Hindawi

Shock and Vibration

Volume 2019, Article ID 5309480, 9 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5309480

Research Article
A New Evaluation Method for the Uniaxial Compressive Strength
ahead of the Tunnel Face Based on the Driving Data and
Specification Parameters of TBM

Yuexiu Wu ,1 Chishuai Ma,2 Xianjun Tan ,3 Dianseng Yang ,3 Hongming Tian,3

and Jianping Yang3
1
Key Laboratory of Rock Mechanics in Hydraulic Structural Engineering, Ministry of Education, Wuhan University, Wuhan,
Hubei 430072, China
2
Patent Examination Cooperation Hubei Center of the Patent Office, CNIPA, Wuhan, Hubei 430205, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Xianjun Tan; [email protected] and Dianseng Yang; [email protected]

Received 20 August 2018; Revised 19 November 2018; Accepted 17 February 2019; Published 11 March 2019

Academic Editor: Longjun Dong

Copyright © 2019 Yuexiu Wu et al. .is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) is a very important fundamental mechanical parameter for TBM construction. In this work,
a predictive model of UCS was proposed according to the TBM parameters including torque, penetration, cutter number, and
cutter diameter. .e parameter of the new proposed model was established by fourteen existed TBM tunnels’ construction data. To
describe the relationships of UCS with PLSI of the Murree tertiary hard rocks, regression analyses have been conducted and a
fitting equation with high-prediction performance was developed. Validation from the data of Neelum–Jhelum (NJ) TBM
diversion tunnel were carried out. .e absolute errors between predictive UCS and experimental UCS were presented. .rough
comparison, it can be concluded that the proposed calculation equation of UCS has a high accuracy for a certain rock type with
UCS from 50 MPa to 200 MPa. For special hard rock or soft rock, a new calculation equation between UCS and TBM parameters
should be studied furthermore.

1. Introduction the first choice for long and deep tunnel construction in recent
years since it has many advantages, such as high quality, high
At present, nearly 200 long and deep-buried tunnels with length efficiency, environmental protection, and small disturbance of
approaching or exceeding 10 km have been built in the fields of surrounding rock [1, 2]. As one of the most fundamental
transportation, water conservancy, hydropower, and urban mechanical parameters, UCS has widely been applied in the
sewage disposal all over the world. Encouraged by the opening process of TBM construction including assessment of rockmass
of Japan’s Sei-kan tunnel (50.5 km in length) and the British- rating (RMR) and QTBM rockmass system, hazard assessment of
French submarine tunnel (53.9 km in length), a large number of rockburst classification or TBM jamming and assessment of the
larger scheme extralong tunnels have been planned in China reasonable supporting design [3–6]. .erefore, it is very im-
and abroad, for example, the Japanese-Korean submarine portant to quickly and accurately obtain the in situ UCS
tunnel between Fukuoka and Busan (250.0 km), Gotthard characteristics of the surrounding rock [7, 8].
railway tunnel in Switzerland (56.9 km), and the Basis Brenner .e studies on determining the rock strength mainly fo-
railway tunnel between Austria and Italy (55.0 km). Compared cused on the direct standard laboratorial uniaxial compressive
with traditional techniques such as drilling and blasting, the full- tests and indirect tests such as the point load strength index
face rock tunnel boring machine (TBM) has gradually become (PLSI) [9]. A number of researchers have attempted to provide
 3148, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/5309480 by Cochrane Slovakia, Wiley Online Library on [18/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 Shock and Vibration

empirical index-to-strength conversion factors between the Table 1: Equations correlating the UCS to PLSI.
UCS and PLSI, to reveal their correlation and demonstrate the References Expression
practical application [4, 10–21]. Linear, power, logarithmic, and
Broch and Franklin [4] UCS � 24Is(50)
exponential equations correlating the UCS to the PLSI are ISRM [10] UCS � (20 − 25)Is(50)
summarized in Table 1. Norbury [11] UCS � (8 − 54)Is(50)
However, one of the drawbacks for TBM construction is Tsidzi [12] UCS � (14 − 82)Is(50)
that the design prevents the direct observation near the Grasso et al. [13] UCS � 25.67Is(50)
tunnel face since TBMs excavate the entire face [22]. Due to Singh and Singh [14] UCS � 23.37Is(50)
the comprehensive cover and narrow space, it is impossible Kahraman [15] UCS � 23.6Is(50) − 2.7
to carry out the standard laboratorial uniaxial compressive Lashkaripour [16] UCS � 21.4Is(50)
test in practical application. .e previous testing methods Quane and Russel [17] UCS � 24.4Is(50)
on in situ rock strength were difficult to be applied timely Kahraman et al. [18] UCS � 24.8Is(50) − 39.6
and effectively. .erefore, some beneficial attempts have Diamantis et al. [19] UCS � 21.5Is(50) − 6.02
Kohno and Maeda [20] UCS � 16.5Is(50)
been carried out by different researchers based on the
Azimian et al. [21] UCS � 56.94 ln Is(50) − 1.66
relation between the rock strength and TBM performance.
Nelson et al. [23] founded the rock strength is proportional
to the field penetration index (FPI). Sanio [24] found strong FN � α · P0.5 · σ c , (1)
correlations between UCS and the specific energy (SE)
where FN is the normal thrust force of TBM, kN; σ c is the
defined as the amount of energy needed to excavate a unit
UCS of the surrounding rock, MPa; P is the penetration,
volume of rock. Fukui and Okubo [22] suggested a method
which is a ratio of injection depth and rotation rate of TBM,
for calculating rock strength at the face from the cutting
mm/rev; and α is an empirical coefficient.
force exerted by the TBM, based on the results of laboratory
Bilgin et al. [29] suggested that the total torque of TBM
experiments. A good consistency was found between the
can be calculated from the following formula:
rock strength estimated from the cutting force, the Schmidt
hammer rebound hardness, and other rock properties. 1
TR � Nc · FR · DTBM · fL , (2)
Hamidi et al. [25] founded the UCS is proportional to the 4
field penetration index (FPI), in which the highest R2 value where TR is the total torque of the TBM cutter head, kN·m;
is 0.70. Based on data obtained from main tunneling FR is the mean rolling force of one cutter, kN; DTBM is the
projects in Iran, Hassanpour et al. [26–28] evaluated the cutter head diameter of the TBM, m; fL is the coefficient for
relationship between UCS and actual TBM performance the frictional losses, 1.2 is used in this work; and Nc is the
and results demonstrated that FPI and UCS were positive in number of the cutters.
correlation logarithmically. Furthermore, Sanio [24] suggested that the ratio of
.e above studies have greatly promoted the develop- rolling force to normal thrust force is proportional to P0.5
ment of the relationship among the UCS, PLSI, driving data, based on theoretical analysis and laboratory experiments,
and specification parameters of TBM, but there are still which can be written as
obvious shortcomings in this area: first, most of the previous 0.5
studies are based on qualitative or semiquantitative de- FR 4 P
� ·􏼠 􏼡 . (3)
scription of laboratory tests and did not give a general FN 5 DTBM
quantitative formula for engineering; second, the factors
considered are relatively single, only through a specific TBM Substituting equations (1) and (3) into equation (2), the
project, which means the operability and universality in relationship among the UCS of the surrounding rock σ c ,
engineering practice need to be improved. penetration, cutter number, and cutter diameter of the TBM
Based on these findings, this work was organized as can be obtained, that is,
follows: a predictive model of UCS was proposed 5 TR
σc � · . (4)
according to the TBM parameters such as torque, pene- αfL Nc · P · D0.5
TBM
tration, cutter number, and cutter diameter in Section 2.
And then, the parameter of the new proposed model was Assuming λ � (5/αfL ), equation (4) can be rewritten as
established by fourteen existed TBM tunnels’ construction TR
data in Section 3. After that, the validation was carried out σc � λ · , (5)
Nc · P · D0.5
TBM
in Section 4. Finally, some conclusions were presented in
Section 5. where λ is an empirical parameter.

2. A Predictive Model for the Uniaxial 3. Establishment of the Parameter of the

Compressive Strength Proposed Model
A large number of laboratory and in situ tests show that the To obtain the empirical parameter λ in equation (5), driving
relationship between normal thrust pressure and penetration data and specification parameters from 14 TBM tunnels
of TBM can be described as a power function form, which can were regressed and analyzed. .e related data are list in
be expressed as follows [24]: Table 2.
 3148, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/5309480 by Cochrane Slovakia, Wiley Online Library on [18/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Shock and Vibration 3

Table 2: Driving data and specification parameters from 14 TBM tunnels.

TBM parameters Excavation parameters
Tunnel
No. Cutter Average rock Average Average
names Cutter diameter (m)
number strength (MPa) penetration (mm/rev) torque (kN·m)
1 Hiraya 0.394 19 76.8 6.8 210
2 Nikengoya 0.394 20 53.4 7.7 210
3 Doushi 0.3556 27 67 8.2 310
4 Ogouchi 0.3556 34 76.6 3.1 120
5 Shinyuyama 0.432 27 57.4 6.9 250
6 Maiko 0.394 37 140 3.2 470
7 Tsukui 0.432 37 84.7 5.9 590
8 Tolo 0.432 25 120 4.4 300
9 ChaiWan 0.4826 32 122.7 4.3 900
10 ZWCT 0.432 42 75 7 850
11 GWCT 0.432 32 135 5 900
12 Maen 0.432 36 130 4.2 850
13 PieveI 0.432 27 156 3 541
14 Varzo 0.432 27 135 5.5 558

With data in Table 2 and equation (5), the empirical .e diversion tunnel is located in the Himalayas, geo-
parameter λ for each tunnel engineering was calculated. logically young mountains with spectacular heights de-
After that, the relationships between λ and torque, pene- veloped as a result of collision between various continental
tration, cutter number, and cutter diameter were analyzed, and microcontinental plate fragments during the late Me-
which are shown in Figures 1–4. From these four figures, it is sozoic to late Cenozoic periods. .e main geological for-
shown that the correlations between λ and penetration P and mation outcropped in the project area is the Murree
cutter number Nc are very small and the regression co- Formation except at the intake, which is partly in igneous or
efficients are less than 20%. .e correlation between λ and metamorphic rocks belonging to the Panjal Formation.
TBM diameter is obvious, but small with a regression co- Geological mapping of each TBM and drill and blast tunnel
efficient of 55.39%. .e correlation between λ and torque TR is conducted continuously as the tunnel advances. .e
is the biggest with a regression coefficient of 84.08%. .us, Murree Formation consists of alternating beds of grey
the regression equation from TR was used to calculate the medium to fine-grained sandstone and reddish colored fine
empirical parameter λ as follows: to very fine grained siltstone with occasional thin mudstone
λ � 14.73 · TR 􏼁
−0.464
. (6) layers. Contacts are often gradational with no bedding
parting. Sandstone, siltstone, and occasional thin mudstone
Substituting equation (6) into equation (5), the final beds are recognized. .ick sandstone beds are often very
expression of the relationship among the UCS of the sur- massive and competent.
rounding rock σ c , torque, penetration, cutter number, and
cutter diameter of the TBM can be rewritten as follows: 4.2. Estimation of UCS from PLSI. As mentioned before, one
0.536
TR 􏼁 of the drawbacks for TBM construction is that the design
σ c � 14.73 · . (7)
Nc · P · D0.5
TBM
prevents the direct observation near the tunnel face since
TBMs excavate the entire face [22]. Due to the compre-
It can be seen from equation (7) that the influencing hensive cover and narrow space, it is impossible to carry out
factors of UCS can be classified into four groups: torque, the standard laboratorial uniaxial compressive test in
penetration, cutter number, and diameter of the TBM. practical application. .us, in this work, a batch of typical
rock samples were collected at first and were cut into a
4. Validation from the Data of the Φ50 × 100 mm standard cylindrical specimen, which can be
Neelum–Jhelum (NJ) TBM Diversion Tunnel seen in Figure 6. .en, the standard laboratorial uniaxial
compressive tests and point load tests were carried out to
4.1. Project Description of the Neelum–Jhelum TBM Diversion establish the relationship between them.
Tunnel. .e Neelum–Jhelum hydroelectric project is lo- .e UCS was determined using the RMT∼201 rock test
cated in the Muzaffarabad district of Azad Jammu and machine according to the ASTM standards, which can be
Kashmir (AJK), Pakistan. A 19.6 km stretch of the tunnel seen in Figure 7. Its maximum load is 1 MN, and its
from the Nauseri site will be constructed as a twin tunnel maximum confining pressure is 50 MPa. .e loading rate
system, each with a cross section of about 52 m2; 11.2 km of was set at 0.05 mm/s, and more details about the test ma-
the twin tunnel system will be excavated by using the chine can be seen in [30, 31].
Herrenknecht gripper TBM and the remainder by drilling .e point load tests were carried out using the point load
and blasting. Figure 5 shows the picture of the TBM which testing machine with a digital display, as shown in Figure 8.
excavated the NJ TBM diversion tunnels, and the main In order to make rock test results with different sizes more
technical specifications of TBM are summarized in Table 3. scientific, it is necessary to establish corrected the point load
 3148, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/5309480 by Cochrane Slovakia, Wiley Online Library on [18/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 Shock and Vibration

45 45
40 y = 53.829x0.17 40
R2 = 0.0319 y = 14.73x–0.464
35 35 R2 = 0.8408
30 30
25 25
λ λ
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0
Penetration (m) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
TR (MN·m)
Figure 1: Relationship between λ and penetration.
Figure 4: Relationship between λ and torque.

45
40
y = 150.37x–0.569
35 R2 = 0.164
30
25
λ
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
NC Figure 5: Gripper TBM used for the excavation of NJHP tunnel.
Figure 2: Relationship between λ and cutter number.

Table 3: Main specifications of the Steg and Raron TBMs.

45
40 Parameter Value
35 y = 1.7121x–2.902 Diameter 8.53 m
R2 = 0.5539 Maximum thrust force 27,489 kN
30
Maximum torque 8825 kN m
25
λ Number of cutters 58
20 Cutter diameter 19″ (432 mm)
15 Cutter spacing 90 mm
10 Maximum cutter force 350 kN
5 Maximum revolutions per minute (RPM) 9
0
0.3 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5
DTBM (m) .e raw dataset was subjected to least squares regression
Figure 3: Relationship between λ and TBM diameter. analysis. In this work, linear (UCS � KIs(50) + b), exponential
(UCS � Keb∗Is(50) ), logarithmic (UCS � K ln(Is(50) ) + b), and
power (UCS � KIm s(50) ) curve fitting approximations were
strength index (PLSI), which can be obtained from the executed, and the approximation equations with highest R2
following equation: were determined for each regression. Figure 9 shows the
PLSI � FIs , plot of the UCS versus the PLSI for 100 rock samples (50
sandstones and 50 siltstones). .e empirical conversion
(8) equations between UCS and PLSI are also presented in
De 0.45
F �􏼒 􏼓 , Figure 9 and Table 4. It can be seen that when the value of
50
PLSI is between 1.5 and 5 MPa, the predictive results from
where Is is the uncorrected point load strength index, F is the four regressions have a great agreement. When the PLSI
the correction factor, and De is the equivalent circle diameter value is lower than 1.5 MPa or larger than 5.0 MPa, the
of the destroyed cross-sectional area. deviation of exponential and logarithmic regression types
.e proper correlation between the UCS and PLSI is one of are relatively larger than that of the other types. Based on
the most critical concerns in applying the point load test. the best correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.9114, the new
 3148, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/5309480 by Cochrane Slovakia, Wiley Online Library on [18/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Shock and Vibration 5

Figure 6: .e part of the samples for uniaxial compressive tests.

power equation (Table 4) applied in the tertiary sandstone which means that more torque is needed for a hard rock than
and siltstone of the Murree Formation was chosen. a soft rock with the same penetration.
In addition, the predicted values were drawn versus the Figure 13 is the recorded penetration along the
measured values by using a 1 :1 slope line, as shown in Fig- Neelum–Jhelum TBM diversion tunnel in the conduction
ure 10. It can be seen that the predicted results are in good process. It can be seen that the maximum penetration is
agreement with the measured ones, and all the dataset lies 15 mm at three sections where the estimated UCS from
exactly on a straight line without scatter, which indicated that laboratory tests is 105.4 MPa, 48.7 MPa, and 42.96 MPa. .e
PLSIs are reliable values for estimating UCS, avoiding the minimum penetration is 4.5 mm at 07 + 645.03 section
cumbersome and time-consuming standard laboratorial test where the estimated UCS from laboratory tests is
carried out in the preliminary studies. 198.39 MPa. From the above data, it can be concluded that
the penetration is not determined by rock strength.
With the data from Figures 12 and 13, equation (7) was
4.3. Validations. .e in situ point load strength was manually
used to calculate the UCS from TBM parameters at dif-
recorded every day, and then the UCS of surrounding rock in
ferent construction time. .en, the calculated UCS was
the Neelum–Jhelum TBM diversion tunnel can be obtained
compared with the estimated UCS from laboratory tests
with Table 4. Figure 11 is the UCS from in situ point load tests
which is shown in Figure 14. From Figure 14, it is shown
at different identified geological area along the TBM tunnel
that the calculated UCS from TR in equation (7) agrees
alignment regarded as actual UCS. From Figure 11, it can be
with that from laboratory tests, even though there is some
seen that the rock strength varied from 24.38 MPa to
difference. When the actual UCS is over 200 MPa, the
228.32 MPa and the average UCS is 131.83 MPa. It can be
difference between calculated UCS from TR and actual
concluded that the rock type varied along the tunnel align-
UCS is much more obvious. .is means that equation (7)
ment from the moderately to closely jointed siltstone
seems more suitable for tunnels with a lower UCS less than
(UCS < 120 MPa) to primarily massive and blocky sandstone
200 MPa. .is is because that equation (7) is conducted
(UCS > 150 MPa).
from 14 TBM tunnels list shown in Table 2 where all the
.e TBM performance database was collected during
UCS is lower than 200 MPa.
construction phases, where the geological conditions and
To further analyze the errors between calculated UCS
machine performance information were valid. As shown in
and actual UCS, the following formula was adopted to
equation (7), four parameters were involved here: cutter
calculate the absolute errors:
number, TBM cutter diameter, penetration, and torque. 􏼌􏼌 􏼌􏼌
Figure 12 is the recorded torque along the Neelum–Jhelum 􏼌􏼌􏼌σ actual − σ prediction 􏼌􏼌􏼌
TBM diversion tunnel in the conduction process. From
E(%) � 􏼌􏼌 􏼌􏼌 · 100, (9)
􏼌 σ
actual 􏼌
Figure 12, it found that the maximum torque is 2.8 MN·m at
07 + 700.99 section where the estimated UCS from is where E(%) is the absolute error; σ actual is the actual UCS
148.46 MPa. .e minimum torque is 0.6 MN·m at that was obtained by in situ tests; and σ prediction is the
07 + 555.42 section where the estimated UCS is 48.74 MPa, predictive UCS that was obtained by using equation (7).
 3148, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/5309480 by Cochrane Slovakia, Wiley Online Library on [18/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 Shock and Vibration

300
y = 53.2x0.75
250 R2 = 0.9114

200
y = 27.417x + 38.089

UCS (MPa)
R2 = 0.8896
150
y = 81.186 ln(x) + 39.728
100 R2 = 0.8934

50 y = 56.544e0.2318x
R2 = 0.8337
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PLSI (MPa)
Siltstone
Sandstone
Figure 9: .e relation between UCS and PLSI obtained from
regression.

Table 4: .e summary results of correlation between UCS and

Figure 7: RMT∼201 rock test machine. PLSI.
Regression Regression
Relationship
type coefficient
Exponential UCS � 56.5e0.23Is(50) 0.8337
Linear UCS � 27.42Is(50) + 38.1 0.8896
Logarithmic UCS � 81.2 ln(Is(50) ) + 39.7 0.8934
Power UCS � 53.2I0.75
s(50) 0.9114

240
y = 0.9742x + 3.3609
R2 = 0.9003
200

160
Derived UCS (MPa)

120

80

40

Figure 8: .e point load testing machine.

0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
.e results of absolute errors are presented in Figure 15. Actual UCS (MPa)
From Figure 15, it shows that the maximum absolute error Figure 10: Cross correlation of actual and derived values of UCS
is 34.32% and the minimum absolute error is 0.07%. .e from PLSI.
average absolute error is 8.28%. .ere are 5 sections (only
1% sections) with an absolute error higher than 20%. .is data, it seems that equation (7) has a low accuracy for
means that the calculated UCS agrees with that from the situation with a high actual UCS or a low actual UCS. .is
indoor tests. At these five sections, the actual UCS values is because that equation (7) is calculated from 14 TBM
are 180.39 MPa, 138.31 MPa, 223.45 MPa, 24.38 MPa, and tunnels list in Table 2 where the UCS varied from 53.4 MPa
46.35 MPa. When the actual UCS is 42.96 MPa, 48.74 MPa, to 156 MPa. If we can collect more data from different TBM
46.36 MPa, and 24.38 MPa, the absolute errors are 12%, tunnels, a regressed equation for different kinds of rock
17%, 28%, and 34%, respectively. According to the above could be conducted with the proposed method here.
 3148, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/5309480 by Cochrane Slovakia, Wiley Online Library on [18/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Shock and Vibration 7

350

300

250
UCS (MPa)

200

150

100

50

0
07 + 561 07 + 587 07 + 615 07 + 645 07 + 674 07 + 702 07 + 726 07 + 756
Section chainage (m)

Figure 11: UCS values from laboratory tests along the Neelum–Jhelum TBM diversion tunnel.

3000

2500
Torque (kN·m)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
07 + 561 07 + 587 07 + 615 07 + 645 07 + 674 07 + 702 07 + 726 07 + 756 07 + 780 07 + 811 07 + 841 07 + 867 07 + 898 07 + 923 07 + 945
Section chainage (m)

Torque

Figure 12: .e recorded torque along the Neelum–Jhelum TBM diversion tunnel.

16
14
Penetration (mm/rev)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
07 + 561 07 + 587 07 + 615 07 + 645 07 + 674 07 + 702 07 + 726 07 + 756 07 + 780 07 + 811 07 + 841 07 + 867 07 + 898 07 + 923 07 + 945
Section chainage (m)

Penetration

Figure 13: .e recorded penetration along the Neelum–Jhelum TBM diversion tunnel.

350

300

250
UCS (MPa)

200

150

100

50

0
07 + 561 07 + 587 07 + 615 07 + 645 07 + 674 07 + 702 07 + 726 07 + 756 07 + 780 07 + 811 07 + 841 07 + 867 07 + 898 07 + 923 07 + 945
Section chainage (m)

Estimated UCS from TR

Actual UCS

Figure 14: Comparisons between calculated UCS and experimental UCS.

 3148, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/5309480 by Cochrane Slovakia, Wiley Online Library on [18/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 Shock and Vibration

40
35
30
25
Error (%)

20
15
10
5
0
07 + 561 07 + 587 07 + 615 07 + 645 07 + 674 07 + 702 07 + 726 07 + 756 07 + 780 07 + 811 07 + 841 07 + 867 07 + 898 07 + 923 07 + 945
Section chainage (m)

Figure 15: Error analysis graphics.

5. Conclusions Data Availability

.e uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) is a very important No additional data are available.
fundamental mechanical parameter for TBM construction.
Nowadays, a large number of studies were carried out about Conflicts of Interest
the relationship among the UCS, PLSI, driving data, and
specification parameters of TBM. But there are still several .e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
obvious shortcomings. In this study, a new evaluation
method for the uniaxial compressive strength ahead of the Acknowledgments
tunnel face based on the driving data and specification
parameters of TBM was proposed, and some conclusions .is work was supported by the National Basic Research
were obtained, which can be given as follows: Program of China (973 Program) (no. 2015CB057906),
(1) A predictive model of UCS was proposed according Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 51679172,
to the TBM parameters such as torque, penetration, 41130742, 51574180, and 51579238), Hubei Provincial
cutter number, and cutter diameter. Natural Science Foundation of China (2018CFA012), and
Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS.
(2) Based on the data from fourteen TBM tunnels, re-
lationships between UCS and Nc , TR , DTBM, and P
were studied. .e results show that the correlation References
between UCS and TR is strong with a correlation [1] X. Y. Zou, H. Zheng, and Y. Z. Mi, “Performance evaluation of
coefficient of 84.08%. Basing on this, the parameter hard rock TBMs considering operational and rock condi-
of the new proposed model was established. tions,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2018, Article ID 8798232,
(3) To describe the relationships of UCS with PLSI of the 17 pages, 2018.
Murree tertiary hard rocks, regression analyses have [2] W. Sun, M. L. Shi, J. L. Li, X. Ding, L. T. Wang, and X. G. Song,
been conducted and a fitting equation with high- “Surrogate-based multisource sensitivity analysis of TBM
driving system,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2018, Article ID
prediction performance (R2 � 0.9114) was developed.
5187535, 14 pages, 2018.
(4) Validation from the data of the Neelum–Jhelum (NJ) [3] K. S. Roche and A. B. McCallum, “Correlation between point
TBM diversion tunnel was carried out. .e absolute load strength index and uniaxial compressive strength in
errors between predictive UCS and experimental UCS Sunshine Coast sandstone,” Australian Geomechanics Journal,
were presented. .rough comparison, it can be vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 79–89, 2015.
concluded that the proposed calculation equation of [4] E. Broch and J. A. Franklin, “.e point-load strength test,”
UCS has a high accuracy for a certain rock type with International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
UCS from 50 MPa to 200 MPa. For special hard rock & Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 669–676, 1972.
[5] B. Minaeian and K. Ahangari, “Estimation of uniaxial com-
or soft rock, a new calculation equation between UCS
pressive strength based on P-wave and Schmidt hammer
and TBM parameters should be studied furthermore. rebound using statistical method,” Arabian Journal of Geo-
.is study provides the technical strut for the later sciences, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 1925–1931, 2013.
thorough research on the assessment of rockmass classifi- [6] F. Kong and J. Shang, “A validation study for the estimation of
cation, rockburst, or TBM jamming. To apply the research of uniaxial compressive strength based on index tests,” Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 2289–2297,
this study to engineering practices preferably, a software
2018.
system of the in situ rock strength estimation considering [7] L. Dong, D. Sun, X. Li, J. Ma, L. Zhang, and X. Tong, “Interval
the PLSI and TBM performance will be developed as well in non-probabilistic reliability of surrounding jointed rockmass
the subsequent study. .en, combining with the proposed considering microseismic loads in mining tunnels,” Tunnel-
rockburst or large extrusion deformation criteria, the se- ling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 81, pp. 326–335,
curity status of the tunnel face will be evaluated in real time. 2018.
 3148, 2019, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2019/5309480 by Cochrane Slovakia, Wiley Online Library on [18/04/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Shock and Vibration 9

[8] L. J. Dong, W. Zou, X. B. Li, W. W. Shu, and Z. W. Wang, Proceedings of 24th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics
“Collaborative localization method using analytical and it- (USRMS), pp. 227–237, Keystone, Colorado, June 1983.
erative solutions for microseismic/acoustic emission sources [24] H. P. Sanio, “Prediction of the performance of disc cutters in
in the rockmass structure for underground mining,” Engi- anisotropic rock,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
neering Fracture Mechanics, 2018, In press. and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 22, no. 3,
[9] American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Stan- pp. 153–161, 1985.
dard Test Method for Determination of the Point Load Strength [25] J. K. Hamidi, K. Hahriar, B. Rezai, and J. Rostami, “Perfor-
Index of Rock and Application to Rock Strength Classifications, mance prediction of hard rock TBM using rock mass rating
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2008. (RMR) system,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Tech-
[10] International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), “Suggested nology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 333–345, 2010.
method for determining point load strength: ISRM Common [26] J. Hassanpour, J. Rostami, M. Khamehchiyan, A. Bruland, and
testing methods,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics H. R. Tavakoli, “TBM performance analysis in pyroclastic
and Mining Sciences, vol. 22, no. 4, p. 112, 1985. rocks: a case history of karaj water conveyance tunnel,” Rock
[11] D. R. Norbury, “.e point load test,” Geological Society, Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 427–445,
London, Engineering Geology Special Publications, vol. 2, no. 1, 2010.
pp. 325–329, 1986. [27] J. Hassanpour, J. Rostami, and J. Zhao, “A new hard rock
[12] K. Tsidzi, “Point load-niaxial compressive strength correla- TBM performance prediction model for project planning,”
tion,” in Proceedings of the 7th ISRM Congress, W. Wittke Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 26, no. 5,
and R. Balkema, Eds., vol. 1, pp. 637–639, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 595–603, 2011.
September 1991. [28] J. Hassanpour, A. A. Ghaedi Vanani, J. Rostami, and
[13] P. Grasso, S. Xu, and A. Mahtab, “Problems and promises of A. Cheshomi, “Evaluation of common TBM performance
index testing of rocks,” International Journal of Rock Me- prediction models based on field data from the second lot of
chanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, Zagros water conveyance tunnel (ZWCT2),” Tunnelling and
vol. 30, no. 5, p. 278, 1992. Underground Space Technology, vol. 52, pp. 147–156, 2016.
[14] V. K. Singh and D. P. Singh, “Correlation between point load [29] N. Bilgin, C. Balci, H. Tuncdemir, S. Eskikaya, M. Akgul, and
index and compressive strength for quartzite rocks,” Geo- M. Algan, “.e performance prediction of a TBM in difficult
technical and Geological Engineering, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 269– ground condition,” in Proceedings of AFTES Journees d’Etudes
272, 1993. Internationales de Paris, pp. 25–28, Paris, France, October
[15] S. Kahraman, “Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the 1999.
uniaxial compressive strength of rock,” International Journal [30] X. Tan, W. Chen, J. Yang, and J. Cao, “Laboratory in-
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 38, no. 7, vestigations on the mechanical properties degradation of
pp. 981–994, 2001. granite under freeze-thaw cycles,” Cold Regions Science and
[16] G. R. Lashkaripour, “Predicting mechanical properties of Technology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 130–138, 2011.
mudrock from index parameters,” Bulletin of Engineering [31] X. J. Tan, W. Z. Chen, D. S. H. Y. Liu, and A. H. C. Chan,
Geology and the Environment, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 73–77, 2002. “Experimental and theoretical studies on effect of height-to-
[17] S. L. Quane and J. K. Russell, “Rock strength as a metric of diameter ratios on failure forms and mechanical character-
welding intensity in pyroclastic deposits,” European Journal of istics of foamed concrete,” Journal of Materials in Civil En-
Mineralogy, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 855–864, 2003. gineering, vol. 31, no. 1, article 04018341, 2018.
[18] S. Kahraman, O. Gunaydin, and M. Fener, “.e effect of
porosity on the relation between uniaxial compressive
strength and point load index,” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 584–589,
2005.
[19] K. Diamantis, E. Gartzos, and G. Migiros, “Study on uniaxial
compressive strength, point load strength index, dynamic and
physical properties of serpentinites from Central Greece: test
results and empirical relations,” Engineering Geology, vol. 108,
no. 3-4, pp. 199–207, 2009.
[20] M. Kohno and H. Maeda, “Relationship between point load
strength index and uniaxial compressive strength of hydro-
thermally altered soft rocks,” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 50, pp. 147–157, 2012.
[21] A. Azimian, R. Ajalloeian, and L. Fatehi, “An empirical
correlation of uniaxial compressive strength with P-wave
velocity and point load strength index on marly rocks using
statistical method,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 205–214, 2014.
[22] K. Fukui and S. Okubo, “Some attempts for estimating rock
strength and rock mass classification from cutting force and
investigation of optimum operation of tunnel boring ma-
chines,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 39, no. 1,
pp. 25–44, 2006.
[23] P. P. Nelson, T. D. O’Rourke, and F. H. Kulhawy, “Factors
affecting TBM penetration rates in sedimentary rocks,” in