2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2018.03.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new method for selecting hard rock TBM tunnelling parameters using optimum energy: A case study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the rock breakage volume, depth, and diameter are important for estimating the rock fragmentation performance, the specific energy consumption is a comprehensive index for evaluating the rock fragmentation ability of mechanical tools, such as a conical pick, drag pick, and disc cutter [39,40]. According to (1), the specific energy consumption of the rock breakage by different indenter shapes and impact energies is shown in Figure 13.…”
Section: Rock Breakage Performance Under Different Indentermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the rock breakage volume, depth, and diameter are important for estimating the rock fragmentation performance, the specific energy consumption is a comprehensive index for evaluating the rock fragmentation ability of mechanical tools, such as a conical pick, drag pick, and disc cutter [39,40]. According to (1), the specific energy consumption of the rock breakage by different indenter shapes and impact energies is shown in Figure 13.…”
Section: Rock Breakage Performance Under Different Indentermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Traditional surrounding rock classification methods, such as rock mass rating (RMR), tunneling quality index (Q-system), and basic quality index (BQ) systems, have difficulty guiding TBM construction effectively [13]. Therefore, some methods have been proposed for surrounding rock classification and performance prediction for TBM tunneling, such as the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) model, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) model, the Q TBM model, the rock mass excavatability (RME) rating and classification system, and the robust classification method (RCM) [14][15][16][17][18]. All these methods have addressed the problem that traditional surrounding rock classification methods cannot cope with TBM construction to a certain extent, with better performances.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As an alternative, a model based on optimum energy has been proposed to select TBM tunnelling parameters in hard rock. The relationships among energy, geological conditions, and the TBM construction performance are analyzed by combining the results from the LCM tests and the on-site data [8]. However, due to a lack of sufficient input data, the accuracy of this approach seems relatively low.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%