Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 19, pp. 39 to 42, 1982 0148-9062/82/010039-04503.

00/0
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright © 1982 Pergamon Press Ltd

Technical Note
Specific Energy as a Criterion for Drill Performance Prediction
H. RABIA*

INTRODUCTION processes are considered to be controlled by Kick's law

The concept of Specific Energy, SE, was proposed by
Teale [1] as a quick means of assessing rock drillabi-
lity, Teale defined SE as the energy required to remove
a unit volume of rock. Since then, however, another
definition of SE, in terms of new surface area created,
has appeared in the literature [2]. The two definitions
appear to produce uncorrelatea values.
Conflicting views on the relationship between SE and
the compressive strength of rock also exist: Teale [l]
showed that the minimum value of SE is equal to the
compressive strength while Mellor [3] showed SE to be
approximately equal to the value of compressive
strength divided by 1000.
This note critically discusses the two definitions of
the concept of specific energy with emphasis on its use
for predicting drill machine performance.
DEFINITIONS
Specific energy may be defined in two different ways:
(1) As energy required to remove a unit volume of
rock (SEv); and
(2) As energy required to create a new surface area
(SEa).
Brook [4] indicated that Rittinger's Law, which
states that energy input is proportional to new surface
area produced, controls most comminution processes in
which the initial surface area of charge is small. Grinding
* Petroleum Engineer, ADCO, P.O. Box 270, Abu Dhabi, United
Arab Emirates.
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF LABORATORY AND FIELD SPECIFIC ENERGIES DETERMINED AT
0.69 MN/m 2 (100 psi) OPERATING PRESSUREAND USING A TRANSFER RATIO OF 0.7
such that energy input is proportional to volume of
rock. It follows that the first and second definitions are
formulations of Kick's law and Rittinger's law, respect-
ively.
SPECIFIC ENERGY IN TERMS OF VOLUME
This definition considers SEv to be an intrinsic prop-
erty such that the parameters of the breakage mechan-
ism are negligible. This implies in the case of rock-
drilling that SEv is independent of size and shape of
drill bit, drill type, methods of cutting removal and
depth of drillhole.
Using these assumptions, researchers at the Bureau
of Mines, U.S.A. [5-7] determined the specific energies
(SEv) of a large number of rock types when drilled by
two drifter drills, designated Drill A and Drill B. The
formula used to determine SEv is:
SEv = 4Tr × Power Output
rrd 2 x PR (1)
where d = diameter of bit, PR = penetration rate,
Tr = 0.7 = transfer ratio between energy transferred to
the rock and the energy available for each blow.
Tandanand [7] related laboratory determined SEv
values to the coefficient of rock strength--an impact
strength index determined using a 'Protodyakonov'
type drop hammer [8]--and the resulting relation was
suggested as a field 'Drillability Equation'. However,
comparison of the values of SEv as determined in the
laboratory and field by Drill A reveals that the percent-
age difference can be as much as 83%, as shown in
Table 1. Consequently, gross errors would result if such

Specific energy
Laboratory + Field 0
Rock type MJ/m 3 in-lb/in3( × 103) ~ MJ/m 3 in-lb/in3( x 103) ~o difference

Monkato stone 10.90 (14.63) 111.04 (16.1) 10.1

Rockville granite 157.38 (22.82) 288.28 (41.80) 83.2
Charcoal granite 193.1 (28.0) 324.83 (47.10) 68.2
Jasper quartzite 203.82 (29.554) 303.45 (44.00) 48.9
Aurora taconite 257.45 (37.33) 433.1 (62.80) 68.2
Babbit taconite 318.28 (46.15) 455.17 (66.00) 43.0
Dresser basalt 373.72 (54.19) 444.14 (64.40) 18.8

+ USBM RI 7300, Ref. [5].

0 USBM RI 7684, Ref. [6].

39
40
equations were used for the evaluation of field perform-
ance of drifter drills.
In his original paper, Teale [1] indicated that SEv is
inversely proportional to fragment size of rock exca-
vated and that the minimum value of SEv can be taken
as a fundamental rock property.
Teale also indicated that the minimum value of SEv
corresponded to the uniaxial compressive strength of
rock in question, irrespective of the drilling process.
However, Mellor [3] has shown that SEv is related to
the uniaxial compressive strength (Co) according to the
relation:
SEv -~ Co x 10 -3
It follows that the value of SEv as determined by equa-
tion (2) is too small in comparison with Teale's mini-
mum specific energy.
Field data obtained using rotary drills with three
cone bits produce extremely large values of SEv for
comparatively soft rocks, as shown in Table 2. The
specific energy of a rock when drilled by a rotary drill is
determined from equation (3)
2.35 wN
SEv -
d PR
where
w = weight on bit (kg)
N = revolutions per rain
d = diameter of bit (mm)
and
PR = penetration rate (m/hr)
Derivation of equation (3) is given in the Appendix.
The results presented in Table 2 show considerable
variations in the values of SEv for the three drill bit
types, indicating that SEv is highly dependent on bit
design. Table 2 gives an average value of SEv of ap-
proximately 2654 MJ/m 3. This value, when converted
to units of strength (MN/m2), is considerably larger
than the value of compressive strength of the strongest
limestone. It is also interesting to note that Table 1
gives the largest value of SEv of 455 MJ/m 3 for Babbit
Taconite, a comparatively strong rock. This value of
SEv is considerably smaller than that of limestone, as
seen from Table 2. Further field work, using rotary and
TABLE 2. SPECIFIC ENERGIES IN ROTARY DRILLING
Rock type: Rus limestone
Bit type Manufacturer MJ/m 3 in-lb/in3( x l0 s)
J3--Milled tooth bit Hughes Tool Co.
with journal bearings
5JS--lnsert bit with Smith Tool Co.
roller bearings
O W V - - M i l l e d tooth Hughes Tool Co.
bit (standard)
Technical Note
percussive drills on the same rock type, is required to
confirm that specific energies for rotary drilling are
considerably larger than those for percussive drilling. If
this is so, then it would be economical to use and adapt
percussive drills in areas other than hard to medium-
hard rock drilling.
SPECIFIC ENERGY IN TERMS OF
SURFACE AREA
Paithankar et al. 1-2] observed that specific energy in
terms of surface area, SEa, assumed a constant value
(2) after a certain minimum level of impact energy. The
dependence of SEa on number of blows at the lower
levels of energy input was considered to be due to the
utilization of this energy for elastic deformation and
cracking of rock fragments. Results were reported for
only one rock type and more work in other rock types
would be required before a lower limit of energy input
could be decided upon.
Wootton [9] observed that in drop hammer tests the
relationship between energy input and new surface area
produced is always linear with correlation coefficients
in excess of 0.99. For slow compression tests, however,
(3)
the graphs of energy input against new surface area
generated showed a slight curvature, but Rittinger's law
is still applicable to the process. Figure 1 shows
examples of the results of drop hammer and slow com-
pression tests. The slope of each graph may be defined
as the specific energy, SEa, of the rock in question. This
form of interpretation, however, creates a problem
when dealing with the curved graphs of the slow com-
pression tests. A better method could relate the energy
required to produce a 'standard' new surface area, say
0.005 m 2, to this area and the index is taken as SEa.
(The area 0.005 m s is very near the cross sectional area
of a core of 25 mm dia). Using either method of inter-
pretation, the slow compression and drop hammer
results of Fig. 1 still produce two numerically different
values of the index SEa for the same rock type. This
clearly indicates that energy per new surface area is
dependent on the mode of rock breakage. In both the
slow compression and impact tests, Wootton used stan-
dard cylindrical cores, each 25 mm dia and 50 mm long,
thereby eliminating the effects of size of charge on the
index SEa. Further work by Wootton showed that the
relationship of energy input to new surface area is
indeed dependent on size of charge.
PREDICTION OF DRILLING
'SEv'
PERFORMANCE
It appears that, in view of the dependence of specific
2024 (293.5) energy, whether in terms of volume or new surface area
produced, on the conditions of its determination, size of
2247 (325.9)
charge, mode of rock breakage and bit type, that
specific energy is not a fundamental intrinsic property
of rock. Prediction of drill performance using specific
3690 (535.3)
energy alone cannot, therefore, be accurate. Alternative
means of prediction must then be sought.
 Technical Note 41

C o r n i s h ~
15 15
DI

E Io
z I0

5
,,,+,'+o+--.-
u,I ,+~+~
I I I I I I I I I I I t i I
0.002 O.Ol 0 0.002 0.01
New area I g , mZlg

25
"Mount Sorrel granite
~2o

hi I 0
Compresion +
Drop Hammer o
5

0.002 0.01
New area Ig

"Yetlow oolitic limestone 6 "Bath l i m e s t o n e /

c
2
5
4
3
2 /
/ +/~," + "
t,iJ
| ! ! • !

000 2 0.0 I 0 0002 0.01

New e-eo/g

Fig. 1. Comparisonof slowcompressionand drophammertestsafterWootton[9].

Since no one rock property completely defines rock Rabia & Brook [8,11] proposed the following em-
breakage characteristics and due to the large number of pirical equation for predicting drilling rates of percus-
drill variables, formulation of drilling equations has not sive drills (PR):
been very successful.
Empirical equations have recently been proposed as constant (operating pressure) =
quick means of evaluating drilling rates. Duklet & PR = ( R I H N x Sh.H) b (6)
Bates [10] proposed the following equation for predict-
ing diamond bit drilling rates (ROP):
18 Down- the- Hole Dril I
16 (Hammer T ~
R O P = constant ( W D I ) a (RPM) b (HSI) c
(4) w
(AFL) e (EFS) /
E
= 12
where o
E ~0
W D I = average weight or load per diamond per c
8
inch squared.
/ [] Ruddon Wood granite
R P M = revolutions per min J 0 Bordon Hill .
HSI = hydraulic horse power per square inch m
o_ 4 ~ " X Croft .
2 J & Swinden Crocoe limestone
AFL = API fluid loss of mud, cc/30 min. , , , , , ~ssm:s :salt
EFS = effective formation strength
a, b, c, e and f are indices. o 5o Io0 zoo 3o0 4o0 50o
( Pressure ) o. aT/(RIHN x Sh.H )o.7~
For the same mud and rock type, equation (4) can be Fig. 2. Application of the empirical equation
simplified to: (Pressure) =
(RIHN x Sh.H)b
R O P = constant (WDI) = (RPM) b (HSI) c (5) to a down-the-holedrill,afterRabia& Brook[8].
42 Technical Note

where 8. Rabia H. & Brook N. The effects of apparatus size and surface
area of chacge on the impact strength of rock. Int. d. Rock Mech.
R I H N = rock impact hardness number Min. Sci & Geomech. Abstr. 18, 211-219 (1981).
9. Wootton D. Aspects of energy requirements for rock drilling.
Sh. H = shore hardness Ph.D. thesis, Leeds Univ. (1974).
10. Duklet C. P. & Bates T. R. Predicting diamond bit drilling rates.
and Wld Oil, pp. 127-135 (April, 1981).
a, b, are indices. 11. Rabia H. & Brook N. An empirical equation for drill perform-
ance prediction. The State of the Art in Rock Mechanics, Proc.
Equation (6) was found to give excellent correlation 21st U.S. Syrup. on Rock Mechanics, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, pp.
103-111 (1980).
for field data obtained from down-the-hole and drifter
drills. Figure 2 is an example of the application of equa-
APPENDIX
tion (6) to a down-the-hole drill using an RD237 ham-
mer type. Derivation o f specific energy equation f o r rotary drilling

Energy, in Joules, at bit in 1 rain is

CONCLUSIONS E = w × 2nR x N (AI)

(1) Specific energy in terms of either unit volume or where

new surface area is not a fundamental intrinsic property w = weight on bit (kg)
of rock. 2nR = distance moved in one revolution (mm)
R = radius of bit (ram)
(2) Rock breakage parameters control the numerical N = revolutions per min
value of specific energy and large variations between
Volume of rock, in m 3, removed in 1 min is
laboratory and field values are observed.
(3) Prediction of drill performance can best be V = n R 2 × PR (A2)
obtained at present using empirical equations, such as where
equation (6). PR = penetration rate (m/hr)
Dividing equation (A1) by (A2) gives specific energy in terms of
volume SEv as
Received 27 3uly 1981 ; revised 24 August 1981. w x 21tR x N 9.81 x 10 -3 J/min
SEv -
nR 2 PR (10- 6/60) m3/min

REFERENCES Simplifying gives equation (3) in the text :

w.N
1. Teale R. The concept of specific energy in rock drilling. Int. J. SEv = 2.35 - - ( M J / m 3) (3}
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2, 57-73 (1965). d. PR
2. Paithankar A. G. & Misra G. B. A critical appraisal of the Proto-
dyakonov index. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. where
13, 249-251 (1976). d = diameter of bit (mm)
3. Mellor M. Normalization of specific energy (Technical Note). Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 9, 661-663 (1972). In Imperial units (lb/in3), equation (3) becomes
4. Brook N. The use of irregular specimens for rock strength tests.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 14, 193-202 wN
(1977). SEv = 20 - - - -
d. PR
5. Paone J., Madson D. & Bruce W. E. Drillability studies--labora-
tory percussive drilling. U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI 7300 (1969). where
6. Schmidt R. L. Driilability studies--percussive drilling in the field.
U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI 7684 (1974). w = weight on bit (lb)
7. Tandanand S. & Unger H. F. Drillability determination--a dril- N = revolutions per min
lability index of percussive drills. U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI 8073 d = diameter of bit (in)
(1975). PR = penetration rate (ft/hr)