## 4 Application of Operating Model to the Simulator
### Simulation Tests of Operating Model  
The operating model was tested through the several simulations. The aim was to confirm whether operational actions induce suitable mechanical responses during excavation and whether the warning alarm systems (Table 6) work properly when the mechanical responses reach the assigned values.  
Figure 10: Instructor panel in the TBM simulator.  
The purpose of the first test is to check control of the increased thrust by adjusting operational actions. The thrust is set to increase from 20,313 to 42,964 kN through the instructor device. As it exceeds 40,000 kN (80% of the maximum capacity), the first stage of the warning alarm will appear in the red box on the panel (Figure 12a). The operator should then adjust several operational actions. There are several ways to decrease the thrust. Here, the shield jack speed is decreased from 40 to 24 mm/min to reduce thrust to 38,059 kN. Other mechanical responses may also be adjusted following the multiple regression equations of Table 4. The warning alarm would then disappear (Figure 12b). The purpose of the second simulation test is to confirm how to control the earth pressure by adjusting the operational actions. The control pressure was compulsarily decreased from 0.19 to 0.07 MPa through the instructor panel. To raise it, the screw conveyor rotation speed was decreased from 14.2 to 7.0 rev/min; this caused the control pressure to rise to 0.13 MPa along with changes in other mechanical responses. When the control pressure dropped to 0.10 MPa (the lower limit), the warning alarm was displayed in the red box on the panel (Figure 13a). It disappeared when the pressure rose above the threshold (Figure 13b).  
Figure 11: Pre-setting values for: (**a**) ground conditions, TBM specifications, and mechanical vibration; (**b**) coefficients of variables in each multiple regression equation.  
Figure 12: Simulation test results induced by: (**a**) thrust increase; and (**b**) shield jack speed decrease (refer to values in red boxes).  
Unlike the previous simulations, the last simulation involves adjustments of three operational actions (cutterhead rotation speed, shield jack speed, and screw conveyor rotation speed) without compulsory manipulation. As these parameters were changed to  
Figure 13: Simulation test results induced by: (a) control pressure decrease; and (b) screw conveyor rotation speed decrease.  
1.0 rev/min, 60 mm/min, and 8.5 rev/min, respectively by the operator, several warning alarms composed of _warning_ and _error_ were displayed (Figure 14a). To decrease the shield jack pressure, thrust, cutterhead torque, and control pressure together, the three operational actions were simultaneously changed to 0.8 rev/min, 30 mm/min, and 11.3 rev/min, respectively. The warning alarms disappeared as a result (Figure 14b).  
Figure 14: Simulation test results: (**a**) caused by adjustments of cutterhead rotation, shield jack, and screw conveyor rotation speeds; (**b**) resolved by adjustments of cutterhead rotation, shield jack, and screw conveyor rotation speeds.  
The simulation tests confirmed that the operator can successfully control the mechanical responses by adjusting operational actions and that the warning alarm systems independently work well following the state of each mechanical response.