Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s00603-012-0358-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 12 August 2012 / Accepted: 13 December 2012 / Published online: 27 December 2012
Springer-Verlag Wien 2012
O. Su
Department of Mining and Mine Extraction, Bulent Ecevit
University, Zonguldak, Turkey
O. Su (&) O. Yarali N. A. Akcin
Department of Mining Engineering, Bulent Ecevit University,
Zonguldak, Turkey
e-mail: okansu@karaelmas.edu.tr
1 Introduction
The drilling-blasting method is widely applied in both
mining and civil engineering when the conditions are not
suitable for mechanized excavation systems. Drilling is the
first step of blasting operations in surface and underground
mining. There are several drilling techniques, but the most
applied methods are rotary and percussive drilling. Rotary
drilling is usually applied in soft rock formations, while
percussive drilling is applied in hard rock formations.
Penetration rate of the bit is the main difference between
the two techniques. In rotary drilling, the penetration rate
averages a few millimeters per second, versus few centimeters per second in percussive drilling (Wijk 1991). In
order to determine a suitable drilling method, the physical,
mechanical, drillability and abrasivity properties of the
rock, as well as cost estimates, should be investigated
prudently prior to performing drilling operations. When the
limitations of both methods are taken into account, a
combined rotary and percussive drilling technique called
percussive-rotary drilling can be used to increase the drill
rate with a lower required level of weight on a bit (Franca
2011). This combined method has been successfully
applied so far. A general view of a bit connected to the
shank via driller rod is shown in Fig. 1 (Thuro 1997).
There are many kinds of drill bits used in the mining
industry. By taking into account the drilling purpose and
working conditions, the type of drill rig and the bit type can
be selected carefully. Essentially, the geometry, dimension,
length, and slope of the blasthole are taken into consideration. Tri-cone or roller bits are the most common bits used
in rotary drilling (Fig. 2a). Tri-cone bits cut the rock with a
crushing and chipping action. The first roller cone bit was
introduced into the oil field in 1909 and it was primarily
used in hard rock formations. It had two cones on the bit
123
1578
O. Su et al.
123
1579
SJ
CLI 13:84
AVS
0:3847
1
Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) test also gives preliminary knowledge about the cutter life used on excavation machines. The test has been widely used for the
estimation of tool wear and is a suggested method by ISRM
(1979) and ASTM (2010). The test results are evaluated
according to Table 2.
In addition to drilling and abrasivity properties of rock,
the penetration rate and specific energy are also important
parameters for the evaluation of the machine performance.
The penetration rate and specific energy are calculated by
Eqs. (2, 3).
L
t
P
SE g
ICR
PR
2
3
DRI
BWI
CLI
Extremely low
B25
B10
B5
Very low
2632
1120
5.05.9
Low
3342
2130
6.07.9
Medium
4357
3144
High
5869
4555
Very high
Extremely high
7082
C83
5669
C70
Classification
8.014.9
0.30.5
0.51.0
15.034
Medium abrasiveness
1.02.0
3574
C75
High abrasiveness
2.04.0
Extreme abrasiveness
4.06.0
Quartztic
6.07.0
DRI drillability rate index, BWI bit wear index, CLI cutter life index
123
1580
O. Su et al.
Vl
t
study. Two different bit types, chisel and button were taken
into consideration and their drilling performances were
investigated.
3.1 Chisel and Button Bits
The chisel bits have been extensively used on jack hammers for coal production at the Turkish Hardcoal Enterprise. A taper angle of 110 is usually applied on those bits.
In order to investigate the effect of taper angles on drilling
performance, two other bits having 105 and 120 of taper
angles were modified from the original ones by re-sharpening at the Eregli Iron & Steel Plant (Fig. 3). Later, the
bits were welded to monoblock steel rods, which were in
3738 mm diameter and 2.63 m lengths as shown in
Fig. 4. In the meantime, eight specially designed shanks
were fabricated in the TTK laboratories. Those shanks
were used to mount the monoblock rods onto the electro
hydraulic driller.
In addition to chisel bits, button bits of 42 mm diameter
were used in the course of the drilling process. Their performance was also monitored and compared with the chisel
bits.
3.2 Monitoring of Drilling Performance
Drilling operations were basically carried out in the
development drifts of the Turkish Hardcoal Enterprises
Kozlu mine at the level of -560 m. The drifts exist in
Westphalia and Namurian formations with a number of
faults, particularly, in the north-south direction and are in
the Mesozoic age. An important feature of the Kozlu mine
is that the drifts are currently advanced under the Black
Sea. The driller was operated on three different rock types
in sedimentary series including sandstone, conglomerate,
and an intermediate layer which consists of sandstone and
conglomerate. Before beginning the drilling process, in situ
hardness of the locations was measured by using an N type
Schmidt hammer (Fig. 5). Twenty readings in each location were conducted and the average values were
Table 3 Energy transfer ratio of some common mechanized techniques (Rostami et al. 1994)
Machine type
0.850.90
Roadheader
0.450.55
Raise borer
0.600.70
Shaft drill
0.550.70
0.700.80
123
1581
123
1582
O. Su et al.
Sandstone
Sandstone ? conglomerate
Conglomerate
rc
54.44 3.12
44.54 3.81
37.18 6.07
rt
6.58 0.75
6.46 1.60
6.93 0.50
Is//(50)
2.87 1.16
2.40 0.55
1.35 0.40
Is\(50)
1.59 0.91
2.31 0.77
1.28 0.40
54.03 3.78
48.18 3.53
47.32 3.82
ScH
123
Sandstone
4
Sandstone ?
conglomerate
8
Conglomerate
14
S20
42.44
53.10
52.14
DRI
53
62
53
9.00
58.00
13.92
13.10
AVS
SJ
5.24
101.80
BWI
25
22
32
CLI
43.32
28.34
13.52
CAI
3.95
4.45
5.65
AV abrasion value, S20 brittleness value, DRI drilling rate index, AVS
abrasion value steel, SJ Sievers J value, BWI bit wear index, CLI
cutter life index, CAI Cerchar abrasivity index
Table 6 The drilling
performance of bits depending
on the bit type
Bit type
Button
1583
Rock type
ND
TDL
PR
ICR
SE
Sandstone
26
39.33
1.51
66.3
85.85
0.12
34.23
311.0
Conglomerate-1
32
35.22
1.10
45.5
86.39
0.12
34.70
303.1
Conglomerate-2
33
58.73
1.78
67.2
97.87
0.14
34.82
278.6
10.13
1.27
54.1
86.08
0.12
35.42
302.9
49
68.70
1.40
73.1
70.07
0.06
35.34
655.7
Conglomerate-1
0.92
0.92
40.0
82.80
0.09
35.20
404.8
Conglomerate-2
5.79
0.11
44.8
79.16
0.09
36.25
441.8
Sandstone ? Conglomerate
Sandstone
20
39
19.93
47.02
1.00
1.21
51.0
55.1
71.15
80.27
0.06
0.09
35.90
34.11
642.8
415.0
Conglomerate-1
24
28.95
1.21
51.5
85.99
0.10
35.48
398.9
Conglomerate-2
22
19.56
0.89
38.1
84.53
0.10
35.48
412.8
5.31
1.33
65.3
74.40
0.08
35.75
461.3
Sandstone ? Conglomerate
105
110
Sandstone
Sandstone ? Conglomerate
120
Sandstone
46
51.43
0.85
50.0
62.18
0.07
35.31
558.9
Conglomerate-1
2.09
1.10
54.3
72.75
0.08
35.48
464.8
Conglomerate-2
1.11
1.11
50.0
79.92
0.09
35.48
422.7
Sandstone ? Conglomerate
7.00
1.40
83.6
63.03
0.07
35.53
545.4
123
1584
O. Su et al.
Rock type
Bit type
Sandstone
Button
26
39.33
1.51
66.3
85.85
0.12
34.23
311.0
105
49
68.70
1.40
73.1
70.07
0.06
35.34
655.7
110
39
47.02
1.21
55.1
80.27
0.09
34.11
415.0
120
46
51.43
0.85
50.0
62.18
0.07
35.31
558.9
Button-1
32
35.22
1.10
45.5
86.39
0.12
34.70
303.1
Button-2
33
58.73
1.78
67.2
97.87
0.14
34.82
278.6
0.92
0.92
40.0
82.80
0.09
35.20
404.8
Sandstone ? Conglomerate
ND
105-1
Conglomerate
89.05
100
75.80
PR
ICR
SE
5.79
0.11
44.8
79.16
0.09
36.25
441.8
24
28.95
1.21
51.5
85.99
0.10
35.48
398.9
110-2
22
19.56
0.89
38.1
84.53
0.10
35.48
412.8
120-1
2.09
1.10
54.3
72.75
0.08
35.48
464.8
120-2
1.11
1.11
50.0
79.92
0.09
35.48
422.7
Button
10.13
1.27
54.1
86.08
0.12
35.42
302.9
105
20
19.93
1.00
1.00
71.15
0.06
35.90
642.8
110
120
4
5
5.31
7.00
51.0
1.33
51.0
1.33
74.40
63.03
0.08
0.07
35.75
35.53
461.3
545.4
536.27
600
69.47
60
40
497.98
422.01
500
20
400
298.96
300
200
100
0
0
Button
105
110
Button
120
105
0.13
Sandstone
0 .12
0.09
0 .10
0.08
0.08
0 .08
Conglomerate
Sandstone+Conglomerate
488.12
485.18
500
390.95
400
0 .06
300
0 .04
200
0 .02
74.59 83.80
73.66
100
0 .00
Button
105
110
120
Bit Type
Fig. 9 Comparison of instantaneous drilling rates versus bit type
123
120
0 .14
110
Bit Type
Bit Type
ICR (m3/h)
110-1
SE (MJ/m3)
PR (m/h)
HL
105-2
81.30
80
TDL
0
PR
(m/h)
SE
(MJ/m 3)
Fig. 11 Comparison of penetration rate and specific energy depending on formation types
1585
700
700
600
600
500
500
SE (MJ/m3)
SE (MJ/m3)
400
300
y = -10.388x + 1259.1
R = 0.7382
200
400
300
200
100
100
0
0
20
40
60
PR (m/h)
Fig. 12 The relationship between SE and PR
80
100
120
0
0.00
0.03
0.06
ICR
0.09
0.12
0.15
(m3/h)
123
1586
Table 8 One sample t test
results
PR penetration rate,
ICR instantaneous drilling
rate, SE specific energy
O. Su et al.
Variable
t value
df
P value
Upper
84.0368
PR
33.181
15
0.000
78.96438
73.8919
ICR
15.922
15
0.000
0.09250
0.0801
0.1049
SE
15.250
15
0.000
438.80250
377.4727
500.1323
Variables
Source
Sum of squares
SEICR
Between groups
197650.64
Within groups
SEPR
df
Mean square
F value
P value
32941.775
281.773
0.000
116.909
10.613
0.018
1052.18
Total
198702.83
15
Between groups
192120.39
11
17465.491
6582.43
1645.608
198702.83
15
Within groups
Total
5 Conclusion
This study presents and compares drilling performance of
chisel and button bits. The bits were fabricated in 105,
110 and 120 of taper angles. Drilling measurements were
implemented at the -560 m level of an underground coal
mine. As soon as the site was selected, three visits were
made at regular intervals to monitor the performance of the
electro hydraulic driller. In this context, the penetration
rate, instantaneous drilling rate and specific energy of the
bits were examined.
As a result of the field studies, maximum penetration rate
and minimum specific energy were achieved by using button bits. However, the machine has encountered some
issues in conglomerate owing to the higher abrasivity of this
stratum. It might be due to the larger grain size and higher
amount of abrasive minerals such as quartz in the rock
structure. Therefore, it is suggested to analyze the petrographic structure of the samples to have an idea about the
composition of rocks. It would be better when both abrasion
properties and petrographic analyses are combined and
evaluated together in the course of performance prediction.
Because of excessive wear or broken chips of the bit, it
was necessary to re-sharpen the chisel bits at different
123
Mean difference
References
ASTM D7625 (2010) Standard test method for laboratory determination of abrasiveness of rock using the Cerchar method, 6 p
1587
Mincon (2012) Mincon International Ltd., Roanoke, VA, USA.
http://www.mincon.com
Nishimatsu Y (1972) The mechanics of rock cutting. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 9:261270
Plinninger RJ (2008) Abrasiveness assessment for hard rock drilling.
Geomech and Tunn 1:3846
Protodyakonov MM (1962) Mechanical properties and drillability of
rock. Fifth Symp on Rock Mech., University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, In, pp 103118
Rabia H, Brook N (1981) The effect of apparatus size and surface area
charge on the impact of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sc &
Geomech Abstr 18:211219
Rabia H (1982) Specific energy as a criterion for drill performance
prediction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci & Geomech Abstr
19:3942
Rabia H (1985) A unified prediction model for percussive and rotary
drilling. Min Sci and Tech 2:207216
Reddish DJ, Yasar E (1996) A new portable rock strength energy of
drilling index test based on specific energy of drill. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sc & Geomech Abstr 33:543548
Rostami J, Ozdemir L, Neil DM (1994) Performance prediction: a key
issue in mechanical hard rock mining. Mining Engineering
46:12631267
Sharma DK, Pandey AK, Das A (1990) A performance prediction
model for optimized drilling and blasting costs. Int Symp on
Rock Fragm by Blasting, Beijing, China, In, pp 3136
Su O, Yarali O (2010) The effect of tip angle on drilling performance
of monoblock bits used on electro-hydraulic drillers. In:
Proceedings of the 17th Coal Congress of Turkey, Zonguldak,
Turkey, pp 231244
Tandanand S, Unger HF (1975) Drillability determination: a drillability
index of percussive drills. US Bureau of Mines, RI 8073
Thuro K, Spaun G (1996) Introducing destruction work0 as a new
rock property of toughness referring to drillability in conventional drill and blast tunneling. Prediction and Performance in
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Rotterdam, pp 707713
Thuro K (1997) Drillability prediction-geological influences in hard
rock drill and blast tunneling. Geol Rund 86:426438
Wijk G (1991) Rotary drilling prediction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci &
Geomech Abstr 28:3542
Yarali O, Kahraman S (2011) The drillability assessment of rocks
using the different brittleness values. Tunnel and Undergr Sp
Tech 26:406414
123