Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 76 (2011) 185–193

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p e t r o l

An experimental investigation into the drilling and physico-mechanical properties of

a rock-like brittle material
E. Yaşar a, P.G. Ranjith b,⁎, D.R. Viete b
a
Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering, Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, Turkey
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

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
In the past several decades, due to the importance of rock drilling
in mining and petroleum engineering applications, a number of
studies have addressed the drilling properties of brittle materials such
as rock and mortar. The drillability of rock mainly depends on
operational variables (controllable parameters), and rock material
and joint properties (uncontrollable parameters). Some of the
operational variables can include rotational velocity, applied load
and flushing rate. The objective for those concerned with planning a
drilling project is to understand how these variables govern
penetration rate and energy expenditure in the drilling process.
Many researchers have investigated (theoretically or experimen-
tally) the drillability of materials by correlating the penetration rate
(and other controllable parameters) with the various rock properties,
to produce a variety of empirical relationships to predict drilling rate
and energy requirements in drilling. Teale (1965) proposed the
concept of specific energy as a simple means of assessing rock
drillability. Specific energy is defined as the energy required to
excavate a unit volume of rock in the drilling process. It is used as a
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ranjith.pg@monash.edu (P.G. Ranjith).
means of evaluating efficiency in the drilling process. There are many
ways to measure specific energy for the drilling process, but the most
common approach uses Eq. (1).
2 0 13


6 1 B 2πNT C7
SEm = 4 @π A5 ð1Þ
1000 d2 PR
4
where SEm is the measured specific energy, N is the rotation speed,
T is the torque, d is the borehole diameter and PR is the penetration
rate.
Penetration rate is the most important of the operational variables
in the drilling process (Sievers, 1950; Hartman, 1959; Selmer-Olsen
and Lien, 1960; Protodyakonov, 1962; Gnirk, 1963; Teale, 1965; Selim
and Bruce, 1970; Selmer-Olsen and Blindheim, 1970; Hustrulid and
Fairhust, 1971; Mellor, 1972; Tandanand and Unger, 1975; Pathinkar
and Misra, 1976; Rabia and Brook, 1980; Rabia, 1982, 1985; Howarth
et al., 1986; Farmer and Garritly, 1987; Fowell, 1993; Krupa et al.,
1993; Thuro, 1997; Huang et al., 1998; Schunnesson, 1998; Kahraman
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.
The theoretical specific energy, as defined by different research
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.

2.1. Cement 3. Cement mortar preparation and composition

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

applied load, torque and penetration and rotation rates in a simulation

Fig. 1. Photo of laboratory setup for the drilling experiments.
vibration, using a vibrating table. After 24 h, all the test specimens
were removed from the mould and cured at constant temperature and
relative humidity conditions of 20 °C and 65%, respectively, to
simulate the construction site environment. The specimens were
kept in the curing chamber until testing.
of the rock drilling process that used cement mortar as a drilling
medium. The rotational speed was set at about 350 rpm and the load,
torque, rotation speed and penetration displacement were measured.
During drilling, water was applied at a rate of approximately 3 l/min.
The drilling system was mounted vertically on a 20 in. (508 mm)
clausing drill press that was specifically modified for this study. The
maximum power output of the motor was 1.12 kW (0.75 hp) at
the lowest gear ratio. A load cell (used to measure thrust force) of
30 kN/150 N m capacity was mounted to the bottom plate of the drill
press. The rotational speed of the drill bit and the applied torque were
measured using a tachometer placed between the drill spindle and the
core barrel. The full range of the tachometer was 565 N m, with a
speed rating of 0 to 10,000 rpm. The penetration depth of the bit was
measured from the sample surface to the cutting face of the borehole
and calculated from the readings of a long stroke LVDT—with
maximum measurement length of 500 mm—that measured the travel
of the drill bit. The penetration rate was taken as the derivative of the
penetration depth with respect to the time. Measurements acquired
by the four transducers were transmitted to a data acquisition system
comprising an advanced multi-channel programmable data logger
capable of fast, accurate data acquisition.
Constant, real-time monitoring of the drilling process through
precise measurement and recording of load, torque and penetration
and rotation rates was performed using two specialised software
packages—Vdefined and Datataker (DT505). The drill feed was set to
achieve a constant penetration rate of 2 mm/min, assuming a rotation
speed of 350 rpm and variations in rotation speed (rpm) and
penetration rate (mm/s) were measured. During testing, the thrust
force was measured using the load cell and the displacement
(indentation) was measured using the long stroke LVDT. Each test
was carried out for a total duration of 3 min.

5. Results and discussions

4. Experimental methodology
4.1. Uniaxial compressive strength testing
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) tests were performed
according to ASTM C39 (2002). Testing was carried out on casted and
trimmed core samples with a diameter of 100 mm, and a length-to-
diameter ratio of 2. Load was applied to produce a stress rate of
between 0.5 and 1.0 MPa/s during testing. The peak compressive
strength (UCS), Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio were determined
from the stress–strain results of the tests.
4.2. Drilling measurement testing
A specially designed drilling rig, with a 36 mm core barrel (Fig. 1),
was employed to measure various drilling parameters, including
The physico-mechanical properties (UCS, Young's modulus, and
Poisson's ratio) obtained from UCS testing on a number of cement
mortar specimens aged for 7, 14 and 28 days are given in Table 4.
Average values calculated from the tested specimens are also
provided in Table 4. From the results, it is clear that the UCS values
for the 28-day cement mortar are significantly (c. 40%) higher than
those for the 7-day cement mortar. The UCS, Young's modulus (E), and
Poisson's ratio (υ) of the 28-day mortar were measured to be 24.11 ±
0.52 MPa, 3.25 ± 0.06 GPa and 0.10 ± 0.01, respectively. All cement
mortar samples developed compressive strengths ranging from 23.42
to 24.96 MPa at 28 days. The dry and saturated densities of the cement
mortar samples were found to be 2045.14 ± 10.88 and 2152 ±
15.50 kg/m3, respectively (Table 4).
The drilling properties (penetration rate and specific energy)
obtained from the drilling tests are given in Table 4. Values of

Table 4
Physico-mechanical and drilling properties obtained from testing of cement mortar specimens.

Sample no UCS E υ, Poisson's Penetration rate SE Density

(MPa) (GPa) ratio (mm/min) (MJ/m3) (kg/m3)

7 days 14 days 28 days Calculated Measured Dry Sat.

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
dominant factors governing the penetration rate. The negative
correlation between penetration rate and penetration depth
(Fig. 2c) is interpreted to be related to increasing frictional resistance
between the core barrel and the borehole with increasing penetration
depth.
Plots relating penetration rate to average applied load, average
torque and average drilling time from the drilling tests are given in
Fig. 3. Fig. 3a and b shows that penetration rates increase with
increasing average load and average torque. Eqs. (6) and (7),
below, were obtained from a logarithmic best fit to the data of
Fig. 3a and b, respectively. Eq. (6) provides an empirical
relationship between penetration rate (PR) and applied load (L),
Again, Fig. 3a and b demonstrates that applied load and torque are
the dominant factors governing the penetration rate. Fig. 3c shows
that as penetration rate increases, drilling time decreases exponen-
tially, suggesting that with progress (and increased drilling depth)
increased friction will cause penetration rate to diminish. Eq. (8)
provides an empirical expression obtained from the exponential best
fit of the penetration rate to the average drilling time (Fig. 3c).
PR = 8029:2ðTiÞ−0:9698 ; R2 = 0:994 ð8Þ
One of the primary aims of this study was to investigate the
relationship between the specific energy and the physico-mechanical
properties of the material used. Fig. 4 presents the relationship

Fig. 5. Penetration rate v. UCS for the cement mortar samples.

 E. Yaşar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 76 (2011) 185–193 191

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—
both measured (SEm) and calculated (SEc)—and the UCS of the cement
mortar samples, as determined from linear best fits to the data of
Fig. 4, are provided in Eqs. (9) and (10), respectively.
SEm = 9:0406ðUCSÞ−124:68;
2
R = 0:90 ð9Þ
SEc = 9:6988ðUCSÞ−144:27; R2 = 0:94 ð10Þ
Fig. 5 illustrates the relationship between penetration rate and
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
relationship between penetration rate (PR) and Unconfined Com-
pressive Strength (UCS). Fig. 5 and Eq. (11) define a negative
correlation between penetration rate and UCS values.
PR = 2E + 25ðUCSÞ−16:944 ; R2 = 0:94 ð11Þ
Both Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate a relationship between the
physico-mechanical properties (UCS) of the material being drilled
and the operational variables (penetration rate and specific energy).
This supports the notion that material characteristics are important in
determination of the operational variables. The specific energy shows
a positive correlation with UCS, whereas penetration rate displays a
negative correlation, suggesting that stronger rock requires greater
energy expenditure for a reduced rate of progress, when compared to
weaker rock.
Fig. 6 shows the influence of penetration rate (PR), applied load
and torque on specific energy. It is clear from Fig. 6a and b that specific
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
torque. Torque appears as an independent variable in the formula to
calculate specific energy from the drilling variables (Eq. (1)) but
applied load does not. Thus, applied load is factored into the
penetration rate for Eq. (1), explaining the similar form of Fig. 6a
and b (when compared to Fig. 6c). Eqs. (12) and (13) provide
empirical relationships between measured specific energy (SEm) and
penetration rate (PR) and applied load (L), respectively. Eqs. (12) and
(13) were obtained from an exponential best fit to the test data of
Fig. 6a and b, respectively.
SEm = 51:433ðPRÞ−0:7858 ; R2 = 0:89 ð12Þ
SEm = 4:3896ðLÞ−1:2787 ; R2 = 0:64 ð13Þ
6. Conclusions
An experimental study carried out on cement mortar samples was
used to investigate the influence of operational parameters on the
drillability of rock in drilling operations. Analysis of the results of the
experimental study yielded the following conclusions:
(1) penetration rate increases with both increasing applied load
(thrust force) and torque for the drilling tests;
(2) penetration rate decreases with both increasing drilling depth
(due to increasing frictional resistance) and drilling time for the
drilling tests;
(3) the specific energy measured from drilling tests exhibits a
strong linear correlation with the Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) of the cement mortar being drilled, suggesting
that rock properties will strongly influence energy efficiency in
the drilling process;
(4) values of specific energy calculated using the empirical
relationship provided by Hughes (1972) and Mellor (1972)—
and the experimentally obtained physico-mechanical proper-
ties of the drilled material—compare well with values obtained
from the experimental work;
(5) penetration rate decreases exponentially with increasing
UCS of the cement mortar being drilled, suggesting that rock
properties will strongly influence progress in the drilling
process, and
(6) measured specific energy decreases exponentially with both
increasing penetration rate and increasing applied load in the
drilling process.
The results of the experimental study re-affirm the significance of
applied load and torque on penetration rate in the drilling process.
Additionally, the results of this study demonstrate the strong
influence of the physico-mechanical properties of the material being
drilled on the operational variables (specific energy and penetration
rate) for the drilling process. A number of empirical relationships that
describe the influence of the various material and operational
parameters on specific energy and penetration rate in the drilling
process were obtained from best-fit curves to the test data.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Australian Government, Department of
Education, Science and Training for a 2007 Endeavour Research
Fellowship for Turkey. They would also like to thank the Department of
Civil Engineering, Monash University (Australia) and the Department
of Mining Engineering, Çukurova University (Turkey) for supporting
the study.
References
AS 3972 Portland and Blended Cements Standards Australia, 1997.
ASTM, 2002a. Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete
specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. C39/C39M-01.
ASTM, 2002b. Standard test method for density (unit weight), yield, and air content
(gravimetric) of concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. C138/C138M-00.
ASTM, 2002c. Standard test method for density structural lightweight concrete. Annual
Book of ASTM Standards. C567-00.
ASTM, 2002d. Standard test method for slump of hydraulic cement concrete. Annual
Book of ASTM Standards. C143/C143M-00.
Brook, B., 2002. Principles of diamond tool technology for sawing rock. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 39, 41–58.
Farmer, I.W., Garritly, P., 1987. Prediction of roadheader cutting performance from
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
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.
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.
Huang, H., Damjanac, B., Detournay, E., 1998. Normal wedge indentation in rocks with
lateral confinement. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 31 (2) 81±94.
Hughes, H., 1972. Some aspects of rock machining. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 9,
205–211.
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.
Min. Sci. 8, 11–33.
ISRM, 1981. Rock characterization testing and monitoring. In: Brown, T.T. (Ed.), ISRM
Suggested Methods. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 211 pp.
Kahraman, S., Balcı, C., Yazıcı, S., Bilgin, N., 2000. Prediction of the penetration rate of
rotary blast hole drills using a new drillability index. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 37
729±743.
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.
Krupa, V., Krepelka, F., Sekula, F., Kristova, Z., 1993. Specific energy as information
source about strength properties of rock mass using TBM. In: Anagnostopoulos, A.,
et al. (Ed.), Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils—Soft Rocks, pp. 1475–1477.
Mellor, M., 1972. Normalization of specific energy values. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 9,
661–663.
Pathinkar, A.G., Misra, G.B., 1976. A critical appraisal of the Protodyakonov index. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 13, 249–251.
 E. Yaşar et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 76 (2011) 185–193
Protodyakonov, M.M., 1962. Mechanical properties and drillability of rocks. Proceedings
of the Fifth Symposium on Rock Mechanics. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
MN, pp. 103–118.
Rabia, H., Brook, N., 1980. An empirical equation for drill performance prediction. The
state of the arts in rock mechanics. Proceedings of the 21st US Symposium on Rock
Mechanics. University of Missouri-Rolla, Columbia, MO, pp. 103–111.
Rabia, H., 1985. A unified prediction model for percussive and rotary drilling. Min. Sci.
Technol. 2, 207–216.
Rabia, H., 1982. Specific energy as a criterion for drilling performance prediction. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 19, 39–42.
Selim, A.A., Bruce, W.E., 1970. Prediction of penetration rate for percussive drilling.
USBM RI 7396.
Selmer-Olsen, R., Blindheim, O.T., 1970. On the drillability of rock by percussive drilling.
Proceedings of the 2nd Congress of ISRM, Belgrade.
193
Selmer-Olsen, R., Lien, R., 1960. Bergartens borbarhet og sprengbarhet. Teknisk
Ukeblad, nr. 34, pp. 3–11. Oslo.
Schunnesson, H., 1998. Rock characterisation using percussive drilling. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 35 (No. 6), 711–725.
Sievers, H., 1950. Die Bestimmung des Bohrwiderstandes von Gesteinen. Glu¨ckauf 86:
37/38. Gückauf G.M.B.H., Essen, pp. 776–784.
Sinkala, T., 1991. Relating drilling parameters at the bit–rock interface: theoretical and
field studies. Min. Sci. Technol. 12, 67–77.
Tandanand, S., Unger, H.F., 1975. Drillability determination—a drillability index of
percussive drills. USBM RI 8073.
Teale, R., 1965. The concept of specific energy in rock drilling. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
2, 57–71.
Thuro, K., 1997. Prediction of drillability in hardrock tunnelling by drilling, blasting. In:
Golse, J., et al. (Ed.), Tunnels for People, pp. 103–108.