Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Energy efficiency (specific energy) and penetration rate in rock drilling processes are dependent on various
Received 18 January 2010 operational variables (applied load, torque etc.) in addition to the physico-mechanical properties of the rock
Accepted 10 January 2011 being drilled. Experimental work, using a laboratory drilling setup, was carried out to investigate the interplay
Available online 23 January 2011
between the various operational variables and the physico-mechanical properties of cement mortar, an
analogue for natural rock. Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) tests were first performed to characterise
Keywords:
drillability
the cement mortar. The penetration rate and specific energy were determined for various experimental
cement mortar drilling scenarios and correlated with the operational variables employed for these drilling scenarios and the
specific energy physico-mechanical properties of the cement mortar used. The results of the experimental work demonstrate
penetration rate the significance of applied load and torque for both penetration rate and specific energy in drilling.
Additionally, the experimental results emphasise the influence of material (rock or cement) properties on the
penetration rate and specific energy in drilling. From the testing data, empirical relationships are proposed for
the purpose of determination of both penetration rate and specific energy for certain operational variables,
and for given UCS of the material to be drilled.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction means of evaluating efficiency in the drilling process. There are many
ways to measure specific energy for the drilling process, but the most
In the past several decades, due to the importance of rock drilling common approach uses Eq. (1).
in mining and petroleum engineering applications, a number of
2 0 13
studies have addressed the drilling properties of brittle materials such
6 1 B 2πNT C7
as rock and mortar. The drillability of rock mainly depends on SEm = 4 @π A5 ð1Þ
operational variables (controllable parameters), and rock material 1000 d2 PR
4
and joint properties (uncontrollable parameters). Some of the
operational variables can include rotational velocity, applied load
where SEm is the measured specific energy, N is the rotation speed,
and flushing rate. The objective for those concerned with planning a
T is the torque, d is the borehole diameter and PR is the penetration
drilling project is to understand how these variables govern
rate.
penetration rate and energy expenditure in the drilling process.
Penetration rate is the most important of the operational variables
Many researchers have investigated (theoretically or experimen-
in the drilling process (Sievers, 1950; Hartman, 1959; Selmer-Olsen
tally) the drillability of materials by correlating the penetration rate
and Lien, 1960; Protodyakonov, 1962; Gnirk, 1963; Teale, 1965; Selim
(and other controllable parameters) with the various rock properties,
and Bruce, 1970; Selmer-Olsen and Blindheim, 1970; Hustrulid and
to produce a variety of empirical relationships to predict drilling rate
Fairhust, 1971; Mellor, 1972; Tandanand and Unger, 1975; Pathinkar
and energy requirements in drilling. Teale (1965) proposed the
and Misra, 1976; Rabia and Brook, 1980; Rabia, 1982, 1985; Howarth
concept of specific energy as a simple means of assessing rock
et al., 1986; Farmer and Garritly, 1987; Fowell, 1993; Krupa et al.,
drillability. Specific energy is defined as the energy required to
1993; Thuro, 1997; Huang et al., 1998; Schunnesson, 1998; Kahraman
excavate a unit volume of rock in the drilling process. It is used as a
et al., 2000; Brook, 2002 and Kahraman et al., 2003). Selim and Bruce
(1970), using stepwise linear regression analysis, developed a
penetration rate model that is a function of the drill power and the
physical properties of the rock being drilled.
⁎ Corresponding author. The theoretical specific energy, as defined by different research
E-mail address: ranjith.pg@monash.edu (P.G. Ranjith). workers, has proved to correlate well with penetration rate. Sinkala
0920-4105/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2011.01.011
186 E. Yaşar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 76 (2011) 185–193
(1991) derived the following theoretical expression for the minimum Table 2
torque necessary to maintain constant bit rotation (Eq. (2)), and Sand particle size distribution, as determined from
sieve analysis.
found a good agreement between practical and theoretical values.
Sieve size Proportion
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
(mm) (wt.%)
FD R
τ= ð2Þ
3 15f θ 5–9.75 2.66
2.36–5 3.71
1.18–2.36 16.43
where τ is the bit torque, F is the thrust on the bit, D is the bit 0.6–1.18 17.6
diameter, R is the penetration rate, f is the piston impact frequency, 0.3–0.6 17.03
0.15–0.3 34.87
and θ is the button diameter.
0–0.15 7.67
Fowell (1993) pointed out that specific energy in rock cutting is
affected significantly by tool geometry, cutter spacing, tool penetra-
tion and rock properties. These factors will of course influence
formulas used to describe specific energy with respect to the carbonate, alumina, silica, and iron oxide which, when calcined and
operational variables. However, the properties of the drilled medium sintered at high temperatures, give a new group of chemical
will also influence the specific energy in the drilling process. Hughes compounds capable of reacting with water to form cementitious
(1972) and Mellor (1972) provided a simplified formula to calculate compounds. Portland cement includes four major minerals, being:
specific energy (SEc) from the compressive strength (σc) and Young's tricalcium silicate (C3S), dicalcium silicate (C2S), tricalcium aluminate
modulus (E) of the drilled medium: (C3A), and tetracalcium aluminoferrite (C4AF). The specific gravity of
the cement used for the testing was 3150 kg/m3. Initial and final
SEc = σc =2E setting times of the cement were 4 and 5 h, respectively, and the
2
ð3Þ
Blaine specific surface area was 3140 cm2/g. The chemical composi-
tion of the GPC used in production of the cement mortar for the testing
A good understanding of the role of the various operational and
is given in Table 1.
material parameters and how they govern the drillability of brittle
materials is important for cost and resource assessment in large rock
drilling projects. However, limited data exists in this area and a 2.2. Sand
significant amount of work remains to be performed on the topic of
the drillability of brittle materials. Sand was used in the production of the cement mortar. The dry
This paper reports on an experimental study carried out to explore unit weight of the sand, measured according to the International
the interplay between various operational parameters and the Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM, 1981), was 2410 kg/m3. The
physico-mechanical characteristics of the brittle material being density of the pore-free pulverised sand was 2650 kg/m3. Sand
drilled. The investigation reported here employs an experimental aggregates were sieved using standard sieves and separated into
drilling setup that is used to perform drilling tests on cement mortar. seven grain-size groupings of 0–0.15 mm, 0.15–0.3 mm, 0.3–0.6 mm,
Cement mortar is used as an analogue for rock due to the 0.6–1.18 mm, 1.18–2.36 mm, 2.36–5 mm and 5–9.75 mm. A mixture
reproducibility it offers in terms of the material characteristics of displaying the particle size distribution given in Table 2 was made
the samples used for testing. from these seven grain-size groupings. The chemical composition of
the sand used in production of the cement mortar for the testing is
2. Materials used in the experimental work given in Table 1.
General Purpose Cement (GPC) is defined in AS 3972 (1997) as Mixture proportions of 1:5, by weight, of GPC and sand,
‘hydraulic cement which is manufactured as a homogeneous product respectively, were used to produce the cement mortar. These cement
by grinding together Portland cement clinker and calcium sulphate, mortar mixture proportions resulted in an approximate quantity of
and which at the discretion of the cement manufacturer may contain GPC of 325 kg for each unit volume (m3) of cement mortar produced.
up to 5% of mineral additions for use in general purpose concrete The water–cement ratio for mixing was kept constant at 0.65. Table 3
applications, cement-based products, mortars and grouts’. Portland shows the composition of the cement mortar mixtures produced for
cement consists of carefully proportioned mixtures of calcium the experimental work.
Fresh and air-dry unit weights of the cement mortar, measured in
accordance with ASTM C138 (2002) and ASTM C567 (2002), were
calculated at 2550 ± 29 and 2400 ± 23 kg/m3, respectively. Slump
Table 1 values measured according to ASTM C143 (2002) were 6 ± 1.5 cm for
Chemical composition of GPC and sand. the mixture.
Standard cylindrical specimens 100 mm in diameter and 200 mm
Oxide Cement Sand
(wt.%) (wt.%) in length were prepared from fresh cement mortar mixtures.
Complete compaction of the samples was performed by means of
Silica (SiO2) 20.60 81.40
Alumina (Al2O3) 5.60 4.47
Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 4.20 1.40 Table 3
Lime (CaO) 61.90 0.82 Approximate mixture composition (by weight) per cubic metre of cement mortar.
Magnesia (MgO) 2.60 1.48
Gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) 2.79 1.35 Sand (kg) by grain-size grouping
Alkali (K2O) 0.83 n/a (mm)
Alkali (Na2O) 0.14 n/a
c w 9.75–5 5–2.36 2.36–1.18 1.18–0.6 0.6–0.3 0.3–0.15 0.15–0
Titania (TiO2) 0.13 1.81
(kg) (kg)
Phosphorus (P2O5) 0.11 0.01
LOI 1.09 7.26 325 225 44.38 60.42 267.80 286.83 277.54 568.35 125.02
E. Yaşar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 76 (2011) 185–193 187
Table 4
Physico-mechanical and drilling properties obtained from testing of cement mortar specimens.
1 16.52 19.71 24.96 3.15 0.095 46.406 98.89 101.2 2052 2164
2 16.53 19.96 24.65 3.24 0.102 71.721 93.77 97.06 2027 2139
3 16.60 19.87 24.03 3.27 0.097 83.713 88.29 94.13 2057 2175
4 16.48 19.79 24.05 3.32 0.112 87.085 87.11 91.48 2035 2146
5 16.37 19.56 23.86 3.21 0.094 103.787 88.68 93.61 2048 2152
6 16.09 19.47 23.82 3.23 0.108 117.447 87.83 89.94 2054 2161
7 16.54 19.81 23.42 3.30 0.123 151.839 82.60 85.76 2043 2130
Average ± 1σ 16.45 ± 0.17 19.74 ± 0.17 24.11 ± 0.52 3.25 ± 0.06 0.10 ± 0.01 94.57 ± 33.92 89.60 ± 5.24 93.31 ± 4.98 2045.1 ± 10.88 2152.43 ± 15.50
188 E. Yaşar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 76 (2011) 185–193
Fig. 2. Plots of penetration rate v. (a) applied load, (b) torque and (c) penetration depth for drilling tests carried out on cement mortar samples.
specific energy calculated from the physico-mechanical properties measured values. Plots of penetration rate v. applied load (thrust
obtained for the 28-day samples from the UCS testing (using force), torque and penetration depth, produced from the results of
Eq. (3)) are also given in Table 4, to allow comparison with all drilling tests, are given in Fig. 2. The plots show that penetration
E. Yaşar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 76 (2011) 185–193 189
Fig. 3. Plots of penetration rate v. (a) average applied load, (b) average torque and (c) average drilling time for drilling tests carried out on cement mortar samples.
rate increases for increasing load (Fig. 2a) and torque (Fig. 2b), A number of useful empirical relationships can be extracted from
but that penetration rate decreases for increasing penetration the plots of Fig. 2. Eqs. (4) and (5), below, were obtained from a
depth. quadratic best fit to the data of Fig. 2a and b, respectively. Eq. (4)
190 E. Yaşar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 76 (2011) 185–193
Fig. 4. Calculated (SEc) and measured (SEm) specific energy v. UCS for the cement mortar samples.
provides an empirical relationship between penetration rate (PR) and and Eq. (7) provides an empirical relationship between penetra-
applied load (L), whereas Eq. (5) provides an empirical relationship tion rate (PR) and torque (T).
between penetration rate (PR) and torque (T).
PR = 171:29LnðLÞ + 407:17; R = 0:73
2
ð6Þ
PR = −27:38L2 + 20:127L−0:0883; R2 = 0:78 ð4Þ
PR = 83:956LnðT Þ + 87:103;
2
R = 0:85 ð7Þ
PR = −0:1698T 2 + 1:8688T−0:1479; R2 = 0:67 ð5Þ
Fig. 2a and b demonstrates that applied load and torque are the Again, Fig. 3a and b demonstrates that applied load and torque are
dominant factors governing the penetration rate. The negative the dominant factors governing the penetration rate. Fig. 3c shows
correlation between penetration rate and penetration depth that as penetration rate increases, drilling time decreases exponen-
(Fig. 2c) is interpreted to be related to increasing frictional resistance tially, suggesting that with progress (and increased drilling depth)
between the core barrel and the borehole with increasing penetration increased friction will cause penetration rate to diminish. Eq. (8)
depth. provides an empirical expression obtained from the exponential best
Plots relating penetration rate to average applied load, average fit of the penetration rate to the average drilling time (Fig. 3c).
torque and average drilling time from the drilling tests are given in
Fig. 3. Fig. 3a and b shows that penetration rates increase with PR = 8029:2ðTiÞ−0:9698 ; R2 = 0:994 ð8Þ
increasing average load and average torque. Eqs. (6) and (7),
below, were obtained from a logarithmic best fit to the data of One of the primary aims of this study was to investigate the
Fig. 3a and b, respectively. Eq. (6) provides an empirical relationship between the specific energy and the physico-mechanical
relationship between penetration rate (PR) and applied load (L), properties of the material used. Fig. 4 presents the relationship
Fig. 6. Plots of measured specific energy v. (a) penetration rate, (b) applied load and (c) torque for drilling tests carried out on cement mortar samples.
between UCS and the measured and calculated specific energies, as with increasing Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS). Additional-
determined using the experimental results and Eqs. (1) and (3), ly, Fig. 4 shows that there is a close relationship between the two
respectively. From Fig. 4, it can be seen that specific energy increases (theoretical and practical) datasets, supporting the empirical
192 E. Yaşar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 76 (2011) 185–193
relationship of Eq. (3). The correlations between Specific Energy— and the experimentally obtained physico-mechanical proper-
both measured (SEm) and calculated (SEc)—and the UCS of the cement ties of the drilled material—compare well with values obtained
mortar samples, as determined from linear best fits to the data of from the experimental work;
Fig. 4, are provided in Eqs. (9) and (10), respectively. (5) penetration rate decreases exponentially with increasing
UCS of the cement mortar being drilled, suggesting that rock
SEm = 9:0406ðUCSÞ−124:68;
2
R = 0:90 ð9Þ properties will strongly influence progress in the drilling
process, and
SEc = 9:6988ðUCSÞ−144:27; R2 = 0:94 ð10Þ (6) measured specific energy decreases exponentially with both
increasing penetration rate and increasing applied load in the
Fig. 5 illustrates the relationship between penetration rate and drilling process.
average UCS, as obtained from the drilling program. The exponential
best fit to the data of Fig. 5, given in Eq. (11), provides an empirical The results of the experimental study re-affirm the significance of
relationship between penetration rate (PR) and Unconfined Com- applied load and torque on penetration rate in the drilling process.
pressive Strength (UCS). Fig. 5 and Eq. (11) define a negative Additionally, the results of this study demonstrate the strong
correlation between penetration rate and UCS values. influence of the physico-mechanical properties of the material being
drilled on the operational variables (specific energy and penetration
PR = 2E + 25ðUCSÞ−16:944 ; R2 = 0:94 ð11Þ rate) for the drilling process. A number of empirical relationships that
describe the influence of the various material and operational
Both Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate a relationship between the parameters on specific energy and penetration rate in the drilling
physico-mechanical properties (UCS) of the material being drilled process were obtained from best-fit curves to the test data.
and the operational variables (penetration rate and specific energy).
This supports the notion that material characteristics are important in
Acknowledgments
determination of the operational variables. The specific energy shows
a positive correlation with UCS, whereas penetration rate displays a
The authors thank the Australian Government, Department of
negative correlation, suggesting that stronger rock requires greater
Education, Science and Training for a 2007 Endeavour Research
energy expenditure for a reduced rate of progress, when compared to
Fellowship for Turkey. They would also like to thank the Department of
weaker rock.
Civil Engineering, Monash University (Australia) and the Department
Fig. 6 shows the influence of penetration rate (PR), applied load
of Mining Engineering, Çukurova University (Turkey) for supporting
and torque on specific energy. It is clear from Fig. 6a and b that specific
the study.
energy decreases exponentially with increasing penetration rate and
load. However, Fig. 6c (specific energy v. torque) shows a less clear
correlation. Penetration rate is a function of both applied load and References
torque. Torque appears as an independent variable in the formula to
calculate specific energy from the drilling variables (Eq. (1)) but AS 3972 Portland and Blended Cements Standards Australia, 1997.
ASTM, 2002a. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete
applied load does not. Thus, applied load is factored into the specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. C39/C39M-01.
penetration rate for Eq. (1), explaining the similar form of Fig. 6a ASTM, 2002b. Standard test method for density (unit weight), yield, and air content
and b (when compared to Fig. 6c). Eqs. (12) and (13) provide (gravimetric) of concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. C138/C138M-00.
ASTM, 2002c. Standard test method for density structural lightweight concrete. Annual
empirical relationships between measured specific energy (SEm) and Book of ASTM Standards. C567-00.
penetration rate (PR) and applied load (L), respectively. Eqs. (12) and ASTM, 2002d. Standard test method for slump of hydraulic cement concrete. Annual
(13) were obtained from an exponential best fit to the test data of Book of ASTM Standards. C143/C143M-00.
Brook, B., 2002. Principles of diamond tool technology for sawing rock. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Fig. 6a and b, respectively. Min. Sci. 39, 41–58.
Farmer, I.W., Garritly, P., 1987. Prediction of roadheader cutting performance from
SEm = 51:433ðPRÞ−0:7858 ; R2 = 0:89 ð12Þ fracture toughness considerations. In: Herget, G., Vongpaisal, S. (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Sixth International Congr Rock Mechanics, pp. 621–624.
Fowell, R.J., 1993. The mechanics of rock cutting. In: Hudson, J.A. (Ed.), Comprehensive
SEm = 4:3896ðLÞ−1:2787 ; R2 = 0:64 ð13Þ Rock Engineering, Vol. 4, pp. 155–175.
Gnirk, P.F., 1963. Indentation experiments on dry rocks under pressure. J. Pet. Technol.
15, 1031–1039.
Hartman, H.L., 1959. Basic studies of percussion drilling. Min. Eng. 11, 68–75.
6. Conclusions Howarth, D.F., Adamson, W.R., Berndt, J.R., 1986. Correlation of model tunnel boring
and drilling machine performances with rock properties. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
23, 171–175.
An experimental study carried out on cement mortar samples was Huang, H., Damjanac, B., Detournay, E., 1998. Normal wedge indentation in rocks with
used to investigate the influence of operational parameters on the lateral confinement. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 31 (2) 81±94.
drillability of rock in drilling operations. Analysis of the results of the Hughes, H., 1972. Some aspects of rock machining. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 9,
205–211.
experimental study yielded the following conclusions: Hustrulid, W.A., Fairhurst, C., 1971. A theoretical and experimental study of the
percussive drilling of rock. Part I—theory of percussive drilling. Int. J. Rock Mech.
(1) penetration rate increases with both increasing applied load Min. Sci. 8, 11–33.
(thrust force) and torque for the drilling tests; ISRM, 1981. Rock characterization testing and monitoring. In: Brown, T.T. (Ed.), ISRM
(2) penetration rate decreases with both increasing drilling depth Suggested Methods. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 211 pp.
Kahraman, S., Balcı, C., Yazıcı, S., Bilgin, N., 2000. Prediction of the penetration rate of
(due to increasing frictional resistance) and drilling time for the rotary blast hole drills using a new drillability index. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 37
drilling tests; 729±743.
(3) the specific energy measured from drilling tests exhibits a Kahraman, S., Bilgin, N., Feridunoglu, C., 2003. Dominant rock properties affecting the
penetration rate of percussive drills. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40, 711–723.
strong linear correlation with the Unconfined Compressive
Krupa, V., Krepelka, F., Sekula, F., Kristova, Z., 1993. Specific energy as information
Strength (UCS) of the cement mortar being drilled, suggesting source about strength properties of rock mass using TBM. In: Anagnostopoulos, A.,
that rock properties will strongly influence energy efficiency in et al. (Ed.), Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils—Soft Rocks, pp. 1475–1477.
the drilling process; Mellor, M., 1972. Normalization of specific energy values. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 9,
661–663.
(4) values of specific energy calculated using the empirical Pathinkar, A.G., Misra, G.B., 1976. A critical appraisal of the Protodyakonov index. Int. J.
relationship provided by Hughes (1972) and Mellor (1972)— Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 13, 249–251.
E. Yaşar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 76 (2011) 185–193 193
Protodyakonov, M.M., 1962. Mechanical properties and drillability of rocks. Proceedings Selmer-Olsen, R., Lien, R., 1960. Bergartens borbarhet og sprengbarhet. Teknisk
of the Fifth Symposium on Rock Mechanics. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Ukeblad, nr. 34, pp. 3–11. Oslo.
MN, pp. 103–118. Schunnesson, H., 1998. Rock characterisation using percussive drilling. Int. J. Rock
Rabia, H., Brook, N., 1980. An empirical equation for drill performance prediction. The Mech. Min. Sci. 35 (No. 6), 711–725.
state of the arts in rock mechanics. Proceedings of the 21st US Symposium on Rock Sievers, H., 1950. Die Bestimmung des Bohrwiderstandes von Gesteinen. Glu¨ckauf 86:
Mechanics. University of Missouri-Rolla, Columbia, MO, pp. 103–111. 37/38. Gückauf G.M.B.H., Essen, pp. 776–784.
Rabia, H., 1985. A unified prediction model for percussive and rotary drilling. Min. Sci. Sinkala, T., 1991. Relating drilling parameters at the bit–rock interface: theoretical and
Technol. 2, 207–216. field studies. Min. Sci. Technol. 12, 67–77.
Rabia, H., 1982. Specific energy as a criterion for drilling performance prediction. Int. J. Tandanand, S., Unger, H.F., 1975. Drillability determination—a drillability index of
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 19, 39–42. percussive drills. USBM RI 8073.
Selim, A.A., Bruce, W.E., 1970. Prediction of penetration rate for percussive drilling. Teale, R., 1965. The concept of specific energy in rock drilling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
USBM RI 7396. 2, 57–71.
Selmer-Olsen, R., Blindheim, O.T., 1970. On the drillability of rock by percussive drilling. Thuro, K., 1997. Prediction of drillability in hardrock tunnelling by drilling, blasting. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd Congress of ISRM, Belgrade. Golse, J., et al. (Ed.), Tunnels for People, pp. 103–108.