You are on page 1of 11

Rock Mech Rock Eng (2013) 46:15771587

DOI 10.1007/s00603-012-0358-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Comparison of Drilling Performance of Chisel and Button Bits


on the Electro Hydraulic Driller
Okan Su Olgay Yarali Nuri Ali Akcin

Received: 12 August 2012 / Accepted: 13 December 2012 / Published online: 27 December 2012
 Springer-Verlag Wien 2012

Abstract Electro hydraulic drillers have been widely


used in mining for drilling and roof-bolting. In the drilling
process, the performance of the machine is predicted by
selecting an appropriate bit type prior to drilling operations. In this paper, a series of field drilling studies were
conducted in order to examine and compare the performance of chisel and button bits including wear on the bits.
The effects of taper angle on chisel bits, which are at angles
of 105, 110 and 120, were investigated in terms of rate
of penetration, instantaneous drilling rate and specific
energy. The results of drilling and abrasivity tests performed in the laboratory supported the outcome of the field
studies. Based on laboratory studies and field observations,
it was proven that the conglomerate encountered, though it
is very abrasive, is easy to drill. The cutter life in the
encountered series is also longer in sandstone formation
compared to the conglomerate. Additionally, button bits
resulted in lower specific energy and higher penetration
rates relative to chisel bits, regardless of their taper angles.
The results were also supported with statistical analyses.
Keywords Drillability  Specific energy 
Penetration rate  Wear  Drilling performance

O. Su
Department of Mining and Mine Extraction, Bulent Ecevit
University, Zonguldak, Turkey
O. Su (&)  O. Yarali  N. A. Akcin
Department of Mining Engineering, Bulent Ecevit University,
Zonguldak, Turkey
e-mail: okansu@karaelmas.edu.tr

1 Introduction
The drilling-blasting method is widely applied in both
mining and civil engineering when the conditions are not
suitable for mechanized excavation systems. Drilling is the
first step of blasting operations in surface and underground
mining. There are several drilling techniques, but the most
applied methods are rotary and percussive drilling. Rotary
drilling is usually applied in soft rock formations, while
percussive drilling is applied in hard rock formations.
Penetration rate of the bit is the main difference between
the two techniques. In rotary drilling, the penetration rate
averages a few millimeters per second, versus few centimeters per second in percussive drilling (Wijk 1991). In
order to determine a suitable drilling method, the physical,
mechanical, drillability and abrasivity properties of the
rock, as well as cost estimates, should be investigated
prudently prior to performing drilling operations. When the
limitations of both methods are taken into account, a
combined rotary and percussive drilling technique called
percussive-rotary drilling can be used to increase the drill
rate with a lower required level of weight on a bit (Franca
2011). This combined method has been successfully
applied so far. A general view of a bit connected to the
shank via driller rod is shown in Fig. 1 (Thuro 1997).
There are many kinds of drill bits used in the mining
industry. By taking into account the drilling purpose and
working conditions, the type of drill rig and the bit type can
be selected carefully. Essentially, the geometry, dimension,
length, and slope of the blasthole are taken into consideration. Tri-cone or roller bits are the most common bits used
in rotary drilling (Fig. 2a). Tri-cone bits cut the rock with a
crushing and chipping action. The first roller cone bit was
introduced into the oil field in 1909 and it was primarily
used in hard rock formations. It had two cones on the bit

123

1578

O. Su et al.

Fig. 1 A general view of a


driller (Thuro 1997)

Fig. 2 The bits used in drilling operations (Mincon 2012)

head, causing some issues in soft rock drilling. For this


reason, in the early 1930s, the bit was redesigned for both
hard and soft formations. A third cone was added later as
well as water nozzles. The primary drilling mechanism of
the roller cone bits is intrusion, which means that the teeth
are forced into the rock by the weight-on-bit, and pulled
through the rock by the rotary action. The journal angle of
the bit is modified according to hardness of the formation
(BHITD 1995). Button and cross drill bits shown in Fig. 2b
are also widely used in percussive drilling. The wing angles
and button configurations can be modified according to
formation (Mincon 2012). Although button bits give higher
penetration rates, they are more prone to deviation in long
holes than cross bits.
A successful drilling process can be performed relying
on some factors such as bit selection, optimizing the drilling parameters, monitoring the drill rig, operators experience, and so on. Huang and Wang (1997) reported that
the drilling rate and energy requirement of a drill depends
on bit properties (e.g. bit type, bit diameter, bit geometry),
and operational properties (e.g. weight-on-bit, rotational
speed, and circulating fluid). They also pointed out that
formation properties, including rock properties and geological conditions, are the uncontrollable factors in drilling.
However, it is recommended that detailed site investigations and laboratory studies should be performed to insure
proper factors since drilling and blasting operations
account for around 20 % of total excavation cost (Sharma
et al. 1990).
Drilling performance of a bit can be evaluated by
means of specific energy, penetration rate, and instantaneous drilling rate of an excavation system. Specific

123

energy, that is the work required to cut a unit volume of


rock, is based upon the performance of the machine.
Low specific energy values result in high efficiency from
the driller. Bit wear, cutting forces on the bit, thrust
force, and average torque of the driller also affect the
performance and hence the specific energy. Reddish and
Yasar (1996) stated that a number of parameters such as
rock strength, rock stiffness, structural discontinues,
abrasivity, hardness of the mineral constituents, rock
matrix, and nature of mineral grain influence the specific
energy.
Protodyakonov (1962) indicated the variation of specific
energy with axial pressure in rotary drilling, and also its
variation with impact energy in percussive drilling. The
rock types he selected were in different hardness classifications and he proposed that the specific energy decreases
as the axial pressure and impact energy increase.
Tandanand and Unger (1975) carried out drilling tests
on two different drifts and calculated specific energy by
using the laboratory and field tests results. Then, they
compared the results and found out that there is a strong
relationship between the laboratory and field tests equal
to 0.83. For this reason, Rabia (1982) later pointed out
that specific energy is not a fundamental intrinsic property for the evaluation of drilling performance, and
suggested empirical equations for the prediction of specific energy.
Uniaxial compressive strength was also widely used for
predicting the performance of tunneling machines and drill
rigs (Evans and Pomeroy 1966; Nishimatsu 1972; Howarth
et al. 1986; Reddish and Yasar 1996; Thuro and Spaun
1996). However, it is emphasized that knowledge of
compressive strength in itself is insufficient datum to assess
bit consumption and production capabilities of excavation
machines (Johnson and Fowell 1986).
McFeat and Fowell (1977, 1979) found the specific
energy calculated in the laboratory decreases as the
instantaneous cutting rate of roadheader increases.
Kahraman et al. (2003) demonstrated an inverse relationship between penetration rate and specific energy.
Another inverse relationship between penetration rate and
uniaxial compressive strength was also presented in the
same study. They concluded that the mechanical properties
are closely related to penetration rate of percussive drills.

Comparison of Drilling Performance of Chisel and Button Bits

2 Drillability and Abrasivity Properties of Rock


Bit selection is one of the areas that has become very
critical to overall drilling performance. Daily advance
rates, rate of penetration, bit consumption, and strength of
the rock are some of the parameters taken into consideration for bit selection. However, drillability and abrasivity
are the dominant properties in a drilling and excavation
process. Their effect should always to be studied before
beginning to drill or excavate a formation in order to
improve drilling tool efficiency.
Bit wear in rock drilling is the dominant factor in
determining the bit life and the cost of drilling. Significant
savings can be achieved by effectively controlling the bit
wear. Wear decreases penetration rates and increases
required drilling forces (Ersoy and Waller 1995). Hence,
minimization of wear on the bit and maximization of
penetration rate will lead to the best performance for the
driller.
SINTEF (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) has developed new test methods in the last decades
such as drillability rate index, brittleness test, Sievers
miniature drill test, and bit wear index. The test methods
were proposed by performing more than 2000 tests on
different rock types in order to predict the drillability and
abrasivity properties of bits. A considerable amount of
literature has been published on the two parameters so far
(Bruland 1998; Dahl 2003; Dahl et al. 2007; Plinninger
2008; Hoseinie et al. 2009; Kim and Bruland 2009; Gong
and Zhao 2009; Yarali and Kahraman 2011; Dahl et al.
2012).
In addition to drillability properties, wear on the bits is
also assessed by considering some abrasivity tests such as
bit wear index (BWI) and Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI).
Bit wear index is usually used for the estimation of bit life
and cost of drilling. It is associated with abrasion value
(AV) test and DRI test results.
Abrasion value of steel (AVS) test method, which is
similar to AV test procedure, allows to calculate the cutter
life index (CLI) by using Eq. (1). The entire test results are
evaluated according to Table 1.

1579

SJ
CLI 13:84
AVS

0:3847
1

where CLI is cutter life index, SJ is Sievers J value, AVS


is abrasion value steel.
Furthermore, it is always suggested to perform other
abrasivity tests in order to verify the results and better
understand the cause of the wear on the bit. So far, there
have been many studies describing the factors of the wear
problem. The basic factors can be placed in the following
groups (Deketh 1995):

Rock material properties (texture, strength, composition, hardness, etc.)


Rock mass properties (structure, inhomogeneities, etc.)
Type of machinery (type of tools, machine cutting
principle, etc.)
Choice of machine setting (thrust, tare of penetration,
power, etc.)
Environment (submerged or dry, weather conditions,
operator skills, etc.)

Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) test also gives preliminary knowledge about the cutter life used on excavation machines. The test has been widely used for the
estimation of tool wear and is a suggested method by ISRM
(1979) and ASTM (2010). The test results are evaluated
according to Table 2.
In addition to drilling and abrasivity properties of rock,
the penetration rate and specific energy are also important
parameters for the evaluation of the machine performance.
The penetration rate and specific energy are calculated by
Eqs. (2, 3).
L
t


P
SE g
ICR
PR

2
3

where PR is penetration rate (m), L is length of the hole


(m), t is drilling time (h), SE is specific energy (kwh/m3), g
is energy transfer ratio, P is power of the machine (kw),
ICR is instantaneous drilling rate (m3/h).

Table 1 Classification of drilling index tests (Bruland 1998)


Category

DRI

BWI

CLI

Extremely low

B25

B10

B5

Very low

2632

1120

5.05.9

Low

3342

2130

6.07.9

Medium

4357

3144

High

5869

4555

Very high
Extremely high

7082
C83

5669
C70

Table 2 Classification of Cerchar abrasivity index test (ASTM 2010)


Cerchar abrasivity index

Classification

8.014.9

Very low abrasiveness


Low abrasiveness

0.30.5
0.51.0

15.034

Medium abrasiveness

1.02.0

3574
C75

High abrasiveness

2.04.0

Extreme abrasiveness

4.06.0

Quartztic

6.07.0

DRI drillability rate index, BWI bit wear index, CLI cutter life index

123

1580

O. Su et al.

In Eq. (3), the energy transfer ratio is a constant which


varies depending on the type of excavation or drilling
machine. By taking into consideration the diameter of the
cutterhead on the mechanical excavator, the installed
power on the machine and the rock quality index, reported
energy transfer ratio ranges of some mechanical excavators
as summarized in Table 3.
By utilizing the current (I) and the voltage (V) on the
machine, the power of the machine can also be determined
by Eq. (4).
P V:I

Instantaneous drilling rate is calculated according to


volume of the hole and drilling time. Hence, it can be
obtained by Eq. (5).
ICR

Vl
t

where Vl is volume of the hole (m3), t is drilling time of the


hole (h).

3 Drilling Performance of Bits


The Turkish Hardcoal Enterprises (TTK) located in Zonguldak is one of the largest basins in Turkey. It consists of
five underground coal mines with the deepest reaching
approximately 1000 m. Since the coal seams have more or
less than 4045 of inclination and 45 m of thickness, the
mines have been operated by a semi-mechanized system.
At these mines, the jack hammers are used for coal
extraction. The drifts are excavated by drill-blast techniques with electro hydraulic drillers, in which the percussive method is applied. A roadheader was also driven in
the drifts few years ago, but it did not work efficiently due
to high bit consumption rates.
Essentially, either the bit geometry or the bit type on the
driller influences the penetration rates since incorrect bit
selection may cause an increase in tool wear, and hence,
lower advance rates within the formations. Therefore, an
optimum bit type depending on the rock should be determined firstly in drilling operations. The effect of different
bit types on the drilling performance was conducted in this

study. Two different bit types, chisel and button were taken
into consideration and their drilling performances were
investigated.
3.1 Chisel and Button Bits
The chisel bits have been extensively used on jack hammers for coal production at the Turkish Hardcoal Enterprise. A taper angle of 110 is usually applied on those bits.
In order to investigate the effect of taper angles on drilling
performance, two other bits having 105 and 120 of taper
angles were modified from the original ones by re-sharpening at the Eregli Iron & Steel Plant (Fig. 3). Later, the
bits were welded to monoblock steel rods, which were in
3738 mm diameter and 2.63 m lengths as shown in
Fig. 4. In the meantime, eight specially designed shanks
were fabricated in the TTK laboratories. Those shanks
were used to mount the monoblock rods onto the electro
hydraulic driller.
In addition to chisel bits, button bits of 42 mm diameter
were used in the course of the drilling process. Their performance was also monitored and compared with the chisel
bits.
3.2 Monitoring of Drilling Performance
Drilling operations were basically carried out in the
development drifts of the Turkish Hardcoal Enterprises
Kozlu mine at the level of -560 m. The drifts exist in
Westphalia and Namurian formations with a number of
faults, particularly, in the north-south direction and are in
the Mesozoic age. An important feature of the Kozlu mine
is that the drifts are currently advanced under the Black
Sea. The driller was operated on three different rock types
in sedimentary series including sandstone, conglomerate,
and an intermediate layer which consists of sandstone and
conglomerate. Before beginning the drilling process, in situ
hardness of the locations was measured by using an N type
Schmidt hammer (Fig. 5). Twenty readings in each location were conducted and the average values were

Table 3 Energy transfer ratio of some common mechanized techniques (Rostami et al. 1994)
Machine type

Energy transfer ratio

Tunnel boring machine

0.850.90

Roadheader

0.450.55

Raise borer

0.600.70

Shaft drill

0.550.70

Continuous miner-drum miner

0.700.80

123

Fig. 3 The chisel bits in different taper angles

Comparison of Drilling Performance of Chisel and Button Bits

calculated as Schmidt hardness value. The results are given


in Table 4.
In particular, drilling rates and wear on the bits were
examined during drilling operations. The percussion pressure on the monoblock steel rod was selected as 50 bar and

Fig. 4 Monoblock steel rods welded with chisel bits

(a) Schmidt hardness measurement points in


sandstone (22m2).

1581

the water pressure was set up at 78 bar. At the beginning


of drilling, the diameters of bits were measured. The chisel
bit having an angle of 105 was firstly mounted to the
shank in the sandstone formation which has 22 m2 of cross
section area (Fig. 5a). The telescopic boom was positioned
perpendicular to the face. The machine was started and the
current on the machine was measured by using a clamp
meter. As soon as the machine began drilling, the current
was measured one more time and was recorded. The
voltage on the machine was also defined as 550 V. Hence,
the power of the machine was calculated by Eq. (4).
When the drilling was completed with a bit, the length
of the hole was measured by a tapeline and the volume of
the hole was calculated. An averaged distance of
150200 cm was drilled at each time. The time of drilling
was recorded by a chronometer while the machine worked
and an instantaneous drilling rate was estimated by Eq. (5).
In addition, the diameter and the taper angle of the bits,
i.e. wear on the bit, were monitored in every five holes and
quantified. Approximately 160 holes were drilled by
employing four types of bits in the sandstone formation.

(b) Schmidt hardness measurement points in


conglomerate (18 m2).

(c) Schmidt hardness measurement points at


intermediate layer (conglomerate +
sandstone) (22 m2).
Fig. 5 The measurement points of Schmidt hardness at the drifts

123

1582

O. Su et al.

Table 4 Mechanical properties of rocks (Su and Yarali 2010)


Test
type

Sandstone

Sandstone ? conglomerate

Conglomerate

rc

54.44 3.12

44.54 3.81

37.18 6.07

rt

6.58 0.75

6.46 1.60

6.93 0.50

Is//(50)

2.87 1.16

2.40 0.55

1.35 0.40

Is\(50)

1.59 0.91

2.31 0.77

1.28 0.40

54.03 3.78

48.18 3.53

47.32 3.82

ScH

rc uniaxial compressive strength (MPa), rt indirect tensile strength,


Is//(50) corrected point load index in diametral direction (MPa), Is\ (50)
corrected point load index in axial direction (MPa), ScH Schmidt
hammer

Fig. 7 Wear on the bits

to mechanical, drillability, and abrasivity testing according


to the ISRM standards.
3.3 Laboratory Studies

Fig. 6 The broken bits for the period of drilling operation

However, some issues were encountered in the course of


drilling close to the discontinuity plane in the middle of the
face. The bit stuck in the hole a few times, resulting in
lower advance rates.
The drill machine was moved to another location two
months later. There was an intermediate layer, which
consists of conglomerate and sandstone at the face as seen
in Fig. 5c. Although the upper part of the face was conglomerate and the downside was sandstone, drilling was
performed in the middle part. Thirty-seven holes were
drilled in 2 days. The low number of drilled holes was due
to frequently broken bits as shown in Fig. 6. Some issues in
the shank during installation and adaption also had to be
resolved. For this reason, the ratio of machine utilization
was very low in the second drilling trial.
The drill machine was driven to conglomerate formations two months later (Fig. 5b). Two bits from each type
were employed in this formation. The numbers of drilled
holes are 65, 7, 46 and 4 for the button and the chisel bits at
105, 110, and 120 of taper angles, respectively. It was
noticed that the bits were excessively worn during drilling
as shown in Fig. 7. Minimum drilling rates were obtained
by the bit having 120 of taper angle, whereas maximum
drilling rates and number of drills were obtained using the
button bit.
Large block samples were also collected from the face
following drilling operations. The samples were subjected

123

In order to determine mechanical properties of the rock


samples, uniaxial compressive strength, indirect tension
strength, and point load index tests were performed in the
laboratory. For this purpose, core samples were taken from
large blocks. For the uniaxial testing, the samples were
prepared in 54 mm 9 108 mm dimensions and the surfaces of the samples were grinded in order to reduce surface roughness. The same procedure without grinding was
also followed for the core samples prepared for indirect
tension and point load index testing. However, the samples
in 54 mm by 27 mm dimensions were employed for those
tests. The point load tests were performed both in axial and
diametral directions. The tests were repeated on seven or
eight samples and the average values were calculated. The
results are summarized in Table 4.
As presented in Table 4, the strength properties of the
rocks can be classified as medium hard rocks. However, it
is clear that sandstone is harder than other formations.
Moreover, drillability and abrasivity tests were performed in the laboratory. Drilling rate index, bit wear
index, and cutter life index were determined. In addition,
Cerchar abrasivity index test was carried out. The results
are presented in Table 5.
In accordance with Table 5, it is evident that the intermediate layer (sandstone ? conglomerate) is the most
difficult formation to drill since DRI value is in the high
category according to Table 1. However, conglomerate is
the most abrasive formation as shown from BWI and CAI
values. It is extremely abrasive according to CAI values
in Table 2. For this reason, abrasive mineral content of
conglomerate might be in higher percentage than other
rock types. This finding can also be supported with petrographic analyses. The results of AV and AVS also prove
the same evidence. Nevertheless, there is a significant
difference between abrasivity properties and cutter life
index. Although conglomerate is more abrasive, the bit life
will be longer when used in other formations due to low

Comparison of Drilling Performance of Chisel and Button Bits

CLI values. Another reason is that it is easy to drill in terms


of DRI and SJ values. It is apparent that any driller having
appropriate bit type will lead to the highest advance rates
although high bit consumption is expected. However, more
research on this topic needs to be undertaken before the
association between abrasivity and drillability studies.
4 Evaluation of Drilling Performances of the Bits
Drilling performances of four different bits were evaluated
by performing field measurements. For this purpose,
143.41 m of length in total was drilled by employing the
button bit. On the other hand, 95.34, 100.84, and 61.6 m of
length were bored by using the chisel bits in the taper
angles of 105, 110, and 120 respectively. A length of
401.22 m was advanced throughout the entire drilling
Table 5 Drillability and abrasivity index test results (Su and Yarali
2010)
Test type
AV

Sandstone
4

Sandstone ?
conglomerate
8

Conglomerate
14

S20

42.44

53.10

52.14

DRI

53

62

53

9.00
58.00

13.92
13.10

AVS
SJ

5.24
101.80

BWI

25

22

32

CLI

43.32

28.34

13.52

CAI

3.95

4.45

5.65

AV abrasion value, S20 brittleness value, DRI drilling rate index, AVS
abrasion value steel, SJ Sievers J value, BWI bit wear index, CLI
cutter life index, CAI Cerchar abrasivity index
Table 6 The drilling
performance of bits depending
on the bit type

Bit type
Button

1583

operation in 319 blastholes. During drilling operation, drill


time and the length were recorded. At the same time, the
current charged by the machine was also measured in order
to determine the power of the machine. At the end, average
penetration rate, average instantaneous drilling rate, and
average specific energy were calculated by Eqs. (2, 3) and
(5). All results were obtained by in-situ measurements.
The performance of the bits was assessed according to
bit type and formation type. The results of average drilling
length, average penetration rate, average instantaneous
drilling rate, and specific energy are presented in Tables 6
and 7. In the course of specific energy calculation, the
energy transfer ratio of the drilling machine was assumed
as 0.3. The averages of all variables were also based on
total number of drills. However, machine utilization was
neglected due to maintenance shutdowns for replacing the
bits and shank.
Rock drilling studies of various researchers performed at
the field showed that the results were included in the range
111444 MJ/m3 (Tandanand and Unger 1975; Rabia 1982;
Rabia and Brook 1981). However, the results we collected
range from 278 to 655 MJ/m3. In light of the results, the
aspects of drilling performances of the bits have been
discussed below, and the graphs between the variables are
illustrated in Figs. 8, 9, and 10. Moreover, the drilling
performance of the bits depending on the formation type is
shown in Fig. 11.
As seen in Fig. 8, the maximum penetration rate of
89.05 m/h was obtained by button bit. In other words, the
button bit has the best drilling performance in comparison
to other bits. However, the bit having 110 of taper angle,
still in use for coal production on jack hammers, has the
best performance after button bit. So it is apparent that

Rock type

ND

TDL

PR

ICR

SE

Sandstone

26

39.33

1.51

66.3

85.85

0.12

34.23

311.0

Conglomerate-1

32

35.22

1.10

45.5

86.39

0.12

34.70

303.1

Conglomerate-2

33

58.73

1.78

67.2

97.87

0.14

34.82

278.6

10.13

1.27

54.1

86.08

0.12

35.42

302.9

49

68.70

1.40

73.1

70.07

0.06

35.34

655.7

Conglomerate-1

0.92

0.92

40.0

82.80

0.09

35.20

404.8

Conglomerate-2

5.79

0.11

44.8

79.16

0.09

36.25

441.8

Sandstone ? Conglomerate
Sandstone

20
39

19.93
47.02

1.00
1.21

51.0
55.1

71.15
80.27

0.06
0.09

35.90
34.11

642.8
415.0

Conglomerate-1

24

28.95

1.21

51.5

85.99

0.10

35.48

398.9

Conglomerate-2

22

19.56

0.89

38.1

84.53

0.10

35.48

412.8

5.31

1.33

65.3

74.40

0.08

35.75

461.3

Sandstone ? Conglomerate
105

ND number of drills, TDL total


drilling length (m), L average
hole length (m), t average
drilling distance (s), t average
drilling time (s), PR average
penetration rate (m/h), ICR
average instantaneous drilling
rate (m3/h), P power of the
machine (kwh/m3), SE average
specific energy (MJ/m3)

110

Sandstone

Sandstone ? Conglomerate
120

Sandstone

46

51.43

0.85

50.0

62.18

0.07

35.31

558.9

Conglomerate-1

2.09

1.10

54.3

72.75

0.08

35.48

464.8

Conglomerate-2

1.11

1.11

50.0

79.92

0.09

35.48

422.7

Sandstone ? Conglomerate

7.00

1.40

83.6

63.03

0.07

35.53

545.4

123

1584

O. Su et al.

Table 7 The drilling


performance of bits depending
on rock type

Rock type

Bit type

Sandstone

Button

26

39.33

1.51

66.3

85.85

0.12

34.23

311.0

105

49

68.70

1.40

73.1

70.07

0.06

35.34

655.7

110

39

47.02

1.21

55.1

80.27

0.09

34.11

415.0

120

46

51.43

0.85

50.0

62.18

0.07

35.31

558.9

Button-1

32

35.22

1.10

45.5

86.39

0.12

34.70

303.1

Button-2

33

58.73

1.78

67.2

97.87

0.14

34.82

278.6

0.92

0.92

40.0

82.80

0.09

35.20

404.8

Sandstone ? Conglomerate

ND

105-1

Conglomerate

The notations are as given in


Table 6

89.05

100

75.80

PR

ICR

SE

5.79

0.11

44.8

79.16

0.09

36.25

441.8

24

28.95

1.21

51.5

85.99

0.10

35.48

398.9

110-2

22

19.56

0.89

38.1

84.53

0.10

35.48

412.8

120-1

2.09

1.10

54.3

72.75

0.08

35.48

464.8

120-2

1.11

1.11

50.0

79.92

0.09

35.48

422.7

Button

10.13

1.27

54.1

86.08

0.12

35.42

302.9

105

20

19.93

1.00

1.00

71.15

0.06

35.90

642.8

110
120

4
5

5.31
7.00

51.0
1.33

51.0
1.33

74.40
63.03

0.08
0.07

35.75
35.53

461.3
545.4

536.27

600

69.47

60
40

497.98
422.01

500

20

400

298.96

300
200
100
0

0
Button

105

110

Button

120

105

0.13

Sandstone

0 .12

0.09

0 .10

0.08

0.08

0 .08

Conglomerate

Sandstone+Conglomerate
488.12

485.18
500

390.95

400

0 .06

300

0 .04

200

0 .02

74.59 83.80

73.66

100

0 .00
Button

105

110

120

Bit Type
Fig. 9 Comparison of instantaneous drilling rates versus bit type

those bits can be kept working on the jack hammers with


minimal performance loss.
On the other hand, there is a good consistency between
penetration rate and instantaneous drilling rates. As

123

120

Fig. 10 Comparison of specific energy versus bit type

Fig. 8 Comparison of penetration rates versus bit type

0 .14

110

Bit Type

Bit Type

ICR (m3/h)

110-1

SE (MJ/m3)

PR (m/h)

HL

105-2

81.30

80

TDL

0
PR
(m/h)

SE
(MJ/m 3)

Fig. 11 Comparison of penetration rate and specific energy depending on formation types

demonstrated in Fig. 9, ICR values of button bits are higher


than other bit types. Maximum drilling length was also
obtained with the button bits.

Comparison of Drilling Performance of Chisel and Button Bits

1585

ICR. The relationship between the specific energy and


instantaneous drilling rate is plotted in Fig. 12. In addition,
the relationship between specific energy and penetration
rate is drawn in Fig. 13.
As indicated in Fig. 12, a good correlation, with a
coefficient of 0.86, between the specific energy and penetration rate was obtained. Higher penetration rates were
achieved in lower specific energy data, which belong to
button bits. Reddish and Yasar (1996) created a rotary drill
rig by using a masonry bit sharpened to 118. They performed drilling tests on 13 rock types and drilled 20 holes
on each type. They recorded the SE values varying
between 318 and 2928 MJ/m3 and depicted the graph
between SE and PR. The same downtrend was derived as in
data shown in Fig. 12.
Furthermore, another significant correlation was found
between specific energy and instantaneous drilling rate
where the correlation coefficient was determined to be 0.99
(Fig. 13). As the specific energy decreases, instantaneous
drilling rates increase. McFeat and Fowell (1979) also
demonstrated a similar curve for the roadheaders even
though the specific energy was obtained from laboratory
studies. Both of these graphs clearly reveal that the specific
energy decreases, as both of penetration rate and instantaneous drilling rate increase.
The variables, which are penetration rate, instantaneous
drilling rate, and specific energy, were also statistically
analyzed in order to examine whether the values are significant or not. In this context, one sample t test and oneway ANOVA test were performed at a confidence level of
95 % in SPSS. In these tests, specific energy was defined as
the dependent variable while instantaneous drilling rate and
penetration rates are defined as independent variables. The
results are presented in Tables 8 and 9.
Table 8 reports the results of one sample t test. The
critical t value, which is obtained from t test table, with 15
degrees of freedom is 2.231. Since the t values given in the
Table 8 are much higher than 2.231 and the P values are
less than 0.05, the results are significant. For this reason,

700

700

600

600

500

500

SE (MJ/m3)

SE (MJ/m3)

Another important implication was also provided in


specific energy. As presented in Fig. 10, minimum specific
energy was obtained by button bit type. The results of this
comparison can essentially be taken into consideration for
the prediction of a machines performance and guidance in
the bit selection.
Meanwhile, although the penetration rates are more or
less close to each other as shown in Fig. 11, the best
drilling performance was achieved in conglomerate formations because of faster penetration rates and less energy
consumption. This evidence was also supported by laboratory drilling tests since minimum SJ and DRI results
were obtained in the same formation. The comparison of
the specific energy in terms of formation type in Fig. 11
also indicates that minimum energy was consumed in
conglomerate.
However, there is a significant difference between
abrasivity and drillability studies as given in Table 5. The
abrasivity of conglomerate is higher than other rock types
in view of BWI and CAI values. It is also clearly noticed in
Table 7 that the number of drills in conglomerate are less
than in sandstone. This is also an indication of abrasivity
effect even though minimum numbers of drills were
derived from intermediate layer due to the smallest cross
section area. Thus, it is inevitable that the bit consumption
in conglomerate will be high in the course of drilling
although lower specific energy and higher rates of penetration are exhibited. The effect of abrasivity can precisely
be better observed in long drilling length.
The cutter life will also be very long in sandstone since
CLI obtained in the laboratory is higher than other formations. This finding was also supported with the declaration of the operator of the electro hydraulic driller. He
emphasized that approximately 250300 m of length per
bit is drilled in conglomerate despite the fact that it is
around 600-700 m/bit in sandstone. Rabia (1985) also
pointed out that button bits have longer life compared to
chisel bits.
On the other hand, by utilizing the data provided in
Tables 6 and 7, specific energy was correlated with PR and

400
300

y = -10.388x + 1259.1
R = 0.7382

200

400
300
200

y = 51313x2 - 14733x + 1341.1


R = 0.9963

100

100
0
0

20

40

60

PR (m/h)
Fig. 12 The relationship between SE and PR

80

100

120

0
0.00

0.03

0.06

ICR

0.09

0.12

0.15

(m3/h)

Fig. 13 The relationship between SE and ICR

123

1586
Table 8 One sample t test
results

PR penetration rate,
ICR instantaneous drilling
rate, SE specific energy

Table 9 One-way Anova test


results

O. Su et al.

Variable

t value

df

P value

95 % confidence interval of the difference


Lower

Upper
84.0368

PR

33.181

15

0.000

78.96438

73.8919

ICR

15.922

15

0.000

0.09250

0.0801

0.1049

SE

15.250

15

0.000

438.80250

377.4727

500.1323

Variables

Source

Sum of squares

SEICR

Between groups

197650.64

Within groups
SEPR

df

Mean square

F value

P value

32941.775

281.773

0.000

116.909
10.613

0.018

1052.18

Total

198702.83

15

Between groups

192120.39

11

17465.491

6582.43

1645.608

198702.83

15

Within groups
Total

we reject the null hypothesis. In this manner, the results


clearly reveal that the penetration rate and the instantaneous drilling rate can be associated with specific energy in
order to evaluate the performance of a drill machine. On
the other hand, Table 9 shows the output of the one-way
ANOVA analysis. Since the P values are below 0.05, it is
apparently said that the results of drilling tests performed
underground are reliable and statistically valid.

5 Conclusion
This study presents and compares drilling performance of
chisel and button bits. The bits were fabricated in 105,
110 and 120 of taper angles. Drilling measurements were
implemented at the -560 m level of an underground coal
mine. As soon as the site was selected, three visits were
made at regular intervals to monitor the performance of the
electro hydraulic driller. In this context, the penetration
rate, instantaneous drilling rate and specific energy of the
bits were examined.
As a result of the field studies, maximum penetration rate
and minimum specific energy were achieved by using button bits. However, the machine has encountered some
issues in conglomerate owing to the higher abrasivity of this
stratum. It might be due to the larger grain size and higher
amount of abrasive minerals such as quartz in the rock
structure. Therefore, it is suggested to analyze the petrographic structure of the samples to have an idea about the
composition of rocks. It would be better when both abrasion
properties and petrographic analyses are combined and
evaluated together in the course of performance prediction.
Because of excessive wear or broken chips of the bit, it
was necessary to re-sharpen the chisel bits at different

123

Mean difference

intervals of the drilling. It is indeed a time consuming and


expensive process. However, minimum wear was detected
while drilling with button bits and they do not require any
re-sharpening. It will save a lot of time in drilling.
Moreover, strong correlations among penetration rate,
instantaneous and specific energy were established. The
results were also statistically analyzed and it was seen that
the drilling measurements are valid. Those findings suggest
that higher penetration and instantaneous drilling rates are
obtained at lower specific energy, and that specific energy
is directly related to penetration rate.
Drillability and abrasivity index properties also have a
significant effect on the bit selection. The consistency
between laboratory and field studies verifies the importance
of laboratory studies. However, further tests will lead to a
better understanding of the rock behavior for the purpose of
drillability. Hence, minimum costs and maximum advance
rates will be achieved via accurate bit selection.
As a result, we can clearly say from drill monitoring that
button bits are more efficient than the chisel bits in terms of
drilling rate, specific energy and bit life. They enable higher
rates of penetration, lower mechanical wear and lengthen
service life of machine. Moreover, chisel bits having 110 of
taper angle can be kept in use on jack hammers since they
represent the second best performance after button bits.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by an industrial project between Bulent Ecevit University and Turkish Hardcoal Enterprises (TTK). The authors would like to acknowledge TTK for their
support, funding, and the permission to perform the field studies.

References
ASTM D7625 (2010) Standard test method for laboratory determination of abrasiveness of rock using the Cerchar method, 6 p

Comparison of Drilling Performance of Chisel and Button Bits


BHITD (1995) Drilling engineering handbook workbook. A distributed learning course notes. Baker Hughes INTEQ Training &
Development, Huston, TX, USA, 410 p
Bruland A (1998) Drillability test report. 13A-98 Norway, 25 p
Dahl F (2003) DRI, BWI, CLI Standard. SINTEF Report, Norway 21 p
Dahl F, Grv E, Breivik T (2007) Development of a new direct test
method for estimating cutter life, based on the Sievers J
miniature drill test. Tunnel Undergr Sp Tech 22:106116
Dahl F, Bruland A, Jakobsen PD, Nilsen B, Grv E (2012)
Classifications of properties influencing the drillability of rocks,
based on the NTNU/SINTEF test method. Tunnel Undergr Sp
Tech 28:150158
Deketh HJR (1995) Wear of rock cutting tools, laboratory experiments on the abrasivity of rock, Rotterdam, 144 p
Ersoy A, Waller MD (1995) Wear characteristics of PDC pin and
hybrid core bits in rock drilling. Wear 188:150165
Evans I, Pomeroy CD (1966) The strength, fracture and workability of
coal, London, 277 p
Franca LFP (2011) A bitrock interaction model for rotarypercussive drilling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:827835
Gong OM, Zhao J (2009) Development of a rock mass characteristics
model for TBM penetration rate prediction. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 46:818
Hoseinie SH, Ataei M, Osanloo M (2009) A new classification system
for evaluating rock penetrability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
46:13291340
Howarth DF, Adamson WR, Berndt JR (1986) Correlation of model
tunnel boring and drilling machine performances with rock
properties. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 23:171175
Huang SL, Wang SW (1997) The mechanics of diamond core drilling
of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:134148
ISRM (1979) Suggested methods for determining hardness and
abrasiveness of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
15:8997
Johnson ST, Fowell RJ (1986) Compressive strength is not enough
(assessing pick wear rates for drag tool equipped machines). In:
Proceedings of 27th US Symp on Rock Mech (USRMS),
Tuscaloosa, AL, USA, pp 286292
Kahraman S, Bilgin N, Feridunoglu C (2003) Dominant rock
properties affecting the penetration rate of percussive drills. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:711723
Kim Y, Bruland A (2009) Effect of rock mass quality on construction
time in a road tunnel. Tunnel Undergr Sp Tech 24:584591
McFeat SI, Fowell RJ (1977) Rock property testing and the cutting
performance of tunneling machines. Tunnels Tunneling 9:2933
McFeat SI, Fowell RJ (1979) The selection and application of
roadheaders for rock tunneling. In: Proceedings of Rapid
Excavation and Tunnelling Conference, USA, vol I, pp 261279

1587
Mincon (2012) Mincon International Ltd., Roanoke, VA, USA.
http://www.mincon.com
Nishimatsu Y (1972) The mechanics of rock cutting. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 9:261270
Plinninger RJ (2008) Abrasiveness assessment for hard rock drilling.
Geomech and Tunn 1:3846
Protodyakonov MM (1962) Mechanical properties and drillability of
rock. Fifth Symp on Rock Mech., University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, In, pp 103118
Rabia H, Brook N (1981) The effect of apparatus size and surface area
charge on the impact of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sc &
Geomech Abstr 18:211219
Rabia H (1982) Specific energy as a criterion for drill performance
prediction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci & Geomech Abstr
19:3942
Rabia H (1985) A unified prediction model for percussive and rotary
drilling. Min Sci and Tech 2:207216
Reddish DJ, Yasar E (1996) A new portable rock strength energy of
drilling index test based on specific energy of drill. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sc & Geomech Abstr 33:543548
Rostami J, Ozdemir L, Neil DM (1994) Performance prediction: a key
issue in mechanical hard rock mining. Mining Engineering
46:12631267
Sharma DK, Pandey AK, Das A (1990) A performance prediction
model for optimized drilling and blasting costs. Int Symp on
Rock Fragm by Blasting, Beijing, China, In, pp 3136
Su O, Yarali O (2010) The effect of tip angle on drilling performance
of monoblock bits used on electro-hydraulic drillers. In:
Proceedings of the 17th Coal Congress of Turkey, Zonguldak,
Turkey, pp 231244
Tandanand S, Unger HF (1975) Drillability determination: a drillability
index of percussive drills. US Bureau of Mines, RI 8073
Thuro K, Spaun G (1996) Introducing destruction work0 as a new
rock property of toughness referring to drillability in conventional drill and blast tunneling. Prediction and Performance in
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Rotterdam, pp 707713
Thuro K (1997) Drillability prediction-geological influences in hard
rock drill and blast tunneling. Geol Rund 86:426438
Wijk G (1991) Rotary drilling prediction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci &
Geomech Abstr 28:3542
Yarali O, Kahraman S (2011) The drillability assessment of rocks
using the different brittleness values. Tunnel and Undergr Sp
Tech 26:406414

123