See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330676890

Penetration Rate and Specific Energy Prediction of Rotary–Percussive Drills

Using Drill Cuttings and Engineering Properties of Selected Rock Units

Article in Journal of Mining Science · March 2018

DOI: 10.1134/S106273911802363X

CITATIONS READS

17 3,224

3 authors, including:

Muhammad Zubair Abu Bakar Irfan Ahmad Butt

University of Engineering and Technology Lahore Taiyuan University of Technology
31 PUBLICATIONS 471 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Irfan Ahmad Butt on 08 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 1062-7391, Journal of Mining Science, 2018, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 270–284. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2018.
Published in Fiziko-Tekhnicheskie Problemy Razrabotki Poleznykh Iskopaemykh, 2018, No. 2, pp. 98 –113.

______________________________ MINERAL MINING ________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TECHNOLOGY
Penetration Rate and Specific Energy Prediction
of Rotary–Percussive Drills Using Drill Cuttings
and Engineering Properties of Selected Rock Units
M. Z. Abu Bakara*, I. A. Buttb, and Y. Majeedc
a
Geological Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
*e-mail: [email protected]
c
Mining Engineering Department, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Received February 15, 2017

Abstract—This study discusses the prediction of penetration rate and specific energy of button bit equipped
rotary–percussion drilling machines from drill cuttings and geo-mechanical properties of rocks. The
operational parameters of drilling machines measured from selected locations were utilized for the
calculation of specific energy of drilling operations. For this purpose three on-going hydropower projects
and four active mining quarries of Pakistan were selected. The drill cuttings were further used to determine
various descriptors of the chip size distribution including the coarseness index and Rosin–Rammler’s
absolute size constant. A complete set of geo-mechanical rock tests were conducted in the laboratory and
includes uniaxial compressive strength, Brazilian tensile strength, point load strength, Schmidt rebound
hardness, P-wave velocity, dry density, porosity and brittleness indices. Regression analyses were performed
to predict the penetration rate and specific energy of drilling from geo-mechanical properties of rocks. The
models so developed were also validated by adopting the t-test and the F-test statistical techniques.
Moreover, statistical models were also developed to evaluate penetration rate from various descriptors of the
chip size distribution. Dependence of bit size on coarseness index and mean particle size was also discussed.
Keywords: Penetration rate, specific energy, coarseness index, Rosin–Rammler’s constant, uniaxial
compressive strength, Brazilian tensile strength, point load strength, Schmidt rebound hardness, density,
porosity, P-wave velocity.
DOI: 10.1134/S106273911802363X

INTRODUCTION
In Pakistan various types of underground excavations including highway tunnels, pressure
tunnels, hydropower caverns, railway tunnels amongst others, are being driven by the drilling and
blasting technique due to its versatility, flexibility, economics and low initial capital cost. The drill
and blast is considered to be a suitable technique of excavation in almost every ground condition
encountered during surface and underground excavations. However, as reported by McFeat-Smith
and Fowell [1] the cost of drill and blast technique increases as the excavation length exceeds more
than 1.5–2.0 km. Although, the advance rate of mechanical excavators is approximately 40% better
than the drill and blast technique, but due to sudden variations of underground field conditions
which cannot be assessed during site investigation, sometimes makes mechanical excavation
inflexible and limited.
The efficiency of any drilling operation is usually measured in terms of its penetration rate and
specific energy consumed to achieve that penetration rate. Penetration rate or drillability is defined as
the time required for drilling a unit depth of rock. It has been widely used for rock classification in
mining industry [2]. It is usually determined by a set of parameters including geo-mechanical
properties of rocks (uncontrollable parameters) and drilling machine parameters (rotation, thrust

270
 PENETRATION RATE AND SPECIFIC ENERGY PREDICTION OF ROTARY–PERCUSSIVE DRILL 271

force, flushing, etc.). Operating process (drilling method, operation and maintenance of machine) also
plays a vital role in the drillability of rocks. Both drilling machine parameters and operating process
are considered to be controllable parameters in drilling of rocks [3].
Performance prediction (penetration rate) of the percussive/rotary drills as well as tunnel boring
machines (TBMs), road headers and raise borers by using size distribution of the drill cuttings through
coarseness index (CI), mean particle size (absolute size constant D ) and median size constant d has
been investigated by a number of researchers. Pfleider and Blake [4] reported the existence of a rough
relationship between the size range of drill cuttings and the penetration rate. Rabia and Brook [5]
compared the surface area of drill cutting with the penetration rate of down the hole drill (DTH) and
found that no relationship exists between surface area of drill cutting and penetration rate of drill.
Ersoy and Waller [6] concluded that wear rate of bits depend upon the size of drill cuttings; larger
size of drill cuttings cause rapid wear in impregnated diamond core drilling bits, thereby reducing the
penetration rate. Altindag [3, 7] explored a strong exponential relationship between penetration rate
and coarseness index. Meanwhile by using Rosin–Rammler plot the cited author also found
exponential relationships of penetration rate with mean particle size (absolute size constant D ) and
specific surface area of drill cuttings. Kahraman et al. [8] proposed strong linear correlations of
penetration rate with coarseness index and median particle size of drill cuttings. Similarly, Tuncdemir
et al. [9] calculated the in situ coarseness index values of muck size collected for different cutting
depths per revolution of TBM and found a linear relationship between coarseness index and advance
rate per revolution. Abu Bakar and Gertsch [10] reported a good relationship between coarseness
index and the absolute chip size constant in a full scale rock cutting test. In a similar study, Abu Bakar
et al. [11] examined reasonable relationships of absolute size constant and coarseness index with
production rate (advance rate) of constant cross section (CCS) disc cutter.
Geo-mechanical properties of rocks are good indicators of penetration rate and a number of
previous investigators have established relationships showing dependence of penetration rate on rock
properties. Selmer-Olsen and Blindheim [12] while performing percussion drilling tests in the field
established that some rock properties (e.g. UCS and BTS) strongly influence the drilling operation.
Howarth et al. [13] monitored the performance of TBM and diamond bit percussion drilling machines
and figured out meaningful relationships of penetration rate with some physico-mechanical properties
of sedimentary rocks. They also highlighted that rock porosity directly influences drillability. Thuro
and Spaun [14] while measuring the drilling rates of two machines (15 kW and 20 kW) found
logarithmic relationships of penetration rate with the compressive and tensile strengths. Thuro [15]
demonstrated that some specific rock properties and geological factors significantly influence the bit
wear and drilling rate. Altindag [16] proposed a correlation between the rock brittleness and
drillability index and highlighted that brittleness causes an increase in the penetration rate. Kahraman
et al. [17] developed significant correlations of penetration rate of percussive drills with UCS, BTS,
PLS and SRH of rocks. Dahl et al. [18] performed a comparative study of different test methods
utilized for the prediction of drillability on a laboratory scale and presented tables for the selection of
a reliable drilling bit based on rock properties. Seifabad and Ehteshami [19] suggested empirical
equations for the estimation of drilling rates based on models derived from rock properties of 50 oil
wells. Ngerebara et al. [20] correlated the mechanical properties of some rocks with the penetration
rate of rotary drilling rig. Similarly, the drilling rate of pneumatic top hammer drills was related with
dry density, UCS, BTS, SRH and Young's modulus of nine rocks by Hoseinie et al. [21].
Specific energy (SE) is defined as the energy required to fragment a unit volume of rock [22–25].
According to Rabia [26], it is the energy to create a new surface area. Bullock [27] investigated some
drilling systems including rotary drills, percussive drills and rotary-percussive drills in Bonneterre

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

272 BAKAR et al.

Dolomite and found an inverse relationship between the chip size and specific energy of drilling. It is
well known from work of some previous researchers [10, 28, 29,] that specific energy in rock cutting
is affected significantly by tool geometry, cutter spacing, tool penetration and rock properties. However,
in rotary drilling or in rock cutting using drag tools, tensile strength, compressive strength and shear
strength are the dominant rock properties affecting the cutting efficiency [30, 31]. Copur et al. [25]
performed full-scale laboratory rock-cutting tests with a conical cutter and explained that optimum
specific energy is a direct function of rock parameters (UCS and BTS). Altindag [3] correlated
specific energy of rock cutting with three brittleness indices B1   c /  t , B2  ( c   t ) /( c   t )
and B3  ( c t ) / 2 , where  c  UCS and  t  BTS . Similarly, Atici and Ersoy [32] statistically
evaluated the relationships between brittleness and cutting specific energy of diamond saw blades and
drilling specific energy of polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) bits. Good correlations were found
between brittleness indices (B1, B2 and B3) and cutting specific energy whereas no reasonable
correlations were found between the drilling specific energy and the brittleness values.
At present button bits employed in rotary-percussive drilling rigs are commonly being used in almost
every rock drilling project, but their drillability rates are not properly documented in different rock
formations of Pakistan. There is a need of penetration prediction models based on the geo-mechanical
properties of rocks, chip size distribution of drill cuttings and drilling machine’s operational
parameters. In this study, a number of parameters including, the actual penetration rate of button bits
measured in the field, coarseness index CI, the Rosin–Rammler’s absolute size constant D , specific
energy of drilling, brittleness indices and geo-mechanical properties are determined on rock units
encountered in selected ongoing tunneling and mining projects of Pakistan. The results obtained
would be of significant import for the contractors involved in the current and future mega projects
such as dams, tunnels, highways and the foundations for mega structures in Pakistan.
1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology is mainly comprised of field studies and laboratory studies along with
calculation of specific energy of drilling.
1.1. Field Work
Field work was conducted on nine different rock types selected from seven on-going tunneling and
mining projects (Fig. 1) in Pakistan. Table 1 lists the selected projects along with their formations and
geological age. The field work included recording of drilling parameters, collection of drill cuttings
from the boreholes and selection of representative rock blocks from the working sites.

Fig. 1. Included project locations marked on the map of Pakistan.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

 PENETRATION RATE AND SPECIFIC ENERGY PREDICTION OF ROTARY–PERCUSSIVE DRILL 273

Table 1. Selected projects along with their locations and rock types

No. Project Location Rock type Formation / Group Geological Age

1 GHPP Kotli, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan Nagri Sandstone Nagri Miocene
2 NJHPP Muzaffarabad Azad Jamu Murree Murree Miocene
and Kashmir (AJK), Pakistan Sandstone
3 KHPP Besham, Shangla, Khyber Granitic Gneiss Besham Group Precambrian
Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Pakistan
4 KHPP Besham, Shangla, Khyber Graphitic Besham Group Precambrian
Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Pakistan Gneiss
5 DGKCCL Khofli Sattai, D.G. Khan, Dungan Dungan Cretaceous
Punjab Pakistan Limestone Limestone
6 KCCL Kohat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Lockhart Lockhart Paleocene
(KPK), Pakistan Limestone Limestone
7 KCCL Kohat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Dolomite Smana Suk Jurassic
(KPK), Pakistan
8 GCL Ismailwal, Chakwal, Punjab, Sakesar Sakesar Eocene
Pakistan limestone Limestone
9 MLCFL Iskanderabad, Mianwali, Nammal Nammal Eocene
Punjab, Pakistan Limestone
GHPP—Gulpur Hydropower project; NJHPP—Neelum Jhelum Hydroelectric Project; KHPP—Karora Hydropower Project;
DGKCCL—D.G. Khan Cement Company Limited; KCCL—Kohat Cement Company Limited; GCL—Gharibwal Cement
Limited; MLCFL—Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited

1.1.1. Recording of drilling parameters in the field

Button bit employed in rotary-percussive rock drills were utilized on selected mega hydropower
projects and cement quarries. Figure 2 shows a view of drilling operation carried out for rock bolting at
NJHPP in Murree Sandstone rock unit with the help of Sandvick Power Pack HP555, hydraulic drill.
A description of rock drills, bit sizes, rotational speeds and working pressures employed on respective
locations is provided in Table 2. The rock drills were controlled by the drilling operators according to the
rock conditions encountered at the working faces. The operating parameters such as feed pressure,
rotational pressure, working pressure and flushing pressure were recorded while boreholes were being
drilled. In addition, the rotational speed and torque were also recorded from the catalogs of respective
rotary-percussive drills. In each project on the average 25 bore holes were drilled on each drilling day for
blasting as well as for rock bolt installation purposes. Actual drilling time of 7 to 12 boreholes in each
selected rock unit was recorded and the corresponding boreholes depths were measured accurately. The
borehole diameter and the bit diameter were also measured. The borehole depth and drilling time
measured for each borehole in each selected rock unit was further used to calculate the penetration rate by
using equation.
PR  Depth of borehole, m / Drilling time, мin . (1)

Fig. 2. A view of Sandvick Power Pack HP555, hydraulic rotary percussive drill machine working at NJHPP.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

274 BAKAR et al.

Table 2. Summary of rotary percussive rock drills being used on seven selected projects

Rock Drill Button Bit Ratational Working

Project
(Rotary-Percussion Type) Diameter, mm Speed, rpm Pressure, kPa
Atlas Copco XAS 186DD
KHPP 34 250.2 610
(pneumatic top hammer)
Sandvick Power Pack HP555
NJHPP 48 250.2 800
(hydraulic rock bolt drill)
Furukawa HCR180
GHPP 65 130.2 650
(hydraulic top hammer)
Furukawa HCR C180R
KCCL 75 120.0 600
(hydraulic top hammer)
Ingersoll Rand–LM500
MLCFL 85 90.0 650
(hydraulic top hammer)
MP-CMP-0002
GCL 105 60.0 840
(pneumatic top hammer)
DGKCCL Atlas Copco ROC L6 (DTH) 105 70.2 850

The average actual field penetration rate of 7–12 boreholes in each selected rock unit was then
calculated and further utilized for analysis.
The specific energy (SE) of drilling was also calculated for each selected rock from the measured
drilling parameters of rock drills by using the following equation [23]:
SE =SE t +SE r , SE t  F / A , SE r  (2 / A) / ( NT / PR) , (2)
where SE is specific energy, MJ/m3 ; SE t is specific energy due to thrust, MJ/m3; SE r is specific
energy due to rotation, MJ/m3; F is force acting on the bit, kN; A is borehole cross sectional area, m2;
N is rotational speed, rev/s; T is torque (KNm) and PR is penetration rate (m/s).
1.1.2. Collection of borehole drill cuttings and selection of rock boulders
The drill cuttings from selected boreholes of each rock unit were collected in polythene bags and
labeled carefully. To prevent possible error of removing label from bags, the drills cuttings were
further stored in plastic jars in the laboratory. In addition to this, the rock blocks of selected rock unit
were collected from the same field for further laboratory studies. Blocks free from micro and macro
discontinuities were selected in appropriate dimensions in order to retrieve maximum number of cores
for conducting physical and mechanical properties tests in the laboratory.
1.2. Laboratory Studies
A comprehensive suite of laboratory experiments comprising of sieve analysis of drill cuttings
collected from the drilling sites, rock mechanics tests including UCS, BTS, PLS and SRH, density,
porosity and sonic velocity tests were performed. For performing mechanical and physical rock
properties tests, cores were retrieved from the collected blocks orthogonal to the bedding by using
54 mm core cutting bits. The cylindrical rock specimens were prepared according to the guidelines
laid down in ASTM-D4543 [36] standards.
1.2.1. Sieve analysis on drill cuttings
The correlation between performance of drilling systems and distribution of drill cuttings can be
described with the help of coarseness index CI and the absolute size constant D . Parameters like
coarseness index and the absolute size constant D have been used by past investigators [3, 8, 10, 11, 37]
to evaluate the performance of different rock cutting and drilling systems. CI is a dimensionless
number which is obtained from the cumulative sum of percentage size retained (oversize) of drill
cuttings on particular selected sieve fractions. The range of coarseness index depends on a particular
set of sieve used [37].

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

 PENETRATION RATE AND SPECIFIC ENERGY PREDICTION OF ROTARY–PERCUSSIVE DRILL 275

Table 3. The extraction of coarseness index from drill cuttings (borehole no. 1) against bit
diameter of 75 mm in Lockhart limestone

Sieve Fraction, mm Weight Oversize, g Weight Oversize, % Cumulative Oversize, %

+ 19.00 0 0 0
– 19.00+9.51 60 1.65 1.65
– 9.51+4.76 134 3.68 5.33
– 4.76+2.00 1202 33.05 38.38
– 2.00+1.00 794 21.83 60.21
– 1.00+0.50 532 14.63 74.84
– 0.50+0.25 592 16.28 91.12
Pan 323 8.88 100.00
Total Mass 3637 — CI = 372

The absolute size constant D of particle distribution can be determined by adopting the Rosin–
Rammler [38] method; also used frequently to evaluate the products of tumbling mills in the mineral
processing industry. The Rosin–Rammler distribution describes the mass (volume) distribution
function in exponential form as:
R  100exp[( x / D)b ] , (3)
where R is the cumulative mass (volume) % retained on sieve of size x; D is the absolute size
constant or size parameter, and b is the distribution parameter.
Rearranging and taking logarithm twice of both sides of equation 3 gives:
ln[ln(100 / R)]  b ln x  const . (4)
The values of log[log(100 / R)] when plotted against log x gives a straight line. The slope of this
straight line and the intercept at the horizontal line at R = 36.79% provides the Rosin–Rammler
distribution parameters b and D respectively. Both of these parameters completely define the
particle size distribution.
In the current research work the drill cuttings of 7–12 boreholes of each nine selected rock units
were sieved by using seven sieve fractions (i.e. +19 mm, +9.51, +4.76, +2, +1, +0.5, and +0.25 mm)
to determine CI value. Table 3 displays a sample calculation of CI for Lockhart limestone. Similarly,
the absolute size constant D was calculated by employing the Rosin–Rammler plot between sieve
opening and cumulative weight (%) as explained by Aytekin [39]. Figure 3 is the Rosin–Rammler
graph plotted by using the data displayed in Table 4 and shows the determination of D and b for the
drill cuttings gathered from borehole no. 1 of same rock (Lockhart limestone) as an example.

Fig. 3. The extraction of parameters D  and b from Rosin–Rammler graph for Lockhart limestone rock sample (plotted
as per [11]).

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

276 BAKAR et al.

Table 4. Mean values of penetration rate PR and specific energy SE calculated from the operational
parameters of drill machines measured in field studies

PR, Borehole Feed Force, Torque, SE,

Project Rock Type
m/min Diameter, m KN KNm MJ/m3
NJHPP Murree Sandstone 0.43 0.05 2.03 0.06 185.08
GCL Sakesar Limestone 0.51 0.11 8.99 0.52 107.43
KHPP Granitic Gneiss 0.61 0.03 0.71 0.01 36.53
KCCL Dolomite 0.77 0.08 3.11 0.12 30.70
KCCL Lockhart Limestone 0.75 0.08 3.11 0.12 32.51
DGKCCL Dungan Limestone 0.83 0.12 10.76 0.67 38.92
KHPP Graphitic Gneiss 0.98 0.03 0.71 0.01 24.19
GHPP Nagri Sandstone 1.05 0.07 3.37 0.13 23.58
MLCFL Namal Limestone 1.14 0.09 4.26 0.19 20.16

1.2.2. Unconfined compressive strength (ucs) tests

The UCS tests were conducted on trimmed cylindrical rock samples, which had a length to
diameter ratio ranging from 2.0 to 2.5 in accordance with the testing procedure specified in ASTM
D-7012 [40] standard.
1.2.3. Brazilian tensile strength (bts) tests
The BTS tests were performed according to the recommendations of ASTM D-3967 [41] standard.
The prepared rock discs of NX size had a height to diameter ratio of approximately 0.5 and were
compressed diametrically until failure.
1.2.4. Point load strength (PLS) tests
The PLS tests were performed on core samples according to the testing procedures given by
ASTM D-5731 [42] standard. These tests were conducted by loading rock cores in diametric
orientations between conical platens of the machine. The length to diameter ratio was kept in the
range of 1 to 1.5. The load was gradually increased until failure occurred within 10 to 60 s.
1.2.5. Schmidt rebound hardness (SRH) tests
The SRH tests were conducted on cylindrical rock samples by using N-type digital Schmidt
rebound hammer having impact energy of 2.207 Nm. The measurements were taken in accordance
with the ASTM D-873 [43] suggested method. Later the average of ten highest rebound number
values measured using N-type device were converted to L-type Schmidt rebound number values by
employing equation proposed by Aydin [44].

Table 5. Laboratory experimental results of nine rock units encountered at selected project sites

D, UCS BTS PLS N, , Vp,

Rock Type CI SRH B3 B4
mm MPa % g/cm3 km/s
Murree Sandstone 277 1.02 125 11.50 5.50 48.0 718.75 26.81 1.81 2.64 4.49
Sakesar Limestone 415 2.86 94 8.50 4.41 46.2 399.50 19.99 1.31 2.67 5.19
Granitic Gneiss 244 0.66 70 7.70 3.30 44.2 269.50 16.42 5.76 2.00 4.10
Dolomite 313 1.40 66 6.75 3.00 38.3 222.75 14.92 5.42 2.60 5.84
Lockhart Limestone 350 1.65 66 7.10 3.20 40.0 234.30 15.31 9.33 2.67 6.24
Dungan Limestone 373 2.12 60 7.16 3.17 38.9 214.80 14.66 33.06 2.58 5.70
Graphitic Gneiss 259 0.52 54 5.97 2.89 37.0 161.19 12.70 20.00 3.00 3.30
Nagri Sandstone 303 1.40 47 4.00 2.00 33.0 94.00 9.70 25.78 2.63 3.78
Namal Limestone 402 2.12 33 3.50 1.50 30.0 57.75 7.60 30.00 2.50 5.60
B3 = (UCS×BTS) / 2, B4  B3 —brittleness indices

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

 PENETRATION RATE AND SPECIFIC ENERGY PREDICTION OF ROTARY–PERCUSSIVE DRILL 277

Table 6. Regression models developed for the prediction of PR and SE from physico-
mechanical rock properties
Penetration Rate, m/min R2 Specific Energy, MJ/m3 R2
PR = – 0.008UCS + 1.348 0.86 SE = 1.923UCS – 75.945 0.88
PR = – 0.096BTS + 1.447 0.89 SE = 19.871BTS – 81.831 0.73
PR = – 0.191PLS + 1.397 0.87 SE = 42.085PLS – 80.011 0.81
PR = – 0.040SRH + 2.380 0.97 SE = 7.176SRH – 228.124 0.59
PR = – 0.001B3 + 1.067 0.77 SE = 0.270B3 – 15.738 0.93
PR = – 0.041B4 + 1.406 0.89 SE = 8.932B4 – 81.613 0.83
PR = 0.016n + 0.544 0.71 SE = – 2.541n + 92.851 0.33

1.2.6. P-wave velocity

Primary wave velocities V p were measured by using a digital Portable Ultrasonic Non-
destructive Indication Tester (PUNDIT) in the laboratory as per ISRM [45] suggested method.
PUNDIT transducers were positioned at both trimmed ends of the NX size rock cores of sufficient
lengths. Then P-wave velocities were computed by measuring the time of propagation of sonic
pulses through the specimens.
1.2.7. Density and porosity tests
The natural density of included rock units was computed by determining the weight and volume of
prepared core specimens. A weighing balance of least count 0.01 g was used to determine the weight
of rock specimen and the sample volume was calculated from average values of length and diameter
of rock core measured with the help of a digital calliper. The porosity of rock samples was determined
by using the saturation and caliper technique of the ISRM suggested methods [46] valid for the rock
samples of regular dimensions.
2. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 4 lists the values of penetration rate PR and specific energy SE computed by utilizing the data
pertaining to operational parameters of drill machines recorded directly from drilling sites, whereas
complete results obtained from laboratory testing including coarseness index CI, Rosin–Rammler
absolute size constant D , physico-mechanical rock properties and brittleness indices are presented in
Tab. 5. The test results of UCS and BTS were further used for the calculations of rock brittleness
indices including В3 and В4 for each rock type. In this study the discussion of results is primarily
focused on establishing relationships of PR and SE with rock properties as well as correlations of PR
and bit diameter with CI and D . Moreover, the validation of developed correlations (i.e. PR and SE
versus rock properties) by employing statistical techniques (F-test and t-test) is also discussed.

Table 7. Validation of regression models developed for the prediction of PR from physico-
mechanical rock properties
Geomechanical property R2 Fmodel Fcritical P-value tcalculated ttable
UCS 0.86 41.31 5.32 0.000 – 6.43 1.86
BTS 0.89 58.24 5.32 0.000 – 7.63 1.86
PLS 0.87 47.04 5.32 0.000 – 6.86 1.86
SRH 0.97 248.35 5.32 0.000 – 15.76 1.86
B3 0.77 24.02 5.32 0.002 – 4.90 1.86
B4 0.89 56.31 5.32 0.000 – 7.50 1.86
n 0.71 16.75 5.32 0.005 4.09 1.86

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

278 BAKAR et al.

2.1. Relationship of PR and SE with Physico-Mechanical Rock Properties

Relationships of PR and SE with mechanical and physical rock properties for all nine rock units
are shown in Fig. 4. The figure depicts that there are significant correlations of both PR and SE with
the UCS, BTS, PLS, SRH, В3, В4 and n. As expected the PR decreased linearly with increasing
strength (UCS, BTS, PLS), hardness (SRH) and brittleness (В3 and В4) values of the included rock
units, while an upward linear trend was observed between PR and rock porosity values. Similar
relationships of penetration rate with engineering properties of rocks have also been proposed by
numerous past researchers [17, 20, 21, 47]. On the other hand strong positive linear relationships of
SE of drilling with UCS, BTS, PLS, SRH, В3, В4 were found. However, the specific energy dropped
linearly with corresponding rise in rock porosity n and a weak correlation can be observed. The
correlations of SE of drilling with physico-mechanical rock properties developed in earlier
investigations also closely coincide with the correlations established in this study [25, 48–51].

Fig. 4. Linear correlations of penetration rate with coarseness index and Absolute size constant of nine selected rock.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

 PENETRATION RATE AND SPECIFIC ENERGY PREDICTION OF ROTARY–PERCUSSIVE DRILL 279

Table 8. Validation of regression models developed for the prediction of SE from physico-
mechanical rock properties

Geomechanical
R2 Fmodel Fcritical P-value tcalculated ttable
property
UCS 0.88 53.46 5.32 0.000 7.31 1.86
BTS 0.73 18.93 5.32 0.003 4.35 1.86
PLS 0.81 30.08 5.32 0.001 5.48 1.86
SRH 0.59 9.99 5.32 0.016 3.16 1.86
B3 0.93 91.41 5.32 0.000 9.56 1.86
B4 0.83 33.14 5.32 0.001 5.76 1.86

Using the relationships of PR and SE plotted against mechanical and physical rock properties the
prediction models were developed (Tab. 7) for the estimation of PR and SE. In the case of PR the
models based on SRH, B4 , BTS, UCS, PLS and BTS showed better prediction performance as
compared to the models developed with B3 and porosity. Similarly, in the case of SE the models
based on rock parameters including B3 , B4 , UCS and PLS depict better forecasting ability, than the
other relationships. To validate the significance of proposed correlations of PR and SE with rock
properties (Tab. 6), F-test and t-test statistics were adopted by using SPSS-21 statistical software pack
for windows.
Table 7, 8 present the computed and tabulated F-test values along with corresponding P-values at
the 95% level of significance (   0.05) for the proposed prediction models (PR and SE versus
geomechanical rock properties). As can be seen that Fmodel values are greater than Fcritical values at
predefined significance level showing the correctness of the models. It may also be noted that the
P-values of the independent variables (UCS, BTS, PLS, SRH, B3 , B4 and n) are less than the value of 
indicating their significance. Similarly at 95% confidence level the calculated t scores are greater than
the tabulated t scores in both Tables 7, 8 and hence showing that the proposed models are valid
statistically.

Table 9. Proposed regression models of PR with CI and D'

Rock Unit PR versus CI R2 PR versus D' R2

Murree Sandstone PR = 0.004CI – 0.698 0.94 PR = 0.199D + 0.226 0.86
Sakesar Limestone PR = 0.003CI – 0.776 0.87 PR = 0.118D + 0.172 0.90
Granitic Genesis PR = 0.006CI – 0.778 0.89 PR = 0.436D + 0.319 0.87
Dolomite PR = 0.004CI – 0.420 0.91 PR = 0.252D + 0.437 0.90
Lockhart Limestone PR = 0.001CI + 0.335 0.91 PR = 0.094D + 0.598 0.87
Dungan Limestone PR = 0.009CI – 2.337 0.94 PR = 0.283D + 0.301 0.79
Graphitic Gneiss PR = 0.005CI – 0.198 0.96 PR = 0.428D + 0.757 0.90
Nagri Sandstone PR = 0.002CI + 0.527 0.88 PR = 0.109D + 0.895 0.90
Nammal Limestone PR = 0.005CI – 0.843 0.91 PR = 0.236D + 0.541 0.85

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

280 BAKAR et al.

Fig. 5. Linear correlations of penetration rate with coarseness index and Absolute size constant of nine
selected rock.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

 PENETRATION RATE AND SPECIFIC ENERGY PREDICTION OF ROTARY–PERCUSSIVE DRILL 281

Fig. 6. Correlations of CI and D' with bit size.

2.1. Relationship of PR with CI and D'

In this study efforts have also been made to correlate the CI and D values with the corresponding rock
penetration rates measured at the each selected drilling location. For each rock unit the plots of penetration
rate PR as a function of CI and D are presented in Fig. 5. In general strong positive linear correlations of
penetration rates with respective CI and D values can be observed. The models so developed (Table 9)
can be utilized for the prediction of penetration rate PR of button bits employed rotary-percussive drills
from coarseness index CI and the absolute size constant D particularly in the selected rock units.
Altindag [52] proposed equations for the estimation of PR from CI and mean particle size values for
limestone rock only. Similarly, Altindag [7] in a research work developed both linear as well as
exponential relationships of PR with coarseness index and mean particle size based on the drillability
data gathered from limestone and marl quarries. The linear correlations generally match with the
relations established in this study. Kahraman et al. [8] in their research work also proposed relationships
between penetration rates and CI values and penetration rates and median particle size MPS values.
2.3. Effect of Drill Bit Size on CI and D'
It can be seen that CI and D show linearly increasing trends (Fig. 6) with the bit diameter;
meaning as the bit size increases coarseness index and mean particle size also increases. In the case
of CI versus bit diameter similar trend was found by Bullock [27] while working on two hydraulic
drills. The cited author concluded that chip size of rock increased linearly with bit size up to
a certain diameter and further increase in the bit diameter resulted in decrease in chip size mainly
due to type of drill (top hammer drill or DTH) and geological discontinuities (joint sets, bedding
planes, foliations etc.).
The prediction of penetration rate and specific energy of drilling are frequently required in mining
and tunneling projects. Both PR and SE are partly dependent on rock properties (mechanical and
physical properties) and partly on the operational parameters of drill machine. This study includes
recording of penetration rates and measurement of SE of rotary percussive drills from seven ongoing
excavation projects of Pakistan, covering a total of nine different rock units. Sieve analysis of
collected drill cuttings was performed to calculate the coarseness index and the mean particle size
values. Rock mechanics testing was conducted to determine the physico-mechanical properties and
brittleness indices ( B3 and B4 ) of included rock units.
CONCLUSIONS
It was concluded that UCS, BTS, PLS, SRH, B3 , B4 significantly dominate the penetration rate
and specific energy of rotary percussive drills. Rock porosity however, exhibited good relationship
with PR but, it showed a weak correlation with SE of drilling. Amongst the physico-mechanical rock

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

282 BAKAR et al.

properties tests included in this research PLS and SRH tests can easily be conducted in the field and
hence can be utilized for the quick assessment of PR and SE from the proposed correlations.
Meaningful positive linear correlations of penetration rate with coarseness index CI and absolute size
constant D were established for each rock unit included in this work. The higher values of
coarseness index and mean particle size represent higher drillability values. It explains that most of
the available energy for drilling was consumed in rock breakage at the tool rock interface. Strong
linear correlations between bit diameter and CI and D were also proposed. Future studies could be
directed to examine the influence of other rock parameters like petrography, the orientation and the
strength of weakness planes in predicting the penetration rate and specific energy of drilling from
physico-mechanical properties, CI and D .

REFERENCES
1. McFeat-Smith, I., and Fowell, R.J., Selection and Application of Roadheaders for Rock Tunneling, Proc.
Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference–RETC, Altanta, 1979.
2. Tanaino, A.S., Rock Classification by Drillability. Part I: Analysis of the Available Classifications, J. Min.
Sci., 2005, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 541–549.
3. Altindag, R., Correlation of Specific Energy with Rock Brittleness Concepts on Rock Cutting, J. South
Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., 2003, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 163–172.
4. Pfleider, E.P., and Blake, R.L., Research on the Cutting Action of the Diamond Drill Bit, Min. Eng., 1953,
vol. 5, pp. 187–195.
5. Rabia, H., and Brook, N., An Empirical Equation for Drill Performance Prediction, Proc. 21st Symp. on
Rock Mech., University of Missouri-Rolla, USA, 1980, pp. 104–112.
6. Ersoy, A., and Waller, M.D., Drilling Detritus and the Operating Parameters of Thermally Stable PDC
Core Bits, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 1997, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1109–1123.
7. Altindag, R., Evaluation of Drill Cuttings in Prediction of Penetration Rate by Using Coarseness Index and
Mean Particle Size in Percussive Drilling, Geotech. and Geol. Eng., 2004, vol. 22, pp. 417–425.
8. Kahraman, S., Develi, K., and Yasar, E., Predicting the Penetration Rate of Percussive Blast Hole Drills
Using Coarseness Index and Median Particle Size, CIM Bulletin, 2004, vol. 97, no. 15, pp. 1–4.
9. Tuncdemir, H., Bilgin, N., Copur, H., and Balci, C., Control of Rock Cutting Efficiency by Muck Size, Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 2008, vol. 45, pp. 278–288.
10. Abu Bakar, M.Z., and Gertsch, L.S., Radial Pick Cutting Performance in Dry and Saturated Sandstone,
Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, 2012, vol. 332, pp. 396–405.
11. Abu Bakar, M.Z., Gertsch, L.S., and Rostami, J., Evaluation of Fragments from Disc Cutting of Dry and
Saturated Sandstone, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 2014, vol. 47, pp. 1891–1903.
12. Selmer-Olsen, R., and Blindheim, O.T., On the Drillability of Rock by Percussive Drilling, Proceedings of
the 2nd Congress of the Int. Society for Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 1970, pp. 65–70.
13. Howarth, D.F., Adamson, W.R., and Berndt, J.R., Correlation of Model Tunnel Boring and Drilling
Machine Performances with Rock Properties, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 1986, vol. 23, pp. 171–175.
14. Thuro, K., and Spaun, G., Introducing the Destruction Work as a New Rock Property of Toughness
Referring to Drillability in Conventional Drill and Blast Tunneling, Barla, G. (Ed.), Eurock 96: Prediction
and Performance in Rock Mech. and Rock Eng., 1996, vol. 2, pp. 707–713.
15. Thuro, K., Drillability Prediction: Geological Influences in Hard Rock Drill and Blast Tunneling, Geol.
Rundsch., 1997, vol. 86, pp. 426–438.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

 PENETRATION RATE AND SPECIFIC ENERGY PREDICTION OF ROTARY–PERCUSSIVE DRILL 283

16. Altindag, R., The Evaluation of Rock Brittleness Concept on Rotary Blast Hole Drills, J. South Afr. Inst.
Min. Metall., 2002, vol. 102, pp. 61–66.
17. Kahraman, S., Bilgin N., and Feridunoglu, C., Dominant Rock Properties Affecting the Penetration Rate of
Percussive Drills, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 2003, vol. 40, pp. 711–723.
18. Dahl, F., Bruland, A., Jakobsen, P.D., Nilsen, B., and Grøv, E., Classifications of Properties Influencing
the Drillability of Rocks, Based on the NTNU/SINTEF Test Method, Tunneling and Underground Space
Technology, 2012, vol. 28, pp. 150–158.
19. Seifabad, M.C., and Ehteshami, P., Estimating the Drilling Rate in Ahvaz Oil Field, J. Petrol. Exploration
Prod. Technology, 2013, vol. 3, pp. 169–173.
20. Ngerebara, O.D., and Youdeowei, P., Correlation of Mechanical Properties of Some Rocks in South-
Eastern Nigeria, Int. J. Sci. and Res. Pub., 2014, vol. 4, pp. 1–6.
21. Hoseinie, S.H., Ataei, M., and Aghababaie, A., A laboratory Study of Rock Properties Affecting the
Penetration Rate of Pneumatic Top Hammer Drills, J. Min. and Env., 2014, vol. 5, pp. 25–34.
22. Protodyakonov, M.M., Mechanical Properties and Drillability of Rocks, Proceedings of the 5th Symp. on
Rock Mech., University of Minnesota, 1962, pp. 103–118.
23. Teale, R., The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling, Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 1964, vol. 2, pp. 57–73.
24. Mellor, M., Normalization of Specific Energy Values, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 1972, vol. 9, pp. 661–663.
25. Copur, H., Tuncdemir, H., Bilgin, N., and Dincer, T., Specific Energy as a Criterion for the Use of Rapid
Excavation Systems in Turkish Mines, Trans. Int. Min. Metall. Sect. Min. Tech., 2001, vol. 110, pp. A149–A157.
26. Rabia, H., Specific Energy as a Criterion for Drill Performance Prediction, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech., 1982, vol. 19, pp. 39–42.
27. Bullock, R.L., Tunneling and Underground Construction Techniques, Mining 383 Course, Missouri
University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, USA, 2009.
28. Roxborough, F.F., Research in Mechanical Rock Excavation: Progress and Prospects, Proceedings of the
Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, 1985, vol. 1, pp. 225–243.
29. Fowell, R.J., The Mechanics of Rock Cutting, Hudson, J.A. (Eds.), Comprehensive Rock Engineering,
1993, vol. 4, pp. 155–175.
30. Evans, I., A Theory on the Basic Mechanics of Coal Ploughing, Proceedings of the Int. Symp. on Min.
Research, Missouri, 1961, vol. 2, pp. 761–798.
31. Nishimatsu, Y., The Mechanics of Rock Cutting, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 1972, vol. 9, pp. 261–270.
32. Atici, U., and Ersoy, A., Correlation of Specific Energy of Cutting Saws and Drilling Bits with Rock
Brittleness and Destruction Energy, J. of Materials Proc. Tech., 2008, vol. 209, pp. 2602–2612.
33. Paone, J., Madson, D., and Bruce, W.E., Drillability Studies—Laboratory Percussive Drilling, USBM
RI 7300, 1969.
34. Moore, P.L., Drilling Practices Manual, Tulsa: Penn Well Books, 1974.
35. Huang, S.L., and Wang, Z.W., The Mechanics of Diamond Core Drilling of Rocks, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. Geomech. Abst., 1997, vol. 34, pp. 6–12.
36. ASTM D4543, Standard Practices for Preparing Rock Core as Cylindrical Test Specimens and Verifying
Conformance to Dimensional and Shape Tolerances, 2008.
37. Roxborough, F.F., and Rispin, A., The Mechanical Cutting Characteristics of the Lower Chalk, Tunnels
and Tunneling, 1973, pp. 45–67.
38. Rosin, P., and Rammler, B., The Laws Governing the Fineness of Powdered Coal, J. Inst Fuel, 1933,
vol. 7, pp. 29–36.
39. Aytekin, Y., The Measurement Methods of Fine Particle, Ege. Univ. Press., no. 2, 1979, pp. 114.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

 284 BAKAR et al.

40. ASTM D7012, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core
Specimens under Varying States of Stress and Temperatures, 2010.
41. ASTM D3967, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016. doi.org/10.1520/D3967-16.
42. ASTM D573, Standard Test Method for Determination of the Point Load Strength Index of Rock and
Application to Rock Strength Classification, 2008.
43. ASTM D83, Standard Test Method for Determination of Rock Hardness by Rebound Hammer Method, 2005.
44. Aydin, A., ISRM Suggested Method for Determination of the Schmidt Hammer Rebound Hardness:
Revised version, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 2009, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 627–634.
45. ISRM, Suggested Methods for Determining Sound Velocity, Int. J. of Rocks Mech. and Min. Sci. and
Geomech., 1978, vol. 15, pp. 53–58.
46. ISRM, Suggested Methods for Determining Water Content, Porosity, Density, Absorption and Related
Properties and Swelling and Slake-Durability Index Properties, Int. J. of Rocks Mech. and Min. Sci. and
Geomech., 1979, vol. 16, pp. 141–156.
47. Bilgin, N., and Kahraman, N., Drillability Prediction in Rotary Blast Hole Drilling, 1st Int. Min. Congress
and Exhibition of Turkey-IMCET, 2003.
48. Roxborough, F.F., and Sen, G.C., Breaking Coal and Rock, Australasian Coal Mining Practice, 1986,
vol. 12, pp. 130–147.
49. Bilgin, N., Seyrek, T., and Sahriar, K., Roadheader Performance in Istanbul, Golden Horn Clean up
Contributes Valuable Data, Tunnels and Tunneling, 1988, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 41–47.
50. Reddish, D.J., and Yasar, E., A New Portable Rock Strength Index Test Based on Specific Energy of
Drilling, Int. J. of Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Geomech., 1996, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 543–548.
51. Tiryaki, B., and Dikmen, A.C., Effects of Rock Properties on Specific Cutting Energy in Linear Cutting of
Sandstones by Picks, Rock Mech. and Rock Eng., 2006, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 89–120.
52. Altindag R. Estimation of Penetration Rate in Percussive Drilling by Means of Coarseness Index and
Mean Particle Size, Rock Mech. and Rock Eng., 2003, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 323–332.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 54 No. 2 2018

View publication stats