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

net/publication/266528537

Productivity of Tunnel Construction Using Road-Headers

Article

CITATION READS
1 1,642

4 authors, including:

Tarek Zayed Mohamed Amer

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University University of Texas at Arlington
308 PUBLICATIONS   2,021 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   182 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Destructive Analysis-Based Testing for Cured-in-Place Pipe View project

advanture playground View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tarek Zayed on 10 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1st International Construction Specialty Conference
1ère Conférence internationale spécialisée sur le génie de la construction

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

May 23-26, 2006 / 23-26 mai 2006

Productivity of Tunnel Construction Using Road-Headers

A. Obeidat1, H. Al-Barqawi1, T. Zayed1 and M. Amer2
1 Department of Building, Civil, and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada
2 Department of Construction Engineering and Utilities, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University,
Zagazig, Egypt.

Abstract: Mechanical excavation of tunnels using Road-header is getting widespread and popular due to
their capability of excavating precisely soft to medium strength rock without weakening the surrounding
rock. Road-header is flexible, very mobile, safe, and environmentally friendly machinery. It can excavate
smoothly various sizes, shapes, and types of tunnel openings. Accurate and reliable productivity prediction
for the selected machinery is required for time and resource scheduling, and hence estimating the budget
of any tunnelling project. Simulation can be used to study tunnelling operations using Road-headers
before they are actually performed. It will assist decision makers to predict productivity and to control time,
cost, and resources. This paper presents a simulation model for estimating a (Voest-Alpine) Road-header
productivity using both MicroCYCLONE and EZSROPE Software. Two Road-headers are used to
excavate 1.2 km tunnelling project starting Henri-Bourassa Station to Cartier station in Montreal, Quebec,
Canada. The collected data represent actual time duration for the tunnelling operations (drilling, changing
bits, maintenance, scaling, and wire mesh installation) of each Road-header. The results show that the
predicted productivity by both simulation models gives close results to the actual. Productivity is calculated
as 0.44 lm/hr for the Road-header used in Henri-Bourassa direction against 0.48 (actual); while it is 0.64
lm/hr for the Road-header used in Cartier direction against 0.7 (actual). A regression model is developed
to generate a formula to predict the productivity (advance rate) based on consumption bits. The study also
includes a sensitivity analysis for the resources acquired in tunnelling operations.

1. Introduction

Road-headers were first developed for coal mining industry in the early 1950s (Copur et al., 1998).
Nowadays, it plays a major role not only in mining industry but in tunnelling excavation projects as well.
Design of Road-header has been improved since 1949, and these improvements include increasing
machine weight, size and cutter head power in addition to design improvements of boom, cutter head,
cutting bit, mucking system, automation and remote control features. All these improvements lead to long
life hi-tech machinery with high cutting capabilities (Copur et al., 1998).

In general, Road-headers can be divided into two types; milling (axial) type, where the cutter head rotating
around the boom axis, and ripping (transverse) type, where the head rotating perpendicular to the boom
axis (Neil et al., 1994 and Copur et al, 1998). Road-headers are also available in size ranging from 30 ton
up to 120 ton, cutting motor power ranges from 80 kw up to 500 kw and a maximum torque up to 2.5 times
the running torque. Moreover, Road-headers are available in single, double, telescopic, and articulated
boom (Neil et al., 1994, Copur et al, 1998). Accurate and reliable productivity prediction and bit

CT-069-1
consumption for the selected machinery are required for time and resource scheduling, and hence
estimating the budget of any tunnelling project.

The prediction of Road-header performance, including instantaneous cutting rate, bit consumption rate,
and machine utilization rate, is of crucial importance to profitability of tunnel projects, and has to be
predicted prior to commencing construction works. Thuro (2003) reported that predicting Road-header
performance is crucial and desirable for the progress of excavation works and may carry an extensive risk
on cost. Bilgin et al. (2004) show the importance of predicting instantaneous (net) cutting rate and
machine utilization time in project scheduling and budget.

There is a lack of research on Road-header application in tunnel construction; therefore, the main
objective of current research is to assess Road-header productivity and determine the proper probability
distribution for its various activities.

2. Background and Description of Tunnel Operation

The majority of tunnelling projects consist of three main activities: excavation, initial support (scaling and
shotcret or wire mesh installation) and final support (lining) (USACE, 1997). Excavation activity using
Road-header machinery includes different operations: drilling, loading, changing bits, and maintenance.
However, initial support includes scaling, installing wire mesh or shotcret. The tunnel construction using
Road-headers involves three main processes: excavation, dirt removal and tunnel support.
1. Excavation is done using Road-header (ATM 105) for 16 hours. Then, it is pulled back to start the
next process.
2. Removal of dirt: excavation is removed using conveyor belt to dump trucks. Despite the fact that
there is one space available for one truck all the time, Road-header does not have to stop the
excavation process (it is a continuous process where Road-header will not stop once it starts). It
continues excavating and accumulating dirt on conveyor belt for 15 minutes, which is enough for
another truck to get in the tunnel and start loading
3. After 16 hours the Road-header is pulled back to start scaling and installation of mechanical bolts
using a Jambo machine. Duration of this process is approximately 3 hours (1 hour for scaling and 2
hours for installation of bolts).
4. Installation of initial support: it involves installation of wire mesh or shotcret at their designed
locations (duration of this process is approximately 5 hours).

One complete cycle for the above process is done in 24 hours. Road-header is working for 16 hours. It is
subject to inspection and regular maintenance in the next 8 hours. Meanwhile other processes (scaling &
mechanical bolts, initial support) are taken place within these 8 hours.
Road-header productivity factors can be classified into three categories: (Thuro and Plinninger, 1999;
Thuro, 2003) geological, machine, and management conditions

• Geological conditions: the geological conditions will mainly affect the cutting rate and the bit wear of
Road-header, including intact rock properties and rock mass. Thuro et al. (2002) reported that rock
mass conditions depends on the geological history, weathering conditions, hydrothermal
decomposition in addition to the structure of discontinuities.
• Machine conditions: Cutting rate in rock is affected by type and features of Road-header’s power,
cutter head type, and mounted cutting tools.
• Management conditions: Efficient and smooth operation, continuous maintenance, organized
backup system, well ground treatment, skilled labor, and successful management of the project will
lead to high cutting performance (Thuro and Plinninger, 1999; Thuro et al., 2002; Copur et al, 1998).

A combination of these parameters is needed to predict the production capacity of the selected machinery in a
particular rock formation and ground condition (Rostami et al., 1994). In order to acquire precise estimates for
Road-header performance, a site investigation is needed to identify rock type, mass and condition in addition
to classification of different machine characteristics and work parameters (Thuro and Plinninger, 1999).

CT-069-2
3. Road-headers Productivity Models

There are several productivity models that have been developed for Road-headers in the mining industry
as follows:

1. (Copur et al., 1998) developed an empirical prediction model for Road-header instantaneous cutting
rate based on numerous data from mining construction. This developed formula is valid for evaporitic
rock with transverse Road-headers.

[1] ICR=27.511* e0.0023x (RPI)

[2] RPI= P * W / UCS

Where,
ICR = Instantaneous cutting rate, m³/hr W = Road-header weight, metric ton
RPI = Road-header Penetration Index P = Cutter head Power, KW
UCS = Uniaxial Compressive Strength, e = Base of the Natural Logarithm
MPa

2. Bilgin et al (2004) reported that a model has been developed for predicting Road-header performance
by taking into account both rock quality designation (RQD) in percent and UCS.

[3] ICR= 0.28 * P * (0.974) (RMCI)

[4] RMCI= σc * (RDQ/100)2/3

Where,
IRC = Instantaneous Cutting Rate, σc = Uniaxial Compressive Strength
P = Power of Road-header, RQD = Rock Quality Designation
RMCI = Rock Mass Cuttability Index

3. Thuro (1996) introduced the destruction work Wz, which is the energy required to destruct the rock
(KJ/m3). Thuro et al. (1997) find out that the correlation of specific destruction work to drilling rate is
much better than the correlation of UCS to drilling rate. Bilgin et al. (2004) presented in the literature a
model, which includes the energy and power of Road-header as shown in equation (5):

P
[5] ICR = K -----------
SEopt

Where,
ICR = Instantaneous Cutting Rate K = Energy Transfer Coefficient
P = Road-header Power SEopt = the Optimum Specific Energy

Orientation of weakness planes to direction of drilling has great influence on cutting rate. If weakness
planes are at right angles to direction of penetration, rock is compressed at right angles but sheared
parallel to it, which results in reducing the amount of energy required to destruct rock and increasing the
cutting rate. But if rock foliation is parallel to the direction of penetration, rock is sheared at right angles,
which requires higher energy to destruct rock, and the cutting rate will decrease (Thuro, 2003).

Simulation can be used to predict productivity of an operation, evaluate the required resources and find
out bottlenecks. Several researchers have studied tunnel operations, and applied simulation technique to
predict advance rate of tunnelling considering Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) as the main resource.

CT-069-3
Ruwanpura et al. (2001) have developed a template to predict advance rate, balance the construction
cycles at the tunnel face and shaft in order to optimise the use of the TBM, cranes, and trains in addition to
predict productivity, cost, schedule, and resource utilization based on the simulation analysis for tunnel
construction using one way and to way TBM. The template is developed with a simulation package,
(SIMPHONY). Ruwanpura et al. (2001) indicated that productivity of tunnelling depends on various factors,
such as penetration rate of boring, liner installation time, train speed, length of tunnel, and the hoisting
time. This study concluded that simulation is a useful tool in predicting productivity of tunnel construction,
estimating cost and duration of different alternatives, and developing an effective decision making tool.

Touran and Asai (1987) presented MicroCYCLONE simulation models for TBM application in tunnel
construction to predict the advance rate. Three simulation models have been developed with different
scenarios and sensitivity analysis was done to determine the advance rate. This rate depends not only on
TBM penetration rate but on interaction of TBM, muck handling system, tunnel handling operation, rock
competence and tunnel diameter as well.

Touran (1997) reported a simulation model to predict time to complete a certain length of tunnel based on
actual data using (SLAM) package. Data represent the advance rate of TBM in which data were analysed
and a cumulative distribution function of the total length of a tunnel in a given time frame was generated.

4. Case Study (Laval Metro Line, Montreal, Quebec, Canada)

Data on construction operations were collected from a 1.2 km tunnel project between Cartier station and
Henri-Bourassa Station in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. We have met Mr. Denis Lepinay Eng., Project
Manager and Mr. Patrick Collard, Eng., Project Engineer from (NEILSON) Contractors. Project team
escorted us in the site visit. They explained in details process and operations of the tunnel. Two more
appointment held with Mr. Patrick Collard, Eng. For getting a detailed data and information about the
operations of the tunnel. Two Road-headers were used in tunnel boring; one is used in the direction of
Cartier station and the other in the direction of Henri Bourassa station. 27 data point for Cartier direction
and 29 data point for Henri Bourassa direction. Data represents the actual advance rate, consumption of
drilling bits, cross section of tunnel, working hours, maintenance hours, breakdown hours, and utilization
rate of road-header (productive time /total working hours).

The tunnel’s cross-section profile consists of vertical sides with arch ceiling as shown in Figure 1. The
dimension from invert to spring line is 4,124mm. The width of the invert is 8,220mm and the arch has a
5,600mm radius. A final cast-in place concrete lining had corresponding thickness of 450mm for the invert,
350mm for the sides and 400mm for the ceiling with concrete embedded wire mesh (World Tunnelling,
2003). Data collected include the actual advance rate in addition to other activities durations.

A Voest-Alpine tunnel miner ATM 105 was used to construct the tunnel. It is an extremely powerful boom-
type Road-header of gross weight 120 ton and has proven its unique transverse cutting technology in hard
rock applications worldwide. Its length is 12,000mm minimum; the height is 2,350mm minimum; and the
width is 3,050mm as shown in Figure 2. The Cutting profile with telescopic boom retracted is 41 m2, while
the maximum cutting profile capacity is 50m2 with the telescopic boom fully extended (Voest Alpine, 2005).
Cost data is collected from the contractor. Data include unit rate ($/hr) of Roadheader, Jumbo (used for
scaling), dump truck, and labor. Contractor reported that each Roadheader crew consists of one operator and
two labors. Scaling crew has 3-5 labors and wire mesh installation crew consists of 5 labors. Cost calculation
does not include indirect cost and maintenance. It only considers direct cost of the model operations.

5. Data Statistical Analysis

Drilling operation, using Road-header, involves different processes such as drilling (cutting rate) of tunnel as
well as changing bits and maintenance of the Road-header. Observations of time for each of these
processes are studied statistically to fit their appropriate probability distribution. Normality test, best fitting
distribution and other tests have been applied to the data using NCSS (statistical software). The best

CT-069-4
probability distributions are selected in order to be used in simulation analysis. For example, changing bits,
Road-header in Cartier direction, duration is fitted using normal distribution with mean (µ) = 29.5512 minutes;
however, the standard deviation is (σ) = 7.1326 minutes. Figure 3 shows the probability fit histogram and
normality plot. Figure 4 also shows the different statistical tests, for normal distribution fitting, which are
generated by the NCSS (Number Cruncher Statistical System program). It includes eight tests in which all of
them recommend normal probability for the changing bit duration of Road-headers. Similarly, the rest of
processes and activities are analysed to generate the best probability distribution as shown in Table 1. It
shows the mean duration and standard deviation for each process using normal distribution.

Figure 1. Voest Alpine ATM 105 IC in the

Montreal Line 2 Extension tunnel (Garrett,
2003).

Figure 2. Voest Alpine ATM 105 (Voest Alpine, 2005).

Figure 3. Histogram and Normality Plot for Changing Bit Duration of Road-header in Cartier Direction.

CT-069-5
Figure 4. Fitting Tests for Normal Distribution of Changing Bit Duration.

Table 1. Normal Probability Features for Various Processes.

Normal Probability Distribution for Normal Probability Distribution for
Cartier Direction Henri-Bourassa Direction
Processes Mean (µ) StDev. (σ) Mean (µ) StDev. (σ)
(Min) (Min) (Min) (Min)
Cutting Rate 24.9928 7.9299 31.4474 5.9015
Changing Bit 29.5512 7.1326 24.0300 5.6357
Maintenance 3.9738 5.2039 3.5008 2.8470

6. Road-header Simulation Model

A simulation model is developed to employ Road-header operation in tunnel construction based upon the
Montreal Metro project. Figure 5 shows MicroCYCLONE (Halpin and Riggs, 1992) model for Road-header
operation. It shows the work of Road-header (cutting or drilling) for 16 hours. After drilling, the Road-
header will be pulled back to leave space for other crews and equipment to continue their work in scaling
and wire mesh installation. Once the Road-header is idle, maintenance activities can be done to keep it
ready for the next shift. Maintenance activities include regular maintenance, repairs, and changing bits for
cutting edge. Two simulation packages are used to experiment with the developed model:
MicroCYCLONE and EZSTROPE (Martinese, 1998). Results of simulating the developed model are
analysed to check its validity and generate productivity charts.

Scaling crew
Trucks

Roack con 16

Ready for
Scaling

Check
Roadheader
0.415 Ready for
Wiremesh
installation
0.129

Repair 0.456

Change bits Wiremesh

Installation
Wiremesh
Crew

Replay
Gen 16

End Counter

Figure 5. Simulation Model for Road-header Operation Using MicroCYCLONE.

CT-069-6
7. Model Validation

Simulation model application using both MicroCYCLONE and EZStrope software shows close results.
Table 2 shows productivity values generated from both software in which productivity of Road-header in
Henri-Bourassa direction is almost 0.44 lm/hr for both. However, it is 0.64 lm/hr using MicroCYCLONE and
0.66 lm/hr using EZStrope for Cartier direction. Actual average productivity, which is recorded from the
construction site, is 0.48 lm/hr and 0.70 lm/hr for Henri-Bourassa and Cartier directions, respectively.
Based on this actual information, the validity percent for EZStrope application shows that the model is
92% and 94% valid for Henri Bourassa and Cartier directions, respectively. However, MicroCYCLONE
produces 92% and 91% validity for Henri-Bourassa and Cartier directions, respectively. These values
indicate that both models are robust in representing the Road-header’s real world application.

Table 2. Simulation model outputs Using MicroCYCLONE and EZStrope.

Actual Advance MicroCYCLONE EZStrope Advance MicroCYCLONE EZStrope
Direction
Rate-lm/hr Advance Rate-lm/hr rate (lm/hr) Validity % Validity %
Henri- Bourassa 0.480 0.440 0.442 92 92
Cartier 0.700 0.640 0.660 91 94

8. Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis has been done to check the sensitivity of the developed model to any changes in the
inputs or resources. Two major resources (Road-headers and trucks) are changed to search for the
economical and most productive resource combination. Road-headers are changed from 1 to 2 and trucks
from 3 to 6 with 1 truck increment. Table 3 shows the associated cost and productivity with each
combination of resources in the Henri-Bourassa direction. It also shows that the option of 2 Road-headers
and 3 trucks is the most economical and productive one: productivity = 0.633 lm/hr and cost =
$2630.81/lm. On the other hand, in the Cartier direction, the optimal option also has 2 Road-headers and
3 trucks as shown in Table 4. This option has a productivity of 0.9504 lm/hr and cost of $1754.51/lm.

Based upon the above discussion, it is obvious that 2 Road-headers in each direction with the help of 6
trucks (3 in each direction) is the most productive option. Therefore, it is recommended to drill a shaft in a
middle point in each direction and start drilling using 2 Road-headers in both ways along the tunnel.

Table 3. Resource Combination of Road-header Table 4. Resource Combination of Road-header

Operation for Henri-Bourassa Direction Operation for Cartier Direction
Combination of Road- Combination of Road-
header & Trucks Productivity Unit rate header & Trucks Productivity Unit rate
Road- (lm/hr) ($/lm) Road- (lm/hr) ($/lm
Trucks Trucks
headers headers
1 3 0.442 2710.34 1 3 0.6579 1822.23
1 4 0.442 2825.10 1 4 0.6578 1898.35
1 5 0.437 2969.58 1 5 0.6584 1972.53
1 6 0.442 3049.10 1 6 0.6643 2030.39
2 3 0.633 2630.81 2 3 0.9504 1754.51
2 4 0.641 2676.72 2 4 0.9448 1817.94
2 5 0.639 2761.82 2 5 0.9523 1856.10
2 6 0.637 2849.18 2 6 0.9523 1908.51

CT-069-7
9. Advance Rate Analysis

Based on the developed simulation model for the Road-header, its advance rate can be predicted for both
directions (Henri-Bourassa and Cartier). Figure 6 shows the advance rate (lm/hr) relation with productive time
(cutting hours / total hours). It shows that the advance rate in Cartier direction is always higher than that of
Henri-Bourassa direction. The difference is almost 0.53 lm/hr when the productive time is 85%. In addition, the
advance rate is increased based upon the increase of the productive time. However, the Roadheader, which
is used in Henri-Bourassa direction, is old and suffers from continuous breakdown and maintenance. Spare
parts are not available in Canada and have to be shipped from Austria, which caused low productive time of
Roadheader. On the contrary, the Roadheader, which is used in Cartier direction, is new with high efficiency.

1.30
1.20
1.10
Advance Rate (lm/hr)

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
20
23
25
28
30
33
35
38
40
43
45
48
50
53
55
58
60
63
65
68
70
73
75
78
80
83
85
Productive Time (%)
HB Advance rate (lm/hr) Cartier Advance Rate (lm/hr)

Figure 6. Advance Rate of Road-header vs. Productive Time in both Directions.

Figure 7 shows the relation between the advance rate (lm/hr) and the cross-section area (m2) of the
tunnel. This figure shows the same observation that Cartier direction advance rate is always higher than
that of Henri-Bourassa direction. However, the advance rate is inversely related to the cross section area
(the higher the cross-section area, the lower the advance rate). It also shows that the higher the cross-
section area, the lower the difference between the advance rate in both directions. For example, the cross
section in Henri Bourassa direction is larger than that of Cartier direction. In addition, there are
irregularities in the cross section in Henri Bourassa direction, particularly when approaching the station in
which the Roadheader was forced to be relocated more than two times.

CT-069-8
 1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
Advance Rate

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
4
6
8

2
Cross Section Area (m )

HB Advance rate (lm/hr) Cartier Advance Rate (lm/hr)

Figure 7. Advance Rate of Road-header vs. Cross Section Area of the Tunnel in both Directions.

10. Conclusions

Roadheaders are widely used in tunnel construction within rock layers. Predicting productivity and
estimating resources are necessary for planning, scheduling, and bidding tunnel construction projects.
Current research proposes a simulation model to predict productivity of tunnel construction using
Roadheaders. Collected data (i.e. utilization rate, bits consumption, duration of tunnel operations) are
analyzed statistically to match the fitted probability distribution. Normality and other tests are performed to
test the selected distributions using NCSS (Number Cruncher System program). MicroCYCLONE and
EZStrobe simulation software are used to develop these productivity models. Results show that advance
rates of Roadheaders are 0.44 lm/hr for Henri Bourassa direction and 0.64 lm/hr for Cartier direction. The
actual advance rates are 0.48 lm/hr and 0.70 lm/hr for both directions, respectively. These figures show
the robustness of the developed models with a validity percents of 92% and 91%, respectively.

It is recommended that current model can be improved by incorporating management and geological
conditions (i.e. UCS (uniaxial compressive strength), quartzites content in rock, and type of rock).

11. References

Bilgin, N.; Dincer, T.; Copur, H. and Erdogan., M. (2004). “Some Geological and Geotechnical Factors
Affecting the Performance of a Road-header in An Inclined Tunnel.” Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology (19), 11 June, pp. 629–636.
Copur, H.; Ozdemir, L. and Rostami, J. (1998). “Road-header Applications in Mining and Tunnelling
industries.” Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, 1998, Orlando, FL.
Garrett, R. (2003). “Montreal Breaks New Ground with Road-Header.” World Tunnelling Journal, October,
pp. 309-312.
Halpin, D. and Riggs L. (1992). “Planning and Analysis of Construction Operations.” Published by John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Martinez, J. (1998). “EZSTROBE - GENERAL-PURPOSE SIMULATION SYSTEM BASED ON ACTIVITY
CYCLE DIAGRAMS.” Proceedings of the 1998 Winter Simulation Conference.

CT-069-9
 Neil, D.; Rostami, J.; Ozdemir, L. and Gertsch R. (1994). “Production Estimating Technique for
Underground Mining using Road-headers.” Annual meeting of the Society of Mining Metallurgy, and
Exploration Engineers. Albuquerque, NM, February 27.
Ruwanpura, J.; AbouRizk, S.; Er, K. and Fernando, S. (2001). “Special Purpose Simulation Templates for
Tunnel Construction Operations.” Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at, http://cjce.nrc.ca
on March, 21.
Thuro, K. (2003). “Predicting Road-headers Advance Rates: Geological Challenges and Geotechnical
Answers.” The Underground Resources of Turkey Today and Future. Istanbul, Turkey, June 5-8.
Thuro, K. (1996). “Drillability in Coventional Drill and Blast Tunnelling. Geological and Rock Mechanical
Investigations on Seven Tunnel Project”. M:unchner Geologische Hefte, Reihe B, Angewandte
Geologie, B1: 1-145.
Thuro, K. and Plinninger, R. (1999). “Road-Header Excavation Performance- Geological and Geotechnical
Influences.” 9th ISRM Congress Paris, August 25th -28th. Theme 3: Rock Dynamics and teconophysics /
Rock Cutting and Drilling.
Thuro K.; Plinninger R. and Spaun G. (2002). “Drilling, Blasting and Cutting – Is It Possible to Quantify
Geological Parameters Relating to Excavatability?” Engineering Geology for Developing Countries -
Proceedings of 9th Congress of the International Association for Engineering Geology and the
Environment. Durban, South Africa, 16 - 20 September.
Touran, A., (1997). “Probabilistic Model for Tunneling Project Using Markov Chain.”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 123 (4), pp. 444-449.
Touran, A. and Asai, T. (1987). “Simulation of Tunneling Operations.” American Society of Civil Engineers,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(4), pp. 554–568.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), (1997). “Engineering and Design Tunnels and Shafts in Rock.”
Manual No. 1110-2-2901, http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em1110-2-
2901/toc.htm
Voest Alpine Bergtechnik (2005). Sandvik Mining and Construction. http://www.vab.sandvik.com/, Latest
update: January 26th, 2005.

CT-069-10

View publication stats