
is defined as the weight loss in mg of a tungsten
carbide test piece after 20 rotations
(corresponding time of test is one minute) on the
rock powder spread on a rotating plate. AV is
used for estimating the bit wear index (BWI) and
cutter life index (CLI) together with Sievers’ J-
value. Further, abrasion value of steel (AVs) that
is the weight loss in milligrams of the bit made
of a hardened tool grad steel after 100
revolutions (corresponding time is 5 minutes) of
the disc is utilized for estimating bit wear. Both
AV and AVS tests are measured with same
equipment [31-32]. The rock abrasiveness is the
main property for estimating the cutter wear but
not for predicting the penetration rate (ROP).
3.8 properties of rock can be obtained within thin
3.5
3.1 section analysis that is the study of a transparent
2.8
2.5
section of the rock under microscope. Type and
2.2 content of hard minerals in rock (i.e. garnet,
1.9
1.6 quartz etc); grain size, shape, elongation and
1.3 orientation; grain suturing and interlocking;
micro fractures and any other invisible micro
feature of rock can be identified by using thin
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 section analysis. Besides, X-ray diffraction
(XRD), X-ray fluorescence (XRF) may be used
for quantifying the chemical and semi
quantitative determination of the mineral
composition as necessary. The result of the tests
can be used for investigating the mineralogical,
micro-structural and textural composition of rock
in the both Models.
4. Rock Mass Properties
In rock mass, discontinuities, foliations, faults
and beddings play a significant role in
controlling fracture propagation between cuts,
depending on the orientation of the rock
discontinuity with respect to the direction of
TBM advancement. The discontinuity properties
greatly affecting the TBM penetration rate
should be quantified to use for predictors. The
NTNU model uses fracture properties, including
“α” that is the angle between plane of weakness
and the TBM driven and joint spacing, which is
the distance between planes of weakness (DPW),

1527
as input parameters to estimating the rate of formulas for adjustment factors that was
penetration [3, 5, 9, 22]. The rock mass fracture developed by using a different and more diverse
properties are not used in the CSM model set of field data; however, there are some
directly; however, in the Modified CSM model similarities between the two systems [36].
Rock Fracture Index (RFI) were developed for The NTNU model is the empirical
accounting both alpha angle and DPW as performance predictor are based on the historical
adjustment factors to predict the TBM field performance database that mostly includes
penetration rate [9]. Yagiz (2002) concluded that tunnels in Norway. The model offers a set of
the rock mass fracture properties including the empirical graphs and equations obtained from
RFI together with the BI are the most affective various regression analyses between rock
parameters for estimating the TBM penetration properties, ground conditions, machine
rate in faulted and fractured rock mass condition properties and the ROP.
(Figure 6). As result, while the NTNU model is able to
3.0
incorporate rock mass properties and ground
2.0 α
condition directly into its predictions. The CSM
90 o
models are more flexible with machine design
Rock Fracture Index (RFI)

80 o
70 o
1.0 60 o parameters (i.e. thrust, torque, power) and allow
50 o
40 o
30 o
design modification for optimizing the layout
0.0 20 o
10 o and balance of cutterhead. Two predictors have
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
been compared several times with the results
-1.0 DPW (inches)
being very close on many cases where the joints
and discontinuities do not affect borability
-2.0
(Table 1).
0o

-3.0
Alpha 0 10 Degree 20 Degree 30 Degee 40 Degree Table 1. Comparison between the performance predictions
50 Degree 60 Degree 70 Degree 80 Degree 90 Degree for Yucca Mountain Welded tuff [32, 35].
Figure 6. Computation of the RFI as Function of the Alpha Standard TBM H-Power TBM
Angle and DPW in the Modified CSM Model [9]
CSM NTNU CSM NTNU
5. Principles of the CSM and NTNU ROP
6.09 5.94 8.88 7.89
Performance Models (mm/rev)
ROP (m/hr) 2.33 2.28 3.73 3.31
The CSM model is based on estimation of the
Cutter Life
cutting forces acting on individual cutters and 3.44 5.26 6.86 9.48
(m/cutter)
determines the overall thrust, torque and power
requirement of the entire cutterhead for given Hence, the Modified CSM and NTNU models
rock properties and machine specifications. The obtain the results that quite agree in the faulted
estimated values of cutterload, thrust, and power and fractured rock condition.
are then compared to corresponding machine
specifications to obtain maximum penetration 6. Conclusions
rate by try and error. This provides the estimated The paper was provided an overview and
penetration as function of machine and rock interpretation of the rock tests for the CSM and
properties (UCS, BTS). Further, the Modified NTNU models. New improvements in the CSM
CSM model was developed bases on the original model are also briefly discussed by introducing
CSM Model concept by adding the rock the Modified CSM model and related adjustment
brittleness (BI) and RFI as an adjustment factor factors. The both intact rock properties including
to account for rock brittleness and rock mass strength, toughness, brittleness, hardness and
parameters [9]. There are different set of also rock mass properties including joints,

1528
fractures, bedding, weakness zones and distance
between plane of weakness are crucial
parameters for the prediction of TBM
performance in hard rock. Therefore, before
selection of the TBM for a given tunneling
project, the tunnel site should be carefully
investigated by conducting laboratory rock
testing and also site investigation and geological
mapping. Both the CSM and NTNU as well as
other research groups around the world continue
to improve their models by adding more rock
properties, rock testing methods and also more
field data from past and current TBM cases in
the databases. As results, all these effort would
contribute to the development of more precise
TBM performance prognosis models for future.
Acknowledgments
Partial grant provided by the Scientific Research
Center of Pamukkale University (PAU-BAP) to
attend the conference is acknowledged.
References
[1] Ozdemir, L. 1977. Development of theoretical
equations for predicting tunnel borability. Ph.D.,
Thesis, T-1969, CSM, Co USA
[2] Tarkoy, P.J. 1975. Rock hardness index
properties and geotechnical parameters for
predicting TBM performance. PhD thesis, 325p.
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
[3] Blindheim, O.T. 1979. Boreablity predictions
for tunneling. PhD thesis, Dept of Geological
Engineering in the Norwegian University of Science
and Technology , 406p.
[4] Rostami, J. and L. Ozdemir. 1993. A New
Model for Performance Prediction of Hard Rock
TBM. In Bownerman and Monsees (Eds), In
Proceedings of Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Conference, Chapter 50: p793-809 Boston, USA
[5] Bruland, A. 1999. Hard rock tunnel boring
advance rate and cutter wear. Norwegian Univ. of
Science and Technology , 183p. Norway,
[6] Barton, N. 2000. TBM tunneling in jointed and
faulted rock. p173. Balkema, Brookfield
[7] Nelson, P.P. and T.D. O’Rourke. 1983. Tunnel
1529
boring machine performance in sedimentary rocks.
Civil and Env. Engineering, Cornell University.
No: 83-3, p438. Ithaca, NY
[8] Nilson, B. and Özdemir, L. 1993. Hard rock
tunnel boring prediction and field performance.
Chapter 52, Proceedings of Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference, pp833-852.
[9] Yagiz, S. 2002. Development of rock fracture
and brittleness indices to quantifying the effects of
rock mass features & toughness in the CSM Model
basic penetration for hard rock tunneling machines.
Ph.D .Thesis. T-5605. pp.289. Dept of Mining and
Earth Systems Engineering, Colorado School of
Mines. Golden Co. USA
[10] Yagiz S. 2003. A model for prediction of TBM
performance in hard rock condition. Abstract. p227.
56th Geological Congress of Turkey, MTA General
Directory, Ankara, Turkey
[11] Yagiz, S. 2006a. Recent advancement in
predicting TBM performance. 7th International
Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering. 10p. in
DVD. October 11-13 2006. Istanbul TR.
[12] Yagiz, S. 2006b. A model for prediction of
tunnel boring machine performance. Paper no. 383.
Engineering geology for tomorrow`s cities. 10p in
DVD. The 10th International Association of
Engineering Geologists Congress. The Geological
Society of London. U.K.
[13] Yagiz, S. 2006c. TBM performance prediction
based on rock properties. EUROCK2006.
Multiphysics Coupling and Long Term Behavior in
Rock Mechanics. (Editors) Cotthem, A., R.
Charlier, J. Thimus, J. Tshibangu pp663-670.
University of Liege. Belgium.
[14] Yagiz, S. 2008a. Utilizing rock mass
properties for predicting TBM performance in hard
rock condition. Tunneling and Underground Space
Technology. 2. p 326-339.
[15] Spagni, M., M. Berti, E. Bethaz, A., Busillo,
G. Cardone 2002. TBM performance estimation
using rock mass classficaitions. Int Journal of Rock
Mech and Min Sci. 39, 771-788.
[16] Graham, P.C. 1976. Rock exploration for
machine manufacturers. In exploration for rock
engineering. Proc. of the Symp. Johannesburg,
In:Bieniawski, Z.T.(Ed) Vol.1, pp173-180.
[17] Farmer, I.W. and NH. Glossop. 1980.
Mechanics of disc cutter penetration. Tunnels and
Tunneling 12(6), 22-25
[18] Roxborough, F.F. and HR. Phillips. 1975.
Rock excavation by disc cutter. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Science and Geomechanics, Abstracts V.12,
p361-366.
[19] Sanio, H.P. 1985. Prediction of the
performance of disc cutters in anisotropy rocks. Int.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science,
V.22, No.3, p153-161
[20] Sato, K., F. Gong, K. Itakura. 1991. Prediction
of disc cutter performance using a circular rock
cutting ring. Proceedings 1st International Mine
Mechanization and Automation Symposium, June,
CSM, Co, USA
[21] Dollinger, G.L. and J.H. Handewith. C.D.,
Breeds. 1998. Use of punch tests for estimating
TBM performance. Tunneling and Underground
Space Technology, Vol.13, No.14, pp403-408.
[22] Lislerud, A. 1988. Hard rock tunnel boring:
prognosis and costs. Tunneling and Underground
Space Tech. Vol.3(1), p9-17.
[23] Szwedzicki, T. 1998. Draft ISRM Suggested
method for determining the indentation hardness
index of rock materials. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci., V 35. No.6, p831-835.
[24] Yagiz, S. and L. Ozdemir 2001. Geotechnical
parameters influencing the TBM performance in
various rocks. Program with Abstracts. p79. 44th
Annual Meeting of AEG. Eng. Geology for
Construction. MO USA.
[25] ISRM, 1981. Rock characterization testing and
monitoring, ISRM Suggested Methods.
International Society for Rock Mechanics. In:
Brown, E.T. (Ed.) 167s. UK
[26] ASTM, 1995. Standard practice for preparing
rock core specimens and determining dimension
and shape tolerances. American Society for Testing
and Materials, D4543.
[27] ASTM, 1995. Standard test method for
unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core
specimens. American Society for Testing and
1530
View publication stats
Materials, Designation D2938.
[28] Cigla, M., S. Yagiz, L. Ozdemir. 2001.
Application of tunnel boring machines in
underground mining development. 17th Int Mining
Congress and Exhibition of Turkey. pp155-164.
Ankara TR
[29] Yagiz S, Ozdemir L, Rostami J. 2008c.
Laboratory tests suggested for mechanical
excavation in rock mass. IX. Regional Rock
Mechanics Symposium. 10p. DEU, Izmir.
[30] ASTM, 1995. Standard test method for
splitting tensile strength of intact rock core
specimens. American Society for Testing and
Materials, Designation D3967.
[31] Nilson, B. and L. Özdemir. 1999. Recent
developments in site investigation and testing for
hard rock TBM projects. Proceedings of RETC.
pp715-731 as chapter 39.
[32] Bruland, A. and B. Nilsen. 1995. Tunneling
performance estimation based on drillibility testing.
International Congress on Rock Mechanics. pp123-
126. Tokyo Japan.
[33] Yagiz, S. 2008b. Assessment of brittleness
using rock strength and density with punch
penetrationtest. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2008.04.002,
Tunneling and Underground Space Technology.
[34] CERCHAR, 1986. Centre d’ Etudes et
Recherches de Charbonnages de France. The
Cerchar abrasiveness index, 12 S. Verneuil Fr
[35] Rostami, J. L. Ozdemir, B., Nilsen. 1996.
Comparision between CSM and NTNU Hard rock
TBM performance model. Proc. of Annual
Technical Meeting of the Institute of Shaft and
Drilling Technology, Las Vegas, USA.
[36] Ramezanzadeh, A., Rostami, J., Kastner, R.,
2005. Influence of rock mass properties on
performance of hard tock TBMs. Rapid Excavation
and Tunneling Conference, Seattle, WA, June 27-
29, 2005.