Sıkışan kayada açılan Uluabat Tünelinde klasik ve tünel açma makinesiyle (TBM) yapılan kazıların karşılaştırılması

Öz

Kazı yönteminin seçimi, tünel tasarımının ilk aşamalarındaki en önemli mühendislik kararlarından biridir. Klasik kazı yöntemi, değişken jeolojik koşullara kazı sırasında uyum sağlayabilmesiyle öne çıkarken, Tünel Açma Makineleri (TBM) uzun tünellerde yüksek ilerleme hızı ve maliyet avantajı sunmaktadır. Ancak, TBM’lerde meydana gelebilen kalkan sıkışması, önemli zaman ve maliyet kayıplarına neden olabilmektedir. Bu çalışma, sıkışan kaya koşullarında kazılan 4.5 m çapında ve toplam 11465 m uzunluğundaki Uluabat Tüneli’nde (Bursa) uygulanan klasik kazı yöntemi ile TBM performansını karşılaştırarak bu tür jeolojik ortamlarda en uygun kazı yöntemini belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda, tünel güzergâhındaki jeolojik birimlerin sıkışma potansiyeli ampirik ve yarı ampirik yaklaşımlarla değerlendirilmiş, elde edilen sonuçlar gerçek deformasyon kayıtlarıyla karşılaştırılmıştır. Ayrıca, her iki kazı yöntemi için ilerleme hızları, kalkan sıkışma olayları ve TBM arızaları değerlendirilmiştir. Klasik kazı yönteminde tek aynada ortalama 1 m/gün ilerleme hızı elde edilirken, TBM’de operasyonel zorluklara nedeniyle ortalama 7.83 m/gün ve en yüksek 26 m/gün ilerleme hızına ulaşılmıştır. Bulgular, uzun tünellerde TBM kullanımının önemli performans avantajları sağladığını, ancak ayrıntılı jeolojik ve jeoteknik araştırmaların yetersiz olduğu veya sıkışma potansiyelinin güvenilir biçimde belirlenemediği koşullarda klasik kazı yönteminin daha güvenli ve uyarlanabilir bir alternatif sunduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tünel
• Sıkışan kara
• Geleneksel kazı
• TBM
• Kalkan sıkışması

Teşekkür

Yazarlar, bu çalışmanın hazırlanması sırasında verdiği destekten dolayı Sedat Cansu’ya, Utku Silver’e teşekkür ederler. Yazarlar ayrıca, makale üzerindeki büyük çabaları için hakemlere ve editöre teşekkürlerini sunarlar.

Comparison of excavations performed with classical methods and tunnel boring machine (TBM) in the Uluabat Tunneling in squeezing rock

Öz

The selection of the excavation method is one of the most important engineering decisions in the early stages of tunnel design. While the conventional excavation method stands out for its ability to adapt to varying geological conditions during excavation, Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) provide high advance rates and cost advantages in long tunnels. However, shield jamming that may occur in TBMs can lead to significant time delays and cost losses. This study aims to determine the most suitable excavation method for such geological environments by comparing the performance of the conventional excavation method and a TBM in the Uluabat Tunnel (Bursa), a 4.5 m diameter and 11465 m long tunnel excavated under squeezing ground conditions. In this context, the squeezing potential of the geological units along the tunnel alignment was evaluated using empirical and semi-empirical approaches, and the obtained results were compared with actual deformation records. In addition, advance rates, shield jamming incidents, and TBM breakdowns were evaluated for both excavation methods. While an average advance rate of 1 m/day was achieved with the conventional excavation method at a single face, the TBM reached an average advance rate of 7.83 m/day and a maximum advance rate of 26 m/day despite operational challenges. The findings indicate that TBMs provide significant performance advantages in long tunnels; however, under conditions where detailed geological and geotechnical investigations are insufficient or the squeezing potential cannot be reliably determined, the conventional excavation method provides a safer and more adaptable alternative.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tunnel
• Squeezing rock
• Conventional excavation
• TBM
• Shield jamming

Teşekkür

The authors would like to thank Sedat Cansu and Utku Silver for their support during the preparation of this study. The authors also express their sincere gratitude to the reviewers and the editor for their significant efforts on the manuscript.

Kaynakça

1. ISRM, Characterisation of Swelling Rock. Commission on Swelling Rock. Pergamon Press, Oxford, U.K., 1983.
2.     G. Barla, “Squeezing rocks in tunnels,” ISRM News Journal, 3/4, 44-49, 1995.
3.     E. Grimstad, “Squeezing in Leardal tunnel surprised the tunnel experts (in Norwegian),” Proceedings of Fjellsprengningskonferansen/Bergmekanikkdagen/Geoteknikkdagen, pp. 1-36, Oslo, Norway, 2000.
4.     S. Dalgıç, “Tunneling in squeezing rock, the Bolu tunnel, Anatolian Motorway, Turkey,” Engineering Geology, 67 (1-2), 73-96, 2002. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0391-903X(02)00061-X
5.     E. B. Aygar, “Evaluation of new Austrian tunnelling method applied to Bolu tunnel’s weak rocks,” Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 12 (3), 541-556, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge .2019.12.012
6.     E. Posluk, S. Karahan, S. Dalgıç and C. Gökçeoğlu, “An empirical equation for tunnel squeezing prediction in weak rock masses,” Advances in Civil Engineering, 2025 (1), 7026847, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1155/ 2025/7026847
7. E. Posluk, E. B. Aygar, E. A. Posluk, S. Karahan, S. Dalgıç and C. Gökçeoğlu, “Assessment of support system for tunnel excavation in highly squeezing fault zone conditions,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 44, 38, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1007 /s10706-025-03552-x
8.     E. Posluk, “Comparison of Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) and Conventional Excavation Methods in Squeezing Rocks in the T26 Tunnel,” Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Graduate Studies, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2024.

9.     E. B. Aygar, S. Karahan and C. Gökçeoğlu, “Tunneling problems in weak rock conditions under shallow overburden and comparison between full-face excavation and sequence excavation methods,” Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 2024. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2240.234227
10.   S. Karahan, E. Posluk, B. Büyükdemirci and C. Gökçeoğlu, “Re-design of a railway tunnel intersected by surface rupture of the Erkenek fault segment during the 6 February 2023 Pazarcık (Mw 7.7) earthquake (Türkiye),” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment,84,198, 2025. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10064-025-04217-y
11.   S. D. Eskesen, P. Tengborg, J. Kampmann and T. H. Veicherts, “Guidelines for tunnelling risk management: International Tunnelling Association, Working Group No. 2,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 19 (3), 217-237, 2004. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2003.090.001
12.   C. Lin, Z. Bu, D. Pan, X. Wang, P. Lin and Y. Zhang, “A performance-oriented adaptability assessment method for TBM tunneling,” Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 15 (7), 622, 2022. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12517-022-09923-3
13.   G. Barla, “Tunnelling under squeezing rock conditions,” Eurosummer-School in Tunnel Mechanics, pp. 169-268, Innsbruck, Austria, 2001.
14.   S. L. Chen, C. T. Ho and Y. C. Kuo, “Three-dimensional numerical analysis of ground surface settlement induced by the excavation of shield tunnels,” Tunnel Management, Emerging Technologies, and Innovation, pp. 80-87, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1061 /47632(411)11
15.   M. Ramoni, G. Anagnostou and N. Lavdas, “Segmental linings under squeezing pressure,” Proceedings of Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference (RETC 2011), Zurich, Switzerland, 2011.
16.   T. Y. Kim, G. U. Ryu, H. H. Ryu, J. H. Jang, T. H. Kwon, J. B. An and S. H. Chong, “Rheological performance and strength on two component backfilling grout in shield TBM,” Scientific Reports, 16, 1831, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-31540-x
17.   M. Sharghi, H. Chakeri, H. Afshin and Y. Ozcelik, “An experimental study of the performance of two-component backfilling grout used behind the segmental lining of a tunnel-boring machine,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 46 (5), 2083-2099, 2018. https://doi. org/100.1520/JTE20160617
18.   F. Mezger, M. Ramoni and G. Anagnostou, “Options for deformable segmental lining systems for tunnelling in squeezing rock,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 76, 64-75, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tust.2017.12.017
19.   G. J. Wu, W. Z. Chen, H. M. Tian, S. P. Jia, J. P. Yang and X. J. Tan, “Numerical evaluation of a yielding tunnel lining support system used in limiting large deformation in squeezing rock,” Environmental Earth Sciences, 77, 439, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1266-5-187614-0
20.   K. Wu, Z. Shao, S. Qin, W. Wei and Z. Chu, “A critical review on the performance of yielding supports in squeezing tunnels,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 115, 103815, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.tust.2021.103815
21.   K. Wu, J. Song, N. Zhao and Z. Shao, “Study on the time-dependent interaction between surrounding rock and yielding supports in deep soft rock tunnels,” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 48 (2), 566-587, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.3650
22.   R. Açikgözoğlu, “Bursa-Uluabat kuvvet tünelinin jeoteknik incelemesi,” Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2008.
23.   A. Okay, “Metamorphic belts in the Northwest Anatolia,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of Turkey, 5, 83-92, 1984.
24.   A. I. Okay, G. Sunal, S. Sherlock, A. R. Kylander-Clark and E. Özcan, “İzmir-Ankara suture as a Triassic to Cretaceous plate boundary—Data from central Anatolia,” Tectonics, 39 (5), e2019TC005849, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019TC005849
25.   Y. Yılmaz, “Polymetamorphism in Sogut-Bilecik Region and geotechnical meaning of them,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of Turkey, 22, 85-100, 1979.
26.   E. Caner, “Sıkışan zeminlerde tam cepheli tünel açma makinelerinin performans analizi ve Uluabat kuvvet tüneli örneği,” Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, Türkiye, 2010.
27.   A. M. C. Şengör, O. Tüysüz, C. İmren, M. Sakınç, H. Eyidoğan, N. Görür, X. Le Pichon and C. Rangin, “The North Anatolian Fault: A new look,” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 33, 37-112, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.32.101802.120415
28.   A. I. Okay, M. Satır, M. Zattin, W. Cavazza and G. Topuz, “An Oligocene ductile strike-slip shear zone: The Uludağ Massif, northwest Turkey—Implications for the westward translation of Anatolia,” GSA Bulletin, 120, 893-911, 2008. https://doi.org/10.11 30/B26229.1
29.   S. Özalp, O. Emre and A. Doğan, “Kuzey Anadolu Fayı Güney Kolunun Segment Yapısı ve Gemlik Fayının Paleosismolojik Davranışı, KB Anadolu,” Maden Tetkik ve Arama Dergisi, 147, 1-17, 2013.
30.   H. H. Selim and O. Tüysüz, “The Bursa-Gönen Depression, NW Turkey: A complex basin developed on the North Anatolian Fault,” Geological Magazine, 150 (5), 801-821, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1017/S 0016756812000945
31.   A. A. Barka, “Neotectonics of the Marmara Region,” Active Tectonics of the Northwestern Anatolia—The Marmara Poly-project, pp. 55-87, ETH Zürich, 1997.
32.   V. Karabacak, T. Sançar, A. S. Selçuk and Y. Büyükdeniz, “Ulubat Fayı’nın paleosismisitesi: Kuzey Anadolu Fay Zonu güney kolunun deprem davranışı üzerine çıkarımlar, Güney Marmara,” Türk Deprem Araştırma Dergisi, 3 (1), 1-19, 2021.
33.   T. Sançar and V. Karabacak, “Morphometric constraints on tectonic activity and landscape evolution in the Uludağ Range, NW Türkiye,” Journal of Mountain Science, 22, 4408-4428, 2025. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11629-025-9830-x
34.   N. N. Ambraseys and C. F. Finkel, “Long-term seismicity of Istanbul and the Marmara Sea region,” Terra Nova, 3, 527-539, 1991. https://doi.org /10.1111/j.1365-3121.1991.tb00188.x
35.   M. Algan, Uluabat Kuvvet Tüneli Denge Bacası, Cebri Boru Hattı ve HES Yeri Mühendislik Jeolojisi ve Jeoteknik Değerlendirme Raporu. Teknik Rapor, 2005.
36.   Z. T. Bieniawski, Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1989.
37.   N. Barton, R. Lien and J. Lunde, “Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support,” Rock Mechanics, 6, 189-236, 1974. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01239480
38.   DSİ, Emet-Orhaneli Projesi Çınarcık Barajı, Uluabat Kuvvet Tüneli ve HES Yeri Mühendislik Jeolojisi Planlama Raporu. Yayınlanmamış Teknik Rapor, Bursa, Türkiye, 1987.
39.   Akenerji Elektrik Üretim A.Ş., Bursa Uluabat Kuvvet Tüneli Ön Araştırma Raporu. Yayınlanmamış Teknik Rapor, Bursa, Türkiye, 2005.
40.   R. Ajalloeian, B. Moghaddam and A. Azimian, “Prediction of rock mass squeezing of T4 tunnel in Iran,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 35, 747-763, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-01 40-1
41.   J. Jethwa, B. Singh and B. Singh, “Estimation of ultimate rock pressure for tunnel linings under squeezing rock conditions—A new approach,” Design and Performance of Underground Excavations: ISRM Symposium, pp. 231-238, London, U.K., 1984.
42.   B. Singh, J. L. Jethwa, A. K. Dube and B. Singh, “Correlation between observed support pressure and rock mass quality,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 7, 59-74, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0886-7798(92) 90114-W
43.   R. Jimenez and D. Recio, “A linear classifier for probabilistic prediction of squeezing conditions in Himalayan tunnels,” Engineering Geology, 121, 101-109, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2011. 05.006
44.   R. Bhasin and E. Grimstad, “The use of stress-strength relationships in the assessment of tunnel stability,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 11, 93-98, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(95) 00047-X
45.   R. Dwivedi, M. Singh and M. Viladkar, “Prediction of tunnel deformation in squeezing grounds,” Engineering Geology, 161, 55-64, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.enggeo.2013.04.005
46.   E. Hoek and P. Marinos, “Predicting tunnel squeezing problems in weak heterogeneous rock masses,” Tunnels and Tunnelling International, 32, 45-51, 2000.
47.   N. Bilgin and M. Algan, “The performance of a TBM in a squeezing ground at Uluabat, Turkey,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 32, 58-65, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2012.05.004
48.   E. Poşluk and M. Korkanç, “Zayıf kayaçlarda makinalı kazı performansının kestirilmesindeki zorluklar,” Jeoloji Mühendisliği Dergisi, 42 (2), 143-158, 2018. https://doi.org/10.24232/jmd.486013
49.   M. İncecik and E. Posluk, “Tunnel T26 on the Ankara-Istanbul high speed rail route—Tunnelling under difficult conditions,” Geomechanics and Tunnelling, 11, 434-440, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/ geot.201800026