See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230328836

Abrasiveness Assessment for Hard Rock Drilling

Article  in  Geomechanik und Tunnelbau · February 2008

DOI: 10.1002/geot.200800004

CITATIONS READS

24 12,175

1 author:

Ralf J. Plinninger
Dr. Plinninger Geotechnik
78 PUBLICATIONS   822 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geological Documentation and Site Supervision View project

Rock Excavation and Tool Wear Assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ralf J. Plinninger on 10 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Ralf J. Plinninger

Abstract: The wear of drilling tools in mining and tunnelling has always been a predominant
factor for the costs of hardrock excavation. This fact is not only related to material and person-
nel costs arising from drill bit maintenance and replacement but also because of the direct and
negative impact of wear on the drilling performance of a worn drill bit. The first chapter presents
machinery, tools and basic findings on wear and performance interactions as well as drilling tool
wear mechanisms. Based on this theoretical background, methods and classifications for on-
site investigation of encountered tool wear rate and wear types are presented. The paper then
summarises laboratory approaches for assessing of rock abrasivity in order to predict drilling
tool wear from geotechnical investigations.
Keywords: Drilling, Tool Wear, Wear Classification, Wear Prediction, Rock Abrasivity

1 Introduction and Definitions

The wear of drilling tools in mining and tunnelling has always been a predominant factor for the
costs of geotechnical engineering measures (e.g. anchors, piles) and hardrock excavation. This
fact is not only related to material and personnel costs arising from drill bit maintenance and
replacement but also because of the direct and negative impact of wear on the drilling perfor-
mance of a worn drill bit.
“Tool wear” in hardrock drilling can be defined as a process of continuous loss of material from
the surface of the drill bit due to mechanical contact and relative movement of the bit over the
rock surface [8]. The term “abrasivity” describes the potential of a rock or rock mass to cause
wear on a rock-engaging tool. As this potential depends significantly on the specific circum-
stances of the observed system (e.g. temperature, applied loads, involved tools, etc.) rock or
rock mass abrasivity is not an intrinsic physical / rock mechanical parameter.

2 Basics of Drilling Tools and Drilling Tool Wear

2.1 Machinery and Tools

Three main applications for drilling in the field of tunnelling und mining can be distinguished:

 Underground small diameter tophammer drilling (usually  38-65 mm) for drill-and-blast-
tunnelling and small diameter rock support measures (rockbolts and anchors),
 Surface or underground larger diameter tophammer drilling (usually  65-100 mm) for
mining or underground bench excavation,
 Surface or underground larger diameter down-the-hole (DTH) drilling (usually >  100
mm) for blasthole drilling, installation of anchors or exploration of geothermal energy.
All methods presented are rotary percussive drilling methods. Nevertheless the different appli-
cations have lead to a variety of specialised machinery and tools used and these differences
include for instance the use of hydraulic or pneumatic energy transmission, tophammer or DTH
equipment and drill tools of different diameter and layout (Figure 1).

1
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Figure 1: Typical layouts of drilling equipment: Tunnelling boomer (Type: Rocket Boomer L2C drill), DTH
Anchor drilling rig (Type: DIAMEC U6) and surface mining drill rig (Type: ROC D7; based on Atlas Copco
drawing and photos)

2
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Primarily button bits are used today for all of the mentioned equipment. Due to their effective-
ness and aggressiveness this bit layout has since the 1950s replaced older tool layouts like bits
with cross- or X-shaped bars of steel or hard metal (which however still exist). Button bits con-
sist of a number of cemented carbide buttons (mostly tungsten carbide in a cobalt binder),
inserted and/or soldered into holes of a steel tool body (Figure 2). The properties of the bit can
be adjusted effectively to the machinery and overall geological circumstances by varying the
number of inserted buttons, button composition, button geometry, soldering and steel quality as
well as the bit's flushing layout.

Figure 2: General tool layout for button bits.

For the investigation of tool wear processes, it is crucially important to understand rock fragmen-
tation under the bits. As this magazine issue features some of the latest research results on this
topic (see paper by Thuro & Schormair, also [8], [13]), the description of these processes is not
part of this paper. Nevertheless it should be mentioned that the findings and schemes present-
ed in this paper relate only to the commonly used button bit types and the specific rock
fragmentation processes occurring with these bits.

2.2 Interactions Between Tool Wear and Penetration

Tool wear will in any case influence the achieved drilling velocity of a button bit. The main rea-
son is the wear affected change of the button’s geometry. This is because the shape of a drill bit
button is of crucial importance for the penetration into the rock. As is illustrated in Figure 3, bal-
listic buttons (left) will provide additional penetration (and therefore a higher drilling rate)
compared to a spherical button (centre). Accordingly, the forming of a wear flat at the front of
the button as a result of wear will result in a decrease in penetration and an increasing risk of
button damage (Figure 4). If as a result of wear whole buttons are removed from the bit, this
may have an even more severe impact on the rock fracturing process.

Figure 3: Schemes for the influence of button shape on rock penetration for ballistic (left), spherical (cen-
tre) and worn (right) buttons.

3
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Figure 4: Schemes for the advancing decrease of penetration rate and the increasing probability of button
damage with continuing button wear flat (acc. to ATLAS-COPCO diagrams).

Additionally wear will of course also affect other tool parts such as for example the flushing
holes and flushing flutes. It is an astonishing finding that the widening of the flushing system in
the course of tool wear and the better flushing capabilities of such worn bits have in some cases
shown even better drilling performances than new ones – especially in soft rock formations,
where the flushing of the rock debris may be a limiting factor to drilling velocity [8].

2.3 Principles of Tool Wear

Wear phenomena are the result of complex so-called “tribosystems”. A tribosystem consists of a
solid body (object which is affected by wear) which interacts with the counterbody (object caus-
ing the wear) in a certain environment. All materials and processes involved in the system
interact with and influence each other during rock fragmentation and have a certain effect on the
wear of the solid body. In rock drilling processes tool and rock interact under certain loads, rota-
tion, temperatures and in abundance of a flushing fluid, typically water. The specific wear type
and wear rate of the system may be used as distinctive parameters describing the effect of the
wear process:
 The wear type describes the specific form of wear observed on the tool. It can be de-
scribed qualitatively using a wear classification system as presented later (Figure 8).
 The wear rate describes the velocity of material removal from the tool. For drill bits this
term is normally expressed in drilled meters per bit [m/bit], also called the "drill bit life-
time".

4
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

2.4 Factors Influencing Bit Wear

The complex structure of a drilling tool tribosystem leads to a vast amount of factors that can
dramatically influence tool wear. Figure 5 gives an impression of the three fields Geology-Tools-
Logistics as the main factors influencing rate and type of tool wear. These influencing factors
will be subject of further discussion in the following chapters when it comes to the documenta-
tion of actual bit wear (see chapter 4) and prediction of tool wear based on geotechnical
parameters (see chapter 5).

Figure 5: The three fields Geology-Tools-Logistics as the main factors influencing button bit wear.

3 Wear Processes in Drilling

An exact observation of wear processes and conditions in the tribosystem during operation is a
somewhat impossible task. The very detailed descriptions of wear processes used in the field of
tribology are therefore not practical - and also not necessary - for the engineer and engineering
geologist on site. Put simply, four wear processes can be identified that are described in detail
in the chapters 3.1 to 3.4.

3.1 Abrasive Wear

Abrasive wear is the predominant wear process in most rock types. This wear type includes
wear due to abrasion (material cut, ploughed or microcracked out of the surface) and adhesion
(material loss due to cold weldings between tool and rock that are separated again, causing
material loss on the tool surface).
These phenomena cause more or less steady displacement of material from the tool surface
during movement of the rock cutting tool. The abrasive wear rate can be described as a function
of the hardness contrast between the two interacting bodies (Figure 6). At low ratios (rock min-
erals softer than tool material) wear occurs, but only with low wear rates ("low level abrasive
wear"). It has been shown that the wear rate increases dramatically when the mineral hardness
reaches a hardness of about 20 % higher than the tool [3], [7]. It seems remarkable that below
and above this transition hardness differences seem to have only limited influence on the abra-
sive wear rate.

5
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Figure 6: Relation of abrasive wear rate and the ratio of hardness between the interacting materials.

Following these considerations, minerals of a Mohs hardness of more than 51/2 can be classified
as "abrasive" (causing high level abrasive wear) against the steel tool body, minerals with a
Mohs hardness of more than 9 are "abrasive" against tool body and hard metal buttons. Alt-
hough "abrasive" minerals with respect to cemented carbides exist (e.g. corundum, diamond),
they rarely occur naturally. The fact that cemented carbides normally also undergo (low level)
abrasive wear can be explained by microcracking processes and "erosion" of the softer cobalt
binder and consequently removal of whole carbide grains out of the button surface.

3.2 Wear due to Macroscopic Material Failure

Although often not considered "wear" in the strict sense of the word, wear due to macroscopic
material failure is another very common and cost intensive phenomenon in hardrock drilling. In
contrast to abrasive wear, these failures - for example buttons cracking or breaking out - cause
no steady displacement of material but catastrophically removal of tool parts due to brittle fail-
ure. The main cause of macroscopic failures are high dynamic impact forces which may effect
buttons and/or steel body.

3.3 Thermic Wear

Thermic wear is not a process on its own, but a phenomenon where other wear processes such
as abrasion and material failure are increased considerably by high tool temperatures. These
high temperatures lead to lower material strength ("softer" steel and carbides) and may even
cause specific changes in tool materials such as differentiation of cobalt binder out of the ce-
mented carbide (which gives the buttons a more brittle behaviour) or forming of typical “snake-
skin” patterns of microcracks due to cyclical changes in tool temperature.

3.4 Special Wear Processes

The term "special wear processes" includes amongst other things cavitation and erosion pro-
cesses which may be caused by flushing fluid or suspended particles in the fluid. These wear
mechanisms contribute only minor amounts of wear to drilling tools under normal circumstanc-
es.

6
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

4 Assessing Tool Wear and Rock Abrasivity During Operation / On Site

Since abrasivity is defined as the ability of a rock or rock mass to cause wear, investigations on
actual tool wear on site during on-going tunnelling or mining operations are indeed direct “field
tests” for assessing in-situ rock abrasivity. Tool wear assessment on site should - in accordance
to the principles presented in chapter 2.3 - include the documentation of the rate and type of
tool wear which are described in detail in the following two chapters.

4.1 Investigating and Classifying Drill Bit Lifetime

The wear rate parameter for drill bits, the drill bit lifetime, is calculated from the number of worn
bits divided by the total length of boreholes they drilled. Whilst the total drillhole length can be
simply calculated from the blasting scheme by multiplying advance length and number of bore-
holes, the evaluation of the used number of bits can be based on three different methods,
explained in Table 1. As the method with best ratio of additional expenses and method error, a
detailed stock documentation (M2) is suggested by the author.
Table 1: Methods for evaluation of Drill Bit Lifetime [m/bit].

Additional
No. Description of Method Method Error
expenses
Documentation of drill period/drilled meters for a
M1 rather high approx. 1 %
single marked tool
Stock documentation: Documentation of
M2 low approx. 2 %
date/number of incoming and outgoing tools
M3 Calculations based on receipts and invoices very low approx. 5-10 %

Table 2 gives an example for terms to describe button bit wear rate and drill bit lifetime for but-
ton bits  43 - 48 mm according to [14]. As bits of larger diameter will under the same
circumstances achieve higher bit lifetimes (see Figure 10 for example) it should be noted that
these terms have to be adapted if bits of diameters other than 43-48 mm are used.
Table 2: Bit wear rate classification for button bits  43 - 48 mm [14].
wear rate drill bit lifetime [m/bit] drill bit lifetime
term term
very low > 2000 very high
low 1500-2000 high
moderate 1000-1500 moderate
high 500-1000 low
very high 200-500 very low
extremely high < 200 extremely low

4.2 Investigating and Classifying Drill Bit Wear Type(s)

For the investigation of the bit wear form the used bits should be stored and documented before
final disposal. Either all stored tools or representative samples (not less than 50-100 bits) should
be photographed and counted out (Figure 7).

7
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Figure 7: Tool wear type documentation on site. 40 pieces of worn 89 mm button bits. lined up for docu-
mentation and classification.

Based on classification schemes developed during the 1990s (e.g. [14]) an easy-to-use classifi-
cation system for button bits and their main wear forms according to [8] is presented in Figure 8.
It is evident that transitions and mixed types between the presented types are possible.

8
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Figure 8: Bit wear type classification system according to [8], [9].

4.3 Bit Wear Forms and Their Typical Causes

The bit wear type classification can be used as a "fingerprint" of the wear process. From the
statistical distribution for each type it is possible to come to a conclusion about typical processes
taking place and geological and machinery causes for the encountered wear forms.
Normal wear (BB-A1) is observed when tool body and hard metal inserts are more or less
evenly undergoing abrasive wear. This wear type is typical for abrasive rocks with high com-
pressive strength as there is fresh quartzite, gneiss, granite or quartzitic sandstones. The even
wear distribution can be explained by the low penetration of the bit in such rock types, so that
9
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

mainly the hard metal inserts are in contact with the rock and are therefore worn with low wear
rates - even by minerals that can be classified as "non abrasive" to cemented carbides. The
steel body is worn at high wear rate when directly exposed to the rock due to wearing of the
buttons.
Predominant wear of the tool body (BB-A2) with possible breaking out of buttons (BB-A3) is a
typical phenomenon for drilling weak but abrasive rock types. It can often be observed in poorly
cemented or weathered sandstone, sandy marlstone or weathered granite or gneiss. In these
rock types the bit penetrates deep into the rock mass and produces a large flow of rock debris,
so that both steel body and buttons are more or less evenly exposed to abrasive material. Since
steel and cemented carbide undergo different wear rates while in contact with the same coun-
terparts, the tool body wears faster than the inserted buttons and the buttons are created out of
their steel bedding. When embedding is insufficient they may fall out or are easily broken out of
the bit as a whole (BB-A3). If one button is broken out, this may also affect other buttons, be-
cause the broken out hard metal button is hardly removed from the hole.
Wear of diameter (BB-A4, BB-A5) is often found in extremely hard and highly abrasive quartz-
ites as well as under unstable or highly stressed abrasive rock conditions. First, the peripheral
buttons begin to show wear on the outer side (BB-A4), later the tool body itself is affected, the
hole diameter of the bit is reduced and peripheral buttons break out (BB-A5).
If macroscopic failure of buttons (BB-F1, BB-F2) prevails, this normally is in conjunction with
high tool wear rates. In most cases this failure type is more related to properties of the rock
mass, machinery and tools than to the abrasivity of the rock itself. Inhomogeneous rock masses
with rock of high rock strength in combination with open / soil-filled joints or inhomogeneous
rock types with very hard components (> approx. 80 MPa) exceeding diameters of about 5 cm
(e.g. conglomerates, breccias) are the main geological factors that may cause button failure
(BB-F1). Breaking of peripheral buttons is also increased when holes have to be drilled through
steel support measures already installed - for example during forepoling through lattice arches
or during anchoring through reinforced shotcrete. BB-F2 type (total button removal) can easily
be caused by no or bad soldering of the buttons into the steel body.
Failure of the bit shaft (BB-F3) is mainly a result of manufacturing problems or bad handling.
In these cases, no conclusions may be drawn on geological circumstances.
The occurrence of thermic wear (BB-T) strongly depends on the effectiveness of the flushing
system. Under normal circumstances button bits are cooled effectively by water flushing so that
tool temperatures do not exceed 40oC. If no or insufficient flushing is available (e.g. due to prob-
lem with the flushing system, insufficient air flushing, water-mist-drilling) thermal wear may
occur. Wear types do equal those of abrasive wear and wear due to material failures. Addition-
ally, specific steel temper colours may show on the tool body if heated above 200oC and may be
used diagnostically to estimate the maximum tool temperature.
Special wear type “Total wear down” (BB-Sp1) is stated when the bit is worn below the but-
tons. In such cases it may not be possible to definitely recognise the predominant wear process.
Special wear type “Widening of flushing holes” (BB-Sp2) and flutes is a phenomenon which in
most cases is caused by aggressive flushing fluids or suspended abrasive particles. It may in
some cases even be caused by cavitation which means material loss due to forming and implo-
sion of microscopic vapour bubbles under very high velocities of flow.

10
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

5 Assessment of Rock Abrasivity and Prediction of Tool Wear

In the preliminary phase of a mining or tunnelling operation estimations on probable tool wear
rates can be based on a wide variety of field and laboratory testing procedures. Standard ap-
proaches use geotechnical investigations to assess rock and rock mass abrasivity and than
conclude on the tool wear rates for standard equipment and “standard” performance regarding
maintenance and tool handling. For an overview of geological factors influencing drillability and
tool wear see [8].
A wide variety of procedures are available, ranging from on-site real-scale drilling testing to
model tests and microscopic / chemical analysis of rocks and minerals. Depending on its testing
scale, each method is able to take different factors into account while disregarding others. As
the main features of some common testing methods are presented in this magazine issue in the
author´s paper on testing methods, details on technical aspects of rock testing are left aside
with reference to the detailed presentation in this paper.
The following chapters describe some of the most common prediction methods and published
correlations for drill bit lifetime estimations.

5.1 On-site and Block Drilling Tests

Real-scale drilling tests, using the original drilling tools and machinery and being performed on
representative outcrops or samples represent reliable testing methods to obtain data for tool
wear and drilling performance as nearly all influencing factors are taken into account. Unfortu-
nately the procedures are rather expensive with respect to personnel and material costs and
therefore are carried out very rarely as specialised tests. Nevertheless, if exploratory galleries or
pre-cuts are available, these works should be used to gain valuable real-scale data on encoun-
tered tool wear.

5.2 Bit Wear Index (BWI; Model Test)

The Bit Wear Index (BWI) is – in addition to the Drilling Rate Index (DRI) and Cutter Life Index
(CLI) - part of the NTNU Trondheim testing procedures used to predict the performance of dif-
ferent excavation methods. The indices are based on three model tests, an impact crushing test
("Brittleness test"), a model boring test ("Siever´s Miniature Drill Test") and a model abrasion
test (“AV”, “AVS”, “SAT”). There are currently no diagrams available to estimate bit lifetime from
a given BWI. Bruland [1] reports in one of the latest research works that "... the BWI has been
found to have some weakness... We are currently working to replace the BWI with VHNR..." (p.
5).

5.3 Cerchar Abrasiveness Index (CAI; Model Test)

In Western Europe the Cerchar scratch test is one of most commonly used testing methods
when it comes to the laboratory investigation of rock abrasivity. Details on the testing method
are described in [2], [10], [11] as well as in this issue´s paper by Käsling & Thuro. The CAI has
proven its suitability for different tool layouts such as there are roadheader point-attack picks or
TBM disc cutters. Unfortunately the case studies presented in [8] show that the data available at
present are too limited for a more precise estimation of drill bit lifetime from CAI. Given this, the
diagram shown in Figure 9 should be used for rough estimations with utmost caution.

11
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Figure 9: Drill bit lifetime for 43-45 mm button bits, plotted against CAI.

5.4 LCPC Abroy Test (ABR; Model Test)

The LCPC “Abroy” test has in the last few years gained increased attention as this “model mill”
test represents one of the few methods capable of investigating soils. 500 g of 4-6.3 mm grain
size are tested which also allows testing of crushed hardrock. Nevertheless some authors ([4],
[8]) criticise the testing principle as not useful for hardrock, mainly because some of the most
important rock features are destroyed during sample preparation and therefore neglected in the
determination of the ABR abrasivity index. No diagrams for drill bit lifetime estimation are cur-
rently available.

5.5 Abrasive Mineral Content (AMC), Vickers Hardness Number of the Rock
(VHNR) and Equivalent Quartz Content (EQC; Geotechnical Indices)
AMC, VHNR and EQC are very similar geotechnical parameters using petrographical thin sec-
tion analysis in order to identify abrasive minerals and their quantity in the rock. They are
calculated by multiplying the content of a mineral with a specific hardness value and then add-
ing the values up. The indices vary in the use of different hardness values: While AMC uses
Mohs scratch hardness, VHNR uses Vickers indentation hardness and EQC uses Rosiwal
grinding hardness. VHNR and EQC have proven to be suitable for drill bit lifetime calculation as
presented in Figures 10 and 11.

12
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Figure 10: Drill bit lifetime for different bit diame- Figure 11: Drill bit lifetime for 43-48 mm button bits
ters, plotted against VHNR (compiled according plotted against the Equivalent Quartz Content ac-
to [5], [6]). cording to [15].

A problem in using these indices is that the influence coming from different rock strengths is
primarily neglected, which means that a loose quartz sand and a metamorphic quartzite with an
extremely high Unconfined Compressive Strength would be given the same AMC, VHNR and
EQC. Newer diagrams like that one presented in Figure 11 [15] try to react to this influence by
characterising different graphs for rock types with different strength characteristics.

5.6 Schimazek Wear Index (Geotechnical Index)

Schimazek´s wear index was developed in the 1970s in order to estimate roadheader pick con-
sumption in coal mining operations [12]. In addition to the content of abrasive minerals
(calculated similar to the EQC) the factor uses the Brazilian tensile strength (BTS) and grain
size. As it was primarily defined for clastic quartz-rich sediments only, Ewendt´s investigations
[4] lead to a modified Schimazek wear index, adapted to all kinds of rocks and using the Point-
Load-Strength I50 instead of the BTS. This modified index has proven to be a more reliable fac-
tor for bit lifetime prediction than the EQC (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Drill bit lifetime, plotted against the modified Schimazek Index Fmod according to [8]

13
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

5.7 SiO2 and Al2O3 Content (Geochemical Parameters)

Chemical analysis of a rock, like X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis are able to deliver data on the
qualitative and quantitative element composition. SiO2 and Al2O3 content have in the past been
proposed as valuable data for estimations on drill bit lifetime. Unfortunately the investigations
presented in [8] have shown only bad or no correlation. Since the SiO2 and Al2O3 content are
calculated as oxides from the analysed Si and Al contents of the rock sample, non-abrasive clay
minerals and mica are included as well as abrasive quartz and corundum. Wear-relevant rock
characteristics like grain size or grain shape are also neglected. This means that for example
quartz grains with silt size, which are only of minor importance for tool wear are included in the
parameters to the degree as wear-relevant quartz grains in the size of sand or gravel.

5.8 Rock Abrasivity Index (RAI; Geotechnical Index)

The Rock Abrasivity Index (RAI) was first published in 2002 [8]. This geotechnical wear index is
calculated by multiplying the rock´s Unconfined Compressive Strength and Equivalent Quarz
Content, which means that it is based on easy-to-obtain standard rock parameters which in
most cases are already available from other topics like stability or aggregates assessment. The
empirical correlation found for RAI and drill bit lifetime (see Figure 13) shows a relatively good fit
and has since 2002 been widely used for predictions.

Figure 13: Drill bit lifetime, plotted against RAI according to [8]

Rock mass scale factors such as fractured zones, influences coming from anisotropic rocks,
water and stress conditions may be taken into consideration in a qualitative manner on the ba-
sis of the findings presented in [8].

6 Conclusion
Assessment of tool wear and rock abrasivity is in all phases of a tunnelling or mining project a
challenging task that may only be solved by close interdisciplinary cooperation of engineers and
engineering geologists. The presented field and laboratory investigation methods can provide
valuable parameters which may help to assess rock abrasivity, to analyse and predict tool wear
and discover possible risks in hardrock drilling – in the preliminary phase of a project as well as
during operation.

14
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

7 References
[1] Bruland, A.: Project report 13A-98 - Hard rock tunnel boring: Drillability Test methods.
NTNU Trondheim 1998.
[2] Cerchar - Centre d´ Etudes et Recherches de Charbonnages de France: The Cerchar
Abrasiveness Index. Verneul 1986.
[3] Deketh, H.J.R.: Wear of rock cutting tools - Laboratory experiments on the abrasivity of
rock. Rotterdam, Brookfield: Balkema 1995.
[4] Ewendt, G.: Erfassung der Gesteinsabrasivität und Prognose des Werkzeugverschleißes
beim maschinellen Tunnelvortrieb mit Diskenmeißeln.- Bochumer geol. u. geot. Arbeiten,
33 (1989).
[5] Johannessen, O., Jacobsen, K., Ronn, P.E. & Moe, H.L.: Project Report 2C-95 Tunnelling
Costs for Drill and Blast. NTNU Trondheim, Department of Building and Construction En-
gineering 1995.
[6] Johannessen, O., Aune, S.E., Bardal, R., Hermanstad, E. & Olsen, V.: Project Report
12C-00 Rock Quarrying Bench Drilling. NTNU Trondheim, Department of Building and
Construction Engineering 2000.
[7] Osburn, H.J.: Wear of rock cutting tools. Powder Metallurgy 12 (1969), p. 471-502.
[8] Plinninger, R.J.: Klassifizierung und Prognose von Werkzeugverschleiß bei konventionel-
len Gebirgslösungsverfahren im Festgestein. Münchner Geologische Hefte, Reihe B, 17 -
Angewandte Geologie. München: Hieronymus 2002.
[9] Plinninger, R.J., Spaun, G. & Thuro, K.: Prediction and Classification of tool wear in drill
and blast tunnelling. in: Van Rooy, J.L. & Jermy, C.A. (eds.): Engineering Geology for De-
veloping Countries, Proceedings of the 9th IAEG Congress, Durban, South Africa: p.
2226-2236. Rotterdam, Brookfield: Balkema 2002.
[10] Plinninger, R.J., Käsling, H., Thuro, K. & Spaun, G.: Testing conditions and geomechani-
cal properties influencing the CERCHAR abrasiveness index (CAI) value.-International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 40 (2003): p. 259-263.
[11] Plinninger, R.J., Käsling, H. & Thuro, K.: Wear Prediction in Hardrock Excavation Using
the CERCHAR Abrasiveness Index (CAI). in: SCHUBERT, W. (ed): Rock engineering - the-
ory and practise, Proceedings of the ISRM regional Symposium EUROCK 2004 & 53rd
Geomechanics Colloquy: p. 599-604, Essen: Glückauf 2004.
[12] Schimazek, J. & Knatz, H.: Der Einfluss des Gesteinsaufbaus auf die Schnitt-
geschwindigkeit und den Meißelverschleiß von Streckenvortriebsmaschinen.- Glückauf,
106 (1970): p. 274-278.
[13] Schormair, N., Thuro, K. & Plinninger, R.J.: The influence of anisotropy on hard rock drill-
ing and cutting. paper No. 491. Engineering geology for tomorrow's cities - 10th IAEG
Congress, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 6-10 September 2006.
[14] Thuro, K.: Bohrbarkeit beim konventionellen Sprengvortrieb. Münchner Geologische
Hefte, Reihe B, 1 - Angewandte Geologie. München: Hieronymus 1996.
[15] Thuro, K. & Plinninger, R.J.: Hard rock tunnel boring, cutting, drilling and blasting: rock
parameters for excavatability. Proceedings of the 10th ISRM Int. Congress on Rock Me-
chanics, Johannesburg, South Africa, 8-12. September 2003: p. 1227-1234.

15
 R. Plinninger – Abrasivity Assessment for Hardrock Drilling

Author:
Dipl.-Geol. (Univ.) Dr.rer.nat Ralf J. Plinninger, Dr. Plinninger Geotechnik, Kirchweg 16, D-
94505 Bernried, Tel. +49 9905/7070-360, Fax: +49 9905/7070-361, email: geotech-
nik@plinninger.de

Pre-Publication Layout Version, issued 2013/11/29

16

View publication stats