International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

A stochastic penetration rate model for rotary drilling in surface mines

Omid Saeidi a,n, Seyed Rahman Torabi a, Mohammad Ataei a, Jamal Rostami b
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Geophysics & Petroleum, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran
b
Department of Energy & Mineral Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802-5000, USA

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is used to determine the most effective parameters on the rock mass
Received 10 June 2013 penetrability by considering their variance ratio in the first principal component. A model is developed
Received in revised form for the prediction of rotary drills penetration rate using non-linear multiple regression analysis.
31 January 2014
Distribution functions for the effective parameters are calculated using measured data from two case
Accepted 9 February 2014
studies. Applying the developed penetration rate model, a stochastic analysis is carried out using the
Available online 22 March 2014
Monte Carlo simulation. The proposed method provides a simple and effective assessment of the
Keywords: variability of the penetration rate model and its dependent parameters. Results showed that the PCA
Rock mass penetrability and Monte Carlo are suitable techniques for modeling and assessing the variability of rock mass
Penetration rate
penetrability parameters. According to the developed distribution model, with 90% of confidence level
Rotary drill
the penetration rate values range 0.2–2.5 m/min, which shows the wide possible range of penetration
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
Monte Carlo simulation rates for rotary drilling especially in sedimentary (limestone and sandstone bearing magnetite mineral of
Golgohar mine) and Sarcheshmeh igneous porphyry rock masses.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Rotary blast hole drills are extensively applied for overburden
releasing throughout the world in surface mining. Prediction of
penetration rate for rotary drill rigs is of great importance in the
rock drilling process, especially in mining and petroleum engi-
neering [1–6]. The prediction of penetration rate is essential in
mine scheduling. Total drilling costs could be assessed by using
prediction equations. In addition, one could use prediction equa-
tion to select the drilling rig type, which is best suited for given
conditions [7]. In large surface mining operations, rotary tricone
bits using tungsten carbide (WC) inserts are the most popular
drilling tools for deep holes with large diameter. Their drilling rate
has increased over the time due to higher powered drills and
better control of the operational parameters, leading to increase in
mining production and reduction in drilling costs.
2. Literature review
Yaşar et al. conducted experimental works on rock physico-
mechanical properties in relation to its drilling penetration rate
[8]. They found significant relationships between specific energy
and penetration rate. Their results of the experimental work also
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 98 9149804239.
E-mail addresses: osaeidi914@gmail.com, o.saeidi@yahoo.com (O. Saeidi).
demonstrate the significance of applied load and torque for both
penetration rate and specific energy in drilling.
Howarth and Adamson considered the operational conditions of
a diamond drilling machine, incorporating the effect of situation of
cutting tools and UCS values on penetration rates. The results were
valuable for the prediction of optimum cutting conditions for the
diamond bits [9]. Experimental studies have been conducted on the
cutting operation of a single diamond accepted to be the require-
ment of establishing design parameters for manufacturing the
diamond bits. Specific energies and scaled particle size distributions
were measured and torque and weight on bit measurements were
performed. The relations between all these parameters were
analyzed [10]. From the bit rotations, depth of specific cut could
be calculated. For a given depth of cut, a particle size prediction
could be established. The largest particle size together with the
depth of cut will dictate the exposure and size of the diamond in
the matrix. The depth and width of cut will also give indication
about the optimum spacing of the diamonds. Pandey et al. found
the relationship between penetration rate values obtained from
micro-bit drilling test with compressive strength, tensile strength,
shear strength and Protodyakonov index and establish logarithmic
relationships [11]. Bilgin et al. presented a mathematical model of
predicting the penetration rate of rotary blast hole drills using the
drillability index obtained from the indentation tests [12]. Wijk
used the stamp test strength index to derive a penetration rate
model in the laboratory [13]. Kahraman determined different
brittleness indices and also drillability and boreability from the
experimental works of other researchers. He found that each

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2014.02.007
1365-1609/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 O. Saeidi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65
brittleness index has its application depending on the mechanism
of rock excavation that is one method of measuring brittleness
based on impact strength that shows good correlation with the
penetration rate of percussive drills, while the other methods does
not [14]. Akun and Karpuz developed an empirical penetration rate
model using RQD, discontinuity frequency, pressure loss, specific
depth of cut and specific energy in a surface set diamond core
drill. They concluded that drilling specific energy as the main
drillability indicator is the most important parameter in drilling
rate prediction. However, using RQD and discontinuity frequency
simultaneously which are dependent variables could lead to the
multicollinearity problem in the model [15].
Penetration rate models of rocks are among those practices
with high uncertainties based upon rock mass and machine
properties. When applying these models to rock drilling problems,
most users consider only the “average” or mean properties. Rock
properties, themselves, have uncertainties and exhibit a distribu-
tion about the mean, even under the ideal conditions, where these
distributions can have a significant impact upon the design
calculations [16]. Moreover, most of the previous developed
models use exclusively intact rock properties or machine opera-
tional factors rather than comprising rock mass properties as joint
characteristics (e.g. joint spacing, direction and aperture & fillings).
Another drawback may go back to the deterministic values of the
provided penetration rate by these models rather than their
probabilistic values. Nevertheless, most of the involved rock
parameters show wide range of values at the field. Accordingly,
establishing a stochastic model might provide better estimation of
the penetration rate of rotary drills.
PCA is a classical method that provides a sequence of the best
linear approximations to a given high dimensional observation
and it has received much more attentions in many literatures
[17,18]. For multi-dimensional systems, factory analysis based on
PCA is the most suitable technique to reduce system dimensions to
the least effective one.
Probabilistic analysis has obtained significant attention in many
engineering practices in relation to deterministic methodologies.
Deterministic models apply single values for parameters to obtain
the results. However it is well known that parameters are not
reliable and are all associated with a level of uncertainty. The
probabilistic method has also been used as an influential tool for
representing uncertainty in the failure model and in the material
characteristics.
According to the literature, the stochastic modeling by Monte
Carlo method, which is the most common sampling technique, has
gained many advocates among researchers [16,19–23]. In meaning,
the Monte Carlo simulation technique is trying all valid combina-
tions of the values of input variables to simulate all possible
outcomes for output variable. Benardos and Kaliampakos defined a
vulnerability index to identify risk-prone areas in TBM tunneling
and finally they used the Monte Carlo technique to address the
uncertainty in the parameters' values [24]. Ghasemi et al. devel-
oped an empirical model for predicting fly rock distance in a
copper mine using regression analysis. They used the Monte Carlo
method to simulate the distribution of fly rock distance at that
mine and found that Monte Carlo simulation could predict fly rock
distance relatively well near to the real data [25]. Park et al. used
the fuzzy set theory together with the Monte Carlo technique to
evaluate the probability of failure in rock slopes. They used the
Monte Carlo simulation technique and reliability index approach
with the fuzzy set theory in order to take into account the fuzzy
uncertainties in the evaluation of the probability of failure. They
found that the application of the fuzzy set theory shows consistent
analysis results and can obtain reasonable results [26].
In this study, firstly, an attempt has been made to determine
the most effective parameters on the rock mass penetration rate in
rotary drilling by using the PCA technique. Finally, the Monte Carlo
simulation was used to determine probabilistic distribution of rock
mass penetration rate variables.
3. Effective parameters on the rock mass penetrability
3.1. Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
One of the most important properties in rock engineering and
its related design parameters is the Uniaxial Compressive Strength
(UCS). Rock material strength is used as an important parameter in
many rock classification systems. UCS is influenced by many
characteristics of rocks such as constitutive minerals and their
spatial positions, weathering or alteration rate, micro cracks and
internal fractures, density and porosity [6,27]. In addition, UCS of
rocks can be considered as representative of rock strength, density,
weathering and matrix type. It has been shown that rock drill-
ability and penetrability will decrease when its UCS increases [4].
3.2. Rock hardness
Hardness is defined as a mineral or rock's resistance to tool
penetration. Rock hardness is the first strength that has to over-
come during drilling. Intuitively, the rock hardness depends on the
hardness of the constitutive minerals, cohesion forces, homo-
geneity and the water content of rock [6]. Many different methods
have been used to obtain rock hardness by using different testing
machines [28,29]. It was shown that by increasing rock hardness,
its drillability will decrease. Schmidt hammer rebound value,
Shore hardness, Moh's scale and Vickers indentation hardness
are among the most common methods to determine rock hardness
[30]. In this study, Moh's scale was measured for different rock
types at the case studies.
3.3. Rock abrasiveness
The term “abrasiveness” describes the resistance of a rock or
soil to wear on a tool. Consequently, abrasivity is an important
rock parameter to be determined and to be described in the course
of any larger road, tunnel or mining project in order to allow the
contractor to assess economic aspects of excavation methods [31].
Abrasivity investigation can be based on a wide variety of
testing procedures and standards. Widely used geotechnical wear
indices based on these systems included the Abrasive Mineral
Content (AMC), also referred to as “Mean Hardness”, which uses
Moh's hardness, the Equivalent Quartz Content (EQC), which uses
Rosiwal grinding hardness and the “Vickers Hardness Number of
the Rock” (VHNR), which is very common in Scandinavia and
refers to Vickers indentation hardness [31]. Rock abrasivity tends
to the bit wear and deformation of bit shape and causes significant
decreasing of rock drillability. Rock Abrasivity Index (RAI) is the
new geotechnical index defined to predict drill bit wear. Plinninger
and Thuro found a good logarithmic relationship between the RAI
and Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI) [32]. The index can be calcu-
lated as follows:
RH ¼ exp½ðMH  2:12Þ=1:05 ð1Þ
n
EQ C ¼ ∑ RH i Ai ð2Þ
i¼1
RAI ¼ UCS  EQ C ð3Þ
where RH is the Rosiwal grinding hardness (%), MH is the Moh's
hardness, EQC is the equal quartz content, Ai is the mineral
percentage (%), n is the number of minerals, which contribute in
 O. Saeidi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65
the rock texture, RAI is the rock abrasivity index and UCS is the
uniaxial compressive strength.
3.4. Joint spacing
Joint spacing associated with the reciprocal of discontinuity
frequency, is broadly used as a measure of the “quality” of a rock
mass for classification schemes. In an individual set of joints, the
mean normal distance between the neighboring joints, is usually
used to express the joint spacing. Joint spacing is normally
measured along a specific direction (scan line) for all disconti-
nuities and represented by the mean spacing of all discontinuities
along the scan line [6].
Thuro revealed that the influence of discontinuities is not
visible, if the spacing is large against the dimensions of the
borehole. When the joints get closer, the drilling velocity increases
up to the double. But the connected problem is borehole instabil-
ity, causing hole collapses and time consuming scaling of the
established blast hole. In that way, the efforts of fast drilling,
especially in fault zones, may be intended to useless very soon
[33]. However, Hoseinie et al. using physical modeling of the effect
of joint spacing on rock drilling obtained that as the joint spacing
gets wider the rock drilling rate increases [34].
3.5. Joint dipping in relation to drilling direction
Obviously, rock properties and drilling rates are also highly
dependent on the orientation of weakness planes related to the
direction of testing or drilling. Thuro showed that when joints
dipping are parallel to the drilling direction the lowest amount of
penetration is observed because of the perpendicularity of shear
stresses. However, maximum penetration will occur when joints
dipping are in the right angle to the drilling direction where in this
case shear stresses are parallel to the rock anisotropy [33].
3.6. Joint aperture and fillings
Joint aperture, amount and size of filling are the specification of
joints space that extremely affects the penetration rate of the
drilling system. Closed cracks and joints have no important effect
on the decrease of penetration rate of drilling [34]. Existence of
open joints, due to escape of flushing air and decrease of exiting of
drilling pieces from hole, leads to the reduction of penetration
rate, and locking of the drilling system.
3.7. Bit diameter
As the rock strength increases the larger bit diameter will be
more efficiently than the smaller one [35]. Maurer [36] in his
Fig. 1. (a) A view of the Sarcheshmeh copper mine and (b) the Golgohar Sirjan iron mine.
57
penetration rate prediction model showed that increasing bit
diameter tends to decrease in rock penetration. Therefore, large
bit diameters are used in rock masses with low drillability classes
(also see [37–39]).
3.8. Weight on bit
Weight on bit or thrust is the most crucial parameter related to
the drill machine on rock mass drillability as stated by many
authors [7,35,38]. Generally, in any drilling process there is an
optimum weight on bit that depends on drilling conditions.
Excessive weight on bit results in insufficient flushing, as the fluid
is unable to properly clean the blast hole bottom. In this case,
unclean cuttings prevent drilling of fresh rock surfaces, reducing
the energy transfer. Lower weight on bit in addition to decrease in
drilling rate causes extensive bit wear and damage to the drill
string because of the highly absorption of heating energy.
3.9. Rotational speed
Rotary speed in terms of revolution per minute, RPM, after the
weight on bit maybe is the most effective parameter of rotary drills
in rock drilling. As shown by the researchers the rotational speed
has a direct relation with rock drillability where with increasing drill
rotational speed the bit penetration rate will increase [7,35–38].
4. Case studies
4.1. Sarcheshmeh copper mine
Sarcheshmeh copper mine is located 160 km southwest of
Kerman, about 50 km south of the city of Rafsanjan, in Kerman
province. It is the largest open pit mine in Iran (Fig. 1a). The area
belongs to the central part of an elongated NW–SE mountain belt,
which is principally composed of folded volcano sedimentary
rocks. The geology of the Sarcheshmeh porphyry deposits are very
complicated and various rock types are found there. Mineraliza-
tion in this deposit is associated with the Late Tertiary period. The
oldest host rock in this mine is Eocene andesite. Other mineralized
rock is Sarcheshmeh granodiorite stock. The waste rocks are
mainly granodiorite dykes including porphyry hornblendes, por-
phyry feldspar, and porphyry biotite. This study deals mainly with
drillings the mine in the current status, which is characterized by
various lithological units including the Sarcheshmeh porphyry, the
late fine porphyry, the hornblende porphyry dike, biotite porphyry
dyke and andesite.
58 O. Saeidi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65

4.2. Golgohar Sirjan iron mine
Golgohar Magnetite mine is located near Sirjan city in south of
Iran. The mine is placed between Sanandaj–Sirjan zone and
massive salt anticline of Kheir–Abad where the anticline is formed
between Sanandaj–Sirjan and Uremia dokhtar zones. Fig. 1b shows
a view of the Golgohar Sirjan mine during drill and blast operation.
Geological formations contain Paleozoic metamorphic rocks in
south, Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary rocks in east of the
mine. Paleozoic metamorphic rocks comprise Golgohar complex,
which is the oldest metamorphic setting and provided iron ore
deposit in the area. Bottom division of the complex includes
intermittent of gneiss, mica schist, amphibolites and quartz–schist.
Our surveys of drilling rate measurements were in the limestone
and sandstone parts.
4.3. Drill rig specification
In today's mining industry, using large drilling rigs including
rotary drills with tricone bits are popular among other methods like
rotary-percussion systems, especially in large surface mining because
of the demands for high production rate and achieving project
planning. As rotary drill targets large diameter and deep blast holes,
they have considerably attracted mining contractors' attention.
However, some drawbacks of using these systems are costly main-
tenance and difficult transportation in harsh topography regions. In
Fig. 2 a view of rotary drill with tricone bit used at Sarcheshmeh
copper mine is shown. Most of the tricone bits studied were API-
RR321 type which manufactured by Sandvik Co. In Table 1 the
configuration of all the rotary drill rigs studied is listed.
5. Field investigation and experimental works
diameter of NX size (54 mm) and L/D  2–2.5. The stress rate was
applied within the limits of 0.5–1.0 MPa/s. In addition, indirect
tensile strength determination test was carried out according to
ISRM [40]. Tensile strength was determined by using the Brazilian
testing (BTS) method. Disc specimens NX in diameter with a
thickness to diameter ratio of 1:2 were used. Non-destructive test
was conducted using N-type Schmidt hammer tests in the field. The
Schmidt hammer was held in downward position and twenty
rebound values recorded from single impacts was separated by at
least a plunger diameter, and the upper ten values was averaged as
final rebound value. Net penetration rates have been averaged by
dividing hole lengths to the net drilling times in a drilling pattern
and some data about the drills has been attained from the
manufacture catalogs of the industrial corporations. The database
statistics measured at the both case studies are summarized in
Table 2.
Another factor which could affect the rate of drilling is the
increment of wear of tricone bit by time lapse in contacting with
abrasive minerals. In this regard, weight loss percentage of studied
bits obtained before and after completion of their useful life. In
Fig. 3 the relationship between bit weight loss as wear rate and
their penetration rate is shown but as it is seen no consistent
correlation was obtained in this case study. It seems that other
machine operational factors as bit diameter, weight on bit and
rotational speed impose more effects on the penetration rate
rather than that of bit wear rate.
6. Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
Factor analysis, in which principal component analysis (PCA) is
included, consists of a family of procedures for removing the

Databases consisting of 38 datasets from both sites were mea-

sured for rotary drill rigs to be used in the analyses. It contains Table 1
information on rock properties as density, Moh's hardness, Point The configuration of rotary drills used at this study.
load strength, Schmidt hammer rebound value, quartz content,
uniaxial compressive strength of the rock material (UCS) and Drill model Bit Thrust Rotation Rotary Air-line
diameter (MPa) press speed pressure
machine properties as net penetration rate, bit diameter, weight (m) (MPa) (RPM) (MPa)
on bit, rotational speed, and operational pressure. To obtain rock
physico-mechanical properties, five to ten representative cubic rock DMH-Ingersoll-Rand 0.25 0–21 0–35 0–200 0–2.76
samples with dimensions of 20  30  20 cm3 from each zone at the Bucyrus 45-R-135490 0.23 0–17.23 0–31 0–150 0–2.41
DMH-IR-XL 0.26 0–24.13 0–34 0–200 0–2.75
mine site were transported to the laboratory. Uniaxial compression
D9-K 0.165 0–28 0–24 0–200 0–2.75
tests were performed on truncated core samples, which had a

Fig. 2. The view of rotary drill with tricone bit during drilling blast hole.
 O. Saeidi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65 59

Table 2
Field and laboratory databases obtained for this study.

Case study No. of Statistics Penetration rate Bit diameter Weight on bit Rotational speed UCS Tensile
datasets (m/min) (mm) (kg) (rpm) (MPa) strength (MPa)

Golgohar mine 20 Max 2.86 251 6127 122 70.5 6

Min 0.2 165 829 72 10.1 0.9
Average 1.2012 235.4 4562 112.12 30.352 2.88

Sarcheshmeh 18 Max 2.95 195 7250 119 86 8.3

mine Min 0.45 165 1230 71 12.5 1.2
Average 1.34 186.3 1536 113.4 53.2 3.2

Statistics Rebound Abrasivity Hardness Joint spacing Aperture and Dipping

number (RAI) (Moh's scale) (cm) fillings (mm) (deg.)

Golgohar mine 20 Max 68 35 6 115 15 90

Min 35 10 3 5 0.001 10
Average 51.4 19.08 4.8 44.5 4.161 38.24

Sarcheshmeh 18 Max 78 47 9 113 17 89

mine Min 36 13 3 7 0.05 14
Average 54 24.5 5.5 48 5.6 45

0.6 component analysis finds the axis system defined by the principal
Penetration rate (m/min)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 In this study, PCA were implemented on a set of output and
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Bit weight loss
Fig. 3. Relationship between weight loss of bits as wear rate and penetration rate.
redundancy from a set of correlated variables and representing the
variables with a smaller set of “derived” variables or factors [41].
With minimal additional effort PCA provides a roadmap for how to
reduce a complex data set to a lower dimension.
If there are n characteristic variables X1, X2, …, Xn, PCA means
the determination of m (on) synthetic variables Z1, Z2, …, Zm; the
correlation between two of which is 0. Here, amn is the covariance
value between two variables (features), Z1, is known as the first
principal component or first factor, and Z2 as the second principal
component or second factor [42]:
Z 1 ¼ a11 X 1 þ a12 X 2 þ ⋯ þ a1n X n
Z 2 ¼ a21 X 1 þ a22 X 2 þ⋯ þ a2n X n
Z m ¼ am1 X 1 þ am2 X 2 þ ⋯ þ amn X n
This methodology was selected in order to identify factors
underlying our set of variables and in order to screen our variables
to obtain relationships among them. As in Fig. 4a, a three variable
data set is demonstrated, which we have scattered in the coordi-
nate system. The principal directions in which the data varies is
shown by the PC1 axis and the second most important direction is
the PC2 axis orthogonal to it (Fig. 4b). If we transform each data
coordinate into its corresponding (PC1, PC2) values, the data is de-
correlated, meaning that the covariance between the PC1 and
PC2variables is zero (Fig. 4c). For a given set of data, principal
directions of variance (i.e. the PC1–PC2 axis system in Fig. 4c). The
directions PC1 and PC2 are called the principal components. In this
new reference frame, note that variance is greater along axis PC1
than it is on axis PC2. PCA computes new variables which are
obtained as linear combinations of the original variables. These
variables are found by calculating the covariance (or correlation)
matrix of the data patterns. On the one hand, the more the
correlation of original variables is, the more the variance of first
principle component is [43].
0.2 features (input parameters), listed in Table 2, and the ratio of
variance of first component to total variance (variance ratio) was
calculated. This statistical multivariate method also tends to the
clustering of variables into classes. The variables corresponding to
one class are highly correlated with one another, so redundant
variables can be excluded. According to above-mentioned, the ratio
can determine the similarity among the output and a set of features.
The analysis was carried out using SPSS ver. 21 [44]. The explained
variance of the eleven components obtained is shown in Table 3. In
fact, the PCA reduced the system from 11 components to three main
components (bold numbers in Table 3), which was determined,
based on the correlation matrix eigenvalues. It is seen that first three
components account for 66.77% of the total explained variance. Since
the contributions of the remaining components are small, they will
be disregarded in the resultant discussion.
Fig. 5 shows the scree plot of the parameters where 11
components plotted in terms of their matrix eigenvalues. In PCA
eigenvalue more than one, is acceptable as a principal component.
ð4Þ When the polyline breaks (Fig. 5) here in the fourth component
then previous numbers are considered as principal components.
Then in this study, three principal components were determined
based on the parameters affecting rock mass penetration rate in
rotary drilling.
As seen in Fig. 6, the most effective rock mass and drill parameters
on the penetration rate of rock mass belong to the first component
and in this component seven out of eleven parameters have high
positive variance ratio. On the first component these parameters
including bit diameter (D), bit rotational speed (N), weight on bit
(W), uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), joint dipping (JD), joint
spacing (JS) together with penetration rate (Pr) have positive variance
ratio (See bar graphs in Fig. 6). On the other hand, the four remained
60 O. Saeidi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65

Fig. 4. (a) A 3D scattered dataset, (b) the principal component directions, and (c) the two major principal components.

Table 3
Percentage of explained variance using PCA.

Component Total % Of variance Cumulative %

1 3.818 34.706 34.706

2 2.304 20.945 55.651
3 1.223 11.117 66.768
4 0.895 8.132 74.900
5 0.752 6.834 81.734
6 0.671 6.102 87.836
7 0.406 3.691 91.527
8 0.374 3.397 94.924
9 0.293 2.661 97.585
10 0.181 1.646 99.231
11 0.085 0.769 100.000

Fig. 6. The variance of parameters in three components; T: tensile strength,

AI: abrasivity index, Pr: penetration rate, UCS: uniaxial compressive strength,
N: rotational speed, D: bit diameter, JAF: joint aperture and filling, Hrd: hardness,
JS: joint spacing, JD: joint dipping in relation to drilling direction, and W: weight
on bit.

Fig. 5. The scree plot of the all components.

i.e. tensile strength (T), hardness (Hrd), rock abrasivity (RAI) and joint
aperture and filling (JAF) have negative variance ratio on the first
component.
Additionally, in Fig. 7 the 3-D view of the parameters and
components are shown and the most effective parameters can be
seen on the first component dimension. It can be seen that the above- Fig. 7. The 3-D view of the parameters plotted on three components.
mentioned parameters are located in the same class with penetration
rate (Pr) with high correlation on component1 while the rest are
located in the opposite side. Once the most effective parameters were
obtained, non-linear multiple regression analysis is used to determine
their relationship with the rock mass penetration rate. Regression analysis was carried out using the Microsoft Excel soft-
Input parameters as determined in previous section using the ware. Several models have been produced and each model has
PCA were correlated with penetration rate listed in Table 2. statistically been tested to find the best-fit model. Analysis of
 O. Saeidi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65 61

Table 4
ANOVA test of the proposed penetration rate model.

Variables Coefficients Standard error P-value R2 Standard error Observations F F-significance

Intercept  0.557 1.728 0.7503 0.95 0.166463 18 43.59 4.89  10  7

D  1.701 0.510 0.0030 – – – – –
W 0.603 0.128 0.0001 – – – – –
N 1.279 0.331 0.0008 – – – – –
UCS  0.466 0.040 0.0000 – – – – –
JD 0.273 0.110 0.0212 – – – – –
JS  0.142 0.052 0.0130 – – – – –

D: bit diameter, W: weight on bit, N: rotational speed, UCS: uniaxial compressive strength, JD: joint dipping, JS: joint spacing.

3 model with confidence level of 95% are good predictors where all
P-values in Table 4 are less than 5%.
Measured penetration rate

2.5 R² = 0.829

2
7. Monte Carlo simulation of the penetration rate model for
(m/min)

rock masses using rotary drill

1.5

1 Risk analysis as a probabilistic approach has achieved remark-

0.5
0 meters to obtain the results. However it is well known that rock
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Estimated Penetration rate (m/min)
Fig. 8. The cross-correlation between estimated and measured penetration rate.
variance (ANOVA) including F-test, has been carried out to determine
the validity of the model (Table 4). An F-test is any statistical test in
which the test statistic has an F-distribution under the null hypoth-
esis. It is most often used when comparing statistical models that
have been fit to a data set, in order to identify the model that best fits
the population from which the data were sampled. Exact F-tests
mainly arise when the model has been fit to the data using least
squares [45]. Using the null hypothesis, H0: no relationship between
response and predictor variables against alternative hypothesis, Ha:
relationship between response and predictor variables one would
compare calculated F-value, F-test with tabulated F-value, and F-tab.
Since, F-test4F-tab¼3.32 and significance of F-test is smaller than
P-value¼0.05 at 95% confidence level then null hypothesis will be
rejected and it can be inferred that the proposed model is valid. The
model developed for rotary drill in this study is
able attention in many engineering practices with respect to
deterministic approaches. Rock mass penetrability models, are
deterministic models where single values are applied for para-
3 3.5
mass and drill machine parameters are not consistent and
are all associated with a level of uncertainty. Therefore the
results will suffer from uncertainties, which, in this study,
are applied to estimate their probability ranges. Quantitative
analysis techniques have gained a great deal of popularity with
decision makers and analysts in recent years. The most common
method to assess project uncertainty is the Monte Carlo stochastic
simulation [16].
At this stage, the developed model (Eq. (5)) in the previous
section is used to simulate the distribution of penetration rate
model for rotary drills. The simulation process was conducted
using the @Risk software [46]. This software uses probability
distributions to describe uncertain values in the Excel worksheets
and to present results. It also uses a basic data fitting by the use of
Maximum Likelihood Estimators to estimate the distribution
parameters (i.e. to determine the parameters that maximize the
likelihood of the sample data). Furthermore, the goodness of the
data fit is achieved by Chi-squared statistics, determining the sum
of differences between the observed and expected sample out-
comes [46]. In the stochastic simulation of rock mass penetration
rate model, the subsequent steps are taken into account:

W 0:6 N1:28 JD0:27
Pr ¼ 0:57
D 1:7
UCS 0:47
JS 0:14
where Pr is the penetration rate in m/min, W is the weight on bit in kg,
N is the rotational speed in rpm, JD is the joint dipping relative to the
drilling direction in degree, D is the bit diameter in meter, UCS is
the uniaxial compressive strength of rock in MPa and JS is the joint
spacing in cm.
In addition to the statistical test, to check the validation of the
model it was compared to the real data (remainder eighteen
datasets) measured in the field (other than data in Table 2) for
rotary drill. The cross-correlation between estimated penetration
rate from Eq. (5) and real one from field showed reasonable results
(see Fig. 8). The model for rotary drills is valid for the sedimentary
and porphyritic igneous rock masses, and for air-operated rotary
drills having tricone bit with tungsten carbide insert. According to
Table 4 and Fig. 8 the presented model for predicting rock mass
penetration rate demonstrated a good agreement with field data.
In addition, statistical analysis showed that all the variables in the
1. The data for penetration rate dependent parameters including
ð5Þ
rock mass and rotary drill rig parameters were measured at the
field and also in the laboratory.
2. Probability distribution functions for all the input parameters
that represent the range of these parameters in a drilling
project were defined for each parameter.
3. A penetration rate model based on Eq. (5) was constructed
using the defined distribution functions.
4. Setting Monte Carlo simulation and running it at 5000 itera-
tions to obtain a statistical demonstration of the penetration
rate risk in the worksheet model. By running the program at
5000 iterations, output distributions became more stable
where the statistics presenting a distribution vary less with
additional iterations. It is essential to run enough iteration so
that more reliable outputs will be achieved.
The data set in Table 2 (excluding bit diameter due to limited
number of drill rigs) is used to obtain the best-fitted distribution
function of the input parameters to the simulation. In a typical
62 O. Saeidi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65

simulation by the Monte Carlo method a random value is selected
from each input's distribution function according to the defined
range for the inputs. The model is calculated based on the random
values. This process is repeated n-times and the results (output)
themselves now described a statistical distribution of the penetra-
tion rate model.
Two approaches can be used to obtain distribution functions for
input parameters, first prior knowledge of the range of input
parameter based on the experience at field and second using the
measured data and fitting probability distribution function to them.
Table 5
Probability distribution functions of input parameters used in Monte Carlo
simulation.
Input variable Function
W Smallest extreme value (4809.2126, 981.5708)
N Logistic (120.7765, 9.1295)
UCS Exponential (77.064, Shift (7.4426))
JD Normal (50.138, 18.409)
W: weight on bit, N: rotational speed, UCS: uniaxial compressive strength, JD: joint
dipping, JS: joint spacing.
In this study, the data in Table 2 was used to obtain best-fitted
probability distribution functions. In Table 5 distribution functions
and their dependent variable amounts are seen.
In Fig. 9 the frequency histograms together with the best-fitted
function also are shown for input parameters to be used in the
simulation. The bit diameter is a certain value with fewer changes
among other data according to the limited number of drill rigs at
the field. Thus, it will be substituted with a constant value in the
simulation process. In other words, during the process just four
input parameters W, N, UCS, JS, JD and an output parameter PR are
calculated, iteratively. However, rotational speed which depends
on the rock mass strength and operational conditions could
significantly vary through the drilling process.
In addition to being certain or uncertain, parameters in a Risk
Analysis model can be either “independent” or “dependent”. An
independent parameter is entirely unaffected by any other para-
meter within your model. It is extremely important to correctly
recognize correlations between parameters, or your model might
generate nonsensical results. However, in Section 6 using principal
component analysis we determined the most effective parameters,
which affect the penetration rate model without any correlation
to other parameters and to avoid multicollinearity between

9 16

8 14

7 12
6 Smallest Extreme Value
Frequency
Frequency

10
5
8
4
6
3 Logistic
4
2
1 2

0 0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 80 100 120 140 160
Weight on Bit (Kg) Rotational speed(RPM)

7
10 Exponential 6

8 5 Normal
Frequency
Frequency

4
6
3
4
2
2
1

0 0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 0 30 60 90 120
UCS Joint Spacing (cm)

7
Normal
6
Frequency

0
20 40 60 80
Joint Dipping (degree)

Fig. 9. The frequency histograms and best-fitted probability distribution functions for input parameters of the Monte Carlo simulation.
 O. Saeidi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65 63

X <= 0.200 X <= 2.500

Table 6
0.7% 94.8%
1.2 Ranking of input parameters using Spearman rank correlation and stepwise
regression.
1
Measured Ranking Parameters Correlation coefficient Regression coefficient
0.8 (Spearman rank) (stepwise regression)
Simulation
Probability

0.6 1 UCS  0.625 (1)  0.592 (1)

2 Weight on 0.325 (2) 0.31 (2)
0.4 bit (W)
3 Rotational 0.297 (3) 0.308 (3)
speed (N)
0.2
4 Joint dipping 0.192 (4) 0.197 (4)
(JD)
0
5 Joint spacing  0.135 (5)  0.157 (5)
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(JS)
Penetration rate (m/min)

Fig. 10. The comparison between probability distribution of simulated and mea-
sured penetration rates for rotary drills in rock masses. 2.2
2 W N UCS JD JS
1.8

Penetration rate (m/min)

parameters, those in the first principal component were selected 1.6
for developing the model. Moreover, in the Monte Carlo simulation 1.4
it is important to obtain correlations between probability distribu-
1.2
tion functions of the input parameters using correlation matrix
1
and apply the relationships in the simulation unless no correlation
0.8
would exist.
0.6
Once the probability distribution functions were defined for
input parameters, by carrying out 5000 iterations with the Latin 0.4

hypercube sampling, probability distribution function is defined 0.2

for the output (penetration rate model). However, in the @Risk
software in addition to the mentioned technique, Monte Carlo
sampling can be used for sampling from the input distributions. In
comparison with the Monte Carlo sampling technique, Latin
Hypercube sampling will accurately re-establish the probability
distributions specified by distribution functions in less iteration. At
the final stage of simulation, running of the simulation produces
5000 different possible patterns of input parameters, sampled
randomly from the defined distributions.
In Fig. 10, simulated distribution model compared with its
distribution model based on the measured penetration rate from
the field for the rotary drill penetration rate in the rock masses. As
it can be seen there is a good agreement between simulated model
by the Monte Carlo method and probability distribution of
measured penetration rates.
The probability distribution function for measured penetration
rates was found to be Inversed Gaussian with a mean of μ ¼1.038
and shape parameter of λ ¼3.78. For simulated penetration rates
the probability distribution function was found to be Lognormal
with a mean of μ ¼1.03 and standard deviation of s ¼0.72. Average
penetration rate was simulated as 1.05 m/min with a standard
deviation of 0.72 m/min. The maximum and minimum penetration
rates were calculated as 2.86 and 0.2 m/min, respectively. It is
evident from the results that the model can predict a wide range of
penetration rate for rotary drilling in the rock masses. According to
the distribution model in Fig. 10 with 90% confidence level most
values are located between two delimiters 0.2 and 2.5 m/min
which shows the wide possible range of penetration rates for
rotary drilling especially in sedimentary (limestone and sandstone
bearing magnetite mineral) and Sarcheshmeh igneous porphyry
rock masses.
8. Sensitivity analysis
To identify which distribution is the most significant among
input distributions in determining output values (penetration rate)
a sensitivity analysis can be done in the @Risk environment. The
sensitivity analysis performed on the output variables, and their
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Input percentile
Fig. 11. The spider graph of the input parameters for penetration rate model in
rotary drilling.
associated inputs, uses either a change in output statistical analy-
sis, multivariate stepwise regression analysis, or a Spearman rank
correlation analysis. In the regression analysis, the coefficients
calculated for each input variable measure the sensitivity of the
output to that of particular input distribution. The sensitivity
analysis using rank correlations is based on the Spearman rank
correlation coefficient calculations. With this analysis, the rank
correlation coefficient is calculated between the selected output
variable and the samples for each of the input distributions. The
higher the correlation between the input and the output, the more
significant the input is in determining the output's value.
In fact using the mentioned techniques one can rank the input
variables based on their importance in predicting output variable.
In Table 6 input parameters for the penetration rate prediction model
are ranked using both stepwise regression and correlation coefficient
analyses. The results of both the methods show agreement in
determining importance of the parameters as UCS, weight on bit,
rotational speed, joint dipping in relation to drilling direction and
joint spacing.
Sensitivity analysis also can be shown in spider graphs. These
graphs are created using results of the change in output statistic
sensitivity analysis. The spider graph shows how the output statistic
value changes as the sampled input value changes. The steeper the
line, the impact of input variables will be greater on the output
variables.
Fig. 11 shows spider graph for the input parameters of penetration
rate model in rotary drilling. Among the inputs, UCS displays the
highest impact on the penetration rate where by decreasing 10% it
causes 35% increase in output in relation to other inputs.
In accordance with previous studies in this field [7,30,35,47]
it is obvious that among the rock properties UCS and among drill
machine parameters, weight on bit and rotational speed are the
most effective factors in rotary drilling in rock masses.
64 O. Saeidi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65
9. Conclusions
Rock mass penetrability is one of the most important topics in
drilling project for civil, petroleum and mining engineering.
Many parameters affect rock mass penetrability including rock
mass properties, machine and operational parameters. At present
in productive surface mining, rotary drilling plays important
role in planning and cost estimation. Prediction penetration rate
of rotary drills is very crucial in selecting bit type, mining
planning, total drilling costs and sometime controlling rock
properties.
In this study, a set of effective parameters from intact and rock
mass properties to drill machine parameters was studied for
possible presentation in a penetration rate model. Field data was
obtained from two case studies, Sarcheshmeh copper mine mostly
porphyritic rocks and Golgohar Sirjan mine mostly sedimentary
rocks bearing magnetite mineral.
A dimension reduction method, Principal Component Analysis
(PCA) was applied to realize effective parameters on the first
principal component in rotary drilling. It was observed that,
among eleven parameters only six parameters including, bit
diameter, bit rotational speed, weight on bit, rock uniaxial com-
pressive strength, joint spacing and joint dipping in relation to
drilling direction showed positive and high variance ratio
along with penetration rate on the first principal component.
Once the parameters are chosen, non-linear multiple regression
analysis has been used to establish relationship between the
penetration rate and selected parameters. Good correlation was
obtained between measured data from field and predicted rates
using the model.
Due to uncertainties in both rock mass properties as well as
machine parameters in predicting penetration rate, a stochastic
simulation was performed using the Monte Carlo method. How-
ever, the bit diameter was substituted with a deterministic value
because of limited number of drill machines which shows fewer
changes naturally. Thus, it was excluded from probabilistic calcu-
lations. Probability distribution functions were defined for input
parameters in the proposed equation. Running the program,
iteratively, resulted in a probability distribution model for output
(penetration rate) parameter. The model presented wide range of
uncertainty for penetration rate of rotary drills.
Results showed that in the distribution model of the penetra-
tion rate with 90% of confidence level most values are located
between two delimiters 0.2 and 2.5 m/min which shows the
wide possible range of penetration rates for rotary drilling espe-
cially in sedimentary (limestone and sandstone bearing magnetite
mineral) and Sarcheshmeh igneous porphyry rock masses.
In addition, sensitivity analysis was carried out to rank the
input parameters of the model based on their significance in
predicting the penetration rate. It was observed that rock uniaxial
compressive strength, weight on bit and bit rotational speed
acquired high ranks among the parameters.
It should be noticed that the presented model in this study is
just applicable for the mines with same conditions as our case
studies, and more in depth investigations are needed to present a
comprehensive model.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Sarcheshmeh copper mine staff,
especially, R&D department for their kind cooperation and support
during this research. Also, authors would proudly like to thank
three unknown reviewers for their useful comments to improve
the content of this paper.
References
[1] Sievers H. Die Bestimmung des Bohrwiderstandes von Gesteinen. 86. 37/38.
Gluckauf Gückauf GMBH Essen; 1950. p. 776–784.
[2] Hartman HL. Basic studies of percussion drilling. Min Eng 1959;11:68–75.
[3] Selmer-Olsen R, Blindheim OT. On the drillability of rock by percussive drilling.
In: Proceedings of the 2nd congress ISRM, Belgrade; 1970.
[4] Protodyakonov M.M. Mechanical properties and drillability of rocks. In:
Proceedings of the fifth symposium on rock mechanics. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota; 1962. p. 103–18.
[5] Kahraman S, Bilgin N, Feridunoglu C. Dominant rock properties affecting the
penetration rate of percussive drills. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2003;40:711–23.
[6] Hoseinie SH, Ataei M, Osanloo M. A new classification system for evaluating
rock penetrability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2009;46:1329–40.
[7] Kahraman S. Rotary and percussive drilling prediction using regression
analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:981–9.
[8] Yaşar E, Ranjith PG, Viete DR. An experimental investigation into the drilling
and physic-mechanical properties of a rock-like brittle material. J Petrol Sci
Eng 2011;76:185–93.
[9] Howarth DF, Adamson WR. Performance characteristics of a small-scale rotary
boring machine instrumented with large drag picks. Int J Rock Mech Geomech
Abstr 1988;25(1):25–33.
[10] Rowlands D. Single diamond cutting of rock. In: Proceedings of the sympo-
sium on overcoming the barriers. Australia: Australian Diamond Drilling
Associates; 1972. p. 1–6.
[11] Pandey AK, Jam K, Singh DP. An investigation into rock drilling. Int J Surf Min
Rec 1991:139–41.
[12] Bilgin N, Eskikaya S, Dincer T. The performance analysis of large diameter blast
hole rotary drills in Turkish coal enterprises. In: Proceedings of the 2nd
international symposium on mine mechanization and automation, Lüleci;
1993. 129–35.
[13] Wijk G. Rotary drilling prediction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
1991;28:35–42.
[14] Kahraman S. Correlation of TBM and drilling machine performances with rock
brittleness. Eng Geol 2002;65:269–83.
[15] Akun ME, Karpuz C. Drillability studies of surface-set diamond drilling in
Zonguldak region sandstones from Turkey. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2005;42:473–9.
[16] Hoek E. Reliability of Hoek–Brown estimates of rock mass properties and their
impact on design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1998;35(1):63–8.
[17] Cadima J, Jolliffe IT. Loading and correlations in the interpretation of principle
components. J Appl Stat 1995;22(2):203–14.
[18] Croux C, Haesbroeck G. Principal component analysis based on robust
estimators of the covariance or correlation matrix: Influence functions and
efficiencies. Biometrika 2000;87(3):603–18.
[19] Morin MA, Ficarazzo F. Monte Carlo simulation as a tool to predict
blasting fragmentation based on the Kuz–Ram model. Comput Geosci
2006;32:352–9.
[20] Sari M. The stochastic assessment of strength and deformability character-
istics for a pyroclastic rock mass. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2009;46:613–26.
[21] Sari M, Karpuz C, Ayday C. Estimating rock mass properties using Monte Carlo
simulation: Ankara andesites. Comput Geosci, 36; 2010; 959–69.
[22] Karacan CO, Luxbacher K. Stochastic modeling of gob gas vent hole production
performances in active and completed long wall panels of coal mines. Int J
Coal Geol 2010;84:125–40.
[23] Li AJ, Cassidy MJ, Wanga Y, Merifield RS, Lyamin AV. Parametric Monte Carlo
studies of rock slopes based on the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Comput
Geotech 2012;45:11–8.
[24] Benardos AG, Kaliampakos DC. A methodology for assessing geotechnical
hazards for TBM tunneling – illustrated by the Athens Metro, Greece. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41:987–99.
[25] Ghasemi E, Sari M, Ataei M. Development of an empirical model for predicting
the effects of controllable blasting parameters on fly rock distance in surface
mines. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2012;52:163–70.
[26] Park HJ, Um J, Woo I, Kim JW. Application of fuzzy set theory to evaluate the
probability of failure in rock slopes. Eng Geol 2012;125:92–101.
[27] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classifications. New York: Wiley; 1989.
[28] Tandanand S, Unger HF. Drillability determination – a drillability index of
percussive drills. USBM Report of Investigations 1975; 8073.
[29] Serradj T. Method of assessment of rock drillability incorporating the Proto-
dyakonov index. Trans Inst Min Metall A 1996;105 (175–9).
[30] Gokhale BV. Rotary drilling and blasting in large surface mines. London, UK:
Taylor & Francis Group; 2010.
[31] Plinninger RJ, Spaun G, Thuro K. Predicting tool wear in drill and blast. Tunn
Tunn Int Mag 2002:1–5.
[32] Plinninger RJ, Thuro K. Wear prediction in hard rock excavation using the
CERCHAR Abrasiveness Index (CAI). In: Proceedings of EUROCK 2004 and the
53rd geomechanics colloquium, Salzburg, Austria, 2004.
[33] Thuro K. Drillability prediction – geological influences in hard rack drill and
blast tunneling. Geol Rundsch 1997;86:426–38.
[34] Hoseinie SH, Aghababaei H, Pourrahimian Y. Development of a new classifica-
tion system for assessing of rock mass drillability index (RDi). Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 2008;45:1–10.
[35] Huang SL, Wang ZW. The mechanics of diamond core drilling of rocks. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34:3–4.
 O. Saeidi et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 68 (2014) 55–65
[36] Maurer WC. The state of rock mechanics knowledge in drilling. Proceedings of
the 8th U.S. symposium on rock mechanics; 1967. p. 355–394.
[37] Teale R. The concept of specific energy in rock drilling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1965;2:57–71.
[38] Bauer A. Open pit drilling. J S Afr Inst Min Metall 1967:115–21.
[39] Warren TM. Penetration-rate performance of roller-cone bits. SPE 13259;
1987.
[40] ISRM. The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization,
testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. Ulusay R, Hudson JA, editors. Prepared
by the Commission on Testing Methods, by the ISRM Turkish National Group,
Ankara, Turkey; 2007. 628 p.
[41] Kachigan SK. Statistical analysis: an interdisciplinary introduction to univari-
ate and multivariate methods. New York: Radius Press; 1986 (377 p.).
65
[42] Suzuki T, Ohtaguchi K, Koide K. Correlation between flash points and chemical
structures of organic compounds, using principal component analysis. Int J
Chem Eng 1994;34(3):393–402.
[43] Engel Brecht AP. Computational intelligence: an introduction. 2nd ed. USA:
Wiley; 2007.
[44] SPSS IBM SPSS statistics ver. 21. IBM Corporation; 2012.
[45] Davis JC. Statistics and data analysis in geology. New York, NY: Wiley; 1973.
550 p.
[46] Risk Analysis and Simulation. @Risk User Guide version 6.0, Palisade Corpora-
tion; 2013.
[47] Fish BG. The basic variables in rotary drilling. Mine Quarry Eng 1961;27:74–81.