DOC TOR A L T H E S I S

Rajib Ghosh Assessment of Rock Mass Quality and its Effects on Chargeability Using Drill Monitoring Technique
Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN 1402-1544
Assessment of Rock Mass Quality and its
ISBN 978-91-7583-963-9 (print)
ISBN 978-91-7583-964-6 (pdf)
Effects on Chargeability Using
Luleå University of Technology  Drill Monitoring Technique

Rajib Ghosh

Mining and Rock Engineering

Assessment of Rock Mass Quality and its Effects on Chargeability
Using Drill Monitoring Technique

Rajib Ghosh

Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
Luleå University of Technology
Luleå, Sweden
Printed by Luleå University of Technology, Graphic Production 2017

ISSN 1402-1544
ISBN 978-91-7583-963-9 (print)
ISBN 978-91-7583-964-6 (pdf)
Luleå 2017
www.ltu.se
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research presented in this thesis has been accomplished within the research subject,
Mining and Rock Engineering, at the Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering, in
the Department of Civil, Environment and Natural Resources Engineering, Luleå University
of Technology (LTU), Sweden.

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my principal supervisor,
Professor Håkan Schunnesson, at the Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering,
LTU, for his enthusiastic guidance all through the work. He was an unremitting source of
assistance. This thesis would not have been completed in time without him. I would also like
to thank my co-supervisor, Dr Anna Gustafson, Senior Lecturer at the Division of Mining and
Geotechnical Engineering, LTU, for her valuable suggestions, discussion, and comments.

I am grateful to Professor Erling Nordlund, at the Division of Mining and Geotechnical

Engineering, LTU, and Professor Uday Kumar, at the Division of Operation and Maintenance
Engineering, LTU, for giving me the opportunity to perform doctoral work. I also would like
to thank Professor Zongxian Zhang, Oulu Mining School, University of Oulu, Finland, for his
encouragement during my doctoral study.

I am thankful to the miners at LKAB, Malmberget, who offered their friendly assistance
during the field work. Without their help, this work would not have been successful. I also
thank my colleague, Markus Danielsson, at LTU and Research Engineers, Hanna Falksund
and Anders Johnsson, at LKAB, Malmberget, for their support during the field work.

I wish to thank Christer Stenström, Stephen Mayowa Famurewa, Changping Yi, Per Norrbin,
Musa Adebayo Idris, together with the faculty members and my fellow graduate students at
the Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering, as well as Operation and Maintenance
Engineering, LTU, for their support, discussion, and encouragement.

Vinnova, Swedish Energy Agency and Formas are acknowledged for financing the project
through the SIP-STRIM program. I also would like to acknowledge LKAB for providing
financial support during this research.

Last but not least, I am indebted to my family for their sacrifices and unconditional support
while I pursued higher education in Sweden.

Rajib Ghosh
October 2017
Luleå, Sweden

iii
iv
 ABSTRACT

For an efficient mining operation, it is essential to have as much information as possible about
the ore to be excavated and the rock masses surrounding the ore. Geological information and
the content and distribution of extractable minerals, are central concerns for long term mine
planning. However, for mine stability and production scheduling, the mechanical conditions
of ore and side rock are also very important. The underground mining process normally
consists of a number of unit operations, such as drilling, charging, blasting, loading,
transportation, hoisting etc., linked in a production chain. The quality of the initial operations
(drilling, charging and blasting) normally defines the pre-conditions for the following loading
and transportation processes in the mine. The ability to fully charge holes as planned has been
identified as one of the major obstacles for smooth fragmentation. Course or uneven
fragmentation will, for example, significantly affect the loading and transportation efficiency
in the downstream production chain.

Earlier studies in LKAB’s Malmberget mine have shown that the chargeability is on average
around 90%. However, individual levels can have an average chargeability of only 70% and
individual rings, at those levels, can suffer from chargeability as low as 50%. A significant
part of these problems has its origin in geo-mechanical problems in the rock mass. Therefore,
detailed knowledge of the rock mass condition surrounding the boreholes is essential to
improve the planning and execution of the charging works in a mine and to improve overall
fragmentation and production efficiency.

The focus of this thesis is therefore to define and evaluate geo-mechanical features in the
drilled rock mass effecting chargeability, and to evaluate drill monitoring technique for the
assessment of rock mass quality and its effects on borehole’s chargeability using hydraulic In-
The-Hole (ITH) percussive drilling.

The research is based on literature review, drill-monitoring data, borehole filming, on-line
production database and monitoring of charging operation. Statistical methods are used to
analyse drill data. The data have been collected from LKAB’s underground mine in
Malmberget, Sweden.

Several rock mass conditions including caving, shearing, deformation, fracturing, cavities,
solid rock, etc., have been identified during filming of 361 production boreholes.
Measurement While Drilling (MWD) technique has been used to assess the quality of the
penetrated rock mass. In order to do so, a detailed analysis of the drilling system and the
drilling control including how monitored parameters relate to each other and to the penetrated
rock mass conditions, has been performed. The results show that the MWD data contain
pronounced hole length dependent trends, both linear and step-wise linear, for most
parameters. By combining the borehole filming and the analyses of monitored drill
parameters, the drilling responds to each geo-mechanical features in the rock mass is further
demonstrated. High correlation has been found between the geo-mechanical rock properties
(fractures, cavities, solid rocks, etc.,), and the registered drilling system’s response. The
analyses show that the responses from the drill monitoring system can distinguish between

v
solid rock, fracture zone, cavity and cave-in. Based on the correlation between the registered
drilling system’s responses and the geo-mechanical features, a geo-mechanical model is
developed to assess the borehole chargeability. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is
performed to model this relationship. The developed model can distinguish fans, or parts of
fans, with solid, non-fractured rocks where no chargeability problems can be expected, from
fans, or part of fans, with fractures, cavities or cave-in risks, where chargeability problems
can be expected. The model shows high potential for identifying charging problems in the
borehole, and has been verified and validated by following an actual charging operation in the
real production environment.

Keywords: Underground mining, Sublevel caving, Rock mass quality, Borehole filming,
Borehole quality, Borehole stability, Borehole instability, Drill monitoring
technique, Measurement While Drilling (MWD), Hydraulic In-The-Hole (ITH)
drilling, Drill system behaviour, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Geo-
mechanical model, Chargeability, Fracture zone, Shear zone, Cave-in, Cavity,
Rock blasting

vi
 LIST OF APPENDED PAPERS

Paper A
Ghosh, R.; Zhang, Z.X.; Nyberg, U. Borehole Instability in Malmberget Underground
Mine. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2015, 48, 1731-
1736. (DOI: 10.1007/s00603-014-0638-1)

Paper B
Ghosh, R.; Schunnesson, H.; Gustafson, A. Monitoring of Drill System Behavior for
Water-Powered In-The-Hole (ITH) Drilling. International Journal of Minerals, 2017, 7(7),
1-14. (DOI: 10.3390/min7070121)

Paper C
Ghosh, R.; Danielsson, M.; Gustafson, A.; Falksund, H.; Schunnesson, H. Assessment of
Rock Mass Quality using Drill Monitoring Technique for Hydraulic ITH Drills. International
Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering, 2017, 8(3), 169-186.

Paper D
Ghosh, R.; Gustafson, A.; Schunnesson, H. Development of a Geo-mechanical Model for
Chargeability Assessment of Borehole using Drill Monitoring Technique. (Under review in
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2017)

vii
viii
 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. v

LIST OF APPENDED PAPERS ........................................................................................... vii

CONTENTS............................................................................................................................. ix

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ xi

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. xii

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the problem .................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Objectives.......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Research questions ............................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Research scope and limitation .......................................................................................... 3
1.6 Research structure ............................................................................................................. 3
1.7 Contribution of authors of the appended papers ............................................................... 5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Borehole instability and chargeability ............................................................................. 7
2.2 Rock mass characterisation methods ............................................................................... 8
2.3 Measurement While Drilling technique .......................................................................... 9
2.4 Down-The-Hole (DTH) drilling .................................................................................... 13
2.5 Hydraulic ITH drilling .................................................................................................. 14

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................................... 17
3.1 Literature review ............................................................................................................. 18
3.2 MWD data collection and processing ............................................................................ 19
3.3 MWD data analysis ........................................................................................................ 21
3.3.1 Variability parameters ........................................................................................... 21
3.3.2 Statistical methods ................................................................................................. 22
3.3.2.1 Multivariate method .................................................................................. 23
3.4 Borehole filming ............................................................................................................ 23
3.5 Online production database (GIRON) ............................................................................ 24
3.6 Monitoring the charging operation.................................................................................. 25
3.7 Test description ............................................................................................................... 25
3.7.1 Malmberget mine ................................................................................................. 25
3.7.2 Test sites ............................................................................................................... 26
3.7.2.1 Vi-Ri......................................................................................................... 27
3.7.2.2 Alliansen................................................................................................... 28
3.7.2.3 Fabian ....................................................................................................... 29
3.7.3 Drill monitoring technique .................................................................................... 30

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................................................................... 31

4.1 Geo-mechanical features ................................................................................................ 31
4.2 Drill response monitoring ............................................................................................... 33
ix
 4.3 Drill system behaviour .................................................................................................... 37
4.4 Multivariate analysis of drilling data ............................................................................. 40
4.5 Geo-mechanical model ................................................................................................... 44
4.6 Validation of the model .................................................................................................. 45

5 CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS .................................................................... 49

5.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 49
5.2 Contributions................................................................................................................... 50

6 FUTURE WORK ................................................................................................................ 51

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 53

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Research framework ................................................................................................. 4

Figure 2.1 DTH drilling method ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 2.2 (a) Components, (b) Function of Wassara ITH hammer ....................................... 15
Figure 3.1 Research process..................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.2 Frequency of monitored operational parameters .................................................... 20
Figure 3.3 (a) Steel casing connected to camera ..................................................................... 24
Figure 3.3 (b) Camera in funnel shape steel casing ................................................................ 24
Figure 3.3 (c) Cylindrical steel casing .................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.3 (d) Display monitor ................................................................................................ 24
Figure 3.3 (e) Cable wrapped and marked for each meter ...................................................... 24
Figure 3.4 A borehole being charged in a production drift ...................................................... 25
Figure 3.5 Malmberget Mine .................................................................................................. 26
Figure 3.6 An example of a fan in one of the test sites ............................................................ 26
Figure 3.7 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 1026 m in Vi-Ri ..................................... 27
Figure 3.8 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 1074 m in Vi-Ri ..................................... 27
Figure 3.9 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 992 m in Alliansen ................................ 28
Figure 3.10 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 1022 m in Alliansen ............................ 28
Figure 3.11 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 855 m in Fabian ................................... 29
Figure 3.12 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 880 m in Fabian.................................... 29
Figure 4.1 Sheared borehole .................................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.2 (a) Fractured borehole in ore .................................................................................. 32
Figure 4.2 (b) Fractured borehole intercepted by ore and waste rock ..................................... 32
Figure 4.3 Caved borehole ....................................................................................................... 32
Figure 4.4 Deformed borehole ................................................................................................. 32
Figure 4.5 Borehole penetrating a cavity ................................................................................. 33
Figure 4.6 Solid rock ................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 4.7 Recorded contd. versus hole length for filmed borehole no. 7 in ring no. 37......... 35
Figure 4.8 Recorded contd. versus hole length for borehole no. 2 in ring no. 22 .................... 36
Figure 4.9 Recorded contd. versus hole length for borehole no. 5 in ring no. 24 ................... 37
Figure 4.10 Penetration rate versus hole length ....................................................................... 38
Figure 4.11 Feed force versus hole length .............................................................................. 38
Figure 4.12 Rotation pressure versus hole length .................................................................... 39
Figure 4.13 Drill string buckling force versus applied feed force .......................................... 39
Figure 4.14 Penetration rate versus normalised feed force ..................................................... 40
Figure 4.15 Loading plot of first and second principal component ......................................... 41
Figure 4.16 Score plot for the all data including solid rock..................................................... 42
Figure 4.17a Score plot for solid rock responses ..................................................................... 43
Figure 4.17b Score plot for fractured rock .............................................................................. 43
Figure 4.17c Score plot for cave-in ......................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.17d Score plot for cavity............................................................................................ 44
Figure 4.18 Geo-mechanical model assessing chargeability ................................................... 45
Figure 4.19 Borehole’s chargeability classified for a new fan using the proposed model....... 46
xi
Figure 4.20 First principal components vs. depth for hole 5.................................................... 47
Figure 4.21 First principal components vs. depth for hole 9.................................................... 48

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Relationship between appended papers and research questions (RQ) ...................... 4
Table 1.2 Authors’ contributions .............................................................................................. 5
Table 3.1 Selection of intervals for filtering monitored data ................................................... 21
Table 3.2 MWD parameters .................................................................................................... 30
Table 4.1 Charging conditions identified during inspection of charging operation................. 46

xii
 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
For an efficient mining operation, it is essential to have as much information as possible about
the ore to be excavated and the rock masses surrounding the ore. Geological information and
the content and distribution of extractable minerals are central concerns for long term mine
planning. However, for mine stability and production scheduling, the mechanical conditions
of ore and side rock are also very important. The underground mining process normally
consists of a number of unit operations, such as drilling, charging, blasting, loading,
transportation, hoisting etc., linked in a production chain. The quality of the initial operations
(drilling, charging, and blasting) normally defines the pre-conditions for the following loading
and transportation processes. Course or uneven fragmentation will, for example, significantly
affect the loading and transportation efficiency in the downstream production chain.
Therefore, to ensure better production planning and minimise production cost, a detailed
description of the side rock and the ore to be mined is essential.

Rock masses are not on a continuum and consist of two basic parts: intact rock and
discontinuities such as joints, faults, cavities and other geological structures. These features
will all influence the mining process to a greater or lesser extent. For example, the
chargeability, defined as the ability to charge a complete borehole as planned, can be
significantly influenced by challenging rock mass conditions surrounding the borehole. When
a borehole is sheared into two parts by a fracture or a weak layer, it is almost impossible to
charge the sheared part of the borehole. Abousleiman et al., (2007) explain that boreholes can
collapse due to the sliding of joint planes that break the rock, and if pieces of rock collapse
from the borehole wall, they may block the opening of the borehole. If several boreholes in a
fan or successive fans are partly or completely blocked, charging becomes difficult to
perform. Further, if there is a delay between the charging and blasting operations, explosives
(emulsion) may flow into cavities because of gravity; as a result, some part of the borehole is
left uncharged. Uncharged and undetonated blast holes reduce the specific charge, resulting in
poor fragmentation and possibly lowering ore recovery (Zhang, 2005). If there is a cavity, the
borehole may be pumped with excessive explosives (Zhang, 2012). Finally, as Zhang (2016)
explains, borehole instability is likely to be worsened by high-stress states, production
blasting, rock burst, or mine seismicity. Given all these factors, the assessment of the in-situ
conditions of the rock mass around the excavated boreholes is important for improved
planning and execution of the charging operation in a mine.

Several borehole-based methods can assess the in-situ conditions of the rock mass intercepted
by a borehole. For example, borehole radar and auto scanning laser systems have been
employed to detect cavities and fractures (Haeni et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2008). However, these
methods require available drill holes that have been drilled prior to the actual measuring. The
holes also need to be reasonably stable to be able to insert instrumentation without the risk of
getting stuck. In an industrial application, these assessment methods cause delays and
disturbances (Schunnesson, 1996).

1
Drill monitoring, or the Measurement While Drilling (MWD) technique (automatic
monitoring of drill parameters while drilling), is a well-established method to characterise the
penetrated rock mass. It is commonly used in Scandinavian infrastructure projects (Van
Elders et al., 2017) and has also been used in mining and petroleum industries (Smith, 2002).
The MWD technique can be applied in different types of drilling operations, such as rotary
drilling, percussive drilling, core drilling etc. (Teale, 1965; Peck, 1989; Schunnesson, 1998;
Kahraman et al., 2000; Segui and Higgins, 2002; Rai et al., 2015; Ghosh et al., 2015) and
provides high resolution information about the drilled rock mass (Schunnesson, 1997a). A
general challenge with the MWD technique is separating the responses influenced by the geo-
mechanical variation in the rock mass from those affected by the operators, rig control
system, bit wear, addition of the rod, measurement errors, etc., but if successful, it can
achieve high resolution and inexpensive rock mass characterisation.

This thesis assesses the quality of the rock mass penetrated by production boreholes using the
MWD technique for hydraulic In-The-Hole (ITH) drilling, and it evaluates the potential of the
technique to predict borehole chargeability. Despite many earlier applications of MWD, this
is the first time it is used for hydraulic ITH drilling. It is also the first time it is used to predict
rock mass conditions influencing chargeability. The analyses and results are based on a large
amount of data collected from an operating underground mine in Sweden.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Today, miners have limited information about the in-situ conditions of the rock mass
surrounding a borehole before the charging operation begins. If the rock mass conditions are
challenging, with fracture zones, large cavities, or even unstable boreholes, the charging crew
may fail to insert the required amount of explosives into the borehole. Many boreholes cannot
be charged completely; sometimes, the full length of the borehole can be left uncharged, thus
reducing the specific charge, with negative effects on ore recovery, fragmentation and further
downstream processes. To improve the planning and execution of the charging of boreholes, a
detailed description of the rock mass around the borehole is a priority. MWD has the potential
to provide high resolution information on the rock mass quality for each hole. However, the
recorded data reflect a mixture of influences, from the variation of rock mass characteristics,
operator influence, rig control system interventions, bit wear, addition of the rod,
measurement errors, etc. Therefore, a proper methodology is needed before we can trust the
technique to evaluate penetrated rock mass conditions and chargeability conditions.

In order to use MWD to ensure an efficient hole charging process, i.e., one that is adaptive to
the actual characteristics of the rock mass, several areas need improvement and development,
e.g., the understanding of the drill system behaviour in response to rock mass, a methodology
to analyse the drill data, the correlation between drill parameters and rock mass, and the
various factors causing charging problems in day-to-day production activities.

2
1.3 OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this research is to assess rock mass quality and its effect on
chargeability using a drill monitoring technique.
The research aims to fulfil the following detailed objectives:
¾ Identify critical rock mass characteristics that affect hole instability and chargeability.
¾ Study and characterise the hydraulic In-The-Hole (ITH) drilling system and the interaction
between the monitored drill parameters.
¾ Verify the response and consistency of drill parameters versus different rock mass
conditions.
¾ Evaluate how drill data from hydraulic ITH drilling can be analysed.
¾ Evaluate the use of drill monitoring data to assess chargeability.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

To reach the objectives, the following research questions have been formulated:

RQ 1 What type of rock mass conditions affect the quality, instability and chargeability of
production boreholes?

RQ 2 How can drill monitoring data from hydraulic ITH drilling be used to evaluate rock
mass quality?

RQ 3 How does the drill system behave and how does it respond to different rock mass
behaviours?

RQ 4 How can the chargeability be assessed using drill monitoring data?

1.5 RESEARCH SCOPE AND LIMITATION

The scope of this research includes the identification of rock mass conditions affecting
borehole quality and drill system responses, the ability to use drill monitoring data to assess
rock mass quality, and the potential to evaluate borehole chargeability using a drill monitoring
technique. The data analyses and results in the study are based on hydraulic ITH drilling, so
all results may not be applicable for all other drilling methods.

1.6 RESEARCH STRUCTURE

This doctoral thesis includes six chapters and four appended papers. It comprises an
introduction to the research, literature review, research methodology, results and discussion,
conclusion and contribution, and future work. Table 1.1 presents the coherence between the
research questions and appended papers. The first research question is answered in papers A,
C, and D. The second research question is answered in papers C and D. The third research
question is answered in papers B, C and D. The fourth research question is answered in paper
D. Figure 1.1 presents the framework of the thesis.

3
 Table 1.1 Relationship between appended papers and research questions (RQ)
Paper A Paper B Paper C Paper D
RQ-1 X x x
RQ-2 X x
RQ-3 X X x
RQ-4 X

Figure 1.1 Research framework

The main themes of the appended papers are as follows:
Paper A: Borehole instability in Malmberget underground mine. This paper identifies the
effects of different rock mass conditions on borehole quality, borehole instability, and
chargeability.

Paper B: Monitoring of drill system behaviour for water-powered In-The-Hole (ITH) drilling.
This paper addresses the inter-dependency between drill variables. It also explains the use of a
multivariate method to merge drill parameters into a single component that best describes the
geo-mechanical influences on the drill response measurements.

Paper C: Assessment of rock mass quality using drill monitoring technique for hydraulic ITH
drills. This paper describes the ability of selected operational parameters and calculated
parameters to assess the rock mass quality surrounding a borehole.

Paper D: Development of a geo-mechanical model for chargeability assessment of borehole

using drill monitoring technique. This paper develops a geo-mechanical model to predict the
borehole chargeability before the charging operation begins.

4
1.7 CONTRIBUTION OF AUTHORS OF THE APPENDED PAPERS
The contributions of the authors can be divided into following activities.

1. Defining problem

2. Field work A: borehole filming

3. Field work B: monitoring charging operation

4. Data analyses and results

5. Drafting manuscripts

6. Submission of manuscripts

7. Revision and final approval of manuscripts

Based on these activities, the authors’ contributions to each paper are presented in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Authors’ contributions

Authors Paper A Paper B Paper C Paper D
Danielsson, Markus 2,7
Falksund, Hanna 1,7
Ghosh, Rajib 1-7 1,3,4,5,6,7 1-7 1-7
Gustafson, Anna 7 1,7 1,7
Nyberg, Ulf 1,7
Schunnesson, Håkan 1,4,7 1,2,7 1,2,7
Zhang, Zongxian 1,2,7

5
6
 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 BOREHOLE INSTABILITY AND CHARGEABILITY
In this research, chargeability is defined as the ability to charge a complete borehole as
planned, a major challenge in all rock related industries (Muller et al., 2009; Zhang, 2013).
The root cause of bad chargeability can vary. Sometimes boreholes are blocked by stones that
prevent the charging work, but in general, chargeability is closely associated with unstable
boreholes and borehole failure. Therefore, chargeability is usually influenced by different
types of in-situ rock mass qualities, such as shearing, cave-ins, cavities, weak rock, fractured
rock, crushed zones, etc.

Stress is another complicating factor, and borehole walls may fail when the surrounding stress
exceeds the tensile, the compressive, or the shear strengths of the rock formation, whichever
is reached first (Zhang et al., 2003). For example, borehole stability was evaluated in
Marcellus shale wells in long wall mining areas in southeast Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and
eastern Ohio (Wang et al., 2014). Researchers found the ground deformation caused by the
mining operation generated large ground movements and created complex stress changes in
the subsurface rock.

In a production environment, the charging personnel normally have little prior information
about the rock mass conditions before charging is initiated. Therefore, many boreholes may
not be charged completely, and occasionally full length boreholes are left uncharged, thereby
reducing the specific charge and negatively influencing fragmentation.

Zhang (2005) reports that uncharged and undetonated blast holes in sublevel caving (SLC)
reduce the specific charge, result in poor fragmentation, and may even lower ore recovery. In
another study, according to the studied mine’s production archives containing daily notes on
various production problems encountered by the miners, many SLC rings had two or three
boreholes that were broken or blocked by stones or pieces of concrete. To get more detailed
information on the recurring borehole problems, researchers carried out a preliminary
investigation using a mini-video camera; they found that typical problems were borehole
deformation and boreholes jammed by stones (Kangas, 2007).

Many studies have been performed on rock blastability, but most have not specifically
considered chargeability. Using drill monitoring data with information on rock blastability,
Yin and Liu (2001) developed a parameter called specific surface energy. Segui and Higgins
(2002) used a blastability index to quantify the potential response of the rock to blasting; the
index is similar to the rock factor in the Kuz-Ram fragmentation model. They found a high
blastability index indicates rock that is difficult to break (high strength, low joint frequency)
and a low blastability index indicates softer rock (low strength, many joints). However, in a
real production environment, blastability largely depends on the ability to charge the complete
borehole. If this is not possible, rock cannot be blasted or fragmented efficiently.

7
2.2 ROCK MASS CHARACTERISATION METHODS
Detailed knowledge of the mechanical conditions of both ore and side rock is essential for any
mining operation. Even if some remote monitoring can be done, the vast majority of the
gathering of information is based on drilling and drill holes. Drilling is done to reach remote
locations for testing, to collect samples (core drilling), monitor the drilling operation (MWD)
or to insert instrumentation to monitor borehole walls or the surrounding rock mass. Multiple
holes can also be used to monitor the quality of the rock mass between holes.

Conventional core drilling is one of the most common methods to assess rock mass quality.
However, it is expensive, and this limits the number of holes that can be drilled. In addition, if
the distance between the core holes is large, it can only provide a very rough idea of the
overall rock mass quality, with high uncertainty for un-cored areas.

To speed up the information extraction time for core drilling, field monitoring and field
testing of cores can be applied. Empirical methods such as Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
(Deere, 1968), Rock Mass Rating (RMR) (Bieniaswki, 1973) and Q system (Barton and Lien,
1974) have been developed to classify the rock mass. A mobile point load tester can also be
used to estimate compressive strength (Hoek and Brown, 1980).

To extract more advanced information from drill cores, laboratory testing is required. To
measure the mechanical properties of rock, Hoek (1977) reviewed various rock mechanical
laboratory tests, such as uniaxial compressive strength, shear strength, etc. However,
according to Hencher (2015), a common limitation of laboratory tests is that they cannot be
applied directly to large scale rock mass without considerable interpretation and allowance for
other associating factors. Laboratory tests can also be time consuming and relatively
expensive. Therefore, rock mechanics testing will not give all answers to practical problems
for designing and constructing an underground structure. Furthermore, if only a few rock
samples are collected from a comparatively large area, the results from laboratory tests may,
despite high quality samples values, only provide a very rough assessment of overall rock
mass quality. In addition, according to Palmström and Stille (2010), laboratory tests are often
performed in a controlled environment neglecting some dominant factors affecting the desired
result. According to Hoek (1977), an over emphasis on laboratory testing will generally mean
that some other area is being neglected and it is unlikely that a balanced solution will be
achieved. He also stated that, engineering problem must be assessed by a balanced solution in
which all factors are considered to the degree of detail consistent with the constraints of time
and financial resources available for the project.

Methods based on instrumentation inserted in existing boreholes (production holes or holes

drilled specifically to investigate the rock mass) includes geophysical methods, such as
gamma, spectral gamma, resistivity, density, television, acoustic-televiewer, etc., and have
commonly been used to assess physical properties of the rock, such as lithology, fracture,
porosity, permeability, etc. (Darling, 2005; Ellis and Singer, 2007; U.S. Geological Survey
website, 2017). Another method is a digital borehole camera, such as OPTV (Optical
Televiewer), BIPS (Borehole Image Processing System), DPBCS (Digital Panoramic
Borehole Camera System), etc., used to observe rock fractures on the exposed borehole wall

8
(Uchita and Harada, 1993; Wang et al., 2002; Williams and Johnson, 2004; Wang and Law,
2005; Li et al., 2012a,b).

For all methods based on instrumentation inserted into boreholes, the holes must be prepared
before measurement, possibly causing production delay and disturbances. Furthermore, in bad
or unstable rock, insertion of advanced, expensive instruments may be risky, even if the need
for information is significant. To avoid this risk, monitoring the drilling process in a manner
that does not require the instrumentation may be an alternative. A drill monitoring, or
Measurement While Drilling (MWD) technique, records physical drill parameters, such as
penetration rate, thrust, rotation pressure etc., that respond to quality variation in the rock
mass. Applying this technique to normal production holes also means the distance between
samples is smaller than for core drilling and, thus, will provide information on the rock mass
along the hole and between holes with much higher resolution.

2.3 MEASUREMENT WHILE DRILLING TECHNIQUE

MWD technique is used to characterise the mechanical properties of the penetrated rock mass.
It was introduced into mining operations in open pit bench drilling in the 1970s (Segui and
Higgins, 2002). Since then, it has been applied to different drilling techniques and used in
different mining applications. The MWD technique is appreciated for its low cost and its high
data resolution; since data are recorded during the drilling operation, the technique does not
disturb production. However, the recorded data are not only influenced by variations in the
rock mass characteristics but also by operators, rig control systems, bit wear, measurement
errors, etc. To use these data to characterise the drilled rock in industrial applications, the data
analysis must be able to separate rock dependent variations from other influences on the
monitored data (Schunnesson, 1998). To do this, several approaches have been tested,
including theoretical models for rock drilling, statistical methods, and, more recently,
advanced data processing tools.

Brown and Barr (1978) conducted early research on drill responses to different geo-
mechanical features. They concluded that a continuous record of operational variables made
during drilling can provide information about the mechanical properties of the rock. The
compressive strength of the strata being drilled might be determined from relationships
between observed drilling variables, but a detailed record could improve the efficiency and
quality of the drilling operation. Brown et al., (1984) reported several useful application areas
for the instrumented drilling technique. It can provide a measure of the physical properties of
the rock being drilled based on specific energy, compressive strength, and geology. It can also
indicate major discontinuities such as open or clay filled joints and faults.

Finfinger et al., (2000) and Finfinger (2003) performed a series of laboratory experiments
where drill parameters were recorded during drilling through different rock samples:
sandstone, marble, and argillite. In addition, a concrete block was poured with foam inserts to
simulate large bedding separation (2 to 8 inches). Two other blocks were constructed using
high strength concrete, with cardboard layers embedded to simulate smaller fractures or
bedding separations. When drilling through the artificial rock mass, the drill parameters were
analysed to determine the relative strength of the rocks. Researchers found a good correlation

9
between specific energy, defined by Teale (1965), and the unconfined compressive strength of
the rocks being drilled. They also concluded that the thrust, torque, and specific energy of
drilling were good indicators of fractures and openings. However, they suggested further
investigation to characterise dimensions of fractures (size and orientation).

In the area of rotary blast hole drilling, pioneering work by Teale (1965) calculated specific
energy using drill parameters (thrust, penetration rate, rotation speed, and rotation torque).
The specific energy was defined as the energy required to excavate one unit volume of rock; it
used as an index of the mechanical efficiency of a rock excavation process. Teale also found
that specific energy was related to the crushing strength of the rock.

In the middle of the 1980s, Scoble and Peck (1987) conducted foundational research on drill
monitoring. In their research on rotary blast hole drills, they found a correlation between drill
performance parameters and changes in intact rock strength, lithology, and frequency of
fractures. They also explained the potential of the technique for mine production control,
fragmentation design, and ground control. They suggested that cost, time, and effort of site
and laboratory testing could be greatly reduced if MWD data were obtained during drilling.
Another study established the relationship between drill performance parameter responses,
rock compressive strength, and shear strength for a rotary blast-hole drilling operation in a
western Canadian surface coal mine (Peck, 1989). In addition to suggesting drill performance
parameters for rotary blast-hole drilling, Pollitt et al., (1991) added results from gamma,
neutron, and core logs to the analysis, arguing that this would allow the depth, locations, and
thickness of coal seams and associated waste rock units to be accurately determined.

Ghosh et al., (2013) successfully used specific energy calculated from monitored rotary blast-
hole drilling data to delineate the boundaries between hard and soft rock along the bench in a
large open pit mine in northern Sweden.

Another interesting area of drill monitoring development has been the rock mass
characterisation of mining rock support, particularly roof stability, for example, the work by
Labelle et al., (2000) and Labelle (2001). Labelle instrumented a portable hydraulic-powered
bolt drill to classify roof strata in coal mines. During drilling, drill parameters such as thrust,
torque, rotary speed and penetration rate were recorded and used to classify rock strata above
the roof neural network. The results showed that the rock strata, as well as five different
layers of concrete reinforcement, could be classified using a drill monitoring technique.

Gu (2003) and Gu et al., (2005) also attempted to map roof geology in coal strata. A new
parameter called drilling hardness was developed using monitored drilling parameters. The
drilling hardness was then used to detect the locations of interfaces in different rock layers
and to identify discontinuities in one or several rock layers.

Itakura et al., (2008) performed field experiments using an instrumented roof bolter recording
torque, thrust, rpm, and stroke of the machine. To analyse the data, they used the neural
network; they concluded that the locations of discontinuities could be defined. Li and Itakura
(2012) proposed an analytical model to describe the rock drilling processes using drag bits
and rotary drills. With the model, they could extract the relations between rock properties, bit

10
shapes, and drilling parameters (rotary speed, thrust, torque, and stroke). They calculated the
effective specific energy using the recorded drill parameters. The prediction model was
verified in a field experiment; the results showed a good correlation between Uniaxial
Compressive Strength (UCS) and effective specific energy.

On-going research at the Pennsylvania State University has focused on roof bolter drilling
data, used for rock characterisation. In a recent study, Rostami et al., (2015) conclude that
improvements in characterising the rock and rock mass features will enhance the
understanding of the ground conditions and rock mass classifications. In the study, these
researchers developed 3D visualisation of the data and established a hazard map of the
underground structure; this could help mine safety by reducing related injuries and fatalities.

Percussive drilling is more complex than rotary drilling but many attempts have been made to
use this technique. In very early work, Hustrulid and Fairhurst (1971) performed several basic
theoretical and experimental studies of percussive drilling of rock. They used blow energy,
blow frequency, rotation speed (rpm), thrust, penetration rate, and the impact-produced strain
waves, and performed experiments with three different drill machines, drilling in three types
of rock: Tennessee marble, Swedish granite, and Charcoal granite. The measured penetration
rate (from a laboratory experiment) was compared with the predicted penetration rate
(calculated from a theoretical model). The same study showed that the minimum thrust
required for optimal energy transfer to the rock was a function of the blow frequency and the
initial and rebound momentum of the piston.

Field experiments have also been done with more straightforward analysis of simpler geo-
mechanical problems. For example, Morfeldt et al., (1973) used penetration rate to locate
solid rock in the overburden during the construction of the foundations of high-rise buildings
in Stockholm. Horner and Sherrel (1977) used penetration rate to locate cavities and
discontinuities.

In the 1990s, Schunnesson (1990) performed basic research on drill monitoring for percussive
drilling and concluded that a single parameter response (e.g. penetration rate) can be used to
indicate the quality of the penetrated material when there is a substantial difference in rock
properties between geological domains (e.g. between solid rock and overburden in surface
drilling). However, when the difference in rock parameters between rock types is small and
the contribution from the drill parameter interaction is more dominant, the use of a single
parameter response is not effective. The study tested several applications of the multivariate
technique to the analysis of drill monitoring data. A later finding by Schunnesson (1996) was
that the variability of the recorded parameters, especially penetration rate and rotary pressure,
has a unique correlation to rock inhomogeneity or fracturing. A combined fracturing
parameter was suggested based on both parameters; a correlation between the proposed
fracturing parameter and the registered RQD value was found during field tests. Another
study by Schunnesson (1998) proposed a methodology to analyse raw data based on a step-
wise normalisation procedure whereby different trends in the data set were removed, leaving
only the rock dependent variation. The technique was successfully tested in several mining
and tunnelling projects (Schunnesson 1997a,b).

11
The MWD technique has been used for pneumatic In-The-Hole (ITH) drilling, even through
the drill controls are less distinct than for hydraulic top hammer drills. Schunnesson (1997a,b)
reported an early test using drill monitoring on ITH drilling in a sublevel stoping test in
LKAB’s underground mine. The test showed that ore boundaries could be located with this
technique.

Kahraman et al., (1999) worked with measurement of drilling performance on rotary drilling
and top hammer drill rigs, as well as on pneumatic Down-The-Hole (DTH) rigs. These
researchers studied how penetration rate, at given rotational speed and thrust force, varies in
different formations and compared the results with the physical and mechanical properties of
the rock. The study included 27 formations at 16 different worksites, including open pits,
motorways sites, and quarries. The study showed that uniaxial compressive strength for rotary
drills, Schmidt hammer rebound number for DTH drills, and uniaxial compressive strength
and quartz content for top hammer drilling are dominant rock properties affecting penetration
rate. Kahraman (2000) also proposed a drillability index to predict penetration rate of rotary
blast hole drills using rock properties and drill operational parameters. The drillability index is
closely related to rock compressive strength, tensile strength, N type Schmidt hammer
rebound number, impact strength, P-wave velocity, elastic modulus, and rock density.

The drill monitoring technique has been extensively reviewed by Rai et al., (2015) and
Kahraman et al., (2016) focusing on the application of drill parameters for ground
characterisation. Rai et al., (2015) concluded that MWD systems hold substantial promise to
enhance the on-site learning and characterisation of rock mass in a fast, reasonably fair, and
cost effective manner without hampering the production operations. Specific energy
(calculated from drill parameters) has been well correlated with the relative strength values of
the rock. Further, the MWD technique has been successful in yielding useful information on
roof conditions, ore body delineation, verifying coal-rock interface, rock mapping, detection
of hard and weak zones, blasting design etc. Kahraman et al., (2016) note several issues that
must be resolved to improve the accuracy and precision of void detection and to locate joints
with small apertures. The impact of bit type and bit wear on the recorded drilling parameters
and the influence of drilling technique (rotary, percussive) on measurements and
interpretation algorithms needs to be handled with more accuracy in order to use drill
parameters for void identification.

Recently, Wenpeng et al., (2017) used feed and rotation pressure to detect voids in the roof
strata. Their results show that newly developed void detection systems can identify voids with
an aperture of around 2 mm.

From the previous research, it can be concluded that the MWD technique is a tool for high
resolution rock mass characterisation. Many studies have considered the drill monitoring
technique for percussive top hammer drilling and rotary drilling operations. But the technique
has not yet been tested for hydraulic ITH percussive drilling operations.

12
2.4 DOWN-THE-HOLE (DTH) DRILLING
Theoretical mechanics of percussive rock drilling have been explained by several authors, e.g.
Hustrulid and Fairhurst (1971), based on the stress-wave interaction in the drilling system. In
percussive drilling, the stress wave is generated by a piston that impacts a shank adapter; this,
in turn, transmits the energy to the drill string. The energy is transferred to the bit-rock
interface by a stress wave. At the bit-rock interface, part of the energy is transmitted to the
rock and used for rock breaking; another part is reflected back in the drill string. The amount
of energy that is transmitted and reflected depends on the contact forces and conditions at the
bit-rock interface.

There are basically two types of percussive drilling; top hammer drilling and Down-The-Hole
(DTH) or In-The-Hole (ITH). The rock drilling mechanism in the DTH or ITH method is the
same but ‘DTH’ is usually used for downward drilling and ‘ITH’ is generally used for upward
drilling.

In top hammer drilling, the piston impacts a shank adapter at the top of the drill string, and the
energy is then transmitted through the drill string to the bit. For DTH and ITH drilling, the
rock drill with the piston is located directly above the bit, leading to minimal energy losses
between rock drill and bit (Atlas Copco Drilling Solutions LLC, 2012); see Figure 2.1. DTH
drilling can be divided into two types: pneumatic and hydraulic. Drill cuttings are washed out
by either air or water.

Figure 2.1 DTH drilling method (edited from Atlas Copco Drilling Solutions LLC, 2012)

Since the rock drill is located just above the bit, it has been argued that the penetration rate
should not decrease with hole length, as it will for a top hammer, i.e., one located at the top of
the drill string. For pneumatic ITH drills, the drilling energy is provided by compressed air,
flowing from the hole surface down to the hammer. As the length of the drill string increases,

13
the pressure losses also increase, both inside and outside the drill tube, leaving less and less
pressure to run the hammer. After the hammer, the air outlet is used for flushing, to remove
cutting from the face and flush it back to the hole surface. This process will gradually become
less efficient as the hole gets longer, causing a reduction in penetration rate. For hydraulic
ITH drilling, the above drawbacks are the same but are assumed to be less pronounced,
because an incompressible medium is used.

The rotation pressure is, in most cases, correlated to the feed pressure that generates the feed
force, and for hard, homogeneous rock, it is normally fairly constant (Schunnesson, 1998). In
fractured or in-homogeneous rock, however, the rotation pressure is often unstable, indicating
alternating bit jamming effects and the sudden release of the bit.

In early work, Schunnesson (1987) found that the buckling force of the drill string has a
significant impact on hole deviations. The buckling force is the maximum force a column can
carry while remaining straight. When axial compressive force exceeds the buckling force,
column starts to bend. Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler calculated buckling force for a
long column in 1757 (Punmia, 2002). The assumptions and the derivations of the Euler
equation (based on constraints at the end of a column) have been mentioned by numerous
authors, including Collins et al., (2010), Bansal (2010), and Punmia (2002).

The buckling force (Euler case 3, with one end fixed), Fk, can be calculated using equation 2.1
(Collins et al., 2010):

2.05 ߨ ଶ ‫ܫܧ‬
‫ܨ‬௞ = (2.1)
݈ଶ

where E = Young’s modulus of elasticity, I = Area moment of inertia, and l = Hole length.
This equation assumes one end of the drill string is fixed and other end of the drill string (bit
inserts) is pinned. The fixed end allows no translation and no rotation; the other end does not
allow translation but allows rotation.

2.5 HYDRAULIC ITH DRILLING

Figures 2.2a and 2.2b show the components and a stepwise mechanism of Wassara W100 ITH
hammer drilling system respectively (LKAB Wassara AB, 2016). In the drilling system, the
hammer is positioned at the front of the borehole; energy is transferred through the drill string
in the form of pressured water, mechanical torque, and a mechanical feed force. The main
task of the hammer is to convert the potential energy of pressurised water into an oscillating
piston movement. The kinetic energy of the piston is transferred to the bit and finally into the
rock. Rock fragmentation occurs at highly pressurised contact zones between the bit buttons
and the rock. By rotating the bit and thereby creating new impact positions for the buttons,
new rock will be fragmented, and the penetration process will continue. The debris is flushed
away to the outside of the drill string by outlet water from the hammer (Tuomas, 2004).
Figure 2.2b shows the function of the Wassara ITH hammer. In step 1, the valve is opened,
and the piston moves back from its striking position. In step 2, the piston takes the position to
strike. In step 3, the valve is closed and high pressure water (approx. 180 bars) forces the

14
piston to strike. In step 4, the piston strikes the bit, and the bit blows the rock. The valve is
then opened to release the water through the bit (LKAB Wassara AB, 2016).

Figure 2.2 (a) Components, (b) Function of Wassara ITH hammer (LKAB Wassara AB,
2016)

15
16
 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Kothari (2004) explains that research is the art of scientific investigation, and a research
methodology is a way to solve a research problem systematically. In the initial stage of new
research, an exploratory method can be used to formulate a problem to discover new ideas
and insights (Kothari, 2004). This may involve a literature review, expert opinion, industrial
projects, interviews of a specific group of people, etc. Based on the exploratory research, an
inductive or deductive approach can be chosen to continue the research process. An inductive
approach starts with observations; theories are formulated towards the end of the research
based on the result of the observations (Goddard and Melville, 2004). In contrast, a deductive
approach is concerned with developing a hypothesis (or hypotheses) based on existing theory
and designing a research strategy to test the hypothesis (Wilson, 2014). According to Yin
(2013), research based on a case study must have some empirical method (s) and must present
some empirical (qualitative or quantitative) data. Quantitative research involves the
generation of data in quantitative form; such data can be subjected to rigorous quantitative
analysis in a formal and rigid fashion. Qualitative research is concerned with subjective
assessment of utilities, opinions, and behaviours (Kothari, 2004).

Figure 3.1 presents the research process used in the study. As the figure shows, the initial
stage comprises exploratory research to formulate research questions covering a gap in
previous research and connecting with an industrial project. The following stage turns to
inductive research (quantitative approach), i.e., collecting data from the drill monitoring
system on each rig, from an on-line production database (GIRON), and from field activities
such as borehole filming and the monitoring of the charging operation. MWD data are
processed and analysed using MATLAB. Data analysis draws on two types of statistical
methods: descriptive and inferential. Uses of the descriptive method include the derivation of
mean and standard deviation for different variables; the inferential method mainly consists of
observational errors, probability distribution function, and multivariate method. The final step
is the development of a model to predict borehole chargeability; the model is verified and
validated using the monitoring data collected during the charging operation in LKAB’s
Malmberget mine. The following sections describe each of these steps in more detail.

17
 Figure 3.1 Research process

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

The extensive literature review performed for the study includes related previous research
published in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, research and technical reports,
PhD theses, etc. on the following topics:

x Rock mass characterisation methods

x Measurement While Drilling (MWD) technique
x Down-The-Hole (DTH) percussive drilling
x Hydraulic In-The-Hole (ITH) drilling
x Chargeability and blastability
x Multivariate method

18
Note: I used related keywords to find information on the research topic in Google, Google
Scholar, ScienceDirect etc.

3.2 MWD DATA COLLECTION AND PROCESSING

MWD data (saved in XML IREDES compact file format) are collected from six automated
Atlas Copco W6C rigs operating in LKAB’s Malmberget mine, Sweden. There are two types
of IREDES files: ‘Data Quality (DQ)’ files contain coordinates of collar and bottom of the
hole and ‘MWD (MW)’ files include depth, time, feed pressure, rotation pressure, percussive
pressure, and penetration rate for each borehole.

After data collection, MATLAB is used to read and filter the collected raw data. The recorded
raw data need to be filtered, as they may include incorrect or faulty data. For example, the
maximum value of the monitored penetration rate is +1184.462 m/min and minimum value is
-16.114 m/min. This positive value is unrealistic, as the bit cannot move at this speed, even in
open air, and the negative value of the penetration rate is not possible, since the penetration
rate cannot be measured as negative in the used monitoring system. Both these values are
clearly faulty and need to be removed from the raw data set. Zero values of any monitored
data are assumed incorrect and are considered measurement errors in this study. Incorrect or
faulty data may be generated by incorrect measurements, abnormal operational conditions or
human errors. These incorrect data can fairly be identified and removed from the data set in
the initial stage of the analysis.

In the data set, there are also a number of data points with values that is possible but slightly
unrealistic be handled in the filtering process as well. In this case, the rejection of faulty data
is based on frequency analysis for each parameter that determines the variability of the
recorded data. In Figure 3.2, the penetration rate ranges between -16.114 m/min and 1184.462
m/min. The minimum percussive pressure (in this case, water pressure) is recorded as 0.428
bars, while the maximum percussive pressure is recorded as 350 bars. The range of the
monitored feed pressure is between 0 and 115.132 bars, and the rotation pressure limits are
between 0 and 164.82 bars.

19
 Figure 3.2 Frequency of monitored operational parameters

Based on the frequency analysis and on practical considerations, a conservative filter limit is
set for each parameter; see Table 3.1. The conservative filter limits exclude a higher amount
of data. Therefore, the filter limit may remove some data points that are correct but reflect
features that rarely occur in the rock mass. However, the large amount of data at high
resolution, available with the MWD technique (for this study, about 3 cm between data
points) ensures that important geo-mechanical features will still be identified even if a few
correct data points are removed. The entire raw data set is filtered using the filter limits shown
in the table. If any of the logged parameters at a particular logging depth does not satisfy a
single filter limit, the whole data set for that depth is removed before further analysis.

20
Table 3.1 Selection of intervals for filtering monitored data
Selected intervals of
Recorded parameters Ranges of recorded raw data
raw data as filter limit
Penetration rate (m/min) •-DQG” •DQG”
Percussive pressure (bar) •DQG” •DQG”
Feed pressure (bar) •DQG”115.132 •DQG”
Rotation pressure (bar) •DQG” •DQG”

3.3 MWD DATA ANALYSIS

3.3.1 VARIABILITY PARAMETERS

Feed pressure and percussive pressure are normally controlled by the operator or the control
system of the drill system, while penetration rate and rotation pressure are the responses of the
drill system to the rock (Schunnesson and Holme, 1997b). In field tests, Schunnesson (1996)
has demonstrated that the variability of the penetration rate and the variability of the rotation
pressure are both associated with rock fracturing. To highlight the combined noisiness of
penetration rate and rotation pressure curve as indicators of rock mass fracturing, the
variations for each curve are initially calculated as the sum of the residuals over a defined
interval along the borehole ( Schunnesson, 1996).

The average of all penetration rate values in the interval is initially determined. The difference
between the registered penetration rate and the average penetration rate is calculated for each
value in the interval and these are added together; see equation 3.1. The same procedure is
used to calculate the rotation pressure variability; see equation 3.2.
ேା௜
σேା௜
௜ ܴܲ௜
ܴܸܲ௜ = ෍ ቤ െ ܴܲ௜ ቤ (3.1)
ܰ+1
௜

ேା௜
σேା௜
௜ ܴܲ௜
ܴܸܲ௜ = ෍ ቤ െ ܴܲ௜ ቤ (3.2)
ܰ+1
௜

where:
PRVi: Penetration rate variability
RPVi: Rotation pressure variability
N: Number of the intervals in a step = Total number of values considered in a step –
1 (Here, N = 5 – 1 = 4)
i: Index of registered penetration rate or rotation pressure
PRi : Registered penetration rate
RPi : Registered rotation pressure

Since both penetration rate variability and rotation pressure variability are influenced by rock
mass fracturing (Schunnesson, 1996), a combined “fracturing” parameter based on both
parameters would be more robust. However, since the penetration rate variability and rotation

21
pressure variability have different magnitudes, they need to be scaled to have equal impact on
the combined fracturing value. In this case, this is done using the Pearson residual calculated
as variability scaled by the estimated standard deviation of the raw responses (McCullagh and
Nelder, 1989). Compared to other residuals, such as studentized or standardized, the Pearson
residual has certain advantages. For example, it has an approximate standard normal
distribution (mean=0, variance=1) when the model holds large amount of data and can
appropriately recognise redundancies in the data. Absolute values of residuals larger than
about 2 or 3 provide evidence of lack of fit (Agresti, 2015; Pituch and Stevens, 2015).

The Pearson residual is calculated as the residuals divided by the square root of the variance
(standard deviation) of all observed or measured values. In equation 3.3, this is done for both
penetration rate variability and rotation pressure variability, and then summed together with
equal influence (i.e. 50%) from each parameter. Finally, the parameter is normalised for the
number of values in the interval, in this case 5, as shown in equation 3.3.

1 ܴܸܲ௜ ܴܸܲ௜
‫݃݊݅ݎݑݐܿܽݎܨ‬௜ = ቈ0.5 × ቆ ቇ + 0.5 × ቆ ቇ቉ (3.3)
5 ଶ
ඥߪ ௉ோ ඥߪ ଶ ோ௉

where:
ı2PR: Variance of registered penetration rate
ı2RP : Variance of registered rotation pressure
i: Index of registered penetration rate or rotation pressure

3.3.2 STATISTICAL METHODS

Many statistical methods (inferential statistics) such as neural network, Fuzzy-Delphi-AHP
technique, multivariate method etc. have previously been used to analyse drill data. Neural
network was successfully used on drill monitoring data by Petrobloc (1995). Although these
results were encouraging, detailed rock mass data are required to calibrate the model. From
this study, it was concluded that higher accuracy of the length registration of the core hole and
greater care when drilling the percussive holes is required to improve the calibration
(Schunnesson, 1997a). The disadvantages of neural network are its black box nature, greater
computational burden, training the input data, proneness to over-fitting, and the empirical
nature of model development (Tu, 1996). Saiedi et al., (2013) combined the Fuzzy-Delphi-
AHP technique and Rock Engineering System (RES) to study rock mass drillability
tribosystem. The technique is based on calibration using expert opinions; hence the derived
rock mass drillability index may be biased.

Another possible approach is to use multivariate method such as Principal Component

Analysis (PCA) to analyse drill monitoring data. Schunnesson (1997a) used the PCA to
transfer the data from drill parameters into more descriptive rock parameters. The method was
tested for the data collected from three sites; Glödberget, Viscaria and Hallandsåsen, in
Sweden. The results were encouraging. One of the advantages of using the method was to
produce uncorrelated or unbiased new components (from the correlated or biased original drill
variables) that reflected rock dependent variation more accurately. The other advantage was

22
that the method could be used for large amount of unsupervised data without any need of
training or testing of the input data sets.

Comparing the different statistical techniques described above, the PCA is capable of
handling correlation among the original variables, processing unsupervised data (additional
training or testing of the input data set is not required ), reducing dimension of data sets while
capturing most of the information in original data sets, reducing the noise since the maximum
variation is chosen, etc. The method is also not biased by expert opinions (that are required in
Fuzzy-Delphi-AHP technique). All these advantages of the PCA can make the process of the
data sets relatively faster and more reliable, particularly in dealing with drilling related
problem.

3.3.2.1 MULTIVARIATE METHOD

According to Johnson (1998), multivariate data are used whenever a researcher measures or
evaluates more than one attribute or characteristic of each experimental unit. These attributes
or characteristics are usually called variables. Multivariate methods are useful for helping
researchers make sense of large, complicated, and complex data sets consisting of many
variables measured in large numbers of experimental units. In the present study, a multivariate
method is used to analyse drill parameters.

The most common multivariate methods are Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Factor
Analysis, Discriminant Analysis, Canonical Discriminant Analysis, Logistic Regression,
Cluster Analysis, Multivariate Analysis of Variance etc. Multivariate analysis is applied in
agriculture, anthropology, archaeology, biometrics, economics, education, industry,
experimentation, medicine, physics, and sociology (Kendall, 1975). Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) normally forms the basis for multivariate data analysis and is often used to
simplify data tables for outlier detection, variables and object selection, correlation
evaluation, classification, and prediction of different features (Wold et al., 1987). The aim of
PCA is to find directions in the data space that will indicate typical features (Schunnesson,
1997a). PCA is a technique of transforming the original variables into new, uncorrelated
variables called components (Affi et al., 2004).

The objectives of using PCA have been to observe correlation among the drill parameters, to
condense the variables into suitable components, and to identify the suitable components that
best describe the geo-mechanical behaviour of the rock mass.

3.4 BOREHOLE FILMING

Borehole filming (using a digital camera) was used to capture the interior wall of the borehole
and to identify different rock mass features, e.g. solid rocks, cavities, crushed zones, fractured
zones, shear zones, caving zones, etc. In total, 361 boreholes were filmed for the present
study. Figure 3.3a shows the experimental set-up for the borehole filming. The camera is
tightly fixed in a funnel shaped steel casing (Figure 3.3b). The funnel shape steel casing
holding the camera is then fastened by a cylindrical steel casing (Figure 3.3c). These
arrangements are connected to the pipe of the charge truck used to push the camera up into the
borehole. A protective frame is added to the front of the camera to prevent a possible collision
23
between the rock and the glass of the camera, as this could have damaged the camera. To
prevent the possible intrusion of water, an extra glass is used in addition to the main glass of
the camera. Figure 3.3d shows a display of the monitor. The monitor is used to observe
different features inside the borehole during filming. Depth is registered by a digital counter
on the charge truck while the camera has been pushed upwards in the hole. During filming,
the operators of the charge truck stop and hold the camera at every 1m interval, thus allowing
the corresponding depth to be registered. The length is calibrated to the accurate depth by
adding the length of the probe. Figure 3.3e shows a cable of about 60 m in length connecting
the camera and the monitor. This cable is marked at every 1 m interval for additional length
control. The boreholes have been filmed from three different ore bodies; Alliansen, Fabian,
and Vi-Ri.

Figure 3.3 (a) Steel casing connected to camera and fastened to the pipe of the charge truck,
(b) Camera in funnel shape steel casing, (c) Cylindrical steel casing, (d) Display monitor, and,
(e) Cable wrapped and marked for each metre

3.5 ONLINE PRODUCTION DATABASE (GIRON)

An online mine planning and information system GIRON (Adlerborn and Selberg, 2008)
stores information on drilling, charging, blasting, and loading for each fan in the mine. The
information includes planned drilling length, actual drilling length, status of charging, blasting
and loading of a fan, borehole coordinates, daily production, average iron content, etc. In
addition, if miners encounter problems when charging boreholes, they sometimes manually
register the problem in this database. The study investigates three ore bodies, Alliansen,
Fabian, and Vi-Ri, to find the various charging problems registered by the miners in the
database (see paper A).

24
3.6 MONITORING THE CHARGING OPERATION
The charging operation is monitored to identify different types of charging problems, in
particular, problems related to the in-situ condition of the rock mass. The charging operation
was monitored for 37 rings containing 290 holes from eight ore bodies; Alliansen, Fabian, Vi-
Ri, Parta, Hens, Östergruvan, Johannes, and Josefina. Figure 3.4 shows an example of the
monitored charging operation in one of the production drifts. During the monitoring, all types
of charging problems that were encountered at various depths of the boreholes, are
documented.

Figure 3.4 A borehole being charged in a production drift

For example, if the charging hose is obstructed at 5 m depth in the hole due to a collapse of
the rock (cave-in), this information is noted as ‘cave-in at 5 m depth’. If the charging hose is
not obstructed, ‘no charging problem’ is noted. Further, staff responsible for charging the
boreholes were interviewed to document their current practices when handling different
challenges in day-to-day charging activities. Paper D develops a geo-mechanical model and
verifies and validates it using information gathered during the monitoring of the charging
operation.

3.7 TEST DESCRIPTION

3.7.1 MALMBERGET MINE

Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB’s (LKAB) Malmberget underground iron ore mine is located
close to the municipality of Gällivare in northern Sweden. There are about 20 large and small
ore bodies distributed over an area of approximately 2.5 x 5 km (north-south/east-west)
(Figure 3.5). Production is currently being carried out in about half of the ore bodies. The dip
of the ore bodies varies between 15o and 75o, with an average dip of 45o - 50o (Nordlund,
2013). The mine consists of two major ore fields; the eastern and western fields. About 90%
of the ore is magnetite and the rest is hematite. The depth of mining varies across the mine. In
the eastern field, the depth is between the previous haulage level at 1000 m and the new
haulage level at 1250 m. The ore body is strongly affected by regional metamorphosis. The
volcanites surrounding the ore are called leptites. Granite veins often intrude into the ore

25
(Quinteiro et al., 2001; Nordlund, 2013). The host rock and waste lenses consist of red
leptites, grey red leptites, grey leptites, skarn, granite, and biotite schist (Quinteiro et al.,
2001; Wettainen, 2010; Umar et al., 2013; Nordlund, 2013). The mining method used for ore
extraction is large scale sublevel caving (SLC).

Figure 3.5 Malmberget Mine (courtesy of LKAB)

3.7.2 TEST SITES

Different drifts at different levels in three ore bodies (Vi-Ri, Alliansen and Fabian) were
selected for borehole filming to investigate boreholes instability problems. In the mine, all
production boreholes are drilled upward in fans, as seen in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 An example of a fan in one of the test sites

26
3.7.2.1 VI-RI
In Vi-Ri, a total of 125 boreholes were filmed from level 1026 m and 1074 m. At level 1026
m (see Figure 3.7), drifts no.7850, 7910 and 7930 were filmed. At level 1074 m (see Figure
3.8), filming was done in drift no. 7870.

Figure 3.7 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 1026 m in Vi-Ri (courtesy of LKAB)

Figure 3.8 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 1074 m in Vi-Ri (courtesy of LKAB)

27
3.7.2.2 ALLIANSEN
In Alliansen, a total of 168 boreholes were filmed at level 992 m and level 1022 m. At level
992 m (see Figure 3.9), drifts no. 4721, 4810, 4841, 4871 and 4901 were filmed. At level
1022 m (see Figure 3.10), drifts no. 4790, 4791, 4820, 4850 and 4851 were filmed.

Figure 3.9 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 992 m in Alliansen (courtesy of LKAB)

Figure 3.10 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 1022 m in Alliansen (courtesy of LKAB)
28
3.7.2.3 FABIAN
In Fabian, a total of 68 boreholes were filmed at levels 855 m and 880 m. At level 855 m (see
Figure 3.11), drifts no.1410, 2490, 2511, and 8552 were filmed. At level 880 m (see Figure
3.12), drifts no. 1221, 1241, 1280, and 1281 were filmed.

Figure 3.11 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 855 m in Fabian (courtesy of LKAB)

Figure 3.12 Drifts used for borehole filming at level 880 m in Fabian (courtesy of LKAB)

29
3.7.3 DRILL MONITORING TECHNIQUE
In LKAB’s Malmberget mine, drilling is performed with a fully automated Atlas Copco
SIMBA W6C drill rig equipped with a Wassara hydraulic ITH (In-The-Hole) hammer. The
Atlas Copco drill monitoring system is assembled in the rig. The system records and stores
data while drilling continues. The measurement interval can be manually set; in this case, it is
set to about 3 cm along the borehole. The data are transferred from the rig to a Rig Remote
Access (RRA) server through a wireless network. The recorded parameters are depth, time,
feed pressure, percussive pressure (water pressure), rotation pressure, and penetration rate.
The parameters are described in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 MWD parameters

Parameter Definition Unit
MWD data are measured along the depth of the
Depth m
borehole.
Each monitored data point is marked with time YYYY-MM-
Time
and date. DDThh:mm:ss
Feed pressure generates a feed force that axially
acts on the drill bit. The required feed force should
be high enough to keep the bit in contact with the
Feed pressure Bar
bottom of the drill hole throughout the entire stress
wave transmission (Schunnesson, 1998) and also
to keep the rods well connected.
Percussive For this drilling technique, pressurised water
pressure (about 180 bars) is used to force the piston to
Bar
(water impact the shank adapter and the bit (LKAB
pressure) Wassara AB, 2016).
Rotation pressure is applied to rotate the drill
string with a defined revolution, to ensure each
successive blow impacts a new part of the bottom
Rotation
of the hole. The torque required to turn the bit Bar
pressure
depends mainly on bit resistance at the bottom of
the hole and frictional resistance between drill rods
and hole walls (Schunnesson, 1998).
Penetration rate is the speed at which the drill bit
advances through the rock mass. Penetration rate
is not only influenced by the geo-mechanical
Penetration
properties of the rock mass (Brown and Barr, m/min
rate
1978; Schunnesson and Mozaffari, 2009) but also
significantly by the applied forces such as
percussive pressure and feed force.

30
 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 GEO-MECHANICAL FEATURES

The extensive hole filming programme conducted in field tests identified a number of geo-
mechanical features; all affect the borehole quality, instability, and chargeability in different
ways. These borehole features are the following:

x Sheared borehole: the borehole has been sheared by geological structures like joints,
faults or weak biotite-schist layers.
x Fractured borehole: cracking, spalling and breakage in the borehole.
x Caved borehole: pieces of rock block the opening of the borehole.
x Large deformation: borehole is noticeably deformed in its cross section.
x Cavity: a defined opening in the rock mass.
x Solid rock: borehole wall is stable without any visible fractures or expected charging
problems.
These features are described in more detail below.

Sheared borehole: In a sheared borehole, the sheared part cannot be charged without
recovering the hole (see Figure 4.1). If this happens to individual holes in a ring, the
consequences may be limited, but if several holes have charging problems, it may affect
fragmentation. In this specific ring, for example, 4 out of 8 boreholes are sheared.

Figure 4.1 Sheared borehole

Fractured borehole: Figure 4.2a presents a fractured borehole drilled through iron ore
(magnetite or hematite) and Figure 4.2b shows a fractured borehole drilled through a
combination of iron ore (magnetite or hematite) and waste rock (red and grey leptite). When a
borehole is fractured slightly or moderately, charging problems may be limited. However,
when the borehole is heavily fractured, the borehole can be unstable and may collapse (cave-
in) and cause charging problems.

31
 Figure 4.2 (a) fractured borehole Figure 4.2 (b) fractured borehole
in ore intercepted by ore and waste rock
Caved borehole: Figure 4.3 shows a borehole drilled through red and grey leptite rock which
is caved at about 9 m from the collaring point. When a borehole caves, the chargers try to
restore the hole with a charging hose. If this doesn’t work, re-drilling is required.

Figure 4.3 Caved borehole

Deformed borehole: Figure 4.4 shows a deformed cross-section of a borehole. When a
borehole is slightly deformed, there may not be any instability or charging problems.
However, if a borehole is heavily deformed, it can be difficult to insert the charging hose and
the explosives into the borehole.

Figure 4.4 Deformed borehole

Cavity: Figure 4.5 shows a cavity in a borehole. When a borehole penetrates a cavity, the
charge pipe may not reach the remaining part of the borehole (above the cavity) to insert

32
explosives. Excessive explosives may be inserted into the cavity instead of into the remaining
part of the borehole. However, smaller sized cavities may not influence the chargeability of
the borehole.

Figure 4.5 Borehole penetrating a cavity

Solid rock: The majority of the filmed boreholes are drilled through solid rock (see Figure
4.6), where no charging problems are expected.

Figure 4.6 Solid rock

4.2 DRILL RESPONSE MONITORING

The studied geo-mechanical features all influence the chargeability, but they may also have a
significant influence on the drilling behaviour. By combining the MWD parameters and the
borehole filming, the drilling responses to different geo-mechanical features in the rock mass
can be demonstrated. Figure 4.7-4.9 shows three different examples of MWD data and
borehole filming. In Figure 4.7, all monitored MWD parameters are shown together with the
calculated fracturing parameter. In Figures 4.8 and 4.9, however, only the important
parameters, penetration rate, percussive pressure, and fracturing, which combines the
variability of penetration rate and rotation pressure, are visualised. Figure 4.8 represents a
hole drilled in good rock mass, while Figure 4.9 illustrates a hole drilled through problematic
rock.

Figure 4.7 shows the MWD data versus hole length and two corresponding images from the
hole filming. At around 5.5 m depth, a cavity is encountered. In the cavity, where there is a

33
limited contact between bit and rock, the penetration rate increases to about 3 m/min. At the
same time, the percussive pressure (water pressure), normally between 180 bars and 190 bars,
drops to 70 bars when water flows freely through the system. At about 19 m, the hole is
caved, and filming beyond that point is not possible. Around the caving area, the penetration
rate fluctuates from high values (3 m/min) down to very low values (0.5 m/min). The water
pressure also fluctuates from 180 bars down to very low values, around 10 bars. A reason for
this fluctuation is that the caved part of the borehole can consist of a mixture of cavities and
solid rock. In this case, a distinct fluctuation of the fracturing parameter is visible around the
caved part of the borehole. At 19 m, the fracturing parameter is more than 2, while in solid
rock, it is normally below 0.25. In addition, the rotation pressure is comparatively lower
(about 40 bars) than in solid rock (around 60 bars). Feed pressure does not seem to respond to
the varying rock mass conditions.

34
 Figure 4.7 Recorded penetration rate, feed pressure, rotation pressure, percussive pressure
and calculated fracturing versus hole length for filmed borehole no. 7 in ring no. 37

Figure 4.8 shows selected MWD data versus hole length and two corresponding images from
the hole filming. Except for the first metre and a small section at 5.5 m, the MWD data
indicate a hole drilled in a hard and homogeneous rock mass. This is due to the low

35
penetration rate, the high, consistent percussive pressure, and the low calculated fracturing.
The observation is confirmed by the borehole filming exemplified by the photo to the right in
the figure. The thin section at 5.5 m bears the signature of an open fracture or cavity with a
peak of a high penetration rate, a drop in percussive pressure (down to about 40 bars), and an
increased fracturing parameter. The image to the left shows a smaller cavity causing this
response.

Cavity in red-grey leptite Solid rock

Solid rock

Figure 4.8 Recorded penetration rate, percussive pressure and calculated fracturing versus
hole length for borehole no. 2 in ring no. 22

In the hole presented in Figure 4.9, the MWD data indicate a weak fractured rock mass
throughout the hole, with high, varying penetration rate, many smaller or larger drops in
percussive pressure, and continuous peaks in the calculated fracturing. The section between 3
and 4 m consists of a large open cavity, as shown in the left photo. The corresponding MWD
responses show a very high penetration rate (>3.5 m/min) indicating air movement and a

36
distinct drop in percussive pressure, down to a minimum of 20 bars. At the end of the hole,
from 37 to 42 m, the MWD data indicate a very disturbed rock mass with high calculated
fracturing and a continuous drop in percussive pressure. The entire section below 37 m has a
risk of impending instability problems. During filming, the camera was not moved beyond 37
m because the risk of losing the camera was too high. The middle part of the hole is drilled in
weak rock conditions with many fractures and small openings, but has a lower risk of stability
problems. For all filmed holes, the consistency between filming and MWD data is high.

Cavity and rock damage Rock damage

Fracture
zone

Soft and slightly disturbed rock mass

Figure 4.9 Recorded penetration rate, percussive pressure and calculated fracturing versus
hole length for borehole no. 5 in ring no. 24

4.3 DRILL SYSTEM BEHAVIOUR

Even though the drill responses presented in Section 4.2 often give a clear indication of
different rock mass characteristics, the recorded data are not only influenced by rock mass
characteristics but also by operators and control systems. Therefore, it is very important to
understand and eliminate these influences before evaluating the rock mass characteristics.
37
For all drilling techniques, there are hole length dependent variations. However, depending on
the drilling method, this trend is more or less pronounced. Figure 4.10 shows the hole length
trends for penetration rates at the test site. There is only a minor declining trend for
penetration rate with increasing hole length, approximately 10% reduction over 40 m drilling.

Figure 4.10 Penetration rate versus hole length

Figure 4.11 presents the calculated feed force (based on the feed pressure and the geometries
of the two-stage hydraulic feed cylinder) together with the theoretical counter force generated
by the increasing weight of the drill string, assuming a vertical hole. For all drilling
techniques, an optimum applied feed force on the bit secures the contact between bit and rock
throughout the entire impact.

Figure 4.11 Feed force versus hole length

Figure 4.11 shows that the feed force is well balanced for the drill string weight when drilling
vertical holes with an intended feed force of 20 kN. The problem is, however, that many holes
are drilled in an inclined direction, particularly the side holes; these holes will have a higher
38
effective feed force than the holes (drilled in an approximately vertical direction) in the centre
of the fan.

Figure 4.12 shows the average rotation pressure versus hole length. The rotation pressure is
almost constant to around 20 m length, at which point, the curve shows an increasing trend.

Figure 4.12 Rotation pressure versus hole length

Figure 4.13 shows the calculated buckling force versus hole length for the drill string used in
the mine, together with the applied feed force. The figure indicates that a buckling instability
of the drill string occurs at around 20 m borehole length. At this length, the contacts between
the drill string and the hole walls will be initiated and will gradually increase as the drill string
gets longer. This will generate an increased resistance to rotation, requiring increased rotation
pressure, as shown in Figure 4.12, to maintain the pre-set rotation speed.

Figure 4.13 Drill string buckling force versus applied feed force

39
The purpose of feed force is to ensure that the percussive energy is efficiently transmitted to
the rock. This means that the bit must be in constant contact with the rock throughout the
entire impact. An additional force is required to optimise efficient energy transfer from bit to
rock and to ensure the rods are adequately threaded together. Generally, penetration rate
increases with the feed pressure up to a certain level, where the peak penetration rate is
registered. After further increases in feed pressure, the penetration rate will again fall, until
the drill finally stalls.

Figure 4.14 presents penetration rate versus feed force, showing an approximate optimal feed
force between 24 and 28 kN. The applied feed force (varying between approximately 20 kN
and 22 kN) is lower than the optimal feed force (varying between approximately 24 and 28
kN). Therefore, the average penetration rate can be improved by increasing the feed force.
The above discussion shows that the drill responses are not independent but depend on each
other.

Figure 4.14 Penetration rate versus normalised feed force

4.4 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF DRILLING DATA

The consistency between drill monitoring data and different rock mass conditions is high
(Section 4.2), although correlations between the monitored drill response parameters exist
(Figure 4.10-4.14). To handle this correlation, PCA was used for combined data analysis.
Figure 4.15 presents the loading plot for the first and second principal components. The plane
generated by the two components explains 62.2% of the total variation among all parameters.
In the figure, the first component is dominated by the fracturing parameters (penetration rate
variability, rotation pressure variability, and the combined parameter fracturing) to the right
and percussive pressure and feed pressure to the left. In modern drill systems, there is often a
correlation between percussive pressure and feed pressure, even though the parameters are
independent and are controlled by the rig control system. If feed pressure is reduced, it is
important to control percussive pressure to prevent damage to the drill system. There is a
negative correlation between fracturing on the one hand and percussive pressure on the other.

40
When the rock mass condition alters from solid rock to increasingly fractured or broken, the
percussive pressure reacts in the reverse way. In broken rock or in cavities, there may be
insufficient feed force to maintain high water pressure, allowing water to flow more easily
through the hammer. Overall, component 1 tends to be dominated by the drill system’s
response to the geo-mechanical properties of the penetrated rock mass.

Figure 4.15 Loading plot of first and second principal component

In this study, data have been extracted from 186 boreholes (varying from 11 m to 43 m
length) measured every 3 cm. Given the large number of data points, it is inconvenient to
create a score plot with individual sample points. Instead, a density plot is applied as shown in
Figure 4.16. In the figure, the contour plot shows the volume of data points.

41
 Figure 4.16 Score plot for all data including solid rock, fractures, cave-ins, and cavities

To identify the different geo-mechanical features shown in Figure 4.16, the dataset is divided
into sections classified as solid rock, fractured rock, cave-ins, or cavities. Each class is
presented in Figure 4.17 (a-d) on the same component plane as Figure 4.16.

Figure 4.17a presents the score plot for drilling in solid rock. The score data for solid, non-
fractured rock are very distinctively concentrated at the left side of the contour map. The first
component for solid rock ranges from -2 to +1, and the second component ranges from -2 to
+2.

Figure 4.17b shows the score plot for fractured rock. There are two separate anomalies, with
one overlapping the area of solid rock. This is logical, as fractured rock often consists of solid
rock horizons interrupted by fractures at certain intervals. The first component varies between
-1 and +7, and the second component varies between -5 and +2.

Figure 4.17c shows the score plot for cave-ins. Again, there are two separate anomalies, with
one anomaly overlapping the area of solid rock. However, the responses in this zone have a
larger spread and include higher values for component 1 than in the fractured rock zones. This
may be reasonable if a gradual increase of fracturing also means a gradual increase in the risk
of borehole instability or cave-in.

42
 Figure 4.17a Score plot for solid rock responses

Figure 4.17b Score plot for fractured rock Figure 4.17c Score plot for cave-in

Finally, Figure 4.17d shows the score plot for cavities. The responses for cavities do not have
the double responses seen for fractures and cave-ins and have significantly higher values for
component 1.

43
 Figure 4.17d Score plot for cavity

4.5 GEO-MECHANICAL MODEL

In order to model different geo-mechanical features using MWD data, the features need to be
separable in the multivariate space. All score plots in Figures 4.17a to 4.17d show a large
overlap for the second component’s values. The first component, however, provides a
reasonable delineation of the four studied geo-mechanical features (solid rock, fractured rock,
cave-ins, and cavities). In Figure 4.18, the first principal component values for the analysed
geo-mechanical features are presented as probability density functions so that we can compare
the influence of different features.

Based on the predominant density function in Figure 4.18, five classes (C1-C5) are suggested.
The delineation of classes is based on the transition of dominating density functions. The
classes are described as follows:

x Class 1 (C-1) is dominated by solid rock where no charging problems are expected.
x Class 2 (C-2) is dominated by slightly to moderately fractured rock where limited
charging problems may occur.
x Class 3 (C-3) is heavily fractured rock with stability problems and is dominated by
cave-ins. The risk of cave-in gradually increases with the gradual increase of fractured
rock.
x Class 4 (C-4) is dominated by minor cavities. Relatively small cavities are observed
during filming. When a borehole is drilled through smaller cavities, the charging hose
may be entered through the cavity but there is a risk of inserting additional explosives
into the borehole.
x Class 5 (C-5) contains relatively large cavities. When a borehole penetrates this kind
of cavity, it is difficult for the charge pipe to reach the remaining part of the borehole

44
 (above the cavity) to insert explosives. The charge pipe may also get stuck in the
cavity, pumping excessive explosives into the cavity instead of into the borehole.

Figure 4.18 Geo-mechanical model assessing chargeability

4.6 VALIDATION OF THE MODEL

To validate the suggested model, a large number of additional drill fans (not used for model
development) are tested. For all holes, the first component value is calculated; the
corresponding colour code and hole position are presented in Figure 4.19 for a fan consisting
of 11 boreholes. The detailed component values are presented for hole 5 and 9 in Figure 4.20-
4.21. Each borehole is then compared with the field data (Table 4.1) gathered during the
charging of that particular fan.

45
 Figure 4.19 Borehole chargeability classified for a new fan using the proposed model

Table 4.1 Charging conditions identified during inspection of charging operation

Borehole Drilled
Status
No. depth, m
1 19 No charging problem
2 28.4 No charging problem
3 43.6 Blocked at about 36.4 m
4 44.1 Blocked at about 38.3 m
5 44.1 Blocked at about 33.3 m
6 43.8 Blocked around collar
7 40.4 Blocked around collar
8 35.4 Blocked around 16.7
9 25.8 Blocked around 15.2
10 26.9 No check due to heavy water flow
11 19.5 No check due to heavy water flow

46
The suggested model categorises holes number 1 and 2 as class 1 and class 2, except for a thin
section close to the end of both holes which is categorised as class 3. The field inspection data
show both holes were charged without difficulty.

Hole 3 shows a pattern similar to hole 2 except for the last 7 m of the borehole, where several
sections of fractured rock (class 3) are predicted. The field inspection discovered a cave-in
that had occurred at about 36.4 m (Table 4.1). An assumed fractured zone causing the cave-in
in hole 3 continues all the way from hole 3 to hole 7.

The field data (Table 4.1) indicate hole number 4 is blocked at about 38.3 m. The model
predicts that the rock mass above this point is heavily fractured; therefore, a possible
explanation is that loose material from above has blocked the hole.

Figure 4.20 presents the first principal component value versus the hole length for hole 5. The
first part of the hole, down to 24 m, is reasonably solid with an average value below zero, but
a few single peaks have much higher values. A zone between 24 and 31 m has values from 2
up to 3.5, indicating moderate fracturing up to the boundary of heavily fractured rock. In a
short zone between 31 and 33 m, the values are again lower, indicating solid rock. After this
zone, the component reaches high values, with average about 3 but with a number of peaks up
to maximum 7. Field data show the hole was caved at the beginning of this zone at about 33.3
m.

Figure 4.20 First principal components vs. depth for hole 5

According to Figure 4.19, holes number 6 and 7 are classified as heavily fractured and
therefore difficult to charge. Field data show those holes are blocked at the collaring point.
The reasons for the blockage can be local cave-ins at the collar point or fractured material
from the upper zone transported downwards towards the collar point.

Hole number 8 is blocked at 16.7 m where the model indicates a fracture zone that continues
all the way to hole 11. Hole 9 has also caved at the same assumed fractured zone.

In Figure 4.21, the first principal component value versus the hole length is given for hole 9.
According to the field data, the borehole is caved at about 15.2 m (Table 4.1). The first part of
the hole, down to 10 m, is reasonably solid, with an average value below zero. A zone
between 10 and 19 m has several zones of moderate fracturing. However, in a thin zone
between 15.5 m and 16 m, the values reach class 3, heavy fracturing, and individual values of
47
class 4, cavities. The registered cave-in position coincides with the high model values
between 15.5 and 16 m. The difference between the registered cave-in position and the
predicted cave-in position may result from caved-in material transported by gravity
downwards in the hole. However, it is most likely explained by the inaccuracy of the length
measurement of the charging hose. The hose can slide in the drum that inserts the hose into
the hole and can therefore be associated with length error. The MWD-based length
measurements, however, have high accuracy and are very reliable. Holes number 10 and 11
are not verified, as they were not checked during the field inspection.

Figure 4.21 First principal components vs. depth for hole 9

48
 5 CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
RQ 1 What type of rock mass conditions affect the quality, instability, and chargeability of
production boreholes?

The rock mass conditions found during filming (solid rocks, fracture zones, cave-ins, cavities,
deformation) all influence the quality, instability and chargeability of the holes in different
ways.

x In solid rock masses, boreholes are generally of high quality and stable, and the following
charging operations are normally efficient and unproblematic.
x In fracture zones, the level of fracturing varies and has a significant impact on charging.
Slightly fractured rock usually does not create noticeable charging problems, but when
fracturing increases, the boreholes become less and less stable, and cave-ins are likely to
occur. The charging work becomes even more difficult when a larger part of one borehole
or several boreholes in a ring or successive rings are caved.
x The charging problem for cavities is related to the size of the cavity. It may be possible to
charge smaller cavities completely, but for large cavities, there are likely to be problems
getting the hose through the cavity to charge the upper part of the hole. There is a risk of
pumping excessive amounts of explosives into empty cavities.
x Deformation and shearing also cause charging problems since the charging hose may be
hindered to insert into the hole. These problems are more pronounced in certain orebodies.
x Even though the borehole instabilities are influenced by the rock mass characteristics, it
can be worsened by e.g. seismic events and production blasting.

RQ 2 How can drill monitoring data from hydraulic ITH drilling be used to evaluate rock
mass quality?

The MWD technique can provide information on the condition of the penetrated rock mass
surrounding a borehole. It can be used to evaluate the rock mass quality in several ways.

x Both rotation pressure and penetration rate respond to fractured rock by increased signal
variability.
x A drop in water pressure can identify open cavities. The pressure drop is caused by the
loss of counter force from the rock when open cavities are penetrated.
x The calculated fracturing parameter can distinguish reasonably well between slightly
fractured, moderately fractured, and heavily fractured rock where cave-ins may occur.

RQ 3 How does the drill system behave and how does it respond to different rock mass
behaviours?

The studied drill system has an on-board system for drill monitoring. The monitored
parameters are penetration rate, feed pressure, rotation pressure, and percussive/water
pressure.

49
x For penetration rate and feed pressure, there is a linear hole length dependent trend. For
penetration rate, there is a marginal decreasing trend. For feed pressure, there is a large
increasing trend that is well balanced for the increasing drill string weight when vertical
holes are being drilled.
x For rotation pressure, there is a step-wise linear trend; the rotation pressure is almost
constant until around 20 m when the applied feed force is higher than the buckling force
for the drill string. After this, the rotation pressure shows a linear increase with hole
length. It is important to consider this trend if rotation pressure is used as an input to the
anti-jamming function of the rig.
x The drill parameters respond significantly to different rock mass characteristics such as
cavities and severe fracture zones. In cavities, the water pressure drops significantly, and
in severe fracture zones, the variability of rotation pressure and penetration rate increases.

RQ 4 How can the chargeability be assessed using drill monitoring data?

Borehole chargeability can be assessed by developing a PCA geo-mechanical model based on

drill monitoring data.

x PCA can be used to merge several drill parameters into a single component (component 1)
describing the geo-mechanical properties of the rock mass.
x Percussive pressure (water pressure) and the calculated fracturing parameter are the two
most important parameters for predicting the geo-mechanical features of the rock mass
and the resulting chargeability.
x The developed model can distinguish fans, or parts of fans, with solid, un-fractured rock
where no chargeability problems can be expected, from fans, or part of fans, with
fractures, cavities or risk for cave-ins, where chargeability problems can be expected.
x The developed model has been tested in an operating mine with positive results and may
be used for charging operations.

5.2 CONTRIBUTIONS
This research contributes to knowledge in the following ways:

x Identifies different rock mass conditions that affect borehole chargeability.

x Increases knowledge on how the hydraulic ITH drilling system responds to different rock
mass conditions.
x Presents an application for analysing drilling data collected from hydraulic ITH drilling.
x Increases knowledge on how different geo-mechanical features influence the drill
response.
x Develops a geo-mechanical model for predicting different charging conditions
(chargeability).

50
 6 FUTURE WORK
Based on the research, the following areas are suggested for future work:

On-line platform for chargeability: According to the verification and validation, the
developed model has high accuracy in predicting the charging conditions of boreholes and
fans. However, to make this information useful, it must be available to planners and the actual
charging team. An early awareness of the expected charging problems could help in the
practical charging work; more importantly, it would help in the overall planning of charging
and re-drilling. Today, there is normally a long time span between drilling and charging,
during which a poor quality hole can be affected and jammed. If the time span could be
reduced for bad quality rings, higher chargeability may be achieved. To promote this, a
presentation module must be available in one of the mine’s existing data handling systems.

Large-scale rock mass characterisation: The extracted rock mass information presented in
this thesis is aimed at predicting chargeability of drill rounds. However, this high resolution,
rock mass information (solid rock, slight fracturing, severe fracturing, cave-in risk, cavities
etc.) could also be very useful for other personnel categories in the mine. Rock mechanical
analysis, production planning, repetitive reinforcement work etc. may be able to use this type
of information, as it is more detailed than other types of rock mass characterisation. One
challenge is how to store the information and how to present the data to make the information
useful in a production environment.

Impact on production and productivity: Earlier studies in the mine have indicated that the
chargeability, on average, is around 90%. However, individual areas could have chargeability
rates of only 70%, and individual rings, in those areas, suffer from chargeability rates as low
as 50% (Danielsson et al., 2017). These figures suggest there is an existing problem that may
impact fragmentation, load-ability, and productivity on the loading level. The impact of
chargeability on fragmentation must therefore be clarified. The fragmentation’s impact on ore
recovery and loading productivity and the economic consequences should be studied as well.

Optimisation of operational parameters: The thesis finds that the optimal feed force is
higher than the used target feed force, and the counter force from the drill string does not
correctly compensate for various inclinations of the holes. Better control and optimisation of
drill forces may be possible if future research pursues this issue.

51
52
 REFERENCES

Afifi, A.; Clark, V.A.; May, S. Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis. 4th edition, ISBN 1-58488-308-
1, Chapman and Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2004.
Abousleiman, Y.; Hoang, S.; Nguyen, V. Analyses of Wellbore Instability in Drilling Through
Chemically Active Fractured Rock Formations. In the proceedings of the 15th International
Conference on SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain International Exhibition
Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain, 11-14 March 2007.
Adlerborn, B.; Selberg, M. GIRON and WOLIS-Two mine applications. In the Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining, Luleå, Sweden, 9-11 June 2008, pp. 637-
642.
Atlas Copco Drilling Solutions LLC. Blasthole drilling in open pit mining (Third edition), Handbook,
Garland, Texas, USA, 2012, p. 24.
Agresti, A. Foundations of Linear and Generalized Linear Models. John Wiley & Sons, ISBN-
1118730054 and 9781118730058, 2015, p. 182.
Bieniawski, Z.T. Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses. Civil Engineer in South
Africa, 1973, 15(12).
Barton, N. R.; Lien, R.; Lunde, J. Engineering Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel
Support. Rock Mechanics, 1974, 6(4), pp. 189-236.
Brown, E.T.; Barr, M.V. Instrumented Drilling as an Aid to Site Investigations. In the Proceedings of
the 3rd International Congress of the International Association of Engineering Geology, Madrid, Spain,
4–8 September 1978, pp. 21–28.
Brown, E.T.; Carter, P.; Robertson, W. Experience with a Prototype Instrumented Drilling Rig.
Geodrilling, 1984, 24, pp. 10-14.
Bansal, R.K. A Textbook of Strength of Materials. Laxmi Publications, ISBN 8131808149,
9788131808146, 2010.
Collins, J.A.; Busby, H.R.; Staab, G.H. Mechanical Design of Machine Elements and Machines: A
Failure Prevention Perspective. John Wiley and Sons, ISBN 0470413034 and 9780470413036 2010,
2010.
Deere, D. U. Geological Considerations. In: Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice, edited by K.G.
Stagg and O.C. Zienkiewicz, New York, USA, 1968.
Darling, T. Well Logging and Formation Evaluation. Elsevier, Oxford, UK, ISBN 0-7506-7883-6,
2005.
Danielsson, M.; Ghosh, R.; Miguel, J.N.; Johansson, D.; Schunnesson, H. Utilizing Production Data
to Predict Operational Disturbances in Sublevel Caving - A Data Driven Approach. In the
Proceedings of the 26th International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES),
Luleå, Sweden, 29-31 August 2017, pp. 139-144.
Ellis, D.V.; Singer, J.M. Well Logging for Earth Scientists. 2nd edition, Springer Science & Business
Media, ISBN 1402046022 and 9781402046025, 2007.
Finfinger, G. L.; Peng, S.; Gu, Q.; Wilson, G.; Thomas, B. An Approach to Identifying Geological
Properties from Roof Bolter Drilling Parameters. In the Proceedings of the 19th International
Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, 2000, pp. 1-12.
Finfinger, G. A Methodology for Determining the Character of Mine Roof Rocks. Doctoral Thesis,
Department of Mining Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA,
2003.

53
Gu, Q. Geological Mapping of Entry Roof in Mines. Doctoral Thesis, Department of Mining
Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA, 2003.
Goddard, W.; Melville, S. Research Methodology: An Introduction. Juta and Company Ltd, ISBN
0702156604 and 9780702156601, 2004.
Gu, Q.; Watson, G.A; Heasley, K.A. Detection of Roof Geology Variation using Recorded Drilling
Parameters. In the Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium on the application of Computers
and operations research in the Minerals Industry, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America, 30
March – 1 April 2005, pp. 527–534.
Ghosh, R.; Schunnesson, H.; Kumar, U. Evaluation of Rock Mass Characteristics Using
Measurement While Drilling in Boliden Minerals Aitik Copper Mine, Sweden. In the Proceedings of
the 22nd International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES), Dresden,
Germany, 14-19 October 2013, pp. 81-91.
Ghosh, R. Rock Mass Characterisation Using Drill Performance Monitoring: Problems, Analysis
Challenges and Limitations. Licentiate Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 2015.
Hustrulid, W.A.; Fairhurst, C. A Theoretical and Experimental Study of the Percussive Drilling of
Rock, part IV-Application of the Model to Actual Percussion Drilling. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 1971, 9, pp. 431–449.
Hoek, E. Rock Mechanics Laboratory Testing in the Context of a Consulting Engineering
Organization. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts, 1977, 14, pp. 93-101.
Horner, P. C.; Sherrel, F. W. The Application of Air-Flush Rotary-Percussion Techniques in Site
Investigations. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 1977, 10 (3), pp. 207-221.
Hoek, E.; Brown, E.T. Underground Excavations in Rock. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, ISBN
0900488557 and 9780900488559, 1980.
Haeni, F.P.; Halleux, L.; Johnson, C.D.; Lane, Jr.J.W. Detection and Mapping of Fractures and
Cavities Using Borehole Radar in Fractured Rock. In the Proceedings of National Ground Water
Association, Westerville, Ohio, USA, 13-15 March 2002.
Hencher, S. Practical Rock Mechanics. CRC Press, ISBN 1482217279 and 97814822172782015,
Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2015.
Itakura, K.; Goto, T.; Yoshida, Y.; Tomita, S.; Iguchi, S.; Ichihara, Y.; Mastalir, P. Portable Intelligent
Drilling Machine for Visualising Roof-Rock Geo-structure. In the proceedings of the 6th International
Symposium on the Rock bolting in Mining & Injection Technology and Roadway Support Systems
Conference, Aachen, Germany, 14-15 May 2008, pp. 597-609.
Johnson, D. E. Applied Multivariate Methods for Data Analysts. Duxbury press, ISBN 0534237967
and 9780534237967, 1998.
Kendall, M. Multivariate Analysis. Charles Griffin & Company Limited, ISBN 0852642342, 1975.
Kahraman, S. Rotary and Percussive Drilling Prediction using Regression Analysis. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 1999, 36(7), pp. 981-989.
Kahraman, S.; Balc, C.; Bilgin, N. Prediction of the Penetration Rate of Rotary Blast Hole Drills
using a New Drillability Index. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2000,
37, pp. 729-743.
Kothari, C.R. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Age International, ISBN
8122415229 and 9788122415223, 2004.

Kangas, J. Orsaker till hålrensning Malmberget. Internal report, LKAB, Malmberget, Sweden, 2007.

54
Kahraman, S.; Rostami, J.; Naeimipour, A. Review of Ground Characterization by using Instrumented
Drills for Underground Mining and Construction. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2016, 49,
pp. 585–602.
LaBelle, D.; Bares, J.; Nourbakhsh, I. Material Classification by Drilling. In the Proceedings of the
17th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Taipei, Taiwan, 18–20
September 2000.
LaBelle, D. Lithological Classification by Drilling. Thesis Proposal, Robotics Institute, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 2001.
Liu, X.L.; Li, X.B.; Li, F.B.; Zhao, G.Y.; Qin, Y.H. 3D Cavity Detection Technique and its
Application Based on Cavity Auto Scanning Laser System. Journal of Central South University, 2008,
15, pp. í
Li, S.J.; Feng, X.T.; Li, Z.H.; Chen, B.R.; Zhang, C.Q.; Zhou, H. In Situ Monitoring of Rockburst
Nucleation and Evolution in the Deeply Buried Tunnels of Jinping II Hydropower Station. Engineering
Geology, 2012a,137–138, pp. 85–96.
Li, S.J.; Feng, X.T.; Li, Z.H.; Zhang, C.Q.; Chen, B.R. Evolution of Fractures in the Excavation
Damaged Zone of a Deeply Buried Tunnel during TBM Construction. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2012b, 55(10), pp. 125–138.
Li, Z.; Itakura, K. An Analytical Drilling Model of Drag Bits for Evaluation of Rock Strength. Soils
and Foundations, 2012, 52(2), pp. 216-227.
LKAB Wassara AB, Huddinge, Sweden. Available online:
http://www.wassara.com/Documents/Wassara/Brochures/Technology/1400007_English.pdf
(accessed on 3 March 2016).
Morfeldt, C.O.; Bergman, M.; Lundström, L. Bergundersökningar-kvalitetsvärdering av
undersökningsmetoder, Statens Råd för byggnadsforskning. Rapport R34:1973, 1973. (In Swedish)
McCullagh, P.; Nelder, J.A. Generalized Linear Models. 2nd edition, CRC Press, ISBN 0412317605
and 9780412317606, 1989.
Muller, A.L.; Vatgas, E.A.; Vaz, L.E.; Goncalves, C.J. Borehole Stability Analysis Considering
Spatial Variability and Poroelastoplasticity. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 2009, 46, pp. 90–96.
Nordlund, E. Deep Hard Rock Mining and Rock Mechanics Challenges. In the Proceedings of the 7th
International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Perth,
Australia, 13-15 May 2013, pp. 39-56.
Peck, J. Performance Monitoring of Rotary Blast Hole Drills. Doctoral thesis, McGill University,
Montreal, Canada, 1989.
Pollitt, M. D.; Peck, J.; Scoble, M. J. Lithological Interpretation based on Monitored Drilling
Performance Parameters. Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (CIM bulletin), 1991,
84(951), pp. 25-29.
Petrobloc, AB. Determination of Quartz Veins through the Analysis of Drilling Parameters. Project
Report, 1995. (In Swedish)
Punmia, B.C. Mechanics of Materials. Firewall Media, ISBN 8170082153 and 9788170082156, 2002.
Palmström, A.; Stille, H. Rock Engineering. Thomas Telford Limited, ISBN 9780727740830, London,
UK, 2010.
Pituch, K. A.; Stevens, J. P. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences: Analyses with SAS
and IBM’s SPSS. 6th edition, Routledge, ISBN 1317805925 and 9781317805922, 2015, p. 452.
Quinteiro, C.; Quinteiro, M.; Hedström, O. Underground Iron Ore Mining at LKAB, Sweden. In:
Underground Mining Methods - Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies © Society

55
for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration (SME), edited by Hustrulid, W. A. and Bullock, R. C.; ISBN
0873351932 and 9780873351935, 2001, pp. 361-364.
Rai, P.; Schunnesson, H.; Lindqvist, A.P.; Kumar, U. An Overview on Measurement-While-Drilling
Technique and its Scope in Excavation Industry. Journal of Institution of Engineers (India), Series D,
2015, 96(1), pp. 57–66.
Rostami, J.; Kahraman, S.; Naeimipour, A.; Collins, C. Rock Characterization While Drilling and
Application of Roof Bolter Drilling Data for Evaluation of Ground Conditions. Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2015, 7(3), pp. 273-281.
Scoble, M.J.; Peck, J. A Technique for Ground Characterization using Automated Production Drill
Monitoring. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 1987, 1, pp. 41–
54.
Schunnesson, H. Longhole Drilling with Top-Hammer Technique – it’s Potential Application in
Thermal Heat Storage. In the Proceedings of the DRILLEX Conference, Stonleigh, England, 7–10
April 1987.
Schunnesson, H. Drill process monitoring in percussive drilling: a multivariate approach to data
analysis. Licentiate Thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 1990.
Schunnesson, H. RQD Predictions Based on Drill Performance Parameters. International Journal of
Tunnel and Underground Space Technology, 1996, 11, pp. 345-351.
Schunnesson, H. Drill Process Monitoring in Percussive Drilling for Location of Structural Features,
Lithological Boundaries and Rock Properties, and for Drill Productivity Evaluation. Doctoral Thesis,
Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 1997a.
Schunnesson, H.; Holme, K. Drill Monitoring for Geological Mine Planning in the Viscaria Copper
Mine, Sweden. Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (CIM bulletin), 1997b, 90, pp. 83–89.
Schunnesson, H. Rock Characterization using Percussive Drilling. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 1998, 35, pp. 711-725.
Smith, B. Improvements in Blast Fragmentation Using Measurement While Drilling Parameters.
International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2002; 6(3-4), pp. 301-310.
Segui, J.; Higgins, M. Blast Design using Measurement While Drilling Parameters. International
Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2002, 6, pp. 287-299.
Schunnesson, H.; Mozaffari, S. Production Control and Optimization in Open Pit Mining using a Drill
Monitoring System and an Image Analysis System: a case study from Aitik Copper Mine in
Sweden. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, 2009, 57.9, pp. 244-251.
Saeidi, O.; Torabi, S.R.; Ataei, M. Development of a New Index to Assess the Rock Mass Drillability.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2013, 31(5), pp. 1477-1495.
Teale, R. The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 1965, 2, pp. 57-73.
Tu, J.V. Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Artificial Neural Networks versus Logistic
Regression for Predicting Medical Outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1996, 49(11), pp.
1225-1231.
Toumas, G. Water Powered Percussive Rock Drilling. Doctoral Thesis, Luleå University of
Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 2004.
Uchita, Y.; Harada, T. Behavior of discontinuous rock during large underground cavern excavation.
In the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Assessment and Prevention of Failure
Phenomena in Rock Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 5-7 April 1993, pp. 807–816.

56
Umar, S.B.; Sjöberg, J.; Nordlund, E. Rock Mass Characterization and Conceptual Modelling of the
Printsköpld Orebody of the Malmberget Mine. Journal of Earth Sciences and Geotechnical
Engineering, 2013, 3(4), pp. 147-173.
U.S. Geological Survey, New York, USA. Available online:
https://ny.water.usgs.gov/projects/bgag/intro.text.html (accessed on 31 July 2017).
Van Eldert, J.; Schunnesson, H.; Johansson, D. The History and Future of Rock Mass
Characterisation by Drilling in Drifting - From Sledgehammer to PC-tablet. In the Proceedings of the
26th International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES), Luleå, Sweden,
29-31 August 2017.
Wold, S.; Esbensen, K.; Geladi, P. Principal Component Analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent
Laboratory Systems, 1987, 2(1-3), pp. 37–52.
Wang, C.Y.; Law, K.T.; Sheng, Q.; Ge, X.R. Borehole Camera Technology and its Application in the
Three Gorges Project. In the Proceedings of the 55th Canadian Geotechnical and 3rd Joint IAH-CNC
and CGS Groundwater Specialty Conferences, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, 20-23 October 2002,
pp. 601–608.
Williams, J.H.; Johnson, C.D. Acoustic and Optical Borehole-Wall Imaging for Fractured-Rock
Aquifer Studies. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 2004, 55(1–2), pp. 151–159.
Wang, C.Y.; Law, K.T. Review of Borehole Camera Technology. Chinese Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Engineering, 2005, 24(19), pp. 3440–3448. (In Chinese)
Wettainen, T. Analysis and Forecasting of Blocking in Printzsköld. Master Thesis, Luleå University of
Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 2010. (In Swedish)
Wilson, J. Essentials of Business Research: A Guide to Doing Your Research project. 2nd edition,
publisher: SAGE, ISBN 1446293475 and 9781446293478, 2014.
Wenpeng, L.; Rostami, J.; Keller, E. Application of New Void Detection Algorithm for Analysis of
Feed Pressure and Rotation Pressure of Roof Bolters. International Journal of Mining Science and
Technology, 2017, 27(1), pp. 77-81.
Yin, K.; Liu, H. Using Information Extracted from Drill Data to Improve Blasting Design and
Fragmentation. International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2001, 5, pp. 157-179.
Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th edition, SAGE publications, ISBN
1483322246 and 9781483322247, 2013.
Zhang, J.; Bai, M.; Roegiers, J.C. Dual-porosity Poroelastic Analyses of Wellbore Stability.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2003, 40, pp. 473–483.
Zhang, ZX. Increasing Ore Extraction by Changing Detonator Positions in LKAB Malmberget Mine.
International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 2005, 9(1), pp. 29–46.
Zhang, ZX. Borehole Stability in Sublevel Caving (SLC). Internal report, LKAB, Malmberget, Sweden
2012.
Zhang, J. Borehole Stability Analysis Accounting for Anisotropies in Drilling to Weak Bedding Planes.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2013, 60, pp. 160–170.
Zhang, ZX. Rock Fracture and Blasting-Theory and Applications. Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier,
Oxford, UK, ISBN 978-0-12-802688-5, 2016, p. 389.

57
58
APPENDED PAPERS
 PAPER A

Borehole Instability in Malmberget Underground Mine

Ghosh, R.; Zhang, Z.X.; Nyberg, U. Borehole Instability in Malmberget Underground

Mine. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2015, 48, 1731-
1736. DOI: 10.1007/s00603-014-0638-1
Rock Mech Rock Eng (2015) 48:1731–1736
DOI 10.1007/s00603-014-0638-1

TECHNICAL NOTE

Borehole Instability in Malmberget Underground Mine

R. Ghosh • Z. X. Zhang • U. Nyberg

Received: 30 December 2013 / Accepted: 1 August 2014 / Published online: 12 August 2014
 Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Keywords Borehole stability
Underground mining
stones or pieces of concrete according to the mine’s pro-
Borehole filming
Blasting
Borehole shear duction archives that contain daily notes on various pro-
duction problems met by the miners. In order to get detailed
information on the borehole problems occurring in LKAB’s
1 Introduction two mines, a preliminary investigation was carried out by
Kangas (2007) with a mini-video camera, showing that
Borehole instability causes borehole failure, presenting a typical borehole problems were borehole deformation and
challenge to the drilling industry (Muller et al. 2009; Zhang boreholes jammed by stones. Due to various reasons, the
2013). The borehole stability of Marcellus shale wells in above investigation rested for a while. This study is a fol-
long wall mining areas in southeast Pennsylvania, West low-up of the previous investigation made by Kangas (2007)
Virginia, and eastern Ohio has been evaluated by Wang in more ore bodies and more boreholes. The main objective
et al. (2014). Here, the ground deformation caused by coal of this study is to identify various instability problems of
mining generates large ground movement and creates boreholes by field filming in different ore bodies in the mine.
complex stress changes in subsurface rock. This, in turn,
triggers interruptions in the operation of the borehole well
causing safety and environmental concerns. Borehole walls 2 Borehole Problems Recorded in Daily Production
may fail when the surrounding stress exceeds the tensile, the System
compressive, or the shear strengths of the rock formation,
whichever is reached first (Zhang et al. 2003). Horizontal Before filming in the field, a pre-investigation was carried
well borehole stability is analyzed by the new in situ stress out according to the production archives recorded by
prediction model in shale gas reservoirs (Yuan et al. 2013). miners during their shift work. For example, if one bore-
Besides this, in hard rock underground mining, such as hole is jammed at 15 m from the collar while charging, the
sublevel caving (SLC), uncharged and undetonated blast miners will note this problem in their archive. At the same
holes reduce specific charge, result in poor fragmentation time, such information will be recorded in the production
and may even lower ore recovery (Zhang 2005). It is often data base GIRON of LKAB. In this study, three large ore
found that boreholes are blocked by stones and the charge bodies, Alliansen (AL), Fabian (FA) and Vi-Ri (VR) were
work has to stop in the field. In many SLC rings two or three selected for pre-investigation and field filming. A diagram
boreholes in each ring are often broken or blocked by either of a Sublevel Caving (SLC) ring is shown in Fig. 1. In the
selected ore bodies two or three production levels (in
metres) were chosen for pre-investigation. These levels (in
R. Ghosh (&)
U. Nyberg meter) are AL932,1 AL962, AL992, FA830, FA855,
Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden VR954, VR978 and VR1002.
e-mail: [email protected]
1
Z. X. Zhang ‘AL932’ means the ore body is Alliansen and the level is at 932 m.
University Centre in Svalbard, Longyearbyen, Norway Similar notation is maintained for Fabian (FA) and Vi-Ri (VR).

123
1732 R. Ghosh et al.

Caved waste rock a

7 wet holes,% 6.67

Percentage of instability problems

stone, %
redrill, %
6 concrete, %
5.44

5 4.62

4
g
in 3.21
r ill 3 2.81

U nd
2 1.74 1.71

1.07 1.08
1
0.2317 0.21
0.0592
0
932 962 992
Production level,m
Fig. 1 A SLC ring with boreholes b

Percentage of instability problems

4.0 3.87
3.74 3.72
According to the pre-investigation, the borehole prob- wet holes,%
3.5 stone,%
lems can be classified into four types on the basis of the redrill,%
production archives: (1) re-drilling, (2) wet holes, (3) 3.0 concrete,%

stones in boreholes, and (4) concrete in boreholes. Re- 2.5

2.24
drilling means that a borehole is re-drilled mostly due to 2.0 1.89
shearing. When a borehole contains water during pre-
1.5
charging, the miners note this information as ‘wet holes’ in
1
the database. In this case, miners usually leave the borehole 1.0 0.83

for the time being and later they will charge all the wet 0.5
0.22
boreholes simultaneously before blasting. As the name 0.0
suggests, ‘stones in boreholes’ indicates stones are found in 830 855
the boreholes. There are several possible reasons; rock or Production level, m
ore fragments falling into the boreholes from the upper c
sublevels where production has been completed; large
Percentage of instability problems

deformations of the borehole giving rise to fractures in the 6.39 wet holes,%
6 stone,%
borehole wall; shearing of joints or faults intersecting the redrill,%
boreholes. ‘Concrete in the borehole’ is self-explanatory concrete,%
5 4.65
and may be caused when the borehole is drilled through the
4 3.91
buffer or undrilling part as shown in Fig. 1. In such cases
not only rock fragments but also pieces of concrete from 3
the floor of the upper level may fall down into the 2.24
2 1.92 1.94
boreholes. 1.52
The summarized results of our findings are shown in 1
1.16

Fig. 2. In Fig. 2a, in Alliansen, the re-drilled boreholes are 0.24

0.025 0.04 0.09
4.6 and 6.7 % of the total boreholes at the level AL932 and 0
AL962 respectively. On AL992 m level, only 64 % pro- 954 978 1002
duction was completed until we did the pre-investigation, Production level, m
meaning that a 36 % of boreholes on AL992 were not
Fig. 2 Percentage of instability problems in a Alliansen, b Fabian,
included in the pre-investigation. Thus, the re-drilled c Vi-Ri
boreholes on AL992 were 5.4 %.
Figure 2b shows the percentages of different borehole
problems in Fabian at the 830 and 855 m levels. The per- so the final percentage will be different from 3.7 %. Fig-
centage of re-drilled boreholes is 1 % on level FA830 m and ure 2c indicates fewer re-drilled boreholes in the Vi-Ri ore
3.7 % on level FA855 m. On the FA855 m level, only 61 % body than in two others. We also note that the percentage of
boreholes were completed at the time of pre-investigation, the borehole problems in all the ore bodies is greater close to

123
Borehole Instability in Malmberget Underground Mine 1733

Fig. 3 Modes of borehole instability. a Sheared borehole in hole No. the ring 11 at about 12 m from the collar in drift AL992-4901.
4 of ring 15 at about 2 m from the collar in drift AL992-4901. b Large e Breakage or broken borehole no. 7 of ring 8 in drift FA855-1221.
deformation in borehole 1 of ring 30 at about 15 m from the collar in f Stone-jammed borehole no. 3 of ring 30 in drift VR1026-7850,
drift VR1026-7910. c Fractured wall in borehole 6 of ring 14 in drift jammed at 31 m from the collar
AL992-4841 at about 25.5 m from the collar. d Spalling in hole 5 of

the hanging wall than that of the footwall as the mining goes • A stone jammed borehole means pieces of rock block
deeper down. the borehole.
All modes of borehole instability filmed in the mine
appear in Fig. 3. As Fig. 3a shows borehole No. 4 of ring
3 Field Work
15 in drift AL992-49012 has been sheared at about 2 m
from its collar.
After the pre-investigation, we filmed a total of 298
All the modes of borehole instability undermine suc-
boreholes by driving digital video camera into boreholes
cessful charging of the boreholes in question.
in the field. Three different types of production drifts
were chosen to do filming: (1) the drifts where production
was going on; (2) the drifts where an open cut had been
4 Results and Analyses
done; (3) the drifts where an open cut had not been made
yet.
Each of the 298 boreholes filmed in the three ore bodies has
The major types of borehole instability in the ore bodies
been analyzed from its collar to the available depth. The
are (a) sheared boreholes, (b) largely deformed boreholes,
summarized results are as follows.
(c) stone-jammed boreholes, and (d) fractured boreholes
that include cracking, spalling and rock breakage in the
4.1 Comparisons for Instability Problems
walls of boreholes. These borehole instabilities can be
defined as follows:
In Fig. 4a, numbers of fracture and deformation were
• A sheared borehole means that the borehole has been higher in the level 992 and 1,022 m in comparing with
sheared by geological structures like joints, faults or other types of problem. However, more shear zones were
weak biotite-schist layers. observed in level 992 m in Alliansen. In Fabian, fracture
• A fractured borehole means cracking, spalling and
breakage in the borehole. 2
‘AL992-4901’ means the ore body is Alliansen, the level is 992 m
• A large deformation in a borehole indicates that the and the drift number is 4901. Similar notation is used for Fabian (FA)
borehole is noticeably deformed in its cross section. and Vi-Ri (VR).

123
1734 R. Ghosh et al.

Total number of instability problems

a 102
Number of each instability problem
100 20
92 93
18
80 AL-992 16
AL-1022
14
60 12
10
41
40 8
30
6
20 4
10
3 5 2
0 0
Shear Zone Fracture Deformation Jammed 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Borehole instability Ring number
Number of each instability problem

b 71 Fig. 5 Total numbers of borehole instability decrease along the

70
remaining rings in drift AL992-4841
60

50 FA-855
FA-880
40 37 20

Total number of instability problems

30
30 25 18
20 16
10 14
4
1
0 12
Shear Zone Fracture Deformation Jammed
10
Borehole instability
8
200 c 194
Number of each instability problem

6
180
4
160
140 2
VR-1026
120 0
98 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
100
80 Ring number
60
Fig. 6 Fluctuation in borehole instability along drift VR1026-7850
40
20 8
0
Shear zone Fracture Deformation Jammed 4.2 Production Activity on Borehole Instability
Borehole instability

Fig. 4 a Comparison of instabilities at sublevels 992 and 1,022 m in

Figure 5 shows the quantity of all types of borehole
Alliansen. b Comparison of instabilities at sublevels 855 and 880 m instabilities in drift AL992-4841 varies with production
in Fabian. c Comparison of instabilities at sublevel 1,026 m in Vi-Ri activity in Alliansen. The filming started at ring no. 12 as
production was completed up to the ring no. 9. Ring 10 and
ring 11 were pre-charged and therefore impossible to film.
and deformation were considerably higher than other The filming shows that the number of deformation and
instability problems in both of the levels 855 and 880 m, as shearing is higher in ring 12 which is closer to the last
shown in Fig. 4b. In Vi-Ri, deformation and fracture are blasted ring 9. Furthermore, the total numbers of the
more frequent than the jammed and shear zone filmed in instabilities were the highest in ring 12 and tended to
the ore body as shown in Fig. 4c. However, there were no decrease along the remaining rings in the drift. In Vi-Ri, a
shear zones found in Vi-Ri during filming. Interestingly, fluctuation of borehole instabilities were observed along
the number of jammed holes was not significant in any of drift VR7850 although no production had been started in
the three ore bodies. that sublevel (1,022 m level), as shown in Fig. 6.

123
Borehole Instability in Malmberget Underground Mine 1735

Fig. 7 Seismic responses recorded at levels 992 and 1,022 m (from 2010-01-01 to 2012-08-24) in Alliansen

4.3 Borehole instability and seismic events In Fabian, since the average dip of the ore body is
almost 90 and confinement of the ore body increases with
Seismic response data have been observed at levels 992 the depth, the hanging wall might be stressed more at
and 1,022 m in Alliansen. The data were recorded from greater depth and could influence instability in production
2010-01-01 to 2012-08-24. For comparative purposes, we holes as mining goes deeper and deeper.
filmed at those levels in different drifts. The area most In Vi-Ri, large empty rooms were found in drift
affected by seismic events was that area where re-drilled or VR1026-7910 and VR1026-7930 during filming towards
sheared boreholes were noted in the production archives the foot wall side, probably because the ore body is not
and/or field work, as presented in Fig. 7. situated steeply, but has an average dip of 45. In this case,
a hanging wall collapse might cause instability in the
production holes. Nevertheless, as Vi-Ri is not a steep ore
5 Discussion body, caving would initiate fractures of the hanging wall
much earlier than the other steep ore body and local stress
For Alliansen, some possible reasons could be mentioned fields would be affected as the mining progresses down-
regarding instabilities in the production holes. In this ore ward, causing instability in the boreholes.
body, drifts were driven almost perpendicularly to the major
horizontal stress (virgin) in the selected sublevels, causing
large deformations in the drifts. In fact we noted that, a 6 Conclusions
shearing plane was moving with the continuation of the
production. For example, on 2012-05-14, hole 4 in ring 16 According to our pre-investigation using the mine pro-
and hole 5 in ring 17 were filmed in drift AL992-4871. During duction archives, the wet boreholes vary from 1.7 to 6.4 %
filming no shear planes were found in the boreholes. How- of all boreholes in the three ore bodies studied. Re-drilled
ever, on 2012-09-14, holes were ordered for re-drilling due to boreholes are at the top end in Alliansen, at 6.7 %, much
new shearing. The movement of a shearing plane caused by a more than the total of 1.5 and 3.7 % in Vi-Ri and Fabian
fault could also be a reason for borehole instability. Finally, in respectively. The stone and concrete jammed holes are
addition to in situ stress, production activities, successive about 1 % in all three ore bodies.
caving and seismic events could change local stress condi- There are four types of borehole instability: (1) sheared
tions significantly and trigger borehole instability. boreholes, (2) largely deformed boreholes, (3) stone-

123
1736 R. Ghosh et al.

jammed boreholes, and (4) fractured boreholes that include References

cracking, spalling and rock breakage in the boreholes
walls. Among these, fractures and large deformations are Kangas J (2007) Internal report, LKAB, Malmberget, R & D (nr.
07-770), Sweden
the more serious. Sheared boreholes are relatively much Muller AL, Vatgas EA, Vaz LE, Goncalves CJ (2009) Borehole
fewer than the first two problems and most sheared bore- stability analysis considering spatial variability and poroelasto-
holes are found in Alliansen ore body. In addition, stone- plasticity. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:90–96
jammed boreholes are also relatively few. Wang Yi, Watson R, Rostami J, Wang YJ, Limbruner ZH (2014)
Study of borehole stability of Marcellus shale wells in longwall
The field filming indicates that production activity lar- mining areas. Int J Pet Explor Prod Technol 4:59–71
gely influences the instability, implying that rock blasting Yuan JL, Deng JG, Tan Q (2013) Borehole stability analysis of
is one of the major reasons for causing borehole defor- horizontal drilling in shale gas reservoirs. Int J Rock Mech Rock
mation and fracture. It is also found that in the mining area Eng 46:1157–1164
Zhang ZX (2005) Increasing ore extraction by changing detonator
where seismic events are intensive, the re-drilled boreholes positions in LKAB Malmberget mine. Fragblast Int J Blasting
are also increased, indicating that the seismic events make Fragm 9(1):29–46
borehole largely deformed or fractured. Zhang J (2013) Borehole stability analysis accounting for anisotropies
in drilling to weak bedding planes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the chargers espe- 60:160–170
cially Töre Nilsson at Malmberget, LKAB for their cooperation Zhang J, Bai M, Roegiers JC (2003) Dual-porosity poroelastic
during filming. Special thanks to Anders Nordqvist at LKAB, Kiruna analyses of wellbore stability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
and to Tomas Savilahti at LKAB, Malmberget, for providing data and 40:473–483
valuable comments. Thanks are also extended to the mine personnel
working at Malmberget for their worthwhile support.

123
 PAPER B

Monitoring of Drill System Behavior for Water-Powered In-The-Hole (ITH) Drilling

Ghosh, R.; Schunnesson, H.; Gustafson, A. Monitoring of Drill System Behavior for
Water-Powered In-The-Hole (ITH) Drilling. International Journal of Minerals, 2017, 7(7),
1-14. DOI: 10.3390/min7070121
 minerals
Article
Monitoring of Drill System Behavior for
Water-Powered In-The-Hole (ITH) Drilling
ID
Rajib Ghosh * , Håkan Schunnesson and Anna Gustafson
Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, 97187 Luleå, Sweden;
[email protected] (H.S.); [email protected] (A.G.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +46-920-492-588

Received: 24 May 2017; Accepted: 13 July 2017; Published: 17 July 2017

Abstract: A detailed understanding of the drilling system and the drilling control is required to
correctly interpret rock mass conditions based on monitored drilling data. This paper analyses data
from hydraulic in-the-hole (ITH) drills used in LKAB’s Malmberget mine in Sweden. Drill parameters,
including penetration rate, percussive pressure, feed pressure, and rotation pressure, are monitored in
underground production holes. Calculated parameters, penetration rate variability, rotation pressure
variability, and fracturing are included in the analysis to improve the opportunity to predict rock
mass conditions. Principal component analysis (PCA) is used to address non-linearity and variable
interactions. The results show that the data contain pronounced hole length-dependent trends, both
linear and step-wise linear, for most parameters. It is also suggested that monitoring can be an efficient
way to optimize target values for drill parameters, as demonstrated for feed force. Finally, principal
component analysis can be used to transfer a number of drill parameters into single components with
a more straightforward geomechanical meaning.

Keywords: drill monitoring technique; hydraulic in-the-hole (ITH) drilling; measurement while
drilling (MWD); rock mass characterization; drill system behavior

1. Introduction
Over recent decades, drill monitoring, or measurement while drilling (MWD), has become
a well-established technique to characterize the penetrated rock mass in the mining and petroleum
industries [1]. The technique can be used for drilling in different types of rock, it does not cause
any disturbances in production, and it provides high-resolution information on the rock mass in
an inexpensive way. It has been used for several drilling techniques, including rotary drilling,
percussive drilling, and core drilling [2–17]. However, despite the potential of the technique, it has not
yet become an independent tool to support decision-making in underground mine operations.
One identified remaining problem with the drill monitoring technique is the analysis of raw
monitoring data. In percussive drilling, the most important monitored drill parameters are penetration
rate, percussive pressure, feed pressure, and rotation pressure. Variations in these parameters along
the length of the hole, is the result from the combined effect of variations in the properties of the
penetrated rock mass, drill operators, and drill control systems [6,14]. With variations in the rock mass,
parameter settings must be adjusted to improve drilling. Advanced control systems on modern drill
rigs will always adjust drill parameters independently to avoid drilling problems and damage to the
drill string and machine [6,14,18].
Another challenge for analysis is that monitored drill parameters are not independent, but highly
correlated [14]. For example, high penetration rate can be recorded not only due to soft or fractured
rock, but also due to high (optimal) feed pressure. Comparatively low penetration rates can be caused
by low feed pressure and/or inadequate air pressure or by hard rock. Thus, any single recorded
parameter cannot independently describe the characteristics of the rock mass in a conclusive way.

Minerals 2017, 7, 121; doi:10.3390/min7070121 www.mdpi.com/journal/minerals

Minerals 2017, 7, 121 2 of 14

A descriptive drilling response is increased signal variability, particularly for rotation pressure
and penetration rates when fractured or inhomogeneous rock is encountered. The increased variability
of the rotation pressure is caused by alternating bit jamming effects and the sudden release of the
bit when the rotation resistance is overcome. Meanwhile, variability in the penetration rate can be
explained by small openings in the rock mass causing increasing forward speed of the drill string,
interrupted by a sudden stop when solid rock is encountered again. Many researchers have noticed
this behavior, e.g., [5,19,20].
A parameter called fracturing has been suggested by [21] as an indicator of rock mass
inhomogeneity; the parameter can be calculated by combining the variability of the penetration
rate and the variability of the rotation pressure. This has been improved more recently by [22].
A detailed understanding of the drilling system and the drilling control is required to correctly
interpret the rock mass conditions based on monitored drilling data. This paper examines the drilling
response for a production drill rig, drilling fan-shaped, upwards holes with hydraulic in-the-hole (ITH)
hammers. The analysis suggests a better rock mass model can be developed by understanding and
eliminating the variations caused by the external influence of operators and drill control systems.

2. Methodologies
The research described in this paper is mainly based on a literature review and the collection and
analysis of drill monitoring data. Figure 1 presents the research methodologies followed in this study.
An extensive literature review has been performed, including related previous research published in
peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings, research and technical reports, PhD theses, etc.

Figure 1. Research methodologies.

MWD data (saved in XML IREDES compact file format) are collected from six automated drill
rigs of the same type. Two types of IREDES files are used: ‘Data Quality (DQ)’ files that contain
coordinates of the collar and the bottom of the hole and ‘MWD (MW)’ files that include the depth,
time, feed pressure, rotation pressure, percussive pressure, and penetration rate for each borehole.
After data collection, the data have been filtered using MATLAB (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA,
USA). The raw data needs to be filtered since it contains some incorrect or faulty values. For example,
the maximum value of the monitored penetration rate is +1184.462 m/min and the minimum value is
−16.114 m/min. This maximum value is unrealistic, as the bit cannot move at this speed, even in open
air, and the negative value of the penetration rate is simply not possible since the used measurement
system only records forward movements. Both of these values are clearly faulty and need to be
removed from the raw dataset. In addition, zero values of any monitored data are incorrect and are
considered measurement errors in this study. The applied filter limits are: for the penetration rate,
0.1 and 4 m/min; for the percussive pressure, 5 and 200 bars; for the feed pressure, 35 and 100 bars;
and for the rotation pressure, 25 to 125. After data collection and filtration, data has been further
Minerals 2017, 7, 121 3 of 14

processed and different parameters, such as penetration rate variability, rotation pressure variability,
and fracturing, based on these two variability parameters, have been calculated.
To handle the correlation or dependency between the drill parameters (monitored and calculated),
statistical methods, such as pattern recognition, neural networks, Fuzzy-Delphi-AHP technique, etc.,
have previously been used. Pattern recognition was used to separate coal, mudstone, and siltstone
based on drill parameter responses in an open pit coal mine in Canada [23]. However, the capabilities of
this technique decreases with the decrease in differences between rock types [24]. Neural networks were
successfully used for drill monitoring data by [25]. The results were encouraging, but require detailed
rock mass data to calibrate the model [24]. Saeidi et al. [26] combined the Fuzzy-Delphi-AHP technique
and rock engineering systems (RES) to study rock mass drillability tribosystems. The technique is
based on calibration using expert opinions, which is why the derived rock mass drillability index may
be biased.
Another possible approach is to use multivariate techniques [24]. Principal component analysis
(PCA) normally forms the basis for multivariate data analysis, and is often used for simplification
of data tables, outlier detection, variable and object selection, correlation evaluation, classification,
and predictions of different features [27]. PCA can transform the original variables into new,
uncorrelated variables called components [28]. This paper uses PCA to analyse MWD data. One reason
for using PCA is to try to determine the uncorrelated components that describe fundamental features
within the drilling system and the rock mass. A commercial software, SIMCA (Sartorius Stedim Data
Analytics AB, UMEÅ, Sweden) has been used for performing the PCA analysis. SIMCA uses the
nonlinear iterative partial least squares (NIPALS) algorithm to obtain components [29]. After analyses,
information has been shared with industry experts to validate the results.

3. Test Description

3.1. Test Site

LKAB’s iron ore mine in Malmberget is the second largest underground mine in Europe. The mine is
situated close to the municipality of Gällivare in the northern part of Sweden. The mine consists of about
20 ore bodies, of which 12 are currently being mined. The mining area stretches 5 km in the E–W direction
and 2.5 km in the N–S direction. Large scale sublevel caving (SLC) is used for ore extraction. Figure 2a
shows a layout of sublevel caving mining. Production boreholes are drilled upward in fan-shaped rings.
Figure 2b shows an example of a fan containing eight boreholes. The number of the boreholes in a fan
slightly vary in this case (from eight to eleven) depending on the shape of the ore body.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) Sublevel caving mining (courtesy by Atlas Copco); and (b) an example of a fan used in
the Malmberget mine.
Minerals 2017, 7, 121 4 of 14

3.2. Drill System

In the Malmberget mine, fully-automated Atlas Copco SIMBA W6C drill rigs (Atlas Copco AB,
Stockholm, Sweden) are used for all production drilling. These rigs are not equipped with standard top
hammer rock drills, but with Wassara W100 hydraulic ITH hammers (LKAB Wassara AB, Huddinge,
Sweden). Compared to pneumatic ITH hammers, the hydraulic hammers drill significantly faster,
have less hole deviation, and generate less dust in the surroundings. Figure 3a,b show the components
and stepwise mechanism of the Wassara W100 ITH hammer drilling system [30].

Figure 3. (a) Components; and (b) function of the Wassara ITH hammer [30].

For this drilling system, the hammer is positioned at the front of the drill string; energy is
transferred through the drill string in the form of pressured water, mechanical torque, and mechanical
feed force. The main task of the hammer is to convert the potential energy of pressurized water into
an oscillating piston movement. The kinetic energy of the piston is transferred to the bit and, finally,
into the rock. Rock fragmentation occurs at the highly-pressurized contact zones between the button
bit and the rock. By rotating the bit, and thereby creating new impact positions for the buttons, new
rock is fragmented and the penetration process continues. The debris is flushed away by the outlet
water from the hammer, outside the drill string [31]. In Figure 3b, the valve is opened and the piston
moves back from its striking position (step 1). In step 2, the piston takes the position to strike. In step
3, the valve is closed and high-pressure water forces the piston to strike. In step 4, the piston strikes
the bit and the bit blows the rock. The valve is then opened to release the water through the bit [30].
For drilling 2.1 m, 102 mm extension rods are used. The cross-section of the rod and its specifications
are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Rod specification.

Parameter Value
Outer diameter 102 mm
Wall thickness 8.8 mm
Length 2.1 m
Weight 54.4 kg
Minerals 2017, 7, 121 5 of 14

3.3. Drill Monitoring Technique

To monitor drill parameters, LKAB uses the Atlas Copco system. The system records and stores
data at defined intervals (in this case, 3 cm) along the borehole. The drill parameters are the penetration
rate, percussive pressure, feed pressure, rotation pressure, depth, and time (YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss).
The monitored data are transferred from the rig to the RRA (rig remote access) server by a wireless network.

3.3.1. Measured Parameters

The measured parameters can be divided into two groups: independent parameters and
dependent parameters. Independent parameters, such as the feed pressure and percussive pressure,
are controlled by the drill operation, while dependent parameters, such as penetration rate and rotation
pressure, are responsive to the variation of rock mass properties [7,14,19,32].

• Penetration rate: This is the advance rate of the bit through the rock matrix; it is influenced by the
geo-mechanical properties of the rock [33] and the applied forces. The parameter is measured
by m/min.
• Percussive pressure: This refers to the water pressure used to force the piston to impact the bit [30].
The unit of the measured percussive pressure is bar.
• Feed pressure: The feed pressure generates feed force acting on the drill bit. The Atlas
Copco rigs use a two-stage hydraulic cylinder to convert oil pressure into an axial feed force.
The measurement unit is bar.
• Rotation pressure: This measure reflects the bit’s resistance to rotation. In percussive drilling,
the rotation is used to impact the new part of the bottom of the hole between successive blows.
The movement between each impact is determined by the type, size, and geometry of the drill bit.
The torque required to turn the bit mainly depends on bit resistance at the bottom of the hole and
frictional resistance between drill rods and hole walls [6]. It is measured in bars.

3.3.2. Calculated Parameters

• Variability parameters: The penetration rate variability and rotation pressure variability have been
used in field tests, with both parameters found to be sensitive to rock fracturing [21]. As shown
in Equations (1) and (2), variability is calculated as the sum of residuals over a defined interval
along the borehole:  
N +i  N +i PR 
∑ 
PRVi = ∑  i
i
− PRi  (1)
i
 N + 1 
 
N +i  N +i RP 
 ∑i 
RPVi = ∑ 
i
− RPi  (2)
i
 N + 1 

where:
PRV i : Penetration rate variability
RPV i : Rotation pressure variability
N: Number of the intervals in a step = Total number of values considered in a step-1
(here, N = 5 − 1 = 4)
i: Index of the registered penetration rate or rotation pressure
PRi : Registered penetration rate
RPi : Registered rotation pressure
Minerals 2017, 7, 121 6 of 14

• Fracturing parameter: Fracturing is calculated by combining both variability of penetration

rate and rotation pressure to make a robust parameter, which can improve prediction of rock
fracturing [22]. It is measured by the Pearson residual [34], as shown in Equation (3):
    
1 PRV RPV
Fracturingi = 0.5 ×  i + 0.5 ×  i (3)
5 σ2 PR σ2 RP

where:
σ2 PR : Variance of registered penetration rate
σ2 RP : Variance of registered rotation pressure

4. Analyses and Results

For all drilling, there are hole length-dependent variations. However, depending on the
drilling technique, this trend is more or less pronounced. It has been argued that, for ITH drilling,
the penetration rate should not decrease with hole length, as the hammer is located at the end of the
drill string acting directly on the rock. For pneumatic ITH drills, the drilling energy is provided by
compressed air, flowing from the hole surface down to the hammer. As the length of the drill string
increases, the pressure losses also increase, both inside and outside the drill tube, leaving less and less
pressure to run the hammer. After the hammer, the air outlet is used for flushing, to remove cuttings
from the face, and flush it back to the hole surface. This process will gradually become less efficient
when the hole gets longer, causing a reduction in the penetration rate. For hydraulic ITH drilling,
the above drawbacks are the same but are assumed to be less pronounced, because an incompressible
medium is used.
Figure 4 shows the hole length trends for penetration rates at the test site. As expected, there is
only a minor declining trend for the penetration rate with increasing hole length, an approximately
10% reduction over 40 m of drilling. For further analysis, the trend is removed, based on the regression
line in the figure.
Figure 5 indicates the registered feed pressure versus hole length. For all drilling, an optimum
applied feed force on the bit secures the contact between bit and rock throughout the entire impact.
There is an increasing trend in the feed pressure with the hole length; more pressure is applied to
compensate for the increasing drill string weight to maintain a constant force on the bit.

Figure 4. Penetration rate versus hole length.

Minerals 2017, 7, 121 7 of 14

Figure 5. Feed pressure versus hole length.

Figure 6 presents the calculated feed force (based on the feed pressure and the geometries of
the two-stage hydraulic feed cylinder) together with the theoretical counter-force generated by the
increasing weight of the drill string, assuming a vertical hole. Recall that the specification for the
extension drill rods appears in Table 1. The figure shows that the feed force is well balanced for the
drill string weight when drilling vertical holes with an intended feed force of 20 kN. The problem
is, however, that many holes are drilled in an inclined direction (see Figure 2b), particularly the side
holes. To observe the effect of the different inclination of the holes on the calculated feed force, further
studies have been carried out. The actual feed force acting on the bit is calculated for two boreholes
inclined at two different angles. Figure 7 presents a force diagram showing the direction of relevant
forces acting on the drill string for an inclined borehole (α < 90◦ ; case-1) and a vertical hole (α = 90◦ ;
case-2). In this figure, the actual feed force acting on the bit (Fa ) is the axial feed force generated by the
cylinder (Fc ; acting upward along borehole axis) minus the component of the force along the borehole
(Wsin α; acting downward along the borehole axis), which is generated by the mass of the drill string.
Therefore, a variation of component force for different inclination of boreholes will have an influence
on the actual feed force acting on the bit. To observe this influence on the actual feed force acting on the
bit, two boreholes have been considered which are inclined at 60◦ and 90◦ . The actual feed force acting
on the bit of the 60◦ hole is found slightly greater (about 7%) than that of the 90◦ hole, see Figure 8.
However, the difference of the actual feed force for the inclined and vertical holes is not significant.
In the following analysis, the feed force is normalised based on the regression line in Figure 5.

Figure 6. Feed force versus hole length.

Minerals 2017, 7, 121 8 of 14

Figure 7. A force diagram.

Figure 8. Actual feed force versus hole length for different inclinations of the borehole.

Figure 9 shows the average rotation pressure versus hole length. The rotation pressure is almost
constant to around 20 m length, at which point the curve shows an increasing trend. The buckling force
of the drill string has a significant impact on hole deviations [35]. According to [36], a severely-buckled
string could cause excessively crooked holes even in homogeneous formations. The buckling of
a drill string under the action of gravity and axial thrust have been discussed in [37]. A number
of different equilibrium helical buckling configurations for a tubing or drill string confined within
a cylindrical casing or hole of larger radius and buckled under static compressive forces are determined
by [37]. They obtained explicit and general solutions for the helical buckling of tubing and drill strings.
The buckling force is the maximum force, which a column can carry while remaining straight. When the
axial compressive force exceeds the buckling force, the column starts to bend. The Swiss mathematician
Leonhard Euler calculated the buckling force for a long column in 1757 [38]. The assumptions and
derivation of Euler’s equation for different cases (based on constraints at the end of a column) have
been mentioned by several authors [38–40].
The buckling force (Euler case 3, with one end fixed), Fk , can be calculated using following
Equation (4) [35]:
2.05·π 2 · E· I
Fk = (4)
l2
Minerals 2017, 7, 121 9 of 14

where:
E = Young’s modulus
I = Area moment of inertia
l = Hole Length

This equation was used assuming one end of the drill string is fixed and the other end of the drill
string (bit inserts) is pinned. This means that the fixed end allows no translation and no rotation while
the other end does not allow translation, but allows rotations.

Figure 9. Rotation pressure versus hole length.

Figure 10 has the calculated buckling force versus hole length for the drill string used in the
Malmberget mine. The applied feed force is also shown in the figure; it indicates that a buckling
instability occurs at around 20 m of the drill string length. At this length, the contacts between the drill
string and the hole walls will be initiated and will gradually increase as the drill string gets longer.
This will generate an increased resistance to rotation, requiring increased rotation pressure, as shown
in Figure 10, to maintain the pre-set rotation speed.

Figure 10. Drill string buckling force and applied feed force versus hole length.

Figure 11 presents the penetration rate versus the normalised feed force. The purpose of the
feed force is to ensure that the percussive energy is efficiently transmitted to the rock. This means
that the bit must be in constant contact with the rock throughout the entire impact. An additional
Minerals 2017, 7, 121 10 of 14

force is required to optimize efficient energy transfer from bit to rock and to ensure the rods are
adequately threaded together. The relation between the penetration rate and feed pressure has been
studied by several researchers [41–43]. Generally, the penetration rate increases with the thrust up to
a certain level where the peak penetration rate is registered. After further increases in feed pressure,
the penetration rate will again fall, until the drill finally stalls. This general behaviour is registered in
this case study, showing an approximate optimal feed force between 24 and 28 kN. At a very low feed
force, the penetration rate is also higher. This phenomenon has been reported by [6] which explains it
as an inadequate contact between the bit and rock, causing free space movement. Further, as shown in
Figure 8, the used feed force acting on the bit varies between 20 kN and 22 kN, for hole angles between
90◦ and 60◦ , which is lower than the optimum feed force between 24 kN and 28 kN. The actual feed
force may, therefore, be increased to promote the overall penetration rate.

Figure 11. Penetration rate versus normalised feed force.

Figure 12 shows the rotation pressure versus normalised feed force. The purpose of rotation
pressure is to ensure the rotation between successive blows. The rotation pressure required to
turn the bit is dependent on the bit resistance at the bottom of the hole, as well as the frictional
resistance between the drill string and the hole wall for long drill strings and at high feed forces [43].
According to [44], a definite relation between feed pressure and torque (rotation pressure) is found.
The linear increasing rotation pressure versus feed force, seen in Figure 12, clearly indicates this relation.

Figure 12. Rotation pressure versus normalised feed force.

Minerals 2017, 7, 121 11 of 14

As can be seen in Figures 9–12, the monitored drill response parameters are not independent,
but highly correlated. Therefore, single parameter analysis or cross-plot analysis may not capture the
complexity of monitored drilling data, especially their relation to varying rock mass characteristics.

Figure 13. Loading plot of first and second principal components.

Due to the correlations, principal component analysis (PCA) is used for further analysis of all
measured parameters, including penetration rate, percussive pressure, normalised feed pressure,
and rotation pressure, and all calculated parameters, including penetration rate variability, rotation
pressure variability, and fracturing. Figure 13 presents the loading plot for the first and second
principal components.
The plane generated by the two components explains 62.2% of the total variation among all
parameters. In Figure 13, the first component is dominated by the fracturing parameters (penetration
rate variability, rotation pressure variability, and the combined parameter fracturing) to the right,
and percussive pressure and feed pressure to the left. In modern drill systems, there is often
a correlation between percussive pressure and feed pressure, even though the parameters are
independent and are controlled by the rig control system. If feed pressure is reduced, it is important
to control the percussive pressure to prevent damage to the drill system. The negative correlation
between fracturing, on one hand, and percussive pressure, on the other, is interesting. When the rock
mass condition goes from solid rock to increasingly fractured or broken, the percussive pressure reacts
in the reverse way. In broken rock or in cavities, there may be insufficient feed force to maintain high
water pressure, allowing water to flow more easily through the hammer. Overall, component 1 tends
to be dominated by the drill system’s response to the geomechanical properties of the penetrated
rock mass.
Figure 14 presents the loading plot for second and third principal components. The loading
plot captures 29.3% of the total variation among all included parameters. When the first component,
presumably dominated by geo-mechanical rock mass condition, is removed, the second and third
components may better represent the drill system. In the third component, there is some correlation
between feed pressure and penetration rate. However, as seen in Figure 11, the positive correlation
only relates to the zone between 18 and 24 kN; at lower and higher feed forces, the correlation is
negative or non-existent.
The negative correlation between the penetration rate and the rotation pressure seen in Figure 13
seems non-existent in Figure 14. According to [14], the relation between the penetration rate and the
Minerals 2017, 7, 121 12 of 14

rotation pressure is complicated by rock mass properties. For example, rock fracturing that influences
rotation pressure may positively influence the penetration rate if fracturing is moderate, but negatively
if fracturing is severe, including stalling effects. In addition, penetration increases if the rock gets
softer. Deeper penetration will increase rotation resistance and the corresponding rotation pressure.
However, when the rock mass gets very soft, the bits may shear off the rock matrix instead of moving
up, out of the hole, generated by the button of the bit, thereby reducing rotation pressure. Given this
complexity, it is difficult to make definite conclusions when detailed rock mass descriptions are
not available.

Figure 14. Loading plot for second and third principal components.

5. Conclusions
When trying to use the MWD technique to predict the characteristics of the penetrated rock mass,
it is essential to have detailed knowledge of the drilling method and drill rig, including how monitored
parameters relate to each other and to the penetrated rock mass conditions. Different drilling methods
have different methods of excavation, and different sizes and dimensions of consumable materials
(e.g., bit, hammer) will influence the drilling behavior and drilling response.
This paper has monitored a number of parameters of hydraulic ITH drilling and evaluated the data.
The analysis finds a number of non-linear relations with root-causes in both the dimensions of selected
consumables materials (e.g., bit, hammer) and the relation to the properties of the penetrated rock mass.
In addition, principal component analysis (PCA) is found useful to separate the component related to
geomechanical influences from the component related to drill system behavior only. Thus, the behavior
of the drill system can be better identified and the system can be further improved for optimal drilling.
The main findings are the following:

• There are linear hole length-dependent trends for the penetration rate and feed pressure. For the
penetration rate, there is a marginal and decreasing trend. For the feed pressure, a large increasing
trend is seen that is well balanced for the increasing drill string weight when drilling vertical
holes upward.
• For rotation pressure, there is a step-wise linear trend; the rotation pressure is constant until
around 20 m when the applied feed force is higher than the buckling force for the drill string.
After this, the rotation pressure shows a linear increase with the hole length. It is important to
consider this trend if rotation pressure is used as an input to the anti-jamming function of the rig.
Minerals 2017, 7, 121 13 of 14

• The optimal feed force is between 24 and 28 kN, higher than the used target feed force of around
20 kN. This suggests recording drill monitoring data can be an efficient way to optimize target
values for optimal drilling.
• Principal component analysis (PCA) demonstrates how several drill parameters can be merged
into a single component describing geo-mechanical influences on the drill response measurements.

Acknowledgments: Vinnova, the Swedish Energy Agency, and Formas are acknowledged for financing the
project through the SIP-STRIM program. The authors would like to acknowledge LKAB, Atlas Copco Rock Drills
AB, Agio System, and Kompetens AB for their valuable input into the project.
Author Contributions: R. Ghosh analyzed the data and wrote the paper. H. Schunnesson and A. Gustafson have
partly written and revised the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Smith, B. Improvements in Blast Fragmentation Using Measurement While Drilling Parameters. Int. J.
Blasting Fragm. 2002, 6, 301–310. [CrossRef]
2. Teale, R. The concept of specific energy in rock drilling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1965, 2, 57–73. [CrossRef]
3. Hustrulid, W.A.; Fairhurst, C. A theoretical and experimental study of the percussive drilling of rock, part
IV-application of the model to actual percussion drilling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1971, 9, 431–449. [CrossRef]
4. Brown, E.T.; Barr, M.V. Instrumented drilling as an aid to site investigations. In Proceedings of the
3rd International Congress of the International Association of Engineering Geology, Madrid, Spain,
4–8 September 1978; pp. 21–28.
5. Scoble, M.J.; Peck, J. A technique for ground characterization using automated production drill monitoring.
Int. J. Surf. Min. Rec. Environ. 1987, 1, 41–54. [CrossRef]
6. Schunnesson, H. Rock characterization using percussive drilling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 1998, 35, 711–725.
[CrossRef]
7. Peck, J. Performance Monitoring of Rotary Blast Hole Drills. Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, QC,
Canada, 1989.
8. Kahraman, S.; Balc, C.; Bilgin, N. Prediction of the penetration rate of rotary blast hole drills using a new
drillability index. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2000, 37, 729–743. [CrossRef]
9. Segui, J.; Higgins, M. Blast design using measurement while drilling parameters. Int. J. Blasting Fragm. 2002,
6, 287–299. [CrossRef]
10. Schunnesson, H.; Kristoffersson, T. Rock Mass Characterization Using Drill and Crushability Monitoring—A
Case Study. Int. J. COMADEM 2011, 14, 44–52.
11. Ghosh, R.; Schunnesson, H.; Kumar, U. Evaluation of Rock Mass Characteristics Using Measurement
While Drilling in Boliden Minerals Aitik Copper Mine, Sweden. In Proceedings of the Mine Planning and
Equipment Selection (MPES), Dresden, Germany, 14–19 October 2013; pp. 81–91.
12. Rai, P.; Schunnesson, H.; Lindqvist, A.P.; Kumar, U. An Overview on Measurement-While-Drilling Technique
and its Scope in Excavation Industry. J. Inst. Eng. 2015, 96, 57–66. [CrossRef]
13. Ghosh, R.; Schunnesson, H.; Kumar, U. Evaluation of operating life length of rotary tricone bits using
Measurement While Drilling data. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2016, 83, 41–48. [CrossRef]
14. Schunnesson, H.; Holme, K. Drill monitoring for geological mine planning in the Viscaria copper mine,
Sweden. CIM Bull. 1997, 90, 83–89.
15. Almquist, R.; Hamrin, H. Mechanized and automatic devices in drill rigs for long blast holes. In Proceedings
of the Mine Mechanization and Automation, Luleå, Sweden, 7–10 June 1993.
16. Tian-shou, M.; Ping, C. Development and use of a downhole system for measuring drilling engineering
parameters. Chem. Technol. Fuels Oils 2015, 51, 37–43. [CrossRef]
17. Tian-shou, M.; Ping, C.; Zhao, J. Overview on vertical and directional drilling technologies for the exploration
and exploitation of deep petroleum resources. Geomech. Geophys. Geo-Energy Geo-Resour. 2016, 2, 365–395.
18. Ghosh, R. Rock Mass Characterisation Using Drill Performance Monitoring: Problems, Analysis challenges
and Limitations. Master’s Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 2015.
Minerals 2017, 7, 121 14 of 14

19. Barr, V.M. Instrumented Horizontal Drilling for Tunnelling Site Investigations. Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College
of Science and Technology, London, UK, 1984.
20. Pfister, P. Recording drilling parameters in ground engineering. J. Ground Eng. 1985, 18, 16–21.
21. Schunnesson, H. RQD predictions based on drill performance parameters. Int. J. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
1996, 11, 345–351. [CrossRef]
22. Ghosh, R.; Danielsson, M.; Gustafson, A.; Falksund, H.; Schunnesson, H. Assessment of rock mass quality
using drill monitoring technique for hydraulic ITH drills. Int. J. Min. Miner. Eng. 2016.
23. Peck, J.; Pollitt, D. Lithological recognition based on drill monitoring. In Proceedings of the Advances
in Mining Equipment Performance Monitoring Symposium, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada,
21–23 March 1990.
24. Schunnesson, H. Drill Process Monitoring in Percussive Drilling for Location of Structural Features,
Lithological Boundaries and Rock Properties, and for Drill Productivity Evaluation. Ph.D. Thesis,
Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 1997.
25. Petrobloc, A.B. Determination of Quartz Veins through the Analysis of Drilling Parameters; Project Report;
University of Gothenburg: Göteborg, Sweden, 1995.
26. Saeidi, O.; Torabi, S.R.; Mohammad, A. Development of a New Index to Assess the Rock Mass Drillability.
Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2013, 31, 1477–1495. [CrossRef]
27. Wold, S.; Espensen, K.; Geladi, P. Principal Component Analysis. Int. J. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. 1987, 2, 37–52.
[CrossRef]
28. Afifi, A.; Clark, V.A.; May, S. Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis, 4th ed.; Chapman and Hall/CRC:
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004; p. 369.
29. Lennart, E.; Byrne, T.; Johansson, E.; Trygg, J.; Vikström, C. Multi- and Megavariate Data Analysis, Basic
Principles and Applications; Umetrics Academy: Umeå, Sweden, 2013.
30. LKAB Wassara AB, Huddinge, Sweden. Available online: http://www.wassara.com/Documents/Wassara/
Brochures/Technology/1400007_English.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2016).
31. Toumas, G. Water Powered Percussive Rock Drilling. Ph.D. Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Luleå,
Sweden, 2004.
32. Griffith, C.M. Strata Recognition from a Computer Analysis of Drilling Variables. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 1983.
33. Schunnesson, H.; Mozaffari, S. Production control and optimization in open pit mining using a drill
monitoring system and an image analysis system: A case study from Aitik copper mine in Sweden. Int. J.
Mines Met. Fuels 2009, 57, 244–251.
34. McCullagh, P.; Nelder, J.A. Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1989; p. 37.
35. Schunnesson, H. Long hole drilling with top hammar technique—Its potential in thermal Heat Storage.
In Proceedings of the DRILLEX, Stonleigh, UK, 7–10 April 1987.
36. Singh, S.P.; Ladouceur, M.; Rouhi, F. Sources, implications and control of blasthole deviation. In Proceedings
of the Mine Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES), Calgary, AB, Canada, 6–9 October 1998; pp. 391–398.
37. Tan, X.C.; Digby, P.J. Buckling of drill string under the action of gravity and axial thrust. Int. J. Solids Struct.
1993, 30, 2675–2691. [CrossRef]
38. Punmia, B.C. Mechanics of Materials; Firewall Media: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 688–691.
39. Jack, A.C.; Busby, H.R.; Staab, G.H. Mechanical Design of Machine Elements and Machines: A Failure Prevention
Perspective; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; p. 38.
40. Bansal, R.K. A Textbook of Strength of Materials; Laxmi Publications: New Delhi, India, 2010; pp. 817–818.
41. Hustrulid, W.A. The percussive drilling of quartzite. Int. J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 1971, 71, 245–270.
42. Nordlund, E. Impact Mechanics of Friction Joints and Percussive Rock Drills. Ph.D. Thesis, Lulea University
of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 1986.
43. Sinkala, T. Hole Deviation in Percussive Drilling and Control Measures. Ph.D. Thesis, Luleå University of
Technology, Luleå, Sweden, 1989.
44. Pearse, G. Hydraulic Rock Drills. Min. Mag. 1985, 220–231.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 PAPER C

Assessment of Rock Mass Quality using Drill Monitoring Technique for Hydraulic ITH
Drills

Ghosh, R.; Danielsson, M.; Gustafson, A.; Falksund, H.; Schunnesson, H. Assessment of
Rock Mass Quality using Drill Monitoring Technique for Hydraulic ITH Drills. International
Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering, 2017, 8(3), 169-186.
Int. J. Mining and Mineral Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2017 169

Assessment of rock mass quality using drill

monitoring technique for hydraulic ITH drills

Rajib Ghosh*, Markus Danielsson

and Anna Gustafson
Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering,
Luleå University of Technology,
Luleå, 971 87, Sweden
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Hanna Falksund
Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara Aktiebolag (LKAB),
Malmberget, 983 31, Sweden
Email: [email protected]

Håkan Schunnesson
Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering,
Luleå University of Technology,
Luleå, 971 87, Sweden
Email: [email protected]

Abstract: A rock drilling system always responds to variations in the

mechanical properties of the penetrated rock mass. Combining the drill
response with a detailed understanding of the drill system has the potential to
give a detailed and high-resolution characterisation of the penetrated rock mass
along the borehole. This paper analyses 186 boreholes, drilled using a water
powered in-the-hole (ITH) drilling technique considering drill parameters;
penetration rate, rotation pressure, feed pressure and percussive pressure.
In addition, it suggests, calculates and uses a parameter reflecting rock
fracturing. Sixty-three of the holes were filmed with a borehole camera
to reveal the geo-mechanical features. The results show that the responses
from the drill monitoring system can distinguish between solid rock,
fracture zones, cavities and damaged rock. The ability to extract this
information directly from the drilling operation provides unique prior
information and can be useful to adjust production planning before charging
and blasting boreholes.

Keywords: drill monitoring technique; in-the-hole; ITH; measurement while

drilling; MWD; borehole filming; cavity; fracture zones.

Copyright © 2017 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

170 R. Ghosh et al.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Ghosh, R., Danielsson, M.,
Gustafson, A., Falksund, H. and Schunnesson, H. (2017) ‘Assessment of rock
mass quality using drill monitoring technique for hydraulic ITH drills’,
Int. J. Mining and Mineral Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.169–186.

Biographical notes: Rajib Ghosh is a final year Doctoral Candidate at the

Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering, Luleå University of
Technology, Sweden. He has been performing research on various applications
of measurement while drilling data for different drilling operations such as
rotary, percussive and in-the-hole (ITH) drilling. He completed his Licentiate
degree and Master degree in the area of Mining and Geotechnical engineering
from the same University.

Markus Danielsson is a Research Engineer at the Division of Mining and

Geotechnical Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden. He is
currently doing research on fragmentation. He completed his Master degree in
Mining and Geotechnical Engineering from the same University.

Anna Gustafson, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the Division of Mining

and Geotechnical Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden.
Her research is within the field of Mining Engineering focusing on mine
equipment and production. Her research is currently focusing on the following
areas; machine and rock mass interaction, productivity of rock reinforcement,
fragmentation’s influence on the production process, dynamic loading control
of load haul dump (LHD) machines and automation of LHD machines from a
productivity perspective.

Hanna Falksund is a Research Engineer in Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara

Aktiebolag (LKAB). Her current research area includes fragmentation, hole
deviation, chargeability of production boreholes, etc.

Håkan Schunnesson, PhD, is a Full Time Professor at the Division of Mining

and Geotechnical Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden and
holds an LKAB chair in mine production. He joined Luleå University of
Technology in 2004, where his main research focus, besides mine production,
is on mining equipment engineering, mine automation and data driven
production control. Prior to his university position, he worked in Atlas Copco
AB and at the same time, he also worked as an independent mining consultant.

1 Introduction

There is a wide range of borehole-based methods that can record structural features
intercepted by boreholes. These methods can be divided into three main categories:
optical, mechanical and geophysical methods (Schunnesson, 1996). Borehole radar and
auto scanning laser systems have also been employed to detect cavities and fractures
(Haeni et al., 2002; Liu et al., 2008). Single-hole reflection and tomography methods
have been used to characterise rock in inclined boreholes at the Grimsel nuclear waste
laboratory in Switzerland (Haeni et al., 2002). However, all these methods require
available drill holes that have been drilled prior to the actual measuring. The holes also
need to be reasonably stable to be able to insert instrumentation without the risk of
 Assessment of rock mass quality using drill monitoring technique 171

getting stuck. In an industrial application, all these methods cause delays and
disturbances (Schunnesson, 1996).
Drill monitoring or measurement while drilling (MWD) is a well-established
technique to characterise the penetrated rock mass in mining and petroleum industries
(Smith, 2002). This technique has been used for different types of drilling operations,
such as rotary drilling and percussive drilling (Teale, 1965; Peck, 1989; Schunnesson,
1998; Kahraman et al., 2000; Segui and Higgins, 2002; Schunnesson et al., 2011;
Rai et al., 2015; Ghosh et al., 2016). Compared with other conventional methods, such as
widely spaced core drilling, geological mapping of exposed walls, analysis of drill
cutting, etc., the MWD technique provides high-resolution information about the rock
mass quickly and inexpensively (Schunnesson and Holme, 1997; Schunnesson and
Kristoffersson, 2011).
Despite the advantages, the success of using the technique depends on the ability to
foresee the rock mass characterisation. A continuous record of operational variables made
during drilling with a calibrated bit can provide information about the mechanical
properties of the rock (Brown and Barr, 1978). Schunnesson (1996) used drill parameters
for rock quality designation (RQD) (RQD) prediction in tunnelling. Labelle et al. (2000)
and Labelle (2001) instrumented a portable hydraulic-powered coal mine roof bolt drill to
classify roof strata in coal mines. Drill parameters such as thrust, torque, rotary speed and
penetration rate have been used for this classification. Finfinger (2003) conducted a series
of experiments to determine the relations between drilling parameters and geomechanical
rock properties in tunnel roofs, including presence of fractures, voids, locations of rock
layer boundaries, strength of rocks. Gu (2003) and Gu et al. (2005) attempted to map roof
geology in real time by developing a new drilling parameter called the drilling hardness
to detect the locations of interfaces between rock layers and discontinuities and to
classify the rock types for underground coal mining. A comprehensive review of ground
characterisation for underground mining and construction using instrumented drills has
been described by Kahraman et al. (2016).
Rock characterisation using drill monitoring data for water powered ITH percussive
drilling operation is novel and has not been studied earlier. However, drill monitoring
data also for this drilling technique are not only influenced by variations in rock mass
characteristics but also by operators and drill rig control systems. A general challenge
with all types of MWD technique is to separate the responses influenced by the
geomechanical variation in the rock mass from those affected by the operators, rig control
system, bit wear, addition of the rod, etc. Nevertheless, if successful, it can be a useful
tool to achieve high resolution and inexpensive rock mass characterisation.
This paper assesses the quality of the rock mass penetrated by production boreholes
in Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara Aktiebolag’s (LKAB’s) Malmberget mine using the drill
monitoring technique for water powered ITH drilling operation. It analyses the drill
monitoring data with respect to features of the rock mass captured by a digital borehole
camera.

2 Methodology

The research presented in this paper is based on a literature review, MWD data recorded
during production drilling and filming of a selection of production boreholes in LKAB’s
Malmberget mine. Practical experience of the drill system is an important input into the
172 R. Ghosh et al.

analysis of the drill response. MWD data have been collected and analysed with respect
to the features of the rock mass captured by a digital camera. The MWD parameters
penetration rate variability and rotation pressure variability have been combined into a
parameter called fracturing to explain the rock mass fracturing in a more robust way.
A digital camera has been used to capture the condition of the penetrated rock mass
of the borehole. The purpose was to capture the interior wall of the borehole and to
identify different rock mass features, such as solid rock, rock cavities, crushed zones,
fractured zones and changes in rock types (texture). Figure 1(a) shows the experimental
set-up for the borehole filming. The camera was tightly fixed in a funnel shaped steel
casing (Figure 1(b)). The funnel shape steel casing holding the camera was then fastened
by a cylindrical steel casing (Figure 1(c)). These arrangements were connected to the pipe
of the charge truck used to push the camera up into the borehole. A protective frame was
added to the front of the camera to prevent the rock and the camera glass from colliding,
as this could have damaged the camera. To prevent the possible intrusion of water, an
extra glass was used in addition to the main glass of the camera. Figure 1(d) shows the
display of the monitor. The monitor was used to observe different features inside the
borehole during filming. There was a function to record voice in the monitor. Depth was
registered by a digital counter on the charge truck while the camera was pushed upwards
in the hole. During filming, the operators of the charge truck stopped and held the camera
at every 1 m interval, thus allowing them to count the corresponding depth. The length
was calibrated to the accurate depth by adding the length of the probe. Figure 1(e) shows
a cable of ~60 m in length connecting the camera and the monitor. This cable was
marked at every 1 m interval for additional length control.

Figure 1 (a) Steel casing connected with camera is fastened by the pipe of the charge truck;
(b) camera in funnel shape steel casing; (c) cylindrical steel casing; (d) display monitor,
and (e) cable is wrapped and marked for each metre (see online version for colours)
 Assessment of rock mass quality using drill monitoring technique 173

3 Case study mine

LKAB’s Malmberget underground iron ore mine is located close to the municipality of
Gällivare, Northern Sweden. There are ~20 large and small ore bodies distributed over an
area of ~2.5 × 5 km. The mine consists of two major ore fields, the eastern and western
fields. About 90% of the ore is magnetite; the rest is haematite and which occurs mostly
in the western ore field. Production is currently being carried out in about half of the ore
bodies. The depth of mining varies across the mine. In the eastern field depth of mining is
between the previous haulage level at 1000 m and the new haulage level at 1250 m. The
ore body is strongly affected by regional metamorphosis. The volcanites surrounding the
ore are called leptites. Granite veins often intrude into the ore (Quinteiro et al., 2001;
Nordlund, 2013). The host rock and waste lenses consist of red leptites, grey red leptites,
grey leptites, skarn, granite and biotite schist (Quinteiro et al., 2001; Wettainen, 2010;
Umar et al., 2013; Nordlund, 2013). The mining method used for ore extraction is large-
scale sublevel caving (SLC).
Malmberget mine has several types of borehole instability problems, including
shearing, caving, cavities, weak rock, fractured rock, crushed zones, etc. (Kangas, 2007;
Zhang, 2012; Ghosh et al., 2015). When a borehole passes through a cavity or an
empty room, chargers often find excessive explosives have been pumped into single
boreholes (Zhang, 2012). In addition, if there is an excessive delay between charging and
blasting, explosives may flow into the cavity (due to gravity and/or adjacent blasting),
leaving part of the boreholes uncharged. Borehole side rock can also cave or collapse
into the (cavity) as blasting approaches. When there is a borehole cave-in, chargers
may be unable to clean the borehole by using a charging pipe; the normal practice
is to re-drill these boreholes, which causes further delays. If none of these actions
is successful, the final decision is often to charge only part of the hole or to leave the
entire borehole uncharged. However, uncharged and undetonated blast holes reduce
the specific charge and may result in poor fragmentation and low ore recovery
(Zhang, 2005).

3.1 Test site description

A test was carried out in one of the ore bodies in the eastern field at level 1074 m.
Drift no. 7870 (Figure 2) is used as a test site in a large drilling project aiming to improve
the accuracy and quality of production drilling in LKAB. The drift contains 43 fan
shaped rings, 23 of which (nos. 21–43) were monitored in this test. Most of the rings
consist of eight boreholes but a few, close to the foot wall side, have nine boreholes. The
diameter of a borehole is 115 mm with a burden (the distance between two subsequent
rings) of 3.5 m.
In the mine, production boreholes are drilled upward in a fan. Figure 3 shows an SLC
ring (no. 36) in drift no. 7870. Drill monitoring data were collected for 186 boreholes
(rings 21 to 43). Of the 186 available boreholes, 63 were filmed by a digital camera; 44
could not be filmed because borehole collapses created obstructions to filming. There are
four main rock types in drift no. 7870: granite (waste), clay weathered leptite (waste),
red-grey leptite (waste) and magnetite (ore).
174 R. Ghosh et al.

Figure 2 Plan of the mine layout shows a location of the drift no. 7870 at the level 1074 m
(see online version for colours)

Source: Courtesy of LKAB)

Figure 3 Boreholes in a fan shaped ring (no. 36)

3.2 Drill system

Drilling is done with a fully automated Atlas Copco SIMBA W6C drill rig equipped
with a hydraulic Wassara ITH hammer. The Wassara rock drill has several advantages
 Assessment of rock mass quality using drill monitoring technique 175

over pneumatic ITH hammers, including low energy consumption, a dust free
environment, less hole deviation and the capability of drilling to virtually any depth.
However, a large amount of high-quality water is required to drive the hammer, leading
to both supply and waste (drill water) disposal problems (Tuomas, 2004).
Figure 4 shows the components of the Wassara W100 ITH hammer drilling system
used for this test (LKAB Wassara AB, 2016). In the drilling system, the hammer is
positioned at the front of the borehole; energy is transferred through the drill string in the
form of pressured water, mechanical torque and a mechanical feed force. The main task
of the hammer is to convert the potential energy of pressurised water into an oscillating
piston movement. The kinetic energy of the piston is transferred to the bit and then into
the rock. Rock fragmentation occurs at highly pressurised contact zones between the bit
buttons and the rock. Rotating the bit creates new impact positions for the buttons, so
new rock will be fragmented and the penetration process can continue. The debris is
flushed to the outside of the drill string using outlet water from the hammer (Tuomas,
2004).

Figure 4 Wassara ITH hammer drilling system (see online version for colours)

Source: LKAB Wassara AB (2016)

3.3 Drill monitoring technique

In LKAB’s Malmberget mine, the Atlas Copco drill monitoring system is used to retrieve
and store MWD data. The recorded data include penetration rate (m/min), water pressure
(bar), feed pressure (bar), rotation pressure (bar), depth (m) and time (YYYY-MM-
DDThh:mm:ss). The measurement interval can be manually set; in this case, it was set to
3 cm along the borehole. The data are transferred from the rig to a rig remote access
(RRA) server through a wireless network. The recorded parameters are described as
follows:
Penetration rate: The rate of penetration is the advance rate of the bit through the rock
and is influenced by the geological and geotechnical properties of the rock mass
(Schunnesson and Mozaffari, 2009). The penetration rate normally increases in soft or
fractured rocks and decreases in hard and solid rock conditions (Turtola, 2001), and is
measured by m/min.
Percussive pressure: In water powered ITH drilling operation, high-pressure water is
used to force the piston on the bit and then bit blows on the rock (LKAB Wassara AB,
2016). The water pressure used to hit the piston is ~180 bar. The unit of the percussive
pressure is bar. After generating the reciprocating movement of the piston the
compressed water is pressed through flushing holes in the bit and used for flushing drill
cutting away from the bit-rock contact and back to the hole surface.
176 R. Ghosh et al.

Feed pressure: Feed pressure generates feed force acting axially on the drill bit. The
required feed force is used to keep the bit in contact with the bottom of the drill hole. It is
measured by bar.
Rotation pressure: It reflects bit resistance to rotation. Pearse (1985) states that torque
will be affected by the feed pressure. The torque required to turn the bit is also dependent
on the bit resistance at the bottom of the hole and frictional resistance between drill rods
and hole walls (Schunnesson, 1998). The unit of rotation pressure is bar.

4 MWD data analyses

4.1 Data filtration

Recorded data from a real production environment usually include some incorrect or
faulty data. For example, in the chosen drift (no. 7870), the maximum value of the
monitored penetration rate was + 21.21 m/min and minimum value was –0.16 m/min.
This positive value is unrealistic, as the bit cannot move at this speed, even in open air,
and the negative value of the penetration rate is simply not possible, because the
penetration rate cannot be measured as negative. Both these values are clearly faulty and
must be removed from the raw dataset. In addition, zero values of any monitored data are
incorrect for a real drilling operation and were considered measurement errors in this
study. Incorrect or faulty data may be generated by incorrect measurements, abnormal
operational conditions or human error. These clearly incorrect data can fairly be
identified and removed from the dataset in the initial stage of the analysis. However, in
the dataset, there are also a number of data points with values that is possible but also
slightly unrealistic, that also have to be handled in the filtering process.
In this case, the rejection of faulty data is also based on a performed frequency
analysis for each parameter that determines the variability of the recorded data. Based on
the frequency analysis and also practical considerations, a conservative filter limit was set
for each parameter; see Table 1. The conservative filter limits exclude a higher amount of
faulty data. However, the filter limit can also remove some data points that reflect correct
but occurring rarely in the rock mass. However, the large amount of data at high
resolution, available with MWD technique (3 cm between data points) secures that
important geomechanical features will still be identified even if a few correct data points
are removed. For example, in Figure 5(b) and (d), it can be seen that the cavities between
4 m and 7 m (Figure 5(b)) and the fracture zone between 8 m and 10 m (Figure 5(d)) are
well described, even if a few of the potential correct data points outside of the filter limit,
have been removed.

Table 1 Selection of intervals for filtering raw data

Selected intervals of raw

Recorded parameters Ranges of recorded raw data data as filter limit
Penetration rate (m/min) •–0.16 and ”21.21 •0.1 and ”4
Percussive pressure (bar) •2.14 and ”274.78 •5 and ”200
Feed pressure (bar) •0 and ”101.44 •35 and ”100
Rotation pressure (bar) •0 and ”138.17 •25 and ”125
 Assessment of rock mass quality using drill monitoring technique 177

Figure 5 (a) An example of MWD response from penetration rate; (b) an example of MWD
response from percussive pressure; (c) an example of MWD response from feed
pressure and (d) an example of MWD response from rotation pressure (see online
version for colours)

The entire raw dataset was filtered using the filter limits shown in the table. If any of the
logged parameters at a particular logging depth did not satisfy a single filter limit, the
whole dataset for that depth was removed before further analysis.

4.2 Drill response analysis

Independent parameters such as feed pressure and percussive pressure (water pressure)
are normally controlled by the operator or the control system of the drill system, while
dependent parameters such as penetration rate and rotation pressure are the responses of
178 R. Ghosh et al.

the drill system to the rock (Schunnesson and Holme, 1997). In order to use drill
monitoring for rock mass characterisation, it is important that the responses originating
from the rock mass can be separated from the responses caused by the operators, the drill
system and the independent drill parameters (Schunnesson and Holme, 1997).
An example of filtered drill monitoring data (penetration rate, percussive pressure,
rotation pressure and feed pressure) vs. hole length is presented in Figure 5(a)–(d) for
four different holes. The monitored parameters are sensitive to different characteristics of
the rock mass. Penetration rate, for example, has been previously used to evaluate relative
strength of the rock (Hagan and Reid, 1983). Thompson (1999) and Ghosh et al. (2014)
have also used recorded penetration rate as an indicator of relative rock strength in a
particular hole. Penetration rate reflects the resistance against the bit when it is
penetrating the rock matrix; therefore, it provides an indication of relative rock strength.
In Figure 5(a), the initial 2 m and a section between 11 m and 12 m have an elevated
penetration rate, indicating a softer rock type.
Figure 5(b) shows a number of significant drops in the percussive pressure (water
pressure) between 4 m and 7 m. For ITH hammers, a minimum counter force from the
rock is required for the hammer to operate. If the counter force is not high enough, water
or air will freely flow through the system, and the pressure will drop. When the
percussive pressure drops in this way, there are likely open cavities in the rock mass. For
hydraulic ITH drilling, the water pressure drops at the void. The use of the high-pressure
water as percussive pressure is unique for Wassara drill system.
Figure 5(c) shows regular drops of the feed pressure along the hole length. These
drops can possibly be related with the addition of the rods to reach the height of the hole.
In this study, there is no distinct change of feed pressure observed for different features of
rock mass captured by the digital camera. Finfinger (2003) explained that the change of
thrust (feed force) can be used to detect fractures, joints and voids at constant penetration
rate. However, in the case study mine, penetration rate was not constant and feed pressure
did not respond to fractures or voids.
The rotation pressure reflects the bit’s resistance to rotation. The rotation pressure is,
in most cases, correlated to feed force, and for hard, homogeneous rock it is normally
fairly constant (Schunnesson, 1998). In fractured or in-homogeneous rock, however, the
rotation pressure is often unstable, indicating alternating bit jamming effects and the
sudden release of the bit. In Figure 5(d), the rotation pressure between 8 m and 10 m
shows this increased varying behaviour, indicating a fractured or inhomogeneous rock
mass.
In severe fractured zones, behaviour similar to that of rotation pressure is often also
seen for penetration rate (Schunnesson, 1996). The origin of this behaviour is different,
however; open fractures can locally generate high penetration rates, but these are
replaced by normal penetration rates when the rock material is encountered again. In field
tests, Schunnesson (1996) has demonstrated that the variability of the penetration rate and
the variability of the torque pressure are both associated with rock fracturing. To
highlight the combined noisiness of both the rotation pressure and penetration rate curve,
as an indicator of rock mass fracturing, the variations for each curve was initially
calculated as the sum of the residuals over a defined interval along the borehole, as
suggested by Schunnesson (1996).
The average of all penetration rate values in the interval is initially determined. The
difference between the registered penetration rate and the average penetration rate are
 Assessment of rock mass quality using drill monitoring technique 179

calculated for each value in the interval and added together; see equation (1). The same
procedure is used to calculate the rotation pressure variability; see equation (2).

¦
N +i
N +i PRi
PR.Vi = ¦ i
− PRi (1)
i N +1

¦
N +i
N +i RPi
RP.Vi = ¦ i
− RPi , (2)
i N +1

where
PR.Vi: penetration rate variability
RP.Vi: rotation pressure variability
N: number of the intervals in a step = Total number of values considered in a step-1
(here, N = 5 – 1 = 4)
i: index of the registered penetration rate or rotation pressure
PRi: registered penetration rate
RPi: registered rotation pressure.
Since both penetration rate variability and rotation pressure variability are influenced by
rock mass fracturing (Schunnesson, 1996), a combined ‘fracturing’ parameter based on
both parameters would be more robust. However, since the penetration rate variability
and rotation pressure variability have different magnitudes, they need to be scaled to have
equal impact on the combined fracturing value. In this case, this is done using the
Pearson residual calculated as variability scaled by the estimated standard deviation of
the raw responses (McCullagh and Nelder, 1989).
The Pearson residual is calculated as the parameter divided by the square root of the
variance (standard deviation) of all measured values. In equation (3), this is done for both
penetration rate variability and rotation pressure variability, and then summed together
with 50% influence from each parameter. Finally, the parameter is normalised for the
number of values in the interval, in this case 5, as shown in equation (3).

1ª § PR.Vi · § RP.Vi · º
Fracturing i = «0.5 × ¨¨ ¸¸ + 0.5 × ¨¨ ¸¸ » , (3)
5 ¬« © σ PR ¹
2
© σ RP ¹ ¼»
2

where
PR.Vi: penetration rate variability
RP.Vi: rotation pressure variability
2
ı PR: variance of registered penetration rate
ı2RP: variance of registered rotation pressure
i: index of the registered penetration rate or rotation pressure.
180 R. Ghosh et al.

5 Results and discussion

To distinguish rock mass conditions using the MWD technique, the study used
penetration rate as an indicator of rock strength, percussive pressure as an indicator of
cavities, and the calculated parameter of fracturing as an indicator of rock mass in
homogeneity or fracture frequency.
The results from the test show that when the drill bits pass through solid rock, the
recorded penetration rate often ranges from 0.9 m/min to 1.1 m/min. In fractured or
damage rock, the penetration rates fluctuate from very low values (0.5 m/min) to very
high values (more than 2 m/min). During normal drilling, the water pressure varies
between 180 bars and 190 bars. In open cavities, where the counter force is temporarily
lost, the water pressure significantly drops to 60 bars or even below (about one-third of
the normal pressure in solid rock). For homogenous rock, the calculated fracturing value
goes down to 0.15; for reasonably good rock, it is normally below 0.25. When fracturing
increases, the value rises; for severe fracture zones it can go beyond 2.
Figure 6 sets the recorded penetration rate, percussive pressure and calculated
fracturing against the hole length for borehole 2 in ring number 22. Except for the first
metre and a small section at 5.5 m, the MWD data indicate a hole drilled in a hard and
homogeneous rock mass. This conclusion is reached because of the low penetration
rate, the high, consistent percussive pressure, and the low calculated fracturing.
The conclusion is confirmed by the photo (to the right) captured during borehole filming.
The thin section at 5.5 m bears the signature of an open fracture or cavity with a peak of a
high penetration rate, a drop in percussive pressure, in this case down to 40 bars and an
increased fracturing parameter. The image to the left shows the geomechanical feature, a
smaller cavity, causing the response. The overall consistency between filming and MWD
data is very high.
Figure 7 presents the recorded MWD data for borehole 5 in ring no. 24. The MWD
data from the drill hole indicate a weak fractured rock mass, with high, varying
penetration rate, many smaller or larger drops in percussive pressure and continuous
peaks in the calculated fracturing throughout the hole. The section between 3 and 4 m
consists of a large open cavity, as shown in the left photo. The MWD response
distinguishes an open cavity with very high-penetration rate (>3.5 m/min) indicating air
movement and a distinct drop in percussive pressure, down to a minimum of 20 bars.
At the end of the hole, from 37 m to 42 m, the MWD data indicate a very disturbed rock
mass with very high calculated fracturing and a continuous drop in percussive pressure.
The entire section below 37 m has very difficult rock conditions and most likely has a
risk of impending instability problems. In fact, during the filming operation, the camera
was not moved beyond 37 m because the risk of losing the camera in a cave-in was too
high. The middle part of the hole seems to be drilled in weak rock conditions with many
fractures and small openings, but has a lower risk of stability problems.
Figure 8 shows the recorded penetration rate, percussive pressure (water pressure)
and the calculated parameter fracturing of borehole no. 7 in ring no. 37. In the hole, a
cavity is found at 5.5 m depth. In the cavity, penetration rate increases to ~3 m/min while
water pressure drops to 70 bars. In normal solid and homogenous rock, the water pressure
is maintained between 180 bars and 190 bars. From the filming a cave-in is seen at
~19 m. Around the caving point, the penetration rate fluctuates from a high value
(3 m/min) to a very low value (0.5 m/min). The water pressure also fluctuates from 180
bars to the lowest value of ~10 bars. A possible reason of this fluctuation is that the caved
 Assessment of rock mass quality using drill monitoring technique 181

part of the borehole can consist of heavy fractured rocks with openings. In this case,
a distinct fluctuation of fracturing parameter is visible around the caved part of the
borehole. At 19 m around the cave-in, the value of the fracturing parameter is more than
2, while in solid rock, the value of fracturing parameter is normally below 0.25.

Figure 6 Recorded penetration rate, percussive pressure and calculated fracturing vs. hole length
for borehole 2 in ring number 22 (see online version for colours)

Often a mine production organisation also asks for large-scale information on the rock
mass conditions, for production scheduling and to identify fans with charging problems
and resulting inadequate bad fragmentation. Figure 9 gives an overview of the rock mass
conditions for all 186 holes among fans (nos. 20–43) in the tested cross-cut. All data for
each fan has been divided into three classes, solid rock, fractures and cave-ins and
cavities. Fractures and cave-in condition of the boreholes are presented together since
182 R. Ghosh et al.

fracturing that gradually increases often ends up with cave-ins when the rock mass
surrounding the hole collapses. In the figure some significant differences can be
distinguished between different fans. When comparing for example, fan 29 (12%
fractured rock or cavities) with fan 38 (36% fractured rock or cavities) it provides an
indication of more pronounced production problems in fan 38. Furthermore, it is also
observed that fans closer to the foot wall, in general, have a higher degree of fractured
and cave-in condition. The amount of cavity is also increasing towards foot wall side
compared with that of the hanging wall side. However, the detailed consequences for
production planning or how MWD results can be utilised and presented for production
purposes is beyond of the present study.

Figure 7 Recorded penetration rate, percussive pressure and calculated fracturing vs. hole length
for borehole 5 in ring number 24 (see online version for colours)
 Assessment of rock mass quality using drill monitoring technique 183

Figure 8 Recorded penetration rate, percussive pressure and fracturing vs. hole length
for borehole 7 in ring number 37 (see online version for colours)

Figure 9 Percentage of the drilled depth affected by different rock mass condition among rings
(nos. 21–43) (see online version for colours)
184 R. Ghosh et al.

6 Conclusions

This study assesses the MWD technique for its potential to provide detailed information
on the penetrated rock mass, focusing on chargeability (the ability to charge the complete
borehole as planned) of production holes. The potential for improved charging leading to
better productivity and fragmentation can be significant if the rock mass conditions are
known and in particular difficult rock mass sections can be identified and delineated.
The following can be concluded from the study:
• High correlation was found between the geomechanical rock properties (cavities,
fractures, etc.) and the registered drilling system’s response. The recorded parameter,
water pressure, together with the suggested calculated fracturing parameter can
predict fracture zones and cavities with high accuracy.
• Open cavities can distinctly be identified by a significant drop in water pressure,
caused by the loss of counter force from the rock when an open cavity are
penetrated.
• The presented fracturing parameter also works satisfactory and can reasonable well
distinguish between slightly fractured, moderately fractured and heavily fractured
rock where cave-in may occur.
• For the specific cross-cut in the test site it can be concluded that boreholes in fans
closer to the foot wall are more fractured and caved. The amount of cavities also
increases towards the foot wall side of the ore.
• And finally, which is important from an application point of view, the used MWD
technique can distinguish fans, or parts of fans, with solid, un-fractured rock where
no chargeability problems can be expected, from fans, or part of fans, with fractures,
cavities or cave-in where chargeability problems can be expected.

Acknowledgements

LKAB is acknowledged for their financial support. The staffs at the Malmberget mine are
gratefully acknowledged for their support and valuable input to this study. Vinnova,
Swedish Energy Agency and Formas are acknowledged for financing the project through
the SIP-STRIM program. Atlas Copco Rock Drills AB and Agio System and Kompetens
AB are acknowledged for valuable input to the project.

References
Brown, E.T. and Barr, M.V. (1978) ‘Instrumented drilling as an aid to site investigations’,
Proceedings of 3rd International Congress, International Association of Engineering Geology,
Vol. 1, pp.21–28.
Finfinger, G. (2003) A Methodology for Determining the Character of Mine Roof Rocks,
PhD Thesis, Dept. of Mining Engineering, West Virginia University.
Ghosh, R., Schunnesson, H. and Kumar, U. (2014) ‘Evaluation of rock mass characteristics using
measurement while drilling in Boliden minerals Aitik copper mine, Sweden’, Proceedings of
22nd Mine Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES), Dresden, Germany, pp.81–91.
 Assessment of rock mass quality using drill monitoring technique 185

Ghosh, R., Schunnesson, H. and Kumar, U. (2016) ‘Evaluation of operating life length of rotary
tricone bits using measurement while drilling data’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, Vol. 83, pp.41–48.
Ghosh, R., Zhang, Z.X. and Nyberg, U. (2015) ‘Borehole instability in Malmberget underground
mine’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp.1731–1736.
Gu, Q. (2003) Geological Mapping of Entry Roof in Mines, PhD Thesis, Dept. of Mining
Engineering, West Virginia University.
Gu, Q., Watson, G.A. and Heasley, K.A. (2005) ‘Detection of roof geology variation using
recorded drilling parameters’, in Dessureault, S., Ganguli, R., Kecojevic, V. and Dwyer, J.
(Eds.): Proceedings of the Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral
Industry, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp.527–534.
Haeni, F.P., Halleux, L., Johnson, C.D. and Lane, J.W. (2002) ‘Detection and mapping of fractures
and cavities using borehole radar in fractured rock’, Proceedings of National Ground Water
Association, March, Westerville, Ohio, USA, p.4.
Hagan, T.N. and Reid, I.W. (1983) ‘Performance monitoring of blasthole drills- a means of
increasing blasting efficiency’, Proceedings of 2nd International Surface Mining and
Quarrying Symposium, IMM, Bristol.
Kahraman, S., Balc, C. and Bilgin, N. (2000) ‘Prediction of the penetration rate of rotary blast hole
drills using a new drillability index’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, Vol. 37, pp.729–743.
Kahraman, S., Rostami, J. and Naeimipour, A. (2016) ‘Review of ground characterization by using
instrumented drills for underground mining and construction’, Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, Vol. 49, pp.585–602.
Kangas, J. (2007) Internal Report (in Swedish), R & D (nr. 07-770), LKAB, Malmberget, Sweden.
LaBelle, D. (2001) Lithological Classification by Drilling, Thesis Proposal, Robotics Institute,
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
LaBelle, D., Bares, J. and Nourbakhsh, I. (2000) ‘Material classification by drilling’,
17th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics Construction, Taipei.
Liu, X.L., Li, X.B., Li, F.B., Zhao, G.Y. and Qin, Y.H. (2008) ‘3D cavity detection technique and
its application based on cavity auto scanning laser system’, Journal of Central South
University, Vol. 15, pp.285–288.
LKAB Wassara AB (2016) http://www.wassara.com/Documents/Wassara/Brochures/Technology/
1400007_English.pdf (Retrieved 3 March, 2016).
McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J.A. (1989) Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed., CRC Press, USA,
p.37.
Nordlund, E. (2013) ‘Deep hard rock mining and rock mechanics challenges’, Proceedings of
Seventh International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground
Construction, Perth, Australia, May, pp.39–56.
Pearse, G. (1985) ‘Hydraulic rock drills’, Mining Magazine, March.
Peck, J. (1989) Performance Monitoring of Rotary Blast Hole Drills, PhD Thesis, McGill
University, Montreal, Canada.
Quinteiro, C., Quinteiro, M. and Hedström, O. (2001) ‘Underground iron ore mining at LKAB,
Sweden’, in Bullock, R.L. and Hustrulid, W.A. (Eds.): Underground Mining Methods –
Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies © Society for Mining, Metallurgy
and Exploration (SME), pp.361–364.
Rai, P., Schunnesson, H., Lindqvist, A.P. and Kumar, U. (2015) ‘an overview on measurement-
While-Drilling technique and its scope in excavation industry’, Journal of Institution of
Engineers (India), Series D., Vol. 96, No. 1, pp.57–66.
Schunnesson, H. (1996) ‘RQD predictions based on drill performance parameters’, International
Journal of Tunnel and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 11, pp.345–351.
186 R. Ghosh et al.

Schunnesson, H. (1998) ‘Rock characterization using percussive drilling’, International Journal

of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 35, pp.711–725.
Schunnesson, H. and Holme, K. (1997) ‘Drill monitoring for geological mine planning in the
Viscaria copper mine Sweden’, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum,
Vol. 90, pp.83–89.
Schunnesson, H. and Kristoffersson, T. (2011) ‘Rock mass characterization using drill and
crushability monitoring – a case study’, International Journal of COMADEM, Vol. 14,
No. 21, pp.44–52.
Schunnesson, H. and Mozaffari, S. (2009) ‘Production control and optimization in open pit mining
using a drill monitoring system and an image analysis system: a case study from Aitik copper
mine in Sweden’, International Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, Vol. 57, pp.244–251.
Schunnesson, H., Elsrud, R. and Rai, P. (2011) ‘Drill monitoring for ground characterization in
tunnelling operations’, Proceedings of the Twentieth International Symposium on Mine
Planning and Equipment Selection (MPES), October, Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan.
Segui, J. and Higgins, M. (2002) ‘Blast design using measurement while drilling parameters’,
International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, Vol. 6, pp.287–299.
Smith, B. (2002) ‘Improvements in blast fragmentation using measurement while drilling
parameters’, International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, Vol. 6, Nos. 3–4,
pp.301–310.
Teale, R. (1965) ‘The concept of specific energy in rock drilling’, International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 2, pp.57–73.
Thompson, D. (1999) ‘Drill monitoring development and utilisation of the drill data’, Proceedings
of Minnblast 99 Surface Blasting Conference, Duluth.
Tuomas, G. (2004) Water Powered Percussive Rock Drilling, PhD Thesis, Lulea University of
Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
Turtola, H. (2001) Utilisation of Measurement While Drilling to Optimise Blasting in Large Open
Pit Mining, Licentiate thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
Umar, S.B., Sjöberg, J. and Nordlund, E. (2013) ‘Rock mass characterization and conceptual
modelling of the Printsköpld orebody of the Malmberget mine’, Journal of Earth Sciences and
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.147–173.
Wettainen, T. (2010) Analysis and Forecasting of Blocking in Printzsköld’, Master Thesis
(in Swedish), Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
Zhang, Z.X. (2005) ‘Increasing ore extraction by changing detonator positions in LKAB
Malmberget mine’, International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, Vol. 9, No. 1,
pp.29–46.
Zhang, Z.X. (2012) Borehole Stability in Sublevel Caving (SLC) LKAB, Internal Report.
 PAPER D

Development of a Geo-mechanical Model for Chargeability Assessment of Borehole

using Drill Monitoring Technique

Ghosh, R.; Gustafson, A.; Schunnesson, H. Development of a Geo-mechanical Model for

Chargeability Assessment of Borehole using Drill Monitoring Technique. (Under review in
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2017)
 Development of a geo-mechanical model for chargeability assessment of borehole using drill
monitoring technique

Rajib Ghosh, Anna Gustafson, Håkan Schunnesson

Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering

Luleå University of Technology
971 87 Luleå, Sweden
Abstract
In the mining industry, the ability to charge and blast a production borehole is
fundamental. However, if rock mass conditions are challenging, with cavities, fracture
zones or even unstable boreholes, the charging crew may fail to insert the required
amount of explosives, resulting in bad fragmentation and significant production
disturbances in the downstream process. Prior detailed knowledge of the chargeability of
each production fan or ring will improve both the planning and execution of the charging
work in a mine. The paper describes a study using the drill-monitoring technique to
assess the chargeability of production boreholes. For the study, data were collected on
four drill parameters, penetration rate, rotation pressure, feed pressure and percussive
pressure, from 23 drill fans with a total of 186 boreholes. A parameter called fracturing
was calculated based on penetration rate variability and rotation pressure variability.
Sixty-three boreholes were filmed to establish different rock mass conditions: solid rock,
cavities, fractured zones and cave-ins. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was
performed to model the relationship between drill monitoring data and the geo-
mechanical features. The developed model shows high potential by identifying charging
problems directly from drill monitoring data, and has been verified and validated in a real
charging operation in an operating mine.

Keywords: Drill monitoring technique, Borehole filming, ITH drilling, Measurement While
Drilling (MWD), Rock mass condition, Chargeability

1 Introduction
The rock mass condition around a borehole normally consists of solid rock (non-fractured)
interrupted by zones of fractured rock, water-bearing strata, and cavities. The chargeability, defined
as the ability to charge a complete borehole as planned, is significantly influenced by these disturbed
zones. For example, a borehole can be sheared into two parts by a fracture or a weak layer, with one
part shearing off along a sliding plane (Peng and Zhang 2007). It is almost impossible to charge the
sheared part of the borehole. Abousleiman et al. (2007) explain, the borehole can collapse because
the rock in the sliding plane will break. In another scenario, cave-ins, pieces of rock can collapse
from the borehole wall and block the opening (Ghosh 2012). Uncharged and undetonated blast holes
will reduce the specific charge and result in poor fragmentation and may even lower ore recovery
(Zhang 2005). If there is a cavity, there is also a high possibility that the borehole will be pumped by

1
excessive explosives (Zhang 2012). Further, if there is a delay between the charging and blasting
operation, explosives (emulsion) may flow into the cavity because of gravity, and some part of the
borehole may be uncharged. The assessment of the in-situ condition of the rock mass is therefore
important to improve the chargeability of a borehole.

Field investigations at LKAB’s Malmberget underground mine in Sweden have looked at rock mass
conditions influencing borehole instability, including shearing, cave-in, cavity, weak rock, fractured
rock, crushed zone etc., using a digital camera (Kangas 2007; Zhang 2012; Ghosh 2015a). As Zhang
(2016) explained, borehole instabilities, such as borehole deformation and damage, are likely to be
worsened by high-stress states, production blasting, the effect of hanging wall collapse, rock bursts,
and mine seismicity.

Drill monitoring, instrumented drilling or Measurement While Drilling (MWD) is a well-established

technique to characterise the in-situ condition of penetrated rock mass in mining and petroleum
industries (Smith 2002). In the MWD technique, a number of drill parameters, such as penetration
rate, feed force, percussive pressure, rotation pressure etc., are monitored at pre-defined intervals
along the borehole and used to calculate the properties of the penetrated rock mass. The drill
monitoring technique provides high-resolution data and is inexpensive. It is also suitable for different
drilling techniques, such as rotary drilling and percussive drilling (Teale 1965; Peck 1989;
Schunnesson 1998; Kahraman et al. 2000; Segui and Higgins 2002; Rai et al. 2015; Ghosh et al.
2016a, b).

Brown et al. (1984) defined several useful areas of application for the instrumented drilling
technique. For example, it can provide a measure of the physical properties of the rocks being drilled
based on specific energy, compressive strength and geology. It can also indicate major
discontinuities, such as open or clay filled joints and faults. Scoble and Peck (1987) noted that the
monitoring and interpretation of drill performance data enable the determination of rock mass
strength and structure. They found a correlation of drill performance parameters with changes in
intact rock strength, lithology and frequency of fractures. Peck (1989) established a relationship
between drill performance parameter responses, rock compressive strength and shear strength for
rotary blast-hole drilling operation in a western Canadian surface coal mine. Labelle et al. (2000) and
Labelle (2001) proposed a portable hydraulic-powered coal mine roof bolt drill to classify roof strata
in coal mines, using drill parameters, such as thrust, torque, rotary speed and penetration rate, for the
classification. Finfinger (2003) conducted a series of experiments to determine the relationship
between drilling parameters and geo-mechanical rock properties in tunnel roofs, including the
presence of fractures, voids, locations of rock layer boundaries and the strength of rocks. Gu (2003)
and Gu et al. (2005) attempted to map roof geology in real time by developing a new drilling
parameter called drilling hardness to detect the location of interfaces between rock layers and
discontinuities and to classify the rock types for underground coal mining. Itakura (2008) performed
field experiments using an instrumented roof bolter showing that software could analyse the
mechanical data log and display locations of discontinuities using neural network techniques.
Kahraman et al. 2016 recently provided a comprehensive review of ground characterisation for
underground mining and construction using instrumented drills.
2
This paper describes a study using MWD data to predict potential chargeability problems in LKAB’s
Malmberget mine, Sweden. It develops a geo-mechanical model for the assessment of the
chargeability of a borehole based on drilling data from water powered In-The-Hole (ITH) drilling.

2 Methodology
The research is based on a literature review, drill-monitoring data, the filming of production
boreholes, and the monitoring of the charging operation. It uses statistical methods to analyse drill
data. Data were collected from Luossavaara-Kiirunavaara AB’s (LKAB’s) Malmberget underground
iron ore mine in Sweden.

2.1 Drill monitoring technique

In the Malmberget mine, drilling is done with fully automated Atlas Copco SIMBA W6C drill rigs
equipped with hydraulic Wassara In-The-Hole (ITH) hammers. The Atlas Copco drill monitoring
system is used to retrieve and store MWD data. The recorded data include penetration rate (m/min),
percussive pressure (water pressure measured by bar), feed pressure (bar), rotation pressure (bar),
depth (m) and time (YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss). The measurement interval can be set; in this case,
it is 3 cm along the borehole. The data are transferred from the rig to a Rig Remote Access (RRA)
server through a wireless network.

Drill monitoring data were collected for a total of 186 boreholes (fans number 21 to 43) in one of the
mine’s ore bodies. Of the 186 available boreholes, 63 were filmed using a digital camera; 44 could
not be filmed because borehole collapses created obstructions to filming. The diameter of a borehole
is about 115 mm with an approximate burden (the distance between two subsequent fans) of 3.5 m.
The length of the boreholes in the monitored fans varies between 11 m and 43 m. Most of the fans in
the studied drift consist of 8 boreholes but a few, close to the foot wall side, have 9 boreholes.

2.2 Borehole filming

A digital camera was used to capture different rock mass conditions, such as solid rock, rock
cavities, crushed zones, fractured zones, cave-ins and changes in rock types, intercepted by the
production borehole (blast-holes). Figure 1a shows the experimental set-up of the borehole filming.
The camera was tightly fixed in a funnel shaped steel casing (Figure 1b). The funnel shape steel
casing holding the camera was then fastened to a cylindrical steel casing (Figure 1c). It was
connected to the pipe of the charge truck used to push the camera up into the borehole. Figure 1d
shows the monitor. The monitor was used to observe different features inside the borehole during
filming. Figure 1e shows a cable of about 60 m in length connecting the camera and the monitor.
This cable was marked at every 1 m interval for additional length control.

3
 Figure 1 (a) Steel casing connected to camera and fastened to the pipe of the charge truck, (b)
Camera in funnel shaped steel casing, (c) Cylindrical steel casing, (d) Display
monitor, (e) Cable wrapped and marked for each metre

2.3 Monitoring of charging operation

The analysis of the potential effects of different geo-mechanical features on borehole chargeability is
based on data gathered during the charging operation. To verify the analytical model for
chargeability based on MWD data, the underground charging operation at the mine was followed for
eight shifts. The goal was to compare predicted chargeability, based on MWD, with the actual
problems encountered by the charging personnel. The charging was also monitored to determine the
procedures used in the mine. In total, the study followed the charging of 37 fans containing 290
holes. Figure 2 shows a charging operation carried out for a borehole in one of the studied fans.
Different types of charging problems encountered at various depths of boreholes were followed and
documented. For example, if the charging hose was obstructed at 5 m depth because of the collapse
of rock (cave-in), it was noted as “cave-in at 5 m depth.” If the charging hose was not obstructed, “no
charging problem” was noted. Further, staff responsible for the charging procedure were interviewed
to determine their current practices to handle various challenges in the day-to-day charging activities.

4
 Figure 2 Observation of charging procedure in a borehole

2.4 Statistical methods

Many statistical methods, such as pattern recognition, neural networks, Fuzzy-Delphi-AHP
technique have been used to analyse drill data. Pattern recognition was used to classify rock as coal,
mudstone or siltstone based on drill parameter responses in an open pit coal mine in Canada (Peck
and Pollitt 1990). Neural networks were successfully used for drill monitoring data by Petrobloc
(1995). The results were encouraging but require detailed rock mass data to calibrate the model
(Schunnesson 1997b). Saiedi et al. (2013) combined the Fuzzy-Delphi-AHP technique and Rock
Engineering Systems (RES) to study rock mass drillability tribosystem. The technique is based on
expert opinion, so the derived rock mass drillability index may be biased.

Another possible approach is to use a multivariate technique. Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
normally forms the basis for multivariate data analysis, and is often used for simplification of data
tables, outlier detection, variable and object selection, correlation evaluation, classification and
predictions of different features (Wold et al. 1987). PCA can transform the original variables into
new, uncorrelated variables called components (Affi et al. 2004). This paper uses PCA to analyse
MWD data.

3 Raw data analyses

3.1 Data filtration
It is important to filter raw drill monitoring data as they usually include incorrect or faulty data. The
maximum value of the monitored penetration rate was identified as +21.21 m/min and the minimum
value as -0.16 m/min. The positive value is obviously incorrect, as a bit cannot move at this speed,
even in open air, and in the monitoring system used here, backwards movement is removed, so
penetration rate cannot be measured as negative. In addition, if the monitored technique records zero
values of any drill parameters, this is considered a measurement error. In this study, incorrect or
faulty data are filtered based on frequency analysis and practical experience. It is possible that the
selected filter limit may remove some correct values. However, the high-resolution data (every 3 cm
5
of the borehole length) ensures the important geo-mechanical features are identified, even if a few
correct data points are removed. The entire raw data set was filtered using the filter limits shown in
Table 1. If any of the logged parameters at a particular logging depth at that hole did not satisfy a
single filter limit, all values for that specific depth of that hole were removed before further analysis.

Table 1 Selection of intervals for filtering raw data

Recorded parameters Ranges of recorded raw data Selected intervals of raw

data as filter limit
Penetration rate (m/min) •-0.16 DQG”21.21 •DQG”
Percussive pressure (bar) •2.14 DQG” •DQG”
Feed pressure (bar) •DQG”101.44 •DQG”
Rotation pressure (bar) •DQG” •DQG”

3.2 Calculation of fracturing parameter

Independent parameters, such as feed pressure and percussive pressure (water pressure), are normally
controlled by the operator or the control system, while dependent parameters, such as penetration
rate and rotation pressure, are the responses of the drill system to the rock (Schunnesson and Holme,
1997a). The variability of both the penetration rate and the rotation pressure is sensitive to rock mass
fracturing. The variability of these parameters can give additional information about the structural
geology of the rock mass thereby improving predictions of rock properties (Schunnesson 1996). In
this study, the variability is calculated as the sum of residuals over a defined interval along the
borehole and expressed as
ேା௜
σேା௜
௜ ܴܲ௜
ܴܸܲ௜ = ෍ ቤ െ ܴܲ௜ ቤ (1)
ܰ+1
௜

ேା௜
σேା௜
௜ ܴܲ௜
ܴܸܲ௜ = ෍ ቤ െ ܴܲ௜ ቤ (2)
ܰ+1
௜

where

PRVi: Penetration rate variability

RPVi: Rotation pressure variability
N: Number of intervals in a step = Total number of values considered in a step-1
(here, N = 5-1=4)
i: Index of registered penetration rate or rotation pressure
PRi : Registered penetration rate
RPi : Registered rotation pressure

6
However, since both penetration rate variability and rotation pressure variability are sensitive to rock
mass fracturing, it would be more robust to make a single parameter by combining the two
parameters into a single parameter called fracturing. The variability parameters have different
magnitudes, so they need to be scaled to have equal impact on fracturing (Ghosh et al. 2016b). This is
done using the Pearson residual (McCullagh and Nelder 1989), as shown in equation 3. The
magnitude of fracturing is measured for penetration rate variability and rotation pressure variability;
the magnitudes are then summed together, with 50% influence from each. Finally, the derived single
parameter is normalized for the number of values in the interval, in this case 5, as shown in equation
3.

1 ܴܸܲ௜ ܴܸܲ௜
‫݃݊݅ݎݑݐܿܽݎܨ‬௜ = ቈ0.5 × ቆ ቇ + 0.5 × ቆ ቇ቉ (3)
5 ଶ
ඥߪ ௉ோ ඥߪ ଶ ோ௉

where

ı2PR: Variance of registered penetration rate

ı2RP : Variance of registered rotation pressure

4 Model development
4.1 Drill response analysis for different geo-mechanical features
By combining monitored drill parameters and borehole filming, the study is able to determine how
the drilling responds to different geo-mechanical features in the rock mass. Figure 3 presents all
monitored drill parameters and the calculated fracturing versus hole length for hole 7 in fan number
37.

The hole has a cavity at around 5.5 m depth. In the cavity, there is limited contact between bit and
rock, and the penetration rate increases to about 3 m/min. At the same time, the water pressure,
normally between 180 bars and 190 bars, drops to 70 bars because water flows freely through the
system.

At about 19 m, the hole has caved, making filming beyond that point impossible. Around the caving
area, the penetration rate fluctuates from high values (3 m/min) to very low values (0.5 m/min). The
water pressure also fluctuates from 180 bars to around 10 bars. A reason for this fluctuation is that
the caved part of the borehole can consist of heavily fractured rocks with openings. Alternatively, the
caved part of the borehole can consist of a mixture of cavities and solid rock. In this case, a distinct
fluctuation of the fracturing parameter is visible around the caved part of the borehole. At 19 m, the
fracturing parameter is more than 2, while in solid rock, it is normally below 0.25. In addition, the
rotation pressure is comparatively lower (40 bars) than in solid rock (around 60 bars). Feed pressure
does not seem to respond to the varying rock mass conditions.

7
Figure 3 Recorded penetration rate, feed pressure, rotation pressure, percussive pressure and
fracturing versus hole length for borehole 7 in fan number 37

8
4.2 Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
For the same hydraulic ITH drilling system, Ghosh et al. (2017) concluded that the monitored drill
response parameters are not independent but highly correlated. Therefore, single parameter analysis
or cross-plot analysis may not capture the complexity of monitored drilling data, especially their
relation to varying rock mass characteristics. Because of the correlations, this study uses Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) for analysis of all measured parameters, including penetration rate,
percussive pressure, normalised feed pressure, and rotation pressure, and all calculated parameters,
including penetration rate variability, rotation pressure variability, and fracturing.

Figure 4 shows a loading plot generated by the first and second principal component. The plane
generated by the two components explains 62.2% of the total variation among all parameters. The
first component is dominated by the fracturing parameters (penetration rate variability, rotation
pressure variability, and the combined parameter fracturing) to the right and by percussive pressure
and feed pressure to the left. In modern drill systems, there is often a correlation between percussive
pressure and feed pressure, even though the parameters are independent and are controlled by the rig
control system. If feed pressure is reduced, it is important to control percussive pressure to prevent
damage to the drill system. The negative correlation between fracturing on the one hand and
percussive pressure on the other is interesting. When the rock mass condition goes from solid rock to
increasingly fractured or broken, the percussive pressure reacts in the reverse way. In broken rock or
in cavities, there may be insufficient feed force to maintain high water pressure, allowing water to
flow more easily through the hammer. Overall, component 1 tends to be dominated by the drill
system’s response to the geo-mechanical properties of the penetrated rock mass.

Figure 4 Loading plot of first and second principal components

9
The second component shows a negative relationship between penetration rate and rotation pressure.
Schunnesson (1998) noted that the relationship between penetration rate and rotation pressure is
complicated by the rock mass properties. For example, rock fracturing that influences rotation
pressure may positively influence penetration rate if fracturing is moderate but negatively if
fracturing is severe, including stalling effects. In addition, penetration increases if the rock gets
softer. Deeper penetration will increase rotation resistance and the corresponding rotation pressure.
However, when the rock mass gets very soft, the bits may shear off the rock matrix instead of
moving up, out of the hole generated by the button of the bit, thereby reducing rotation pressure.
Given this complexity, it is difficult to make definite conclusions when detailed rock mass
descriptions are not available. However, the plane generated by other components (e.g. components
2 and 3 or components 3 and 4) is not relevant to geo-mechanical influences on the drill response
measurements (Ghosh et. al 2017). Therefore, the first two components (1 and 2) are selected for
further analysis.

4.3 Principal components for different geo-mechanical features

The first two components (1 and 2) generate a plane that maximizes the explanation rate of all
objects (data points). In this case, data came from 186 boreholes (11 m and 43 m long) measured
every 3 cm. Given the large number of data points, it is impossible to create a normal score plot. A
density plot is more suitable and is shown in Figure 5. In the figure, the contour plot shows the
volume of data points.

Figure 5 Score plot for all data including solid rock, cave-ins, fractures and cavities

Based on the results from filming, the data sets from the 63 filmed boreholes are separated into four
classes (solid rock, cave-ins, fractures and cavities). Each class is presented in Figure 6(a-d) in the
same way as in Figure 5, using the same scale.

10
 Figure 6a Score plot for solid rock responses

Figure 6a represents the score plot for drilling in solid rock. The score data for solid, undisturbed
rock are very distinctively concentrated at the left side of the contour map. The solid rock ranges
from -2 to +1 in the first component, and from -2 to +2 in the second component. Figure 6b shows
the plot for fractured rock. There are two separate anomalies, with one overlapping the area of solid
rock. This is logical, as fractured rock often consists of solid rock horizons interrupted by fractures at
certain intervals. The shape of the fracture contour varies between -1 and +7 for the first component,
and between -5 and +2 for the second component. Figure 6c shows cave-ins. Again, there are two
separate anomalies, with one anomaly overlapping the area of solid rock. However, the responses in
this zone have a larger spread and include higher values for component 1 than the responses in the
fractured rock zones. This may be reasonable if a gradual increase of fracturing also means a gradual
increase in the risk of borehole instability or cave-ins. Finally, Figure 6d shows the cavities. The
cavity responses do not have the double responses seen for fractures and cave-ins, and have
significantly higher values for component 1.

11
 Figure 6(b) Score plot for fractured rock Figure 6(c) Score plot for cave-in

Figure 6(d) Score plot for cavities

All the score plots in Figure 6a to 6d show a significant overlap in the second component’s values.
The first component, however, provides a reasonable delineation of the four studied geo-mechanical
features (solid rock, fractures, cave-ins, and cavities). The continued analysis is therefore based on
the first principal component.

4.4 Development of a geo-mechanical model

In Figure 7, the first principal component values for all four studied geo-mechanical features are
presented as probability distribution functions. All features have different signatures even though
there are over-lapping sections. Based on the curves, five different classes are suggested. Table 2
describes the geo-mechanical features and its possible effects on borehole chargeability for the
different classes. The results are based on experience gathered in field monitoring of the charging
works (see section 2.3).

Class 1 (C-1) is most likely solid rock, even though fracturing and cave-in sections occasionally have
data points in this section as discussed above. The probability of complete charging of the borehole
is very high for data in this section. In class 2 (C-2), fractured rock dominates over cave-in
conditions, while in class 3 (C-3), the risk of cave-ins gradually increases with the gradual increase
of fractured rock. In class 4 (C-4), relatively small cavities are observed during filming. When a
borehole is drilled through smaller cavities, there is a possibility of inserting additional explosives
into the borehole.

12
 Figure 7 Proposed geo-mechanical model assessing chargeability

Class 5 (C-5) includes relatively larger cavities. When a borehole penetrates this kind of cavity, the
charge pipe may not reach the remaining part of the borehole (above the cavity) to insert explosives.
The charge pipe may also get stuck in the cavity, pumping excessive explosives into the cavity
instead of into the borehole.

Table 2 Assessment of chargeability

Geo-mechanical
Class Possible affect(s) on chargeability
feature
C-1 Solid rock Most likely no charging problem
Most likely no charging problem; however, charging
Slightly to
problems can be initiated in the boreholes close to the last
C-2 moderately
blasted fans because of production blasting and stress
fractured rock
changes.
Increasing fracturing gradually increases the risk of cave-ins;
Heavily fractured
C-3 if a cave-in occurs, the hole can be recovered by using a
rock with
charging hose, re-drilling or hole support, depending on the
potential cave-in
length of the caved borehole.
Most likely smaller sized cavities exist; the risk of inserting
C-4 Minor cavity additional explosives into the single borehole increases.

Most likely bigger sized cavities exist; there is a high

C-5 Major cavity possibility of inserting excessive explosives into the single
borehole.
13
5 Validation of the model
To validate the suggested model, a large number of new boreholes were tested. Figure 8 presents a
fan with 11 boreholes where each borehole is classified according to the proposed model. This
classification is then compared with the field data (Table 3) gathered during charging of the same
fan.

Figure 8 Borehole’s chargeability is classified for a new fan using the proposed model

The suggested model categorises holes number 1 and 2 as class 1 (solid rock, no charging problem)
and class 2 (slightly to moderately fractured rock with limited charging problems) except for a thin
section close to the end of the both holes which are classified as class 3 (heavily fracturing with
potential cave-in). The field inspection showed that both holes were charged without difficulty.

Hole 3 shows a pattern similar to hole 2 except for the last 7 m of the borehole, where several
sections of fractured rock are predicted. The field inspection discovered that a cave-in has occurred
at about 36.4 m (Table 3), which relates to a fracture zone (marked in pink) suggested by the model.
This predicted zone causing the cave-in in hole 3 tends to continue all the way from hole 3 to hole 7.

The field data (Table 3) showed that hole number 4 has caved-in at about 38.3 m which is slightly
deeper than that of hole 3. The model predicts that the hole is most likely to be caved (class 3) just
below another fracture zone (marked in pink) predicted by the model.

14
 Table 3 Charging conditions identified during inspection of charging operation

Borehole Drilled
Status
No. depth, m
1 19 No charging problem
2 28.4 No charging problem
3 43.6 Blocked at about 36.4 m
4 44.1 Blocked at about 38.3 m
5 44.1 Blocked at about 33.3 m
6 43.8 Blocked around collar
7 40.4 Blocked around collar
8 35.4 Blocked around 16.7
9 25.8 Blocked around 15.2
10 26.9 No check due to heavy water flow
11 19.5 No check due to heavy water flow
In figure 9 the detailed model value for hole 5 is presented versus the hole length. The first part of
the hole, down to 24 m, is reasonably solid with an average value below zero but with a few single
peaks with much higher values. This initial part of the hole is followed by a zone between 24 and 31
m that have values from 2 up to 3.5 indicating moderate fracturing up to the boundary of heavy
fracturing. After this, a short zone between 31 and 33 m again reaches very low values indicating
solid rock. However after this zone the model show high values, averages about 3 but with a number
of peaks up to maximum 7. Field data have shown that the hole was actually caved in the beginning
of this zone at about 33.3 m (Table 3).

Figure 9 First principal components vs. depth for hole 5

According to the model, figure 8, holes number 6 and 7 are also predicted to be heavily fractured and
difficult to charge. Field data showed that those holes are caved at the collaring point. The reasons
for cave-in can be local at the collar point or fractured material from the upper zone can be
transported downwards towards the collar point. The actual depth of cave-ins encountered in the
field can sometimes also be changed by adjacent production blasting or seismic events.
15
Based on the suggested model, hole numbers 8 has caved in a fracture zone below the one causing
holes 3-5 to cave, see figure 8. In this case, the model indicates the risk of cave-in at the depth about
16.7 m where the hole is reported as caved by the field inspection, validating the accuracy of the
model.

Looking to hole 9 in the same fan, only few scattered peaks, have been predicted as class 3 (cave-in)
between the collar and 15 m depth, according to the model, see figure 10. At about 15.5 m, several
peaks with high magnitude have been identified and predicted to be caved (class 3). According to
the field data, borehole is actually caved at about 15.2 m (Table 3). The small difference (around 30
cm) between actual cave-in position and predicted cave-in position, seen in figure 10, may result
from caved in material that have been transported by gravity downwards in the hole, but it can also
be explained by the inaccuracy of the length measurement of the charging hose. The hose can slide in
the drums that insert the hose into the hole and can therefore be associated by length errors. The
MWD based length measurements however have high accuracy and is very reliable.

Figure 10 First principal components vs. depth for hole 9

Holes number 10 and 11 are not verified, as they were not checked during the field inspection. Based
on the above validation, the model suggests that the right-upper side (pink background) of the fan is
more fractured than the remaining part of the fan.

6 Discussion
With the developed model, production planning can be adjusted based on the determination of the
risk of charging problems in a borehole. For example, if the risks associated with different boreholes
are known very early, planners can separate areas of heavily fractured rock mass associated with
cave-in risks from areas with more stable rock mass conditions. Thus, production planning can be
improved and production cost optimised.

Today chargers do not have prior information on rock mass conditions before charging is carried out.
Many boreholes cannot be charged completely; sometimes, the full length of the borehole is left
uncharged. This has negative effects on fragmentation. With the proposed model, chargers can get
very early information about the risk of unfavourable rock mass conditions that may negatively

16
influence the charging operation. This early information may increase the charge length of the
borehole, with a positive effect on fragmentation and ore recovery.

7 Conclusions
The study suggests a geo-mechanical model to assess borehole chargeability based on drill
monitoring data collected during hydraulic ITH drilling. The model is based on the drilling system’s
responses to four geo-mechanical features: solid rock, fractures, cave-in and cavities. The following
conclusions can be drawn from the study:

x Water pressure (percussive pressure) and fracturing are the two most important parameters for
predicting the geo-mechanical features of the rock mass and the resulting chargeability.
x The model can distinguish fans, or parts of fans, with solid, un-fractured rock where no
chargeability problems can be expected, from fans, or part of fans, with fractures, cavities or
cave-in risks, where chargeability problems can be expected.
x The model was tested and verified in a charging operation in a real production environment in an
operating mine. The results show that the technique has high potential for identifying borehole
charging problems.

Acknowledgements
Vinnova, Swedish Energy Agency, and Formas are acknowledged for financing the project through
the SIP-STRIM program. The authors would like to acknowledge LKAB, Atlas Copco Rock Drills
AB and Agio System and Kompetens AB for their valuable input into the project.

References
Affi A, Clark VA, May S (2004) Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis. 4th edn, Chapman and Hall/CRC, p-
369
Abousleiman Y, Hoang S, Nguyen V (2007) Analyses of Wellbore Instability in Drilling Through Chemically
Active Fractured Rock Formations, Nahr Umr Shale, paper SPE 105383 presented at the15th SPE Middle
East Oil & Gas Show and Conference, 11-14 March, Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Kingdom
of Bahrain.
Brown ET, Carter P, Robertson W (1984) Experience with a prototype instrumented drilling rig, Geodrilling,
Feb 1984: 10-14
Finfinger G (2003) A methodology for determining the character of mine roof rocks, PhD thesis, Dept. of
Mining Engineering, West Virginia University
Gu Q (2003) Geological mapping of entry roof in mines, PhD thesis, Dept. of Mining Engineering, West
Virginia University
Gu Q, Watson GA, and Heasley KA (2005) Detection of roof geology variation using recorded drilling
parameters, In: Dessureault S,Ganguli R, Kecojevic V, Dwyer J (eds) Proceedings of the Application of
Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry, Taylor & Francis Group, London, p-527-
534
Ghosh (2012) Investigation of Borehole Stability in Malmberget, Master thesis, Division of Mining and
Geotechnical Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden, p-12, 55
Ghosh R, Zhang ZX, Nyberg U (2015a) Borehole Instability in Malmberget Underground Mine. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 48 (4):1731-1736
Ghosh R, Schunnesson H, Kumar U (2016a) Evaluation of operating life length of rotary tricone bits using
Measurement While Drilling data. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 83: 41-48
17
Ghosh R, Danielsson M, Gustafson A, Falksund H, Schunnesson H (2016b) Assessment of rock mass quality
using drill monitoring technique for hydraulic ITH drills. International journal of mining and mineral
Engineering, Accepted for publication
Ghosh R, Schunnesson H, Gustafson A (2017) Monitoring of drill system behaviour for water powered In-
The-Hole (ITH) drilling (submitted)
Itakura K, Goto T, Yoshida Y, Tomita S, Iguchi S, Ichihara Y, Mastalir P (2008) Portable intelligent drilling
machine for visualising roof-rock geostructure. In: proceedings of Aachen international mining
symposium, Aachen, p: 597-609
Kahraman S, Balc C, Bilgin N (2000) Prediction of the penetration rate of rotary blast hole drills using a new
drillability index. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37: 729-743
Kangas J (2007) Internal report (in Swedish), R & D (nr. 07-770), LKAB, Malmberget, Sweden
Kahraman S, Rostami J and Naeimipour A (2016) Review of Ground Characterization by Using Instrumented
Drills for Underground Mining and Construction, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 49: 585–602
LaBelle D, Bares J and Nourbakhsh I (2000) Material classification by drilling, 17th International Symposium
on Automation and Robotics Construction, Taipei
LaBelle D (2001) Lithological classification by drilling, Thesis proposal, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh
McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized Linear Models. 2nd edn, CRC Press, p-37
Peck J (1989) Performance monitoring of rotary blast hole drills. PhD thesis, McGill University, Montreal,
Canada
Peck J, Pollitt D (1990) Lithological recognition based on drill monitoring. Seminar on Advances in
Equipment Performance Monitoring, McGill University, March 21-23
Peng, S and Zhang, J., 2007. Engineering Geology for Underground Rock © Springer, Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, New York, p-162
Petrobloc AB (1995) Determination of quartz veins through the analysis of drilling parameters. Project report
(in Swedish)
Rai P, Schunnesson H, Lindqvist AP, Kumar U (2015) An Overview on Measurement-While-Drilling
Technique and its Scope in Excavation Industry. J of Inst of Engs (India), Series D 96(1):57–66
Scoble MJ and Peck J (1987) A technique for ground characterisation using automated production drill
monitoring, International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 1:1, 41-54
Schunnesson H (1996) RQD predictions based on drill performance parameters. Int J of Tunnel Underground
Space Technol 11:345-351
Schunnesson H, Holme K (1997a) Drill monitoring for geological mine planning in the Viscaria copper mine,
Sweden. Canadian Inst of Min, Met andS Petr (CIM) bulletin 90: 83-89
Schunnesson H (1997b) Drill process monitoring in percussive drilling for location of structural features,
lithological boundaries and rock properties, and for drill productivity evaluation. PhD thesis, Luleå
University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
Schunnesson H (1998) Rock characterization using percussive drilling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35:711-725
Segui J, Higgins M (2002) Blast design using measurement while drilling parameters. Fragblast Int J Blasting
Fragm 6:287-299
Smith B (2002) Improvements in Blast Fragmentation Using Measurement While Drilling Parameters.
Fragblast Int J Blasting Fragm 6(3-4):301-310
Saeidi O, Torabi SR, Mohammad A (2013) Development of a New Index to Assess the Rock Mass
Drillability. Geotech Geol Eng 31: 1477-1495
Teale R (1965) The concept of specific energy in rock drilling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2:57-73
Wold S, Espensen K, Geladi P (1987) Principal Component Analysis, Int J Chemometr Intell Lab 2:37-52
Zhang ZX (2005) Increasing ore extraction by changing detonator positions in LKAB Malmberget mine,
International Journal of Blasting and Fragmentation, 9(1):29–46
Zhang ZX (2012) Borehole stability in sublevel caving (SLC), Internal report, LKAB, Malmberget, Sweden
Zhang ZX (2016) Rock fracture and blasting-Theory and Applications, Butterworth-Heinemann, © Elsevier,
Oxford, UK, ISBN: 978-0-12-802688-5, p-389

18