2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
Technology is the key to higher production, productivity and safety, which depends on
the mining operations prevailing in the country. A combination of conventional and
modern technology to suit the indigenous condition and environment would give the
best results. The role of this innovative technology of mining by surface miner assumes
high importance due to the increasing complexity of mining operations in mineral
excavation. Application of surface miner is in a very active phase at different coal,
limestone, gypsum, lignite, salt, phosphate, bauxite and iron ore projects around the
globe and India, too, is catching up since early 1990s. The surface miners are machines
made for an efficient, continuous mining operation. No drilling-blasting, selective
mining, less dilution, no further crushing and fragmentation etc are the attractive
features of the surface miner technology. Presently, surface miners are contributing in a
number of projects in various parts of the globe, especially in USA, Russia, Australia
and Bosnia apart from India.

In the last few decades mineral sector in India has achieved a rate of growth higher than
that of the rate of economy (Venkateshan, 2012). By and large, this increase is
attributable to new proven technologies employed. The latest mining state-of-the-art is
the introduction of surface miners for mining soft to medium hard rock. The surface
miner is already a proven versatile machine with cutting capability for compressive
strengths up to 120 MPa (Ghose, 2008). Out of current global population of nearly 300
surface miners in productive use around the world, some 105 machines are operating in
India (Ghose, 2000). In India, coal mining by opencast is much more popular than
underground mining ever since nationalization. While about 60% of world coal
production comes from underground mines and 40% from opencast mines, in India
around 90% of the coal is produced by opencast method and only 10% by underground
methods (Anon., 2011). According to Khare (2008) the production of coal from surface
mining has increased by 2.67 times from 1974-75 till 2004-05. The ratio of coal
production

from

surface

and

underground

mines

was

90:10

in

2011-12

(www.coal.nic.in/Provisional coal statistics). The increasing trend of surface and

underground coal production of the last five years is shown in Figure 2.1. The increase
6

in overall production is contributed mainly by the opencast mines. In Coal India Limited
(CIL), surface miners contributed about 103 million tonne of coal production in the year
2010-2011,
2011, which was 26% of the total production (Pradhan, 2012). The global scenario
indicates that surface miners are being applied maximum in limestone deposit. Surface
miners are contributing in large scale in Indian limestone mines too. Statistics of
limestone production of the last five years in India is shown in Figure 2.2
(www.mines.gov.in).

398

59

59

59

2007-08
08

2008-09

2009-10

underground (MT)

488

478

473

434

52

55

2010-11

2011
2011-12

opencast (MT)

Figure 2.1: Trend of surface and underground coal production in India

222

233

238

2009-10

2010-11

253

193

2007-08
08

2008-09

2011
2011-12

Figure 2.2: Production statistics of limestone in India

2.2 Surface Miners and Their Development

In surface mining, various attempts were made to develop an economically viable
alternative to conventional drill and blast technology particularly for soft to medium
7

hard rocks. A surface miner, also called continuous surface miner, is a technology to
extract, crush and load material in one go. The earliest continuous surface miner used
for excavating and loading soft and loose material was the elevating grader. However,
these machines were unsuitable for stiff material and also cannot negotiate boulders
(Misra, 2007). The design and fabrication of surface miner was ventured based on
mechanical excavation principle.

The first Wirtgen surface miner was introduced in 1983 to gypsum mine in South
Africa. Hofman reported the use of continuous surface miners as a technology for
opencast mines in 1987 (Pradhan, 2012). However, it took another 10 years to make this
technology on roads on mines. By the year 2008 more than 40 surface miners were
employed in limestone mines and around 50 in coal mines in India. The first break
through of surface miner (Wirtgen make 2100SM) in Indian coal mine was in 1999 at
Lakhanpur coal mines in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL), a subsidiary of Coal
India Limited (CIL). A total of 47 surface miners (32 Wirtgen, 3 Bitelli, 12 L&T make)
of various sizes and capacities have been deployed in different collieries of MCL,
Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) during
2010-2011. Bhatt (1995) identified surface miner as an alternative technology for
limestone mining for cement projects in Kutch district of Gujarat state. The surface
miner (Wirtgen make 1900SM) was used for the first time in India in 1994 at a
limestone mine of Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited (GACL). This machine proved the
ability of mining and sizing the soft limestone without blasting. In the same year
Madras Cements purchased the first new Wirtgen surface miner 2100SM. Vermeer
make surface miner was used in bauxite mine of National Aluminium Company
Limited (NALCO) on trial basis in hard rock excavation in 2010. The predominant
surface miner makes in Indian conditions are Wirtgen and L&T. Surface miners have
become the standard mining machine in all soft to medium hard limestone and coal
mines and are being used by various Indian mining companies as given in Table 2.1.

The Voest Alpine, Krupp, Wirtgen, Huron Easi and KSM make surface miners are used
with varying degrees of success.

Table 2.1: Deployment of surface miners in Indian companies

Sl. No.

Company

1
2
3
4
5

Ambuja Cements
Madras Cements
India Cements
Coal India Limited
Sanghi Industries
limited

No. of surface miners No. of surface miners

(Wirtgen make)
(L&T make)
7
5
3
34
-

10
1

The major manufacturers of surface miners, such as Krupp and Wirtgen of Germany
and Voest-Alpine of Austria, have developed new machines from their areas of
technological strength. Thus, Krupps KSM is said to have come from the bucket wheel,
Wirtgens machines from its road milling equipment and Voest Alpine Surface Miner
(VASM) from its roadheader (Alpine Miner). Wirtgen offers the widest range of models
in the miner market, i.e., 1900SM, 2100SM, 2200SM, 2500SM, 3000SM, 3700SM and
4200SM. In 1987, 4200SM model was tested in several surface mines in the USA.
These machines, for instance 1900SM and 4200SM, are capable of selectively cutting
mineral separated by as little as 0.15 and 0.52 m thickness respectively (Vogt and
Strunk, 1995). Wirtgen, the worlds largest manufacturer of surface miners with widest
range of products and a variety of mining and other typical application experiences, is
the biggest supplier of surface miners in India.

According to Bordia (1987), these machines are suitable for multi-seam coal deposits
and have been successfully operated in all coal classes and partings with compressive
strengths up to 100 MPa and to a maximum cutting depth of 0.6 m. In addition, Wirtgen
surface miners can continuously cut and load at a capacity between 1000 2500 t/h, and
are capable of cutting coal, partings, gypsum, limestone, bauxite and other materials as
hard as 6 on the Mohrs hardness scale. Different mechanical excavation systems and
their characteristics are listed in Table 2.2.

According to Krupp, the KSM models are designed for cutting materials with uniaxial
compressive strength up to 40 MPa, including hard coal, bauxite, phosphate, limestone,
9

oil sand, gypsum, clay and certain stratified or fractured materials where natural defects
assist cuttability.

Table 2.2: Types and characteristics of excavators (after Bordia, 1987)

System

Makers

UCS
(MPa)

Cutting
depth (m)

Cutting speed
(m/min)

Maximum
capacity (t/h)

BWE

Takraf Russia
Voest-Alpine

25

0.2-7.0

NA

1000

Milling
Shearer
Rotation

Wirtgen/Huron
PWH C-Miner
Voest-Alpine

100
150
100

0.0-0.6
1.8 2.5
NA

0 25
0 10
60 180

2500
2100
1600

NA = not available

2.2.1 Types of surface miner

Surface miners basically implies three distinct classes of machines, namely, milling
type, bucket wheel type and ranging-shearer-drum type. The position of the cutting
drum is often decided based on the desired cutting capacity and compressive strength of
rock. Three distinct categories of surface miners are illustrated in the following
paragraphs.

a) Milling type: Milling type surface miners are manufactured by Wirtgen or Bitelli
machines, Easi-Miner from Huron, Man Takraf, L&T and Vermeer Terrain Leveller.
In most of these machines, the cutting drum is positioned below the machine in
between the front and rear crawlers. The Vermeer and Tesmec cutting drum is at the
end of the machine as shown in Figure 2.3; it is also wider than the machine and uses
top-down cutting which allows the cutter teeth to gain penetration without using
machines tractive effort.

In Man Takraf surface miner (MTS250 and 1250) and Tenova TAKRAF the cutting
drum is fixed in front of the machine. The milling type miner can cut rocks with
compressive strength in the range of 80 - 100 MPa. It is able to negotiate rocks having
compressive strength of 140 to 150 MPa, with reduced production (Misra, 2007).

10

Figure 2.3:: Rear cutting drum surface miner (www.tesmec.com

www.tesmec.com)

b) Bucket wheel type

type: This type of surface miner, based originally on Satterwhite
machine, is marketed by Thyssenkrupp Fordertechnik. In this machine (model
KSM2000), 4 parallel bucket wheels are mounted on a main frame without boom as
shown in Figure 2.4.. The machine has a theoretical output of approximately 10001000
1400 bank cubic meters
meters/hour
/hour in material of average uniaxial compressive strength in
the range of 20 to 30 M
MPa.

Figure 2.4: Front cutting drum surface miner (http://www.readbag.com/mine(http://www.readbag.com/mine

planning
planning-publications-documents-large-surface-miners)
miners)
11

c) Ranging-shearer-drum type: This type of surface miner is based on underground

drum type continuous miner, represented by Voest Alpines VASM-2 and Rahcos
CME-12. The ranging-shearer-drum type miners can cut rocks up to a compressive
strength of 120 MPa, though their economic range of operation is up to 80 MPa
(Misra, 2007).

Continuous miners can cut and load stronger formations like coal, shale, soft sandstone
and limestone, gypsum, chalk, etc., which cannot be excavated by bucket-wheel
excavators, or ripped by dozer rippers. Amongst the three types, milling type machine
dominates the market globally. A brief comparison of basic technical parameters of the
three types of surface miners based on drum position is tabulated in Table 2.3.
Classification of surface miners based on milling and boom cutting type is given in
Table 2.4.

2.2.2 Cutting action of surface miner

The milling type miner, shown in Figure 2.5, consists of a rotating wide cutting or
milling drum, which has spiral ridges carrying conical picks with tungsten carbide
inserts. The pick flight can be varied to suit the type of material cut. The drum spirals
are in the form of twin helix so that the cut material is pushed towards the drum centre
where it is loaded on a loading conveyor.

Table 2.3: Comparison of technical parameters based on cutting drum position

Parameter
Cutting width (mm)
Cutting depth/height (mm)
Capacity
Weight (t)
Installed power (kW)
Manufacturers

Types of surface miner

Middle drum

Rear cutting drum

Front cutting wheel

250-4200
0-800

5250
1000-5500

7100
0-2900

For all machines output is related to material characteristics

40-190
450-1200
Wirtgen, Bitelli,
L&T and
Huron

135
750
Vermeer, Tesmec,
Voest Alpine

540
up to 3340
Krupp Frdertechnik
& Tenova TAKRAF

12

Table 2.4: Classification of surface miners based on milling and boom type
Milling miner
Drum, centrally

Drum, frontal (DWE)

Easi Miner by Huron

SM series by Wirtgen

Continuous Excavators by forester-Miller

WL-50 Excavators by Barber Green Satterwhite
Excavators by Unit rig
C-Miner by PWH/Paurat
KSM4000
Boom miner

Drum

Cut header

CME-12 by Rahco
Voest Alpine surface Miner
(VASM)

TB3000 by Dosco, WAV170 by Westphalia

ET-400 by Atlas Copco-Eickhoff

Operators cab

Drum unit with

diesel engine

Boom
counterweight

Slewing ring
Site illumination

Discharge boom,
slewable and
adjustable in height

Scraper blade with

primary conveyor

Crawler track, adjustable in height

Cutting drum, mechanically driven

Figure 2.5: Schematic view of middle drum surface miner (www.wirtgen.com)

The conveyor system comprises a wide primary conveyor which picks up the cut and
comminuted material at the cutting drum, as well as a discharge conveyor to discharge
the material onto trucks as shown in Figure 2.6. The discharge conveyor can be adjusted
in height and slewed to both sides. The conveying speed can be varied. The drum or the
machine frame carrying the drum can be pushed up or down between the tracks by
hydraulic cylinders for controlling the milling depth from as low as 10 mm to as high as
610 mm.
13

Figure 2.6: Transfer of cut material by conveyor system (www.wirtgen.com)

There is a provision for tilting the drum or the entire machine to give a sloping cut up to
7 (Misra, 2007). The drum chamber is sealed by a hydraulically actuated scraper blade
behind the cutting drum to clean cutting surface. The cutting drum rotates in an upcutting direction. The cutting tools are mounted in tool holders welded onto the body of
the drum. The picks (number, arrangement and types) used depend on the machines
momentary use and on the properties of the material being cut.

2.2.3 Design features

a) Diesel engine
The surface miners are diesel powered. The engines power is transmitted via a robust
belt drive to the drum, ensuring an effective power transmission. Moreover, the other
systems (e.g. track and belt drive) are hydraulically driven.

b) Central cutting drum with mechanical drive

The cutting drum is located in the centre of the machine (most cases), between the four
crawler tracks, shown in Figure 2.7. It is located close to the centre of gravity. The
entire machine weight can thus be converted into cutting force.

14

Figure 2.7: Central cutting drum with mechanical drive (www.wirtgen.com)

This allows cutting of harder materials with good results and at the same time ensures
the stability of the machine. The cutting drum speed can be varied by interchanging the
belt pulleys. The usual range of drum speed, which can be realized with these
changings, vary from 60 to 100 rpm. The belt pulleys are tensioned automatically by a
hydraulic cylinder. This is an energy effective, low maintenance system, minimizing
operating and maintenance costs.
c) Automatic adjustment of cutting depth
The cutting depth is regulated by an automatic leveling system mounted to the machine.
The pre-selected cutting depth is maintained either automatically or can be adjusted
manually. The control system can be connected with:
i.

Cable sensors scanning the distance to a reference plate sliding on the surface.

ii.

Non-contact ultrasonic sensors measuring the distance to the side plate or the
surface.

iii.

Automatic control of transversal slope: The machine is equipped with a slope

sensor to control transversal slope of the cutting surface. It can be used to create
defined slopes, for water drainages for example, on the cutting surface.

iv.

Multiplex sensors working with three sensors on one or both sides of the
machine, thus leveling uneven surfaces in longitudinal and transversal direction.

v.

Laser sensors working with a transmitter and receiver.

15

2.2.4 Specifications of surface miner

Manufacturing sector plays a vital role for the growth of mining industry. There are
many companies in the world which are manufacturing surface miners, namely, Wirtgen
(SM Series), Huron Manufacturing Co (Easi-Miner), Takraf, L&T, Vermeer, etc.
Specifications of a few prominent models are given in Table 2.5, Table 2.6 and Table
2.7.

Table 2.5: Specification of Takraf (www.takraf.com), L&T (www.larsontoubro.

com) and Bitelli surface miners (Murthy et al., 2009)
Name of Company
Model
Drum width (m)
Cutting depth (m)
Operating speed (m/min)
Rated capacity (m3/h)
Machine power (kW)

TAKRAF

L&T

Bitelli

MTS MTS MTS MTS MTS MTS KSM KSM KSM

SF
180 300 500
800 1250 2000 223 303 304 202M
3.3
0.70
NA
180
500

5.6 6.5 7.4 2.2

4.0
4.9
0.875 1.050 1.225 1.40 1.575 0.35
NA NA NA 83
NA
NA
800 1250 2000 NA
300 500
750 1650 2000 2500 2500 597

3.0
0.30
30
NA
597

3.0
0.40
20
NA
895

2.0
0.25
NA
NA
515

Table 2.6: Specification of Wirtgen surface miner (www.wirtgen.com)

Model

2200SM

2500SM

3700SM

4200SM

Cutting width (m)

Cutting depth (m)
Drum diameter (m)
Fuel consumption (l/h)
Operating speed (m/min)
Travel speed (km/min)
Engine (HP)
Weight (t)
No. of tools
Spacing (mm)

2.20
0.35
1.12
150
0-5
800
51.0
76
38

2.50
0.60
1.50
191.5
0-25
0-3.9
1,050
103.0
Depends on
application

3.70
0.60
1.50
284
0-20
0-2.5
1,600
176.0
Depends on
application

4.20
0.80
1.86
284
0-20
0-2.5
1,600
191.4
Depends on
application

Cutting drum drive

Number of tracks
Track drive system
Drum speed (rpm)

Mechanical
4
Hydraulic
60-100

16

Table 2.7: Specification of Vermeer and Trencor surface miner (www.trencor.com)

Name of Company

VERMEER

TRENCOR

Model

T855

T955

T1055

T1255

3000SM

Drum width (m)

Cutting depth (m)
Operating weight (ton)
Max. cutting speed (m/min)
Machine power (kW)

2.5
0.812
40.8
28
281

3.4
0.812
56.7
20
309

3.4
0.812
61.2
16
317

3.7
0.610
99.8
12
447

3.048
0.660
132.5
35
1230

methods
2.2.5 Operating method
The operating methods are classified into three categories based on the machine travel
mode illustrated in the following paragraphs.

a) Empty travel back method

The surface miner cuts the material from one end of the pit. The cutting drum is raised
and moved back to the starting end without turning after the completion of the full cut.
The material is not cut during the backward movement
movement, i.e., it travels back empty.
emp After
coming back to initial point, the machine is set for a new cut in adjacent strip,
strip shown in
Figure 2.8.

ure 2.8: Empty travel back method (Pradhan

Pradhan, 2009)
Figure

This method is generally adopted for a mine having a field length less than 200 m
because the turning time is more than the empty travel time. It is also applicable in bad
17

pit-end condition and the machine is not able to turn there or the pit width is not
sufficient to allow the turning of machine at the end of a cut.

b) Turn back method

A surface miner cuts from one end of the area and after the completion of cut the cutting
drum is raised and the machine turns, shown in Figure 2.9.

Figure 2.9: Turn back method (Pradhan, 2009)

This method is generally adopted for a mine having a field length more than 200 m, so
that the time consumption in turning is lesser than empty travel time. This method is
widely used in limestone mines and gives more production.

c) Continuous mining method

Surface miner operates on an even field and continuously cuts the material. The
machine moves with cutting the material and near the pit end, it takes turn with a gentle
angle without raising the cutting drum, so that there is no discontinuity in cutting
operation. The cut area gets an oval shape, shown in Figure 2.10. The mining area is
developed by cutting slice by slice. For each slice the cutting depth only needs to be set
once on the surface miner.

18

Figure 2.10: Continuous mining method (Meena et al., 2008)

After the completion of an elliptical movement, adjacent cut is taken. This continues till
the elliptical turning gets sharp angle. Then machine goes for turn back method. This
can be avoided by overlapping elliptical movement, but the productivity reduces at the
overlapping area.

2.2.6 Other operational features

a) Block operation with ramp cutting
While cutting the block down to its planned level, the surface miner cuts its own ramp.
After completing the cut of the first block, the next block can be started adjacent to the
first one. Since turning on narrow benches is difficult and time consuming, two
alternative operations can be recommended:
i. Turning the machine on an appropriate area outside the ramp.
ii. Reverse the machine after finishing one cut and reposition the surface miner at the
adjacent cut.
As a rule of thumb, the turning radius is 12 multiply cutting width (when cutting harder
rock, the cutting depth has to be reduced) (Dey, 1999; Dutta, 2012).

b) Working Length
The productivity of a surface miner depends on the length of working area. Longer cuts
will enhance the productivity, because only a smaller amount of time is spent in
maneuvering from one cut to the next. The forward speed depends on the following
factors:
i. cutting depth
19

ii. material hardness and structure

iii. type of machine and installed engine power

In standard applications, the appropriate minimum cutting field length should be in the
range of (Dey, 1999; Dutta, 2012):
i. 100 m (hard material, low forward speed)
ii.

300 m (softer material, high forward speed)

2.2.7 Types of loading

a) Conveyor loading
Machine is set to cut by lowering its cutting drum at a predetermined depth, and then
starts excavation with its forward movement and the material excavated is transported to
the discharge conveyor via a primary conveyor. Discharge conveyor is mounted on a
discharge boom that can slew in either side and also the height of the boom can be
adjusted as per requirement, shown in Figure 2.11.

Figure 2.11: Conveyor loading system (www.wirtgen.com)

The cutting drum is followed by a scraper plate, which gathers material left on the floor.
This results in clean and smooth floor without any undulation. This method inherently
involves the loss of time needed for the replacement of a filled up dumper or truck with
an empty one. The efficiency of this operation depends on exact planning of number of
20

dumpers in accordance with their fleeting time, availability of space for maneuvering
the trucks or dumpers at the site of operation, and the drivers skill to rightly position
the empty dumpers quickly.

b) Windrowing
The conveyor loading arrangement of the machine is not utilized, i.e., machine is not
fitted with the discharge belt. The scraper plate behind the drum is modified and a door
is provided which allows the cut material to heap behind the machine in a row, shown in
Figure 2.12. Cut material can be loaded later to a dumper by loading equipment like
front end loader and scraper.

Figure 2.12: Windrowing system (www.wirtgen.com)

Though windrowing is independent of the loading and transportation of material, but the
overall efficiency (including fuel efficiency) is more as the machine is devoid of the
discharge belt, thus lighter, more balanced and requires less energy for operation. Thus,
it is the most productive mode of a surface miner. On the other hand it needs more space
to operate than in other modes.

c) Side casting
In this method, the discharge belt dumps the material on the side of the cut being made
by the surface miner, shown in Figure 2.13. The dumped material is later loaded to
21

dumpers/trucks by loaders and taken away. Here the machine operation is free from
interference due to loading.

ure 2.13: Side casting system (www.wirtgen.com)

Figure

Each method of loading has its own advantages and disadvantages, as listed in Table
2.8.. Windrowing system is best from production view point.

maintenance and breakdown issues

2.2.8 Common maint
Production hampers due to the machine breakdown. Itt is imperative to provide proper
maintenance of surface miner for smooth and regular operation as well as to minimize
the number of breakdowns. Some common maintenance works and breakdowns of
surface miners experienced in Indian coal and limestone mines is given in Table 2.9.

2.2.9 Application and merits of surface miner

a) Application
miners simplifies the mining operation (source
(
ground
The application of surface miner
breaking, crushing and loading are combined in one single operation), maintenance and
supervision due to the one
one-machine concept.

22

Table 2.8: Comparison of the different loading methods

Loading method

Advantages
No
re-handling
material required.

Direct loading

Side casting

Windrowing

Disadvantages
of Larger working area required for
truck maneuvering.
Production affected by truck
exchange time.
Belt wear.

Blending of material in
the mine. Stockpile of
material in the mine.
No waiting for trucks,
independent operation.

Restricted to 3-5 cuts wide on each

side of the mine stockpile.
Belt wear.
Material has to be re-handled.
Material prone to absorb water when
lying on the ground.

Large working area required.

No waiting for trucks.
No belt wear/higher Material has to be handled either by
loader or scraper.
availability.
Higher production rates Material prone to absorb water when
lying on the ground.
than conveyor loading.
Coarser material.
Better selectivity in
steep inclined seams.

Table 2.9: Common maintenance and breakdowns in Indian coal and limestone mines

Maintenance

Breakdown

Regular washing of machine by

water.
Change of radiator coolant,
engine oil, PTO gear box oil,
milling drum oil, advance drive
gear oil and track gear oil.
Change/service of PTO filter,
diesel filter, water filter,
coolant filter, hydraulic filter,
air filter and water filter.
Maintenance of radiator water
leakage and track tensioning
work.

Thermostat valve removal due to overheat of

radiator.
Failing of tension pulley bearing.
Breaking of travelling pump seal, water pump.
Breaking of pulley bush.
Picks and pick holders breakage.
Puncture of brake hose, track motor hose
Damage of scraper door, track roller
Damage of radiator bolt, radiator and oil collar.
Breakage of milling drum drive shaft coupling,
milling drum pulley belt.
Engine breakdown.
Damage of steering cylinder key, guide column
cylinder.

The application procedure for a mining permit is faster than for a blasting operation.
Surface miner eliminates primary crushing as the output size is < 80 mm, and thus
23

energy is saved, which otherwise would have been required for the primary crushing
process. Surface miner produces a smooth, clean
lean and even floor facilitating the
movement of the hauling equipment, minimizing wear and tear of the tyres and chassis
of the hauling equipment.

As a result, operating costs are reduced considerably. Surface miner application

dominates globally in limestone
stone mines, though it is applicable in production of various
other ore/minerals as given in Fig
Figure 2.14 (after www.wirtgen.com).
www.wirtgen.com)

140 129

Surface Miners

120
100
80
60

50

40

Phosphate

Sandstone

Lignite

Tuff

Kimberlite

Pegmatite

Granite

Mudstone

Oilshale

20

22

22

17
2

Gypsum

Salt

Shale

Iron ore

Coal

Bauxite

Limestone

minerals/ore
Figure 2.14: Application of surface miners in different minerals/ores

However, it is important to note that surface miners, as claimed by Vogt and Strunk
(1995), are ideally suited to selective mining operations. This is becoming increasingly
important as emphasis is now being placed on keeping mineral losses and dilution to a
minimum. In this regard the KSM4000 is noteworthy for its ability to selectively cut
material up to a thickness of 3 cm. A surface miner has a capacity to negotiate a
maximum gradient up to 14o (Rao and Vilas, 1997).

24

c) Merits of surface miner

Use of surface miner is a simplified mining technology and possesses several
advantages, namely, selective mining, improved productivity and ability to work close
to the habitat/agricultural fields. It is environment-friendly with reduced noise emission,
reduced fugitive dust emission, total elimination of ground vibration, no drilling and
blasting, no fly rocks and no secondary blasting/breaking of boulders. Precise cutting of
designed profiles (slopes, surfaces), stable and clean surfaces/benches with improved
overall availability of the system, reduced operating cost, leading to easier coordination
and process planning during planning, dispatching and maintenance can be obtained by
the use of surface miner. Enhanced ROM-quality, improved exploitation of the deposit,
reduced processing requirement after mining, primary crushing stage can be omitted by
application of surface miner. Gentle loading of trucks due to sized material, low
investment costs in comparison to the range of equipment necessary for conventional
mining, energy efficient system and improved safety are also the advantageous features
of surface miner. Surface miners can maintain the surface of existing haul roads in
virgin rock or in opencast mines. It facilitates higher overall travel speed for haulage
vehicles due to better road surfaces. Benches with fewer cracks reduce the chances of
heating/fire due to breathing of air.
2.3 Mechanical Cutting of Rocks
The application of mechanical excavation of rocks, a non-explosive technique of
mining, is very attractive for many projects because of techno-economic advantages
including improved safety, ease in automation, finished and undamaged excavation
dimensions, lower ground vibrations, etc. Mechanical rock cutting is a prevalent method
today for rock excavation in mining and construction industries owing to several
limitations/constraints faced during drilling and blasting. Numerous mining and
tunneling machines, namely, roadheaders, tunnel boring machines, drills, trenchers,
dredges and continuous surface miners utilize cutting action of picks or bits for rock
excavation. Two types of tools are used for rock cutting, namely, drag bits (break rock
as it moves in a direction parallel to the rock surface) and indenters (break rocks by
pressing normally onto the surface). Rock cutting by surface miner follows the former
type. Drag bits are generally limited to applications in weak to medium strength rocks
and in rocks with low abrasivity characteristics because these bits are more susceptible
25

to breakage and wear than indenters (Hood and Ale, 2000). Conical picks are the
essential cutting tools used especially on surface miners, roadheaders, continuous
miners and shearers and their cutting performance affects directly the efficiency and the
cost of rock/mineral excavation (Bilgin et al., 2006).

Evaluation of surface miner performance is necessary in order to allow any meaningful

comparison between different machines operating under a variety of conditions.
Prediction of cutting rate and pick consumption are fundamental to any machine
performance evaluation.

2.3.1 Cutting action of pick

When a pick attacks a rock medium during cutting, at the point of contact between the
pick and the rock medium, high stresses develop under the pick tip. As the pick is kept
pressed into the rock, pick forces exceed the strength of the material and material is
cracked. Cracks are initiated and propagated through the free surface and laterally into
the rock as shown in Figure 2.15. In the final stage, rock is fragmented whenever one of
the main cracks reaches the free surface (Tiryaki and Dikmen, 2006).

Figure 2.15: Force variation during cutting action by pick (Roxborough et al., 1981)

The cutting process is a continuous repetition of localized tearing. The motion of the
pick is accompanied simultaneously by the communition of rock at the point of contact
and the removal of broken products from the core. During the process of communition
26

resisting force increases and the tearing off of small chips is accompanied by the
ejection of finely pulverized rock from the core with a slight fall in cutting forces. When
a large chip is torn from the mass, the cutting force drops to zero or near zero. If the
fracture leading to tearing has partly extended inside the mass, the cutting force remains
zero or near zero until the tool covers the length of the fracture. In the unbroken part of
the rock mass situated under the tool, high contact compressive stresses develop which
form the cutting forces and cause ejection of coal due to friction as well as wear of the
tool (Pozin et al., 1989).

The tip of a cutting tool performs two functions as it pushes through brittle rock. Firstly,
it initiates breakage ahead of the cutting tool. Major fractures induced in this way result
in the removal of saucer shaped pieces as the rock breaks at a shallow angle both to the
sides and ahead of the tool. Secondly, the cutting tool clears a path through the
remaining material by a profiling action and this occurs as the tool cuts into the sloping
surface left by a major breakage (Hurt and Evans, 1980). Continuous miner/drum
shearers, coal ploughs and roadheaders use picks or plough cutters of a similar design
for their cutting tools.

Rock cutting with typical brittle failure is characterized by chip formation and
separation due to combined action of shear and tensile fracture initiated in a crushing
zone near the tooth tip and propagating into the intact rock (Rojek, 2007). The ability of
excavation machines to operate and cut effectively in hard rock is limited by the system
stiffness and the ability of cutting tools to withstand high forces. Mean and peak cutter
forces are of vital importance for a given rock formation. The force acting on a cutting
tool changes constantly in magnitude during a cutting process due to chipping and
brittle nature of the rock. Mean cutter force is defined as an average of all the force
changes during the course of cutting action. Mean peak force is defined as an average of
the peak forces during the course of cutting action. High forces may result in gross
fracture damage to the tungsten carbide cutting tip, damage the machine components
and exceed the machines torque and thrust capacities. However, the most
comprehensive and accepted theories are those of Evans (1961, 1972, 1982, 1984a and
1984b) for chisel picks and conical picks and of Nishimatsus (1972) for chisel picks.
27

2.3.2 Cutting force estimation

Normal and frictional forces act on the cutting edge of the tool. Frictional forces depend
on normal forces and variable coefficients of friction. The pressure is maximum near the
cutting edge of the tool and diminishes rapidly, in a hyperbolic relation, away from the
tool edge.

One of the earliest theories was developed by Evans (1965) for rock cutting with drag
picks. The pioneering work on coal cutting mechanics performed by Evans (1961), and
Evans and Pomeroy (1966) and extended theoretical works of Evans (1972, 1982, 1984a
and 1984b) were used to establish the basic principles of the cutting process and these
have been widely used in the efficient design of excavation machines such as shearers,
continuous miners and roadheaders. The type of failure (brittle and ductile) during rock
cutting depends on the type of rock. It is assumed that the breakage is essentially tensile
and occurs along failure surface, which approximates a circular arc as shown in Figure
2.16.

f =

cutting
tool
Fc

b
d

Figure 2.16: Tensile breakage mechanism (Goktan, 1990)

Evans demonstrated theoretically that tensile strength and compressive strength were
dominant rock properties in rock cutting with chisel picks and point attack tools as
formulated in Equations 2.1 and 2.2 (Table 2.10). Roxborough (1973) proved that the
experimental forces for chisel picks were in good agreement with theoretical values
calculated using Equation 2.1.
28

Table 2.10: Mathematical relations for estimating cutting forces using different picks

Sl. No.

2
3
4

6
7
8
9

Proposed equation

Author

1
2 t dw sin (90 )
2
Fc =
(chisel picks)
(Equation 2.1)
1
1 sin (90 )
2
2
2
16 d t
(point attack picks)
(Equation 2.2)
Fc =
Cos 2 ( / 2) c
2 u dw cos
Fc =
(chisel picks)
(Equation 2.3)
(n + 1)(1 sin( r ,t + )
Fc = 2.4 + 0.0064 A Sin
(Equation 2.4)
Fn = 1.5 Fc
16 c d 2 t2 ( / 2 + )
(point attack picks)
Fc =
2

1 + Tan
2 t + ( c Cos ( / 2))

Tan( / 2)

(Equation 2.5)
2
2
4 t d Sin ( / 2 + )
Fc =
(point attack picks) (Equation 2.6)
Cos( / 2 + )

2 s dw cos( )Cos(i)
(n + 1)[1 sin(i + )
4 d t
Pc =
Cos .a
Fc =

Pc = a2 c

Where, i = rock internal friction angle (degree)

= tip angle (degree)

(Equation 2.7)
(Equation 2.8)
(Equation 2.9)

Evans (1965,
1972, 1982,
1984a and
1984b); Evans
and Pomeroy
(1966)
Nishimatsu
(1972)
Hurt et al.
(1988)
Roxborough
and Liu (1995)
Goktan (1997);
Goktan and
Gunes (2005a)
Bilgin et al.
(2006)
Evans (1984a,
1984b)

Pc = total horizontal force (N)

= semi-angle of cone (degree)

a = radius of hole (mm)

t = rock tensile strength (MPa)

Fn = normal force (kN)

s = rock shear strength (MPa)

u = unconfined shear strength (MPa)

w = width of the tool (mm)

= angle of internal friction of intact rock

= rake angle (degree)

n = stress distribution factor = 12 - /5

Fc = cutting force (kN)

r ,t = angle of sliding friction rock-tool

= 90 -

c = rock compressive strength (MPa)

d = depth of cut (cm)

= friction coefficient between cutting tool and rock

29

Another two-dimensional model developed by Nishimatsu (1972) assumed that failure

is purely due to shear and occurs along a plane, shown in Figure 2.17 and expressed as
Equation 2.3 (Table 2.10). According to Guo et al. (1992) MohrCoulomb failure
criterion and linear elastic fracture mechanics could furnish a greater insight to the rock
cutting mechanics.

Roxborough and Liu (1995) suggested a modification on Evans cutting theory for point
attack tools as indicated in Equation 2.5. Goktan (1997) suggested a modification on
Evans cutting theory for point attack tools as indicated in Equation 2.6 and concluded
that the force values obtained with this equation were close to previously published
experimental values and could be of practical value, if confirmed by additional studies.

Goktan (1990) used Evans theories to compare the cutting efficiency of point attack
tools and wedgeshaped picks and concluded that the ratio of tensile to compressive
strength was the main parameter governing the relative efficiency.

Fc
F
Fn

r
r,t

Shear fracture

chisel r

rock

Figure 2.17: Shear breakage mechanism (Goktan, 1990)

Goktan also developed some empirical equations to predict the cutting forces of wedgetype cutters and studied the effect of rake angle on the failure pattern of high strength
rocks (Goktan, 1992; Goktan, 1995). Nishimatsu (1972) found that shear strength
failure was dominant in cutting high strength rocks as formulated in Equation 2.6.

30

A detailed study was carried out by Bilgin et al. (2000) using numerical modeling
software and a small-scale rock cutting rig to investigate the effect of lateral stresses on
the cutting efficiency of chisel-type cutters. Numerical modeling studies showed that the
lateral stresses dramatically decreased the tensile stresses around the cutting groove up
to a certain level of lateral stresses for unrelieved cutting mode. In that case, a lateral
stress of 1/5 or 1/4 of rock compressive strength in magnitude caused an increase in
cutter force compared to the unstressed condition. However, for relieved cutting mode,
the effect of lateral stresses was less apparent, causing an increase in cutter force around
2030% more than the unstressed conditions.

General principles of efficient cutting head design to increase excavation productivity

with less cutting head vibration and less wear of cutting components were investigated
in detail (Hurt and MacAndrew, 1981; Hurt et al.,1982; Hurt and MacAndrew, 1985;
Hurt and Morris, 1985; Hurt et al., 1988) in previous National Coal Board, Mining and
Research and Development Establishment (MRDE). They strongly emphasized that
cutter force estimation was the essential part of an efficient cutting head design.

Later works on rock cutting mechanics in MRDE mainly concentrated on the cutting
performance of point attack tools (Hurt and Laidlaw, 1979; Hurt, 1980; Hurt and Evans,
1980; Hurt and Evans, 1981; Hurt, 1988). The results showed that the sharp point attack
tools generated higher forces than wedge tools. In abrasive rocks, point attack tools last
longer than wedge tools and might resist higher forces. Minimum cutting forces were
exhibited by the point attack tool at an attack angle of 50o corresponding to a back
clearance angle of 12o. Radial bits appeared to facilitate coal cutting in the tensile mode,
while point attack bits appeared to fragment the coal with a more complex mode of
failure (Sundae and Myren, 1987). Depth of cut was found to be the most significant
factor affecting specific energy, cutter forces and airborne respirable dust (Roepke and
Hanson, 1984). These were well summarized in Fowells work published in
Comprehensive Rock Engineering (Fowell, 1993). Experimental studies that were
carried out in order to evaluate some coal cutting theories for continuous miners proved
that the normal and cutting forces acting on a cutter increased linearly with depth of cut.
Pick spacing had to be considered relative to depth of cut. The chisel-shaped picks were
31

more efficient than the pointed shape tools at relatively shallow depths of cut. However,
the pointed pick was proved to be consistently more efficient shape at comparatively
deep cutting depths (Roxborough et al., 1981; Roxborough and Pedroncelli, 1982).

2.3.3 Specific energy

Specific energy is one of the most important factors in determining the efficiency of
cutting systems and is defined as the work to excavate a unit volume of rock. In
mechanical excavation studies, some rock properties affecting the specific energy were
investigated by different researchers (Paone et al., 1969; Schmidt, 1972; Dunn et al.,
1993). Detailed rock cutting tests, however, showed that specific energy was not only a
function of rock properties but it was also closely related to operational parameters such
as rotational speed, cutting power of excavation machines and tool geometry. Specific
energy decreased dramatically to a certain level with increasing depth of cut and
decreasing tool angle (Roxborough and Rispin, 1973a; Roxborough and Rispin, 1973b;
Roxborough and Phillips, 1975; Roxborough, 1985). Specific energy depends on depth
of cut/pick penetration. The minimum specific energy is obtained with an appropriate
spacing to depth of cut ratio (Figure 2.18).

Figure 2.18: General effect of cutter spacing on specific energy (Fuh, 1983)
32

Different relations of specific energy and cutting performance based on laboratory and
field investigations are shown in Table 2.11.

Table 2.11: Relationship between cutting performance and rock parameters

Sl. No.
1

Proposed equation

SE =

c2
2E

(Equation 2.10)

SE = 0.65 + 0.41CI + 1.81k

2

Author

2.6
(Equation 2.11)

1/ 3

ICR = 0.28P(0.974) RMCI

(Equation 2.12a)
3

RQD
RMCI = c .

100

ICR = ke

2/3

P
SEopt

c
T
T
B2 = c
c + T
c T
B1 =

Hughes (1972); Mellor

(1972)
McFeat-Smith and
Fowell (1977); McFeatSmith and Fowell
(1979)
McFeat-Smith and
Fowell (1979); Bilgin et
al. (1996)

(Equation 2.12b)
(Equation 2.13)

Rostami and Ozdemir

(1994); Rostami et al.
(1994); Bilgin et al.
(1997)

(Equation 2.14a)
(Equation 2.14b)

B3 =

Altindag, 2003

2
(Equation 2.14c)
SE = 2.4147 (B3)0.4826
SE = 0.5816 +0.0946 (B3)
SE=2.0544Ln(B3) 7.0031
3
Where, SE = specific energy (MJ/m )

P = power of cutting (kW)

SEopt = optimum specific energy(kW/m3) k = plasticity index

RMCI = rock mass cuttability index

ke = energy transfer ratio

ICR = instantaneous cutting rate (m /h) CI = cone indenter value

B1, B2 and B3 = brittleness

= rock tensile strength (MPa)

c = rock compressive strength (MPa)

E = modulus of elasticity (GPa)

RQD = rock quality designation in percent

E = secant elasticity modulus from zero load to failure

33

In this study, besides the two rock brittleness B1 and B2 cited in literature, brittleness of
B3 concept (Altindag, 2000a; Altindag, 2000b; Altindag, 2002; Altindag, 2003) were
also evaluated.

2.4 Factors Influencing Cutting Performance

According to the report of the Commission on Rock Borability, Cuttability and
Drillability, International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (Bamford, 1987;
Roxborough, 1987; Braybrooke, 1988; Fowell and Johnson, 1991), the excavatability of
a rock mass by means of an excavator depends on a numerous geo-mechanical
properties of intact rock and rock mass being excavated and power used. Therefore,
evaluation of applicability and selection of a surface miner for any given operation must
be based on a careful assessment of the properties of the rock environment by practical
evaluation, as downtimes of a mechanical excavation process can reduce the overall
system efficiency below the threshold of techno-economic viability, thus defeating the
whole purpose of its deployment.

The following section details the key intact rock and rock mass parameters that
influence the design, selection and operation of surface miners.

2.4.1 Intact rock parameters

Assessing the cuttability of a rock formation with respect to a mechanical excavation
system is an imprecise area of endeavor (Roxborough, 1987). Nonetheless, several
researchers have developed certain empirical approaches to estimate cutting
performance of machines for different rocks on the basis of a number of properties of
intact rock.

a) Rock density: Dry density is a significant property affecting specific energy while
cutting (Tiryaki and Dikmen, 2006). A rock with higher specific gravity or density will
need higher specific cutting energy (SE). The cutting performance of a machine in terms
of bank volume cut per unit time in a coal seam with specific gravity of around 1.5 will
definitely be higher than that of the same machine in other rocks with comparable
uniaxial compressive strength but specific gravity of about 2.5. The machine
34

performance decreases with increase in density of rock which necessitates decrease in

drum speed. Kahraman et al. (2003) correlated density of the rock to determine
penetration rate of percussive drills. Kirsten (1982) identified rock density as an
influencing parameter in the excavatability assessment of the rock.

b) Moisture content: Moisture content affects the uniaxial compressive strength of the
rock (Fowell et al., 1986). It was observed that both cutting and normal forces
decreased by 40 and 49% respectively, specific energy by 38%, and impact wear of the
cutting tool by 80% when cutting a saturated sandstone sample. The sample showed
68% reduction in uniaxial compressive strength compared to that of a dry sample
(Mammen et al., 2009). Nevertheless, mechanical cutting of some rocks, like certain
varieties of sandstone, sometimes become difficult when they get saturated. Dissipation
of high local stress concentration at the pick-rock interface by pore-water makes pick
cutting difficult in high moisture content rock masses. Moisture content, however,
results into lower pick wear rate (Roxborough, 1987). Presence of moisture also
adversely affects mechanical cutting of those materials which turn sticky if wet, like
consolidated soil, bentonite, and some types of claystone, shale, marl and siltstone.

c) Uniaxial compressive strength: Rock strength is one of the most important

parameters evaluated in rock mechanics (Prikryl, 2001). The compressive strength of
rock is characterized by the maximum amount of stress which a rock can withstand.
Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) is the most widely used parameter of strength,
deformation, fracture characteristics and cuttability (Erosy and Waller, 1995; Atilla et
al., 2004). Evans (1984b) proposed a cutting theory that used uniaxial compressive
strength and tensile strength as input variables for determining cutting and normal force.

The surface miner manufacturers follow simple conjecture and use uniaxial compressive
strength of rocks as the only yardstick to define the cutting ability of their machines or
to assess the cuttability of rocks with respect to any given machine. Nonetheless, the
productivity of a machine goes down substantially with the increase in compressive
strength of rock to be cut.

35

Tenova TAKRAF surface miners claim to be capable of mining minerals/ores with

compressive strength of up to 80 MPa. On the other hand, the output of KSM2000
amounts to 1400 bm3/h in continuous cutting operation under normal condition up to
uniaxial compressive strength of 40 MPa. According to Bag and Schroeder (1999), the
machine can excavate rocks of uniaxial compressive strength of 80 MPa with a reduced
output, and can even cut small lenses of uniaxial compressive strength up to 120 MPa
with reduced production capacity. The cutting rate of a surface miner drastically drops
with rise in uniaxial compressive strength of rock material to be cut. Figure 2.19 shows
the change in production capacity of the machine with compressive and tensile strengths
of rocks.

Figure 2.19: Performance of KSM with respect to uniaxial compressive strength

(http://www.readbag.com/mine-planning-publications-documentslarge-surface-miners)
At Cloud Break iron ore deposit in Pilbara of Western Australia, the production
decreased significantly from 1050 t/h for rocks of uniaxial compressive strength of 10
MPa to 100 t/h for rocks of uniaxial compressive strength of 100 MPa (Murthy et al.,
2009).

Drop in surface miner performance with the increase in uniaxial compressive strength of
coal in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL), the biggest user of surface miners in India,
was reported by the Chief Executive Officer, MCL. According to him, Though the
36

manufacturers claim to have cuttability capacity up to 80 MPa, it has been observed that
if the compressive strength of rock exceeds 50 MPa, productivity of surface miner is
badly affected. Cutting teeth become worn out very quickly and require frequent
replacement (Upadhyay, 2010). Variation of cutting performance of different models
of Wirtgen surface
face miners with UCS of rocks is depicted in Fig
Figure
ure 2.20.

Figure 2.20: Cutting performance of Wirtgen surface miner

minerss (www.wirtgen.com)
(

It has been seen that these surface minerss are capable of cutting rock with a hardness in
the range of 10 to 80 MPa. Under certain circumstances (e.g. highly fractured material)
even harder material can be cut economically. The cutting efficiency decreases with
increasing strength of the rock as shown in Table 2.12.

d) Tensile strength:: The model used by Evans (1961) for coal, taking the tensile
strength as the main criteria, found wider acceptance for predicting cutting forces in
brittle materials. Thuro (1997
(1997)) took tensile strength as one of the rock properties for
predicting drillability.
ty. Murthy et al. (2008) considered tensile strength for cuttability
assessment of roadheader. According to Jain and Rathore (2010
2010), tensile strength of
rock plays role in determining cutting rate and beads wear rate of diamond wire saw.

37

Table 2.12: Cutting rate of surface miner for varied rock strength
(www.wirtgen.com)
Type

Strength (MPa)

Cutting rate (t/h)

SM2200

Up to 50

750 300

SM2500

Up to 80
81 to 100

1550 220
220 65

SM3700

Up to 80
81 to 100

2550 365
365 100

SM4200

Up to 70

3400 - 475

e) Point load strength index: Point load test is useful for strength classification of
intact rocks. Hadjigeorgiu and Scoble (1990) developed an excavation index
classification scheme by considering point load strength index as one of the parameters.
Dey and Ghose (2008) considered point load strength index as one of the key
influencing parameters for determination of cuttability of surface miner. Meena et al.
(2008) correlated the production by surface miner with point load strength index on
different rock types and observed that production was inversely proportional to point
load strength index.

f) Seismic wave velocity: Geophysical techniques involving seismic refraction and

reflection, electrical resistivity and gravimetric and magnetic measurements form an
accepted part of engineering-geological investigation procedures. The measurement of
P-wave velocity is a significant way to determine the mechanical parameters of a rock
mass (Zivor et al., 2011 and Verma et al., 2012). In the field of rock mechanics, the
seismic refraction method is the most popular and is useful for the purposes of rock
mass characterization in surface mines which can lead to the selection of an excavation
system (Atkinson, 1971).

The seismic refraction method is usually used to obtain the field seismic velocity as a
measure of the rippability of a rock mass. This method has been practiced for long time
by bulldozer manufacturers such as, Caterpillar and Komatsu. The use of the seismic
velocity as a predictor of rippability is often shown in the form of bar chart. This bar
chart represents the standard performance of a bulldozer, CAT-D10N with a single
38

impact ripper related to seismic velocity. In general, a material with a seismic velocity
value above 2000 m/s can be considered as marginal ripping to difficult to rip proposed
by Atkinson (1971) as shown in Figure 2.21.

Figure 2.21: Seismic velocity method for determination of excavation possibilities

Wirtgen circular (1984) suggests that seismic wave velocity assessment can be useful
as a means to predict the cuttability of rock and ores for Wirtgen Surface Miner (WSM).
In this circular the normal criteria for testing rock for its cuttability in mining or
tunneling operation involves parameters like uniaxial compressive strength, Brazilian
tensile strength, resistance to shear, Youngs modulus and abrasivity which are
complicated, time consuming and costly.

Using a seismic wave velocity classification the rock mass is divided into three zones,
namely, residual rock (300 m/s), weathered rock (1220 m/s) and semi solid rock (3050
m/s). Using these criteria, what is rippable by heavy equipment, such as CAT-D10
dozer, is also cuttable by the WSM and that standard shock wave velocities can be
applied to Wirtgen surface miner operations.

However, seismic tests can sometimes lead to a misleading estimation of excavation.

The misleading estimation may be due to many factors such as rock mass condition and
geological features which may require different field procedures in order to obtain
reliable data. When field seismic velocity data is not available an empirical equation,
39

derived from field studies in surface lignite mines owned by Turkish Coal Enterprise,
may be used (Karpuz, 1990).
VF =953 c0.225

(R2 = 0.87)

(Equation 2.15)

Where,
VF = Field seismic velocity, m/s and
c = uniaxial compressive strength, MPa.

g) Abrasiveness: More abrasive a rock, more wear and tear it causes on cutting tools of
the machine thus affecting its cutting performance adversely. Abrasiveness of a rock is
expressed in terms of different indices like Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI), SchimazekF Index, etc. that are determined by testing intact rock samples in the laboratory
following standard procedures. Dey and Ghose (2008), and Origliasso et al. (2013)
considered rock abrasivity as one of the key influencing parameters for cuttability
determination of surface miner. Thuro and Plinninger (2004) discussed the application
of the Cerchar abrasivity index in the estimation of tool wear rates for hard rock
operations. Murthy et al. (2009) considered Cerchar abrasivity index as one of the
parameters to develop cuttability of surface miner.

h) Petrography: Roxborough (1987) stressed that the mineralogy of rock, particularly

its quartz content, is often of a crucial significance to cutting. It has a major bearing on
the rate at which a machine cutting elements wear and blunting of the cutter occurs.
Howarth and Rowlands (1986) developed a model to predict the drillability. This model
depends on textural properties of the rock such as grain shape and orientation, degree of
grain interlocking, and the packing density. Howarth and Rowlands (1987) discussed on
predicting tool wear by considering rock texture and mineral fabric. According to
Tiryaki and Dikmen (2006), pick forces are expected to increase in linear rock cutting
as the texture coefficient increases. Feldspar and quartz content in sandstone were found
to influence specific energy.

2.4.2 Rock mass parameters

a) Discontinuities: Discontinuities within a rock mass may aid mechanical excavation
dependent on their frequency and orientation to cut even stronger material than is
40

normally considered suitable. Presence of joints and other structural features like
bedding planes, cleats and slips, etc., in high frequency along with their length and
degree of openness assist the cutting process, especially when they are favorably
oriented with respect to the direction of cutting. The orientation of discontinuities can
also influence the performance of a cutting machine. Evans and Pomeroy (1966)
demonstrated that the orientation of cleats to the direction of cutting can have an
important influence on cutter performance with drag picks. According to Blindheim
(1979), the most favourable joint orientation for roadheaders in an underground opening
is perpendicular to the tunnel axis (loading axis).

Gehring (1980) claimed that only discontinuity spacing less than 100 mm have a
significant influence on the performance of roadheaders (F-6A, AM-50, AM-100), and
it was found as well that if the machine cuts in highly jointed rock mass, production can
be three times the production in solid rock. It was also reported by Roxborough and
Phillips (1981) that less specific energy of about 0.22 MJ/bcm is required when the
cutting direction of picks is parallel to coal cleats (cleat orientation = 0 degree) as given
in Table 2.13 and shown in Figure 2.22.

Table 2.13: Effect of cutting direction on specific energy (Roxborough and Phillips, 1981)

Cleat
orientation

Mean
peak cutting force, kN

Mean
cutting force, kN

SE
MJ/bcm

0 degree
45 degree
90 degree
134 degree

0.38
0.38
0.50
0.42

0.18
0.16
0.22
0.20

0.22
0.17
0.29
0.26

Braybrooke (1988) claimed that when excavation takes place in jointed rock mass, the
mean peak cutting force decreases rapidly as joint frequency increases. According to
Fowell and Johnson (1991), in strong strata one favourably situated joint plane can
double excavation rates if it allows blocks to drop from the face, and discontinuity
spacing of less than 300 mm are required to make excavation rates independent of the
intact rock properties.
41

b) Rock quality designation: Kirsten (1982) identified rock quality designation for
determining excavatability of the rock. Bilgin et al. (1988) used rock quality designation
(RQD) to estimate the advance rate of a roadheader. Murthy et al. (2009) developed a
relation between block RQD and production by surface miner.

Figure 2.22: Types of fracture in cleated coals (after Roxborough and Phillips, 1981)

c) Schmidt rebound hardness number: Schmidt hammer test was reported to have a
possible use for the prediction of machine performance in mechanical excavation
(Goktan and Ayday, 1993). Shimada and Matsui (1994) used rock impact hardness
number for prediction of drivage/drilling rate. Goktan and Gunes (2005b) determined
Schmidt hammer rebound number for predicting cutting rates for a roadheader.
According to Adebayo (2008), Schmidt hammer rebound number exhibited a strong
correlation with the cutting rate. Schmidt hammer rebound values were correlated with
compressive strength by Atkinson et al. (1986). But, this method is of limited use on
very soft or very hard rocks (ISRM, 1981).

d) Rock mass rating: A number of models were developed relating roadheader

performance to rock mass properties such as the rock mass rating (RMR) and rock
quality designation values (Fowell and Johnson, 1982). Bilgin et al. (1996) utilized
uniaxial compressive strength, rock quality designation and machine power to predict

42

the instantaneous cutting rate. Sandbak (1985) developed a model that utilizes the RMR
value to predict the bit usage in foot.

Based on the above literature review, it may be summarized that the machine cutting
performance is influenced by intact rock and rock mass properties (Figure 2.23).
2.4.3 Machine parameters
Performance of surface miner depends on machine configuration such as cutting tool
configuration (rake angle, attack angle, clearance angle and tip angle, pick lacing, type
of pick (point attack), number of picks, tip material), drum weight, drum width, engine
power, nature of coolant for tips, etc. Operational conditions of machine play important
role in production (Rai et al. 2011). Various machine parameters affect the production
performance apart from intact rock and rock mass properties. Production potential of
surface miner depends on method of working to be adopted, which in turn relies on field
conditions. The mode of loading plays a key role in production. The production
capacities of surface miner depends on face length, depth of cut, machine speed, drum
width, etc., as given in Table 2.14 (Dey, 1999).

Table 2.14: Production capacity of surface miner in different working modes (Dey, 1999)

Method of
working
Empty travel
back method
Turn back
method

Windrowing mode

Conveyor loading mode

W x60
SxLxd

L/v + L/v e
Pe =
1000
Wx60
SxLxd

L/v+t t
Pe =
1000

W x60
S xd

L/v+ t c /L t + t e /L
Pe =
1000

SxvxdxWx60
1000
Where, Pe = estimated production (m3)
L= length of face (m)
d= predetermined depth of cut (mm)
v= machine speed during cutting (m/min)
tt= machine turning time (min)
te= empty travel back time (min)= L/ve
W= working hours available in shift (hr)

Continuous
mining method

Pe =

W x60
Sxd

1
/v
+
t
/L
+
t
/L
c
t
t

Pe =
1000
W x60
Sxd

1 / v + t c /L t
Pe =
1000

S= width of cutting drum (m)

tc= truck changing time (min)
Lt = length of cut to fill one truck (m)
= truck capacity(m3) x fill factor) /
(Sxdxswell factor/1000)
ve = machine speed during empty
travel (m/min)
43

Quartz

Igneous

Silica
present

Sedimentary

Toughness

Grain size & its

orientation
(Micro)

Anisotropy
(Macro)

Spacing

Density

Mineral
composition

Modulus of Elasticity

Rock
strength

RQD

UCS

Seismic wave
velocity

Weatherability

Ground water
condition

Rock Mass
Rating

Type/origin
of rock

Rebound
strength value

Structural
features

Discontinuity
characteristics

Porosity

Orientation

UCS

Physical
properties

Geological
features

Rock mass

Figure 2.23: Intact rock and rock mass parameters influencing machine performance

Cement
type

Water

Abrasivity

Metamorphic

Rock type

Intact rock

Intact Rock and Rock Mass Parameters

44

The broad classification of various machine parameters influencing production

performance are categorized into cutting tool configuration, specifications of cutting
drum, engine power, project strategy and operational experience as shown in Figure
2.24.

2.5 Working Performance of Surface Miners

The present surface miners of Wirtgen, L&T and Krupp make in use in Indian coal,
limestone and bauxite mines are capable of handling rocks having compressive strength
up to 50 MPa. Vermeer surface miner is capable of excavating ore/rock type having
uniaxial compressive strength of 80-100 MPa and can produce 300-1600 t/h on a cutting
width of 3 m and cutting depth up to 70 cm. Bauxite deposit having lateritic overburden
of maximum uniaxial compressive strength of 70 MPa could be handled by surface
miner (Pradhan, 2009). The working performance by different types of surface miners
in different rock formations is given in Table 2.15. Surface miner can cut oil-shale
seams more exactly than rippers (2-7 cm) with deviations about one centimeter
(Sabanov and Pastarus, 2008). Production contribution from surface miners in 2010-11
in CIL was about 103 Mt which was 26 % of total production. Details of surface miners
deployed and production from the same in different subsidiaries of CIL are furnished in
Table 2.16 (Anon., 2011).

2.5.1 Boundary conditions for applicability and selection

a) Applicability
Despite such lucrative benefits of surface miner technology and certain successful
applications in different parts of the globe for mining different minerals/ores, it is yet to
be universally accepted due to the rigid boundary conditions of its applicability. A few
surface miners are principally governed by natural factors that are often beyond human
control.

Application of surface miner very much depends on the rock strength as well as geology
of the deposit. Moreover, the surface miner required controls on some essential factors
to work in the field efficiently. Surface miner can be applicable for the situation where
one or more condition exists as illustrated in the section.
45

Cutting drum
depth

Operating/cutting
speed

Engine
rating/power

Loading
option

Maintain quality
(selective mining)

Operational experience

Repairing of
breakdowns

Utilization (24/16/12)
hours shift time

Working
area

Project strategy

Figure 2.24: Machine parameters influencing production performance

Cutting drum
diameter

Loading
method

No. of surface
miners

Specifications

No. of tools

Quality of
manufacture

Lacing pattern

Cutting drum width

Type of
picks

Cutting Tools

Machine Parameters

Gradient

46

Table 2.15: Working performance of a few surface miners

Sl. No.

Mine

Type

Condition

Production (t/h)

Limestone mine,
Pannedam, India
(www.wirtgen.com)

2500SM

Material: Limestone
Density: 2.2 t/m3
UCS: 30 to 50 MPa

613

Bauxite mine
(www.wirtgen.com)

2200SM

Material: Bauxite
Density: 2.2 t/m3
UCS: 30 to 125 MPa

250

Frija ore deposit

Guinea
(www.wirtgen.com)

2500SM

Not available

360

Adanakuruchi, ICL
(Dey and Ghose,
2008)

2100SM

Material: Limestone
Density: 2.2 t/m3
PLSI: 2.1
Abrasivity: 1.5

143

Limestone, MCL
(Dey and Ghose,
2008)

2600SM

Material: Limestone
Density: 2.2 t/m3
PLSI: 2.7
Abrasivity: 1.5

210

Lakhanpur, CCL,
India (Pradhan and
Dey, 2009)

2100SM

Material: Coal
Density: 1.4 t/m3
PLSI: 1.1
Abrasivity: 0.4

210

Bansundhara
(Pradhan and Dey,
2009)

2200SM

Material: Coal
Density: 1.4 t/m3
PLSI: 1.2
Abrasivity: 0.6

138.6

Talabira
(Pradhan and Dey,
2009)

2200SM

Material: Coal
Density: 1.4 t/m3
PLSI: 1.15
Abrasivity: 0.6

198

i) Ground topography: Surface miner operates well in flat or mildly inclined deposit.
It cannot at all operate in rough terrain. For application of surface miner ground
preparation is very much essential. The surface should be as level as possible. Topsoil,
large loose stones, trees and roots must be removed. Troughs and hillocks, as well as
steps with a shoulder height of more than 0.4 m must be leveled. In other words, surface
47

miners can finish leveling a clean surface once it has been roughly leveled by some
other means. For mines where the topography is hilly, uneven and rugged, and the rock
is strong, the need of rigorous ground preparation may alone be good enough to put
aside the consideration of surface miner application (Anon., 2010). Joints affect the
stability of slope (Jayanthu et al., 2002; Ajaykumar et al., 2008).

Table 2.16: Production performance of surface miners in Indian coal mines (2010-11)

Company

CCL

Project

Ashoka
Piparwar
Gevra

SECL

Dipka Exp.
Kusmunda
Basundhara
Samleshwari
Belpahar
Lakhanpur
Hingula

MCL
Ananta
Bhubaneshwari
Bharatpur
Lingaraj

Drum size
(mm)
3800
2200
2200
3200
3800
3200
3800
3200
3800
2100
3800
2100
3800
2100
3800
3000
3800
3000
3800
2200
3000
2100
2200
3800
3000
2100
3800
2200

Make

Wirtgen
Wirtgen
L&T
Wirtgen
L&T
Wirtgen
L&T
Wirtgen
Wirtgen
Wirtgen
Wirtgen
Wirtgen
Wirtgen
Wirtgen
L&T
Wirtgen
L&T
Wirtgen
BITELI
L&T
Wirtgen
Wirtgen
Wirtgen
L&T
Wirtgen
Wirtgen
Wirtgen

Population
1
4
1
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1

Coal
production
(Mt)
6.01
2.77
22.82
11.72
4.71
2.38
9.19
2.68
2.32
13.09
1.86
2.78
2.45
4.61
2.09
5.51
2.63
3.12

ii) Ground stability: Surface miners being heavy machines with its load distributed on
its crawler mountings, can operate only on stable ground, and not in unstable,
48

unconsolidated ground, or in ground above subsurface openings that may subside in

course of its operation. They cannot be used for the opencast extraction of locked-up
developed underground bord-and-pillar workings of coal mines. As these machines cut
thin layers of rock in each round, the parting above the underlying void gradually
becomes thinner after each cut. In the process the parting may weaken and subside
suddenly with no prior indication while the machine is cutting. Likewise, they should
not be engaged for mining of limestone or dolomite deposits with karst topography. The
underground water of karst topography carves out crevices, channels and cavities that
are susceptible to collapse from the surface. When enough limestone is eroded from
underground, a sinkhole may develop.

iii) Intact rock parameters: A stronger rock is more difficult to cut. Small changes in
rock properties adversely affect the performance of mechanical excavators (McFeatSmith and Fowell, 1977). Uniaxial compressive strength is the most widely accepted
parameter to measure strength of a rock sample, and is usually considered to be the most
useful guide to the performance of mechanical excavation (Brown and Phillips, 1977).

iv) Machine parameters: According to Murphy and Daneshmend (2006), cutting

design of machine has a role in production performance. Machine performance
parameters like cutting rate, pick force, specific cutting energy (SE), pick consumption,
vibration during cutting, etc. that restrict their applications, are strongly related to the
physico-mechanical properties of rocks, such as strength, hardness, toughness,
brittleness, abrasiveness, etc. (Irfan and Dearman, 1978; Bell, 1978; Hugman and
Friedman, 1979; Onodera and Asoka, 1980; Howarth, 1986; Howarth and Rowlands,
1986, 1987; Shakoor and Bonelli, 1991; Ulusay et al., 1994; Tugrul and Zarif, 1999).
Common machine parameters that play significant role in its cutting performance are
cutting tool configuration, rake angle, attack angle, clearance angle and tip angle, pick
lacing, type of pick, number of picks, tip material, drum weight, engine power, loading
options, depth of cut and nominal cutting speed.

v) Other factors: The other factors concerning the applicability of surface miner are
non-sticky material, selective mining requirement of thin seams or thin dirt bands, sized
49

material requirement without using a crusher and environmentally sensitive areas where
blasting is prohibited or restricted.

b) Selection
The common factors considered for selection of surface miner are type, thickness and
inclination of the seam or strata; material characteristics of the deposit; cuttability and
the resultant productivity; working conditions: area available for the maneuverability,
ground conditions, gradeability; stability of the overburden benches; requirement of the
plant in terms of the sized material; climatic conditions and economic feasibility.

The governing criteria for selection of surface miner are geotechnical parameters and
production requirement. Ghose (1996) stated that rock mass classification forms the
backbone of empirical design approach. It is necessary to recognize the caveats implicit
in its application. Majority of research undertaken with mechanical excavation systems
have followed and adopted rock mass classification and made their own site-specific
recommendations. The pioneering system of this type of classification was the
Discontinue Strength Classification propounded by Franklin et al. (1971). This was
followed by Rippability Rating Chart (Weaver, 1975), Excavation Index (Kirsten,
1982), Geological Factors Rating Scale (Minty and Kearns, 1983), Engineering
Classification of Coal Measures (Scoble and Moftuoglu, 1984), Rippability Chart
(Singh et al., 1986), Excavatability Index Rating Scheme (Hadjigeorgiou and Scoble,
1990), Diggability Index (Karpuz, 1990) and Revised Excavatability Graph (Pettifer and
Fookes, 1994).

Barendsen (1970) developed a relationship between specific energy and uniaxial

compressive strength for the machines working with cutting (drag bit) and crushing
(rotary bit) principles respectively. Atkinson (1971) was the first to classify the
excavatability of the rock mass based on the field seismic velocity measurement.
Manufacturers of surface miner compute performance curves based on uniaxial
compressive strength or the ratio of compressive and tensile strength. These indices
have been used either directly or indirectly to select appropriate excavation systems, the
equipment used in mining and assessment of the excavatability (Kramdibrata, 1996).
50

2.6 Cuttability Assessment Models

Many scientists, scholars and researchers developed several empirical approaches using
different parameters to ascertain the suitability of rocks for designing different
mechanical excavation systems, namely,
i. teeth (dozer, shovel, bucket wheel excavator),
ii. disc cutters and button bits (rock drill, full face tunnel boring machine),
iii. ripping tool (coal plough, ripper, rock-breaker) and
iv. pick-mounted rotary cutting head/drum (roadheader, shearer, surface miner).

A few cuttability models are discussed below:

2.6.1 Atkinson (1971)
Field seismic velocity has been widely used as a means to assess rippability and
excavation possibilities without blasting. According to Atkinson (1971), shovel, bucket
wheel excavator and scraper are easily rippable for seismic velocity up to 1500 m/s.
Tractor scraper is marginally rippable up to 2000 m/s.

2.6.2 Franklin, Broch and Walton (1971)

Franklin et al. (1971) suggested a bivariate rock mass classification in which two rock
properties, namely, Fracture Index and Point Load Index play major roles. Fracture
Index is used as a measure of discontinuity and is defined as the average spacing of
fractures in a core or rock mass. These two parameters can be plotted on a classification
diagram to predict rippability as shown in Figure 2.25 where If and Is represent Fracture
Index and point Load Index respectively and this diagram is sometimes referred to as
the graphical method. The classification diagram is divided into three main typical
zones i.e. digging, ripping and blasting. Broken and weak rock masses plot towards the
lower left of the diagram whereas massive and strong ones plot toward the upper right.
The former is easy to excavate using mechanical equipment and the latter requires
blasting.

2.6.3 Gehring (1980)

The Voest-Alpine Rock Cuttability Index (VA-RCI) was developed as a measure to
evaluate a factor describing the cuttability of a rock.
51

EH
BLAST TO
FRACTURE

2
VH

Fracture Index (m)

0.6
H

BLAST TO
LOOSEN

0.2
M

RIPPING

0.06
L
DIGGING

0.02
VL
0.006

0.003
VL

0.1

EH= Extremely high

VH= Very high

0.3

1.0

3.0

Point Load Index (MPa)

L=Low
H= High
VL= Very low
M= Medium

VH

10

EH

EL= Extremely low

Figure 2.25: Discontinuity Strength Classification (after Franklin et al., 1971)

This index has been used by the Voest-Alpine to classify rock for the application of the
Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) and roadheader as given in Table 2.17.

Table 2.17: Mechanical excavation system in relation to VA-RCI (after Gehring, 1980)

VA-RCI
(mm)
< 0.5

Cuttability with TBM

Cuttability with roadheader

Moderate performance

Not applicable

0.5 - 0.8

Fair to good performance

Applicable only when rock occurs in

thin single layer

0.8 - 1.5

Best range of application

Heavy machines and strong conical

picks

1.5 - 2.5

Only TBM with single disc

cutters

Medium weight machines with conical

picks

2.5 - 5

Wheels with conical picks

disc cutters for abrasive rock

Medium and light weight machines,

conical picks & drag type picks, best
range of application.

5 - 10

Application of TBM only in

shielded version with drag
type picks

Medium and light weight machines slim

conical and drag type picks.

52

2.6.4 Kirsten (1982)

Kirsten (1982) identified the parameters influencing the excavatability of the rock,
namely, strength of rock, in-situ rock density, degree of weathering, seismic velocity,
block size, shape of excavation relative to excavating equipment, block shape, block
orientation, joint roughness, joint gouge and joint separation. Kirsten formulated an
Excavatability Index, a similar system like NGI Q Index, as below:

N = Ms x (RQD/Jn) x Js x (Jr/Ja)

(Equation 2.16)

Where,
N = excavatability index,
Ms = mass strength number (vide Table 2.18),
RQD = rock quality designation (Deere and Miller, 1966),
Jn = joint set number (vide Table 2.19),
Js = relative ground structure number (vide Table 2.20),
Jr = joint roughness number (vide Table 2.21) and
Ja = joint alteration number (vide Table 2.22).

Table 2.18: Mass strength number (Ms) of rocks

Rock Hardness

Identification in profile

UCS (MPa)

Ms

1.7

0.87

Very soft

Material crumbles under firm (moderate)

blows with sharp end of geological pick and
can be peeled off with a knife. It is too hard to
cut a triaxial sample by hand.

1.7-3.3

1.86

3.3-6.6

3.95

6.6-13.2

8.39

13.2-26.4

17.70

26.4-53.0

35.00

53.0-106.0

70.00

106.0-212.0

140.00

above 212.0

280.00

Soft

Can just be scraped and peeled off with a

knife; indentations 1-3 mm show in the
specimen with firm (moderate) blows of pick
point.

Hard

Cannot be scraped or peeled with a knife;

hand held specimen can be broken with
hammer end of a geological pick with a single
firm (moderate) blow.

Very hard

Hand held specimen breaks with hammer end

of pick under more than one blow.

Extremely Hard

Specimen requires many blows with

geological pick to break through intact
material

53

Table 2.19: Joint set number (Jn) of rocks

Number of joint sets

Joint set number (Jn)

1.00
1.22
1.50
1.83
2.24
2.73
3.34
4.09
5.00

Intact, no or few joints/fissures, and intact granular materials

One joint/fissure set
One joint/fissure set plus random
Two joint/fissure sets
Two joint/fissure sets plus random
Three joint/fissure sets
Three joint/fissure sets plus random
Four joint/fissure sets
Multiple joint/fissure sets
Table 2.20: Relative ground structure number (Js) of rocks
Dip direction* of closer
spaced joint set (in degree)

Dip angle# of closer spaced

joint set (in degree)

Ratio of joint spacing, r

1:1

1:2

1:4

1:6

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

90
180/0
0.72 0.67 0.62 0.57
85
0
0.63 0.57 0.50 0.44
80
0
0.52 0.45 0.41 0.35
70
0
0.49 0.44 0.41 0.40
60
0
0.49 0.46 0.43 0.40
50
0
0.53 0.49 0.46 0.42
40
0
0.63 0.59 0.55 0.51
30
0
0.84 0.77 0.71 0.67
20
0
1.22 1.10 0.99 0.90
10
0
1.33 1.20 1.09 1.00
5
0
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
0
0/180
0.72 0.81 0.86 0.90
5
180
0.63 0.70 0.76 0.84
10
180
0.52 0.57 0.63 0.67
20
180
0.49 0.53 0.57 0.59
30
180
0.49 0.52 0.54 0.56
40
180
0.53 0.56 0.58 0.60
50
180
0.63 0.67 0.71 0.75
60
180
0.84 0.91 0.97 1.02
70
180
1.22 1.32 1.40 1.46
80
180
1.33 1.39 1.40 1.40
65
180
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
90
180/0
* Dip direction of closer-spaced joint set relative to direction of rip/cut
#
Apparent dip angle of closer spaced joint set in vertical plane containing direction of
ripping/cut
For intact material take Js = 1.0
For r < 0.125, take Js as for r = 0.125
54

Table 2.21: Joint roughness number (Jr)

Joint separation

Joints tight or closing

during excavation

Joints open and

remain open during
excavation

Joint condition

Joint roughness number (Jr)

Discontinuous joint
Rough or irregular, undulating
Smooth undulating
Slicken-sided undulating
Rough or irregular, planar
Smooth planar
Slicken-sided planar
Joints either open or containing soft
gouge of sufficient thickness to
prevent joint wall contact after
excavation

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
1.0

Table 2.22: Joint alteration number (Ja)

Joint alteration number (Ja)
for joint separation (mm)

Description of gouge

< 1.0*

1.0-5.0**

> 5.0***

Tightly healed, hard, non-softening impermeable

filling

0.75

Unaltered joint walls, surface staining only

1.0

Slightly altered, non-softening, non-cohesive rock

mineral or crushed filling

2.0

4.0

6.0

Non-softening, slightly clayey non-cohesive filling

3.0

6.0

10.0

Non-softening strongly over-consolidated

mineral filling, with or without crushed rock

clay

3.0#

6.0#

10.0#

Softening or low-friction clay mineral coatings and

small quantities of swelling clays

4.0

8.0

13.0

Softening moderately over-consolidated clay mineral

filling, with or without crushed rock

4.0#

8.0#

13.0#

Shattered or micro-shattered (swelling) clay gouge,

with or without crushed rock

5.0

10.0

18.0

**

Joint walls effectively in contact

***

Joint walls do not come in contact at all

upon shear

Joint walls come in contact after

approximately 100 mm of shear

Values added to Bartons data

Accordingly, cuttability of rock was classified as given in Table 2.23.

55

Table 2.23: Assessment of cuttability based on excavatability index (Kirsten, 1982)

Excavatability Index (N)
1 < N < 10
10 < N < 100
100 < N < 1000
1000 < N < 10000
N > 10000

Cuttability
Easy
Hard
Very hard
Extremely hard, advised blasting
Blasting

2.6.5 Singh, Denby, Egretli and Pathon (1986)

Singh et al. (1986) proposed a parameter referred to as Toughness Index (TI) of rock
which is a derived parameter from the stress-strain curve, and is a measure of elastic
strain energy requirements for deforming with a cutting tool. This is one of the
important parameters in evaluating the cuttability of rock, with a particular reference to
rock cutting machines, such as roadheaders, tunnel boring machines, surface miners and
any excavator using point attack picks (Atkinson et al., 1986; Farmer, 1986). The
toughness index is defined as:

TI =

c2
2E

x100

(Equation 2.17)

Where,
TI = toughness index (MPa),
c = uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) and
E = Youngs modulus (MPa).
According to Atkinson et al.(1986), when the toughness index is greater than 27 MPa
the intact rock reaches its limit of cuttability and a field study is necessary to evaluate
the joint pattern which can assist in excavating the rock mass. Table 2.24 shows the
values of TI for a range of rocks.

The overall argument is that the excavation rate of a rock cutting machine is directly
proportional to the energy input and inversely proportional to the rock fracture
toughness provided the efficiency of the process remains constant. If Youngs modulus
is high in relation to strength, the rock is brittle and a proportionately lower strain
energy level will be required to fracture the rock.
56

Table 2.24: Toughness Index of a range of rocks (after Atkinson et al., 1986)
Rock classification
by strength

UCS
(MPa)

Youngs Modulus
(GPa)

Toughness Index
(TI)

Very high strength

High strength
Medium strength
Low strength
Very low strength

150.30
116.00
58.51
29.92

40.00
29.00
13.36
7.76

28.12
23.20
12.81
5.77

Figure 2.26 shows the relationship between rock toughness and production of DOSCO
Mk IIIA rock cutting machines working in coal measure rocks. All the curves indicate
that machine efficiency is exceptionally low since all the values N. are less than 5kW.

1.25
rocks at the top of the strength
range for most generic groups,
some weaker tough rocks

Rock toughness - MPa

1.00

Basalts, weaker igneous

rocks, mudstone, generally
brittle rocks

chalks, brittle
weak rocks, weak
limestone, sandstone

0.75

Efficient cutting still

machine water jet assisted

0.50

Average cutting performance

Insufficient cutting: blunt
tool: low energy transfer

0.25
4 kW
2 kW
1 kW

0.00
0

20

40
Production bcm/h

60

80

Figure 2.26: Cuttability of rocks based on rock toughness (after Farmer, 1986)

2.6.6 Farmer (1986)

Farmer (1986) proposed the Fracture Index or rock toughness which is defined as the
strain energy available to fracture the rock which is equal to {c* (V/V)} per unit
volume of rock of (c2 /E) in linear terms. This can be related to the energy input of the
57

rock face from the cutting machine which can be expressed as the cutting energy per
unit volume of rock excavated:

Energy Input =

N c2
=
L*
E

(Equation 2.18)

Where,
N = power (kW),
= efficiency,
L* = production (bcm/h),
c = uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) and
E = Youngs modulus (GPa).

2.6.7 Roxborough (1987)

Roxborough (1987) correlated specific energy with uniaxial compressive strength for all
sedimentary rocks in a simple equation as follows and classified cuttability of rock for
heavy weight machines as given in Table 2.25.

SE = 0.25c + 0.11

(Equation 2.19)

Where,
SE = specific cutting energy (MJ/m3) and
c = uniaxial compressive strength (MPa).

Table 2.25: Selection of excavating (cutting) machine on specific energy values

SE (MJ/m3)

Cutting performance for heavy weight machines

25-31

Machine can cut economically only if occurs in thin bed (<0.3 m)

20-25

Poor cutting performance. Low speed cutting improves stability

17-20

Moderate to poor performance. For abrasive rocks frequent pick

change is required

8-17

Moderate to good cutting performance with low pick wear

<8

High advance rate and high productivity

58

2.6.8 Bilgin, Seyrek and Shahria (1988)

Bilgin et al. (1988) developed rock mass cuttability index (RMCI) relating uniaxial
compressive strength and rock quality designation and estimated the advance rate of a
cutting machine. The advance rate can be predicted as given in Figure 2.27.
RMCI = c (RQD/100)2/3

(Equation 2.20)

Where,
c = uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) and
RQD = rock quality designation.

Advance Rate (x 10 bm3/h)

20

15

10

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

RMCI

Figure 2.27: Advance rate verses RMCI

2.6.9 Gehring (1989)

Gehring (1989a, b) proposed that the performance of a rock cutting machine could be
defined as:

L* = k.N/c

(Equation 2.21)

Where,
L* = production or cutting performance (bcm/h),
N = cutter head power (kW),
k = a factor for consideration of relative cuttability or tuning effect between
cutting machine and rock and
c = unconfined compressive strength (MPa).
59

According to Gehring (1992), this takes account of the cutting action and other factors.
The factor which significantly influences the cutting process and cutting performance is
cutting speed of pick indentation. Later, Gehring (1992) modified his earlier formula as:

k = k1 x k2 x k3
Where,
k1

= relative cuttability of intact rock and

= 6 for very tough and plastic rock
= 7 for tough and plastic rock
= 8 for average rock
= 9 for brittle rock
= 10 for very brittle rock
= 10 - 15 for coal

k2

= influence of discontinuity such as joint, bedding plane, etc. and

= 1 for massive and discontinuity distance > 25 cm
= 1.5 - 2 for layered/fissured, thinner bed rock, discontinuity 10 25 cm
= 2.5 for layered/fissured/interbedded rock discontinuity <5 cm

k3

= influence of specific cutting condition and is a function of no sumping,

cutting height, cutter head oscillation, pick array, pick shape. For roadheader its value ranges from 3.5 to 4.5.

2.6.10 Kolleth (1990)

In relation to the use of uniaxial compressive strength as a means of predicting the
applicability of continuous digging, transport and spreading equipment Kolleth (1990)
proposed the following ranges of uniaxial compressive strength for the different
mechanical excavators (Figure 2.28).

2.6.11 Hadjigeorgiu and Scoble (1990)

Hadjigeorgiu and Scoble (1990) developed an Excavation Index (EI) classification
scheme and correlated it with other excavation indices.

60

Figure 2.28: Application of UCS in selecting mechanical excavators (after Kolleth, 1990)

The index was developed combining some rock and geological parameters as given
below:

EI = (Is + Bs).W.Js

(Equation 2.22)

Where,
EI = excavation index,
Is = point load strength index,
Bs = block size index,
W = weathering index and
Js = relative ground structure index.
The ratings corresponding to the parameters of EI are listed in Table 2.26.

Table 2.26: Excavation index rating scheme

Class

Point Load Index

< 0.5
Is
0
Volumetric Joint
> 30
Count
Bs
5
Weathering
completely
W
0.6
Relative Ground
very
Structure
favourable
Js
0.5

II

III

IV

0.5 1.5
10

1.5 2.0
15

2.0 3.5
20

> 3.5
35

30-10

10-3

3-1

15
highly
0.7

30
45
50
moderately
slightly
unweathered
0.8
0.9
1.0
slightly
very
favourable
unfavourable
favourable
unfavourable
0.7
1.0
1.3
1.5
61

2.6.12 Jones and Kramadibrata (1995)

Jones and Kramadibrata (1995) established a relationship between the productivity of
continuous surface miners and uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. It was observed
that the production decreases in lognormal form with increase in uniaxial compressive
strength of rock (Figure 2.29).

Figure 2.29: Relationship between production of surface miners and UCS of rock

2.6.13 Kramadibrata and Shimada (1996)

Kramadibrata and Shimada (1996) have shown a functional relationship between Voest
Alpine Rock Cuttability Index (RCI) and various intact rock, rock mass and machine
parameters as given:

RCI = {N/(L*C )} f {( */C ) ,(t /C ),(d/),(Ey/C ),(F/*C )} (Equation 2.23)

Where,
N= rated machine power (kW),
L = production rate (m3/hr),

C = uniaxial compressive strength of rock sample (MPa),

= specific weight (kN/m3),
= discontinuity spacing (m),
Ey =Youngs modulus (MPa),
F = Schimazeks abrasivity factor (N/mm) and
62

 t = tensile strength of rock sample (MPa).

2.6.14 Tiryaki and Dikmen (2006)
Tiryaki and Dikmen (2006) established a relationship between tensile strength and
specific energy (SE) in laboratory scale using linear cutting by picks, expressed in
MJ/m3, of rocks as follows:

SE = 0.67 + 3.12t

(Equation 2.24)

Where,
t = tensile strength of rock (MPa).

2.6.15 Murthy, Kumar, Jain and Dash (2009)

Considering the various parameters relating to the intact rock, rock mass and machine
design and operating parameters an index, CISM (Cuttability Index of Surface Miner)
was developed (Murthy et al., 2009). The CISM can be determined from the following
equation:

CISM =

MF
RMF x IRF

(Equation 2.25)

The term RMF represents Rock Mass Factor and is represented by field P-wave velocity
in the rock mass measured in km/s. The term IRF represents Intact Rock Factor and is
given by,

IRF = LVP x SiO2

(Equation 2.26)

Where,
LVP = laboratory P-wave velocity in rock (km/s) and
SiO2 = silica content in rock mass (%).
The term MF represents machine design/operating parameters and is represented by,

MF = EPxCSxCA

(Equation 2.27)

Where,
63

EP = total engine power (kW),

CS = cutting speed (m/s) and
CA = total cutting area engaged in cutting rock at any point of time.
This can be calculated from the following equation,

CA =

D
W
6

(Equation 2.28)

Where,

D = drum diameter (m) and

W = drum width (m).
It is assumed that at any time only 1/6th of the circumferential length of drum gets
engaged in cutting the rock. The equation established for machine performance
prediction is:

NTPH = b0 (CISM)b1

(Equation 2.29)

Where,
NTPH = Production (tons/hr) and
b0 and b1 = constants.

2.6.16 Dey and Ghose (2009)

Dey and Ghose (2009) developed a nomogram to fathom the suitability of a surface
miner for a given rock mass taking into account a few key influencing parameters,
namely, point load strength index, volumetric joint count, rock abrasiveness and
direction of machine operation with respect to joint orientation. Considering that
machines with higher power can cut stronger rocks, its engine power has also been
rated. Ratings of these parameters are tabulated in Table 2.27. The addition of
appropriate ratings of these four parameters for a given rock mass and one parameter for
an identified model of surface miner gives the cuttability index (CI) for the whole
system.

64

Table 2.27: Ratings of parameters of cuttability index for surface miners

Class

II

III

IV

< 0.5

0.5 - 1.5

1.5 - 2.0

2.0 - 3.5

> 3.5

10

15

20

25

> 30

30 10

10 3

31

Rating (Jv)

10

15

20

25

Abrasivity

< 0.5

0.5 - 1.0

1.0 2.0

2.0 - 3.0

> 3.0

Rating (Aw)

12

15

720 - 900

540 - 720

360 - 540

180 - 360

00 - 180

12

15

> 1000

800-1000

600-800

400-600

< 400

12

16

20

Point load index (IS50)

Rating (Is)
Volumetric
(no./m3)

joint

count

Direction
of
cutting
respect to major joint
direction
Rating (Js)
Machine power (kW)
Rating (M)

The technical feasibility of the system can be appraised from the guideline provided in
Table 2.28.

Table 2.28: Cuttability index and expected surface miner performance

CI

50 > CI

50< CI < 60

Surface
Very easy Easy
Miner
excavation excavation
Performance

CI = Is + Jv + Aw + Js + M

60< CI < 70

70 < CI < 80

CI > 80

Economic
excavation

Difficult
excavation,
may be not
economic

Surface
miner should
not
be
deployed

(Equation 2.30)

Where, Is, Jv, Aw, Js and M are the ratings corresponding to point load index (IS50),
volumetric joint count, abrasivity, direction of cut with respect to major joint orientation
and machine power respectively.

The authors also suggested that the cutting performance of a surface miner (L) may be
estimated from cuttability index (CI), the rated capacity of the machine (Mc) and a
factor for specific cutting condition (k) that varies from 0.5 to 1.0 as follows:
65

CI

L = 1 kMc
100

(Equation 2.31)

Where,
L = production or cutting performance (bm3/h),

M c = rated capacity of machine (bm3/h),

CI = cuttability index and
k = a factor for consideration of influence of specific cutting condition and is a
function of pick lacing, pick shape etc. and varies from 0.5 1.0.

Jones and Kramadibrata (1995), Murthy et al. (2009) and Dey and Ghose (2009)
developed predictive models for surface miner. A comparative study of these models
was conducted to evaluate their relative accuracy. The results of the analyses inferred by
putting input parameters collected from a few Indian coal and limestone mines are
produced in Table 2.29. The predictive model developed by Murthy et al. (2009)
yielded nearest result amongst all the three models.

Table 2.29: Comparative study of predictive models

Input
parameters

Actual
production (t/h)
Predicted
production (t/h)
Jones and
Kramadibrata
(1995)
Murthy et al.
(2009)
Dey and Ghose
(2009)

Mine A

Mine B

Mine C

Mine D

UCS =19.1 MPa

Density = 1.18 t/m3
IVp = 0.41 km/s
LVp = 1.26 km/s
Engine P = 895 kW
Silica = 0.5 %
PLSI = 1.96
CAI = 0.18
Joint spacing = 310/m3

UCS =23.5 MPa

Density = 1.29 t/m3
IVp = 0.52 km/s
LVp = 2.84 km/s
Engine P = 895 kW
Silica = 0.5 %
PLSI = 1.12
CAI = 0.19
Joint spacing = 310/m3

UCS =35 MPa

Density = 2.49 t/m3
IVp = 2.36 km/s
LVp = 4.20 km/s
Engine P = 450 kW
Silica = 16 %
PLSI = 2.32
CAI = 0.31
Joint spacing = 1/m3

UCS =13 MPa

Density = 2.4 t/m3
IVp = 2.26 km/s
LVp = 3.93 km/s
Engine
P=597
kW
Silica = 16 %
PLSI = 0.80
CAI = 0.25
Joint spacing =
1/m3

1051

910

140

181

421

310

46

1372

680

564

174

182

448

488

181

287
66

2.7 Limitations of Some Key Cuttability Assessment Models

Assessment of machine performance is an attempt to relate the machine specifications
to the rock conditions, by recording its production rate (or speed of advance), fuel
consumption and pick consumption. Machine specifications are related to the motor
power of the machine and characteristics of the hydraulic or electrical devices which
supply forces to the cutting tools. The machine operational parameters are not
extensively investigated by most of the researchers.

This opens a wide scope for developing new relationships and also fine tuning to some
of the existing relationships between machine, intact rock and rock mass parameters for
achieving desired production performance with surface miners. The limitations of some
key cuttability assessment models for predicting surface miner, proposed by earlier
researchers, are tabulated in Table 2.30. This exercise is required to understand the
existing models and their application regime so that needful modifications can be
attempted to improve productivity by surface miner.

Most of the researchers, considered either intact rock or rock mass parameters with one
or two properties for determining the relations with specific energy, cuttability.
Knowing the available mechanical power for cutting and machine advance enables the
cutting forces at the tips of the cutting tools and the thrust force to be determined.
Therefore, it can be said that the performance of surface miners can be better judged by
utilizing the combination of intact rock and rock mass properties, available machine
power and operating conditions.

There is a lack of research on application of surface miner in particular under varied

rock conditions. Therefore, the objective of the study is to investigate the various intact
rock and rock mass parameters and to assess their influence on the cutting performance
of surface miner and to develop constituent relationships in order to predict the
performance of surface miners for different Indian geo-mining conditions.

67

Table 2.30: Limitations of a few models for cuttability assessment of surface miners

Sl.
No.

Researchers

Limitations

Jones and Kramadibrata

(1995)

The equation developed for prediction of surface

miner production contains only uniaxial compressive
strength of rock. The predicted results using this
equation showed deviation from actual production.
This may be due to non-incorporation of other
influential parameters, namely, machine and rock
mass parameters. The equation thus needs to be
refined by including other controlling factors so that
it can become applicable widely.

Kramadibrata and Shimada

(1996)

Murthy et al. (2009)

Dey and Ghose (2009)

Kramadibrata and Shimada (1996) derived cuttability

index of surface miner by considering machine
power, specific weight, discontinuity spacing,
Youngs modulus, abrasivity and tensile strength as
functional parameter. Machine operating parameters
were not considered in this model.
Murthy et al. (2009) evaluated the cuttability index
of surface miner considering laboratory P-wave
velocity, silica content, in-situ P-wave velocity,
engine power, sweep area in cutting and cutting
speed. This model though yielded reasonable
predictions,
needs
further
refinement
by
incorporating the actual cutting area, desired chip
size and operational control with respect to intact
rock and rock mass parameters.
Only a few intact rock and rock mass properties were
considered along with machine power by the
researchers to determine cuttability index. The drum
design and operating parameters were not considered
in this mathematical model. The model developed
also did not yield reliable production estimates.

2.8 Identification of Influencing Parameters

The purpose of identification of the influencing parameters is to understand their
relevance in the performance of surface miner and subsequently, use them for predicting
its performance. Several models were developed by various researchers on different
machines to understand its performance with respect to intact rock and rock mass
parameters. The models covered rock cutting by picks, specific energy, cuttability and
production prediction by different machines (Table 2.31).
68

Table 2.31: Parameters used in different models for predicting machine performance
1

Evans (1965)

Barendsen (1970)

Parameters

10

11

12

13

14

Models

Atkinson (1971)

Franklin et al. (1971)

Kirsten (1982)

Singh et al. (1986)

Farmer (1986)

Roxborough (1987)

Bilgin et al. (1988)

Gehring (1989)

Hadjigeorgiu and Scoble (1990)

Kramadibrata and Shimada (1996)

Tiryaki and Dikmen (2006)

Murthy et al. (2009)

Dey and Ghose (2009)

Kahraman et al. (2003)

Total

Jones and Kramadibrata (1995)

Legend: 1. Uniaxial compressive strength, 2. Tensile strength, 3. Density, 4. Silica, 5.

Ground structure/ weathering condition, 6. Joints, 7. Rock quality designation, 8.
Seismic velocity, 9. Point load strength index, 10. Modulus of elasticity, 11. Abrasivity,
12. Machine/cutter head power, 13. Machine specifications, 14. Operational condition

The previous research revealed that the most influencing parameters in decreasing order
of importance for prediction of machine performance was uniaxial compressive strength
followed by machine power, joint conditions, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity,
point load strength index, density, seismic velocity, rock quality designation,
operational conditions, machine specifications, silica content and ground structure.

69

2.9 Research Methodology

An in-depth analysis of literature review was carried out in terms of parameters
influencing the performance of rock cutting machines and surface miner in particular as
well as predictive models developed by researchers. Accordingly, a research
methodology was framed in order to meet the objectives mentioned in section 1.3. The
methodology mainly involves identification of various critical parameters that have a
bearing on surface miner cuttability and performance prediction. The critical parameters
are intact rock, rock mass properties, machine and operational parameters identified
through literature review followed by field and laboratory investigations.

A comprehensive analysis through statistical, multiple regression, empirical and

artificial neural network approaches is proposed to be carried out to develop predictive
models for surface miner cuttability and performance assessment. Figure 2.30 describes
the proposed methodology for achieving the stated objectives.

2.10 Research Strategy

The research strategy includes a sandwich approach in which, both field and laboratory
investigations will be carried out for generating relevant data. Coal and limestone mines
(six mines) located in different parts of India will be the study sites. Different models of
surface miners shall be covered in this study. In order to achieve the objectives the
following research strategy will be adopted:

a) Identification of parameters influencing cuttability of rock and machine performance

based on literature review.
b) Establishment of a database of the relevant geotechnical properties, machine design
and performance parameters.
c) Identification of critical parameters for rock cuttability and surface miner
performance prediction.
d) Prediction of rock cuttability for surface miners.

70

Recognition of need

Research objectives

Literature review

Surface miner
specifications

Scope of work
Coal
Work plan

Field investigations

Intact rock and rock mass

Laboratory investigations

Geological and
geotechnical parameters

Surface miner
performance

Limestone

Intact rock
parameters

Data analysis

Identification of critical parameters

Concept forming, simulation and analysis

Analytical

Empirical

ANN

Multiple regression

Development of rock cuttability index

and machine performance prediction

Evaluation and testing

Conclusions and recommendations

Figure 2.30: Research methodology

71

e) Establishment of relationships between the geo-mechanical properties of intact rock,

rock mass and performance parameters of surface miners, namely, production, chip
size, diesel consumption and pick consumption.
f) Development of an integrated approach for the applicability, selection and
performance prediction of surface miner in a given site-specific condition.

72