Bull Eng Geol Environ

DOI 10.1007/s10064-014-0715-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Cuttability assessment using the Drilling Rate Index (DRI)

Serdar Yasar • Mehmet Capik • Ali Osman Yilmaz

Received: 15 July 2014 / Accepted: 29 December 2014

 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract For given geological conditions, cuttability or Introduction

performance prediction can be expressed by specific cut-
ting force (SFC), specific normal force (SFN), specific Mechanical excavation is the mandatory alternative to the
energy (SE), and pick wear rate. These parameters are conventional drill and blast excavation system. Selection of
difficult to determine. For this reason researchers try to the excavation method plays an important role in the suc-
assess these parameters indirectly by rock mechanical cess of the excavation process. Firstly, suitability of
parameters. The Drilling Rate Index (DRI) is the most mechanical excavation on the formation must be controlled.
important input parameter of a commonly used perfor- Each excavation system (drill and blast, tunnel boring
mance prediction model for tunnel boring machines. machine (TBM), roadheader and impact hammer, or com-
However, little research has been seen in the literature bination of these) has some advantages and disadvantages
about assessing cuttability indirectly by DRI. In this study, over each other. The method selection process is controlled
different types of rock and ore samples were subjected to a by various parameters such as rock strength, condition of
small-scale rock cutting test, the Cerchar abrasivity test, the discontinuities, underground water condition, tunnel shape,
Sievers J miniature drill test, and the brittleness (S20) test. and cross-sectional area of the tunnel (Hemphill 2013). For
With the aid of the Sievers and brittleness test results, the instance, uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) is defined as
DRI parameter was determined. SFC, SFN, and SE, which the elementary limiting parameter by Hemphill (2013) for
are the output parameters of small scale rock cutting tests, TBMs so that TBMs cannot excavate the formations, which
and the Cerchar abrasivity index values were correlated have 400 MPa (UCS) and above for massive geological
with Sievers J (Sj) value and DRI. It was seen that SFC, conditions (Copur et al. 2012).
SFN, SE and CAI parameters slightly decreased with After selection of the mechanical excavation system,
increasing Sievers J value and DRI. With these results, it performance prediction or cuttability phenomena emerges.
can be stated that DRI and Sj could be an alternative to Performance prediction or cuttability is indispensable for
other mechanical rock parameters for assessing cuttability. project economics and duration. Factors affecting perfor-
mance of mechanical miners can be summed in three
Keywords Small Scale Rock Cutting Test  Specific groups, which are mechanical parameters, geological
energy  Cutter forces  Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI)  parameters, and operational parameters (Bilgin et al. 2014).
Drilling Rate Index (DRI) Mechanical parameters and operational parameters could
be chosen by designers or contractors, but geological
parameters cannot be changed or chosen. Because of this,
Roxborough (1987) defined the cuttability of rock with
specific cutting force (SFC), specific normal force (SFN),
specific energy (SE), and pick wear rate for given geo-
S. Yasar (&)  M. Capik  A. O. Yilmaz
logical conditions.
Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey During mechanical excavation, three-dimensional forces
e-mail: [email protected] act on the cutting tool (Fig. 1). These are, namely, the

123
 S. Yasar et al.

defined as the energy consumed per unit volume of exca-

vated material. SE is calculated with the aid of the equation
given below.
FC
SE ¼ ; ð1Þ
Q
where SE is the specific energy (MJ/m3), FC is the mean
cutting force (kN), and Q is the yield (m3/km), which
occurs in a 1 km excavation track. FC, FN, and SE are
mostly determined by rock cutting tests. In the literature, it
has been seen that two types of laboratory rock cutting tests
exist (Balci and Bilgin 2007). These are the full scale rock
cutting test and the small scale rock cutting test. A full
scale rock cutting rig can assess cutter forces during rock
cutting tests on all types of real-life cutters (drag cutters
and roller cutters). Large block rock samples having
approximately up to 0.6 m 9 0.8 m 9 1.0 m dimensions
can be cut using these rigs. Rock samples are fixed with
casting concrete to a sample box. After this operation, rock
samples are subjected to cutting action by real-life cutters
of all types for changing cutting depths. During cutting
action, cutter forces are measured by a triaxial dynamom-
eter and recorded by a personal computer (PC). A full scale
rock cutting rig is the best way of determining cutter for-
ces. In this test, large block samples, which minimize
uncertainties, and real-life cutters are used and this situa-
tion provides a real-time cutting simulation (Bilgin et al.
Fig. 1 Tool forces acting on a cutter tool during mechanical
2006). Although these rigs have advantages, there are some
excavation (after Abu Bakar and Gertsch 2013)
difficulties such as in requiring large block rocks, needing a
professional crew, and also these rigs can be found in few
cutting force (FC), normal force (FN), and side force (FS). research centers. A schematic view of a full scale rock
SFC is the specific cutting force, which is the mean cutting cutting rig is seen in Fig. 2.
force acting on a cutting tool for unit cutting depth in the On the other hand, small scale rock cutting tests have
cutting direction. the unit of SFC is generally kN/mm. In been developed by Roxborough and Philips (1974), and
various studies, it has been stated that the cutting force this test was accepted as a standard test for determination
increases or decreases linearly with cutting depth (Rox- of the cuttability of a rock sample directly by the Inter-
borough and Rispin 1973; Bilgin 1977; Roxborough and national Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (Bamford
Pedroncelli 1982; Roxborough 1985; Roxborough 1987; 1987). In this test, core samples (diameters of 7.6 cm or
Bilgin et al. 2006). Cutting force is widely used for the smaller) and small block samples (dimensions up to
determination of an excavation machine’s torque require- 15 cm 9 20 cm 9 25 cm) can be subjected to cutting
ment. The torque requirement has a great importance in action by an index cutter (Bilgin et al. 2014). Similar to the
that exceeding the cutting force or the torque requirement full scale rock cutting test, cutter forces acting on the cutter
may result in breakage of tools or irreversible damages to are measured by a dynamometer and sent to a PC.
machines. On the other hand, SFN is the normal cutting Although having some advantages over the full scale rock
force for unit cutting depth acting on cutters normal to the cutting test, this test has some drawbacks, such as an index
cutting direction. As well as SFC, the unit of SFN is kN/ cutter is used in this experiment instead of a real-life cutter
mm. Normal force is a design parameter for determination and small samples are being used. A sample of a small
of a machine’s thrust capacity. Thrust capacity maintains scale rock cutting test is seen in Fig. 3. It should be noted
the stability of the specified cutting depth during excava- that the optimum SE obtained from full-scale linear cutting
tion. Exceeding the thrust requirement also may result in tests should be used when calculating the performance of
inevitable damage to the excavation machine. mechanical excavators. The SE obtained from small-scale
Specific energy (SE) is one of the best indicators for cutting tests must be converted to optimum SE by using the
rock cutting efficiency (Tumac et al. 2007), and SE can be plot suggested by Balci and Bilgin (2007).

123
Cuttability assessment

Fig. 2 Schematic view of a full

scale rock cutting rig (Bilgin
et al. 2006)

Fig. 3 A small scale rock

cutting rig before cutting action
and a schematic view of the test

A fourth parameter offered by Roxborough (1987) abrasivity test. By this test, the Cerchar Abrasivity Index
defines cuttability as the pick wear rate or pick con- (CAI) is measured and pick consumption rate of cutters
sumption rate. Pick wear rate can be calculated by weigh for given geological conditions can be calculated indi-
loss of the cutter per unit cutting distance. Several lab- rectly by CAI (Johnson and Fowell 1986). An explana-
oratory tests have been developed for predetermination tion and procedures for CAI will be mentioned in further
of pick wear. An example to these tests is the Cerchar sections.

123
 S. Yasar et al.

Two main performance prediction methods for TBMs out full-scale rock cutting tests and rock mechanics tests on
are the Colorado School of Mines (CSM) and Norwegian some rock and ore samples. As a result of this study, it has
University of Science and Technology (NTNU) models been found that SE increased with increasing UCS and
(Rostami and Ozdemir 1993; Rostami 1997; Blindheim UTS, and also SE increased with the product of UCS and
1979; Bruland 1998). Different input parameters are used UTS. Altindag (2003) defined a new brittleness index (BI)
for both performance prediction models. Laboratory rock in his previous works and he correlated SE values of dif-
cutting tests are the main parameters in the CSM model, ferent researchers with his new BI and found reasonable
and the Drilling Rate Index (DRI) is the most important correlations between SE and BI. In their study, Balci et al.
input parameter used in the NTNU model. Because of (2004) conducted rock cutting tests and found good cor-
reasons about the difficulty of rock cutting tests, various relations between SE and all mechanical properties of
researchers tried to determine the output parameters of rock rocks. Tiryaki and Dikmen (2006) carried out mineralogi-
cutting tests (FC, FN and SE) indirectly with some physical cal, mechanical, and rock cutting tests on different sand-
and mechanical properties of rocks. stone samples. In that study, SE was found to be related to
Some researchers tried to determine cutter forces (FC UCS, Poisson ratio (v), UTS, R, Shore hardness (SH), PL,
and FN) theoretically, and according to these theories, it density, feldspar content, and the cementation coefficient
has been seen that FC increases with uniaxial tensile with varying correlation coefficients. Tumac et al. (2007)
strength (UTS) and shear strength (SS) of rocks (Merchant inspected the prediction of cuttability with SH and UCS,
1945; Evans 1962; Nishimatsu 1972). Besides, some and SE was found to be related to SH and UCS. Yasar et al.
efforts have been realized for relating cutter forces with (2014) investigated the relationships between cuttability
other mechanical properties of rocks. Fowell et al. (1992) parameters and brittleness properties of rocks and it has
realized rock mechanics and rock cutting experiments on been found that SE increases with the brittleness index,
four different rocks, and they indicated that FC increases which was found by the product of UCS and UTS. A group
linearly with UCS and the elasticity modulus (E) of rocks. of researchers tried to inspect the performance prediction
When the raw data of Copur et al. (2001) was examined, it of a possible mechanical excavating machine and they
was seen that FC and FN increased linearly with UCS and found an exponential relationship between SE, UCS, and
UTS of rocks. A researcher tried to correlate engineering UTS (Comakli et al. 2014).
properties of rocks and tool forces, and ,as a result of this Furthermore, researchers made some efforts to deter-
work, it was stated that FN increased linearly with mine CAI indirectly by rock properties because of the
increasing UCS and UTS (Yagiz 2006). Bilgin et al. (2006) difficulty and the cost of the tests, and some of them tried
did an extensive research on the effects of physical and to analyze effects of physical and mechanical properties on
mechanical properties of rocks on SFC and SFN, and they CAI. Dominant rock properties affecting the CAI or bit
found reasonable relationships between SFC, SFN and wear are UCS and quartz content. Suana and Peters (1982)
UCS, UTS, E and Schmidt hammer rebound (R) values. presented evidence that CAI increases with equivalent
Yasar et al. (2013), carried out rock cutting tests and rock quartz content. West (1986) showed that CAI increased
mechanics tests on five different rock samples, and it was with increasing abrasive mineral content. Johnson and
seen that SFC and SFN increased with UCS, UTS, and Fowell (1986) stated that UCS was a good indicator for
point load strength (PL). R. Dursun and Gokay (2014) tool wear but not sufficient for an overall assessment. Al-
applied linear rock cutting tests and mechanical tests to Ameen and Waller (1994) indicated that CAI increased
different rock samples and found linear relationships with UCS and the product of UCS and abrasive mineral
among the mechanical properties of rocks and FC. hardness. Plinninger et al. (2002) defined the Rock Abra-
On the other hand, various researchers studied predicting sivity Index (RAI) as the product of equivalent quartz
SE with mechanical rock properties, and they suggested content and UCS, and it was found that, with increasing
empirical equations for the prediction of SE. McFeath-Smith RAI, bit life decreased. Plinninger et al. (2003) stated that
and Fowell (1979) correlated SE with mechanical properties CAI increased with quartz content, the product of static
of rocks using multivariate linear regression and suggested elasticity modulus, and the equivalent quartz content.
the equation below for determining SE indirectly. Numerous works have been reviewed for this study and
some relationships have been seen between cuttability
SE ¼ 0:65 þ 0:41 CI2 þ 1:81 k1=3  2:6; ð2Þ
parameters (SFC, SFN, SE and CAI) and physical and
3
where SE is the specific energy (MJ/m ), CI is the cone mechanical properties (UCS, UTS, R, E, PL, v, SS, SH and
indenter value, and k is the plasticity index found in the BI) of rocks. DRI has a great importance in performance
Shore scleroscope test. Roxborough (1987) did rock cutting analysis of TBM and drill and blast drivages. However, no
tests on different rock samples and found a linear rela- study has been found about relationships between cutta-
tionship between UCS and SE. Copur et al. (2001) carried bility parameters and DRI. In this study, different kinds of

123
Cuttability assessment

rock and ore samples were subjected to a small scale rock were used in this study. FS values were neglected in regard
cutting test, the Cerchar abrasivity test, Sievers J miniature to previous works made by other researchers, which were
drill test, and brittleness (S20) tests. By using Sievers J (Sj) mainly concentrated on FC and FN. (Bilgin et al. 2006,
and S20 values, DRIs were indicated and relations between 2014). Also, as asserted above, Roxborough (1987) defined
cuttability parameters and DRI, and Sj were investigated. cuttability with SFC, SFN, SE, and pick wear rate, and he
did not mention FS during his study. After the cutting
action, the yield was collected and weighed for calculation
Experimental studies of SE. Cutting conditions were as below:
Rake angle: -5,
Materials
Clearance angle: 5,
Tool width: 12.7 mm,
Six rock samples and an ore sample were collected from
Tool composition: tungsten carbide and 10 % cobalt.
pits and outcrops located in the eastern Black Sea Region
of Turkey for an experimental study. These samples In Fig. 3, a small scale rock cutting test and a schematic
include dolomitic limestone, granadiorite, fossilized sand- view of core cutting action can be seen. With the schematic
stone, lithic tuff, bioclastic limestone, ore, and vitric tuff. view of core cutting with an index cutter, the meaning of
First of all, thin section analyses were made for examina- rake and clearance angle is clearly shown. The clearance
tion of rock types and mineralogical content. Mineralogical angle is the angle between the tool and the rock surface,
content and descriptions of tested rocks are given in rake angle is the angle between the tool tip and the vertical
Table 1. Also, photographs of rocks under a petrographic tool axis in a counterclockwise direction. In this cutting, an
microscope are given in Fig. 4. index cutter, which has a negative rake angle, has been
chosen and used.
Small Scale Rock Cutting Test
Cerchar Abrassivity Test
Experimental rock cutting tests were held in Istanbul
Technical University. NX core samples having approxi- In the Cerchar abrasivity test, 90 conical pins were used,
mately 54 mm diameter were used for execution of the which have a tensile strength of 200 kg/mm2 and a
cutting tests. Every core sample was cut at least two times. Rockwell hardness of 55. Rock specimens were placed
After cutting action, FC, FN, and FS values were recorded under the pin and a static load of 70 N was placed on the
by a triaxial dynamometer and sent to a PC. FC and FN pin. The rock was scratched by the pin for 10 mm and the

Table 1 Mineralogical content and description of tested rock samples

Sample Description

Dolomitic limestone Initially, rock has been micritic limestone, thus, then it consists of dolomite (Do) minerals and fossil particles with the
(DL) aid of a recrystallization phase. The rock’s composition is 50 % calcite (Cal), 45 % dolomite (Do), and 5 % fossils (F).
Particle size of dolomite minerals range from 0.01 to 0.2 mm. It has been seen that dolomite minerals corrode fossil
particles. This shows that dolomite minerals occurs after fossil particles
Granadiorite (GR) Sample has a grained texture and it consists of 35 % quartz (Qtz), 25 % alkali feldspar (Kfs), 35 % plagioclase (Pl) and
5 % completely altered biotite. Size of grains ranges from 1 to 5 mm
Fossilized sandstone The rock has a clastic texture and has a rich fossil content of approximately 60 % [generally nummulites (num) fossils].
(FS) The remaining part of the rock consists of 25 % coarse fine cornered quartz (Qtz), 10 % volcanic rock (RP), and 5 %
plagioclase (Pl) grains. Some part of plagioclase minerals became clay because of alteration. Size of grains ranges
from 0.1 to 2.5 mm
Lithic tuff (LT) A rock which has a coarse grained and clastic texture and consists of glass (Gls), plagioclase (Pl), clinopyroxene (Cpx)
minerals, and many volcanic rock pieces. The rock’s composition is 80 % rock piece (RP), 20 % plagioclase, and
clinopyroxene. Size of grains ranges from 0.5 to 3 mm
Bioclastic limestone Twenty percent of clastic textured rock consists of clast (rock pieces, quartz and plagioclase) and 80 % of rock consists
(BL) of fossils. Rock pieces appeared from limestone and volcanic rocks. Mean particle size of clasts ranges between 0.5 to
3 mm
Ore (O) Ore consists of pyrite and galen minerals
Vitric tuff (VT) Twenty percent of rock consists of fines and 80 % consists of glass (Gls). Twenty percent of rock consists of cornered
quartz (Qtz), plagioclase (Pl), and sanidin minerals. Particle size of quartz, plagioclase, and sanidin minerals range
from 0.01 to 0.25 mm

123
 S. Yasar et al.

Fig. 4 Photographs of rock

specimens under a petrographic
microscope and basic rock
contents

Fig. 5 Cerchar abrasivity test

equipment

used pin was inspected under a microscope. Bluntness of were made for every specimen and the mean of these
pins was recorded and 1/10 mm of bluntness equals 1 CAI. readings were recorded as CAI. Test equipment is seen in
Every pin was for a single use. At least three scratches Fig. 5. The Cerchar test may be applied to both smooth and

123
Cuttability assessment

Fig. 6 Diagram which is used for determining DRI (Dahl 2003)

Fig. 8 Miniature drill rig which is used for tests

Drilling Rate Index (DRI)

DRI was firstly developed at NTNU in the1950s for per-

formance prediction of percussive drillings (Selmer-Olsen
and Lien 1960). Also, DRI was being used for successful
performance prediction of tunnel boring operations for a
few decades. DRI is determined by the combination of two
laboratory tests, which are the Sievers J miniature drill test
Fig. 7 Outline of Sievers J miniature drill test (Dahl et al. 2012) and the brittleness (S20) test. A diagram, which is used for
assessment of DRI, is given in Fig. 6. According to the
rough surfaces. However, when the test is applied to existing literature, DRI governs a lot of mechanical rock
smooth surfaces, a correction should be done according to parameters in itself. Researchers showed that DRI has good
Plinninger et al. (2003). The formula of this correction is as correlations with UCS, UTS, PL, R, SH, and brittleness
below. indexes (Yarali and Kahraman 2011; Dahl et al. 2012;
Yarali and Soyer 2013; Capik et al. 2013).
CAI = 0:99 CAIs + 0:48; ð3Þ
where CAI is the Cerchar abrasivity index for rough sur- Sievers J Miniature Drill Test
faces and CAIs is the Cerchar abrasivity index for smooth
surfaces. In this study the Cerchar abrasivity test was The Sievers drill test was first developed by Sievers in the
applied to smooth surfaces, so that correction was made 1950s (Sievers 1950). After the drill test, Sj value was
and corrected values were given. determined. A rock specimen having a specified height was

123
 S. Yasar et al.

Fig. 9 Outline of brittleness

(S20) test (Dahl et al. 2012)

jammed to the drill rig and the specimen was drilled for a percentage of material passing the sieve was determined as
minute with 200 revolutions per minute under 20 kg of the S20 value. Laboratory equipment for the brittleness test
static load. After drilling action, the drill hole height was is seen in Fig. 10.
measured with a digital slide caliper. Sj is defined as the
drill hole depth of 1/10 mm and drill action was repeated
for 4–8 times according to the homogeneity of samples. An Results and discussion
outline of the Sievers drill test is given in Fig. 7. Sj value
has great importance for cutting and drilling actions Overall results of the experimental study are given in
because Sj value is the direct measure of surface resistance Table 2. Mechanical properties of rocks absolutely play a
to indentation (Zare and Bruland 2013). In this study, all key role in all cuttability characteristics. However, none of
samples were drilled five times and the mean of five them can explain the phenomena behind the rock cutting
recordings were assessed as the Sj value. Laboratory action alone. As expressed before, DRI represents many
equipment used for the Sievers drill test is seen in Fig. 8. mechanical properties. Because of this, DRI was used to try
to explain the cutting action. As seen in Fig. 11, SFC
Brittleness (S20) Test decreases with increasing DRI and Sj. According to
determination coefficients (R2) in Fig. 11, it can be stated
The brittleness test was developed in Sweden in the 1940s that Sj is a better estimator than DRI for SFC assessment.
for evaluation of the quality of aggregates (Matern and R2 between Sj and SFC is 0.90 and R2 between DRI and
Hjelmer 1943). However, the brittleness test was modified SFC is 0.86. As asserted before, the Sj term provides a good
several times along with usability for different purposes. indicator for the rock specimen’s surface resistance to
The S20 value shows the resistance of a rock specimen to indentation. Rock cutting action is a kind of indentation. A
mechanical impacts. An outline of the brittleness test is cutter tries to indent to rock and then breaks off a piece and
given in Fig. 9. Firstly, a rock sample was crushed in a jaw again tries to indent the rock. In this indentation cycle,
crusher and sieved by 16 mm and 11.2 mm sieves. A surface resistance has an important role in such as the
specified amount of crushed material between 16 mm and surface of the rock’s resistance to indentation of indenter or
11.2 mm was prepared for execution of the test. A hammer cutter. So that, as the surface resistance of rock increases,
of 14 kg was dropped down on the mortar containing rock the ability of the cutter to cut rock becomes more difficult.
material for 20 times. This procedure was repeated for 3–5 SFN, or normal force is the force which tries to keep the
times for every rock sample. After impact action, rock cutter at the specified cutting depth. As surface resistance
material was sieved through an 11.2 mm sieve and the increases, the cutting process becomes harder and

123
Cuttability assessment

resistance forces the cutter to move up from the cutting Gokay 2014). According to these results, Sj may be stated
direction. Figure 12 shows this relation. SFN has a loga- as a good indicator for ease of cutting.
rithmic relationship with Sj and DRI. With increasing Sj SE is the indicator of rock cutting efficiency or, in other
and DRI, SFC and SFN decreases, i.e., cutting action words, SE shows the ease of the cutting action. SE increases
becomes easier. In former studies, they tried to correlate with increasing cutting force, i.e., it can be stated that, for
cutting force or normal force with mechanical rock lower cutting forces, lower energy is consumed. Likewise,
parameters (Fowell et al. 1992; Copur et al. 2001; Yagiz researchers tried to explain or formulate SE with one or more
2006; Bilgin et al. 2006; Yasar et al. 2013; Dursun and rock properties (McFeath-Smith and Fowell 1979; Roxbor-
ough 1987; Copur et al. 2001; Altindag 2003; Balci et al.
2004; Tiryaki and Dikmen 2006; Tumac et al. 2007; Yasar
et al. 2014; Comakli et al. 2014). In addition to these
parameters, at the same time it can be seen from Fig. 13 that
Sj and DRI play important roles with SE. When Fig. 13 is
investigated, it can be seen that there is an exponential
relation between SE and Sj and DRI. However, Sj is seen as a
more dominant effect on SE than DRI. So that, with
increasing DRI or Sj, cutting becomes easier and more effi-
cient. If an overall assessment is done with the relationships
up to here, all correlations show that surface resistance plays
a crucial role on the ease of rock cutting action.
CAI is a kind of pin indentation test. A pin is forced to
indent a rock specimen by a static load of 70 N. In other
words, surface resistance becomes important for this
indentation process too. As seen in Fig. 14, CAI decreases
with increasing DRI and Sj. However, Sj is seen to be a
more dominant parameter for CAI. This result matches up
with the existing literature. According to Dahl et al. (2012),
there is an inverse correlation between CAI and Sj. Former
researchers mostly stated that quartz or equivalent quartz
content played the key role on tool wear or CAI (Suana and
Peters 1982; West 1986; Al-Ameen and Waller 1994;
Plinninger et al. 2002, 2003). Mineral hardness may cause
the excessive surface hardness or resistance and these
results may be explained in this way.
Even though meaningful determination coefficients (R2)
were found among DRI, Sj, and all cuttability parameters,
the determination coefficient is not sufficient for an overall
assessment. Therefore, the t test and the ANOVA test were
used for checking the validity of the determined equations.
The t and F values were calculated and compared with
tabulated values. At this stage, it was controlled whether
Fig. 10 Brittleness test equipment computed t and F values were greater than tabulated values

Table 2 Overall results of Sample Sj (1/10 mm) S20 (%) DRI SFC (kN/mm) SFN (kN/mm) SE (MJ/m3) CAI
experimental studies
DL 36.00 49.02 55 0.75 2.34 37.28 1.50
GR 22.10 65.46 53 0.74 2.24 58.44 2.22
FS 17.10 36.07 38 0.92 3.05 42.85 1.41
LT 68.40 44.35 53 0.45 0.81 28.56 1.17
BL 106.30 61.19 74 0.33 0.17 17.35 0.95
Ore 0.60 49.21 31 1.38 4.61 70.57 3.14
VT 62.60 51.73 61 0.31 0.20 18.03 1.02

123
 S. Yasar et al.

Fig. 11 The relationships

between SFC and Sj, DRI

Fig. 12 The relationships

between SFN and Sj, DRI

or not greater. Equations were accepted as valid if the brittleness test. Using Sievers miniature drill test and the
computed t and F values were greater than tabulated val- brittleness test, the Drilling Rate Index (DRI) was calcu-
ues. In Table 3, summarization is given of the developed lated. Overall assessments give the following findings:
equations, determination coefficients, tabulated and com-
• Specific cutting force (SFC) is the cutting force for the
puted t and F values, and significance levels of equations
unit cutting depth, which is parallel to the cutting path.
according to the t test and the ANOVA test. Confidence
It is seen that with decreasing Sj and DRI, SFC
level was chosen to be 95 %. As seen in Table 3, all
increases. These parameters have logarithmic relations
developed models are valid according to t and ANOVA
with each other.
tests with varying significance levels.
• Specific normal force (SFN) is the normal force for the
unit cutting depth, which is perpendicular to the cutting
Conclusions path. From related graphs, it can be stated that SFN
increases with decreasing Sj and DRI.
In this study, six rock samples and an ore sample were • Specific energy (SE) is the unit energy per unit volume
subjected to a small scale rock cutting test, the Cerchar consumed during mechanical excavation. It is clearly
abrasivity test, the Sievers J miniature drill test, and a seen that SE increases with decreasing Sj and DRI.

123
Cuttability assessment

Fig. 13 The relationships

between SE and Sj, DRI

Fig. 14 The relationships

between CAI and Sj, DRI

Table 3 Results of t and ANOVA tests

Model summary Determination Computed Computed Tabulated Tabulated Significance Model
coefficient (R2) F values t values F values t values level validity

SFC = -0.207ln(Sj) ? 1.35 0.90 43.70 -6.61 4.67 2.45 0.001 Valid
SFN = -0.86ln(Sj) ? 4.62 0.83 13.39 -5.03 4.67 2.45 0.004 Valid
SE = 63:556e0:014Sj 0.83 25.21 -5.02 4.67 2.45 0.004 Valid
CAI = -0.424ln(Sj) ? 2.96 0.87 33.32 -5.77 4.67 2.45 0.002 Valid
SFC = -1.21ln(DRI) ? 5.45 0.86 29.91 -5.47 4.67 2.45 0.003 Valid
SFN = -5.175ln(DRI) ? 22.21 0.84 26.94 -5.19 4.67 2.45 0.003 Valid
-0.032DRI
SE = 183.6e 0.69 11.24 -3.35 4.67 2.45 0.020 Valid
CAI = -2.092ln(DRI) ? 9.83 0.59 7.23 -2.69 4.67 2.45 0.043 Valid

123
 S. Yasar et al.

• As is the same for other parameters, CAI has an inverse Comakli R, Kahraman S, Balci C (2014) Performance prediction of
trend with Sj and DRI. roadheaders in metallic ore excavation. J TUST 40:38–45
Copur H, Tuncdemir H, Bilgin N, Dincer T (2001) Specific energy as
• All developed models are verified using the t test and a criterion for use of rapid excavation systems in turkish mines.
the ANOVA test, and they are all found valid by this Trans Inst Min Met Sec A 110:149–157
statistical verification. Copur H, Balci C, Bilgin N, Tumac D, Avunduk E (2012) Predicting
cutting performance of chisel tools by using physical and
Sj value is mostly mentioned as an indicator for surface mechanical properties of natural stones. EUROCK 2012, 28–30
resistance of rocks. That is why all cuttability parameters May, Stockholm, p 14
Dahl F (2003) Draft of DRI, BWI, CLI standard. Available at http://
are found in relation with Sj. As surface resistance
www.drillability.com. Accessed 02 July 2014
increases, rock becomes harder to be excavated or drilled. Dahl F, Bruland A, Jakobsen PD, Nilsen B, Grøv E (2012)
After all these interpretations, it can be stated that DRI and Classifications of properties influencing the drillability of rocks
Sj parameters can represent rock cutting phenomena with based on the NTNU/SINTEF test method. J TUST 28:150–158
Dursun AE, Gokay MK (2014) Determination of cutting force from
other mechanical and physical parameters of rocks,
some rock properties of rock using statistical method (in
although further studies should be conducted for general- Turkish). In: ROCMECH 2014, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey,
izing these results. pp 335–342
Evans I (1962) A theory of the basic mechanics of coal ploughing, In:
Acknowledgments Especially to Prof. Dr. Nuh Bilgin, Prof. Dr. International Symposium on Mining Research, Missouri,
Hanifi Copur and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Deniz Tumac, the authors would pp 761–798
like to thank to all the crew of the Mine Mechanization and Tech- Fowell RJ, Gillani T, Altınoluk S (1992) Wear characterization of
nology Division of Istanbul Technical University for their generous rock. EUROCK 92. Chester, England, pp 13–18
help. Additionally, the authors would like to acknowledge Prof. Dr. Hemphill GB (2013) Practical tunnel construction. John Wiley Sons,
Bjorn Nilsen (NTNU, Norway), Filip Dahl (SINTEF, Norway), and Inc., p 415
Prof. Dr. Amund Bruland (NTNU, Norway). Johnson ST, Fowell RJ (1986) Compressive strength is not enough:
assessing pick wear rates for drag tool equipped machines, In:
27th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Tuscaloosa, pp 840–845
Matern N von, Hjelmer A (1943) Försök med pågrus (Tests with
Chippings), Medelande nr. 65, Statens väginstitut, Stockholm,
References pp 65 (English summary, pp 56–60)
McFeat-Smith I, Fowell RJ (1979) The selection and application of
Abu Bakar MZ, Gertsch LS (2013) Evaluation of saturation effects on roadheaders for rock tunneling. In: RETC 79, Georgia,
drag pick cutting of a brittle sandstone from full scale linear pp 261–279
cutting tests. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 34:124–134 Merchant ME (1945) Basic mechanics of metal cutting process. J App
Al-Ameen SI, Waller MD (1994) The influence of rock strength and Mech 11: A-168
abrasive mineral content on the Cerchar abrasivity index. Eng Nishimatsu Y (1972) The mechanics of rock cutting. Int J Rock Mech
Geol 36:293–301 Min Sci 9:261–270
Altindag R (2003) Correlation of spesific energy with rock brittleness Plinninger RJ, Spaun G, Thuro K (2002) Predicting tool wear in drill
concepts on rock cutting. J South Af Inst Min Met 103:163–171 and blast. Tunnels and Tunnelling International pp 1–5
Balci C, Bilgin N (2007) Correlative study of linear small and full- Plinninger R, Kasling H, Thuro K, Spaun G (2003) Testing conditions
scale rock cutting tests to select mechanized excavation and geomechanical properties influencing the Cerchar abrasive-
machines. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:468–476 ness index (CAI) value. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:259–263
Balci C, Demircin MA, Copur H, Tuncdemir H (2004) Estimation of Rostami J (1997) Development of a force estimation model for rock
optimum specific energy based on rock properties for assessment fragmentation with disc cutters through theoretical modeling and
of roadheader performance. J South Af Inst Min Met physical measurement of crushed zone pressure. PhD Thesis,
104:633–642 Colorado School of Mines, USA
Bamford WE (1987) ISRM-Comission on rock boreability, cuttability Rostami J, Ozdemir L (1993) A new model for performance
and drillability. Notes for Workshop, Canada prediction of hard rock TBM, In: RETC 93, Boston, pp 793–809
Bilgin N (1977) Investigation into mechanical cutting characteristics Roxborough FF (1985) Research in mechanical rock excavation:
of some medium and high strength rocks. PhD Thesis, Newcastle progress and prospects. In: RETC 85, Las Vegas, pp 225–244
Upon Tyne University, England Roxborough FF (1987) The role of some basic rock properties in
Bilgin N, Demircin MA, Copur H, Balci C, Tuncdemir H, Akcin N assessing cuttability. Seminar on Tunnels, In: Wholly Engi-
(2006) Dominant rock properties affecting the performance of neered structures, Sydney, Australia, p 21
conical picks and the comparison of some experimental and Roxborough FF, Pedroncelli EJ (1982) A practical evaluation of some
theoretical results. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:139–156 coal-cutting theories using a continuous miner. Min Eng
Bilgin N, Copur H, Balci C (2014). Mechanical Excavation in Mining pp 145–155
and Civil Industries, CRC Press, p 366 Roxborough FF, Philips HR (1974) Experimental studies on the
Blindheim OT (1979) Boreability predictions for tunneling. PhD excavation of rocks using picks. In: Third ISRM Congress,
Thesis, Department of Geological Engineering, The Norwegian Denver, pp 1407–1412
Institute of Technology, Norway Roxborough FF, Rispin A (1973) The mechanical cutting character-
Bruland A (1998) Hard rock tunnel boring. PhD Thesis, Norwegian istics of the lower chalk. Tunnels and Tunnelling pp 45–67
University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway Selmer-Olsen R, Lien R (1960) Bergartens borbarhet og sprengbarhet.
Capik M, Yilmaz AO, Yasar S, Yarali O, Cavusoglu I (2013) Teknisk Ukeblad nr. 34, Oslo, pp 3–11
Comparison of drillability and abrasivity properties of rocks (in Sievers H (1950) Die bestimmung des bohrwiderstandes von gestei-
Turkish). In: 23rd IMCET, Antalya, pp 659–669 nen. Glückauf 86:776–784

123
Cuttability assessment

Suana M, Peters T (1982) The Cerchar abrasivity index and its Yarali O, Kahraman S (2011) The drillabilty assessment of rocks
relation to rock mineralogy and petrography. Rock Mech 15:1–7 using the different brittleness values. J Tust 26:406–414
Tiryaki B, Dikmen AC (2006) Effect of rock properties on spesific Yarali O, Soyer E (2013) Assessment of relationships between
cutting energy in linear cutting of sandstones by picks. Rock drilling rate index and mechanical properties of rocks. J Tust
Mech Rock Eng 39:89–120 33:46–53
Tumac D, Bilgin N, Feridunoglu C, Ergin H (2007) Estimation of Yasar S, Yilmaz AO, Capik M (2013) Investigation on relations
rock cuttability from shore hardness and compressive strength between tool forces and mechanical characteristics of rocks (in
properties. Rock Mech Rock Eng 40:477–490 Turkish). 3. UYAK, Istanbul, pp 83–90
West G (1986) A relation between abrasiveness and quartz content for Yasar S, Yilmaz AO, Capik M (2014) Investigation on relationships
some Coal Measures sediments. Int J Min Geol Eng 4:73–78 between brittleness properties and cuttability parameters of rocks
Yagiz S (2006) An investigation on the relationship between linear (in Turkish). ROCMECH 2014. Afyonkarahisar, Turkey,
cutting force and some engineering properties of rocks (in pp 343–350
Turkish). In: VIII. Regional Rock Mechanics Symposium, Zare S, Bruland A (2013) Applications of NTNU/SINTEF drillability
pp 99–106 indices in hard rock tunneling. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:179–187

123