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

net/publication/371950993

Selection of Tunnel Construction Methods

Presentation · June 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31837.59361/1

CITATIONS READS

0 1,895

1 author:

Tek Bahadur Katuwal

IOE Pashchimanchal Campus
11 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tek Bahadur Katuwal on 29 June 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 NORHED II PROJECT 70141 6: Conference
28 June 2023, Trondheim, Norway

Selection of Tunnel Construction Methods

Tek Bahadur Katuwal

PhD Research Scholar in
Rock & Tunnel Engineering
IGP, NTNU

Program: (NORAD)
Project: NORHED II PROJECT 70141 6
Content of Presentation

❑Introduction
❑Tunneling Methods
➢Cut and Cover
➢Roadheader Method (RHM)
➢Drill and Blast Method (DBM)
➢Tunnel Boring Method (TBM)
❑Comparison between RHM, DBM, and TBM
❑Conclusion
 Tunnelling Methods

Tunnelling Methods

Cut and Cover Drill and Blast Road header Boring Machines
Method (CCM) Method (DBM) Method (RHM) (TBM)
Factors consideration for selecting the method

• Rock mass properties

• Time • Rock mass quality
• Cost (strength)
• Risk Contract Geology • Ground water
Specific • Rock stress
Specific

Technology Project
• Excavation Specific
Technology Specific • Tunnel Dimension
• Level of Skill & • Tunnel Geometry
Expertise
 Selecting the Tunnelling
Methods

Hammer tunneling
Developed in the late 1980.
Low equipment costs.
Tunnel geometry: Unlimited
Effective in:
✓Low-to-medium UCS
✓Fractured rock mass.
In hard and compact ground:
Application is limited by low production rate.

Fig. 1: Tunneling methods in different rock/soil conditions

(Matti 1999).
 Selecting the Tunnelling
Methods
❑ Shielded TBMs or shield machines:
Used in loose soil and mixed ground.
Used in high water ingress conditions.
❑ Pipe-jacking
Micro tunneling (no-man-entry sized tunnels).
❑ DBM:
For medium to hard rock conditions.
Applied to a wide range of rock conditions.
❑ Hard Rock TBMs
Used in relatively soft to hard rock conditions.
❑ Roadheaders
Used in Low-to-medium hardness. Fig. 1: Tunneling methods in different rock/soil conditions
(Matti 1999).
 Table 1: Classification of Rocks (ISRM 1981)

Selecting the Tunnelling Type Classification UCS (MPa)

Methods
Soil <0.25
Extremely Low 0.25-1
Strength
Very Low Strength 1-5
Rock Low Strength 5-25
Medium Strength 25-50
High Strength 50-100
Very High Strength 100-250

Fig. 2: Range of methods compared to uniaxial Extremely High >250

compressive strength (Matti 1999) Strength
Selecting the Tunnelling Method

Fig. 3: Costs versus excavation length for TBM and Drill & Blast methods
(https://bestsupportunderground.com/tbm-drill-and-blast/?lang=en)
Cut and Cover Method

• For Small tunnels, Shallow Overburden

• Soft rock or soil conditions
• As per (Wilton 1996)
✓ Practical construction depth: (10.7–13.7 m)
✓ Rarely preferred (Depth > 30.5m)

Construction Techniques
1. Bottom-up methods
2. Top-down methods
 1. Bottom-up methods

Construction Steps
I. Installed retaining structures
II. Excavate to the first strut level.
III. Installed Strut structures till final stage excavation.

IV. Remove installed struts one by one after

construction of base slab & side wall
V. Construct final structural shape of the tunnel.
VI. Backfilled the tunnel and make the surface is
reinstated.

If extremely unfavorable geotechnical ground

conditions are encountered: Fig. 4: Bottom-up methods (Nirei & Mitamura 2018)
Use the ground stabilization method.
2. Top-down methods
v. Reinstall the surface for traffic movement.
Construction Process vi. Construct next level of slab and continue the
i. Installed retaining wall process till the base slab construction.
ii. Excavate up to the roof slab level. vii. Construct the side wall (upward) with
removing the intermediate strut.
iii. Installed strut to support retaining wall.
viii. Complete the underground structure and
iv. Construct roof slab with opening
finally back fill.
(for downward work proceed)
(Mouratidis 2008 and Chapman et al. 2018).

Fig 5.: Top-down construction methods (Reference: https://railsystem.net/cut-and-cover )

 Advantages
• Cost-effectiveness, higher flexibility
• Easy to access (during construction, repair,
and maintenance phases)

Cut and Cover Method

Limitations
• Disruption to the surrounding area
• Large space required for construction
• Only suitable for shallow tunnels
Road Header Method
(RHM)
▪ Partial-face type excavation method.
▪ Used for soft to moderate hard rocks excavation.
▪ Firstly, in early 1950s used to mechanically excavate coal.
▪ Since 1970, this method has been worldwide accepted.
• RH consists of a boom-mounted rotating cutting head
✓ (Swing left or right, up, & down).
• An efficiency range of 15-20HP hr/ton is required
➢to cut all rock &
➢work on massive formations

References: (Tatiya 2013 and Deshmukh et al. 2020).

 Road Header Method
(RHM)

RH consists of three units:

✓Cutting unit
✓Gathering unit
✓Delivery unit

Traveling or Crawler moving tracks:

▪ Forwarded the entire machine into
excavation face

Fig. 6: Schematic diagram of a typical roadheader

(Deshmukh et al. 2020)
Road Header Method
(RHM)

Advancement of the machine with

indicating
➢ Machine size, weight, cutter
head and boom positioning
➢ Automation of cutting, muck
picking and loading systems
➢ Advancement with hydraulic
and electrical systems.

Fig. 7: Technological advancement of the RH

method over time (Deshmukh et al. 2020).
Classification of RHM Table 2. Classification of Roadheader methods (Tatiya 2013)

Table gives a general idea for the

selection of appropriate roadheader
machines based on
✓ Weight of the machine
✓ Cutter head power
✓ Compressive strength of rock
✓ Excavation size
 Selection of RHM

➢ Used for first selection of an

appropriate machine for certain
project conditions.

Fig. 8: Diagram for Roadheader selection (Matti 1999).

 Excavation performance
of RHM

➢ Beneficial for determination of tunnel stability.

➢ Useful for determination of RH cutting rate

and tool wearing.

➢ Geological parameters significantly influence

the excavation performance.

Fig. 9: a) Roadheader excavation performance

influencing parameters (Thuro and Plinninger 1999)
 Advantages of the Roadheader Method

Concerns Explanations
1. Versatility and mobility - It can excavate a variety of opening sections.
- Applicable for changing rock conditions (without shut down).

2. Quick and Easy Machine delivery time is 3-6 months.

mobility After that, it can be directly applied to the operation.
3. For large size tunnel Effectively utilized the resources with simultaneous rock
fragmentation and mucking.

4. In comparison with the Less vibration (5-10% of DBM), smooth profile, low over-break, no
drill and blast method problem during mucking (effectively handled the large lump size).

5. In comparison with the Low investment [For the same cross-section, the investment cost
TBM excavation method for roadheader is 0.15 (for large section) to 0.30 (for small section)
of TBM investment cost].
Constraints of the Concerns Explanations
Roadheader 1. For smaller Performance may not be satisfactory for smaller
Method tunnels tunnels (area less than 30 m2) (Tatiya 2013).

2. In very ✓ High pick consumption rate

abrasive rocks ✓ Frequently required to change the bit
i.e., Increases the machine vibration and
maintenance costs (Deshmukh et al. 2020).

3. Size of the Large boulders are difficult to break and muck

rock handling systems (Tatiya 2013).
Drill and Blast Method (DBM)
Drill and Blast Method (DBM)

❑ First applied in 1627 in a silver mine in

Slovakia” (Kolymbas 2005).
❑ One of the oldest & most widely used
method
❑ Construction Cycle: In cyclic order

Fig. 10. Drill and Blast method (DBM) cycle

(Matti 1999; Kolymbas 2005; Tatiya 2013; Zou 2017)
 Blasthole Drilling

Main principle:
Generate a stroke and create an impact in the
bottom of the hole.
By using: Rotary and percussion drilling.
Diameter of the blast hole: 45-50 mm
Drilling rate of up to 3 m/min into the rock
(Nilsen & Thidemann 1993 and Kolymbas
2005).

Fig. 11: Types of holes in a tunnel face (Matti 1999)

 Blasthole Drilling

Drilling pattern ensures

• Distribution of explosive in the rock
• Desired blasting result

Factors must be considered:

• Rock Drillability (DRI & BWI)
• Blastability
• Type of explosives
• Blast vibration restriction
• Accuracy requirements for blasted profile
Fig. 12: Blasting notations in tunnel rounds (Bruland 2006)
 A suitable charging explosive is
Charging (Loading) selected by
1. Velocity of detonation
2. Characteristics of explosive
✓ Density
❖ Flush drill holes, filled with explosives and
✓ Water resistance
detonators, and attached to explosive
✓ Fume characteristics
devices. ✓ Thermal stability
❖ Charging is depending on the type of ✓ Sensitivity

explosive.

Amount of explosive for the blasting of hard rock

mass condition > soft rock mass (Kolymbas 2005).
 Blasting
Fundamental principle Efficient blasting result is influenced by
Break the rock mass & fragments i. Geological parameters
towards free surface by designing
efficient “cut”. (Mechanical Properties of Rock, Anisotropy, degree of
jointing & fracturing of the rock mass)
General Firing sequence
ii. Type of cut
i. Cut
ii. Cut Expansion iii. Drilling hole pattern
iii. Easers
iv. Types of explosives and detonator
iv. Walls
v. Roof (Nilsen & Thidemann 1993 and Tatiya 2013)
vi. Invert
 Table 3: Ventilation requirements for tunnel excavation

Ventilation Concerns Requirements

Oxygen content must not be less than 20 %
Carbon dioxide must not be more than 0.5 %
(CO2)
❑ Ventilation term used for artificial ventilation. Temperature should not be more than 200C
❑ To supply fresh air for Ventilation time at least 15 minutes of ventilation
and velocity time is required for supplying
➢ Tunnel crew fresh air with at least 0.3 m/sec
velocity
➢ Efficient machinery operation.
A permanent can be provided for long tunnel
ventilation system and intermediate shaft
construction projects

(References: Kolymbas 2005 and Chapman et al. 2018)

 Decision support systems
Combination of experience data and rock
mechanics modelling.
Rock Support ➢ Q-system
➢ RMR

Why do we need rock support? ➢ RMI

✓ Protect & safety for tunnel workers & users. ➢ GSI…..

✓ Ensure the long-term use and functionality of
the tunnel.
✓ Achieve the expected lifetime of the tunnel. Types of support systems
✓ Rock Bolts
✓ Injection
Functions of support system (Kaiser et al., 1996) ✓ Sprayed concrete/Shotcrete
✓ Spiling bolts
✓ Strengthening (rock mass reinforcement) ✓ Concrete lining
✓ Holding the loosened rock blocks ✓ Steel Fiber Reinforced Shotcrete (SFRC)
✓ Reinforced Ribs of Shotcrete (RRS)
✓ Surface retaining ✓ Freezing….
 Rock Support Analysis
Upper Tamakoshi Hydropower Project
 Drill and Blast Method (DBM) Disadvantages
➢ High explosive cost
➢ High overbreak (Leading to safety and
stability problems)
Main Advantages ➢ Irregular shape of excavation profile
✓ Low capital investment ➢ Low advance rate
✓ Fast start-up-time ➢ Higher possibility of an accident
✓ Construction of any shape and size of ➢ Generation of
tunnel. ❖ high noise,
✓ Wider adaptability of geological conditions ❖ hazardous fumes
✓ Higher flexibility in all rock mass ❖ vibration
conditions (Low to High Strength rock).
➢ Higher ventilation requirement
➢ High rock mass disturbance
Tunnel Boring Method (TBM)

https://dwri.gov.np/gallery/bheri-babai-diversion-multipurpose-
project-surkhet-2077-11-14s
 Tunnel Boring Method (TBM)

✓ Excavation without use of any explosives (One TBM used in favorable ground conditions
single operation).
➢Higher advance rate
✓ Circular shape.
➢Good construction quality
✓ First modern TBM was successfully developed in
➢Lowest level of risk
the 1950s.
➢Higher construction efficiency
✓ Applied to excavate different ground conditions.
which are incomparable benefits over the DBM.

TBMs can be used to excavate TBMs used in adverse ground conditions

▪ Micro tunnel (with a diameter smaller than 1m) ✓Reduction in advance rate
to
✓Increase the risk
▪ Larger tunnel with a diameter greater than 15m
(Champman et al. 2018). ✓Increases cost & completion time

▪ 3 m is most cost-effective Dia. (Zare et al. 2016)

TBM Classification

Fig. 13: TBMs classification based on rock mass conditions

 Geological Challenges
TBMs in Hard rock
i. Very hard and strong rocks
Reduced advance rate, High degree of cutter
wear
ii. Weakness and fault zones
Major key sections of Hard Rock
Large deformation, cave-in and cutter-head jams
TBMs
iii. Water inflow / high water pressure
1. Boring section (consisting of cutter head)
Challenging grouting condition, Difficult in
2. Thrust and clamping section (accountable for segmental lining
machine advancing)
iv. Rock stress
3. Muck removal section (accountable for collection
and removal of muck) Spalling or rock burst and Squeezing
4. Support section v. Mixed face condition
(Maidl et al. 2008 and Champman et al. 2018). Vibration, Variable thrust requirement, Risk of
machine discs failure
(Panthi Lecture Note, 2022).
 Gripper TBMs
(Open-type or Main Beam machine or
without shield) Excavation cycle
i) Beginning of advance
ii) Completion of advance
iii) Extension of auxiliary supports
iv) Tail of machine pulled forward
v) Starts for new advance

Useful for excavation of tunnel through

➢ Competent Hard Rock
➢ Stable rock conditions at the wall and face
of the tunnel,
Fig. 14. Main components of Gripper TBM ➢ Relatively Low Water ingress
(Courtesy of Herrenknecht)
Shielded TBMs
Front section of the • For supporting excavated ground
machine extended • Providing safe working space
with a shield • Protecting tunnel crew

Widely utilized in • High efficiency

urban tunnels with • Safe working environments

Appropriate for
construction of long • Nowadays, applied to excavate
tunnels with low (Diameter > 10 m & Length > 2km).
project cost.

Classification
(Based on the geological condition)
i. Single shield TBM
ii. Double-shield TBM
 Single Shield TBM
(SS-TBM)

Suitability of SS-TBM
✓ Excavation through unstable ground
conditions (high risk of ground collapse)
✓ Excavate solid or fractured rock mass
✓ Under high groundwater ingress
conditions. Figure 5. Main components of SS TBM (Courtesy of
Herrenknecht)
 Double Shield TBM
(DS-TBM)
This is combined form of single-shield
and gripper-type TBM in one machine.

Suitability of DS-TBM
✓ Excavation of ground with variable
geological rock mass conditions.
✓ Moderate to Good rock mass quality
Fig. 15. Main components of SS TBM
(with sections of weathered or fault (Courtesy of Herrenknecht)
zone) with a high advance rate.

Not applicable for In Nepal

➢ Squeezing ground conditions ➢ Bheri – Babai (Completed)
➢ High-water ingress ➢ Sunkoshi Marin Diversion (Under Constructtion)
 This method is
useful to

TBMs in Soft Ground

Maintain the face Prevent ingress Create provisions

▪ Machine operates like pressure of water for muck removal

pressurized face (Closed

mode) SS-TBMs.

▪ Tunnel faces are supported

and stabilized by creating
pressure at the front shield of Classification
the machine.
i. Earth pressure balance (EPB)
ii. Slurry systems
Earth Pressure Balance
(EPB)

▪ Applicable for weak fine-grained

cohesive soil or soft soil.
▪ Face of the tunnel is directly supported Fig. 16: Main components EPB machine
by using the excavated material. (Courtesy of Herrenknecht)

Special Feature:
✓ Rapid tunnel advancement
▪ Major advantages:
✓ Minimum settlement
✓ Additional support medium is not required
✓ Applicable in cohesive soil conditions with
consistent and high advance rates.
 Major advantages
✓ Suitable for producing smooth
Slurry Shield TBMs walls by limiting the ground
settlements
✓ Suitable for high water pressure
ground conditions.
▪ Useful in cohesionless or coarse-grained ground condition
▪ Tunnel face stabilized by application of pressurized fluid.

Drawbacks
✓ High upfront capital cost
✓ Difficult to transport
✓ High power backup system is
required.
✓ Poor advance rate against ground
conditions with large stones and
boulders
Fig. 17: Main components Slurry shield machine (Courtesy of
Herrenknecht)
 Choice between EPB and Slurry TBM
Selection Slurry TBMs EPB TBMs
Criteria
Particle size - Excavation through clays - More effective in silty
distribution and silts ground creates grounds
problems - More costly, if the fine
- Excavation difficulty, if fine contents of excavation
particles greater than 20 %. ground are less than 10 %

Hydraulic - Applicable for higher - Applicable for lower

conductivity hydraulic conductivity hydraulic conductivity

Ground Proper application able to control the ground movement

movements to very tight tolerances in both methods
Fig. 18: Choice between EPB & Slurry TBM
(Champman et al. 2018).
TBM Performance
Evaluation

❖ Higher compressive strength of

rock generally lowers the PR.

❖ Increasing thrust per cutter is

highly beneficial for PR.
Utilization Index is controlled by
✓ Tunnel geology
✓ Rock mass condition
✓ Size of the tunnel
✓ Tunneling activities
 TBM Performance Prediction Models
Required QTBM Model NTNU Model Rock Mass Excavability (RME)
Parameters Model
Developed by Barton Proposed by Lislerud (1988) & updated ITA world tunnel congress in 2006
(1999) by Bruland (1988) Beneficial for open & double-shield-
Detailed Studied of More than 40 projects type TBMs.
(more than 300 Km of Tunnel)
Rock mass RQD, Jn, Jr, Ja, Jw, SRF Intact Rock: RME index (by five input parameters)
parameters Compressive strength (σcm) Drilling rate index (DRI), Porosity, Cutter UCS of intact rock (0-25 points),
Tensile strength (σ ) life index (CLI), Bit wear index (BWI) Drillability (0-15 points), Discontinuities
tm
Rock Mass: (0-30 points), Stand-up time (0-25
Quartz content (q) points), Groundwater inflow (0-5
Biaxial stress (σϴ) Fracturing (frequency and orientation) points).
Machine Average cutter load (F), TBM Cutter diameter, No. of Cutter, Torque, thrust force, advance rate,
parameters Cutter Life Index (CLI), Thrust force, Cutter spacing, Cutter head penetration rate, rotation speed,
TBM diameter RMP utilization coefficient, specific energy of
excavation, & number of cutters
changed
Prediction PR and AR of TBM Cutter life index (CLI), Weekly advance Average Rate of Advance (ARA)
rate, Net penetration rate, and Machine
utilization
 Selection of TBM (based on geological conditions)

Geological conditions Types of TBM

1. Competent & stable hard rock (with relatively low water ingress) Gripper type (Open) TBM

2. Unstable ground conditions (Increases the risk of ground collapse) Single Shield (SS) TBM

❑ Dry ground conditions (Ground water is properly drained out within the tunnel) Open face SS-TBM

❑ High water pressure (Ground water drainage is not possible) Pressurized SS-TBM
3. Ground with variable geological rock mass conditions Double-Shield (DS) TBM
4. Unstable ground conditions (which contains fine-grained cohesive soils with Earth pressure balance
high clay and silt contents and with underwater tables) (EPB)

5. Highly unstable and heterogeneous ground (which contains cohesionless or Slurry Shield
coarse-grained sand, and gravel with high water permeability & pressure)

6. Heterogeneous geologies with high-water pressure Mix Shield

 Comparison between tunnel excavation methods

Parameters RHM DBM TBM

1. Flexibility Highly flexible Highly flexible No flexibility
2. Capital Low Low High
Investment
3. Tunnel shape Any shape Any shape Circular
4. Excavation Customized Irregular and rough with high Regular, smooth, and
profile overbreak stable profile
5. Excavation Continuous Cyclic Continuous
Operations
6. Tunnel Relatively low Moderate High
advance rate
7. Fragmentation Uniform and relatively good Uneven Uniform
8. Rock mass Minimum damage Higher damage as compared Minimum damage
disturbance with TBM
9. Restrictions Complex geology, machine Fumes, accidents Major issues if stuck
selection
 Comparison between tunnel excavation methods…

Parameters RHM DBM TBM

10. Possibility of Accidents Minimum Higher possibility Lower Possibility
11. Ventilation Requirement Required Highly required Low

12. Ground vibration Not so significant and Short time (transient) with Continuous with low rate
depend upon the a high rate
machine type

13. Noise Localized Short time with a high rate Continuous with low rate
14. Requirement of Required Required High
experienced crew
15. Ground support Moderate A higher level of support is Normally less
requirement required due to blast
damage.

16. Start-up-time Medium Shorter Longer

 ❑ Selection of an efficient tunnel excavation method is not
straightforward.
❑ Each tunnel excavation method has its advantages & limitations.
Conclusion ❑ Factors consideration for selecting the method
✓ Contract specific
✓ Geological specific
✓ Technological advancement
✓ Project capacity

✓ Therefore, a detailed evaluation is essential during planning,

design, and construction of tunnel projects.
✓ Appropriate selection construction method will be beneficial for
timely completion of project (within a defined project cost) with
minimizing the tunnel instability.
 Shaft Excavation
Methods

Shaft Construction
Methods Shaft Sinking Alimak Raise Mechanized Raise
Climber Boring

We will discuss it after the

15th International ISRM
Congress 2023.
References
Armaghani, D. J. & Azizi, A. 2021. An Overview of Field Classifications to Evaluate Tunnel Boring Machine
Performance. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-1034-9_1
Bieniawski, Z. T., Celada, B., Galera, J. M. & Álvarez, M. 2006. Rock Mass Excavability (RME) Index. Proc. ITA World
Tunnel Congress, Seoul, Korea.
Chapman, D. N., Metje, N. & Stark, A. 2017. Introduction to tunnel construction. CRC Press.
Chapman, D., Metje, N. & Stark, A. 2018. Introduction to Tunnel Construction (2nd edition). London: CRC Press. ISBN
9781498766241
Deshmukh, S., Raina, A. K., Murthy, V. M. S. R., Trivedi, R. & Vajre, R. (2020). Roadheader–A comprehensive review.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.1031488
Kolymbas, D. 2005. Tunnelling and tunnel mechanics: A rational approach to tunnelling. Springer Science & Business
Media. ISBN 9783540285007
Macias, F. J. & Bruland, A. 2014. D&B versus TBM: Review of the Parameters for a Right Choice of the Excavation
Method. In ISRM Regional Symposium-EUROCK 2014. One Petro.
Maidl, B., Schmid, L., Ritz, W. & Herrenknecht, M. 2008. Hardrock Tunnel Boring Machines. John Wiley & Sons, Berlin,
Germany.
Matti, H. 1999. Rock excavation handbook for civil engineering. Sandvik & Tamrock, Danbury
 References
Nilsen, B. & Thidemann, A. 1993. Rock Engineering. Norwegian Institute of Technology, Division of Hydraulic
Engineering. Hydropower vol. 9, ISBN 82-7598-017-8
Panthi K. K. 2008. Underground space for infrastructure development and engineering geological challenges in tunneling
in the Himalayas. Hydro journal of Water Energy and Environment.
Ponnuswamy, S. & Victor, D. J. 2017. Transportation Tunnels (2nd edition). CRC Press. ISBN 9781498785488
Rostami J. 2016. Performance prediction of hard rock Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) in difficult ground. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, vol. 57, pp. 173-182, ISSN 0886-7798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.009
Tatiya, R. R. 2013. Surface and Underground Excavations: Methods, Techniques and Equipment (2nd edition). London:
CRC Press. ISBN 9780203440940
Thuro, K. & Plinninger R. J. 1999. Roadheader Excavation Performance - Geological and Geotechnical Influences. 9th
ISRM Congress, Paris, France
Zare, S., Bruland, A. & Rostami, J. 2016. Evaluating D&B and TBM tunnelling using NTNU prediction models.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 59, pp. 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.06.012
Zheng, Y. L., Zhang, Q. B. & Zhao, J. 2016. Challenges and opportunities of using tunnel boring machines in mining.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 57, pp. 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.023
Zou, D. 2017. Introduction to Underground Excavation by Drilling and Blasting. In: Theory and Technology of Rock
Excavation for Civil Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1989-0_16
Thanks for your
attention!

View publication stats