Mmmg Science and Technology, 1 (1984) 305-322 305

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

DERIVATION OF A DIGGABILITY INDEX FOR SURFACE

MINE E Q U I P M E N T SELECTION

M.J. Scoble

Department of Mining & Metallurgical Engineering, McGill Universtty, Montreal (Canada)

and Y.V. Muftuoglu

Department of Mining, Hacettepe University, Zonguldak (Turkey)

(Received March 8, 1984; accepted March 13, 1984)

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on research aimed at de-
veloping techniques to predict the influence of
ground conditions on excavating equipment per-
formance. The work was conducted in operating
British surface coal mines and presents a tech-
nique for diggability assessment in that mining
and geotechnical environment. A diggability in-
dex is proposed which constderes both ground
conditions and excavating equipment capabili-
ties. This is supported by reference to back-
analysis of several mine excavating case studies.

INTRODUCTION tice with the resulting additional expenditure,

The selection of surface mine excavating
equipment including the assessment of ground
preparation needs is based primarily upon a
knowledge of rock mass characteristics, mine
production and selectivity targets, as well as
environmental constraints. Expenses associ-
ated with ground preparation, loading and
haulage equipment represent a major propor-
tion of both mine capital and operating ex-
penses. The initial selection of such equip-
ment should optimize productivity and avoid
any subsequent revisions to excavation prac-
production delays and losses. Advances con-
tinue to be made also in surface mine equip-
ment development. This is evidenced, for ex-
ample, by the evolution of the hydraulic load-
ing shovel/backhoe (plus hopper spreader and
shovel crusher), the mobile crusher, the trac-
tor-ripper, and the compact bucket wheel ex-
cavator [1-3]. These offer the potential not
only to improve productivity but also to con-
tend with more difficult digging conditions.
Particular mining areas have experienced
growing environmental limitations on blasting
activities which, in addition to cost considera-

0167-9031/84/$03.00 © 1984 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

306
tions, now provide considerable incentive to
employ alternative techniques or avoid ground
preparation completely.
The limitation of the available ground pre-
paration and excavating techniques employed
in the wide range of surface mining rock
masses can only be defined by concerted re-
search and field validation. This paper is con-
cerned with the means of deriving an excavat-
ing or diggability index for use in mine de-
sign. The index relates the geotechnical char-
acteristics of a rock mass to the applicability
of excavation practice and equipment type.
Considering the financial implications of
equipment selection there has been a signifi-
cant lack of prior research into determining
the limitations imposed on excavator perfor-
mance by rock mass characteristics. Two basic
problems relate to such work. Firstly, the rock
mass parameters which are most relevant to
equipment and technique assessment require
to be identified, together with an understand-
ing of their control over excavating processes.
This is a problem which is amenable to field
case study. Secondly, having defined the ge-
otechnical data requirements, the problem
then remains of developing the means of
acquiring such data at the mine design phase.
It is at this phase that exposure to subsurface
features is usually limited. Recent advances
made with rock mass rating techniques,
instrumentation systems for drilling and load-
ing equipment performance monitoring, as
well as surface and borehole geophysics have
all provided renewed impetus to efforts to
access such data. This work relates a method
developed in surface coal mines to derive a
diggability index based upon rock mass
parameters and related to equipment capabili-
ties.
PRIOR DIGGABILITY STUDIES
Diggability prediction has traditionally
been based on intact rock strength and dis-
continuity intensity. Geotechnical core log-
ging offers an obvious means of rock mass
appraisal for diggability prediction. Franklin
et al. [4] suggested the use of point load
strength and fracture spacing indices from
core logging in order to classify rock mass
quality for excavation prediction, Fig. 1. Their
approach is considered to be sound although
it takes no account of excavator equipment
type and capability. It is also doubtful whether
ground with moderate or closer fracture spac-
ing ( < 0.2 m) could not be directly dug by the
new generation of hydraulic shovels. Specific
attempts to assess ground conditions for
bucket wheel excavators have been made
which rely on detailed core testing from ex-
ploration programmes [5,6]. These involve the
measurement of rock point load strength and
specific separation force, derived from wedge
test data. Point load strength has also been
used as the basis of an index of blastability [7]
and also rock durability and rippability [8].
Weaver [9] defined a rippability classification
system based on the combined ratings of
El-
\ B l a s t to F r a c t u r e
Vh
oosen
I I I I I I
VL L M H VH EH
Is
Fig. 1. Rock quality classification system, after Franklin
et al. [41.

several rock properties. These included joint
continuity and gouge, which are discontinuity
features particularly difficult to quantify from
core logging. Kirsten [10] proposed a similar
system based on the knowledge of four
parameters whose definition required detailed
jointing data, such as joint set number and
orientation. Problems associated with core
logging relate principally to the investigation
of discontinuities. Difficulty arises when at-
tempting to derive block size and shape from
logging, due both to bias and the absence of
core orientation data [11]. The estimation of
block size and shape may be assisted if rela-
tionships between joint frequency and lithol-
ogy, bed thickness or tectonic deformation
can be established locally, such as referred to
by Price [12]. R Q D and fracture frequency
have both been popular indices to represent
rock quality, although it is felt that the latter
is a more direct and less subjective parameter.
Criteria have been suggested to help overcome
an associated logging problem, that is, dif-
ferentiating between natural discontinuities
and those induced during drilling, transport
and storage [131.
Wireline borehole geophysical techniques
so far promise the potential for deriving both
rock unit strength and fracture spacing data,
in sedimentary environments, as a more eco-
nomical and accurate alternative to core log-
ging [14]. In reporting the capability of bore-
hole geophysics to derive a rock unit fracture
index, Halker [15] referred to evidence indi-
cating that high core fracture occurs at the
beginning and ends of drilling runs regardless
of lithology. He concluded that core-derived
fracture logs are largely a function of drilling
method.
Seismic investigations of rock masses offer
the potential of conveniently assessing their
quality. Seismic velocity is controlled by dis-
continuity spacing, as well as intact rock
properties such as density, porosity and state
of weathering. It has been widely used by
various workers to correlate with degree of
307
consolidation, weathering and fracturing.
Velocity ratio index has also been correlated
with RQD and discontinuity spacing. Atkin-
son [16] attempted to directly correlate the
in-situ compressional wave velocity of rocks
with excavating plant performance. Rippabil-
ity charts in which the performance of bull-
dozer rippers was related to field seismic
velocity have also been made available by an
earthmoving plant manufacturer [17]. The
crosshole seismic technique is a convenient,
economic tool and overcomes a practical dif-
ficulty of detecting low velocity zones when
using the surface refraction method [18].
Recent efforts have been made to instru-
ment drilling rigs and correlate drill perfor-
mance data, such as penetration rate, rotary
speed, pulldown, torque and circulation fluid
flow, with rock quality characteristics. Brown
and Phillips [19] examined the instrumenta-
tion and application of such techniques to
tunnel site investigation. Leighton et al. [20]
developed a rock quality index as the ratio of
rotary blasthole drill pulldown to penetration
rate. Good correlation was reported between
the index and buffer blast powder factor in an
open pit. Hagan and Reid [21] proposed a
rock characterization method using monitored
blasthole drilling data in order to increase
blasting efficiency. They stressed, however,
that comparison of drilling parameters will
not usually reflect the relative ease of blasting
rocks which exhibit equal intact rock strength
but dissimilar mean spacings between natural
discontinuities. It is of interest that they re-
ported a significant increase in monitored drill
penetration rate with decrease in discontinu-
ity spacing below 0.1 m. Future research may
show that diggability prediction using drill-
ing-derived discontinuity spacings may thence
be feasible where digging, in contrast to blast-
ing, is controlled to a greater extent by dis-
continuity spacing rather than intact strength.
Difficulty in drilling-data analysis may arise
from the additional influence of bit wear on
drill performance. Correlation between quartz
308

content and compressive strength have been alone to account for the abrasive properties of
reported [22,23], although McFeat-Smith [24] rocks. Other factors controlling rock abrasive-
warned that quartz content was not sufficient ness may be grain size, shape and angularity.

TABLE 1
Case studies of hydraulic shovel monitoring

CASE No. 1 2 3 4 5

Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly

Weathered Weathered Weathered Weathered Weathered
R O C K UNIT Silty Laminated Sandstone Massive Massive
DESCRIPTION Mudstone Mudstone With Sandstone Sandstone
Mudstone
Bands
U1 U2 U9 U8 U9
GROUND
Nil Nil Blasting Blasting Blasting
PREPARATION

AVERAGE BLOCK
VOLUME 0.4 < 0.03 0.03 O.2 0.04
(after preparationt

B E N C H H E I G H T (m) 5 4 1.5 7 3.5

DUMP T R U C K
186_+30 187_+23 243_+47 176_+37 195_+32
F I L L I N G TIME ( s e e . )

NO.OF PASSES 7-8 6-7 7-10 6-7 6-8

o OBSERVED 25 28 29 27 26

tO ~ COMPUTED 26 28 28 26 27
I-
M E A N DIGGING
11.5_+3.0 10.4+2.1 11.8_+3.4 11.8_+4.1 10.7_+2.5
TIME ( s e c , / c y c l e )

STICK 25.03 18,57 19.05 18.26

BUCKET 21.13 13.39 13.35 20.87 13.74

0,.
UJ
n- BOOM 26.54 22.94 22.02 27.77 24.23
O0
O)
LU STICK 12.54 10.73 10.0 10.6
0
.¢
n" BUCKET 6.72 5.49 5.5 5.95 6.2
ILl
LU
BOOM 14.9 16.17 14.5 15.86 16.5

Abrasiveness is a further factor which may
need to be integrated into diggability studies,
particularly if bucket-wheel excavators are of
possible application.
Advances in continuous monitoring of mine
excavator performance by onboard mi-
croprocessors have also recently been made
for draglines [25], rope shovels [26] and hy-
draulic shovels [27]. Although these have been
developed primarily for production moni-
toring, they also offer a means of studying the
influence of rock mass characteristics on ac-
tual machine performance. Muftuoglu [28] in-
strumented a Caterpillar 245 hydraulic shovel
with a data logger for continuous data cap-
ture of stick, bucket and boom hydraulic
pressures. Table 1 shows the data so gener-
ated in five surface coal mine rock masses,
matched against observed productivity data.
It demonstrates the prime influence of block
size on digging performance. Such work ena-
bles the assessment of the influence of bench
height and blast fragmentation on productiv-
ity as well as geotechnical parameters. Unfor-
tunately, such a technique requires subsurface
access, and offers no direct means of predic-
ting diggability in the initial mine design
phase.
GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS INFLUENC-
ING DIGGABILITY
The principle ground conditions which af-
fect excavating equipment performance dur-
ing digging and loading are:
- - block size and shape, as defined by dis-
continuity spacing and orientation, mod-
ified by any ground preparation con-
ducted;
- - intact rock and discontinuity strength;
- - b u l k density of rock mass (bank and
loose);
- - rock abrasivity, determined by mineral-
ogy;
- - moisture content and degree of weather-
309
ing (physical and chemical) in modifying
the nature of the above factors.
A further factor which often requires con-
sideration, to an extent dependent upon the
type of equipment in use, is the trafficability
and bearing capacity of the ground and haul
roads to be traversed. The relative importance
of the above factors is dependent upon ex-
cavator type and its particular size and power
characteristics. Field study of the perfor-
mance of the range of different excavating
mechanisms employed by draglines, loading
shovels, backhoes, bucket-wheel excavators,
scrapers, bulldozers and rippers is necessary
in order to relate these factors to machine
configuration. The aim of a diggability index
is to predict for a given rock mass the applica-
bility of a particular type of machine and the
extent of any necessary auxiliary ground pre-
paration. The capabilities of excavator type
continue to be improved by manufacturers
and such evolution must be accounted for
when assessing the interaction between mac-
hine and rock mass. Once the applicability of
equipment has been defined by the use of
such an index then further equipment studies
in mine design can concentrate on meeting
mine geometry and production objectives.
A DIGGABILITY INDEX FOR COAL MEA-
SURES
The following Index derivation is based
upon work conducted in British surface coal
mines, although its concept is believed to be
applicable to other mine environments. The
strategy adopted was as follows: (a) define the
mine geotechnical environments; (b) isolate
those geotechnical parameters relevant to ex-
cavator performance in that environment; (c)
observe the equipment performance and re-
late it to the relevant parameters, in order to
optimize their employment in combination so
as to derive a prototype Index; (d) validate
the Index algorithm by field case-study back-
310

TABLE2

Engineeringclassificationofcoalmeasures

ROCK UNIT NO. U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U9 UIO

,,,,,, ,-,,,, -I-

W W ZW X~wZ wZ I--
ROC~ uNrr -> ~ U.Iz
"o ,9,~zo ~ oZ ~
=~=o ~zO ~zp ~ ~az
t,~l-- ~1'-- £
DESCRIPTION ~ ~ Z ~ ~ UJ
I--
<~ <~ o~'~z Z
~=s z ~ =~ ILl

¢0 Dry Density 21 21 2,3 26 2.6 25 25 24 24 24

o_ ¢3 t/m 3 -+02 -+02 -+02 +02 +02 +0.2 +02 +02 -+02 -+01
Slake
Durabdlty <80 <80 70 -+20 75+_10 85+_10 90-+10 90-+10 95+5 95+_5 4O+_20
IX
Porosltl,
n% 12-35 12-35 14-22 8+3 8t3 12-+2 12-+2 13+_3 13-+3 12-33

P-Wave 1150 950 1250 1850 1600 1600 1600 1850 1600 95O
~. Velocity (in sltL -+250 +250 +_350 $650 +400 -+400 +400 +650 +400 +250
m/s
Bedding
Spacing >0.6 <0.01 <2 >0.6 <0,6 <3 <0,1 >0.6 <0.6 <0,2
m
Jomt
Spacing >0.6 <0.6 <0.6 >0.6 <1,0 <0.6 <1.0 >0.6 <1.0 <0.6
-~ m
RQD
% >50 <50 <60 7 0 t o 1 0 0 30to100 3 0 t o 1 0 0 3 0 t o 1 0 0 7 0 t o 1 0 0 5 0 t o 1 0 0 <6O
IX
Fracture
Frequency <1 0 >10 >10 <4 <15 <15 <15 <4 <12 >8
per m
Block Blocky Flaggy Blocky Blocky Blocky Blocky
or or or or Flaggy or Flaggy or Flaggy I rreg
Shape Irreg Flaky Flaggy Irreg Flaggy Column
Block
Volume >0.2 <0.01 <0.01 >0.2 <0,3 <0.2 <0.2 >0.2 <0.3 <0.1
m3

Compress .~ 5±2 25+-3 45+4 45 + 4 48-+12 48-+12 112-+65 112+-65 1-+0.2

co
Strength
40tlO 50+7 63-+7 63-+7 64_+11 64+-11 163+89 163+_89 27-+ 7
t-
MN/m 2 f.3

Tensde ~-
< 0.6-+0.2 2+1 4-+1 4-+1 5-+1 5+1 9+5 9-+5 0.1 +0.01
co
Strength ...
>-
MN/m 2 rr 4_+1 6-+1 8+-1 8+1 7-+2 7-+2 12-+7 12+7 3-+0.5

Point Load
Index Dry 1.4-+0.3 1.7+0.2 2.2+0.2 2.2+0.2 2,2-+0.3 2 . 2 + 0 . 3 5.6+0.3 5.6+0.3 0.9+0.2
I%Q
Sehmldt
Hammer 20to40 20to40 30to50 30to50 30to50 30to50 30to60 30to50 20to40
(Type N )
Apparent
Cohes~an < 200 < 200 100to30( 100to300 100to300 100to30([ 100to40C 100to40C <30
"~ r- kN/m2
.E ~ Frlchon ~ 21 to 29 21to33 28to33 28t033 25to33 25to33 25to37 25to37 6to24

~ Angle
{Degrees) ~. 27 to 33 27to33 28to33 28to33 28to33 28to33 32to37 32to37 15to24
 311

analysis to cater for the wide array of availa-
ble equipment and rock-mass qualities.
Extensive field and laboratory geotechnical
studies have enabled the compilation of an
Engineering Classification of Coal Measures,
Table 2. This depicts the typical observed
physical, structural and strength properties of
the common component rock units. The units
were resolved so as to cover concisely the
wide range of rock types encountered in
British Coal Measures rock masses and pro-
vide a reference base for mapping, logging
and mine design.
Observation of excavator performance in a
wide array of ground conditions indicated
that four geotechnical parameters in combina-
tion would effectively form a basis for a Dig-
gability I n d e x - - r o c k unit intact strength (S),
extent of weathering (W) and joint and bed-
ding space ( J , B). Table 3 indicates the
parameter rating technique finally adopted.
The Index is derived by summation of the
appropriately rated W, S, J and B values.
Weathering was included to account for its
effect on reducing discontinuity shear strength
as well as intact rock strength. The highest
rated parameter, J, refers to the mean of joint
spacings in two orthogonal directions. This
was observed, in combination with bedding
spacing, to define mean block configuration
which was seen to be the most dominant
controlling factor over diggability. The rela-
tive upper limits of S, J and B ratings were
defined by reference to hydraulic shovel per-
formance in the most adverse digging situa-
tions studied. At the mine design stage, W, S
and B can normally be defined by core log-
ging and mechanical testing. J can be resolved
best in concealed rock masses by crosshole
seismic surveys. This indirect method could
also be supplemented by calculation of the
Velocity Ratio Index, the ratio of field seismic
velocity to laboratory/field intact rock seismic
velocity, which can be used as an indirect

TABLE 3
Diggability index rating method

ass
Tr Iff

Weathering Completely Highly Moderately Slightly Unweathered

Rating (W) <0 5 15 20 25

Strength (MPa)
<20 20 - 60 40-60 60-100 >100
(u.c.s.)

Is ( S O ) <05 05-15 15-20 2-35 >3 5

Rating (S) 10 15 20 25

Joint S p a c i n g (m) <0.3 0.3 - 0 , 6 0.6-15 15-2 >2

Rating (J) 15 30 45 50

Bedding S p a c i n g (m) <01 01-0.3 03-06 0.6-15 >15

Rating (B) 0 5 10 20 30
312

TABLE 4
Diggability classification

Index Excavation Plant to be Employed

Class E a s e of Digging
Method (Without Resort to Blasting)
(W+S+J+B)
(With Examples)

O)
A. Ripper-Scraper
.E Cat D8
O ;=,
I Very Easy <40 B. D r a g l i n e >5m 3
r-
Ltma 2400
,, o
0~ C. Rope S h o v e l >3m 3
Ruston Bucyrus71RB

A. Ripper-Scraper
t- Cat D9
o °m

I I Easy 40-50 E3 B. Dragline >8m

Marion 195
>
O
Q.
,B t.
C. Rope S h o v e l >5m 3
~,- 04 ¢6 Ruston Bucyrus 150RB

A. Ripper-Sbov./F.E.Ldr.
Moderately Cat D 9
III Difficult
50-60
n- ~E3 B. H y d r a u l i c S h o v e l >3m 3
Cat 245

O) m ~ A. Ripper-Shov./F.E.Ldr.
®,E Cat D 10
IV Difficult 60-70 .m
n- B. H y d r a u l i c S h o v e l >3m 3
C245 or O & K RH40

Hyd. S h o v e l >3m 3
V Very Difficult 70-95 C245
~ a O & K RH40

Demag H l l l
Extremely Poclain I O 0 0 C K Hyd.Shovels
95-100
VI Difficult P&H 1 2 0 0 >7m 3
RH 75
D O) H185
O~ C
Marginal Without Demag H241 Hyd. Shovels
>1o0
V II Blasting O~C3 O&K RH300 >lOm 3

measure of J. Subsequent field studies have
shown that the ratings presented exhibit the
required degree of response and sensitivity.
The developed Diggability Classification
with its seven divisions based upon this tech-
nique is shown in Table 4. This enables the
characterization of ground conditions to be
related to equipment performance and ground
preparation requirements. Typical examples
of equipment type are included to account for
the performance capabilities of particular
machines. Direct dragline casting or digging
using rope shovels is seen to be limited to
classes I and II. The utilization of such plant
outside this range without resort to ground
preparation results in reduced productivity.
Ground preparation by ripping is shown in
classes III and IV for effective use of rope
shovels or front-end loaders. In classes V to
VII the employment of hydraulic shovels is
observed to be the only efficient means of
avoiding ground preparation by blasting.
FIELD CASE STUDIES
In the mine design phase it is of particular
interest to identify those rock units which
represent the most difficult digging condi-
tions. The applicability of excavation equip-
ment type and the extent of required ground
preparation are significant design questions.
Table 5 shows a compilation of geotechnical
and mining data from studies of ten operating
surface coal mine benches. These represent
difficult digging conditions in sandstones
which, in comparison with other rock types,
may only broadly be classed as of medium
strength. They nevertheless represent the
strongest and frequently most massive rock
units encountered in surface coal mines. The
case study data was collected by integrated
field mapping and seismic surveying (surface
and crosshole), together with field and labora-
tory strength testing. Laboratory strength is
reported as unconfined compressive strength
313
and Brazilian indirect tensile strength. Field
strength indices are reported as N.C.B. Cone
Indenter, Schmidt Hammer type N and Shore
Scleroscope type D numbers. Rock abrasive-
ness is reported according to the Cerchar test,
as stylus wear flat diameter in mm. Rock unit
seismic velocities are reported as field P-wave
values (VF) whilst laboratory P-wave veloci-
ties in intact rock samples are reported nor-
mal and parallel to bedding (VN, VP). Veloc-
ity Ratio Index was computed as the ratio of
VF to VP, whilst anisotropy is reported as the
ratio of (VP - VN) to VP.
Table 5 also depicts the excavating equip-
ment in operation on each mine bench and
the extent of ground preparation. Thus the
geotechnical and mining environment is de-
fined and can be compared with the equiva-
lent diggability indices ( W + S + J + B). The
ability of the index to differentiate between
the diggability characteristics of such sand-
stone units is fundamental to its application.
Figures 2 to 11 show characteristic views of
each of the case study sandstone units, which
may be regarded as low or moderate strength
according to their 40-90 MPa unconfined
compressive strength range. In practice, such
units are worked with what excavating equip-
ment is in the possession of the mine opera-
tor. For this reason the equipment employed
in each case study must not necessarily be
regarded as the optimum selection for the
particular field conditions. The influence of
block size on diggability is demonstrated well
in comparing cases E and F. Both units of
fine-grained sandstone exhibited comparable
intact strength and weathering yet represented
extremes of diggability. This resulted from
block size differences as reflected in the field
seismic velocity data. The lowest sandstone
unit diggability index of 55 was computed for
the U9 unit dug directly in case E by hydra-
ulic backhoe. It contrasts with an index of
110 for working the U8 unit of case F which
required blasting prior to the hydraulic shovel
dig.
 314

! .111,

0
o o o
..~ ~ ~ O~ CO
¢0 ¢q CO O0 "q" --I If)
• • ~ o "q" o co cq -- cq
'° ~ ® ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ 9~: z -
-tO

0
r.D~ ~ o ~o
-- .d) ~ .q- r.D O © © o N ~ No o o ~ -

Z
O9 -i.-O
iii
~Z 121 w o
g oo o o o
C0 O o ~o o o o o ~ 7
O I'-.. N C'q O 0~ ~_

-- ._!
O9 r, ..-I m

O~
(D~- O 0 ~" O~
© co
~° ~ ~.
~ °~ N
° ° ~ ° ~ z
,,q-
cd (~ r I r (~ 0

m
.LI.
w
Z Z
-r O O ~) 09 co LO O O O 00 b-. -7 --
LL ~ C9 m o ~
cq '~- CO C) c~ cq ~1 0 c~ ~ ,,~
rr
o~
. !.!_l
nZ ~_ Hi "1- u')

(J) ko O co O O (o ix3 m (N ~A
W LUO co m ~ ~d • ~ d ~, o co ,~ z _ ~o

< >-o
-r

l.U o (D
zo _z~ z
~ d ~ © d ~ o
LLIZ ~ ~ O~ ~ CO ~ ~ ~ o c0~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~_ I< ~
~< CO
O0 im .._1 i~

o 0 r,_5 ,.o
I-- O O ~. ~o ~ ~ ~ c~ ° ° ° ~ ~ Z
--c ~
-- G~ b-- ,~ b- ~ {p © o co co co c~ c~ c~ nr'7
Zz o~ o~ o~ ,~ co d ~ ~ co
-tO E ~ Ox,-

OO
-r- o
oc~ d o o
(0 (~b 0 0")
o
O~
o
~:)
o
CO
~D
r.D Ob tO
O9 o
~ .J ~0
~ m .~ o ~o o ~- m
. I N = ® ~ ~ o
o~ ~ ~ o ~
~ ~> - o 0
z
:ZIG.

Q ri~ d
>, zo 0
LO CO .~- o~ ~ O O cO
0qOq r.D CO 09 O4 --
~ ~, ~ . N . r..0 O9 (O t~ O
'. ~ cO u5 O
'TO .--I
m

~ w~ d. rr E
o ~ ~ o z >_+
@ -- .= 0_ ";

- z -
"' b e ~ ~ E On 0 .- z ~ - 8 o ~ I< ~

"' "' S "'

 ),I~,~' ,4~gF....

i, ¢, 4',

hi

'l ,kd " '1~

Fig. 2. Case study A.

Fig. 3. Case study B.

Fig. 4. Case study C.

Fig. 5. Case study D.

 "~,i,~ "}~ ,"~, w' ~ , ,~4~
ei:;'?:a'l

~~ ..,,~
• , ,:.~..~
, ..,,
..,~ ,, . . . .

..,
.... ,.~

Fig. 6. C a s e s t u d y E.

Fig. 7. C a s e s t u d y F.
 iI ,, ,I ,,I

;~,+.'+
,,, , '~!+ , ~ .,~
+.~,.,+~ l"~+ , " '.L I,,pl '~ i ,'II,'

,~+~" ~:~?~, ~,~, ,°:~:ii: ~ ,.+~, .. ..r+

+
' ' '] .i
~l,I I ,
,+ ,%
I.' ' ' ,' ,

I+.
,.,+p,.;i++'' ;'+'~:

,J.

,e .~ii +l~''~lj'l+'
+. ' ~;+P""~
,,m ,,

++ ,, , ~j~ i,
,,, ,.~

~+,.,.,.... ..

+ i
F i g . 8. C a s e study G.

• , '-~+~. ',,4 ,, i r .........

.... , +.. . . . . . . .~, ,.L~, .

i++....
,. ',,,
l,, , i ++,i ,
i i,% ,~,.,,

F i g . 9. C a s e study H.
Fig. 10. C a s e s t u d y I.

,ji

", ,gl", h'

•' % I~
i ~'~;~.
, - ~' iI

~,.~,,. : ~ ' ~ ..... ,

.m.,'

, .~ ....: ~ - .
,

. ,¢' . ~ ; ~ , ~ .

~kvjD~.l,j ,. ~ ~,L ¸ ..~e~ . ~ • ~ -

Fig. 11. C a s e s t u d y J.
320
Comparison of cases A and B demonstrates
that the necessity for ground preparation is
also related to excavator type. Both cases
were low strength U8 sandstones of similar
joint and bedding spacing, representing
marginal direct digging conditions. Blasting
was necessary in case A to use the Caterpillar
245 effectively, in contrast to case B where the
more powerful Poclain 1000 with larger bucket
required no ground preparation.
The most difficult digging conditions are
represented by case J, although no ground
preparation was adopted. The bed and joint
spacing of this medium strength U8 sand-
stone unit did not allow ripping, whilst blast-
ing was avoided due to environmental con-
straints. This unit was later surveyed in the
same mine, case I, and shows the prediction
problem arising from the significant lateral
variation that can occur in such sedimentary
units. In this later locality the reduced block
size and intact strength resulted in a 25%
increase in digging productivity, again with
the absence of blasting. Cases D, F and H
demonstrate the need to blast in preparation
for loading by crawler dragline. Case C shows
the application of ripping in preparation for
loading by hydraulic shovel. This was another
instance where there was a necessity to avoid
blasting. Ripping was resorted to with little
success in an attempt to loosen rather than
fragment the sandstone by dislocating intact
tabular blocks.
The field seismic velocities relate well to
the computed diggability indices, although it
was observed that velocities were governed by
groundwater levels in benches. All the cases
shown were in drained benches with the ex-
ception of C, where the high velocity was
influenced by saturated conditions. Compar-
ing the seismic field velocities as observed in
this study in British surface coal mines with
those linked to previous ripping recommenda-
tions shows marked differences, some of which
may be due to dry versus saturated rock mass
conditions. The upper limits of rippability
quoted, for example, over the range of sedi-
mentary rocks for the Caterpillar D10 ripper
are given as 2500 to 3000 m / s [17]. The upper
limits of rippability indicated by this study in
Coal Measures rock units are 1500 to 2000
m / s dry. Further studies on rippability are
felt, to be necessary before definitive limits
can be established. These should consider the
influence of the intact rock and discontinuity
strength, with modifications exerted by
weathering, as well as the orientation and
intensity of discontinuities.
The significance of intact rock strength is
demonstrated in the U8 sandstone of case G.
Blasting was required even though larger block
sizes were effectively loaded by less powerful
hydraulic shovels in other study cases.
CONCLUSIONS
The dominant factors which control the
diggability of Coal Measures in British surface
coal mines have been observed to be intact
rock strength, weathering and block size and
shape. A diggability index derivation based
on these ground parameters has been devel-
oped which correlates well with observed ex-
cavator performance and ground preparation
in a range of mine environments. The index
system is related to equipment type and capa-
bility and it is regarded as important that its
future application should remain effective by
repeated adaptation to accommodate design
developments made by mine equipment
manufacturers.
This work has relied on detailed studies of
accessible rock benches in producing mines.
The challenge remains, however, to adapt the
diggability index derivation procedure so as
to be effective at the mine design stage, when
exposure to subsurface conditions is limited.
Future research will see the utilization of a
number of sources of data for such predictive
purposes. The most promising sources cur-
rently appear to be wireline geophysical log-

ging and crosshole seismic surveying, sup-
ported by conventional core logging and pos-
sibly drill performance monitoring.
This work has aimed to quantify the inter-
action between excavator and rock mass, as
observed in the field. Such work is regarded
as fundamental to advancing the techniques
available for mine excavation equipment and
method selection.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the coop-
eration and assistance provided by staff of the
National Coal Board Opencast Executive and
various mining contractors, without which this
work would not have been possible. The views
expressed in this paper are entirely those of
the authors.
REFERENCES
1 Anon. Mass excavation with hydraulic excavators.
Min. Eng., (1982) 272-274.
2 C. Freeman and T. Atkinson. Surface rmning--a
review of progress. Proc. 2nd Int. Surface Mining
and Quarrying Symp., I.M.M., Bristol, 1983, pp.
265-276.
3 D. Hoffman. Compact bucket wheel excavators: de-
sign, application, economic aspects. Proc. 2nd Int.
Surface Mining and Quarrying Symp., I.M.M., Bris-
tol, 1983, pp. 441-449.
4 J.A. Franklin, E. Broch and G. Walton. Logging the
mechanical character of rock. Trans. Inst. Mining
and Metallurgy, Sect. A., 80 (1971) 1-9,
5 J.R. Coleman and C.F.R. Fitzhardinge. The geotech-
nology of excavator equipment selection with partic-
ular emphasis on bucket wheel excavators. Proc. Int.
Conf. on Mining and Machinery, Inst. Engineers,
Australia, Brisbane, Australia, 1979, pp. 139-146.
6 B.J. Saunders and B.I. Ellery. Assessment of ground
conditions for pre-stripping with bucket wheel ex-
cavator. Proc. Symp. on Strip Mining--45 Metres
and Beyond, Australian Inst. Mining and Metal-
lurgy, 1981, pp. 57-68.
7 J. Bergh-Christensen and R. Selmer-Olsen. On the
resistance of blasting in tunnelling. Proc. 2nd Congr.
Int. Soc. Rock Mechanics, Belgrade, Vol. 3, Section
321
5, Article 7, 6 pp., Int. Soc. Rock Mechanics, 1970.
8 J.R.L. Read, P.N. Thornton and W.M. Regan. A
rational approach to the Point Load Test. Proc. 3rd
Australia--New Zealand Conf. on Geomechanics,
Wellington, Inst. Engineers, Australia, Part 2, 1980,
pp. 35-39.
9 J.M. Weaver. Geological factors significant in the
assessment of rippability. Civ. Eng, S. Afr., 17 (1975)
313-316.
10 H.A.D. Kirsten. A classification system for excava-
tion in natural materials. Clv. Eng. S. Aft., 24 (1982)
293-308.
11 R. Terzaghi. Sources of error in joint surveys. Geo-
technique, 15 (1965) 287.
12 N.J. Price. Fault and Joint Development in Brittle
and Semi-Brittle Rock. Pergamon Press, London,
1966, p. 141.
13 I.S.R.M. Commission on Standardization of Labora-
tory and Field Tests. Suggested methods for the
quantitative description of discontinuities in rock
masses. Int. Jnl. Rock Mech. Mxn. Sci., 15 (1978)
319-368.
14 P.A.S. Elkington, M.J. Scoble, J.R, Brown and Y.V.
Muftuoglu. Geophysical techniques applied to
surface mine design in stratified deposits. Mining
Science and Technology, 1 (1) (1983) 3-19.
15 A. Halker. Application of borehole geophysics to
surface mining operations. Proc. 2nd Int. Surface
Mining and Quarrying Symp., I.M.M., Bristol, 1983,
16 T. Atkinson. Selection of open-pit excavating and
loading equipment. Trans. Inst. Mining and Metal-
lurgy, 80 (1971) 101-129.
17 Caterpillar Performance Handbook. l l t h edn.,
Caterpillar Tractor Co., Peoria, Illinois, U.S.A., 1980.
18 D.M. McCaan, P. Grainger and C. McCaan. Inter-
borehole acoustic measurements and their use in
engineering geology. Geophys. Prospect., 22 (1975)
49-69.
19 E.T. Brown and H.R. Phillips. Recording Drilling
Performance for Tunnelling Site Investigations.
Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, London, 1977.
20 J.C. Leighton, C.O. Brawner and D. Stewart. Devel-
opment of a correlation between rotary drill perfor-
mance and controlled blasting powder factors. Bull.
Canadian Inst. Min. Met., 75 (1982) 67-73.
21 T.N. Hagan and I.W. Reid. Performance monitoring
of production blasthole dnlls-a means of increasing
blasting efficiency. Proc. 2nd Int. Surface Mining
and Quarrying Symp., I.M.M., Bristol, 1983, pp.
245-254.
22 N.J. Price. The influence of geological factors on the
strength of coal measure rocks. Geol. Mag., 100 (5)
(1963) 428-443.
322
23 B.G.D. Smart, N. Rowlands and A.K. Isaac. Pro-
gress towards establishing relationships between the
mineralogy and physical properties of coal measure
rocks. Int. Jnl. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 19 (1982)
81-89.
24 I. McFeat-Smith. Correlation of Rock Properties
and Tunnel Machine Performance. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1975.
25 K.A. Kemp and W.J. Horvath. Computer-based
dragline monitoring and performance reporting.
Proc. Int. Conf. on Mining Machinery, Inst. En-
gineers, Australia, Brisbane, 1979, pp. 68-73.
26 U.S. Department of Energy. Power shovel data accu-
mulator and display. Topical report, McDonnell-
Douglas Electronics Co., DOE/PC/30205-T1, 1981.
27 Mannesmann Demag Co. Detronic Elm System. Bull.
Canadian Inst. Min. Met., 76 (Oct. 1983) 102-103.
28 Y.V. Muftuoghi. A Study of Factors Affecting Dig-
gability in British Surface Coal Mines. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Nottingham, 1983.