ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A new classification system for evaluating rock penetrability

S.H. Hoseinie a,, M. Ataei a, M. Osanloo b
a
School of Mining Engineering, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran
b
Faculty of Mining Engineering and Metallurgy, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: This paper presents a new classification system called the Rock Penetrability index (RPi). An evaluation
Received 15 October 2008 model based on the fuzzy Delphi analytic hierarchy process (FDAHP) has been used for estimation of
Received in revised form penetrability and drillability of rocks. For this purpose, five parameters of the rock material, including
3 June 2009
uniaxial compressive strength, Schimazek’s F-abrasivity, mean Moh’s hardness, texture and grain size
Accepted 15 July 2009
and Young’s modulus have been investigated and rated. In the RPi system, a number from 10.25 to 100
Available online 5 August 2009
can be assigned to each rock, with higher values corresponding to greater ease of drilling and
Keywords: penetration into rock. Based on the RPi classification, rocks are classified into five modes from the view
Rock material point of penetrability: very poor, poor, medium, good and very good.
Classification
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Penetrability
Drillability
Rock Penetrability index (RPI)
Fuzzy Delphi analytic hierarchy process
(FDAHP)

1. Introduction evaluation will have positive effects on the improvement of

‘‘Penetrability’’ and ‘‘drillability’’ of rocks are terms used to
describe the simultaneous influence of physical, mechanical and
textural parameters on the penetration rate of the drilling systems
[1,2]. Full recognition of rock drillability is essential for selecting a
suitable drilling method, specifying a machine’s operational
parameters, selection of drill bit type, prediction of drilling rate,
and evaluating of bit wear.
In the drilling process, many parameters of rock have a specific
effect that has a different intensity from the effects of other
parameters. Therefore, for evaluating each rock from the view
point of its penetrability, the effects of the most important
parameters should be recognized. For this purpose it is very
important to know the qualitative and quantitative effects of each
parameter. Considering the simultaneous effect of various factors
relating to rock material in the drilling process, testing of the
effect of one factor on penetrability of rock samples may be
encountered with many errors. Therefore, the best method for
surveying the rock penetrability is using a classification system
based on the most important rock characteristics.
Since in rock classifications the weight and rating of each
parameter is related to that of the others, the output of the
classification can be trusted and applicable for evaluation of rock
penetrability only if it uses all effective parameters. Definitely, this
 Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +98 273 3335509.
E-mail address: Hoseiniesh@gmail.com (S.H. Hoseinie).
drilling efficiency, and will decrease operating costs and tool wear
time.
Until now, no comprehensive classification scheme has been
developed for evaluation of rock drillability. The main objective of
this paper is to present a new system for evaluating the effective
factors on rock penetrability using the fuzzy Delphi analytic
hierarchy process (FDAHP). This research considers the rock
classification as a group decision problem and applies fuzzy logic
theory as the tool for weighting calculations. Finally, a new
classification system named ‘‘Rock Penetrability index (RPi)’’ is
presented and described.
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a multi attribute decision-
making (MADM) technique that was first developed in 1980 by
Thomas Saaty [3]. It is a tool to combine qualitative and
quantitative factors in the selection of a process, and is used for
setting priorities in a complex, un-anticipated, multi-criteria
problematic situation. As Saaty has stated, ‘‘AHP is a measurement
theory that prioritizes the consistency of judgmental data
provided by a group of decision makers’’. Furthermore, AHP
provides a flexible and easy to understand way of analyzing
complicated problems.
This methodology has been applied to numerous decision
problems such as software selection, sourcing decisions, energy
policy, supplier selection, project selection, measuring business
performance, and evaluation of advanced manufacturing technol-
ogy. The main advantage of AHP is its ability to handle complex
and ill-structured problems which cannot be usually handled by
rigorous mathematical models. AHP incorporates the evaluations

1365-1609/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2009.07.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1330 S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340

of all decision makers into a final decision, without having to elicit
their utility functions on subjective and objective criteria, by pair-
wise comparisons of the alternatives [3].
It is known that group decision-making is a very important and
powerful tool to accelerate the consensus of various opinions from
experts who are experienced in practices [4]. In this paper, the
fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) has been used for combination of the
opinions of experts.
The FDM is a methodology in which subjective data of experts
are transformed into quasi-objective data using statistical analysis
and fuzzy operations [4]. The main advantages of FDM are that
it can reduce the numbers of surveys to save time and cost and it
also includes the individual attributes of all experts [4,5]. Thus, it
can effectively determine the weighting of each parameter.
that widely have been studied in rock mechanics. But some
experimental indexes such as coefficient of rock strength (CRS),
drilling rate index (DRI), specific energy (SE), impact hardness
number and Protodyakonov index (PI) have been suggested for
special applications such as rock drillability evaluation. These
indexes are not independent parameter but are based on some
basic characteristics of rocks. Some rock properties such as
cohesion strength, matrix type and cementation quality and
weathering are important in rock drillability but in previous
studies have not been mentioned and studied truly. General
speaking, important characteristics which influence the rock
drillability can be classified into three major categories named
them refer to Fig. 1. Finally, as a result of this preview, all
mentioned parameters were selected for using in FDAHP
evaluation system and development of RPi classification.

2. Development of new classification

The major steps for developing a new classification for
assessing of rock penetrability are as follows:
2.1. Selection of the effective parameters on rock drillability (review
of previous studies)
Since 1960, many researchers have studied on drillability of
rocks and some relationships between drilling rate and various
mechanical and physical rock properties have been presented. In
this paper the most famous and important studies and researches
that have been presented until now have been reviewed. Table 1
shows the results of literature review briefly.
As shown in this table, there are many physical, mechanical
and mineralogical rock parameters influence the rock penetr-
ability and drillability. Many of them are basic rock characteristics
2.2. Sending the questionnaire to drilling experts
After literature review and recognition of effective parameters,
some technical questionnaires prepared and sent to drilling
experts in various countries. It was asked from experts to mark
the importance of each parameter in questionnaires in a very
simple way. In order to use the questionnaires data in FDAHP
method, for each importance level an intensity number from 1 to
9 has been assigned based on Saaty’s method [3]. In total, 15
completed questionnaires were received from experts. A sample
of the questionnaire form is shown in Fig. 2.
Experts’ opinion histograms (rates) about each parameter are
illustrated in Fig. 3. As seen in this figure, abrasiveness, hardness,
quartz content and UCS have the highest frequency of rate 9. It
shows that they are the most important parameter of rock
drillability from the view point of experts’ opinion.

Table 1
Results of literature review.

Researcher PI IHN n WV S.E DRI CRS S.H To YM TS CS Sc.H D We Ab Ha QC Ma GS Te

Simon [6] ~ ~ ~
Paone et al. [7] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
S-Olsen and Blendheim [8] ~
Hustrulid and Fairhurst [9–12] ~
Tandanand and Unger [13] ~
Rabia and Brook [14,15] ~ ~
Wilbur [16] ~ ~
Howarth [17] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Bilgin et al. [18] ~ ~ ~ ~
Ersoy and Waller [19,20] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jimeo et al. [21] ~
Serradj [22] ~ ~
Thuro and Spaun [23] ~ ~ ~ ~
Rao et al. [24,30] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Shimada and Matsui [25] ~ ~ ~
Kahraman [26] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Kahraman et al. [27] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Osanloo [28] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Li et al. [29] ~
Plinninger et al. [31,32] ~
Ersoy [33] ~
Kahraman et al. [34] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Izquierdo and Chiang [35] ~
Tanaino [36,37] ~ ~
Akun and Karpuz [38] ~ ~
Schormair et al. [39] ~ ~
Singh et al. [40] ~ ~ ~
Hoseinie et al. [2] ~ ~ ~ ~

Te: texture, GS: grain size, Ma: matrix, QC: quartz constant, Ha: hardness, Ab: abrasivity, We: weathering, D: density, Sc.H.: Schmit hammer rebound, CS: compressive
strength, TS: tensile strength, YM: Young’s modulus, To: toughness, S.H.: shore hardness, CRS: coefficient of rock strength, DRI: drilling rate index, S.E.: specific energy, WV:
P-wave velocity, n: porosity, IHN: impact hardness number, PI: Protodyakonov index.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340 1331

Texture type

Grain Size & Shape

Textural
Characteristics
Matrix type and degree
of cementation

Effective parameters Density

Physical
on rock penetrability Characteristics
Porosity

Weathering

Compressive Strength

Tensile Strength

Mechanical
Characteristics Abrasiveness Equal Quartz Content

Elasticity & Plasticity

Mohs Hardness
Hardness
Schmidt Hammer

Fig. 1. Important characteristics influencing the rock penetration and drillability.

Importance of each In this research, there were 12 elements (rock characteristics) and
parameter 15 experts. Therefore fifteen 12  12 pair-wise comparison
VW W M S VS matrices were established for the following calculations.
Rock material properties (1) (3) (5) (7) (9)
1 Hardness (H)
2 Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) 2.3.2. Establishment of major pair-wise comparison matrix
3 Young Modulus (YM) For establishing of major pair-wise comparison matrix in the
4 Matrix Type (MT) fuzzy Delphi method and calculation of the relative fuzzy weights
5 Quartz Content (QC) of the decision elements, three steps should be done as follows
6 Schmit Hammer Rebound (SHR) [4]:
7 Texture Type (TT)
(a) Computation of triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs); a~ ij . In this
8 Density (D)
9 Abrasiveness (A)
work, the TFNs (as shown in Fig. 4 and Eq. (2)) that represent the
10 Weathering (W) pessimistic, moderate and optimistic estimates are used to
11 Grain Size & Shape (GSS) represent the opinions of experts about each parameter.
12 Tensile Strength (ST)
VW: Very Weak importance, W: Weak importance, M: Moderate importance, S: Strength importance, VS: Very aij ¼ ðaij ; dij ; gij Þ ð2Þ
Strength importance

Fig. 2. A sample of questionnaire was sent to drilling experts. aij ¼ Minðbijk Þ; k ¼ 1; . . . ; l ð3Þ

2.3. Calculation of relative fuzzy weights of parameters l

Y
dij ¼ ð bijk Þ1=k ; k ¼ 1; . . . ; l ð4Þ
2.3.1. Establishment of pair-wise comparison matrixes k¼1

In order to establish the main pair-wise comparison matrix

using FDAHP method, it is essential to have comparison matrix of gij ¼ Maxðbijk Þ; k ¼ 1; . . . ; l ð5Þ
parameters based on each expert’s opinion. For this purpose, where aijrdijrgijj, are obtained from Eqs. (3)–(5); aij indicates the
according to the questionnaires, a comparison matrix is estab- lower bound and gij indicates the upper bound, bijk indicates the
lished for each expert. relative intensity of importance of expert k between parameters i
Let C1,C2,y,Cn denote the set of elements, while aij represents a and j, and l is the number of experts in the decision-making.
quantified judgment on a pair of elements Ci and Cj. The relative (b) Following the above outlines, a fuzzy positive reciprocal
importance of two elements is obtained from division rate of Ci on matrix A~ can be calculated:
rate of Cj based on questionnaire. This yields a n  n matrix A as
follows: A~ ¼ ½a~ ij ; a~ ij  a~ ij  1; 8i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n;
C1 C2 ; ...; Cn i.e.,
2 3
C1 1 a12 ... a1n 2
ð1; 1; 1Þ ða12 ; d12 ; g12 Þ ða13 ; d13 ; g13 Þ
3

A ¼ ½aij  ¼ C2 1=a 1 ... a2n 7

6 7
12 ð1Þ ~ 6 ð1=g ; 1=d ; 1=a Þ ð1; 1; 1Þ ða23 ; d23 ; g23 Þ 7
6
6 7 A¼4 12 12 12 5
^ 6 ^ ^ & ^ 7
4 5 ð1=g13 ; 1=d13 ; 1=a13 Þ ð1=g23 ; 1=d23 ; 1=a23 Þ ð1; 1; 1Þ
Cn 1=a1n 1=a2n ... 1
ð6Þ
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1332 S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340

8 7
Grain size & shape Texture
6
6 5

Frequency

Frequency
4
4
3

2 2
1
0 0
1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0
Rate Rate
12 12
Quartz Content Matrix type & cementation
10 10
Frequency

Frequency
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0
Rate Rate
10 12
Abrasivness Hardness
8 10
Frequency

Frequency
8
6
6
4
4
2 2
0 0
1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0
Rate Rate
7 10
Density
6 Weathering
8
5
Frequency

Frequency

4 6
3 4
2
2
1
0 0
1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0
Rate Rate
7 8
Compressive Strength Schmidt Hammer Rebound
6
6
5
Frequency

Frequency

4 4
3
2 2
1
0 0
1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0
Rate Rate
10 7
Young Modulus Tensile Strength
6
8
5
Frequency

Frequency

6 4

4 3
2
2
1
0 0
1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0
Rate Rate

Fig. 3. Histograms of opinions of experts about each parameter.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340 1333
H: hardness, UCS: compressive strength, YM: Young modulus, MTC: matrix type and cementation, QC: quarts content, SHR: Schmidt hammer rebound, TT: texture type, D: density, A: abrasiveness, W: weathering, GSS: grain size
(0.56,1.164,2.3)

(0.56,1.012,2.3)
(0.56,1.052,2.3)

(0.33,1.036,2.3)
(0.56,1.08,2.3)

(0.71,1.214,3)
(0.33,0.913,3)
(0.56,1.051,3)

(0.56,1.302,3)

(0.33,0.955,3)
(0.71,1.28,3)

(1,1,1)
TS

(0.714,1.287,2.33)
(0.714,1.068,2.33)
(0.556,1.039,2.33)

(0.429,1.024,2.33)
(0.556,1.151,1.8)

(0.429,0.989,1.8)
(0.714,1.04,2.33)
(0.556,0.903,1.8)
(0.556,1.265,3)

(0.556,1.2,1.8)
(0.6,0.944,3)

(1,1,1)
GSS

(0.429,1.172,2.33)
(0.333,0.881,2.33)
(0.333,0.922,2.33)

(0.429,0.976,2.33)
(0.556,1.015,2.33)
(0.778,1.043,1.67)

(0.556,1.015,1.67)
(0.714,1.123,3)
(0.556,1.236,3)

(0.556,1.257,3)

(0.429,0.965,3)

Fig. 4. The membership function of the fuzzy Delphi method.

(1,1,1)

(c) Calculation of relative fuzzy weights of the evaluation

W

factors:
(0.6,1.1,2.3)

(0.6,0.8,1.8)
(0.3,0.8,1.4)
(0.6,0.9,2.3)
(0.6,0.9,2.3)

(0.3,0.8,1.7)
(0.6,0.9,2.3)

(0.4,0.9,2.3)
(0.6,1,1.7)
(0.6,1.1,3)

(0.3,0.8,3)

Z~ i ¼ ½a~ ij      a~ in 1=n ; ~ i ¼ Z~ i  ðZ~ i      Z~ n Þ

(1,1,1)

W ð7Þ
A

where a~ 1  a~ 2 ¼ ða1  a2 ; d1  d2 ; g1  g2 Þ; the symbol  here

(0.714,1.131,2.3)
(0.556,1.218,2.3)

(0.333,1.059,1.7)
(0.556,0.956,1.4)
(0.556,1.101,2.3)

denotes the multiplication of fuzzy numbers and the symbol 

(0.778,1.363,3)

(0.333,1.271,3)

(0.333,1.047,3)
(0.429,1.084,3)
(0.714,1.1,2.3)
(0.714,1.34,3)

here denotes the addition of fuzzy numbers. W ~ i is a row vector in

consist of a fuzzy weight of the ith factor ðW ~ i ¼ ðo1 ; o2 ; . . . ; on Þ;
(1,1,1)

i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; nÞ. The defuzzification (changing the fuzzy number to

D

a usual number) is based on the geometric average method:

(0.714,1.183,2.33)
(0.778,1.275,2.33)

(0.556,1.152,2.33)

(0.714,1.046,1.8)

(0.556,1.108,1.8)
0 11=3
(0.714,1.426,3)
(0.714,1.402,3)

(0.429,1.135,3)

(0.333,1.095,3)
3
(1,1.151,2.33)

(0.6,1.329,3)
Y
W ¼ @ oj A ð8Þ
j¼1

(1,1,1)
In this research, a major pair-wise comparison matrix (as
TT

shown in Table 2) was established by the procedure described

(0.714,1.238,1.8)
(0.714,1.217,1.8)

(0.429,1.154,1.8)
(0.714,1.027,1.4)
(0.556,1.107,1.8)

(0.429,0.868,1.8)

(0.429,0.962,1.4)
(0.429,0.951,1.8)
(0.714,0.999,1.8)

(0.429,0.908,1.8)
above and total weights were determined. The total weights of

(0.6,0.985,1.8)
rock factors are listed in Table 3, and shown in Fig. 5.

(1,1,1)
SHR
2.4. Selection of main parameters of classification and their ratings

(0.33,0.73,1.29)
(0.56,0.83,1.8)
(0.56,0.89,1.8)

(0.43,0.78,1.4)
(0.33,0.77,1.8)
(0.56,0.98,1.8)

(0.43,0.93,1.8)
(0.56,0.81,1.8)

(0.56,0.81,1.4)
(0.33,0.70,1.4)

(0.33,0.80,1.8)
In rock engineering, in order to develop a classification system,
selection of most effective parameters and combination of them in

(1,1,1)
a unique structure are the most important issues. In rock

QC
classifications, as a very important and basic rule, the number of

(0.714,1.185,1.8)

(0.429,1.124,1.8)
(0.556,1.078,1.8)

(0.714,1.205,1.8)

(0.429,0.845,1.4)

(0.429,0.936,1.4)
(0.429,0.926,1.8)
(0.556,0.973,1.4)

(0.714,0.974,1.4)

(0.429,0.884,1.4)

(0.60,0.959,1.29)
parameters that are used should be small. Therefore, using all of
twelve mentioned parameters in the RPi classification is incon-
venient from the practical and engineering point of view. Also,

(1,1,1)
some of the parameters such as weathering and matrix type have

MTC
no comprehensive and quantitative laboratory tests (scale). Thus,

(0.714,1.218,1.8)

(0.714,1.239,1.8)

(0.429,1.155,1.8)
(0.714,1.028,1.8)
(0.714,1.107,1.8)

(0.429,0.986,1.8)
(0.429,0.962,1.8)
(0.333,0.951,1.8)
(0.556,1.001,1.4)
(0.429,0.869,1.0)
(0.429,0.909,1.4)
in the RPi classification system, for selecting the final major
parameters (tests), the two assumptions have been considered:
(a) the number of parameters that are used should be small, and

(1,1,1)
(b) equivalent parameters should be avoided.

YM
Considering these two assumption, five parameters (standard
tests) that have been chosen for assessing the RPi are as follows:

(0.714,1.118,1.8)
(0.556,0.928,1.8)

(0.43,0.785,1.29)
(0.429,0.821,1.8)

(0.556,0.869,1.8)
(0.429,0.859,1.8)
(0.556,0.903,1.4)

(0.556,0.904,1.8)

(0.333,0.89,1.40)
(0.60,1.043,1.80)
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Schimazek’s F-abrasiveness

(0.714,1.1,1.8)
factor, hardness, texture and grain size, and Young’s modulus.

Major pair-wise comparison matrix.

Considering the relative importance of the various parameters

(1,1,1)

and shape, TS: tensile strength.

utilized for assessment of RDi, it has been assumed that the total

UCS
rate of rock mass is 100 as a maximum, which represents

(0.56,0.844,1.4)
(0.56,1.017,1.8)

(0.33,0.948,1.8)
(0.56,0.821,1.4)

(0.56,0.822,1.4)
(0.33,0.713,1.4)
(0.33,0.746,1.4)

(0.33,0.781,1.4)
(0.56,0.909,1.4)

(0.33,0.809,1.8)
optimum conditions for penetration. Also, each of the five above

(0.33,0.79,1.8)
parameters is classified into five classes and for each class a rate is
assigned. In the RPi system, to rate the various values of each

(1,1,1)
parameter, the most weights have been rated for the best mode

H
(very good penetration). The rates of good penetration, medium

Table 2

MTC

SHR
UCS

GSS
penetration, poor and very poor penetration are, respectively, 70%,

YM

QC

TT

TS
W
H

D
A
50%, 25% and 10% of best mode (numbers have been rounded).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1334 S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340

2.4.1. Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) Table 4

UCS is one of the most important engineering properties of Rating to rock material with respect to uniaxial compressive strength (UCS).
rocks. Rock material strength is used as an important parameter in
UCS (MPa) 1–25 25–50 50–100 100–200 4200
many rock classification systems. UCS is influenced by many
characteristics of rocks such as constitutive minerals and their Strength description Very low Low Average High Very high
spatial positions, weathering or alteration rate, micro-cracks and Rating 32.5 22.75 16.25 8 3.25
internal fractures, density and porosity [28]. Also, UCS test is very
acceptable and available test that can be used for studying the
qualitative parameters such as matrix type and rock cementation.
UCS in comparison with other parameters has better capability to
describe the rock’s behavior during the penetration of drill tool
into rock [41]. Therefore, in this research according to rock
parameters are used in questionnaires evaluation and FDAHP
presses, uniaxial compressive strength test can be considered as
representative of rock strength, density, weathering and matrix
type. Thus, the summation of the weights of four above
parameters is considered as weight of UCS. In total, the weight
of UCS is about 32.5.
Since in Beniawski’s classification [41], the compressive
strength of rock material is divided into five classes, this method
has been used instead of the ISRM method in RPi system. Rating to
compressive strength of rock material in the RPi classification
system is shown by Table 4.

2.4.2. Schimazek’s F-abrasiveness factor

Abrasiveness influences the tool wear and drilling rate
seriously. Until now many methods have been presented for Fig. 6. Correlation between Rosiwal abrasiveness and Mohs hardness [1].
evaluating of rock abrasivity. Abrasiveness is mainly affected by
various factors such as mineral composition, the hardness of
mineral constituents and grain characteristics such as size, shape Table 5
and angularity [20]. Thus, each abrasion test should regard these Rating to rock with respect to Schimazek’s F-abrasiveness factor.
factors to do good analysis of rock abrasivity. Indirect methods
Schimazek’s F-abrasivity 0–1 1–2 2–3.5 3.5–5 45

Table 3 Abrasiveness Very low Low Average High Very high

Total weights of rock characteristics resulted from FDAHP method. Rating 26 18.25 13 6.5 2.5

Rock characteristics Total weight

Hardness 0.0998
Compressive strength 0.0883
Young’s modulus 0.0862 Table 6
Matrix type and cementation 0.0874 Rating to rock with respect to mean Mohs hardness.
Quartz content 0.0992
Schmit hammer rebound 0.0834 Mean Mohs 1–3 3–4.5 4.5–6 6–7 47
Texture type 0.0682 hardness
Density 0.0738
Abrasiveness 0.0855 Hardness Very Comparatively Comparatively Hard Very
Weathering 0.077 soft–soft soft hard hard
Grain size and shape 0.075 Rating 18.5 13 9.25 4.4 2
Tensile strength 0.0733

0.12

0.11

0.1
Weight

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06
H UCS YM MTC QC SHR TT D A W GSS TS
Rock Characteristics

Fig. 5. Total weights of rock characteristics resulted from FDAHP method.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340 1335

(tests) such as bit wear index (BWI), cerchar abrasiveness index Schimazek’s F-abrasiveness factor is depend on mineralogical
(CAI) and Los Angeles abrasion test don’t use mineralogical and mechanical studies and has good ability for evaluation of rock
analysis. Therefore in some cases, this causes some errors in abrasivity. Therefore, this index has been selected for using in RPi
evaluation of rock abrasivity. Also these methods usually present classification. F-abrasivity factor is defined as
the abrasivity characteristics of rock surface and the inner
ðEqQtz  f  BTSÞ
condition of rock is not considered. F¼ ð9Þ
100
where F is the Schimazek’s wear factor (N/mm), EqQtz is the
equivalent quartz volume percentage, f is the median grain size
Table 7 (mm), and BTS is the indirect Brazilian tensile strength. Tensile
Rating to rock material from the view point of its texture. strength is taken as a measure of the bond strength between
Texture Grain size (mm) Rating
grains [20] and we know that ‘‘bond strength between grains’’ is
very important factor in rock abrasivity but the other methods
Porous – 14.5 don’t use it for abrasiveness evaluation. ‘‘Equivalent quartz
Fragmental (in sedimentary rocks) content’’ as one of the most interesting opinions which has been
Coarse 46 10 presented in drilling, is a very useful parameter that is used in
Medium 0.6–6 9 F-abrasiveness factor. Also, the effect of grain size on abrasivity of
Fine 0.001–0.6 8
rocks is a much known relationship in drilling.
Granular (in igneous and metamorphic rocks) It is clear that tool wear is predominantly a result of the
Very coarse grained 420 7.25 mineral content harder than steel (Mohs hardness ca. 5.5),
Coarse grained 6–20 6.5
especially quartz (Mohs hardness of 7). To include all minerals
Medium grained 0.6–6 5.5
Fine grained 0.02–0.6 4.5 of a rock sample, the equivalent quartz content has been
Very fine grained 0.001–0.02 4 determined in thin sections by modal analysis—meaning the
Porphyritic – 3.5 entire mineral content referring to the abrasiveness or hardness of
quartz (Eq. 10). Therefore each mineral amount is multiplied with
Glassy o0.001 1.5
its relative Rosiwal abrasiveness to quartz (with quartz being 100)
[1].
n
Table 8 X
equ ¼ Ai  Ri ð10Þ
Rating to rock material from the view point of its elasticity.
i¼1

Young’s modulus (GPa) o10 10–30 30–70 70–100 100o where Ai is mineral amount (%), Ri is Rosiwal abrasiveness (%), and
Description Very low Low Medium High Very high
n is the number of different minerals. An appropriate correlation
Rating 8 5.5 4 2 1 between Mohs hardness and Rosiwal abrasiveness is given in
Fig. 6 [1]. When the Mohs hardness is known, the abrasiveness of

Table 9
Rock Penetrability index (RPi) classification.

UCS (MPa) 1–25 25–50 50–100 100–200 4200

Description Very low Low Medium High Very high

Rating 32.5 22.75 16.25 8 3.25

F-abrasiveness 0–1 1–2 2–4 4–6 46

Description Very low Low Medium High Very high

Rating 26 18.25 13 6.5 2.5

Mohs hardness 1–3 3–4.5 4.5–6 6–7 47

Description Very soft–soft Comparatively soft Comparatively hard Hard Very hard

Rating 18.5 13 9.25 4.4 2

Young’s modulus (GPa) o10 10–30 30–70 70–100 100o

Description Very low Low Medium High Very high

Rating 8 5.5 4 2 1

Texture Grain Size (mm) Rating

Porous ——————— 14.5

Fragmental (in sedimentary rocks) coarse 46 10
Medium 0.6-6 9
Fine 0.001-0.6 8
Granular (in igneous and metamorphic rocks) very coarse grained 420 7.25
coarse grained 6-20 6.5
medium grained 0.6-6 5.5
fine grained 0.02-0.6 4.5
very fine grained 0.001-0.02 4
Porphyritic ——————— 3.5
Glassy o0.001 1.5
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1336 S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340

minerals can be estimated by this figure with satisfactory constitutive minerals, cohesion forces, homogeneity and the
accuracy. water content of rock [28]. Thus, hardness is a good representative
Regarding the rock parameters which are used in question- for these parameters. In most of the previous drilling studies, two
naires, in the RPi classification, summation of the weights of tests have been used for estimating the rock hardness: (a) Mohs
abrasiveness, tensile strength and equivalent quartz content is hardness scale [13,18,22,26,27,38,42] and (b) Schmidt hammer
considered as weight of Schimazek’s F-abrasiveness factor. In total rebound value [14,25,27,31,36,42].
the weight of this factor is 26. Rating to Schimazek’s Mohs scale is the most famous and applicable method for
F-abrasiveness factor of rock material in the RPi classification evaluating and classification of rock hardness because this
system is shown in Table 5. method is related to mineralogical characteristic Thus, this scale
is a favorite method in drillability studies. Schmidt hammer
2.4.3. Hardness rebound value is a very simple way to estimate the rock hardness.
Hardness is defined as a mineral or rock’s resistance to tool Because of test condition and tool error (hammer calibration), this
penetration. Rock hardness is the first strength that has to method has some practical errors. Thus, Schmidt hammer cannot
overcome during drilling [21]. After penetration of the drill bit be used for comprehensive drillability studies.
into rock, continuing operation is done in a simple way [21]. The According to all above explanations, in the RPi classification,
factors that affect rock hardness are the hardness of the mean Mohs hardness was selected for using in rating system.
Mean hardness of each rock is calculated based on the hardness of
contained minerals using the following equation:
Table 10 n
X
Prediction of rock penetrability using RPi. Hardnessmean ¼ Ai  Hi ð11Þ
i¼1
RPi 10.25–20 20–40 40–60 60–80 80–100
where Ai is mineral amount (%), Hi is Mohs hardness, and n is the
Description Very low Low Medium High Very high total number of minerals in the rock.
Rock penetrability Very poor Poor Medium Good Very good
Regarding the questionnaires, summation of the weights of
Mohs hardness and Schmidt hammer rebound value was
considered as total weight of mean Mohs hardness. The weight
of this factor is 18.5. Rating of rock based upon Mohs hardness is
Table 11 shown in Table 6.
Studied sites and their related rock types.

Site No. Name Location/ Rock type

City 2.4.4. Texture and grain size
Textural characteristics have great influence on engineering
1 Sungun Copper Varzegan Monzonite
Mine behaviors of rocks especially on rock penetrability. Grain size,
2 Ooch Mazi Mine Maraghe Granite grain shape, degree of grain orientation, packing, relative propor-
3 Souphiyan Souphi- Limestone tion of grains, texture coefficient, mineral content, matrix material
Mine.2 yan and type, cement type and degree of cementation, grain boundary
4 Khalkhal Mine Khalkhal Travertine
5 Sardarabad Mine Azarshahr Travertine
or grain contact relationships and bonding structure are classified
6 Khajemarjan Tabriz Silica into category of textural characteristics of rocks [20].
Mine For exact analysis of rock texture, thin sections of rock
7 Razgah Mine Sarab Nepheline specimens should be examined and studied under a polarizing
cyanite
microscope. Using these sections, textural characteristics of rocks
8 Pasdaran Tabriz Sandstone
Highway specially texture type, grain size and grain shape should be
described completely [20,28].

Table 12
Results of laboratory tests and RPi value for each rock type.

Name Formation UCS Schimazek’s F- Mean Mohs Young’s Texture (mean RPi Rock penetrability Net Penetration
(MPa) abrasivity (N/mm) hardness modulus (GPa) grain size) condition Rate (m/min)

Sungun Monzonit 57.6 1.13 4.75 51.23 Porphyritic 51.5 Medium 0.52
Copper
Mine
Ooch Mazi Granite 87.5 11.44 5.42 60.84 Granular (6.56 38.75 Poor 0.32
Mine mm)
Souphiyan Limestone 51.3 0.14 3.15 44.1 Porphyritic 63 Good 0.44
Mine.2
Khalkhal Travertine 50.5 0.05 2.6 48.83 Porous 79.5 Good 0.58
Mine
Sardarabad Travertine 53.7 0.06 2.7 70.19 Porphyritic 68.5 Good 0.81
Mine
Khajemarjan Silica 112 7.42 6.35 43.28 Granular 24.5 Poor 0.1
Mine (2.45mm)
Razgah Mine Nepheline 76.5 6.32 5.85 51.59 Porphyritic 31 Poor 0.22
cyanite
Pasdaran Santstone 14.2 0.016 2.1 9.28 Granular 90.5 Good 1.28
Highway (1.3mm)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340 1337

There are many qualitative methods and quantitative indexes
to describe the rock texture and its granularity specifications. The
most favorite qualitative method is using the texture classifica-
tions. In drilling, as a very common classification, all rocks are
classified into four categories based on grain size and grain shape
[28]: (a) granular, (b) porphyritic, (c) glassy and d) fragmental.
Granular texture is the most distinguished and common
texture type in rocks especially in igneous rocks. This texture is
divided into five sub-classes as follows [28]: (1) very coarse
grained (410 mm), (2) coarse grained (5–10 mm), (3) medium
grained (2–5 mm), (4) fine grained (0.25–2 mm), and (5) very fine
grained (o0.25 mm). Drilling in coarse grained rocks is easier
than fine grained (dense) rocks but abrasiveness of coarse grained
rocks is higher.
In 1982, Wilbur classified the texture type into five classes as
follow: (a) porous, (b) fragmental (semi-dense), (c) granitoid, (d)
porphyritic and (e) dense [16]. As it seen, this classification is
wholly qualitative. Therefore in 2008, Hoseinie et al. [2] modified
Wilbur’s classification in their classification (RDi). They added the
dimensions of grains relative to each texture in order to decrease
the errors, as well as turning qualitative descriptions of textures
into the quantitative descriptions [2].
Another classification of mineral size was presented by
Norwegian Rock Mechanics Group in 1985 [43]. This classification
is only based on grain size and texture type has not been
described. Five classes of rock grains according to this classifica-
tion are as follows: (a) very small (o0.02 mm), (b) small (0.02–
1.4
Net Rate of Pneumatic Top Hamme
0.6 mm), (c) medium (0.6–6 mm), (d) large (6–20 mm) and (e)
very large (420 mm).
Until now only one comprehensive method (formula) named
the ‘‘texture coefficient (TC)’’ has been suggested. Texture
coefficient was originally devised to assess the rock fabric for
means of rock mechanics [20]. This dimensionless measure aims
to analyze grain shape parameters such as circularity and
elongation, orientation of grains and degree of grain packing
(proportion of grains and matrix) [20]. This index is expressed by
the following formula:
N0 N1
   
TC ¼ AW þ  AR1  AF1 ð12Þ
N 0 þ N1 N0 þ N 1
where AW is the grain packing weighting, N0 is the number of
grains whose aspect ratio is below a pre-set discrimination level,
N1 is the number of grains whose aspect ratio is above a pre-set
discrimination level, SF0 is the arithmetic mean of discriminated
shape factors, AR1 is the arithmetic mean of discriminated aspect
ratios and AF1 is the angle factor, quantifying grain orientation.
Grain packing AW considers inter-granular space in sedimentary
rocks. For igneous rocks, this term is equal to 1. Angle factor AF
quantifies angular orientation of the grain’s long axes. This term is
calculated only for elongated grains (aspect ratio higher than 2).
Detailed description of this procedure is presented by Howarth
and Rowlands [44,45] and Ersoy and Waller [20].
Previous researchers emphasized that ‘‘texture coefficient’’ is a
very useful and exact method for evaluating the texture
characteristics of rocks [24,46,47]. But exact and rapid determina-
tion of this coefficient needs an automatic image analysis system,

Drilling Rate = 0.0008 (RPi)1.6048 with camera input of thin sections [20]. This system cannot be
1.2
available for all users because of its cost problems. All aspect of
R2 = 0.8935 discrimination or measurement is laborious and time consuming
1
[20] and in usual applications it is not possible to use this index.
Drilling (m/min)

Sometimes it is necessary to know the texture type and its name,

0.8
but the TC method only presents a unique number as representa-
tive for rock texture. Also, in some cases such as porous rocks, we
0.6
cannot use TC correctly because exact textural characteristics of
these rocks cannot be explained by this method. The above-
0.4
mentioned problems could be seriously limited by TC application.
For the reasons mentioned above, TC has not been used in the
0.2
RPi classification. For classifying and rating of rocks from the view
point of texture, a combination of qualitative texture classifica-
0
tions that were explained above has been used. Regarding the
10 30 50 70 90 110
questionnaires, summation of the weights of texture type and
Rock Penetrability index (RPi)
grain size is considered as the total weight of texture. Total
Fig. 7. Relationship between RPi and net rate of pneumatic top hammer drilling weight of this factor is 14.5. Rating to rock texture in RPi is shown
(3 in). in Table 7.

Table 13
Experimental coefficients for prediction of drilling rate in rock with different hole diameters [20].

Hole Diameter (mm) 38 41 44 48 51 57 64 70 76 89 102 114 127

127 6.10 5.41 4.82 4.35 3.96 3.31 2.83 2.46 2.15 1.71 1.4 1.17 1.00
114 5.19 4.61 4.11 3.71 3.37 2.82 2.41 2.09 1.83 1.45 1.19 1.00 0.85
102 4.35 3.86 3.45 3.11 2.83 2.36 2.02 1.75 1.54 1.22 1.00 0.84 0.72
89 3.56 3.17 2.82 2.55 2.32 1.94 1.65 1.44 1.26 1.00 0.82 0.69 0.59
76 2.82 2.51 2.24 2.02 1.84 1.54 1.31 1.14 1.00 0.79 0.65 0.55 0.46
70 2.48 2.2 1.97 1.77 1.61 1.35 1.15 1.00 0.88 0.70 0.57 0.48 0.41
64 2.15 1.91 1.71 1.54 1.40 1.17 1.00 0.87 0.76 0.61 0.5 0.42 0.35
57 1.84 1.63 1.46 1.31 1.19 1.00 0.85 0.74 0.65 0.52 0.42 0.35 0.30
51 1.54 1.37 1.22 1.10 1.00 0.84 0.72 0.62 0.54 0.43 0.35 0.30 0.25
48 1.40 1.24 1.11 1.00 0.91 0.76 0.65 0.56 0.49 0.39 0.32 0.28 0.23
44 1.26 1.12 1.00 0.9 0.82 0.69 0.59 0.51 0.45 0.35 0.29 0.24 0.21
41 0.08 1.00 0.89 0.81 0.73 0.61 0.52 0.45 0.4 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.19
38 1.00 0.89 0.79 0.72 0.65 0.54 0.46 0.40 0.34 0.28 0.23 0.19 0.16
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1338 S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340

2.4.5. Elastic modulus
According to rock behavior during the fracture process,
especially in drilling, the way that rocks reach the failure point
has a great influence on drillability. The best scale for rock
elasticity is Young’s modulus. All previous researchers concluded
that with increasing of Young’s modulus the rock penetrability
and drilling rate decreases [2,14,16,17,20,24–26,3].
Based on ISRM suggested methods [48], the tangent Young’s
modulus at a stress level equal to 50% of the ultimate uniaxial
compressive strength is used in RPi classification. According to
FDAHP results, the weight of this factor is about 8 in total. Rating
to rock elasticity in RPi system is shown in Table 8.
penetrability and drillability in a simple way. Exact testing of
parameters and calculation of RPi may take a few days.
4. Relationship between RPi and drilling rate; case studies
In order to study the practical ability of the suggested
classification system (RPi), experimental studies were done on
rock samples collected from seven mines and one highway slope
in northwest Iran (Table 11).
4.1. Laboratory tests for estimation of rock characteristics

For doing laboratory test various block samples were trans-

3. Prediction of rock penetrability
After rating and evaluating of each parameter in classification,
the new proposed system (RPi) is presented in Table 9. Finally,
considering the obtained value of RPi classification, one can
classify and qualitatively predict the penetrability of rock material
using Table 10.
As seen above, by assessing the RPi parameters, one can
achieve valuable information about rock material and evaluate its
2.5
Net Rate of Pneumatic Top Hammer
ferred to the rock laboratory. These samples were studied based
on the parameters of the RPi classification. At first, a typical thin
section belonging to each rock type was prepared for petrographic
analyzes and determination of textural rock characteristics.
Primary and secondary minerals and texture type were identified
and their mean grain sizes were evaluated. According to
mineralogical analyzes, mean Mohs hardness and equivalent
quartz content of each rock were calculated.
The uniaxial compressive strength tests were carried out on
testing machine with a capacity of 2000 kN at a loading rate of
1 KN/s. Cylindrical specimens NX in diameter with a length to
diameter ratio of 2.5:1 were used. Tensile strength was deter-

mined by using the Brazilian testing (BTS) method. Disc speci-

2 mens NX in diameter with a thickness to diameter ratio of 1:2
51 mm
were used. Tangent Young’s modulus was measured at a stress
Drilling (m/min)

57 mm level equal to 50% of the ultimate uniaxial compressive strength.

1.5 Results of laboratory tests and RPi values for studied rock types
64 mm
70 mm are shown in Table 12.
75 mm
1
89 mm
102 mm 4.2. Drilling tests
114 mm
0.5 127 mm
After laboratory studying and classifying the studied rocks, in
order to study the relationship between RPi and net penetration
0
rate of drilling in rock material, drilling tests were done on intact
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
rock samples. For this purpose, one massive sample with average
Rock Penetrability index (RPi)
dimensions 30 cm in width, 50 cm in length and 30 cm in height
Fig. 8. Relationship between RPi and net rate of pneumatic top hammer drilling in was collected from each site. For drilling studies, all samples have
different hole diameters. been fixed in a shallow canal that was located in laboratory’s yard.

adjustment of machine parameters

Selection of suitable drill bit

Selection of suitable
drilling methods
Prediction of bit wear
Drilling
Prediction of operation costs

Prediction drilling rate Development of a drilling rate model

Applications of RPi
TBMs
Performance prediction
Roadheaders

Mechanized Discs of TBM

Prediction of wear
excavation
Bits of roadheader

adjustment of machine parameters

Fig. 9. Suggested applications of RPi.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340
Around the rock samples and spaces between them were filled by
concrete. The concrete prevents the rock blocks from displace-
ment caused by bit load and rotation. Therefore, drilling machine
can drill the blocks in suitable and stable condition without any
movement of samples.
A pneumatic top hammer drill machine with 35 bar pull down
pressure, 2200 bpm blow frequency, 40 bar rotational pressure
and a new 3 in diameter insert cross type bit was used in drilling
studies. In each sample, five holes with 15 cm depth were drilled
and the average drilling times were recorded as the drilling rate of
each rock type (Table 12).
Information of Table 12 is illustrated in the form of a curve in
Fig. 7. As shown in this figure, with the increase of RPi, the
penetration rate of pneumatic top hammer drilling increases. This
curve can be used only for drilling with 3 in diameter. For smaller
or larger holes a special curve for each standard diameter should
be available. Jimeno et al. [21] presented a table including the
experimental coefficients for prediction of drilling rate in a
specific rock with different hole diameters (Table 13). Therefore,
if drilling rate of a specific diameter is available, one can predict
the drilling rate in other diameters using this figure. In this
research the mathematical relationships between drilling rate and
RPi in other diameters has been calculated using Table 13 and
curve illustrated in Fig. 7. The set of graphs for prediction of
penetration rate of pneumatic top hammer drilling using RPi is
shown in Fig. 8. As seen in this figure, in rocks with poor
penetrability (RPio30) the drilling rate with different diameter
are very close to each other. The higher hardness and the dense
structure of these rocks are the reason of this phenomenon.
5. Conclusions
Drilling, as the initial stage of the exploitation operation, has a
significant role in the other stages. Considering high operation
costs as well as the expense of the machinery, full recognition of
the parameters involved in drilling, would be desirable.
Drilling has a direct and close relationship with the rock
properties. Therefore, recognition of rock characteristics would be
of great help in choosing the appropriate type of drilling system,
prediction of drilling rate, assigning the number of drill machines
and the mine production rate.
In this paper a new classification has been developed based on
fuzzy Delphi analytic hierarchy process (FDAHP) technique and by
using the uniaxial compressive strength, Schimazek’s F-abrasivity,
mean Mohs hardness, texture and grain size and Young’s modulus
of rock. Since the most important rock parameters have been used
in this classification, RPi method can be widely used in drilling
studies and industrial applications. It is obvious that the RPi index
has been suggested only uncontrollable rock factors to predict the
penetration condition qualitatively. By using of this index and
operational machine parameters, a new penetration model can be
developed for prediction of drilling rate.
The result of laboratory and drilling tests show that RPi has a
good correlation with penetration rate of percussive drilling. For
future investigation of the RPi applications, the relationships
between other drilling methods and RPi must be studied. Finally,
some of the suggested applications of this index are presented in
Fig. 9.
Acknowledgments
Grateful thanks are recorded to Prof. Summers (USA), Prof. A.
Bruland (Norway), Prof. T.N. Singh (India), Prof. C. Karpuz (Turkey)
1339
and Dr. H. Aghababaie (Iran) for their kind help and guidance in
this research.
References
[1] Thuro K. Drillability prediction—geological influences in hard rock drill and
blast tunneling. Geol Rundsch 1997;86:426–38.
[2] Hoseinie SH, Aghababaei H, Pourrahimian Y. Development of a new
classification system for assessing of Rock mass Drillability index (RDi). Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008;45:1–0.
[3] Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
[4] Liu YC, Chen CS. A new approach for application of rock mass classification on
rock slope stability assessment. Eng Geol 2007;89:129–43.
[5] Kaufmann A, Gupta MM. Fuzzy mathematical models in engineering and
management science. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1988.
[6] Simon R. Theory of rock drilling. In: Proceedings of the sixth annual drilling
symposium, Minneapolis, 1956.
[7] Paone J, Madson D, Bruce WE. Drillability studies—laboratory percussive
drilling. USBM Rep Invest 7300, 1969.
[8] Selmer-Olsen R, Blendheim OT. On the drillability of rocks by percussive
drilling. In: Proceedings of the second congress international society for rock
mechanics, vol. 3, Belgrade, 1970.
[9] Hustrulid WA, Fairhurst C. A theoretical and experimental study of the
percussive drilling of rock. Part I: theory of percussive drilling. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1971;8:11–33.
[10] Hustrulid WA, Fairhurst C. A theoretical and experimental study of the
percussive drilling of rock. Part II: force penetration and specific energy
determination. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1971;8:35–56.
[11] Hustrulid WA, Fairhurst C. A theoretical and experimental study of the
percussive drilling of rock. Part III: experimental verification of the
mathematical theory. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1972;9:417–29.
[12] Hustrulid WA, Fairhurst C. A theoretical and experimental study of the
percussive drilling of rock. Part VI: application of the model to actual
percussive drilling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1972;9:431–49.
[13] Tandanand S, Unger HF. Drillability determination—a drillability index of
percussive drills. USBM Rep Invest 8073, 1975.
[14] Rabia H, Brook N. An empirical equation for drill performance prediction. In:
Proceedings of the 21st US symposium on rock mechanics, University of
Missouri Rolla, 1980. p. 103–11.
[15] Rabia H, Brook N. The effects of apparatus size and surface area of charge on
the impact strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1981;18:211–19.
[16] Wilbur L. In: Kuesel TR, King EH, Bickel JO, editors. Rock tunnel engineering
handbook. Melbourne, Florida: Krieger; 1982.
[17] Howarth DF. Experimental study on the relationship between rock texture
and mechanical performance. Mining Tech 1986;95 000–000.
[18] Bilgin N, Eskikaya S, Dincer T. The performance analysis of large diameter
blast hole rotary drilling in Turkish Coal Enterprises. In: Almgren G, Kumar U,
Vagenas N, editors. Mine mechanization and automation. Rotterdam:
Balkema; 1993.
[19] Ersoy A, Waller MD. Prediction of drill-bit performance using multivariable
linear regression analysis. Trans Inst Min Metall A 1995;104:101–14.
[20] Ersoy A, Waller MD. Textural characterization of rocks. J Eng Geol 1995;39(3–
4):123–36.
[21] Jimeno CL, Jimeno EL, Carcedo FJA. Drilling and blasting of rocks. Rotterdam:
Balkema; 1995.
[22] Serradj T. Method of assessment of rock drillability incorporating the
Protodyakonov index. Trans Inst Min Metall A 1996;105:175–9.
[23] Thuro K, Spaun G. Introducing the ‘destruction work’ as a new rock property
of toughness referring to drillability in conventional drill and blast tunnelling.
In: Barla M, editor. Proceedings of the Eurock ’96, Prediction and performance
in rock mechanics and rock engineering, vol. 2, 1996. p. 707–713.
[24] Rao KUM, Misra B. Principles of rock drilling. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1998.
[25] Shimada H, Matsui K. Estimation of applicability of a drilling machine in
Japanese open pit limestone quarry. In: Proceedings of the international
symposium on mine planning and equipment selection. Rotterdam:
Balkema; 1998.
[26] Kahraman S. Rotary and percussive drilling prediction using regression
analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:981–9.
[27] Kahraman S, Balci C, Yazici S, Bilgin N. Prediction of the penetration rate of
rotary blast hole drilling using a new drillability index. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 2000;37:729–43.
[28] Osanloo M. Drilling methods. Tehran: Sadra Pub; 1998.
[29] Li X, Rupert G, Summers DA, Santi P, Liu D. Analysis of impact hammer
rebound to estimate rock drillability. Rock Mech Rock Eng 2000;33(1):1–13.
[30] Rao KUM, Bhatnagar A, Misra A. Laboratory investigations on rotary diamond
drilling. Geotech Geol Eng 2002;20:1–16.
[31] Plinninger RJ, Spaun G, Thuro K. Prediction and classification tool wear in drill
and blast tunneling. In: van Rooy L, Jermy CA, editors. Proceedings of the 9th
congress international association for engineering geology and the environ-
ment. Durban, South Africa, 16–20 September 2002.
[32] Plinninger RJ, Spaun G, Thuro K. Predicting tool wear in drill and blast.
Tunnels Tunnelling Int Mag, April 2002.
[33] Ersoy A. Automatic drilling control based on minimum drilling specific
energy using PDC and WC bits. Trans Inst Min Metall A 2003;December:A86.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1340 S.H. Hoseinie et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 46 (2009) 1329–1340
[34] 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.
[35] Izquierdo LE, Chiang LE. A methodology for estimation of the specific rock
energy index using corrected down-the-hole drill monitoring data. Trans Inst
Min Metall A 2004;113:A225.
[36] Tanaino AS, Lipin AA. State and prospects of the percussive-rotary blasthole
drilling in quarries. J Min Sci 2004;40 000–000.
[37] Tanaino AS. Rock classification by drillability. Part 1: analysis of the available
classification. J Min Sci 2005;41(6):541–9.
[38] 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.
[39] Schormair N, Thuro K, Plinninger R. The influence of anisotropy on hard rock
drilling and cutting. In: Proceedings of the IAEG 2006, Geological Society of
London.
[40] Singh TN, Gupta AR, Sain R. A comparative analysis of cognitive system for the
prediction of drillability of rocks and wear factor. Geo Tech Geol Eng
2006;24:299–312.
[41] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans S Afr
Inst Civ Eng 1973;15:335–44.
[42] Singh B, Goel RK. Rock mass classification, a practical approach in civil
engineering. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1999.
[43] Norwegian rock mechanics group, Handbook in engineering geology—Rock.
Trondheim: Tapir, 1985. 140pp [in Norwegian].
[44] Howarth DF, Rowlands JC. Development of an index to quantify rock texture
for qualitative assessment of intact rock properties. Geotech Testing J
1986;9:169–79.
[45] Howarth DF, Rowlands JC. Quantitative assessment of rock texture and
correlation with drillability and strength properties. Rock Mech Rock Eng
1987;20:57–85.
[46] Přikryl P. Assessment of rock geomechanical quality by quantitative rock
fabric coefficients: limitations and possible source of misinterpretations. Eng
Geol 2006;87:149–62.
[47] Oztürk AC, Nasuf E, Bilgin N. The assessment of rock cutability, and physical
and mechanical rock properties from a texture coefficient. J S Afr Inst Min
Metall 2004;August:397.
[48] International Society for Rock Mechanics, Commission on Standardization of
Laboratory and Field Tests. Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial
compressive strength and deformability of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1979;16:135–40.