Principles of Mechanical Excavation

FI9800048
POSIVA 97-12
Principles of
Mechanical Excavation
Arne Lislerud
Tarn rock Corp.
December 1997
POSIVA OY
Mikonkatu 1 5A . FIN-OO1OO HELSINKI. FINLAND
Phone (09) 2280 3 0(nat.). (+3 5 8 - 9 - ) 2280 3 0 (int.)
Fax (09) 228O 3719 (nat.), (+ 3 5 8 - 9 - ) 2280 3719 (int.)
ISBN 951-652-037-5
ISSN 1239-3096
The conclusions andviewpoints presented in t h e r e p o r t a r e

t h o s e o f a u t h o r ( s ) a n d do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y coincide
w i t h t h o s e of Posiva
Raportin tunnus - Report code
Posiva-raportti - Posiva report
POSIVA97-12
Posiva Oy
Julkaisuaika - Date
Mikonkatu 15 A, FIN-00100 HELSINKI, FINLAND
Puh. (09) 2280 30 - Int. Tel. +358 9 2280 30 December 1997
Tekija(t) - Author(s) Toimeksiantaja(t) - Commissioned by
Arne Lislerud Posiva Oy

Tamrock Corp.
Nimeke - Title
PRINCIPLES OF MECHANICAL EXCAVATION
Tiivistelma - Abstract
Mechanical excavation of rock today includes several methods such as tunnel boring, raiseboring,
roadheading and various continuous mining systems. Of these raiseboring is one potential technique
for excavating shafts in the repository for spent nuclear fuel and dry blind boring is promising
technique for excavation of deposition holes, as demonstrated in the Research Tunnel at Olkiluoto.
In addition, there is potential for use of other mechanical excavation techniques in different parts of
the repository. One of the main objectives of this study was to analyze the factors which affect the
feasibility of mechanical rock excavation in hard rock conditions and to enhance the understanding
of factors which affect rock cutting so as to provide an improved basis for excavator performance
prediction modeling. The study included the following four main topics: a) phenomenological model
based on similarity analysis for roller disk cutting, b) rock mass properties which affect rock
cuttability and tool life, c) principles for linear and field cutting tests and performance prediction
modeling and d) cutter head lacing design procedures and principles. As a conclusion of this study,
a test rig was constructed, field tests were planned and started up. The results of the study can be
used to improve the performance prediction models used to assess the feasibility of different
mechanical excavation techniques at various repository investigation sites.
Avainsanat - Keywords
mechanical excavation, cuttability, drillability
ISBN ISSN
ISBN 951-652-037-5 ISSN 1239-3096
Sivumaara - Number of pages Kieli - Language
186 + Appendices English
Raportin tunnus - Report code
Posiva-raportti - Posiva report
POSIVA 97-12
Posiva Oy
Julkaisuaika - Date
Mikonkatu 15 A, FIN-00100 HELSINKI, FINLAND
Puh. (09) 2280 30 - Int. Tel. +358 9 2280 30 Joulukuu 1997
Tekijä(t) - Author(s) Toimeksiantaja(t) - Commissioned by
Arne Lislerud Posiva Oy

Tamrock Corp.
Nimeke - Title
MEKAANISEN LOUHINNAN PERUSTEET
Tiivistelmä - Abstract
Nykyään on yleisesti käytössä useita erityyppisiä mekaanisia louhintamenetelmiä kuten tunnelin

poraus, nousuporaus ja muita esimerkiksi rouhintaan (roadheading) perustuvia menetelmiä. Näistä
nousuporausta voidaan hyödyntää käytetyn ydinpolttoaineen loppusijoitustilojen kuilujen lou-
hinnassa, ja Olkiluodon tutkimustunnelissa demonstroitu kuiva sokkoporaus on lupaava tekniikka
loppusijoitusreikien poraukseen. Myös muiden mekaanisten louhintamenetelmien käytölle on
mahdollisuuksia loppusijoitustilojen eri osissa. Tämän selvityksen tavoitteena oli analysoida
kovassa kivessä tapahtuvan mekaanisen louhinnan toteutettavuuteen vaikuttavia tekijöitä ja parantaa
kiven rikkomiseen vaikuttavien tekijöiden ymmärrystä louhintalaitteiden tehokkuuden arvioinnin
lähtökohtien tarkentamiseksi. Työssä keskityttiin seuraavaan neljään pääkohtaan: a) pyörivän
kiekkoterän similariteettianalyysiin perustuva fenomenologinen malli, b) kiven rikkomiseen ja terien
kulumiseen vaikuttavat kivilajiominaisuudet, c) lineaarisen kiekkoterällä tapahtuvan kiven rikko-
misen, sen kenttäkokeen ja tehokkuuden ennustamisen perusteet ja d) mekaanisen louhintalaitteen
teräpään yksittäisten terien sijoitus ja sen perusteet. Selvityksen tuloksena rakennettiin koelaite kiven
rikkomiseksi kiekkoterällä ja suunniteltiin sekä aloitettiin kenttäkokeet. Selvityksen tulosten
perusteella voidaan parantaa eri mekaanisten louhintamenetelmien soveltuvuuden ja tehokkuuden
arviointia loppusijoitustilojen erilaisissa mahdollisissa kallioperäolosuhteissa.
Avainsanat - Keywords
mekaaninen louhinta, louhittavuus, porattavuus
ISBN ISSN
ISBN 951-652-037-5 ISSN 1239-3096
Sivumäärä - Number of pages Kieli - Language
186 +liitteet Englanti
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
ABSTRACT
TIIVISTELMA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0 INTRODUCTION 1
1 MECHANICS OF CUTTING AND BORING 3

1.1 TOOL TRAJECTORIES AND VELOCITIES ON AXIAL ROTATION
MACHINES 3
1.2 ROLLER DISK CUTTER INDENTATION MECHANISMS 12
1.3 TOOL CONFIGURATION AND TOOL RIM DIMENSIONS 26
2 A PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODEL FOR THE CUTTING

ACTION OF ROLLER DISK CUTTERS 29
2.1 INTRODUCTION 29
2.2 CONDITIONS OF SIMILITUDE 30
2.2.1 Forming the Non-Dimensional Products 31
2.3 APPLICATION OF SIMILARITY ANALYSIS 34
2.3.1 Roller Disk Kerf Cutting of Rock 35
2.3.2 Forming the Dimensional Matrix 37
2.3.3 Forming the Unity Matrix and Remaining n-Terms 38
2.2.4 Similarity and Scale Factors 39
2.4 PRACTICAL USE OF THE NON-DIMENSIONALTI-TERMS 40

2.4.1 Functional Relationship between Normal Force, Depth of Cut and
Intact Rock Strength 40
2.4.2 Functional Relationship between Normal Force, Depth of Cut,
Intact Rock Strength and Kerf Spacing 41
2.4.3 Functional Relationship between Normal Force, Depth of Cut,
Intact Rock Strength and Degree of Rock Mass Fracturing 41
Intact Rock Toughness 42
2.5 ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS FOR ROLLER
DISK CUTTING 44
2.6 SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS FOR ROLLER
DISK KERF CUTTING ESTABLISHED IN CHAPTERS 1 & 2 46
3 ROCK MASS CHARACTERISATION 48
3.1 INTRODUCTION 48
3.2 ROCK MASS CHARACTERISATION 51
3.3 CLASSIFICATION OF ROCK MASS CUTTABILITY AND
DRILLABILITY 63
3.4 CHARACTERISATION OF TOOL CONSUMPTION 80
3.4.1 Classification of Wear Mechanisms 80
3.4.2 Macroscopic Fracture and Structural Failure 82
3.4.3 Microscopic Fracture and Wear Mechanisms 87
3.4.4 Classification of Tool Wear Modes for Sliding Wear 94
3.4.5 Methods for Rating the Wear Capacity of a Rock Mass 99
3.5 SOME ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF TOOL CONSUMPTION 106
3.5.1 Laboratory Studies of Disk Cutter Life for Off-Line Kerf Cutting 108
3.5.2 Field Studies of Disk Service Life for In-Line Kerf Cutting 110
3.6 ROCK CUTTABILITY WINDOWS 113
4 LINEAR CUTTING TESTS 115

4.1 LINEAR CUTTING TEST APPARATUS 115
4.2 PERFORMANCE PREDICTION MODELLING OF ROLLER
DISK CUTTING 119
4.3 PERFORMANCE PREDICTION MODEL FOR ROLLER DISK
CUTTING 120
4.4 RELEVANCE OF LCM TEST CUTTING RESULTS TO FACE
CUTTING PERFORMANCE 125
5 TOOL AND CUTTERHEAD FORCES ON DOMED AXIAL

ROTATION MACHINES 134
5.1 TOOL PATHS, DEPTH OF CUT AND CUTTERHEAD

ADVANCE RATES 134
5.2 CUTTING WITH DOMED AXIAL ROTATION CUTTERHEADS 136
5.3 CUTTING FORCES ON DOMED AXIAL ROTATION
CUTTERHEADS 138
5.4 THE PRINCIPLE CUTTERHEAD FORCES 141
5.5 BALANCING OF INDIVIDUAL TOOL NORMAL FORCES AND
LINE SPACINGS 143
5.6 SUMMARY OF PREDICTION EQUATIONS FOR AXIAL
ROTATION MACHINES TOOLED WITH ROLLER DISK
CUTTERS 143
5.7 SEQUENTIAL CUTTING WITH DOMED CUTTERHEADS 144
6 CUTTERHEAD TOOL LACING DESIGN 153
6.1 TOOL LACING DESIGN PARAMETERS 153

6.2 THE STEPWISE TOOL LACING DESIGN PROCEDURE 158
6.3 CUTTERHEAD FORCES AND TORQUE EQUALIZATION
ON DOMED AXIAL ROTATION CUTTERHEADS 163
7 FIELD PERFORMANCE PREDICTION 168
8 TERMINOLOGY 172
8.0 GENERAL EXPRESSIONS 172

8.1 CUTTING TOOLS 173
8.2 CUTTERHEADS FOR AXIAL ROTATION MACHINES 175
8.3 ROCK CUTTING MODES 177
8.4 CUTTING FORCES AND SPECIFIC ENERGY 179
8.5 ROCK MASS CUTTABILITY AND WEAR CAPACITY 180
8.6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 181
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 183
LITERATURE 184
APPENDICES 186
PREFACE
The study of mechanical rock cutting by roller cutters presented in this

report is a co-operation project between Posiva Oy and Tamrock Corp. as
part of the research and development project "Development of Disposal of
Spent Nuclear Fuel and Advanced Rock Engineering" for Posiva Oy
supported by the Technology Development Center of Finland, TEKES.
The author wishes to thank Jukka-Pekka Salo of Posiva Oy and Jorma Autio
of Saanio & Riekkola Oy who acted as contact persons, and to acknowledge
with appreciation and thanks the valuable contribution made by Timo
Kirkkomaki of Saanio & Riekkola Oy for the final editing of this report.
0 INTRODUCTION
Mechanical excavation of rock today includes several methods such as
tunnel boring, raiseboring, roadheading and various continuous mining
systems. Raiseboring is one potential technique for excavating canister and
personnel shafts in high level spent nuclear fuel repositories as illustrated in
Figure 0-1. Excavation of deposition holes using a novel dry blind boring
technique demonstrated in the Olkiluoto Research Tunnel (Autio &
Kirkkomaki 1996) is currently being planned by Posiva Oy.
The selected method to date for the excavation of deposition tunnels is Drill
& Blast, but Horizontal Raiseboring has been identified as one possible
excavation method applicable in certain conditions. In addition, there is
potential for use of mechanical excavation techniques such as the TM60
developed by Tamrock/EIMCO or the Robbins Mobile Miner in different
parts of the repository where wall surface smoothness and negligible
excavation disturbance is required.
Encapsulation plant
\
Personei shaft
Canister
transfer shaft
Work shaft
.Centrat tunnel
Deposition tunnel
Figure 0-1. The basic concept of a final repository for spent nuclear fuel
where spent fuel canisters will be placed in deposition holes in the tunnel
floor (TVO 1992).
At present no mobile mechanical excavator with acceptable excavating
performance in hard rock is presently available; although the experiences of
existing prototypes such as the TM60 and the Robbins Mobile Miner imply
that these concepts can be used - and has motivated research and
development efforts by different equipment manufacturers.
In situ rock mass quality and stress conditions give rise to site specific
differences in the cuttability of rock and tool consumption. The influence of
stresses around openings on excavation performance and costs for
mechanical rock excavation are not fully understood or quantified. Some of
the factors affecting machine performance are shown in Figure 0-2.
One of the objectives of this study was to analyse the factors which affect
the feasibility of mechanical rock excavation in hardrock conditions - and to
establish a baseline with regard to cost effectiveness versus Drill & Blast.
Another objective has been to enhance the understanding of factors which
affect rock cutting so as to provide an improved basis for excavator
performance prediction modelling; including a basis for a cutterhead design
procedures based on linear cutting test and field trial results.
FIELD FOLLOWUP CHART
Excavation Site Tunnelling

Characterization Machine
Performance
Tunnel Size Net Advance Rates

Tunnel Alignment Tool Life
Face/Wall Mapping Tool Replacement Profiles
Intact Rock Material Testing Cutterhead Bouncing
In Situ Rock Stress Machine Utilisation
Ground Support Measures
Station No.
or
Tunnel Zone
Figure 0-2. Field follow-up chart for matching site characterisation and
machine performance.
1 MECHANICS OF CUTTING AND BORING
1.1 TOOL TRAJECTORIES AND VELOCITIES ON AXIAL

ROTATION MACHINES
Trajectories of Fixed Tools
As a cutterhead rotates at a constant angular frequency / and simultaneously

advances at a constant axial rate AR, any tool on the cutterhead at a given
radius Rj will follow a helical path around a circular surface of radius Rj as
illustrated in Figure 1-1. The Cartesian description of the helix is usually
given in parametric form for tool / as:
Xj = R, cos ip
Yj = Rs - Jin q> 1
Z, = A R ( t / 6 0 2 ) - 1000 J [
Xj, Yj, Zj = coordinates for tool i at time t
where co is the angular velocity (co = 2K • f ), 9 the total cutterhead rotation

angle (tp = cot), and / = ( RPM / 60 ) the angular frequency.
Pitch A
Advance Rate AR
Figure 1-1. The helical tool path for axial rotation machines.
The helix pitch A or advance per cutterhead revolution is:
A = AR/(/-60 2 /1000)
= AR/(RPM-60/ 1000)
and the helical path length Sj is:
S, = ((p/2jr)-[(27t-Ri)2 + (A)2]1/2
2 2
= (pR, • [ 1 + ( A / 2 T C - R , ) ] " [1-3]
and the helix angle p; , defined at a given point as the angle between the
tangent to the helix of radius Rj and the tangent to the concentric circle of
radius Rj passing through the same point, is:
tan Pi = vadvance / vrotauon = A / ( 2JI • Rj) [1-4]
These relations describe the motion of fixed cutting tools, or the motion of
the bearing centers for roller disk cutters. They illustrate one of the major
problems typical for axial rotation cutterhead design; i.e.
pi -=> 90° as Rj - » 0
In other words, a tool at the center of a cutterhead has to progress directly

into the rock in the axial direction with cutter rotation approaching nil.
Trajectories of Continuous Disk Rings and Studded Disk Roller Cutters
The helical path of a roller cutter traced out in the rock is described by
equations [1-1] to [1-4]. If the cutter is a symmetrical roller disk set with its
bearing axis along a radial of the cutterhead, the center of the cutter bearing
also traces out a similar helical path. A point on the periphery or rim of a
non-skidding disk describes a cycloidal trajectory relative to the helical track
in the rock surface.
Continuous Disk Ring Cutters
Consider a single continuous disk ring cutter mounted so that its axis of
rotation is along a radial of the cutterhead and perpendicular to the main axis
of cutterhead advance (i.e. with zero skew). Assume that the cutter
mounting is "stiff, so that the disk cuts a kerf of fixed depth without riding
up between chipping stages. If the helical tool path in the rock is developed
into a plane, and x and v axes are taken from an arbitrary origin on the path,
with x and y directions tangential and normal to the path respectively, then a
particular point on the disk rim describes a regular cycloid whose equation
is:
x = r •(<))- sin (j)) -»
y = r - ( 1 -cos$) J [1-5]
where r is the disk radius, and <J) is the angle of cutter rotation measured
from an initial condition of x = 0, y - 0, <)) = 0 as illustrated in Figure 1-2. An
alternative expression is:
x = r • ( acos { I - y / r } ± [ ( 2>> / r ) - ( y I r ) 2 ] m )
For one complete disk revolution, i.e. JC = 2rc • r, the cycloidal arc length is
8r.
It is often assumed for simplicity that a rolling indenter penetrates the rock
normally, but this is not strictly true. Any point on the rim of a non-skidding
indenting disk cutter will penetrate the rock along a part of the cycloidal
path; travelling forward as well as downward as shown in Figure 1-3. If the
depth of cut measured normal to the helical path is DOC, then the forward
travel of a rim-point during indentation is:
Ax = r • 6 • 2n / 360 - [ r 2 - ( r - DOC ) 2 ] m
= r • ( 27t / 360 • acos { 1 - DOC / r } - [ ( 2 • DOC / r ) - ( DOC / r ) 2 ] m )
Example 1-1. For a 305 mm (12") diameter disk, with depths of cut 1.0 mm
and 10.0 mm, Ax would be 0.04 mm and 1.22 mm respectively. Thus
penetration is very close to being perpendicular to the surface of the rock in
most practical circumstances.
Combining the cycloidal and helical motions, the trajectory of a point on the
rim of a radial-axis non-skidding roller disk cutter can be expressed in
cylindrical coordinates as:
Rj' = Rj -.
(p' = (r / R-,) •($-sin $)• cos $ j [i_6]
Z' = r • [ (([) - sin (j)) • sin (3 - ( 1 - cos <])) • cos P ]
in which R, is the radius at which the disk is set on the cutterhead, and (3 is
the helix angle of the tool path as given by equation [1-4]. In Cartesian
coordinates the combined motion is described by taking r and cp from
equation [1-6] and setting X,' = Rj' • cos (p\ Yj' = RY • sin (p\
When a disk cutter rotates without skidding, there is a simple relation

between cutter rotation <j) and cutterhead rotation :
0r = Si = <pRj-[ 1+(A/2TCR,)2]I/2 [1-7]

Figure 1-2. The regular cycloidal motion of a disk rim-point.
AX
Figure 1-3. The cycloidal indentation path of a disk rim-point.
Except for locations very close to the center of the cutterhead, ( A / 2TCRJ ) is
typically much less than unity, so that:
<|) • r = cpRj [1-8]
By substituting into equation [1-6] from equation [1-7] or [1-8], cp' can be
expressed in terms of the cutterhead rotation angle cp.
Studded Disk Cutters
If, instead of a continuous disk ring, the disk rim is studded with indenters,
the trajectory of an indenter will be the same as the trajectory of a rim-point
on a continuous disk ring cutter as long as the machine is "stiff, depth of
cut is less than indenter protrusion, and the cutter does not skid. However, in
the case of a cutter with hemispherical indenters, the first contact between
the indenter and the rock is made at a point a shown in Figure 1-4, where a
is off-center from the extreme tip of the indenter by an angle 5 that is given
approximately by:
= acos { 1 - DOC / r } [1-9]

[r 5 - ( r - p ) s i n 5 ]
DOC
Figure 1-4. The rolling action of hemispherical indenter studs.
In this case the effective point of thrust moves forward during the working
stroke by a distance of approximately [ r • 8 • 2K I 360 - ( r - p ) • sin 8 ],
where r is the radius of the stud tip, p is the protrusion of the hemispherical
indenter stud, and 8 is given by equation [1-9].
Example 1-2. For a studded 305 mm (12") diameter disk, the angle 8 is 6.6°
with depth of cut DOC = 1.0 mm, or 20.9° with DOC = 10.0mm. If the
protrusion of the stud p is 10.0 mm, then [ r • 8 • 2K I 360 - ( r - p ) • sin 5 ] is
1.18 mm with DOC = 1.0 mm, and 4.78 mm with DOC = 10.0 mm. The
respective values of Ax for a continuous disk ring, or a disk with sharp-
tipped indenters, are 0.04 mm and 1.22 mm as shown previously. Thus,
under these circumstances, the rolling action of the stud relative to the rock
contributes more forward component than does the cycloidal motion; i.e. it
does more to move the effective path of indentation away from the normal
direction.
Speed of Fixed Cutting Tools
The velocity components relative to the rock for fixed cutting tools can be
obtained directly by differentiating equation set [1-1] with respect to time:
X, = -R, cp-sincp
n
= -2nf •R, - sincp ; CO = q? = 2?rf
Y, cp-sin(p = -27rf R, • c o s 9
z, =A
Alternatively, the absolute tool speed relative to the rock, vtoo], is given by
the time derivative of equation [1-3]:
.2,1/2
Vtool = Si = 2TC/ • Rj • [ 1 + ( A / 27C [1-10]
Speed of Rolling Disk Cutters
The speed of the roller cutter bearing center is given by equation [1-10]
where Rj is the radius to the cutter center measured from the center of the
cutterhead. If the cutter is rolling without skidding, then a given point on the
disk rim has tangential and normal velocity components relative to the rock
that are given by the time derivative of equation [1-5].
x = r (j> • ( 1 - coscj))
y = r 0 • sin<J>
where $, the angular roller cutter velocity relative to its own center, is
related to the angular velocity of the cutterhead *P by the time derivative of
equation [1-7].
(j)-r = <p R • I" 1 + ( A / 2 j t R ) 2 j " *
11/ 2
R / r)- I 1 + (A / 2TTR )-
II / 2
= (27rf • R ( / r ) - [ l + ( A / 2TCR | ) 2 ] '
Speed and Geometry of Studded Multi-Row Roller Cutters
Multi-row roller cutters have a finite thickness in the radial direction; the
cutter is more of a drum than a disk in that it consists of several disk rings or
carbide insert rows joined together on the same shaft as illustrated in
Figure 1-5. Since the whole cutter unit rotates with a single rotational speed,
the cutter diameter has to vary systematically if skidding is to be avoided.
Thus, on a flat-faced cutterhead, the multi-row cutter has to take the form of
a frustum of a cone.
If a multi-row roller cutter, as in Figure 1 -6, is set with its axis radial to the
main cutterhead (but not necessarily exactly normal to the axis of advance),
the required cutter cone diameters at the inner and outer ends, dinner and
douter, can be related to the radial distances of the cone ends on the
cutterhead, Rjnner and Router» by equalizing the angular velocities as described
by equation [1-11], i.e.
( 2nf • R / r ) • [ 1 + ( A / 2TIR ): T ' "

outer uuier L "u'« J
(27tf • R / r )• I" 1 + ( A / 2rcR )2 1 " '
inner inner [_ inner J
DOC
Figure 1-5. Geometry of a studded multi-row roller cutter.
In most practical cases, the square root term is very close to unity, so that:
(. Qouler ' Ujnner ) ~ \ *V>uter '
or as:
do uter / dinner - ( Ri CW / Rln CW [1-12]
where CW is the slant width of the cutter measured radially on the

cutterhead, Figure 1-6. The half-angle of the coney is:
= atari ( di nner / 2Rm ne r) = atan ( d outer
Equation [1-12] can be used to calculate the best position on the cutterhead
for a multi-row cutter of given dimensions. For this purpose it is rewritten
as:
Ri nner-optimum — v_W / ( douter ' dinner " * [1-13]
where Rinner-optimum is the inner multi-row cone cutter radius on the

cutterhead where skidding does not occur.
10
Figure 1-6. Multi-row roller cutters on a large cutterhead.
From the above relations it can be seen that cutter skidding is unavoidable
when non-tilted multi-row roller cutters of standard design are fitted to flat-
faced cutterheads at different radii.
However, if the working face of the cutter cone is tilted relative to the main
cutterhead advance axis by an angle a as shown in Figure 1-7, then in
principle it may be possible to avoid skidding while using multi-row cutters
of standard design. Equation [1-12] can be rewritten as:
( dOUIer / dinner ) = 1 + C W • Sin 0C I R, nn er
and the conditions for non-skid operation of a standard cutter is obtained as:
Sin a I R,nner = ( douter / dinner - 1 ) / CW [1-14]
hi other words, sin a has to be proportional to the setting radius (measured

normal to the advance axis). Substituting into equation [1-14] from equation
[1-13]; the non-skid condition can also be written as:
sin a — R inner ' înner-optimum [1-15]
from which it can be seen that, while a multi-row coned roller cutter
optimized for use at a large radius can be adjusted for use at a smaller
radius, the converse is not true.
11
CW
Direction
of
1
Advance inner
"inner-optimum
1
outer
inner
f
Rotation Axis of Cutterhead
Figure 1-7. Multi-row roller cutters on a domed cutterhead.
Example 1-3. A 2.75 m (9') diameter cutterhead of typical full-face design

is to be fitted with multi-row cutters of a standard design. Diameters of the
large and small ends are 279 mm and 229 mm respectively, and the length
of the cone is 254 mm. Calculate the optimum setting position for non-skid
operation of this cutter, and consider the feasibility of shaping the face of the
cutterhead so as to permit non-skid operation of the other face positions.
Slant length of the cone is CW = 255 mm, and the optimum radius to the
inner end of the cone is:
Rinner-optimum = 255 / ( 279 / 229 - 1 ) = 1 168 Him
For cutter radii less than the gauge radius, the standard roller cone can be
made to run without skidding by tilting its axis so that the small end leads
the large end. At any radius Rjnner. the angle a required to prevent skidding
is:
a = asin (Rinner/ 1 168 )
where Rinner is in millimeters. The required value of a would be 45° at

Rinner = 827 mm, and 30° at Rinner = 584 mm. It therefore seems likely that a
different cutter cone design would be required for the central part of the
cutterhead, since the cutterhead profile would have to be shaped into a rather
extreme point or prow in order to utilize the standard cutters at small radii.
12
1.2 ROLLER DISK CUTTER INDENTATION MECHANISMS

The most common mechanism that employs normal indentation and quasi-
static thrust is the roller disk cutter. The simplest roller cutter is a sharp-
edged wheel, exemplified on a small scale by the roller glass cutter.
For indentation cutting in very strong rocks, the simple or continuous disk
ring cutter is modified by inserting carbide studs into the rim, thus
simultaneously reducing the indentation contact area of the rim and
enhancing the rim resistance to abrasive wear. In order to limit the number
of individual cutters on a cutterhead, several disks may be set onto a
common cutter bearing. Alternatively, the roller cutter may be a frustum of a
cone with hemispherical or conical studs set into the periphery as described
earlier for multi-rowed cutters.
For cutting in rocks that are weak, ductile or compressible; roller cutters
may be studded with teeth similar to those of a gear wheel. Gear-toothed
cutters are capable of digging out cohesive fragments when the teeth
penetrate deeply into the rock.
Dynamics of Simple Roller Disk Cutters
Consider the simple disk shown in Figure 1-8, with uniform thickness W, so
that the perimeter has sharply squared edges. When rolled along the surface
of a rock, and thrust into the material at a constant depth of cut DOC by
application of an axle force; this force can be resolved into components Fr
and Fn that are respectively parallel and normal to the surface of the rock.
These forces are assumed to be invariant with time (i.e. the cutting process
is a continuous one, as distinct from the process of intermittent chip
formation in brittle rock).
Since the depth of cut is constant, the path traced out by any point on the
disk rim is a regular cycloid, Figure 1-2. Thus, if an elementary segment of
the disk rim is regarded as an indenter, it penetrates into the rock along a
cycloidal path, Figure 1-3. At any stage of the penetration, as defined by the
contact arc angle co in Figure 1-9, the slope of the disk rim elementary
segment penetration path is given by the standard cycloid equation [1-5] as
dy/dx:
dy/dx = dy/d§ • d§ /dx = r • sin <)) / r • ( 1 - cos ())) = cot (|) II
where 0 is the conventional angular position used in the standard cycloid

equation such that <(> = ( 271 - co ). Thus:
dy/dx = cot ( n - co/2 ) - - cot ca/2
and the inclination from the normal direction is:

13
dx/dy = - tan co/2
In other words, for any position defined by the contact arc angle 0), the
penetration path is inclined at an angle co/2 to the normal direction.
Fr
DOC
resultant
Fn
d/2 - DOC
DOC
îndent
L chord
W
tool path
Figure 1-8. Tool cutting forces and contact geometry at the disk rim/rock
interface for a simple roller disk cutter.
14
Fn
Fr
dF
radial
Figure 1-9. Force components on the rim of a simple roller disk cutter.
If S is the distance measured along the cycloidal penetration path, then:
dS/d§ = [ ( dx/d§ )2 + ( dy/d§ ) 2 ] "2 = 2r • cos 0/2
If the elementary indenter enters the rock at a position defined by the contact
arc angle 0), as in Figure 1-9, the penetration length for the disk rim
elementary segment along the cycloidal penetration path S' is:
S' = / 2r • cos <|>/2 dty = 4r • sin = 2 • ( d • DOC ) 1/2
As each elementary segment of the rim penetrates the rock, an elementary

force dF whose direction ought to be tangential to the cycloidal penetration
path can be resolved into components JFradiai and £/Ftangentiai that are
respectively normal and tangential to the disk rim, Figure 1-9. If the cutter
bearing is frictionless, the tangential force components dFtangentiai must sum
to zero since there can be no net moment about the center of the disk. Under
these circumstances, the net elementary forces are purely radial.
For resolution of forces parallel and normal to the rock surface for roller
disk cutters of uniform thickness:
^radial = <* ' ^ M radial

= O • dWrddliil • dS
- dFridl.d\ • sin CO
dFy = t/F r a d i a i • cos co

15
Fx = -\dFx = - W • / a • 27tr • sin co da
Fy = -jdFy = - W • j a • 27cr • cos co d(a
Hence, the axle force components are:
Fr = Fx
= constant • o" • W • 2nr ( I - cos co ) [1-16]
= constant • a • W • 271 • DOC [1-17]
Fn = Fy
= constant • a • W • 27tr sin CO [1-18]
= constant • <r • W • 2rc • [ d • DOC • ( 1 - DOC / d ) ] " 2
= constant • a • W • 2TI • ( d • DOC ) m [1-19]
where the constant is defined by the failure criterion of the rock and the kerf
cutting geometry; a n d o is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock.
The resultant force on the cutter axle is:
Fresuuam = [ F r 2 + Fn 2 ] m
m
= constant • a • W • 27tr • [ 2 - 2 • cos CO ]
= constant • a • W • 2rc • ( d • D O C ) m
and the inclination of the resultant axle force from the normal direction is
given by equations [1-16] and [1-18]:
tan cOresuitant = Fr / Fn = ( 1 - cos co ) / sin CO = tan co/2
and therefore:
^resultant = acos co/2 = acos ( 1 - D O C / r ) / 2
The ratio of the axle force components is termed the cutting coefficient k,
and can be expressed as:
m
k = Fr/Fn = ( 1 - cos co ) / sin CO = [ DOC / ( d - DOC ) ]
k = (DOC/d)l/2 [1-20]
To summarize; the theoretical one-dimensional considerations for

indentation cutting by a simple disk ring of uniform thickness leads to the
expectation that:
• Fr will be proportional to W • DOC

8 Fn will be approximately proportional to W • ( d • DOC ) l / 2
* Fresuitant will be proportional to W • ( d • DOC ) 1 / 2
* Fresuitant will be inclined at an angle co/2 = acos ( 1 - DOC / r ) / 2
from the normal direction
16
Some Practical Aspects of the Simple Disk Indentation Contact Area, Acon
The trigonometric disk contact angle formulae found for indentating roller
disk cutters are impractical as a basis for prediction model upbuilding.
However, the formulae are readily approximated by power functions. The
error introduced by approximation is illustrated on the Appendix 1
contangl.xls file printout. The actual and approximated relations are:
Actual disk contact arc Larc' = raJ • co / 360
Approx. disk contact arc Larc = Vi • Lchord = ( d • DOC ) l / 2
Actual chord length Lthord' = 2 • [ r 2 - ( r - DOC ) 2 ] "2
= 2 [d D O C - D O C 2 ] " 2
m
Approx. chord length L chord = 2 ( d • DOC ) ; DOC2 « d • DOC
Actual disk contact angle co' = acos ( 1 - D O C / r )
Approx. disk contact angle co = L arc • 360 / rcd = ( D O C / d ) m • 360 In
Actual disk contact area A con ' = W • L arc ' = W • 7id • t o / 360
Approx. disk contact area A con = W L arc = W • ( d • DOC )1/2
T h e resultant axle force F r e s u i t a n t attack angle (Oresuitant c a n b e found by

iteration using the depth of cut ratio p and the disk cross-sectional
indentation area A;ndent- The resultant force attack point is determined when
Ajndem'/2 equals Ajnt]em- The calculation procedure is as follows:
Actual depth of cut at resultant force attack point:
DOCresul(anl = p • DOC
Actual resultant force attack angle:
COresultani = OCOS ( ( T - D O C + DOC r e s u ltam ) / T )
= acos ( r - DOC • ( 1 - p ) / r)
Actual cross-sectional indentation area of the disk for DOC:
A.ndem* = Ttr2 • ( co / 360 ) - Vi • ( r - DOC ) • [ d • DOC - D O C 2 ] m
Approximate cross-sectional area of the disk for DOCresuitant:
A = nr2 • ( ajtauna,,/ 360 ) - Vi • ( r - p • DOC ) • ( d • p • DOC - D O C 2 ) m
= r 2 ( p • DOC / d ) m
- Vi • ( r - p • DOC ) • ( d • p • DOC ) " 2
17
In practice, the above equations are used for normalizing field test cutting
data; i.e. the cutter coefficient k can be expressed as:
k = Fr/Fn
DOC/d)m
= ((DOC } [1-21]
= C, • DOC
where the cutter constant C| is dependent on:
S disk diameter as d" m

M the interaction between rock mass jointing and large diameter
roller disk cutters is denoted as the "buggy wheel effect"
whereas the mean normal force Fn can be expressed as:
Fn = constant • o • W • 2w • ( d • DOC ) m 1
= Fn,DOC 1 / 2 / [1-22]
where the critical normal force Fni (normal force for a unit depth of cut) is
dependent on:
8 disk rim geometry as W • d w2

* intact rock strength, degree and type of rock mass jointing.
For normalization of laboratory and field cutting tests; the effects of kerf
spacing, degree and type of rock mass jointing, joint orientation etc. must be
included. The functional relationships between all relevant parameters as to
kerf cutting with roller disks has been established in Chapter 2.
Dynamics of Wedge-Shaped Disk Cutters
The preceding analysis deals with continuous rock cutting by a disk cutter of
uniform rim width; the next step is to consider a disk which has a wedge-
shaped rim as in Figure 1-10.
As each element of the rim penetrates the rock, an elementary force dF

whose direction ought to be tangential to the cycloidal penetration path can
be resolved into components JFradiai and dFtangentiai that are respectively
normal and tangential to the disk rim, Figure 1-10. If the cutter bearing is
frictionless, the tangential force components JFiangentia[ must sum to zero
since there can be no net moment about the center of the disk. Under these
circumstances, the net elementary forces are purely radial.
For resolution of forces parallel and normal to the rock surface for pristine
wedge-shaped roller disk cutters:
18
= a • 2 tan p/2 2m • dco
sin co
dFy CO
Fx = -1 dFx = -\\o-2tan p/2 • 2OT • sin co Jco
Fy = -ldFy = -\\c-2tan (3/2 • 27ir • cos co Jco dDOC
Fr = Fx
= constant • a • 2 tan 0/2 • DOC • 2nr • ( 1 - cos CO )
= constant • c • 2 tan 0/2 • 2n • D O C 2
Fn
= constant • a • 2 tan [3/2 • DOC • 27ir • sin co
= constant • a • 2 tan p/2 • 2rc • d m • DOC 3 / 2
cutting geometry; and a is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock.
Fn
P/2
DOC
dF
,adial' 2
radial
Figure 1-10. Indentation geometry of wedge-shaped roller disk cutters.

19
Fre,.ullant = [ F r 2+ F n 2 ] " 2
m
= constant • o • 2 tan (3/2 • DOC • 2rcr • [ 2 - 2 • cos co ]
= constant • c • 2 tan [3/2 • 2n • d " 2 • DOC m
given as:
tan consultant = Fr / Fn = ( 1 - cos co ) / sin co = tan co/2
and therefore:
consultant = acos co/2 = acos ( 1 - DOC / r ) / 2
The ratio of the axle force components is termed the cutting coefficient k,
and can be expressed as:
k = Fr/Fn
= ( 1 - cos co ) / sin co
= [DOC/(d-DOC)] 1 / 2
= ( D O C / d ) 1/2
To summarize; the theoretical two-dimensional considerations for

indentation cutting by a wedged-shaped disk cutter leads to the expectation
that:
• Fr will be proportional to tan (3/2 • DOC2

• Fn will be approximately proportional to tan (3/2 d " 2 • DOC m
* Fresuitant will be proportional to tan p/2 • d " 2 • DOC m
* Fresuitan, will be inclined at an angle co/2 = acos ( 1 - DOC / r ) / 2
from the normal direction.
The use of wedge-shaped roller disk cutters has decreased in the last 10
years since:
(i) in soft rocks; wedge-shaped disk cutters require more torque for
large depths of cut than constant section disk cutters.
(ii ) in hard and abrasive rocks; the pristine wedge-shaped rim is quickly
worn down resulting in a very blunt cutting edge when compared to a
constant section disk. As the blunting of the tool progresses; the
functional relationships found for pristine wedge-shaped disk cutters
change dramatically, and tend to follow the relationships developed
for constant section disk cutters.
( Hi) increased use of studded disk cutters to enhance tool life; especially
in the gauge area of TBM cutterheads.
20
Dynamics of Studded Roller Disk Cutters
An alternative to the wedge-shaped disk is a disk whose rim is studded with

cemented carbide inserts or wedge-shaped steel teeth. The studs are typically
hemispherical, conical or tapered projections with rounded tips. As the disk
is rolled along the rock, the studs or teeth descend successively with the
action of three-dimensional indenters.
There are obviously some practical limits set by the size and spacing of
studs. As illustrated in Figure 1-11, the maximum depth of cut DOCmax
cannot exceed the length by which studs protrude from the disk rim; or else
the whole disk rim would be thrust into the rock, i.e.
DOCmax < p [1-23]
Another limit set for cutting with a single studded disk is the necessity of
always having at least one stud in the rock.
There could obviously be operating difficulties if two adjacent studs are able
to lie above line AA' at the same time as in Figure 1-12. With n studs set at
equal intervals around the rim of the disk, the angular spacing 8 between
studs in a row is 2n/n. If the disk is rigidly mounted for cutting to a constant
depth of cut DOCmax, the condition which guarantees that at least one stud
will always be below the surface level is:
DOCmM > r ( 1 -cosb/2) [1-24]
> r • ( 1 - cos nln )
where r is the radius to the tip of the stud.
i
DOC
Figure 1-11. Maximum depth of cut for a studded roller disk cutter before
disk rim contact with rock occurs.
21
A1
r - r • cos 5/2
Figure 1-12. Minimum depth of cut required for positive operation of a

studded roller disk cutter.
To provide a positive guarantee that there will always be at least one stud in
the rock and under load, the relative stud spacing has to be half that given by
equation [1-24] since a new stud has to enter the rock before the preceding
one departs from the point of maximum depth of cut, i.e.
DOC n > r • ( I - cos 8 ) [1-25]
In practice, there are factors which allow a studded disk to operate when the
above conditions are not met. A rough rock surface will catch the studs and
rotate the cutter, or the cutter itself may have low enough bearing friction
and high enough inertia to give a fly-wheel effect, or the mounting of the
cutter may be compliant (i.e. "springy"). Nevertheless, it is prudent to design
and operate so that:
• depth of cut is less than the protruding length of the stud

• the disk should always have at least one stud in the rock and
under load.
This means that under normal operational conditions:
p > DOC™* > r • ( 1 - cos 5 ) [1-26]
The spacing of studs around the disk perimeter ought to be determined, at

least in part, by the requirements for efficient indexing, i.e. "optimum"
spacing between adjacent indentation craters. However, this distance varies
with the depth of cut, and the upper limit of disk rim studs n may be set by
the practical matter of maintaining adequate structural insert support. For
hemispherical buttons and 90° cones, the base diameter is 2t, while for sharp
22
60° cones it is t. In general, the base diameter of a stud can be expressed as

k| • t and the stud rim spacing as RS; so that the number of rim studs n is the
integer given by:
n = lit- ( r - p ) / ( k , • t + RS)
Typical values for stud diameter, kerf spacing and mean roller cutter
diameter are listed in Table 1-1 and illustrated in Figure 1-15 as a function
of cutter diameter.
If the thrust capability is limited to the extent that the sharing of loads
between two or more operative studs is undesirable, then an additional
condition that tends to conflict with the foregoing ones is:
DOCmax > T ( \ - c o s 2n/n )
Thus the optimum operating condition for a single studded disk is:
DOCmaJl / r = ( 1 - cos Inln )
Because of the variability of rock properties, this may not be a realistic

condition to impose. However, the problem tends to disappear when two or
more disks are set on an axle with their stud positions staggered. Figure 1-5.
The main practical concern is to recognize what is going on, so that a
machine is not operated inappropriately, either when there is a generous
reserve of thrust available in soft rock, or when the machine is at the limit of
its thrust capability in very hard rock.
Forces on Studded Disks
In theory, a smooth-rim disk is capable of constant-force operation (ignoring

intermittent formation of chips in brittle material). By contrast, a disk with
studs on its rim necessarily experiences force fluctuations as the separate
studs penetrate and disengage. For a typical stud, penetration resistance
ought to increase as depth of cut increases, reaching a maximum as it passes
under the lowest point of the disk. If a second stud enters the rock while the
preceding one is still operating, there should be an immediate jump in the
axle force of the cutter.
Since a studded disk is quite likely to have only one stud at a time under
high load, the forces developed by a single cycle of stud indentation are of
direct significance. If more than one stud is working at a given time, the
forces on the cutter can be obtained by appropriate summation if the studs
are widely spaced (significantly greater than
23
Fn
DOC max
dF.radial
Figure 1-13. Forces on a studded disk.
Consider the cutter shown in Figure 1-13. Each stud enters the rock at a
position defined by the contact arc angle co. As the disk rotates, the tip of the
stud descends to depth DOCmax along a cycloidal path as previously
described. As the stud descends, it also rotates, turning through angle co in
descending to its maximum depth DOCmax.
The effective stud tip depth of cut is a function of the contact arc angle co,
i.e.
DOC { co } = DOCmilx sin co [1-27]
The stud contact area is dependent on the stud tip geometry, i.e.
Tapered studs Abuuon-radiai = individual stud contact area

= WL
Hemispherical studs Abu iton-radial = 2nt • D O C { CO }

24
For resolution of forces parallel and normal to the rock surface for taper
insert studded roller disk cutters.
=
"'radial ^ " "'"bullon-radial ' " ^
= a • f/W radia | • dL r a d i a | • n • d(O
dFx = dF r a d i a i • sin co
dFy = J F r a d i a l • cos CO
Fx = -jdFx = - WL • n | o sin co dw
Fy = - J dFy = - WL • n • I a • cos co dw
Fr = Fx
= constant • G • W L • n • ( 1 - cos CO )
= constant • G • WL • n • 2 ( DOC / d ) [1-28]
Fn = Fy
= constant • G • W L • n • sin CO
= constant • a • WL • n • 2 ( DOC / d ) " 2 [1-29]
Folium = [Fr2 + F n 2 ] " 2

= constant • o • WL • n • [ 2 - 2 • cos CO ] " 2
= constant • G • WL • n • 2 ( DOC / d ) m
tan cOresuium = F r / F n = ( 1 - cos (a) I sin (a = tan co/2
and therefore:
G>reSuium = acos co/2 = acos ( 1 - D O C / r ) / 2

25
For resolution of forces parallel and normal to the rock surface for
hemispherical insert studded roller disk cutters:
=
^^radia] O ' ^button-radial ' dtl
= a • 2nt sin co • n • dm
dFx = JFradja! • Sin CO
JFy = dF r a d l a l • COS CO
Fx = - j dFx = - 2nt • n • I a • sin2 on dm
Fy = - 1 dF y = - 2;ct • n • | a -sin co • cos co rfco

Fr = Fx
= constant • o • 27it • n • ( co/2 - ( sin 2(0 ) / 4 ) )
= constant • o • 27tt • n • 2 ( D O C / d ) 3 / 2 [1-30]
Fn = Fv
= constant • a • 7tt • n • ( 1 - cos 2to) / 2
= constant • a • 27it n • 2 ( DOC / d ) [1-31]
Fresuiuim = [ Fr + Fn - ] -
= constant • O • W L • n • 2 ( D O C / d )
and the inclination of the resultant axle force from the normal direction r-
tan constant = Fr / Fn = ( DOC / d ) m -tan co/2
and therefore:
= acos co/2 = acos ( 1 - DOC / r ) / 2

26
1.3 TOOL CONFIGURATION AND TOOL RIM

DIMENSIONS
Tool Configuration and Kerf Spacing
The procedure for cutterhead tool lacing design is discussed in detail in

Chapter 6.2. However, some aspects of tool configuration and its effect on
sequential in-line kerf cutting with roller disk cutters are illustrated in Figure
1-14.
ALTERNATIVE ROLLER DISK CUTTER

CONFIGURATIONS
fff^x. Continuous disk ring cutters for use in

moderate to hard rock formations.
Studded dual row disk cutters for use in

brittle rock. Number of toolholders
halfed by use of 2 row cutters.
Studded dual row disk cutter configuration

for enhanced advance rates. Use of 2 tool
rows per line potentially doubles net
advance rates.
Studded dual row disk cutter

configuration with intermittent half
tracking cutters for reducing the kerf
spacing in hard or tough rock formations.
Figure 1-14. Alternative roller disk cutter configurations illustrating the

various combinations of kerf spacing and tools per line commonly in use
today.
27
Roller Cutter Kerf Cutting Geometry
Multiple carbide insert row or studded cone cutters totally dominate the
raiseboring, boxhole and pipe-jacking tool market today; with 2 - 5 rows per
cutter being the most common. The use of carbide insert cutters reduces
both tool consumption and tool contact or wearflat area. Reduced tool
contact area results in lower tool cutting forces.
Steel disk cutters are typically used on tunnel boring machines. Single or
dual row carbide insert cutters can sometimes be used on cutterheads
originally designed for single ring steel disk cutters. Studded Tri-Cone Bits
are used for rotary blasthole drilling in hard rock. Tri-Cone Bits or Cherry
Button cutters are sometimes used on large cutterheads as center cutters.
Some typical values for in-line roller disk kerf cutting are listed in Table 1-1
and plotted in Figure 1-15 as a function of disk diameter for both face and
gauge cutters. Gauge cutters have wider rims and thus more wear material so
as to extend disk life in the outer gauge positions on a cutterhead to reduce
the operational downtime represented by frequent cutter replacements in
these positions. The functional relationships between cutter diameter, kerf
spacing, disk rim width and insert radius, as established in Chapter 2.5, have
been used for creating the trendlines in Figure 1-15, i.e.
Kerf spacing S = constant d [2-28]

Disk rim width W = constant • d 3/2 [2-29]
Insert diameter t = constant • d 3/2 [2-30]
Table 1-1. Some typical values for in-line roller disk kerf cutting.
Disk/Cutter Line Rim Rim Insert/Stud

Diameter Spacing Width Width Diameter
d Sface Wface t
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Constant Section Steel Disk Cutters

254 54
305 70 11
394 82 11.1 17.2
432 88 12.7 19.5
483 102 14.5 22.5
Studded Roller Disk Cutters

254 54 15
305 70 19
360 67 25
405 80 29
Multi-Row Roller Cone Cutters

275 31.5/63 17
300 25.5/51 22
305 23/56 19
305 35/70 19
! i . V . V . ' . ' . ' . ' . ' . ' . ' . ' . ' ! " f f » " l ' i •••••• • • • • • • • • • • ' • ' • ' • •
28
Constant Section Disk Cutters Studded Roller Disk Cutters

150 150
120 Face Disk Line 120 Row or Line

Spacing Spacing
100 100
/
90
80 / 90
80 /
70 70 •
60 60 WC Insert
y y-
> Diameter
_ 50 -. 50
/
i. 40 Gauge Disk Rim I 40
30 X Width
30
y \ /
25
y i . / Face Disk Rim
25 / i
Width
20
/
A 20
/ /
p /
15
) 15 /
10
/>/ 10
/
100 150 200 250300 400 500 600 100 150 200 250300 400 500 600
Disk Diameter, d (mm) Disk Diameter, d (mm)
Multi-Row Cone Cutters
Insert Row Spacing

100 / (for hard rock formations)
90
80 k
70 Kerf Spacing for Half Tracking Tools
60 * (for hard rock formations)
Y
E. 40 / / WC Insert Diameter
/ / • /
30
25 /
20 /
y i
/
15
10
/
100 150 200 250300 400 500 600
Disk Diameter, d (mm)
Figure 1-15. Scatter plot and trendlines of tool rim geometry and kerf
spacing for in-line roller disk kerf cutting as a function of cutter diameter.
Note: Stud rim spacing RS = (0.7~> 1.3 ) • Sker/

29
2 A PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODEL FOR THE

CUTTING ACTION OF ROLLER DISK CUTTERS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
One of the research tools available to the design engineer is that branch of
applied mathematics known as dimensional analysis. Usually a preliminary
dimensional analysis of any experimental investigation discloses functional
relationships between the measurable parameters involved that simplify the
problem and indicate the direction to be followed in the design of the
experimental programme. All similitude and model studies should be based
upon a dimensional analysis so that the results obtained can be applied to the
prototype with confidence.
The fundamental dimensions of physical quantities in mechanics are usually

taken as mass, length and time, and are denoted by M, L and T. The
dimensions of other physical quantities follow immediately from their
dimensions. For example, volume has the dimension L3; velocity has the
dimensions LT'1; acceleration has the dimensions LT2; and force, defined as
the product of mass and acceleration by Newton's law, has the dimensions
MLT ~2. Thus mass, length and time have been expressed in terms of the
primary quantities, and secondary quantities have been expressed in terms of
the primary quantities. There are no hard rules as to which measurable
quantities should be considered the primary ones. In engineering mechanics,
the primary quantities are often chosen as force, length and time.
The dimensions of various physical quantities encountered in mechanics are

summarized in Table 2-1, assuming that the primary quantities are either
mass, length and time or force, length and time. Some physical quantities
are non-dimensional, for example strain, Poisson's ratio and angles. If a
quantity is non-dimensional, this is indicated by the symbol 1 rather than 0
as is often done.
The most important applications of dimensional analysis in engineering are:
M converting equations or data from one system of units to another

8 developing relationships among variables
9 systematising the collection of data and reducing the number of
variables that must be studied in any experimental programme
H establishing the principles of model design and assisting in the
interpretation of test data.
30
Table 2-1. Physical quantities and their dimensions.
Quantity Symbol Dimensions Dimensions

forM.L, T for F, L, T
Length I L L
Area A L2 L2
3
Volume V L L3
Time t T T
Mass m M FL'T2
Velocity V LT1 LT '
Acceleration a LT2 LT2
Force F MLT2 F
Mass density P ML3 FL'T2
Angle 6 , <)> 1 1
Angular velocity CO T' T'
Pressure or stress p, o, i ML'T'2 FL2
Work or energy W ML2T'2 FL
Momentum mv MLT ' FT
Power P ML2T3 FLT '
Moment of inertia of an area I L4 L4
Moment of inertia of a mass I ML2 FLT2
Modulus of elasticity E ML 'T'2 FL2
Strain &Y 1 I
Poisson 's ratio V 1 1
Porosity n 1 I
Bulk modulus K ML 'T'2 FL2
2.2 CONDITIONS OF SIMILITUDE

Similarity analysis is a powerful engineering tool enabling full-scale
performance to be predicted from small-scale experiments. For this
analytical technique to be applicable, there must be exact similarity between
the model and its object. Furthermore, the method can be applied only to a
complete equation, and this equation must relate all the parameters of
relevance to the system being described. Although the method does not
provide a description as complete as might be expected from a detailed pure
mathematical analysis, it is simple, and often more convenient to use.
The mathematical basis for dimensional analysis is founded on the

following two axioms. First, absolute numerical equality of quantities exists
only when the quantities have the same dimensions. Second, the ratio of the
magnitudes of two like quantities is independent of the units used in their
measurement, provided the same units are used for both quantities.
31
The theory of dimensional analysis can be summarized by the Buckingham

Theorem, also known as the 7i-theorem which states:
"If any equation is dimensionally homogeneous, it can be reduced to a

relationship among a complete set of dimensional products"
I.e. if a relationship exists where:
Pi = f(P2, Pi, ••• Pn) [2-1]
then an expression:
7tf = f'(n2, Ttj, ... 7 V k ) [2-2]
can be obtained where all 7t-terms are non-dimensional quantities and k is

the number of fundamental units. From the experimental standpoint, the
function / ; is easier to establish than the function / .
2.2.1 Forming the Non-Dimensional Products
The matrix method has been used for obtaining the non-dimensional terms
since a complete description of rock indentation by cutting tools involves a
large number of parameters. This method is particularly attractive in
situations involving a large number of parameters since it facilitates
computer analysis.
Given a set of n variables, pi, p2 , ••• pn , an infinite number of products of

powers of these variables can be formed:
P? • Pi • - • P^ [2-3]
The exponents x, may have any positive or negative, integral or fractional

value including nil. The dimensions of these products of powers of variables
may be found by replacing the symbols /?, with the symbols of its
dimensions and raising the symbols to the power Xj . For example, if the
y
variable /?, has the dimension M • • L' • T • , the dimension of P> is

M ' : L' • T ' ' . Thus the general expression for the dimensions in
[2-3] is:
• #A,X,+ /ljX2 + ...+ ^ X n TB,X, + B2X2 + ... + B,Xn y C , X | + C2X2 + ... + CnXn
A non-dimensional product of powers is one whose exponents of the

fundamental units M, L and T all vanish and which is designated by K and
referred to as a 7t-term.
32
Basic theory shows that each non-dimensional quantity is a product of

parameters p such that:
P/1 • P ? •... • px:
is dimensionless. In other words, if pi, p2, ... pn are the variables governing a
physical phenomenon, the exponents JC/( *2, ... xn can be found such that
equation [2-3] is dimensionless with all fundamental units cancelling out.
To achieve this x;, x?. ••••*« must provide a solution of the linear equations
implicit in:
£ rrij,, x, = 0 [2-4]
i = /
where j = 1, 2, ... k and the corresponding m values are the dimensions of

the parameters p. In the dimensional matrix, j is the number of rows and i is
the number of columns, being equal to the number of fundamental units and
number of variables respectively.
Equation [2-4] can be expressed in open form suitable for conversion to

matrix notation:
(p<) (P2 ) (Pk) (Pk+i) (PM ) (Pn
x, X2 Xk x
k+i Xk+2 Xn
«/./ x, + m,.2 X2 + mLkxk + ffl 1 k+1 Xk+1 + m

l,k*2 Xk+2 + m,.nxn = 0
m2 m2 i Xi + m.22 X2 + m2 k xk + Tt\2 jt+/ Xk+f "t" ftl2.k+2 Xk+2 ~^~ m2,n Xn
mk +mk2x2+ mkkxk+
The above is referred to as equation set [2-4a].
The first part or the left hand side of equation set [2-4a] can be expressed as
a product of two matrices:
m22 x2
Xk
or more generally M, , X, where:
ij , is the (/: • A:) matrix of m7,, J j = 1, 2, ... k

i = 1, 2, ... k
j is the column vector of x, i.e. solution vector i = 1, 2, ... k.

33
Similarly, the second or right hand side of equation set [2-4a] can be
expressed as:
m x
" I ; , *+2 l,n k+l
, k+2 mk, n
or more generally Nj,pXp where:
Nt p is the [ k • ( n - k ) ] matrix of m,, p 1 =1,2, ... k

p = 1,2, ... n - k
or p = k+1, k+2, ... n
Xp is the column vector of x on the right hand side.
Obviously equation set [2-4a] has many solutions but only n - k of these can
be linearly independent. To obtain exactly n - k linearly independent
solutions, k must be equal to the rank r of the matrix Mj , . This demands
that the matrix Mj,; is non-singular.
The new form of equation set [2-4a] is now:
MjjXi =(-l)Npl.X
pXp [2-5]
Since the Mj , matrix is square and non-singular, the inverse matrix M ~'j ,
exists. Pre-multiplication of the equation [2-5] by the inverse matrix yields:
M''j.i Mj,, Xi = (-1) M-'j.i Nt.p Xp [2-6]
Further simplification gives:
X, = (-1) M-'j.i N,.p Xp [2-7]
Equation set [2-4a] contains n unknowns to be solved from k independent

equations. Therefore n - k unknowns must be chosen arbitrarily. Since
p = n - k on the right hand side of the equation set [2-4a] then the values of
the corresponding x values on the same side of equation set [2-4a] can be
chosen arbitrarily. This provides the opportunity to make the Xp column
vector a unity matrix.
Then equation set [2-7] becomes:
Xi = (-1)M-'j.i Ni.p [2-8]
which means the ith solution matrix for X is the /th column of the matrix
product on the right hand side of equation set [2-8]. M ''j , has the order
34
( k • k ) and Nt, p has [k • ( n - k )]. There will therefore be n - k columns in

the matrix and so n - k solution vectors (i.e. non-dimensional quantities) as
expected.
By means of the above theorems we have shown that if there are n variables
and the rank of the dimensional matrix is r, there will be p dimensionless
products of exponents of the variables or rc-terms where p is given by:
p = n -r
Also a functional relation will exist among these 7t-terms that can be
represented as:
71/ = / ' ( n 2 , T C 5 , ... n n . k )
It should be noted that there are an infinite number of complete sets of n-

terms because new complete sets can be formed from any given complete
set. However, it is only necessary to find one complete set. Sometimes it is
advantageous to form several complete sets and to use the one that has the
simplest 7t-terms.
2.3 APPLICATION OF SIMILARITY ANALYSIS

The general steps in applying the theory to the design of prediction models
are:
1. Determine the general nature of the simulation (mechanical as

opposed to say chemical or electrical).
2. Select variables which are considered independent of each other

and which influence the process. This step can influence the
final result in many ways. If an insufficient number of variables
are included, the final result, although correct, may contain so
many n-terms that the functional relation is too difficult to
interpret or investigate.
3. Select the most appropriate fundamental units; in this case Mass

[M], Length [L] and Time [T].
4. Express parameters arising from [2-2] in dimensional form (e.g.

intact rock density as ML'3).
5. Establish the functional relationships between variables using a

dimensional method (in this case the matrix method). Ensure
that:
35
(a) each term is dimensionless

( b ) the number of dimensionless terms are n - k
( c ) each variable under [2-2] appears at least once.
6. Examine the resultant groups or TZ-terms for practical relevance

and physical significance.
7. If the n-terms do not have practical or physical significance,

then thev must be manipulated by multiplication or division one
with another to produce terms having relevance. Otherwise it is
necessary to re-examine the parameters for completeness or
change the set of fundamental units.
2.3.1 Roller Disk Kerf Cutting of Rock
Rock indentation by roller disk cutters has been discussed in great detail in
Chapter 1.2. In addition, a comparison of experimentally and analytically
derived results as to the cutting constant Q is presented in Chapter 4.4.
The next step in the design of prediction models for the kerf cutting process
of rock is to include aspects such as kerf spacing, rock toughness and rock
mass discontinuities into the functional relationships for roller disk cutting
as illustrated in Figure 2-1.
Following the listed stepwise approach in applying the theory of

dimensional analysis presented above and accepting that the simulation is
purely mechanical in nature; the physical parameters governing roller disk
kerf cutting of rock may now be considered in detail as shown in Table 2-2.
36
ROLLER DISK IN-LINE KERF

CUTTING OF ROCK
X X X X
s s s
Rock Indentation Kerf Cutting Rock Mass Properties

- disk rim diameter - kerf spacing • a
• disk rim width - multiple tool passings -Gic
- disk rim insert size - O and or
and rim spacing
Figure 2-1. Aspects of roller disk in-line kerf cutting process of rock that
can be readily analysed by similarity methods.
37
Table 2-2. Physical parameters governing roller disk kerf cutting of rock.
Parameter Symbol Dimensions Reason/or

for M, L, T Inclusion
Disk normal force Fn MLT2 cutter load

Disk rolling force Fr MLT 2 cutter load
Intact rock strength O ML'T2 rock strength
Intact rock elasticity E ML'T2 rock strength
Intact rock density P ML3 inertia of rock
Intact rock porosity n I inertia of rock
Critical energy release rate of rock GIC MT2 inertia of rock
Spacing of discontinuities O L rock mass strength
Strength of discontinuities X ML'1 T2 rock mass strength
Orientation of discontinuities a I rock mass strength
Disk rim diameter d L tool geometry
Disk rim width W L tool geometry
Disk rim contact area " con L2 cutting geometry
Kerf spacing s L cutting geometry
Depth of cut DOC L cutting geometry
2 of the above 15 parameters are non-dimensional, leaving 13 dimensional parameters.

Since the number of fundamental units is three (i.e. M, L and T) then n - k = 13 - 3 — 10
non-dimensional groups are to be expected. The matrix method will be used to determine
the non-dimensional n-terms.
2.3.2 Forming the Dimensional Matrix
The dimensional matrix for the 13 dimensional parameters in Table 2-2 for
roller disk cutting of rock is:
Acon p Fn Fr o GIC O E d W S DOC \

Xj X2 X3 X4 X5 Xfy Xy X$ Xy XJQ X) \ X\2 X\^
L m, 2 -3 1 1 -1 0 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 -1
M m2 0 1 1 1 I 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
T mt 0 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 -2
From this matrix it can be seen that the following independent parameter
quotients are dimensionless:
Fr / Fn, d / VAcon, W / V A ^ , S / VAcon, DOC / VAcon, O / V A ^ , E / a, XI a [2-9]
The parametric quotients in [2-9] contain 8 of the 10 required non-

dimensional 7r-terms, leaving 2 terms to be established. However, the
remaining 71-terms must not include the parameters Fr, d, W, S, DOC, O, E,
k since they are already represented in [2-9].
38
2.3.3 Forming the Unity Matrix and Remaining 7t-Terms
The revised dimensional matrix for roller disk cutting of rock from which
the 8 parametric quotients have been excluded is:
Aeon P Fn a
Xl x2 Xj x4
L m, 2 -3 1 -1
M m2 0 1 1 I
T m. 0 0 -2 -2 -2
The non-dimensional TT-terms yet to be established are given by the

following solution matrix in which the formation of the unity matrix is
carried out by using matrix algebra. The calculation procedure is as follows:
S subtract row 2 from row 1

• divide row 3 with (-2 )
• subtract new row 3 from old row 2
• multiply new row 1 with ( 1/2 )
• add new row 2 twice to new row 1.
The solution matrix is:

A
•*»-COII p Fn a G
• * / x2 Xj x4 Xs
L m, 1 0 0 -I -1/2
M m2 0 1 0 0 0
T m< 0 0 1 1 1
The unity matrix shows that the rank r of the matrix is 3, thus we have 5 - 3
or 2 7i-terms. In addition, the equations for the exponents x/, X2 and xj may
be rewritten by inspection of the modified matrix as in equation [2-4]:
L Xl - x4 - 1/2 • Xj — 0 => X/ — + X4 + 1/2 • X5
M X: = 0 => X
2 = 0
T Xj + x4 + x5 =0 => Xj = - x4 - x 5
Substituting for JC/, X2 and xj in an equation of dimensional homogeneity as

in equation [2-3] yields:
/ = L° M" 7"
= ( ?4 • Pi • Pj ) " • P". • (Pi -P'/2 • Ps' ) "
Fn
= [<*Km I I'4 ' [P ]" ' [ G , C • Â c , in / Fn \' [2-10]
39
2.3.4 Similarity and Scale Factors
The Buckingham Theorem is defined in general terms by equation [2-2];

and can now be written for the roller disk kerf cutting of rock as:
n, = f'(n2, Kj, ... nl0,a,n) [2-11]
Each of the non-dimensional terms Ki to 7C/o in the Table 2-3 satisfies this
equation. The functional relation for the first 7t-term listed in Table 2-3 is:
Fn = a- Acon [2-12a]
The functional relationship for all parameters listed in Table 2-3 can now be
expressed as:
Fn = a Acon • / ( G,c • VAcon / Fn , ... X/o, a, n ) [2- 12b]
Equation [2-12b] can be modified by manipulating the listed non-

dimensional terms in Table 2-3 as follows:
n6-(n7)-' = S/DOC
a-A con /Fn = /(S/DOC)
The relevance and physical significance of the found 7C-terms must be

examined; and practical functional relationships for roller disk kerf cutting
of rock be established for the design of prediction models.
Table 2-3. The non-dimensional set of K-terms for kerf cutting with roller
disk cutters.
Original K-Terms Manipulated ft-Terms
= a A con / Fn
712 = G,c • VA.on / Fn 7tp * \Tî ) = (G,c/S)/o
= Fr/Fn
7:4 = d / VACQ,, It4 ' (iLy ) = d/DOC
= W / VA.O,, n5(K7y' = W/DOC
n* = S/VA; On n6-(n7Y' = S/DOC
= DOC/VAcon K7 • (U# ) = DOC/O
t« = 0/VA.O,, «8 • fltfl ) "' = O/S
= E/a
Tim = X./o
40
2.4 PRACTICAL USE OF THE NON-DIMENSIONAL

TC-TERMS

Intact Rock Strength
Based on the first rc-term in Table 2-3, the roller disk normal force can be
expressed as:
Fn = a Aam [2-12a]
Practical use of equation [2-12a] requires that the roller disk contact or
footprint area Acon be replaced by an expression which includes the disk
depth of cut DOC. The basic relationship between disk contact area and disk
depth of cut for constant section roller disk cutters has been established
previously in Chapter 1.2 as:
A™ = constant • W • ( d • DOC - DOC 2 ) m
= constant • W • d m • DOC m [2-13]
The following practical expression for the relationship between Fn, a, d and
DOC for the roller disk normal force can be found by substituting [2-13]
into [2-12a] so that:
m
Fn#, = constant • a • Aconi • DOC
= constant • a • W • d " 2 • DOC " 2 [2-14]
Thus, for a unit depth of cut (DOC =1.0 mm/pass), the disk normal force
Fni represents the rock resistance to roller disk cutting; and is commonly
known as the critical normal force. For constant section disk cutters it can
be expressed as:
m
Fn,.,, = constant • a • W • d • 1.0 " 2
= constant • C • W • d m [2-15]
and the roller disk normal force can then in general terms be expressed as:
Fn = Fn, • DOC m [ 1 -22] or [2-16]
This functional relationship has already been established in Chapter 1.2 as

equation [1-22]. However, the functional relationship for roller disk cutting
incorporating the kerf spacing can now be carried out as the next step (a
procedure that is not readily done analytically).
41
2.4.2 Functional Relationship between Normal Force, Depth of Cut, Intact

Rock Strength and Kerf Spacing
Based on the 7t-terms in Table 2-3, the relationship between the roller disk
normal force, depth of cut, rock specimen strength and kerf spacing can be
found as:
Fn.2 = a - AC(m • [ s / V^,,,, f

= constant • a • W • d"2 • D O C " 2 • ( S / D O C )p'
Thus for a unit depth of cut, the disk normal force Fnj for constant section
roller disk cutters can be expressed as:
Fn < : = constant • a • W • d1/2 • S Pl [7-171
Due to dimensional homogeneity for equations [2-14] and [2-17] it follows

that:
F n l > 2 / Fn#l = S3' / DOC "2
P) = 1/2 ; can be determined by statistical analysis of cutting data
The final expression for the functional relationship between Fn, DOC, o and
S is:
Fn,2 = constant • o • W • d "2 • DOC m • S m [2-18]
= constant • o • W • d m - DOC • ( S / DOC ) m
2.4.3 Functional Relationship between Normal Force, Depth of Cut, Intact

Rock Strength and Degree of Rock Mass Fracturing
Based on the 7t-terms in Table 2-3, the relationship between the roller disk
normal force, depth of cut, rock specimen strength and degree of rock mass
fracturing can be found as:
=
Pn CT • A
= constant • a • W • d "2 • DOC "2 • [ O / DOC ] P ' • [ a ] P ' [2-19]
Thus, for a unit depth of cut, the disk normal force Fni for constant section
roller disk cutters can be expressed as:
Fn
i-,3 = constant • CT • W • d " 2 • O 3 j • a Pl
[2-20]
42
Due to dimensional homogeneity for equations [2.14] and [2-20] it follows

that:
Fn l # 3 / Fn#l = [On I DOC J o r '
P2 = 1/2 ; can be determined by statistical analysis of cutting data
(^ ; indeterminable relationship; and must be determined

by statistical analysis of cutting data obtained from
field cutting conditions
The final expression for the functional relationship between Fn, DOC, a, O
and a is:
Fn,, =OTWO'W-d1/2'DOC"20"2/(a) [2-21]
The NTH tunnel boring prediction model includes the effect of rock mass
fracturing as a combined fracture factor ks shown in Figure 3-9, i.e.
k, = ( constant* / Om ) • f (a)
where f (a} is basically a trigonometric function based on the
"void" area originating from rock fallouts in the face.
constant* - f (fracture aperture width and fracture strength }

i.e. the effect of fracture types such as fissures, joints, marked
individual joints, mud seams and shears.

Intact Rock Toughness
Based on the second 7i-term in Table 2-3, the roller disk normal force can be
expressed as:
Fn = constant • G [C • VAcon
Fn, 4 = GJC • ( constant • W • d m • D O C " 2 )m [2-22]
Thus, for a unit depth of cut (DOC = 1.0 mm/pass), the critical disk normal
force Fni for constant section disk cutters can be expressed as:
Fn,., 4 = G, c • ( constant • W • d m • 1.0 m ) m
= G, c • ( constant • W • d m ) m
43
The roller disk normal force can then in general terms be expressed as:
Fn = Fn, • DOC "4
Combining Normal Force Relationships #2 and #4
The previously established relationships #2 and #4 for the roller disk normal
force Fn are:
m
Fn, 2 = o • ( constant • W • d • DOC " 2 • S m
)' [2-18]
Fn, 4 = G, c • ( constant • W • d m • DOC m • S m) " 2 [2-23]
Since a power function relationship between the roller disk cutting forces
and tool depth of cut exists, the correct function format for statistical
analysis of multiple tool pass kerf cutting data is as follows:
Fn = / { o, G, c /S, constant- W • d "2 • DOC 1/2 • S "2 } [2-24]
= Fnn-DOC"* [2-25]
Fnn = rock resistance to in-line kerf cutting

(not rock resistance to single pass disk indentation cutting)
b = kerf cutting exponent
A detailed discussion of this important finding is presented in Chapter 4.4.

44
2.5 ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS FOR

ROLLER DISK CUTTING
Using the similarity analysis results in Table 2-3, additional relationships for
roller disk cutting can be determined, i.e.
Cutter Coefficient k
The cutter coefficient k is a non-dimensional parameter from Table 2-3.

This coefficient is readily understood as the rolling resistance of the disk,
and is a function of the depth of cut, i.e.
k = Fr / Fn = tan aWum
= C, DOC1'2 [1-21] or [2-26]
Rock/Tool Interface Pressure
The rock/tool interface pressure is constant in the normal force direction and
independent of disk depth of cut since both the normal force and the disk
footprint area are a function of the depth of cut. This can be expressed as:
Orock interface — **^ ' ^ c o n
Cmckinlerface = COflStOnt • O • S ^ • O " 2 • / {(X} [2-27]
* /{DOC )
Relationship between Kerf Spacing and Disk Diameter
The ratio of kerf spacing to disk diameter can be expressed by the following
non-dimensional expressions from Table 2-3 and the roller disk footprint
area:
(i) (d/VA con ) =1
(ii) ( S / VAcon) =1
S = constant • d [2-28]
45
Relationship between Disk Tip Width and Disk Diameter
The ratio of disk tip width to disk diameter can be expressed by the
following non-dimensional expressions from Table 2-3 and the roller disk
footprint area:
(i) (d/VA con ) =1
( ii) A con = constant • W • d " 2 • D O C m
(i) + ( ii) d2 = constant* •W •d m

• \.0m
W = constant** • dV2 [2-29]
Relationship between Disk Insert Diameter and Disk Diameter
The ratio of stud insert diameter to roller disk diameter can be expressed as:
(i) (t / W ) =1
(ii) W = constant** • d V2
( i) + ( ii) t = constant*** • d m [2-30]
Example of Scaling Applications
The use of equations [2-28], [2-29] and [2-30] for scaling some selected kerf
cutting parameters is shown in Figure 1-15.
46
2.6 SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS FOR

ROLLER DISK KERF CUTTING ESTABLISHED IN
CHAPTERS 1 & 2
A short summary of the functional relationships for roller disk cutting of
rock based on tool indentation and similarity analysis of kerf cutting may
now be listed as:
Roller Disk Normal Force
Fn = Fn, DOC I / 2 ; for single tool pass cutting [1-22] or [2-16]
Fn = Fn, • DOCuh ; for multiple tool pass cutting [2-25]
Fn = constant • a • W • d m • DOC" 2 • S l / 2 • Om • f {a}
= constant a • W • d m • DOC • ( S / DOC ) m • O l / 2 • / {a}
Fn, = constant 0 • W • d m- S l / 2 • O m • f [ a ]
Roller Disk Kerf Cutting and Tool Design
k = Fr/Fn
= C, DOC" 2 [1-21] or [2-26]
S = constant • d [2-28]
W = constant • dm [2-29]
t = constant dm [2-30]
Fn, = rock resistance to kerf cutting / disk tip geometry value
= critical normal force, i.e. the normal force at unity indentation
C, = cutter constant or cutter coefficient at unity indentation
a = dimension stress, i.e. UCS, BTS, E, c 2 p, VHNR, ...
constant = proportionality constants to be determined by statistical analysis of

linear cutting test data and/or field cutting data
47
d = roller disk diameter
( S / DOC )"2 = relationship for kerf spacing to disk depth of cut
O "2 • / {a} = relationship for spacing and orientation of rock mass

discontinuities to the direction of advance
The final step in the design of prediction models for roller disk kerf cutting
of rock is to determine the listed constants representing the rock mass
cuttability by the normalisation of field cutting data-based on the functional
relationships established in Chapters 1 and 2 using multivariate regression
analysis due to the many variables required for normalising field cutting
data.
The normalisation of linear roller disk cutting tests for individual tools is
discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
48
3 ROCK MASS CHARACTERISATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Rock mass characterisation is a common field of study shared by the two
main fields of geotechnical engineering for rock excavation as illustrated in
Figure 3-2; and forms the basis of geomechanical classification systems for
rating amongst others:
• rock cuttability/drillability and tool life indices

S required ground support work.
The objective of geotechnical and structural rock mass characterisation work

with regard to rock cuttability is to develop optimal procedures for selecting
cutting machines for a particular rock mass at a preinvestigation stage. The
benefits are improved machine performance estimates, reliable machine
selection and the capability to integrate new mining systems at the mine
feasibility stage before the machine is installed.
The upper limits of efficient excavation of the main methods used for
underground excavation today are illustrated in Figure 3-1 as envelope
curves for the relationship between these methods and the rock mass
conditions characterised by fissure spacing and the strength of intact rock
specimens.
60
50
E
o
40
c
o 30
Q.
CO
0)
20
03
05
10 \-
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Uniaxial Compressive Strength, UCS (MPa)
Figure 3-1. A generalised Rock Mass Cuttability Window or the

relationship between rock mass conditions and the upper limits of efficient
excavation for the main methods used for underground excavation today.
49
ROCK MASS
CHARACTERISATION
INTACT ROCK DISCONTINUITIES STRESS

Mineral constituents Orientation Initial stress
principal strike, dip and direction
auxiliary of advance Stress around openings
accessory Frequency, Spacing Groundwater, gas
Lithology
grain size and shape Persistence Seismic activity
texture and cementation Surface properties
anisotropy roughness and coatings
pores and micro-fractures
weathering and alteration Aperture, Openness
Mechanical rock properties Infilling material
strength
deformability Genesis
hardness
fracture toughness bedding
abrasivity joints
foliation
schistosity and banding
shears
GEOMECHANICAL
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
FOR ROCK EXCAVATION
Cuttability/Drillability
Blastability
Blast-Rock Loadability/Pumpability of Cuttings
Blast-Rock Assessment as Construction Material
Crushability/Millability
Tool Life Indices
Ground Support
Figure 3-2. Relationship between rock mass characterisation and

geomechanical classification systems for rock excavation.
50
No universal or satisfactory method exists for rapid determination of rock

mass cuttability. Generally, machine selection and performance estimation
relies on specialist advice based on limited geotechnical data. Manufactures
are unable to provide reasonable guarantees of performance and operators
cannot assess and compare the claims of different manufacturers. A
universal procedure is required for rock mass cuttability estimation using
both field and laboratory assessment methods.
Thus, the goal is the development of rock mass characterisation procedures

utilising common geotechnical and structural parameters to yield an index of
cuttability. Such a procedure may well follow a similar process to the well
known Q and RMR classification systems for ground support and the NTH
classification system for tunnel boring performance prediction. It is intended
that the procedure would help define the most appropriate machine for an
application, the likely performance of the machine, likely machine power,
weight and mechanical characteristics and possible tool failure modes
(abrasive wear and/or impact damage). One aspect to be kept in mind is that
a machine with high stiffness is required to excavate hard rock. This, in turn,
means less mobility and flexibility. Innovative mine planning is needed, but
must respect these limitations whilst manufacturers need to improve the
design of machines to enhance their potential.
The approach is to identify geotechnical and structural parameters

controlling rock mass cuttability. Most mechanical tools break rock by
indenting the rock surface. Hence the goals of basic or primary rock
breakage science and research projects are to:
• improve the understanding of the mechanisms of rock damage

and rock failure caused by mechanical tools - by conducting a
series of experiments aimed at studying the effects of indenter
geometry and rock micro-structure on failure behaviour
& improve the understanding of the mechanisms of rock damage
and rock failure during rock cutting operations - by studying the
effects of cutterhead lacing and geometry, rock micro-structure
and rock mass discontinuities on failure behaviour
B improve the understanding of the interaction between cutterhead
lacing design, tool design and rock abrasivity on tool wear and
tool breakage rates during rock cutting operations
M develop an understanding of how high velocity waterjets can
reduce tool forces and enhance tool life during cutting
operations.
51
3.2 ROCK MASS CHARACTERISATION

Before discussing specific mechanical properties of rocks, it is necessary to
define a rock and discuss some of its chemical and physical properties -
particularly its structure, which may assist or resist a desired reaction. Rock,
unlike steel which can be refined to consistent internal state before use, is a
naturally occurring material and must be worked in its natural state. Certain
simplifying assumptions are justified to assist performance guidelines;
others are not, and to a large extent the basis for all assumptions lies in the
composition and structure of the rock mass.
Composition of Rocks
All rocks consist of an aggregate of mineral particles. The proportion of

each mineral in the rock, together with the granular structure, the texture and
the origin of the rock serves as a basis for geological classification.
A mineral may be defined as an inorganic substance with consistent physical

properties and a fixed chemical composition. With the exception of some
carbon forms, sulphur and a few metals, all minerals are chemical
compounds, each containing two or more elements in fixed proportion by
weight. Some elements are present in many minerals, the commonest being
oxygen and silicon, whilst others, including most of the precious and base
metals, form an insignificant proportion of the rocks in the earth's crust.
The way in which the composition of the earth's crust is dominated by eight
elements is shown in Table 3-1. These elements comprise approximately
99% of the earth's crust and together with other elements form twelve
common minerals (Table 3-2) which make up 99% of all rocks in the earth's
crust. The remainder of the known rock-forming minerals, numbering over
1 000, make up less than 1% of the earth's crust.
Table 3-1. The major chemical elements in the earth's crust.
Chemical Elements Weight Percent Volume Percent
Oxygen (0) 46.40 94.04

Silicon (Si) 28.15 0.88
Aluminium (Al) 8.23 0.48
Iron (Fe) 5.63 0.49
Calcium (Ca) 4.15 1.18
Sodium (Na) 2.36 1.11
Potassium (K) 2.09 1.49
Magnesium (Mg) 2.33 0.33
52
Table 3-2. Mineralogical classification of the major rock-forming minerals.
Silicates Tektosilicates Quartz SiO2

Feldspar Group Orthoclase KAlSi,O8
Plagioclase Series (Na,Ca)(Al,Si)AlSi2O8
Phyllosilicates Muscovite KAl2(AlSiO,(,)(OH)2
Biotite K(Mg,Fe)3(AlSi30,o)(OH)4
Kaolinite Al4Si4OI0(OH)8
Inosilicates Amphibole Group
Hornblende NaCa2(Mg,Fe,Al)5(Si,AI)8O22(OH)2
Pyroxene Group
Augite (Ca,Mg,Fe,Al)(Al,Si)2O6
Nesosilicates Olivine Series (Mg,Fe)2Si04
Carbonates Calcite Group Calcite CaCO,

Dolomite Group Dolomite CaMg(CO3 )2
Oxides Hematite Group Hematite Fe2O3
It can be assumed, therefore, that most if not all rocks encountered in mining
and civil engineering, will consist of two or more of the minerals, each of
which has a particular set of physical properties which may affect the
engineering properties of the rock as a whole. Properties such as the
preferred direction of cleavage and fracture, hardness and crystal structure
used to define minerals can, however, under certain circumstances
determine the reaction of a rock to outside forces, particularly where large
amounts of a relatively soft mineral with marked fracture properties, such as
mica or calcite, or of a particularly hard mineral, such as quartz, are present.
Some mineral properties relevant to an analysis of the mechanical properties

of rock are listed in Table 3-3. Mineralogists use ease of scratching as the
criterion of hardness, rating it in terms of an empirical scale devised by the
Austrian mineralogist Friedrich Mohs in 1822.
The Mohs' scale of hardness, consisting of 10 minerals from talc, the

softest and equivalent to 1, through gypsum, calcite, fluorite, apatite,
orthoclase, quartz, topaz, corundum, to diamond, the hardest and equivalent
to 10, is based solely on the empirical property of one mineral to scratch
another. The hardness given for a mineral in Table 3-3 is that of a smooth
clean surface, such as a crystal face or a cleavage plane. Minerals often have
a superficial coating of weathered or altered material, and such coatings will
give a deceptively low hardness. Similarly, the apparent hardness of a fine-
grained friable mass has no relation to that of a well-crystallised specimen;
for example, hematite crystals show a hardness of 6, but much red earthy
hematite can be scratched with a fingernail. Microindenter hardness
values, such as Vickers and Knoop, are a more accurate and useful method
of rating surface hardness.
53
Hardness is sometimes used as a strength criterion for rocks - a factor which

can lead to serious discrepancies in some rocks. For instance a fibrous rock,
such as gypsum or anhydrite, may have a relatively low hardness but a high
bulk strength. Strength criteria for rating rock cuttability will be discussed
later in this chapter; but it can immediately be seen that silicates (quartz,
feldspar, hornblende, augite, olivine) are considerably harder and hence
stronger than any of the other common minerals except hematite. This is
reflected to a certain extent in the mechanical properties of a rock - even
where the rock contains only a limited amount of the mineral.
Table 3-3. Properties of the major rock-forming minerals.
Mineral Hardness Density Fracture Structure
Quartz 7 2.65 No cleavage Trigonal; prismatic crystals

terminated by rhombohedrons;
also massive, granular or
compact
Onhoclase 6 2.56 Good cleavage at Monoclinic; prismatic crystals,
right angles flattened or elongated; also
massive, granular
Plagioclase 6 2.62 -2.76 Cleavage nearly at Triclinic; prismatic crystals,
right angles - very flattened, also massive,
marked granular
Muscovite 2 -3 2.8 -2.9 Perfect single Monoclinic; usually in irregular
cleavage platy crystals; also massive,
sometimes compact
Biotite 2 -3 2.9 -3.4 Perfect single Monoclinic; usually in regular
cleavage platy crystals
Kaolinite 2 L.6 No cleavage Triclinic; always in clayey
masses
Hornblende 6 3.0 -3.4 Good cleavage at Monoclinic; long prismatic
120° crystals, also columnar, fibrous
or granular
Augite 6 3.25 -3.55 Cleavage nearly at Monoclinic; short prismatic
right angles crystals; also massive, granular
Olivine 6 -7 3.3 -3.6 No cleavage Orthorhombic; usually massive,
granular
Calcite 3 2..71 Three perfect Trigonal; scalehedral and
cleavages rhombohedral crystals; also
massive, granular or compact
Dolomite 3 -4 2. 85 Three perfect Trigonal; small curved
cleavages rhombohedral crystals; also
massive, granular
Hematite 5.26 No cleavage Trigonal; tabular crystals and
massive
54
If roughly handled, crystals will break. If the broken surface is irregular, the
crystal possesses fracture, but if it breaks along a plane surface that is
related to the structure, and parallel to a possible crystal face, then it has
cleavage. Cleavage and fracture are expressions of the internal structure of
the mineral. Cleavage occurs because of the variation in the strength of the
bonds between different atoms. This is best illustrated by the layer silicates,
of which mica is a familiar example. Chemical bonds are very strong within
the silicon-oxygen layers, but the bonds between layers are weak, and so
little effort is needed to break them. Mica splits (cleaves) into thin sheets.
The bond strength varies and so the degree of perfection of cleavage varies
also. Mica, for example, has a perfect cleavage; less perfect cleavages are
described as gooJ, poor or indistinct.
Geological Classification of Rocks
It is convenient to divide the rocks in the earth's crust into three different
types based on their origin, namely igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic
rocks.
Magma is essentially a hot silicate melt (600-1200 °C), and is the parent
material of igneous rocks. Magmas and the formation of igneous rocks can
be observed in volcanic regions, but much magma solidifies within the crust,
and the rocks thereby formed are later exposed at the surface by erosion or
by earth movements - hence their classification as plutonic (intrusive),
hypabyssal, or volcanic (extrusive); depending on the depth and rate of their
cooling with its effect on their texture or crystal size.
Igneous rocks are also subdivided by their composition into acidic,

intermediate, basic (mafic) and ultrabasic (ultramafic) rocks, depending on
the amount of silica in their composition as listed in Table 3-4. An
immediate observation is the relative high hardness of the mineral
constituents of all igneous rocks. The mica content tends to be small.
Sedimentation is, in fact, the result of the interaction of the atmosphere and
hydrosphere on the crust of the earth. The original constituents of the crust,
the minerals of igneous rocks, are more or less readily attacked by air and
natural waters. Having been formed at high temperatures, and sometimes at
high pressures as well, they cannot be expected to remain stable under the
very different conditions at the earth's crust. Silicates vary considerably in
their chemical stability. Susceptibility to chemical attack of common rock-
forming minerals is in the order: olivine, augite and calcium feldspar >
hornblende, biotite and sodium feldspar > potassium feldspar > muscovite >
quartz.
Of the common minerals of igneous rocks, only quartz is highly resistant to

weathering processes. All minerals tend to alter when attacked by the action
of oxygen, carbonic acid, and water; and new minerals are formed which are
more stable under the new conditions. The altered rock crumbles under the
55
mechanical effects of erosion, and its constituents are transported by wind,

water, or ice and redeposited as sediments or remain in solution.
Table 3-4. Geological classification of the most common igneous rocks.
Texture Acidic Intermediate Basic Ultrabasic

> 66% silica 66 - 52% silica < 52% silica < 45% silica
PLUTONIC Granite Syenite Diorite Gabbro Peridotite

(coarse grained) Dunite
Pyroxenite
HYPABYSSAL Micro-Granite Micro-Syenite Micro-Diorite Diabase
VOLCANIC Rhyolite Trachyte Andesite Basalt
(fine grained)
Principal Mineral Quartz Orthoclase Plagioclase Augite Augite

Constituents Orthoclase Plagioclase Hornblende Plagioclase Olivine
(Mica) (Mica) Orthoclase
Table 3-5. Geological classification of the most common sedimentary rocks.
Method of Classification Rock Type Description Principal Mineral

Formation Constituents
MECHANICAL Rudaceous Conglomerate Large grains in clay Various

matrix
Arenaceous Sandstone Medium round grains in Quartz, Feldspar,
siliceous, calcareous or Mica, Calcite
clay matrix
Breccia Coarse angular grains in
matrix
Argillaceous Clay Micro-fine grained - Kaolinite,

plastic structure Quartz, Mica
Shale Harder - laminated
compacted clay
ORGANIC Calcareous Limestone Fossiliferous, coarse or Calcite
(siliceous, fine grained
ferruginous,
phosphatic)
Carbonaceous Coal
CHEMICAL Ferruginous Ironstone Impregnated limestone or Calcite, Iron Oxide
clay (or precipitated)
Calcareous Dolomitic Precipitated or replaced Dolomite, Calcite
(siliceous, Limestone limestone, fine grained
saline)
56
Sedimentary rocks can be subdivided into three main groups according to

their method of formation, namely those mechanically formed, those formed
from organic remains and those chemically deposited.
From an engineering point of view, the most important sedimentary rocks

are arenaceous (sand), argillaceous (clay) and calcareous (limestone)
rocks. Typical arenaceous rocks consist of discrete fragments of minerals,
usually quartz and feldspars, held together by a matrix of clay, calcite or
hydrothermal quartz. Thus when a sandstone is broken, fractures follow the
weaker clay or calcareous cement rather than propagating across the stronger
grains. An argillaceous rock such as a shale consists of minute particles held
weakly together and comprising largely kaolinite. Calcareous rocks consist
of organic remains or precipitates, mainly in the form of calcite.
Metamorphism is defined as the sum of the processes that, working below

the zone of weathering, cause the recrystallization of either igneous or
sedimentary rock material. During metamorphism the rock remains
essentially solid; if remelting takes place, a magma is produced, and
metamorphism passes into magmatism. Metamorphism is induced in solid
rocks as a result of pronounced changes in temperature (200-800 °C),
pressure, and chemical environment. These changes affect the physical and
chemical stability of a mineral assemblage, and metamorphism results from
the establishment of a new equilibrium. In this way the constituents of a
rock are changed to minerals that are more stable under the new conditions,
and these minerals may arrange themselves with the production of textures
that are likewise more suited to the new environment. Metamorphism thus
results in the partial or complete recrystallization of a rock, with the
production of new textures and new minerals.
Heat, pressure, and action of chemically active fluids are the impelling
forces in metamorphism. Heat may be provided by the general increase of
temperature with depth or by contiguous magmas. Pressure may be resolved
into two kinds: hydrostatic or uniform pressure, which leads to change in
volume; and directed pressure or shear, which leads to change of shape or
distortion. Uniform pressure results in the production of granular, non-
oriented structures; directed pressure results in the production of parallel or
banded structures. Uniform pressure affects chemical equilibria by
promoting a volume decrease, i.e. the formation of minerals of higher
density. The action of chemically active fluids is a most important factor in
metamorphism, since even when they do not add or subtract material from
the rocks they promote reaction by solution and redeposition. When they
add or subtract material, the process is called metasomatism. Probably some
degree of metasomatism accompanies most metamorphism. Water is the
principal chemically active fluid, and it is aided by carbon dioxide, boric
acid, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids and other substances, often of
magmatic origin.
57
Two major types of metamorphism are commonly recognised: thermal or

contact metamorphism, and regional metamorphism. Contact
metamorphism is the type of metamorphism developed around bodies of
plutonic rocks. Here the temperature of metamorphism has been determined
mainly by proximity to the intrusive magma, which may also have given off
chemically active fluids that stimulated recrystallization of the country rock.
Regional metamorphism, as the name implies, is metamorphism developed

over large regions, often over thousands of square kilometres in the root
regions of fold mountains and in Precambrian terranes.
It has been established that the earth's crust is made up of 95% igneous
rocks, 5% sedimentary rocks and an insignificant proportion of metamorphic
rocks. This does not, however, give a completely true picture of the rocks
likely to be encountered by engineering works in rock. The earth's crust may
be assumed to be from 30 to 50 km in thickness and virtually all major
works take place in the top few kilometres which contain the major part of
the sedimentary rocks. This means that the engineer working on the earth's
surface or in near-surface mineral deposits must often contend with rocks
which are often sedimentary or metamorphosed. In addition, a high
percentage of these sedimentary rocks will be argillaceous, the majority of
the remainder being arenaceous or calcareous.
Argillaceous rocks comprise mainly shales, normally closely bedded or

laminated, of two types; consolidated and cemented. The former are
reasonably strong in a dry state, but weak when wet; the latter tend to have
intermediate strength under most conditions, but are easily deformed under
load. The problems encountered in mining, tunnelling or foundation work in
such rock types are immediately apparent.
Table 3-6. Geological classification of the most common metamorphic

rocks.
Classi- Rock Description Principal Mineral

fication Constituents
Contact Hornfels Micro-fine grained Feldspar, Quartz, Mica
Regional Quartzite Fine grained Quartz, Feldspar

Marble Fine to coarse grained Calcite or Dolomite
Gneiss Medium -fine grained Feldspar, Hornblende
Slate Rock cleavage Kaolinite, Mica

Phyllite Cleavage surfaces Mica, Kaolinite
Schist Finely foliated Feldspar, Quartz, Mica
Felsic Gneiss Coarsely foliated, banded Feldspar, Quartz, Mica
58
Rock Structure
It has been shown in the earlier sections that rocks are basically an aggregate
of mineral particles. Many of the engineering properties of rocks to be
discussed in later sections depend on the structure of these particles and the
way in which they are bonded together.
In materials science there are two accepted types of structural units from
which all solid bodies are formed - namely crystals and molecules. The
minerals which represent the basic rock structure normally take the form of
crystals, but may exist as amorphous molecule aggregates (viz. silica).
Crystals and molecules are formed from atoms - a crystal when the atoms
are arranged in a stable three-dimensional pattern made up of units which
are repeated indefinitely in all dimensions. A molecule, on the other hand, is
defined as the smallest particle retaining the essential properties of the
whole and when in the role of the basic structural unit forms an amorphous
mass held together by intermolecular bonds. This can be demonstrated most
clearly by considering the crystalline and amorphous forms of silica. In the
crystal form (quartz) there is a regular crystal lattice, made up of units, each
comprising silicon atoms bonded to four oxygen atoms and oxygen atoms
bonded to two silicon atoms. In the amorphous form the bonds are similar
but the structural pattern is destroyed.
In nature few minerals exist in pure macro-crystal form and few in a purely
amorphous form. Normally a mineral particle in a rock will consist of an
aggregate of micro-crystals, held together by some form of ionic, atomic or
molecular bonding. In the rock these particles are cemented together by a
matrix or by mechanical bonding at contact interfaces between grains. Thus
the ultimate strength of the rock will depend primarily on the strength of the
matrix and the contact area between the grains; which since the matrix is
also a polycrystalline aggregate, means that rock strength (other factors
remaining constant) will be proportional to the contact area (grain size). The
behaviour of the rock will also be affected by imperfections in the structure
such as voids, micro-fractures, inclusions and weak particles.
Pore Space in Rock
Of all the physical characteristics of a rock which affect its mechanical

properties, the most important is the presence of voids and micro-fractures
or pore spaces. All polycrystalline substances are comparatively porous - the
amount of porosity depending on the type and structure of the rock.
Pore spaces are largely made up of continuous irregular capillary micro-

fractures separating the mineral grains; the degree of porosity depending to a
large extent on the method of formation of the rock. Thus in the case of
igneous rock, a slowly cooling magma will render a relatively non-porous
rock, whereas a rapidly cooling lava particularly associated with escaping
gasses, will yield a porous rock such as a rhyolitic tuff. In the case of
59
sedimentary rocks, porosity depends largely on the amount of cementing

materials present and the size, grading and packing of the granular
constituents. Some typical values for porosity, expressed in terms of the
percentage pore space to bulk volume, are given in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7. Bulk density and porosity of some common rock types.
Rock Type Bulk Density Porosity

(g/cm3) (%)
Igneous Rock
Basalt 2.2-2.9 0.1 - 12
Granite 2.6-2.7 0.5- 1.5
Rhyolite 2.4 - 2.6 4.0-7.0
Sedimentary Rock
Limestone 2.0 - 2.8 0.5 - 35
Shale 2.0 - 2.6 5.0 - 30
Sandstone 2.0-2.6 1.5-35
Metamorphic Rock
Marble 2.6-2.7 0.5 - 3.0
Slate 2.6 - 2.7 0.1 -5.0
Gneiss 2.7 - 3.0 0.5- 1.5
Quartzite 2.6 - 2.8 0.1 -2.5
Bulk density p = M / V = Ms + Mv / ( Vs + V v )
Porosity n = Vv • 100/V
Dry density pd = Ms / V
Density of solids ps = 100 pd / ( 100 - n )
where Vv and V are the volume of voids or pore spaces and
bulk volume respectively, and Ms the mass of solid
components.
Rock Mass Discontinuities
A bed is a layer of rock deposited at the earth's surface and bounded above
and below by distinct surfaces (bedding planes); these usually mark a break
in the continuity of sedimentation, i.e. a cessation of sedimentation, or a
period of erosion, or a change in type or source of sediment. Beds are
normally sedimentary, but may also consist of volcanogenic material. A
thickness in the range cm to m is normally implied. "Bed" is more or less
synonymous with stratum, but the latter term is normally used only in the
plural (e.g. Silurian strata). The simplest type of bedding geometry consists
of a set of parallel planes, representing a group of beds, or a formation, of
uniform thickness.
60
Joints may occur in sets of parallel, regularly-spaced fractures and several

sets may occur in the same rock, giving a conspicuous blocky appearance to
an outcrop. More commonly, however, joints are much less regular and
systematic. Where a recognisable joint set exists, it can usually be related in
some way to the tectonic stresses and to the geometry of the rock body
containing the joints. For example, joint sets are frequently found both
perpendicular and parallel to the bedding in layered rocks. The
perpendicular joints may form two or more intersecting sets which bear a
simple relationship to the regional folds.
"Unloading joints". Many joints are due to the release of "stored" stress.
The weight of a great thickness of overlying strata causes deeply buried rock
to be compressed. However, once the overlaying rock has been eroded, this
load pressure is reduced and the rock expands by the development of
tensional joints which are often parallel to bedding surfaces in sedimentary
strata, or to the contemporary erosion surface in massive igneous rocks,
where they are termed sheet joints.
Cooling joints. Another common cause of joint formation is the contraction

which takes place in a cooling igneous body. Tabular igneous bodies, i.e.
dykes and sills, frequently exhibit polygonal columnar jointing
perpendicular to the cooling surfaces.
Shear zones. A shear zone is a zone of ductile deformation between two

undeformed blocks that have moved relative to each other. There are no
discrete fracture planes in an ideal shear zone, although in practice there is a
complete gradation between a fault zone and a shear zone, with intermediate
stages being represented by faulted shear zones.
Relationship between joints and regional deformation. Under favourable

circumstances, regular joint sets that occur regionally in various different
rock types can be related to a regional compression or extension in the same
way as folds. Since we can assume that shear stresses along the surface of
the earth are zero, it follows that one of the principal stress axes will be
approximately vertical and the other two approximately horizontal. This
leads to a simple threefold classification of fault sets based on the three
possible orientations of the stress axes as illustrated in Figure 3-3.
A fold is a structure produced when an original planar surface becomes bent

or curved as a result of deformation. Fault sets result from brittle
deformation that causes the rock to break completely along discrete planes.
Folds, however, are an expression of a more ductile type of deformation
which produces gradual and more continuous changes in a rock layer, both
in its attitude and internally, as the rock accommodates to changes in shape.
Three important observations may be made concerning the structures at

deeper crustal levels: folding is the typical mode of deformation rather than
faulting; sets of new planar surfaces (cleavage, schistosity, etc.) are
commonly developed; and pervasive recrystallization under compression
61
results in the internal rearrangement of the rock texture producing a new

"fabric" or structural texture. A foliation is a set of new planar surfaces
produced in a rock as a result of deformation. Foliation is a general term
covering different kinds of structure produced in different ways. Slaty
cleavage, schistosity, gneissose banding and sets of closely-spaced fractures
or fracture cleavage are all examples of foliation.
Types of foliation. The nomenclature of the various types of foliation is

rather confusing. This reflects the fact that the origin of such structures as
slaty cleavage and gneissose banding, for example, was not fully understood
until relatively recently. The term "cleavage" itself embraces structures of
various origin, the only common factor being the fissility which allows the
rock to be split along the foliation planes.
Slaty cleavage. This type of cleavage is best shown in fine-grained rocks

such as mudstones that have been deformed under very low-grade
metamorphism. Consequently the nature of the internal changes in the rock
that have produced this penetrative fissility is not usually obvious at outcrop
or in hand specimen. Under the microscope, however, the nature of the
cleavage becomes much clearer. The cleavage planes are then seen to be due
partly to the parallel orientation of flaky minerals such as muscovite and
clay minerals, and partly to the parallel arrangement of tabular or lensoid
aggregates of particles.
Normal Fault Sets
Thrust Fault Sets
Strike-Slip Fault Sets
Figure 3-3. Fault orientation in relation to principle stress and strain axes
for normal, thrust and strike-slip fault sets.
62
Fracture cleavage. A fracture cleavage consists of parallel, closely-spaced

fractures. Fracture cleavage is usually easy to distinguish from slaty
cleavage because it consists of discrete planes separated by slabs of
uncleaved rock, called microlithons. Displacement of the rock may often be
visible in thin section, showing that the planes are micro-faults. This type of
cleavage is formed under brittle conditions at low temperatures and is
typical of deformed relatively strong rocks, e.g. sandstones and limestones.
Crenulation cleavage. This type of cleavage is caused, as the name

suggests, by small-scale folding (crenulation) of very thin layers or
laminations within a rock.
Schistosity. With increasing metamorphic grade, slates are transformed to

schists by an increase in the size of the newly formed metamorphic minerals.
In slates, the aligned flaky minerals that produce the slaty cleavage are
invisible to the naked eye, whereas in schists, the individual tabular crystals
of mica, hornblende, etc. are large enough to be visible in hand specimens.
A foliation marked by the parallel orientation of such tabular minerals in a
metamorphic rock with a sufficiently coarse grain size is called & schistosity.
A schistosity can be produced directly from a slaty cleavage merely by a

coarsening of the grain-size, consequent on an increase in temperature.
Crenulation cleavage may also pass into schistosity as a result of grain-size
coarsening. Many schistose rocks show a combination of mineral alignment
(true schistosity) and a tabular or lensoid arrangement, similar to that seen in
many slates, produced by compression, but on a larger scale.
Compositional layering is a characteristic feature of most gneisses and is

often termed gneissosity or gneissose banding. Gneisses are coarse-grained
metamorphic rocks, typically quartzo-feldspatic in composition. The
distinction between schists and gneisses is not clear-cut, and individual
geologists have their own preferences as to where the dividing line should
be drawn. Intensely deformed gneisses of sedimentary origin (paragneisses),
when derived from sediments of mixed composition, e.g. greywackes or
arkoses, are often very difficult to distinguish from those of igneous origin
(orthogneisses). It cannot be assumed that the presence of a compositional
banding necessarily indicates a sedimentary origin.
The formation processes of discontinuities in rock such as rock cleavage and

foliation in metamorphic rocks and cooling joints and fault sets in igneous
rocks have a direct bearing on the properties of a fractured rock mass;
characterised by fracture set aperture or openness, surface roughness,
coating, infilling material, persistence and fracture set spacing and their
effect on rock stability, cuttability and blastability. In addition, when the
physical rock properties are directionally dependent, the rock is termed
anisotropic. Typically, rocks with cleavage, fissility and especially foliation
have a marked degree of anisotropy. The anisotropy index Ia is perhaps the
most important rock characteristic affecting rock blastability or ease of rock
fragmentation by blasting.
63
3.3 CLASSIFICATION OF ROCK MASS CUTTABILITY AND

DRILLABILITY
Indentation Cutting of Rock
Whilst geological classification of rocks based on origin, mineral content

and geological structure is useful in a general way for indicating certain
strength parameters and trends, such a classification provides little
information of immediate use to the engineer designing in or excavating
rock - who requires a functional geomechanical classification of rock mass
properties for use as design and performance prediction criteria.
Where elastic deformation leads to failure, the material loses cohesion by

the development of a fracture or fractures across which the continuity of the
material is broken. This type of behaviour is called brittle behaviour and
governs the development of faults, joints and macro-fractures. Ductile
behaviour, in contrast, produces permanent strain that exhibits smooth
variations across the deformed rock without any marked discontinuities.
Most rock materials are capable of exhibiting either brittle or ductile
behaviour depending on such factors as the size of differential stress,
confining pressure, temperature, strain rate and pore-fluid pressure.
Brittle failure is typical of rocks at low confining pressure and low

temperature. The pore-fluid pressure has the effect of reducing the shear
stress required for slip, i.e. it reduces the shear strength of the rock since the
direct pressure between adjoining grains caused by the confining pressure is
countered by the effect of the pore-fluid pressure.
Most mechanical tools break rock by indenting the surface. Rock crushing,
macro-fracture propagation and chip formation all occur under a loaded
indentation tool; but the sequence, relationship and amount of each is largely
unexplored. Thus the parameters controlling rock cuttability or rock
resistance to tool indentation can not be readily related to any single
mechanical rock property since the indentation process as illustrated in
Figure 3-4 is a combination of the following failure modes:
8 initial tool indentation of rock surface with crushing and

compacting of rock material under the tool tip
• development of macro-fracture propagation patterns resulting
in rock chip formation, chip loosening and stress release
• multiple pass cutting if chip loosening does not occur for every
tool pass or load cycle
• efficient chip and fines removal so as to avoid recutting and
recompaction of broken material in the tool path.
Rock cutting or drilling is therefore the art of maximising chip formation

and removal of rock material as cuttings; and not the development of
extensive macro-fracture propagation patterns under a tool. The influence of
rock mass discontinuities on rock mass cuttability is generally on a larger
64
scale than one individual tool; typically affecting several tools

simultaneously and the cutting performance of the cutterhead as a whole.
The rock cutting process by indentation and the itemised elements of rock
mass parameters affecting cuttability and drillability are summarised in
Table 3-8.
The indentation force Fn

is proportional to the
tool tip contact area
Approx. the same amount of

energy is required to form a
shallow or a deep chip
loosening macro-fracture
Tool indentation depth,

DOC
Central macro-fractures
Chip loosening macro- initiated by tool onloading and
fractures initiated by tool originating from tool rim edges
off-loading; resulting in
large chips loosening from
behind the roller disk
1. Extent of macro-fracture growth from the 1st tool passing

2. Extent of macro-fracture growth from the 2nd tool passing
3. Macro-fracture growth completed; resulting in chip
loosening after the 3rd tool passing
Figure 3-4. Roller disk indentation of a rock surface with crushing under
the tool tip, induced macro-fracture growth patterns and consequent stages
of chip formation, chip loosening and stress release for multiple tool pass
cutting.
65
Table 3-8. Summary of the rock cutting processes by indentation and the
itemised elements of rock mass characteristics affecting rock mass
cuttability and drillability.
Rock Cutting Individual Tool Chip Formation Cutterhead

Processes Indentation between Adjacent Production Rates
Kerfs
Elements of Rock * resistance to too) * resistance to macro- * multi-pass cutting

Cuttability/Driilability indentation fracture propagation * mixed faceconditions
(crushing) (toughness) * interaction between
* fatigue properties rock mass jointing
and arrays of cutting
tools
Mineral Constituents * surface hardness * grain strength

* grain anisotropy
* grain size and shape
* intergranular
bonding or
cementation strength
;
Rock Specimen aggregate surface * aggregate bulk
hardness strength
degree of * aggregate porosity
weathering * grain orientation and
aggregate anisotropy
Rock Mass * rock mass fracturing
properties and
orientation to
direction of cutting
Mechanical Properties and Behaviour of Rock
Rock strength, or rock resistance to failure under load, is a mechanical rock

property which is mainly dependent on the nature of the rock itself. Rock
cuttability, on the other hand, depends not only on the rock, but also on the
working conditions or the cutting process itself (depth of cut, tool size,
cutting speed, axial force, presence and extent of wetting, etc.). Therefore,
the environment for rating of rock cuttability/drillability is continuously
changing as rock excavation methods improve.
Systems for rating rock "cuttability and drillability" for specific

cutting/drilling methods (such as percussive drilling, rotary drilling, drag
tool and roller disk cutting etc.) have been developed resulting in separate
rating systems for each method. These rating systems are not directly
interconnected, making comparisons between different cutting/drilling
methods difficult. In addition, they tend to be outdated as cutting/drilling
technologies develop.
A variety of apparatus and procedures have been developed for measuring

mechanical rock properties. This has simplified the study of cutting/drilling
66
processes including the effects various mechanical rock properties and other
factors have on rock cutting/drilling performance. Mechanical rock
properties may be grouped as follows:
/. Strength Resistance to (bulk) failure under

elementary stresses such as compression,
tension or shear
Effect of confining pressure, temperature,
strain rates, pore-fluid pressure, specimen
size, etc. on strength properties
2. Deformability Resistance to change of shape or volume

Elastic and thermal expansion constants
3. Hardness Resistance to a local (surface) failure by

indentation or scratching
4. Fracture Toughness Resistance to fracture propagation
Resistance to sliding of two bodies with

5. Coefficients of Friction planar surfaces in contact
Resistance to comminution (reduction of a

6. Crushability and MUlability substance to a powder)
Resistance to fragmentation and disruption

7. "Extractability" bv different extraction processes itemised as
rock, cuttability, drillability, blastability,
loadability of blast-rock and pumpability of
cuttings under certain "idealised" or
standard operating conditions
8. Abrasivity Ability of rock to induce wear on

mechanical tools and apparatus.
Most physical tests involve tabulation of a series of readings, with

computation of an average said to be representative of the whole. The
question arises as to how representative this average is as the measure of the
characteristic under investigation. Three important factors introduce
uncertainties in the result:
• instrumentation and procedural errors

• variations in the rock specimens being tested
R representability of selected rock specimens for the rock
formation or zone under investigation as a whole.
The largest source of error in determining mechanical rock properties for

rock formations or zones is without doubt the representability of the selected
rock specimens; rendering the quality of field work and specimen selection
of utmost importance.
67
Methods for Rating Rock Mass Cuttability and Drillability
The following assessment of test methods for rating rock mass cuttability
and drillability for performance prediction purposes is valid for the listed
types of rock cutting tools:
• roller disk and studded roller disk cutters

• rotary tricone bits
• drag tools
• percussive drilling bits.
Rock mass cuttability and drillability is in its simplest form defined as

being a factor proportional to net cutting or net penetration rates, or specific
cutting/drilling energy. However, the specific energy is closely linked to the
apparatus or drilling equipment with which it has been determined. Another
and perhaps more precise definition for rock cuttability is rock resistance to
tool indentation for a unit depth of cut, i.e. such as the critical normal force
Fni for roller disk cutting or Ki for percussive drilling.
Several empirical test methods are in use today for rating rock mass
cuttability and drillability for performance prediction purposes. These
methods can be divided into the following groups:
f i) use of compiled historic performance data (generally net cutting or

net penetration rates) for a given cutting/drilling equipment and tool
combination by referencing net penetration rates to results obtained
in a standard rock type as a means of rating rock cuttability and
drillability. The most commonly used standard rock types are:
• Barre Granite
• Dresser Basalt
• Myllypuro Granodiorite.
(ii) use of compiled historic performance data including the utilised

power levels for a given cutting/drilling equipment and tool
combination by correlating the specific cutting energy to mechanical
properties of rock as a means of rating rock cuttability/drillability.
The most commonly used mechanical rock properties are:
• Uniaxial compressive strength, UCS

• Brazilian tensile strength, BTS
• Point load index, Is.
( Hi) use of stamp tests based on impact loading and crushing of a confined
solid or aggregated specimen of intact rock. Due to the impact loading
and crushing nature of stamp tests - they represent the relative energy
required to break a given rock volume; thus allowing for the
cutting/drilling performance or specific energy in the field to be
related to stamp test indice values. The most commonly used stamp
tests for rating drillability are:
68
• Drilling Rate Index, DRI

• Protodyakonov Rock Hardness, /
• Coefficient of Rock Strength, CRS
• Rock Impact Hardness Number, RIHN.
Performance prediction models based on rock cuttability/drillability

indices often include the effects of porosity and rock mass
discontinuities by incorporating correction factors or modifiers for
these rock mass characteristics using back analysis of experimental
field performance data.
( iv) use of laboratory linear cutting tests for roller disk and drag tool
cutting for rating rock cuttability. In addition, the prediction of
cutterhead forces as a function of net cutting rates in non-fractured
rock mass conditions can be made using analytical models by
combining linear cutting test results with cutterhead lacing designs.
Refer to Chapters 4 and 5.
( v ) use of numerical simulation with finite element and particle flow

codes. Rock loading by roller disk cutters causes macro-fractures to
initiate from the corners of the tool rim and to propagate sidewards
and upwards in curved trajectories. Preliminary results also indicate
that a small shear load of around one tenth of the normal force
significantly modifies the stresses in the rock around the tool path.
More importantly, for kerf cutting, tensile stresses may develop from
the adjacent kerf; hence it is possible for macro-fracture propagation
to occur from an adjacent kerf as well as from the kerf currently being
cut.
f vi ) analytical analysis and simulation of stress wave propagation

combined with bit indentation tests (static or dynamic K, values) to
incorporate the dynamic nature of rock loading and bit indentation
encountered in percussive drilling. An example of this method is the
CASE programme developed by AB Sandvik Rock Tools.
Evaluation of Classification Systems for Rock Mass Cuttability and

Drillability
The Drilling Rate Index DRI, as proposed by R. Lien in 1961, is a

combination of the intact rock specimen brittleness value S20 and Sievers
miniature drill-test value SJ. The test methods are described in detail in
Project Report 13-90: Drilling Rate Index Catalogue. A qualitative rating of
DRI drillability scale is shown on the following page.
The SJ value is an expression for the aggregate rock surface hardness. A

useful correlation between SJ and the Vickers Hardness Number Rock
VHNR for determining the degree of rock weathering is shown in Figure 3-5
(typical VHN values for minerals are shown in Table 3-16). The S20 value
includes the effect of rock brittleness, and therefore, grain size and grain
bonding strength. Unfortunately, rock porosity has a very small effect on the
69
brittleness value S2o- Field performance follow-up work on the Faeroe

Islands in vesicular basalt has shown that porosity in the range of 3 - 12%
has a considerable effect on both the critical normal force Fni and net
penetration rates for TBM's in addition to the degree of rock fragmentation
by blasting.
1000
900
800
700
600
CO 500
«
400
J.
"5 [^
(0
300
I Rock with "zero" grain
bonding
I
\I7\
200
\
CO
100
\
1-
90
80
70
60
i ©'
k
*s
—W}
\ T
i
Weatherec rock
,\
50
40
\
K \
1
J
30
V\f1 \,
\
20
4 \
•
10
;
\ \
9
8 !
7
Non-weathered rock
6
> l
5
4
Wi
| \|
\
1
100 200 300 400 500 700 1000 1500
Vickers Hardness Number Rock, VHNR
Figure 3-5. Relationship between Vickers Hardness Number Rock VHNR

and Sievers J -value for some common rock types.
70
Qualitative rating of the Drilling Rate Index is :
Rating DRI
Extremely Law 21
Very Low 28
Low 37
Medium 49
High 65
Very' High 86
Extremely High 114
The brittleness value S20, when combined with the stamped rock specimen
flakiness value f, is commonly used for assessing blast-rock suitability for
road and highway construction purposes and as crushed aggregates in
asphalt and concrete.
A relationship between the unconfined or uniaxial compressive strength

UCS and the Drilling Rate Index DRI has been established for 80 parallel
tests as illustrated in Figure 3-6 by grouping scatter plotted values according
to rock type. The envelope curves clearly illustrate that when the uniaxial
compressive strength is used for rating rock cuttability/drillability - the
following should be noted:
• the cuttability of foliated and schistose (anisotropic) rock types such

as phyllite, micaschist, micagneiss and greenschist generally tend to
be underestimated
• the cuttability of hard, brittle rock types such as quartzite generally

tend to be somewhat over-estimated.
In performance prediction models based on UCS rated rock cuttability,

correction factors or modifiers for rock type are commonly used to
incorporate the effect of rock "toughness". In addition, the compressional to
tensional strength (UCS/BTS) ratio can be used as a measure for rock
toughness. The following qualitative toughness rating used by Voest-Alpine
Bergtechnik for drag tool cutting is:
UCS/BTS Ratio Qualitative Rating
5:1 - 7,5:1 Very Tough

7,5:1 - 9:1 Tough
9:1 - 15:1 Average
15:1 - 25:1 Brittle
25:1 •• 40:1 Very Brittle
71
a. [
300
300 o
'•••!$*.
I
0)
200
55 Gfe'enst Dne
Limestone
> 100 100
Garble |
CD
Q.
1
p.
Gree nsch ist
Calcerous Shale
a.
O o
O 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 O 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Drilling Rate Index, DRI Drilling Rate Index, DRI
co
W j
O 300
Qua 12116
200
sands one
k
55
CD
100
^ L J Silt: tone
a.
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 O 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Drilling Rate Index, DRI Drilling Rate Index, DRI
Figure 3-6. Relationship between the Drilling Rate Index DRI and uniaxial
compressive strength UCS for some common rock types.
However, the analysis and normalisation of linear cutting tests in Chapter

4.4 shows that the UCS/BTS ratio relates poorly to rock cuttability for single
tool pass roller disk cutting; indicating that perhaps the UCS/Gic ratio is a
better parameter for describing rock toughness and for predicting the
occurrence of multiple tool passing cutting.
The fabric of an intact rock specimen can be characterised as an aggregate of

bonded mineral particles of dissimilar size and strength. Random orientation
of crystal grains increase the overall specimen strength and toughness on a
macroscopic scale. One approach to assessing the effects of rock texture,
grain size, grain bonding or cementation strength and porosity is to relate
rock strength to the "bulk surface hardness" VHNR.
A relationship between the Brazilian tensile strength and the "bulk surface
hardness" VHNR has been established in Figure 3-7 by grouping scatter
plotted values according to rock type. The envelope curves clearly illustrate
the following:
72
basic or mafic rocks have very high tensile strength values relative to
their bulk hardness VHNR. These rock types are characterised by a
high content of fibrous mineral grains, often randomly oriented, high
modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio v. Micro-fractures
propagate mainly through the relatively weak mineral grains; and the
effect of grain size is minimal.
acidic rocks such as felsic gneiss, granites and granodiorites have

lower tensile strength values than quartzites. Quartzites are typically
very fine grained.
coarse grained granites and granodiorites have lower tensile strength

values than fine grained specimens, indicating an increasing amount
of micro-fracture propagation along grain boundaries - and thus
reduced toughness.
30
25
Quartzite
20 Fine grained
ll granites and
i
« 15 granodiorites
1
£
Fe sic
y
!
Coarse grained
c granites and
granodiorites
! AIL
a> ! 3Hf-
Phyllil e
0)
I— / r a
c
ra f\ U ica sch S
CO
1
100 150 200 300 400 600 8001000 100 150 200 300 400 600 8001000
Vickers Hardness Number Rock, VHNR Vickers Hardness Number Rock, VHNR
30
25
20
W 15
CQ
i
£ 10 i
S
*- q
? 8
£ 7
6
CO
^ 5 Garble
I • Sandst Mle
Shale
P 3
1
N 2
(0
orous
-. f'l mestor e
100 150 200 300 400 600 8001000
Figure 3-7. The relationship between the Brazilian tensile strength and the
"bulk surface hardness" VHNR for some common rock types.
73
metamorphic and anisotropic rocks such as phyllites and mica

gneiss have very low tensile strength values. The strength reduction is
caused by micro-fracture propagation along crystal cleavages or
along grain boundaries - and not across the mineral grains
themselves. Fracture propagation along mineral grain boundaries in
laminated rocks is enhanced when neighbouring mineral layers show
large differences in elasticity and Poisson's ratios, i.e. typical for
quartz and mica or chlorite layers in anisotropic rocks such as
micaschists and micagneiss.
increasing porosity dramatically reduces rock strength and toughness

due to enhanced micro-fracture propagation from void to void.
Table 3-9. Protodyakonov classification of rock hardness.
Category Hardness Description of Rock Rock

Level Hardness
f
I Highest The most hard, dense and tough quartzites and basalts. 20
II Very Hard Very hard granitic rocks, quartz porphyry, silicious 15
schist, weaker quartzites. The most hard sandstones and
limestones
III Hard Granite (dense) and granitic rocks. Very hard 10
sandstones and limestones. Quartz veins. Hard
conglomerate. Very hard iron ore.
Ilia Hard Limestones (hard). Weaker granites. Hard sandstones, 8
marble, dolomite and pyrites.
IV Rather Hard Ordinary sandstone. Iron ore. 6
IVa Rather Hard Sandy schists. Schistose sandstones. 5
V Moderate Hard shale. Non-hard sandstone and limestone. Soft 4
conglomerate.
Va Moderate Various schists (non-hard). Dense marl. 3
VI Rather Soft Soft schist. Very soft limestone, chalk, rock-salt, gypsum. 2
Frozen soil, anthracite. Ordinary marl. Weathered
sandstone, cemented shingle and gravel, rocky soil.
Via Rather Soft Detritus soil. Weathered schist, compressed shingle and 1.5
detritus, hard bituminous coal, hardened clay.
VII Soft Clay (dense). Soft bituminous coal, hard alluvium, 1.0
clayey soil
Vila Soft Soft sandy clay, loess, gravel. 0.8
VIII Earthy Vegetable earth, peat, soft loam, damp sand. 0.6
IX Dry Sand, talus, soft gravel, piled up earth, extracted coal. 0.5
Substances
Flowing Shifting sands, swampy soil, rare-fractioned loess and 0.3
other rare-fractioned soils.
74
A comparative scale for rock resistance to breakage is the stamp test and
rock hardness ratio / proposed by M.M. Protodyakonov (Senior) in 1926. It
is primarily used in the CIS for assessing both rock drillability and
blastability. Protodyakonov established the following relationship between
the relative rock hardness scale and the uniaxial compressive strength, i.e.
/ =0.1 UCS
Unfortunately the Protodyakonov rock hardness scale, as can be seen in

Table 3-9, does not differentiate hardnesses of rocks extending beyond 200
MPa. The US Bureau of Mines developed during the years 1968 - 1970 a
stamp test termed the Coefficient of Rock Strength CRS based in part on the
Protodyakonov stamp test procedure for rating drillability. In addition,
extensive drilling with two pneumatic percussive drills was carried out
simultaneously. A summary of rock specimen test results are shown on the
usbm7684.xls file printout Appendix 2. The established relationship between
the coefficient of rock strength and the uniaxial compressive strength was:
CRS = 0.0065 UCS
Rock Mass Discontinuities
A rock mass is generally considered a linear elastic material in the absence

of specific information on rock mass discontinuities. Most rock formations
are fractured to some degree; where the fracture planes represent non-
continuous structural elements in an otherwise continuous medium. The
stability of rock slopes and underground excavations are two areas of
geotechnical engineering where the effect of intact rock properties is
perhaps less dominant than the influence of rock mass discontinuities.
Joint Plane
Intact
Rock
/
// / /
i ,'
1 /I 1 I '
1 ; ,' /
11 I\ / 1/
\
r
Fractured Rock Mass Geotechnical Interpretation
Figure 3-8. Illustration of a typically fractured rock mass by a single set of

joints; and a simplified geotechnical model consisting of regularly-spaced
joints of similar strength.
75
Structural mapping of rock formations includes the determination of rock

type and its distribution, degree of fracturing and rating of the predominant
types of discontinuities. For practical use, this information must be
structured as specified by geotechnical classification systems designed
specifically for predicting rock mass behaviour with regard to structural
stability and excavation performance in rock.
When two or more intersecting fracture sets are present in a rock mass (refer
to Figure 3-3), an equivalent or "mean" fracture spacing based on the
accumulated volumetric fracture plane area is:
Omean =(Il/Oset)'
= (Ifracture area per m3 ) ' ' = [ m2 /m3 ]'
In the NTH tunnel boring performance classification system, fracture types

are grouped into four classes based on fracture strength (aperture or
openness, persistence, surface roughness and waviness, and infilling
material), i.e.
• Systematically fractured rock mass characterised by:

• parallel-oriented joint sets (rated Sp)
* parallel-oriented fissure sets (rated St)
'foliation or bedding plane or parting sets (rated St)
• Non-fractured rock mass (rated St 0)
• Marked single joints (rated ESP)
• Shear zones - evaluation of necessary ground support work rather
than increased net excavation rates is required.
The combination of fracture type or fracture strength rating, fracture set

spacing and fracture plane orientation to the tunnel axis forms the basis for
the rock mass fracture factor ks. The fracture factor ks for fissures and
foliation planes is shown in Figure 3-9.
TBM advance rates are more or less proportional to the fracture factor ks.
However, unlike full-face tunnel boring machines, partial face cutting
machines as the TM60 are typically equipped with a profile cutting control
system which maintains the tool depth of cut at a preset value. Thus the
degree of rock mass fracturing does not affect TM60 net cutting rates
(unless the operator changes the set-point values) but results in reduced
mean tool forces when excavating an increasingly fractured rock face.
76
Fissure Fissure
Class Spacing
IV 5 cm
4.
3 •-
o - IV
•2
2
2 • "
O 10 cm
I -— ^
1 - ;^=—"
— 20 cm
0.36 s, I 40 cm
0
40 60° 80°
Angle between tunnel axis

and planes of weakness, a
Figure 3-9. The fracture factor k, for full-face tunnel boring performance
prediction as a function of fissure class rating, the mean spacing between
planes of weakness and angle a, where : a = arcsin [ sinf • sin ( r - s ) ].
Friction of Mineral and Rock Surfaces
The study of friction is of significant importance in rock mechanics. Its

effects arise on all scales:
(i) the microscopic scale in which friction is postulated between

opposing surfaces of minute Griffith cracks
(ii) a larger scale in which it occurs between individual grains or
pieces of aggregate
( Hi) in friction on rock mass discontinuity surfaces in which the
areas in question may vary from a few to very many square
metres.
Suppose that two bodies with planar surfaces in contact of apparent area A
are pressed together by force G normal to the plane of contact, and the shear
force F parallel to the surface of contact necessary to initiate sliding on it is
measured. The relationship between F and G may be written as:
F = fi-G [3-1]
where \x is called the coefficient of friction. \i depends on the nature of the

materials and wetting state of the surfaces in contact. \i might also be
expected to depend on A and G, but experiment has shown that, to a
reasonable approximation, it is independent of both these quantities; and is
known as Amonton's law. Dividing [3-1] by A, it becomes:
77
= an tan <p [3-2]
where an is the normal stress across the surfaces in contact, x is the shear
stress across them necessary to initiate sliding, (p and is the friction angle.
Patton developed in 1966 a shear strength model based on experimental

laboratory data for shear of model joints with regular teeth. At normal
stresses less than OT:
TP = en tan((pp+i)
and at normal stresses higher than CTT:
= C + on tan <pr
where:
<7T = C/ {tan ( (pp + i) - tan (pr }

c = shear stress intercept (cohesion)
On = normal stress in joint
= peak friction angle
<Pr = residual friction angle
= angle of dilatancy
Patton's shear strength criterion is also a simple model for shear-normal

stress behaviour of joints as illustrated in Figure 3-10.
Asperity failure yields a

shearing component to
the total resistance
t
Dilation yields a geo-
CO
metrical component
CD to the total resistance
T
CO
CD
v
^ j — - • • • • ! " *
4
Basic or residual friction
angle of a planar joint
Normal stress, O"n
Figure 3-10. Patton's bilinear criterion for shear strength of joints.

78
Results of friction measurements on minerals, natural shear surfaces of rock

specimens and rock mass discontinuities are listed in Tables 3-10, 3-11 and
3-12.
The frictional force component on a drag tool sliding against rock is given
by \i- Fn, where \i is the coefficient of friction between rock and tool. Some
coefficients of friction are listed in Table 3-13.
Table 3-10. Coefficients of friction for some selected minerals.
Mineral M Mnettal
Diamond 0.10
Corundum 0.40
Quartz 0.11-0.19 0.42 - 0.65
Feldspar 0.11 0.46
Serpentine 0.62 0.29
Calcite 0.14 0.68
Biotite 0.31 0.13
Muscovite 0.43 0.23
Galena 0.60
Talc 0.36 0.16
Halite 0.70
Table 3-11. Coefficients of friction for natural shear surfaces of rock

specimens.
Rock M fAvettal
Sandstone 0.51 -0.68 0.61

Marble 0.62 - 0.75
Gneiss 0.61 -0.71 0.61
Quartzite 0.48 - 0.67
Diabase 0.64 - 0.95
Trachyte 0.63 - 0.68 0.56
Granite 0.60 0.60
79
Table 3-12. Coefficient of friction for natural rock mass discontinuities (no
infilling material).
Rock tan(<p+i)
Limestone 2.3 - 4.3

Granite 2.6 - 3.1
Quartzite, gneiss and amphibolite 3.7 - 5.7
Table 3-13. Coefficient of static friction between steel and rock. Note: Static
friction generally decreases with material surface hardness.
Materials Coefficient of
Static Friction
Limestone/Steel 0.70 - 1.20

Sandstone/Steel 0.50 - 0.70
Mudstone/Steet 0.30 - 0.60
Steel/Steel 0.19-0.35
Steel/Steel (oiled) 0.08 -0.18
Steel/Steel (sliding) Multiply \i by 0.80
80
3.4 CHARACTERISATION OF TOOL CONSUMPTION

Classification of Wear-Types
Tool wear can be defined as microscopic or macroscopic removal or fracture

of material from the working surface of a tool or wearflat by mechanical
means; in general any degradation that reduces tool life. Classification of
wear-types is based on the relative movement between the materials in
contact, e.g. sliding, rolling, oscillation, impact and erosive wear.
Generally the tool wear encountered in rock cutting is a combination of

several ideal wear-types, in which some types of wear are more predominant
than others. Wear-types are influenced by several parameters, many of
which are interdependent, such as hardness and fracture toughness of wear
materials, contact motion (e.g. sliding, impact), wearflat temperature and
contact stresses.
Tool wear is therefore a process in which the outcome is determined by the

material properties of the tool tip, the rock mass, and the force-related
interactions on the contact surfaces of these materials. The wear capacity of
a rock mass, as illustrated in Figure 3-11, is a combination of:
• mineral constituents, i.e. size and hardness of mineral grains

• strength and toughness of intact rock
• tool depth of cut and cutting speed
• occurrence of impact loading of tools (cutterhead bouncing, i.e.
cutting in broken rock and mixed face conditions or through shears)
• type of cutting or contact motion in question (impacting, scraping,
rolling, grinding, etc.)
• presence of coolants at the tool tip/rock interface
• efficiency of cuttings and fines removal
• strength, wear resistance and quality of the cutting tool
Various indices for tool life and wear rates are typically used as a measure
for the wear capacity of rock. Established relationships between indices for
tool life and wear rates are mainly based on correlations with historic field
performance data for prediction of tool consumption in the field. However,
when new laboratory methods are developed, relevant field data are often
not available. As a consequence, relationships between new and old tool life
and wear rate indices are often established so that previously reported field
data can be used indirectly.
3.4.1 Classification of Wear Mechanisms
The importance of degradation mechanisms for cemented carbides may be

classified according to the scale of damage they cause, i.e. macroscopic and
microscopic failure.
81
WEAR PROCESS OF ROCK

CUTTING TOOLS
WEAR MATERIALS ROCK MASS

AND TOOL GEOMETRY PROPERTIES
Bulk properties Intact rock
sue effect on failure strength mineral constituents
fracture toughness lithology
thermal conductivity mechanical rock properties
contiguity
Discontinuities
Surface properties
In situ stress conditions
hot hardness
deformation hardening rates
Tool geometry and insert

structure
tool and tool tip geometries
structure of insert
(e.g. DP carbide, PCD coatings)
insert attachment to tool
MACROSCOPIC MICROSCOPIC ROCK CUTTING

WEAR MECHANISMS WEAR MECHANISMS PROCESS
Structural tool overload Surface failure types Occurrence of impact loading

structural overload and fatigue micro-ploughing (e.g. cutterhead bounce for
thermal shock and fatigue micro-cutting mixed face conditions)
impact shock and fatigue micro-fatigue
micro-cracking Heat buildup of wearflat due
to applied cutting power
Wear mechanisms
cutting speed
surface fatigue
depth of cut
abrasive wear
tool position on cutterhead
adhesive wear
use of coolants
tribochemical reactions
Flushing
Wear modes and kerf profile strength
removal of cuttings
strength and frequency of asperities and fines
occurrence of 2/3 body wear
presence of cuttings and fines
CATASTROPHIC TOOL TOOL WEAR NET CUTTING/DRILLING

FAILURE RATES RATES RATES
j
SERVICE LIFE OF TOOLS
Tool Life Indices

Tool Wear Indices
Figure 3-11. Characterisation of rock cutting tool degradation and tool

service life.
82
3.4,2 Macroscopic Fracture and Structural Failure
Cemented carbides are a range of composite materials that consist of hard

carbide particles bonded together by a metallic binder. The proportion of
carbide phase is generally between 70 - 97% of the total weight of the
composite and its grain size averages between 0.4 - 14 fim. Tungsten
carbide (WC), the hard phase, together with cobalt (Co), the binder phase,
forms the basic cemented carbide structure from which other types of
cemented carbide have been developed. In addition to the straight tungsten
carbide-cobalt compositions; cemented carbide may contain varying
proportions of titanium carbide (TiC), tantalum carbide (TaC) and niobium
carbide (NbC). Cemented carbides which have the cobalt binder alloyed
with, or completely replaced by, other metals such as iron (Fe), chromium
(Cr), nickel (Ni), molybdenum (Mo) or alloys of these elements are also
produced.
Structural overload and fatigue refer to macroscopic failure or degradation

of the tool tip material structure caused by stresses induced in the bulk of the
wear material. Voids and flaws in materials serve as fracture-initiation sites
due to the stress concentrations at these sites. In cemented carbides, such
voids or defects can result from inherent porosity resulting from incomplete
densification during the sintering process; or they can form during service as
a result of the stress history of the tool. In the presence of shear stresses,
such as those caused by friction at a wearflat, microscopic voids can
nucleate at WC grain boundaries due to the separation of WC grains from
the Co binder and other WC grains.
The existence of a size effect on the failure strength of materials such as

transverse rapture, tensile, compressive or shear strength for brittle
specimens is well known. As the specimen size is decreased, the average
failure stress tends to increase, regardless of the failure criterion employed.
This is due to the presence in all materials of a distribution of flaws varying
in number, size and severity, such as surface scratches or discontinuities,
micro-fractures at grain boundaries and larger cracks both within the fabric
and at bedding planes, and the existence of inclusions and pores. The
quantification of the size effect derives from the concept that there is a
decreased probability of encountering and activating fracture-initiation sites
as the volume of material subjected to a given stress level decreases.
In the case of ductile materials (e.g. copper and mild steels) defect frequency
and mean size are important factors; whereas in the case of brittle materials
(e.g. hardened steels and cemented carbides) the defect frequency above a
certain size limits the strength. Based on statistical data, W. Weibull (1939)
showed that the ratio of the failure strength a of two specimens with
volumes V/ and Vi respectively, is given by:
Pi/o> =(V,/V2)1/m
where the constant m is a factor derived from the spread in observed failure
83
stress levels and frequently labelled the Weibull or flaw density parameter
associated with the specimen volume. The variability of flaw densities has
been found to increase inversely with the value of m. High m-values
corresponds to a small dependency on specimen volume with regard to
failure stress. Some typical m-values are:
Cemented carbide inserts m = 9

Core drilled specimens of intact rock m = 5.6
Large block specimens of intact rock m = 2
High quality cemented carbides are generally regarded as extremely defect-

free materials. In practice, the internal stress distribution is complex and the
Weibull theory only provides a partial description. However, the calculation
of the fracture probability of a given cemented carbide composite for a
known stress distribution can be made.
Under high compressive stresses, and especially at elevated temperatures,

plastic deformation of WC and Co grains occurs by slip, which is the lateral
displacement of one plane of atoms relative to an adjacent plane. Micro-
voids and micro-cracks are created during the slip process. Upon unloading,
the compressive plastic deformation leads to the development of residual
tensile stresses, which cause initiation of micro-fractures at voids,
inclusions, and coarse WC grains. Once initiated, unstable fractures, which
propagate in response to a static or single-impact load, tend to follow rather
straight lines through the material in an intragranular fashion, i.e. through
pre-existing voids and flaws within grains. Stable fractures, which propagate
during cyclic loading, tend to follow grain boundaries in an intergranular
manner.
When specimens are exposed to external loads, static or dynamic,

mechanical stresses arise within the material. In many instances, particularly
when dealing with shock loading, both material strength and toughness
properties must be considered simultaneously. This forms the background to
the term "toughness" that expresses a materials "ability to resist fracture",
i.e. a complete separation of a specimen into at least two parts.
Toughness can be defined and determined in many ways. Modern fracture

mechanics provides a means of explaining toughness as it deals with the
conditions for micro-crack initiation and growth in non-homogeneous
materials under stress and where the fracture toughness of the material is
represented by its critical stress intensity factor KJC- An indirect method
commonly used for determining the toughness of cemented carbides is the
Palmqvist method where the sum of corner crack lengths for a Vickers
hardness indentation is used to derive the fracture toughness. The critical
stress intensity factor for cemented carbides can be expressed as:
K,c = 6.2 (HV50/IL)'/2 [MN/mm/

84
Toughness tests on cemented carbides show that the critical stress intensity
factor increases with Co content and WC grain size. The range for critical
stress intensity factors for the following materials is:
Cemented carbides K,c = 5-30MN/mJ/2

Intact rock specimens K,c = 0.05-3MN/m sn
Fracture toughness is substantially reduced at elevated temperatures. Due to

the reduction of fracture toughness with temperature, cemented carbides
may exhibit a larger reduction in strength during cyclic loading at elevated
temperatures.
Cemented carbides are classified as brittle materials since practically no

plastic deformation precedes fracture. However, cemented carbides show
large differences in toughness behaviour due to their microstructure. The
types of fracture seen are cleavage fractures in carbide grains, grain
boundary fractures between carbide grains and shear fractures in the binder.
Generally, the amount of cleavage fractures increases with increased grain
size and the amount shear fractures with increased binder content. Expressed
as fracture energy, the major contribution is from the latter, i.e. the crack
propagation through the binder.
Thermal fatigue of cemented carbides is most noticeable in non-abrasive

rocks since the low abrasive wear preserves more visual evidence of thermal
cracks. These cracks penetrate deeply into the bulk of the material, run in an
intergranular fashion, and branch readily. Fractures intersect, removing large
flakes of material and forming relatively steep angular craters. Once this
process has started, the tool rapidly becomes useless for rock cutting.
Figure 3-12. Illustration of Vicker's pyramidal indentation impression and

resulting corner cracks used in the indirect Palmqvist method for
determining the critical stress intensity factor Kicfor cemented carbides.
85
Wear resistance (a surface property) and toughness (a bulk property) are two
complex properties, both of which provide a material the ability to withstand
destruction. A high wear resistance for cemented carbides can only be
achieved if the demand for a high toughness is reduced and vice versa.
However, both high wear resistance and high toughness can be achieved
simultaneously, provided these properties can be re-distributed. There are
two ways of doing this: Dual Property (DP) cemented carbides or coatings
of highly wear resistant materials such as polycrystalline diamond (PCD) on
a substrate of cemented carbide.
In highly fractured rock formations, mixed face conditions, or when tool

bounce occurs; tools are subjected to impact shock and fatigue, which can
be far more destructive than thermal fatigue. Under these conditions,
compressive shock waves in the tool are generated at the impact surface.
These waves travel through the tool and reflect from free surfaces as tensile
waves, which have more destructive power and cause secondary cracks to
develop. Cracks propagate according to the fracture toughness of the
material and the impact energy involved. High-velocity impacts cause
fractures to branch readily, leading to increased damage.
In an ideal case, tool life and tool wear rates are inversely proportional.
However, the service life of tools is also determined by the structural
overloading of tools and the occurrence and rate of catastrophic tool failures.
The generalised distribution curve in Figure 3-13 for drag tool replacements
on a cutterhead in service illustrates the increased sensitivity to tool impact
failures in harder rock formations as well as the detrimental effect of
increased tool loading required to cut harder rock. However, conical drag
tools are not as sensitive to catastrophic failures as radial drag tools.
O)
O T3 1OOC
O to
CO ©
Carbide Insert Wear

- o
o
~ E
m o
> ^
=> in
O -
c *
Carbide insert and
2 £ Brazing Failures
"— ID
3 o
J3 CO
03
5
Rock Strength
Figure 3-13. A generalised distribution curve as to the main reasons for

drag tool replacements on cutterheads in service as a function of rock
strength.
86
Catastrophic tool failures caused by impact loading are typically a result of

both tool and cutterhead bouncing which occurs for an unfortunate
combination of rock mass structure, cutterhead lacing design, and selected
rotary speed. The impact forces on tools are caused by the striking action of
tools when re-entering the kerf or harder portions of the rock structure;
leading to progressive tool tip chipping and finally catastrophic failure of
carbide inserts or disk rims. For single rowed carbide insert studded disks; a
ripple breakage effect of studs is often experienced. Some typical examples
of rock structure leading to reduced tool life due to impact loading are:
• fractured rock mass resulting in rock fallouts and voids in the face
• variable rock structure hardness or mixed face conditions.
The origin and mechanisms behind tool bounce and cutterhead excitation
frequencies are described and illustrated in Chapter 5.7 Sequential Cutting
with Domed Cutterheads. In addition, the severity of tool damage by impact
loading is increased by the hardness ratio for mixed face conditions, i.e.
VHNRminerai-2 / VHNRmmerai-i as illustrated in Figure 3-14 for some typical
examples of variable rock structure hardness.
Banded rocks
mica and chlorite
phyllites, mica schists quartz and feldspars
and mica gneiss
Rubble type rocks weak matrix of low

backfills, breccias strength concrete
and conglomerates hard aggregates of
igneous rock
Intrusive rocks
weak host rock of shale
sills, dykes and
stringers hard intrusions of
igneous rock
Figure 3-14. Illustration of variable rock structure hardness or mixed face

conditions typically leading to impact loading and shattering of especially
drag tools.
87
3.4.3 Microscopic Fracture and Wear Mechanisms
Tool wear on the microscopic scale is the result of four basic wear
mechanisms, i.e. surface fatigue, tribochemical reaction, adhesive and
abrasive wear. Plastic deformation as such is generally not regarded as a
wear mechanism, but plays an important part in many wear processes.
Abrasive and adhesive wear mechanisms are assumed to dominate the tool
wear process during the cutting of rocks containing minerals harder than the
tool tip material. Surface fatigue wear mechanisms are only considered to
play a role if the wear rates are low; thereby allowing for the necessary time
for these processes to take place.
Wear due to surface fatigue is characterised by crack formation and the

flaking of material caused by the repeated alternated loading of solid
surfaces. Repeated sliding contact of asperities on the surfaces of solids in
relative motion may result in surface fatigue on a microscopic scale.
Wear due to tribochemical reaction is characterised by the "rubbing"

contact between two solid surfaces that react within a gaseous or liquid
environment. The wear process takes place by the continuous removal and
formation of new reaction layers; such as oxidation of WC grains on a
contact surface or wearflat.
Adhesive wear, typical for conditions characterised by high temperatures

and high contact stresses, is defined as wear due to adhesive material
transfer. Welding of contacting asperities followed by the breakage of these
junctions and the subsequent removal of shorn particles from one surface
and transfer of material to another.
Wear due to abrasion (or grooving) is defined as the displacement of

material from a solid surface by hard protuberances, such as hard
protuberances on the rock surface (two-body wear) or hard particles in the
kerf sliding along the surface (three-body wear) as illustrated in Figure 3-15.
Two-body Abrasion Three-body Abrasion
Tool
Figure 3-15. Illustration of two- and three-body abrasive wear. Micro-

cutting is thought to be the main mechanism behind two-body wear,
whereas three-body wear is related to the mechanism of micro-ploughing.
88
In-line kerf cutting tools such as roller disk cutters are typically subjected to
three-body wear. Two-body wear gives rise to wear rates one to two orders
of magnitude higher than three-body wear.
A subdivision of three-body wear can be made based on mineral grain

hardness and rock hardness (strength) relative to the tool tip material
hardness, i.e.
• for mineral grains which are harder than the tool tip material
and the rock matrix; the hard abrasive grains will be pressed
and bedded into the weaker rock matrix or the crushed and
compacted rock powder in the tool path. The top of these hard
mineral grains will protrude from of this surface as abrasive
asperities.
B for relatively weak mineral grains and rock matrices compared
to the hardness of the tool tip material - wear by abrasion is not
likely to occur.
• for relatively hard mineral grains and rock matrices compared
to the hardness of the tool tip material; the hard abrasive
mineral grains are pressed and bedded into the tool cutting
surface and form a protective layer against abrasive action from
the rock surface.
The effect of some of these phenomena on tool life are clearly illustrated in
Figure 3-25.
Some Aspects of Abrasive and Adhesive Wear
Abrasive and adhesive wear mechanisms make up the greater part of the
total wear encountered by tools sliding across abrasive rock surfaces. Wear
due to sliding abrasion can be divided into four basic material failure types;
i.e. micro-ploughing, micro-cutting, micro-fatigue and micro-cracking as
illustrated in Figure 3-16.
Micro-ploughing, micro-cutting and micro-fatigue are the dominant types of

material failure in ductile materials such as steel. In an ideal case, micro-
ploughing due to a single pass of one abrasive particle does not result in any
detachment of material from a wearing surface. A prow is formed ahead of
the abrading particle and material is continually displaced sideways to form
ridges adjacent to the micro-groove produced. During micro-ploughing,
material loss can however occur, since many abrasive particles act
simultaneously or in succession. Material is then ploughed aside repeatedly
by the passing particles and thus break off by fatigue. Micro-cracking is
related to brittle materials like cemented carbides.
89
abrasive grain
Figure 3-16. The four basic types of material failure for abrasive wear.
Failure mechanisms also vary with the shape of asperities due to the
differences in contact surface stress regimes. It has been found that
compressive stresses prevail when the asperity attack angle a is small and
tensile stresses prevail when the attack angle is large. Asperities with small
attack angles gives rise to abrasive wear by micro-ploughing and asperities
with large attack angles result in micro-cutting. The attack angle a in Figure
3-17 is related to the ratio of micro-cutting to micro-ploughing. The critical
attack angle Oc is the angle at which micro-cutting and micro-ploughing
contribute equally to the total wear process. The critical attack angle is
dependant on both the cutting conditions and the tool tip material.
o
"5
.2
5
Relative Attack Angle a / a c
Figure 3-17. Ratio of micro-cutting to micro-ploughing as a function of the

abrasive asperity attack angles.
90
One of the principal properties of metallic materials required to resist

abrasive wear is surface hardness. Studies of tool wear rates show that
abrasive wear mechanisms are a function of the relative hardness of the
materials with sliding contact. It has been established that one material will
scratch another provided the difference between their respective surface
hardnesses is greater than ~ 20%.
Abrasive wear can be divided into types, i.e. soft and hard abrasive wear.
Soft Abrasive Wear Hrock/Htoot < 1.2
Wear rates are relatively low and do not depend greatly on the actual
hardness ratio. Soft abrasive wear for cemented carbides occurs when the
abrasive particles (e.g. quartz at room temperature) which are softer than
WC grains yet harder than the Co binder preferentially remove the Co
binder, leaving the WC particles free to be dislodged from the structure.
Thus, in the absence of thermal effects, soft abrasive wear rates are
relatively low.
The interaction between abrasive particles and the surface of WC-Co

composites depends on the relative hardness and size of the particles and the
separate phases of the composite. Abrasive particles that are softer than the
WC grains but harder than the Co grains (such as quartz at room
temperature) preferentially remove the Co binder from the surface layers.
Small particles in this category remove Co through a ploughing action
involving plastic deformation of the Co grains. Larger particles that are
softer than WC tend to bridge between adjacent WC grains; in this case, Co
is preferentially removed by extrusion as WC grains are rocked back and
forth by friction with the sliding particles. The plastic strain experienced by
Co grains during either of these processes causes the formation of voids and
cracks in the surface layers. Once initiated, surface fractures propagate
because of impact shock or fatigue.
The significant role of binder removal in the wear of WC-Co composites by

soft abrasives is illustrated by tests in which specimens were chemically
etched to remove Co and then abraded on sandstone. Although Co was
removed to a depth below the surface of only 0.2 (xm (about 5% of the WC
grain diameter), the wear rate was found to be an order of magnitude greater
than that of similar unetched specimens. Thus, Co removal is found to be
the controlling factor in initiating surface cracking and abrasive wear of
WC-Co by soft abrasives. Because Co softens with temperature and thus is
more easily deformed and removed, wear should accelerate at elevated
temperatures. Tests show that preferential removal of Co also accelerates
wear by hard abrasives. Fractures having their origin in abrasion may be
propagated by thermal fatigue occurring on a macroscopic scale. It is also
known that the initiation of thermal stress cracks is sensitive to surface
finish (which is severely degraded by abrasion).
91
Hard Abrasive Wear HroCk/ Htooi > 1.2
Wear rates increase significantly and become very sensitive to the hardness
ratio. Hard abrasive wear for cemented carbides occurs when the abrasive
particles harder than WC grains strike the composite and fracture WC
grains on impact. This action causes a large degree of plastic deformation
as the particles cut grooves or craters into the wearflat surface, forming
voids and residual stresses that lead to additional fragmentation of WC
grains.
Silicates typically cause most of the abrasive wear on rock cutting tools. A
range of room-temperature Vickers hardness values for some selected
materials are:
M feldspars 730 ... 800 kgf/mm 2

» quartz 1060kgf/mm2
& cast iron and steels 200... 750 kgf/mm "
M WC-Co mining grades 800 ... 1700 kgf/mm 2
• polycrystalline diamond, PCD 4500... 7000 kgf/mm 2
Both rock and tool tip materials are often inhomogeneous on the scale of
hardness testing and may consist of several components of varying hardness.
The "aggregate surface hardness" of rock and wear materials are averaged
values based on the hardness of their components. However, some
components influence the aggregate hardness more than others:
• Carbides in steel, for example, have a significant effect on the wear

resistance of steel cutting tools, but do not influence the overall
composite material hardness since they are too small to be significant
for the Vickers microindentation hardness.
• Quartz would be considered a soft abrasive relative to WC-Co

composites. Yet the wear of rock cutting tools in quartzitic rock
occurs rapidly in a manner consistent with that produced by hard
abrasives. This behaviour suggests that thermal effects are important.
With increasing temperature, the hardness of the wearflat drops more
rapidly than that of quartz; thereby increasing the HnKk /Htoni ratio.
Furthermore, quartz particles may not attain the same temperature
rise as the tool tip due to the limited period of time that individual
quartz particles are subjected tofrictional heating.
Thus, the relative hardness between tool tip materials and rock mineral
grains is insufficient to describe their behaviour in a wear system. This is
partly true due to the different nature of rock and tool materials, and their
mechanical response in hardness testing and wear systems.
92
^_____ homogeneous wear materials

en \ f—~~~ e.g. hardened steels
(S
9)
composite wear materials

'» • e.g. cemented carbides
Hardness Ratio, H r o c k / H t o o |
Figure 3-18. Abrasive tool wear rates as a function of the relative hardness
ratio, Hrock /HWoi of the materials in contact. Refer also to Figure 3-25.
One final aspect of abrasion is the finding that, in the presence of rock
powder or debris during cutting, WC-Co wear is an order of magnitude
greater than that produced during abrasion on a clean surface. This is caused
by extremely small quartz particles (0.1 |lm) that are produced during
cutting, which are more efficient in removing Co than are large, fixed
abrasive particles. Tool life may be improved by directing waterjets in front
of the tool. This may partly be because of improved removal of cutting fines
as well as reduced tool loads that result in lower wearflat temperatures.
Adhesive wear contributes to the total wear when the wearflat temperature
and contact stresses are high enough to weaken the tool tip material so that
the cutting tool is worn by hard abrasives. The ability to retain hardness at
high temperature, or hot hardness, is a function of the WC-Co composite
structure. WC grain hardness is not appreciably affected by the temperatures
reached during normal cutting operations. Critical hardness losses result
when the Co binder absorbs sufficient heat to transform it into the plastic
range where deformation and creep of WC-Co composites readily occurs.
Sintered cobalt within cemented carbides melts at approx. 1350 °C. Bearing
this in mind and due to the presence of asperities, localised peak contact
temperatures may be as high as 2000 °C.
For wearflat temperatures below a threshold limit, WC-Co composites in

rock cutting experience wear of the type produced by soft abrasives; while at
higher temperatures, tool wear is accelerated and occurs by mechanisms
associated with hard abrasives and adhesion.
The temperature at which tool tip materials first start to weaken is called the
critical temperature Tcntjcai and the corresponding tool cutting velocity
Vcnticai- The critical velocity is affected by several factors such as tool tip
geometry, tool tip material properties (especially WC grain size since coarse
93
WC grains improve thermal conductivity and thus enhance the transfer of

heat away from the wearflat), use of waterjets for cooling and rock wear
capacity as illustrated in Figure 3-19.
13
adhesive wear
mechanisms
/ I
/ i
/ t
abrasive wear
mechanisms
v T
critical ° o 1 Velocity
Figure 3-19. Typical trendline for tool wear rates for sliding motion contact
as a function of tool cutting velocity.
WC-Co wear High Moderate Low Extremely

resistance Low
Predominant Soft Abrasive Hard Abrasive Adhesive Tribochemical

wear reaction
H
mechanisms rock / H ,ool< 1 - 2 H
roc*/H,oo,>1-2
WC-Co * Co binder * deformation * hot-hardness * plastic

behaviour worn away; hardening of reduction of deformation
followed by wearflat, wearflat and creep
loss of WC followed by resulting in
* p » hinrlAr
grains low surface iô Dinuer
rupture of WC
flow followed
grains layer wear
* occurrence by Co
resistance
of surface depletion in
fatigue wear wearflat
mechanisms
* oxidation of
WC-Co
accelerates
Wearflat
temperature i
(or corresponding ,
cutting velocity) J50 °C - 500 °C - 700 °C
' c r i tical
Figure 3-20. Generalised summary of the behaviour and wear resistance of

cemented carbides as a function of temperature.
94
3.4.4 Classification of Tool Wear Modes for Sliding Wear
Additional rock cutting process parameters which influence tool wear rates
can be divided into two groups; one group controlling the tool cutting forces
and another group which influences the response of the rock/tool tip contact
surfaces.
The surface or profile of the kerf (or tool path) cut into the rock is a crucial
factor when classifying tool wear modes. The kerf profile strength is defined
as its resistance to the crushing. The kerf profile strength is characterised by
the rock material strength and the tool path profile geometry, which in turn
depend on rock composition and texture.
When a load is applied to the rock through the tool tip, the kerf profile will
be deformed, first elastically, then plastically and finally fail. As the kerf
profile deforms, the actual contact area between rock and tool tip increases.
With an increase in deformation or contact area, the stiffness of the profile
will increase and the actual contact stresses decrease. The profile deforms
until the applied load becomes equal to the force resisting deformation.
The kerf profile strength depends on several factors; such as rock material
strength properties, overall profile geometry or roughness and the strength of
asperities.
The geometry and frequency of asperities also affect the strength of the kerf
profile. The shape of asperities affect their strength; e.g. steep and sharp
asperities are more sensitive to crushing than blunt asperities.
crushed asperity tip
A A'
Bock
2F 2F
F F F F
i i I
T T i T
4 Mi
mmmm.
Figure 3-21. Sharp asperities in the kerf profile are more sensitive to tip
crushing than broad based asperities. In addition, a larger spacing of
asperities increases the loading of individual asperities.
95
However, sharp asperities in one cutting direction may be broad and flat
asperities in another direction, e.g. mica grains. The shape should therefore
be related to the direction of cutting. An increase of asperity spacing
increases the load per asperity and therefore to a reduction of the profile
strength. Angular asperities cause tensile stresses whereas rounded asperities
induce compressive stresses in the wearflat, Figure 3-17. Failure
mechanisms typical for abrasive wear are determined by the shape of the
asperities, tool tip material properties and whether two- or three-body wear
prevails.
Strength of rock material?,. The kerf profile asperities consist of rock

material and may therefore be related to the rock material strength.
However, asperities generally consist of individual mineral grains of a
different strength than the aggregate rock specimen; and thus the strength of
asperities may also be independent of the bulk strength of the rock. In both
cases the stresses imposed on the asperities by a cutting tool are distributed
into the rock beneath the asperities. The rock beneath the asperities reacts
upon loading according to its material strength (which may be a function of
the grain frame and cementation matrix for sedimentary rock types) and
thereby kerf profile strength is influenced by the rock bulk strength.
Stiffness of rock material. Rock material is an aggregate of mineral particles.

The various mineral types all have different strength and stiffness, and in
addition, are anisotropic in most cases. The average stiffness of the different
mineral constituents determines the stiffness of the rock specimen. If the
amount of stiff minerals is so large that they form a skeleton, the less stiff
minerals do not influence the stiffness of the rock. The stiffness of the kerf
profile is determined by the stiffness of the rock and the kerf profile
geometry.
The effect of strain rate on rock stiffness and strength. Rock stiffness as well
as rock strength increases with strain rate. Rock strength determined at very
high (impact) strain rates may be a factor two larger than the strength
determined at lower (standard test) strain rates. Above a certain strain rate
the effective strength does not increase further.
Hardness of mineral grains. Mineral grains which during cutting are harder
than the tool tip material are termed abrasive. An abrasive mineral grain in
contact with the wearflat of a cutting tool may either break, penetrate the
tool wearflat or the kerf (or rock) matrix.
The wear process of rock cutting tools can be characterised by the three
wear modes as described and illustrated in Figure 3-22 for a sliding contact
motion - depending on the magnitude of the contact stresses relative to the
kerf profile strength. The cutting mode, scraping or cutting, affects the wear
modes by influencing the tool cutting forces and the contact area between
the wearflat and kerf (rock) surface. The wear capacity of rock changes as
the wear modes change; thus rock abrasivity is not an intrinsic physical
rock property.
96
Model Mode II Modem

Asperities remain intact Some of the asperities are Most asperities are crushed
(2-body wear redominates); crushed (2-body wear and 3- (3-body wear redominates);
high contact stresses may body wear both occur); low contact stresses develop
develop due to a small lower contact stresses due to a relatively large
contact area; and relatively develop than in Mode I due contact area compared to
high wearflat temperatures to a larger contact area; Modes I and II; relatively
occur favouring adhesive lower wearflat temperatures low wearflat temperatures
wear with deep penetration occur than in Mode I with occur with a shallower
of asperities into the tool less penetration of asperities penetration of asperities into
wearflat resulting in high into the tool wearflat the tool wearflat resulting in
rates of wear. resulting in a lower rate of a lower rate of wear
wear than in Mode I. compared to Modes I and II.
Figure 3-22. The wear process of rock cutting tools charaterised by wear
modes. Arrows indicate the mean tool cutting force levels.
The formation of chips during rock cutting causes the cutting forces to
fluctuate. The normal and cutting tool force components are not constant
during a length of cut, but increase to a maximum until a large chip is
formed; after which the forces fall back to a minimum value. If the area of
contact between tool and rock are considered to be constant - then the
contact stresses at the wearflat vary accordingly.
The variable contact stresses result in different wear modes during the
formation of rock chips. Figure 3-23 illustrates how the kerf profile
responds to the stresses on the wearflat as a function of time. If the stresses
acting on the kerf profile asperities become larger than the strength of these
asperities, the asperities are crushed.
Studies of tool wear show that wear rates increase for low tool loads and
decrease for higher tool loads. This behaviour can be explained by a change
of wear mode (two-body wear to three-body wear) which takes place when
the kerf profile strength is exceeded. Since the change of wear mode is
accompanied by a deepening of the kerf in the rock by a cutting tool, it is
assumed that the rate of wear changes as a result of the contact stresses
exceeding the strength of the abrasive asperities.
97
A summary of wear mechanisms, wear modes, rock mass and tool service
conditions affecting tool consumption in rock cutting is presented in
Table 3-14.
Table 3-14. Summary of wear mechanisms, wear modes, rock mass and tool
service conditions affecting tool consumption.
Wear Fatigue Abrasion Adhesion Structural

Mechanisms Overload
Wear Types
Drag Tools * thermal * sliding * adhesive * impact
Steel Disk * surface & * rolling, sliding * adhesive * impact
Studded Disk thermal * rolling, sliding * impact
Percussive Bits * thermal * sliding * impact
Rock Mass Conditions

Soft rock conditions * self sharpening
wear of steel
disk rims
Rock types composed of * emery wheel
minerals of widely varying wear of steel
individual grain hardness disk rims 2
Mixed face and broken * catastrophic
ground conditions, and failure of
cutting through shears inserts, steel
disks and
bearings due to
impacting
caused by
cutterhead
bouncing3
Tool Service Conditions

Tool tip * thermal fatigue and snakeskin * disk rim mush-
material formation on carbide inserts rooming of
steel disk
cutters 6
Tool depth of cut

Shallow * Wear Mode I (2-body wear)
Intermittent * Wear Mode II (2 and 3-body wear)
Deep * Wear Mode III (3-body wear)
Tool cutting forces
Very high * surface fatigue and
disk rim chipping of
steel disk cutters s
Cutting velocity * abrasive wear * adhesive wear
forv < vcrilicai forv > vcritical
Waterjet * waterjet cooling used to arrest
cooling adhesive wear
98
Extension of Table 3-14:
One example of thermal fatigue is the development of "snake skin" which

leads to premature breakage of cemented carbide inserts on percussive drill
bits. Another example of thermal fatigue resulting in poor life of drag tools
is the cutting of low-abrasive rocks such as limestones.
The excessive wear experienced on steel disks when cutting in rock types
such as mica schist and mica gneiss is an example of a wear type termed the
"emery wheel wear" effect.
Catastrophic failure of carbide inserts, steel disks and cutter bearings due
to impacting caused by mixed face conditions, an unfortunate cutterhead
lacing design, or imbalanced cutterhead running characteristics or mis-
matched machine stiffness to cutterhead bounce excitation frequencies.
The excessive steel disk rim side wear experienced when cutting soft rocks
such as shales is an example of a wear type termed the "self sharpening
wear" effect due to tempering of disk steel and loss of disk rim work
hardening.
An example of surface fatigue is disk "rim chipping" of highly stressed

steel disks when cutting in hard rock.
An example of insufficient steel disk rim hardness relative to tool service

stress levels is disk "rim mushrooming" resulting in severely deformed
disk rims.
The wear rate of cemented carbide during percussive drilling in hard rocks
thus seems to be dependent on two factors:
(i) the rate of formation of the hardened surface layer

(ii) the rate at which it wears away
The target is to establish a balance between wearflat deformation hardening

and surface layer wear rates to obtain optimum insert life. In percussive
contact with the rock, the crystal structure of cobalt changes from cubic to
hexagonal and deformation hardens; thus increasing insert wear resistance
during service. The numerous micro-cracks which develop on the now
brittle wearflat surface are not worn away due to the increased wear
resistance (or low rock abrasivity) - and merge into a highly destructive
macro-fracture structure driven by cyclic loading and thermal fatigue
known as "snake-skin "; resulting in premature insert failure.
99
peak stress peak stress

(0 4 -/» crushing of kerf profile
0) (sf
55 -<-"*-' • • • rock strength
kerf profile strength
o
o
Time
Figure 3-23. Contact stresses in a wearflat typical for drag tool cutting as a
function of time. The stress fluctuations are caused by the formation and
loosening of rock chips. Wear Mode I predominates within the low stress
zones A; and Wear Mode HI predominates within the high stress zones B.
3.4.5 Methods for Rating the Wear Capacity of a Rock Mass
Parameters for characterising and quantifying properties of intact rock

specimens may be divided into two groups:
(i) Physical rock properties such as grain size, density and porosity.
These parameters describe insintric rock properties, which are
inherent only to the rock itself.
(ii) Mechanical rock properties such as strength, deformability,

hardness, toughness, wear capacity, etc. These properties are
influenced by the method of testing.
Tool consumption is dependent on the following wear process parameters:
Tool Tip Material
M carbide grade wear resistance to thermal and surface fatigue

• carbide grade resistance to catastrophic failure due to
structural overload, thermal shock and shattering
M carbide insert size, shape, and arrangement of attachment to
toolholder.
KerfProfile
fragment size and strength of kerf rock powder (both dependent

on mineral grain surface hardness)
100
tool indentation depth (defines both the tool/rock contact area,

i.e. where wear takes place and which abrasive wear mode
predominates)
effect of rock cutting mode (relieved/unrelieved cutting) on tool
force levels.
Tool Service Conditions
8 actual cutting velocity relative to the critical velocity vcnucaifor

the selected tool tip material
• presence of tool tip cooling (waterjets etc.)
• cut length per cutterhead revolution for drag tools
• occurrence of structural overloading of tools and cutterhead
bouncing
8 general handling of tools during transport, tool change, etc.
The most common laboratory methods used for determining the wear
capacity of rock specimens are:
• (Rosiwal Mineral Abrasivity Rating)

• Wear Index F
• CERCHAR Abrasivity Index, CAI
• Vickers Hardness Number Rock, VHNR
• Cutter Life Index, CLI (a combination of the Abrasion Value,

AV and Sievers miniature drill-test value, SJ)
• Goodrich Wear Number
• Hardgrove Grindability Index.
Rosiwal Mineral Abrasivity Rating
A relative abrasivity rating for minerals based on grinding tests was

introduced in 1916 by A. Rosiwal where the mineral specimen volume loss
relative to corundum was used as an abrasivity rating, i.e.
Rosiwal = 1000 volume loss corundum / volume loss mineral specimen
Typical Rosiwal abrasivity ratings for some common non-weathered

minerals without impurities are listed in Table 3-16.
Wear Index Ffor Drag Tool Cutting
The Wear Index F proposed by J. Schimazek and H. Knatz in 1970 was as a

result of pin-on-disk wear tests on carboniferous rock from the coal mining
districts in Germany. The Wear Index F is linearly related to pin wear rates;
and increases with relative mineral abrasivity, mean quartz grain size and
101
tensile strength of the rock specimen, i.e.
F = Q -D-Z-10'2 [3-3]
Q = equivalent quartz percentage [ %]

D = mean quartz grain size I mm ]
Z = Brazilian tensile strength [ MPa ]
The equivalent quartz percentage takes both the amount of and relative
mineral grain abrasivity to quartz into consideration. The Rosiwal mineral
abrasivity rating as used by Schimazek and Knatz for determining the
equivalent quartz percentage is:
Carbonates 3%
Mica, chlorite, clay 4%
Feldspars 30 - 33%
Quartz 100%
Determination of the equivalent quartz percentage for a typical sandstone is

exemplified in the following table:
Mineral Mineral Content Equivalent Quartz Percentage
Quartz 63 63 • 1.0 = 63.0

Feldspar 9 9 0.32 = 3.0
Carbonate 3 3 0.03 = 0.1
Mica, clay 25 25-0.04 = 1.0 => 67.1
The relationship between the Wear Index F and the CERCHAR Abrasivity
Index, CAI for the Saar Coal District in Germany has been established as:
CAI = 0.6+3.32 F
The Wear Index F has been successfully used in very fine grained and
porous sedimentary rocks in Central Europe. Unfortunately, use of the Wear
Index F in coarse grained metamorphic and igneous rocks leads to highly
misleading results; and the Wear Index F was consequently modified by
G. Ewendtin 1989.
102
CERCHAR* Abrasivity Index, CAI
CERCHAR is an acronym for the Centre a"Etudes et Recherches des

Charbonnages de France.
The CERCHAR scratch test for rating rock wear capacity was introduced in
1971. It is defined as follows: a pointed steel pin with a cone angle of 90° is
applied to the surface of a rock specimen, for approx. one second, under a
static load of 7 kgf to scratch a 10mm long groove. This procedure is
repeated several times in various directions always using a fresh steel pin.
The abrasivity index is obtained by measuring the resulting steel pin
wearflat diameter d in millimetres using an average value of 3 - 6 scratch
tests depending on the variability of the individual scratch test results:
CAI = 10 • I d wear1iat / n
Steel pin volume loss is proportional to the pin wearflat diameter as d3, and
therefore to the abrasivity index as CAI3. The pin steel is specified by
CERCHAR only as having 200 kgf/mm2.
Typical CERCHAR abrasivity ratings for some common non-weathered

minerals without impurities are listed in Table 3-16.
The abrasiveness of a rock specimen is not necessarily the same as the

aggregate abrasiveness of its mineral constituents; factors such as grain size
and angularity, grain cementation and degree of weathering, etc. all have an
effect on the wear capacity of rock.
The main sources of error when performing CERCHAR scratch tests are:
HI Scratch tests should be performed on natural failure surfaces.

Scratch tests carried out on smooth surfaces (cut or polished)
tend to promote steel pin skating resulting in low indice values.
Some rocks are so hard that the tool is unable to "cut" a 10 mm

groove without skating. The steel pin is blunted at the beginning
of the scratch, and does not interacted proper with the rock over
the length of the scratch to form a genuine abrasion wearflat.
When testing hard rocks it is therefore necessary to examine the

specimen after each scratch to ensure that the tool has bitten into
the rock, rather than just skated over the surface. Precautions
should be taken when attempting to measure non-symmetrical or
lopsided wearflats. Typically, these measurements should be
discarded.
• Over-representation of one mineral type or individual grain

along the 10mm long groove leading to a pronounced scattering
of scratch test results. This effect is typical for very coarse
103
grained rocks such as augen gneiss and rapakivi granite.
& In anisotropic and banded rock such as mica gneiss with

centimetre thick layers of quartz, a representative abrasivity
value for this laminated rock type is difficult to assess.
9 In the case of weak and non-abrasive rocks (CAI < 0.7), indice
values are relatively undifferentiated. Some rocks are so weak
that no detectable wear can be seen on the steel pin at the end of
a scratch test.
The CERCHAR Abrasivity Index scale ranges from 0 to 7. Typical indice

ranges for some common rock types are given in Table 3-15.
The following relationship between the CERCHAR Abrasivity Index, CAI

and Vickers Hardness Number Rock, VHNR for non-weathered rocks has
been established for CAI > 0.7 as:
CAI = VHNR/145
Table 3-15. CERCHAR Abrasivity Index CAI for some common rock types.
Rock Type CAI
Igneous Rock
Basalt 1.7 - 5.2
Diabase 3.8 - 5.4
Andesite 1.8 - 3.5
Diorite/Syenite 3.0 - 5.6
Granite 3.7 - 6.2
Sedimentary Rock
Limestone 0.1- 2.4
Sandstone " 0.1-2.6
Sandstone2' 2.3 - 6.2
Metamorphic Rock
Phyllite 1.3 - 4.3
Mica schist and mica gneiss 1.8 - 5.0
Felsic gneiss 3.7 - 6.3
Amphibolite 2.8 - 3.7
Quartzite 4.8 - 7.3
!) with carbonate and/or clayey cementation of mineral

grains
2) with SiO2 cementation of mineral grains
104
A simplified approach to rating rock wear capacity is the use of rock surface
hardness or mineral microindentation hardness. The most commonly used
diamond tipped microindenters are Vickers (a square based pyramid) and
Knoop (an elongated based pyramid). Most systematic studies of ore
minerals have employed Vickers microhardness determination and this
technique has been widely adapted in ore microscopy.
The hardness number is defined as the ratio of the applied indenter load
(kilogramme force) to the total (inclined) area of the permanent impression.
Microindenter hardness tests on minerals normally employ loads of 100 ...
200 gf; resulting in indentations with diagonal lengths of 5 ... 100 urn. For
precise results, the load employed should be stated since VHN values
obtained are not independent of load. For comparison, test loads and
notation used for rating cemented carbides are:
Test Test Load Notation for Metal Testing
Hot hardness rating 500 gf HV05

Hardness rating 30 kgf HV30
K/c determination 50 kgf
The rock matrix is typically inhomogeneous on the scale of testing and may
consist of several minerals of widely varying individual grain hardnesses.
The Vickers Hardness Number Rock VHNR or the "surface hardness" of the
rock is an aggregate value based on the weighted hardness values of its
mineral constituents, i.e.
VHNR = I( VHNj % mineralj/100) [kgf/mm2/
VHNR = Vickers Hardness Number Rock [kgf/mm2]
% mineralj = percentage content of mineral j in rock specimen [ %]
VHNj - Vickers Hardness Number for mineral j [kgf/mm2]
Typical mean values for the Vickers (VHN) and Knoop Hardness Numbers,
Rosiwal and CERCHAR Abrasivity Indices for a selection of
non-weathered rock-forming minerals without impurities are listed in
Table 3-16.
105
Table 3-16. Typical mean values for Vickers (VHN) and Knoop Hardness
Numbers, Rosiwal and CERCHAR Abrasivity Indices for a selection of non-
weathered rock forming minerals.
Mineral Chemical Composition
Rosiwal
Knoop
CERCHAR
Vickers
corundum A12O3 2300 1700 1000
quartz SiO 2 1060 790 141 5.7
garnet Fe-Mg-Al-Mn-Ca-Cr silicates 1060
olivine (Mg,Fe)2SiO4 980
hematite Fe2O3 925
pyrite FeS2 800 4.7
plagioclase (Na,Ca)(Al,Si)AlSi2O8 800 4.7
diopside CaMgSiA, 800
magnetite Fe 3 O 4 730
orthoclase KAlSi 3 O 8 730 560 52 4.4
augite Ca(Mg,Fe,Al)(Al,Si)2O6 640
ilmenite FeTiO3 625
hyperstene (Mg,Fe)SiO3 600
hornblende NaCa2(Mg,Fe,Al)5(AI,Si)8O22(OH)2 600
chromite (Mg,Fe)Cr2O4 600
apatite Ca,(PO4 )3(F,C1,OH) 550 395 7.3 3.1
dolomite CaMg(CO3 )2 365 3.3
pyrrhotite Fe,.xS 310
fluorite CaF2 265 163 4.3 1.9
pentlandite (Fe,Ni)9S8 220
sphalerite (Zn,Fe)S 200
chalcopyrite CuFeS2 195
serpentine M g6 Si 4 O, 0 (OH) 8 175 0.8
anhydrite CaSO4 160
calcite CaCO3 125 85 4.08 0.8
biotite K(Mg.Fe)3(AlSi3O10)(OH)2 110
galena PbS 85
chalcocite Cu 2 S 65
chlorite (Mg,Fe,Al)6(Al,Si)4O10(OH)8 50
gypsum CaSO 4 2H 2 O 50 32 0.85 0.3
talc Mg 3 Si 4 0 1() (0H) 2 20 12 0.82 0
halite NaCl 17
sylvite KC1 10
106
3.5 SOME ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF TOOL

CONSUMPTION
Cutting Rock with Drag Tools
When extending the application area or performance of cutting tools such as

drag tools through the introduction of new tool designs and cemented
carbide grades, the main items of rock cutting to be considered are:
Tool depth of cut
• shallow depths of cut result in adhesive wear, especially in hard

and abrasive rock
• large depths of cut result in structural overload, especially for
radial picks in hard rock.
Counter-measures against adhesive wear
• by introducing waterjets to prevent or reduce the occurrence of

adhesive wear mechanisms due to heat build-up in the tool tip
S by introducing more wear resistant insert materials such as
coarse grained cemented carbides with improved hot-hardness
properties or PCD coatings on cemented carbide inserts
• use of VSD cutterhead motors to maintain cutting velocities
below VCriticai.
Counter-measures against structural overload
M use of VSD cutterhead motors to reduce the effect of cutterhead

bouncing and impact shattering of tool tips and impact
hammering damage to toolholders
• use of well balanced cutterheads, stiff booms and cutting control
systems to regulate tool depth of cut so as to reduce cutterhead
bouncing
S use of conical tools is less sensitive to structural overloading
than radial picks.
Drag tool wear rates are highly dependent on tool cutting velocities due to
frictional heating originating at the rock/tool tip interface. Critical cutting
velocities refer to the corresponding tool wearflat thermal threshold values
where adhesive wear commences. These threshold values are readily
determined as the knee-point on drag tool wear rate/cutting velocity graphs,
Figure 3-19. The relationship between drag tool wear rates and tool cutting
velocities can be expressed as:
107
Tool Cutting Velocity Tool Insert Wear Rates
Under critical v < vmtKai Abrasive wear mode WR - ffva'6J

3 0
Over critical v > v(T,,,(.,,, Adhesive wear mode WR = ffv /
Critical cutting velocities (or critical wearflat temperatures) for cemented

carbide inserts are dependent on the:
B wear capacity of rock

8 carbide grade hot-hardness and thermal conductivity (indirectly
WC grain size and Co content)
& effective cooling of the tool tip wearflat by waterjets where the
frictional heating originates.
Cutting Rock with Roller Disk Cutters
When extending the application area or performance of cutting tools such as

roller disks through the introduction of new tool designs, steel qualities and
cemented carbide grades; the main items of rock cutting to be considered
are:
Tool depth of cut
S shallow depths of cut result in disk rim tip wear

• large depths of cut result in structural overload of disk rims;
especially when using large diameter disk cutters
ffl large depths of cut result in premature stud shearing due to the
large stud protrusion from the disk required to obtain these
depths of cut
M large depths of cut result in excessive steel disk rim wear due to
disk ploughing in soft rock. This wear mode is called self-
sharpening wear and is characterised by excessive steel disk
rim side wear due to tempering and loss of disk rim work
hardening.
Counter-measures to reduce tool consumption
H the effect of self-sharpening wear can be contained by using

large diameter cutters with blunt rims so as to reduce the
ploughing-like action of the disk rim in soft rock. Typically, very
wide constant section disks are used in these conditions
S the emery wheel wear effect can be reduced by using more wear
resistant tools, i.e. studded cemented carbide roller disk cutters.
S the steel disk rim chipping effect can be reduced by lowering the
normal force level per disk or use of tougher steels
S the disk rim mushrooming effect can be reduced by using
improved heat treated steels
108
8 the general trend has been to increase disk diameter in hard and
abrasive rock to enhance tool life. The problem with large
diameter disk cutters is the elevated cutter loads required to
maintain acceptable depths of cut and the ability of the machine
structure to accommodate these high loads. Typically, small
diameter disk cutters require significantly lower cutting forces
than large diameter disks, but tool life is also significantly lower
5 in extremely abrasive rock; the trend has been to use cemented

carbide insert studded roller disk cutters. However, large
cemented carbide inserts are more sensitive to structural
overload and prone to premature failure including the ripple
breakage effect for single row studded disk cutters .
Counter-measures against structural overload
6 use of VSD cutterhead motors to maintain cutting velocities

below Vcriticui and reduce cutterhead bouncing
M use of well balanced cutterheads and cutting control systems to
regulate tool depth of cut so as to reduce cutterhead bouncing.
Cutterhead bouncing typically occurs when operating in mixed
face conditions or shears resulting in impact shattering of disk
rims and impact load damage to bearing surfaces resulting in
frozen bearings.
3.5.1 Laboratory Studies of Disk Cutter Life for Off-Line Kerf Cutting
Some interesting findings as to off-line roller disk kerf cutting (disks do not
roll in a previously cut kerf or tool path, but do have an adjacent kerf into
which chips can break free) are the Bochum Micro-Disk Lathe Cutting Test
results.
The micro-disk lathe cutting data and normalised test results are shown on
the bochum35.xls file printout in Appendix 3, i.e.
Disk normal force Fn = Fn,, • ( DOC • S / 3 )"2
Frii i = rock resistance to off-line kerf cutting
= critical normal force [kN/disk]
Disk weight loss WLM = WLM,, ( DOC S / 3 )
WLM| i = rock wear capacity for off-line kerf cutting
= critical weight loss [mg/m]

109
Correlations between the rock wear capacity values for micro-disks WLMn
versus rock abrasivity indices for the Bochum Rock Suite gave the
following ranking with regard to goodness of fit:
8 VHNR
S CA1 for "Rough Surfaces "
S Wear Index F (The traditional Wear Index F values proved
basically useless for prediction purposes due to the importance
given to rock specimen mean quartz grain size in equation
13-3]).
The Rock Cuttability Window for Intact Rock in Figure 3-24 is a scatter
plot of rock wear capacity versus rock resistance to off-line kerf cutting with
micro-disks. The Bochum Rock Suite Cuttability Window for Intact Rock
clearly illustrates that:
• rock resistance to off-line kerf cutting of intact rock relates

poorly to the uniaxial compressive strength UCS
8 rock wear capacity of intact rock has a markedly larger range of
variation than rock resistance to off-line kerf cutting.
2.0
"3) 1.0 } Q uart.zile
0.8 i L V\
0.7 1 V Basalt
0.6 Ur£mi /, f
0.5
0.4 /
1 T *•
A
Ir >ne tic *J
o
(0
a
A 0.3 /
o /
a
1
t{
a> 0.2 issi/P
u Sandstone^
o j j \
K
0.1 1 ! \.
idstone -W ~-« Gabbrc
0.08 sai
0.07
0.06
0.05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
Rock Resistance to Kerf Cutting, F n ^ (kN/disk)
Figure 3-24. The Rock Cuttability Window for Intact Rock for the Bochum
0 35 mm Micro-Disk Off-Line Lathe Cutting Tests.
110
3.5.2 Field Studies of Disk Service Life for In-Line Kerf Cutting
The following factors which determine disk service life when rated in
m3/cutter must be considered when normalising field data:
• disk rim wear resistance and amount of wearable material on

disk rims
• type of cutting mode, i.e. in-line kerf cutting (TBM's) and off-
line cutting for sweeping cutterheads (Robbins Mobile Miner)
• rock powder wear capacity on disk rims for in-line kerf cutting
• rock surface hardness, which indirectly determines where disk
rim wear will take place, i.e. at the tip, sides or both
M rock mass fracturing and/or mixed face conditions
• cutterhead curvature and diameter
8 well balanced cutterhead design so as to avoid individual disk
over-loading, i.e. taking the following into consideration:
• number and positioning of disk cutters on the cutterhead
• frequency of cutter bearing failures, disk slippage from the
cutter body or hub, disk rim chipping, etc.
& net advance rates.
The relationship between disk service life and tunnel boring machine net
advance rates is given by:
'm 3 = (KD2/4) (Lh/N) AR [m3/cutter]
Lh = cutter disk life in hours [ h/cutter ]

D = cutterhead diameter [m ]
N - number of tools on the cutterhead
AR = net advance rate [ m/h ]
The relationship between disk life and rock surface or microindentation

hardness shown in Figure 3-25 illustrates that it is necessary to take both the
mineral type, mineral content and the relative distribution of weak to strong
minerals in a rock specimen into account to determine the "effective" time
dependent wear capacity of kerf rock powder. Weak mineral fragments are
crushed and compacted to such an extent that harder mineral fragments
become over-exposed in the kerf rock powder resulting in excessive tool
wear as illustrated in Figure 3-26. This enhanced wear mechanism is termed
the "emery wheel wear" effect; and becomes more pronounced as the
content of weaker minerals, such as mica, calcite and even amphibole
relative to stronger minerals such as feldspars and quartz increases. The
"emery wheel wear" effect is clearly illustrated in Figure 3-25 for steel disk
cutting for tunnel boring in phyllites, micaschists and micagneiss.
Ill
J Vesicular basalt
Greenstone & greenschist
Arkosite
Granite & felsic gneiss
Quartzite
o MA = % mica + 'Vo amphibole

mm MA < 15%
mm 15% < MA < 35%
mm 35% < MA < 45%
200 300 500 1000
MA > 45%
100
Figure 3-25. Envelope curves for 15 1/2" steel disk service life Li,
(hours/cutter) as a function of Vickers Hardness Number Rock VHNR for
RPM = ( 38/D ), TBM diameter 0 3.5 m and rock type.
Compaction pressure Compaction pressure
Moving
resultant
Asperity force Asperity force

on wearflat on wearflat
Figure 3-26. The principle relationship between the compaction pressure of

kerf rock powder by a cutting tool and rock powder fragment size on the
resulting asperity force and direction on a wearflat.
112
Table 3-17. Example of disk life normalisation based on cutterhead tool

replacements. In practice the illustrated procedure is made by PC software.
Cutterhead Diameter, D 0,5 m

Tools per Line, TPL 1
Cutterhead Rotary Speed 38RPM
Net Advance Rate, NAR 2,0 m/h
Location Toolholder Disk Life, LK

on Number (hours/disk)
Cutterhead Ni
Center 1 50 50 50 50 50 50
2 100 100 100
3 75 75 75
75 |
50
I 50
Gauge
Cutting hours
4
0
50
50
| 50
I
100 150
50
I
200
50
250 300
Tunnel meters 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Location Tool- Kerf Disk Relative Disk Life Disk Disk Disk
on holde Radius Replace- Disk Life Life Life Life
Cutterhead N, R, ments LN L^ LM LMI
(mm) IM, Ru (h/disk) (km/disk) (m/disk) (m3/disk)
Center 1 50 6 0,79 50 35,8 100 0,79

2 125 3 1,58 100 179,1 200 8,25
3 200 4 1,19 75 214,9 150 11,49
Gauge 4 250 6 0,79 50 179,1 100 7,07
Total 625 19 4,35 1200 2686,1 2400 117,81
Average 156,25 4,75 1,089 63,16 141,37 126,32 6,20
FORMULAE FOR AVERAGE VALUES CONTROL

FOR THE CUTTERHEAD
= (ZIM,/N)/ZM, f = 156.25/250
= 0.625
= N/I(1/LJ Hi-avg = 4-300/19

= 63.16
= 1 ( 2 J I R , R P M - 6 0 k,.avg =0.625 • 2n • 0.250 • 38 • 60 • 63.16/1000

= 141.38
N/Z(1/LJ =4-600/19
LBNAR = 126.32
=p-0.252-600/19
= 7iR2-Ln,-NAR/N = 6.20
Note The average relative life for the cutterhead, 1.089, is the parameter used as a basis for the
cutterhead diameter correction factor kj - incorporating the effect of reduced life for center and
gauge cutters.
113
3.6 ROCK CUTTABILITY WINDOWS

One of the main objectives for testing rock specimens, apart from field
followup work for rating jobsite rock mass cuttability and machine
performance, is to visualise a generalised geotechnical "excavator work
area" or rock cuttability window for the evaluation of rock cutting
productivity and economic excavation range of rock by tunnelling
machinery.
The Rock Cuttability Window for Intact Rock as illustrated in Figure 3-27
is a scatter plot of rock wear capacity versus rock strength for rock
specimens tested during the TM60 R&D Programme. In essence, Figure
3-27 is a scatter plot of rock surface hardness versus rock bulk strength.
6 I Micro-fissured Rock 1
<
o
5
j • •
Anisntrnpir |
V•
• DD
X
• /
X
0>
A
L-L n
Y • y* o Serpentinite P1
Rock | y • Serpentinite P3
A Amphibolite
'35 "A _/< X Biotite Schist
2 • Biotite Gneiss
y X
a Rhyolitic Tuff
< *
Granite
: « Pegmatite
O A; j
Felsic Gneiss
W A
O yT A
Dolomite
Ultramafic | General Trendline
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Figure 3-27. The Rock Cuttability Window for Intact Rock - a scatter plot
of rock wear capacity versus the bulk strength of rock for rock specimens
tested during the TM60 R&D Programme.
114
There is a self-evident trendline illustrating that rock wear capacity increases

with rock bulk strength and mineral surface hardness. However, there are
some important exceptions as noted in Figure 3-27 such as:
• ultramafic rocks characterised by relatively high bulk strength

but low rock wear capacity values. Ultramafic rocks have
relatively high bulk strength values since fractures primarily
propagate through mineral grains; and not along grain
boundaries
S anisotropic rocks characterised by low bulk strength but high

rock wear capacity values. Anisotropic rocks have relatively low
bulk strength values due to fracture propagation primarily
along planes of schistosity. This effect is especially pronounced
for uniaxial compression tests of rock specimens.
• porous rocks characterised by low bulk strength but high rock

wear capacity values. These rock types have relatively low
strength values due to rapid fracture propagation originating at
and radiating from voids in the rock matrix when in stress; thus
enhancing the cuttability or drillability of intact rock.
• micro-fractured igneous rocks characterised by low bulk

strength but very high rock wear capacity values. Observations
show that this micro-fracturing seldom, if ever, enhances the
rock cuttability or drillability of intact rock. The phenomenon is
typical for Pre-Cambrian granites, granodiorites and felsic
gneisses in the Fenno-Scandian Shield.
• weathered and decomposed rocks characterised by low bulk

strength and low rock wear capacity values due to chemical
alteration of the mineral grains.
115
4 LINEAR CUTTING TESTS
4.1 LINEAR CUTTING TEST APPARATUS

Most mechanical tools used by excavators to break rock do so by indenting
the rock surface, i.e.
roller disk cutters (with wedge-shaped or constant section disks)

studded or carbide insert roller disk cutters
rotary tricone bits
drag tools
percussive drilling bits.
The distinguishing characteristic of an indentating roller cutter is that the

disk penetrates in a direction more or less perpendicular to the rock surface
being cut, in contrast to a drag tool, which travels parallel to the surface that
is being cut.
In its simplest form, an indentation tool is thrust into a surface normally, so

that it either displaces material by some kind of plastic flow or compaction,
or else forms a crater by brittle fracture. The cutting process progresses by
moving the tool forward to a fresh surface during the interval between
successive loading cycles due to these indentation craters (bit indexing for
percussive bits); so that a line of indentations or craters is formed. If the
craters are very closely spaced, a continuous path, kerf, or groove is created.
At the same time the rock between an adjacent and previously cut kerf is
loosened as large chips. This chip loosening process can be studied in detail
using high-speed photography of linear cutting tests.
The objective of rock cuttability studies is to develop a model to predict the

cutting forces acting on an indenting tool from a knowledge only of rock
mass properties, tool tip and kerf geometries, and depth of cut. If this
objective is met, then in conjunction with the knowledge gained from
cutterhead and machine configuration work, it will be possible to design
excavators with optimized rock breakage operations and minimized machine
mass.
The Linear Cutting Machine, LCM
The LCM is a laboratory test apparatus designed to provide data for the
evaluation of rock cuttability and kerf cutting processes so as to make
accurate performance estimates for various mechanical excavators; such as
tunnel boring machines, raiseboring and boxhole machines, mobile miners,
continuous miners and roadheaders. LCM's have been used extensively over
the last two decades to predict excavator field performance in a wide range
of rock types and to generate data for the optimal design of cutterheads;
including tool design, kerf spacing, cutterhead tool lacing design and
116
cutterhead force and torque balancing.
The LCM test apparatus is capable of simulating field cutting conditions by

enabling the testing and performance assessment of full sized cutters under
operating conditions encountered in the field. The LCM can generate the
entire range of cutter loads and depths of cut experienced on an excavator
while allowing the testing and evaluation of different kerf spacings, depths
of cut, cutting velocities, use of waterjets and other operational parameters
which may influence excavator performance in the field.
However, the use of linear cutting tests is somewhat limited in that only the
effects of intact rock properties on rock mass cuttability can be evaluated.
The effects of rock mass jointing properties such as type, frequency and
orientation, and mixed face conditions on rock mass cuttability can not be
evaluated by linear cutting tests. In addition, these properties often have only
a minor effect on an individual cutting tool, whilst for cutting with multiple
arrays of tools, i.e. a cutterhead, their effect on rock mass cuttability can be
significant.
A schematic illustration of a LCM test apparatus is shown in Figure 4-1.

Basically, a LCM incorporates a large, stiff reaction frame onto which a test
cutter and a load cell assembly are mounted. The load cell monitors and
measures the forces acting on the cutter in the three mutually perpendicular
directions, i.e. normal, side and rolling.
_ ____ Side Force

Rolling Force
Normal Force
Rock breakage is effected when the cutter is pressed against the rock
surface. In brittle rock, the loading causes the region immediately under the
cutter to be crushed; at a later point in the loading cycle tensile cracks
initiate from the edges of this crushed zone and these propagate either to the
rock surface or to an adjacent, previously cut kerf or groove, to form rock
chips.
117
n Feed Cylinder
DOC Spacers
_LL
3D Load Cell
Cutter Saddle
/ • t Cutter Spacing Cylinder
Sled
Depth of Cut
Pass 1
Pass 6
Kerf Spacing
Figure 4-1. Schematic view of a Linear Cutting Machine.
The normal force is the cutter axle force component perpendicular to the
rock surface, and is the force required to indent/crush the rock at the
rock/tool tip interface. This force is used to determine the excavator thrust
requirements to achieve a given rate of advance. The rolling force acts in the
direction of cutter travel, parallel to the surface being cut. These cutter axle
force components are used for calculating machine torque and power
requirements. The side force acts perpendicular to the direction of travel in
the plane of the surface being cut. Its primary use is in determining the
overturning moments imposed on a cutter during excavation. The generated
side forces also play a minor role in cutterhead balancing and the main
thrust bearing life expectancy.
118
It should be noted that all three force components acting on a disk cutter are
related to each other. In general, the rolling force directly follows the normal
force fluctuations, but at a much lower magnitude. The side force displays
an opposite trend to the normal force whereby it increases when the normal
force experiences a sudden drop after the formation of large chips. In
general, for roller disk cutters, the rolling force is approx. 10% of the normal
force. The ratio of rolling to normal force, also known as the cutter
coefficient, increases with tool depth of cut. This is the reason why
mechanical excavators usually become torque and power limited when
excavating softer rock formations where significant tool depths of cut can be
maintained. The reverse is true for hard rock excavation where the excavator
thrust capacity is usually reached first, making the system thrust limited
rather than torque limited.
As illustrated in Figure 4-1, the LCM rock sample is held within a structural
frame box featuring a tapered cross-section to provide sample confinement
during testing to prevent splitting of the rock sample. The sample box is
mounted on a sled riding on a pair of rails. A servo-controlled hydraulic
actuator capable of generating a wide range of cutting velocities is used to
move the sample box under the cutter. Rock samples are cast in concrete
within the sample boxes and allowed to cure for about a week prior to
testing. After curing, the sample box is mounted onto the machine sled.
Cutting tests are conducted with a constant tool depth of cut, i.e. cutter disk
penetration is held constant and the forces required to maintain this
penetration are measured. The depth of cut is set by inserting metal spacers
between the load cell assembly and the main cross-frame of the machine.
After placement in a LCM, the surface of the rock sample surface is

preconditioned by taking several passes with a cutter at fixed kerf spacings
and depths of cut. This serves two purposes. First, the preconditioning
creates a damaged rock surface as is typical for in-line kerf cutting and
representative for field cutting conditions where the cutters operate on a
surface damaged by their previous passings. Secondly, data recorded during
the preconditioning passes provide insight as to the level of forces to be
expected for different depths of cut. This information is then used to
formulate a test matrix regarding the selection of kerf spacings and depths of
cut to be used for actual testing and data recording.
Prior to the start of recorded cutting tests, the load cell is calibrated by
loading the cutter using a hydraulic actuator and measuring the load cell
output voltage. A computer-based data acquisition system is used to record
and analyze the cutter axle forces measured by the triaxial load cell
assembly. The system is typically programmed to scan each force channel at
a rate of 1000 readings per second (sampling rate 1000 Hz), providing
several thousand measurements for each cut made across the rock sample
surface.
Once a test is completed, the recorded data is analyzed by computer to

119
produce a test summary containing information on average, minimum and

maximum cutting forces, ratio of forces, specific cutting energy and other
relevant test data. If desired, the system can also generate trace printouts of
individual cutting forces; thereby illustrating their variation with time and
the dynamic behaviour of rock failure and chipping along the tool path.
Such information is useful when analyzing and evaluating machine
vibrations for three-dimensional balancing of cutterheads.
No data is recorded for cutter travel less than approx. 150 mm away from
the sample ends. The purpose is to avoid any potential end-boundary effects
on the cutting forces. Micro-switches programmed in line with this selected
data window are utilized to start and stop the data acquisition system. In
addition, the side cuts for each pass are excluded from the data base to
eliminate potential side-boundary effects.
Once a particular test is completed, the rock surface is again preconditioned

by taking several passes at the desired kerf spacing and depth of cut for the
next recorded test series. This is necessary to eliminate any effects of the
previous test settings.
In addition, the roller disk itself can be instrumented with strain or

temperature gauges to enable more detailed studies of rock/tool tip interface
phenomenon.
4.2 PERFORMANCE PREDICTION MODELLING OF

ROLLER DISK CUTTING
The basic principles for scaling laboratory and field roller disk cutting data
have been presented in Chapter 2; A Phenomenological Model for the
Cutting Action of Roller Disk Cutters.
For roller disk cutting, the normal force, Fn was found to be proportional to
the disk rim contact area AcOn (or footprint area); thus enabling the following
functional relationships to be established for in-line kerf cutting:
s2
Fn = constant-C- A con • S*" • 0 •/{a} [2-12b]
Pi = (32 = 1/2 ; the actual scaling exponent can be

determined by multivariate regression
analysis of the entire cutting data base
A con = constant • W • d m • D O C m [2-13]
Consequently, by substituting equation [2-13] into [2-12b], the roller disk

normal force can be expressed as a function of tool depth of cut, disk rim
and kerf cutting geometry, and rock mass strength as:
Fn = constant a • W • d m • DOC m • S " 2 • O m • / { a } [2-18/2-21 ]

120
4.3 PERFORMANCE PREDICTION MODEL FOR ROLLER

DISK CUTTING
Linear Roller Disk Cutting Test Data Normalisation
The recorded linear cutting test data for a given rock/tool combination can
be reduced to two cutting test constants, i.e.
Fn, _iinear = rock cuttability/disk rim constant or critical normal force

=
C cutter constant
These two cutting test constants summarize and describe the whole roller
disk cutting process, albeit only for one individual linear cutting disk. The
expressions required for scaling and normalizing the recorded linear roller
disk cutting test data are:
Normal Force Fn = Fn,.| inear • DOC 1 / 2 [4-1]
Fn,., inear = constantUnedr- c •W •d m •S m
Rolling Force k,inear = Fr / Fn = CXAineM • D O C m [4-2]
Power Demand Pdemund = Fr • v
Specific Energy SE = Pdemand / ( DOC • S • L / 1000 2 )
= k Fn- v / ( D O C S - v • 6 0 2 / 1 0 0 0 2 )
( S •6 0 2 / 1 0 0 0 2 ) [4-3]
Published linear cutting test data from the Colorado School of Mines, UK
Transport and Road Research Laboratory and Anglo American Corporation
have been compiled and the data normalized in accordance to the above
expressions. This work is included in Appendix 1 as Excel file printouts.
Performance Prediction Model for Linear Roller Disk Cutting
A summary of the cutting test constants, Fni.|jnear and Ci-unear , from

Appendix 4 are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. The linear cutting test constants
have, for ease of comparison, been scaled to a standard disk rim and in-line
kerf cutting geometry, i.e.
d = 432mm, W = 12.7mm, S = 76.2mm and DOC = 1.Omm/pass

121
Table 4-1. A summary of the cutting test printouts in Appendix 4.
Exel file Rock Type Compr. Tensile Density Porosity Drilling Disk Disk Kerf
Strength Strength Rate Diam. Width Spacing
UCS BTS p n Index d W S
(MPa) (MPa) (g/cm3) (%) DRI (mm) (mm) (mm)
1.4" Micrc> Disk Off-Line Lathe Tests

bochum35 Basalt 400 35 3
bochum35 Gabbro 168 35 3
bochum35 Gneiss/P 181 35 3
bochum35 Gneiss/N 180 35 3
bochum35 Granite 170 35 3
bochum35 Quartzite 180 35 3
bochum35 Sandstone 165 35 3
5" Mini Disk Tests
hdrk51 Felsic Gneiss 269 9,9 2,77 28 127 19,05
hdrk52 Norite 297 20 127 6,4 19,05
hdrk53 Norite 297 20 127 8,2 19,05
zimchr51 Chromite Ore 127 8,2 19,05
zimchr52 Serpentinite 60 127 8,2 19,05
tivcan51 Welded (Rhyolitic) Tuff 165 50 127 8,2 19,05
7 7/8" Disk Tests
gresand1 Sandstone 50 3,5 2,35 14,8 200 15,7 76,2
shagran1 Granite 155 1 0,8 2,63 0,4 200 15,7 76,2
12" Disk Tests
fennl Norite 254 1 1,9 2,92 305 9,4 19,05
15.5" Disk Tests
holslim 1 Holston Limestone 118 1 0,1 2,68 0,2 72 394 12,70 76,2
holslim2 Holston Limestone 118 1 0,1 2,68 0,2 72 394 11,05 76,2
daksand2 Dakota Sandstone 52 3,9 394 11,05 76,2
17" Disk Tests
bersand 1 Berea Sandstone 46 1,1 2,11 19,1 432 12,70 76,2
bersand2 Berea Sandstone 46 1,1 2,11 19,1 432 19,05 76,2
indiliml Indiana Limestone 44 5,2 2,34 12,5 432 12,70 76,2
indilim2 Indiana Limestone 44 5,2 2,34 12,5 432 19,05 76,2
lesbas1 Basalt 188 14,9 43 432 12,70 76,2
Iesbas2 Vesicular Basalt (NAB) 97 12,9 7 47 432 12,70 76,2
Iesbas3 Vesicular Basalt (MAB) 91 1 1,9 ? 42 432 12,70 76,2
Iesbas4 Vesicular Basalt (HAB) 111 7,9 54 432 12,70 76,2
colosprl Colo. Spring Granite 144 7,8 2,62 0,6 44 432 12,70 76,2
colospr2 Colo. Spring Granite 144 7,8 2,62 0,6 44 432 12,70 76,2
colorg 1 Colo. Red Granite 138 1 1,7 432 12,70 76,2
colorg2 Colo. Red Granite 138 1U 432 12,70 76,2
colorg3 Colo. Red Granite 138 1 1,7 432 12,70 76,2
franrid 1 Welded (Rhyolitic) Tuff 86 14,7 2,29 8,6 51 432 11,4 76,2
franrid2 Welded (Rhyolitic) Tuff 95 1 1,5 2,28 8,6 51 432 13,7 76,2
peol Colo. Red Granite 138 1 1,7 432 12,70 76,2
peo2 Granodiorite 221 13,1 2,71 0,3 42 432 12,70 76,2
Note: DRI values from the same location, but seperate specimen batches
122
Table 4-2. A summary of the cutting test printouts in Appendix 4.
Exel file Peak/ Peak/ Peak/ Sdev/ Critical Estimate Cutter Estimate Specific
Mean Mean Mean Mean Normal Formulae Const Formulae! Energy
Force Force Force Ratio Force
Ratio Ratio Ratio ^*nt I-.sdev F n ll Fnll-Est SE-ESI
Frpeal/Fr * speak' ^ s /F nl , (kN/disk) (kN/disk) c, C|-Esl (kWh/m3)
1.4" Micro Disk Off-Line Lathe Tests

bochum35 5,81
bochum35 3,42
bochum35 3,62
bochum35 4,18
bochum35 3,72
bochum35 5,09
bochum35 2,83
5" Mini Disk Tests
hdrk51 3,19 4,22 24,00 0,47 22,58 23,96 0,090 0,080 29,5
hdrk52 2,09 3,10 0,38 22,36 20,65 0,078 0,080 25,3
hdrk53 2,07 3,11 6,21 0,35 26,23 26,46 0,077 0,080 29,5
zimchr51 1,57 1,80 18,00 0,29 14,43 0,079 0,080 16,6
zimchr52 1,63 1,80 0,31 5,48 5,34 0,081 0,080 6,5
tivcan51 13,67 14,70 0,078 0,080 15,6
7 7/8" Disk Tests
gresand 1 19,23 21,40 0,060 0,064 4,2
shagran1 60,40 66,35 0,068 0,064 14,9
12" Disk Tests
fennl 43,07 40,20 0,057 0,052 35,9
15.5" Disk Tests
holsliml 71,16 57,35 0,051 0,045 13,1
holslim2 72,05 49,90 0,039 0,045 10,1
daksand2 24,80 21,99 0,056 0,045 5,1
17" Disk Tests
bersand 1 22,48 23,41 0,042 0,043 3,4
bersand2 25,89 35,12 0,045 0,043 4,3
indiliml 22,83 22,39 0,042 0,043 3,5
indilim2 34,54 33,59 0,038 0,043 4,7
lesbas 1 79,96 95,68 0,032 0,043 9,4
Iesbas2 56,03 49,36 0,038 0,043 7,8
Iesbas3 47,43 46,31 0,043 0,043 7,4
Iesbas4 50,38 56,49 0,043 0,043 7,9
colosprl 91,60 73,28 0,046 0,043 15,3
colospr2 75,56 73,28 0,047 0,043 13,0
colorg 1 2,01 2,62 9,00 61,49 70,23 0,045 0,043 10,2
colorg2 1,87 2,95 6,27 76,53 70,23 0,035 0,043 9,8
colorg3 2,21 3,02 5,87 60,15 70,23 0,044 0,043 9,6
colorg4 1,86 3,00 4,57 72,36 70,23 0,045 0,043 12,0
colorg5 1,89 2,90 3,04 75,15 70,23 0,046 0,043 12,6
franrid 1 2,21 2,42 5,79 41,27 39,39 0,045 0,043 6,8
franrid2 2,28 2,41 13,61 42,91 52,23 0,054 0,043 8,5
peol 2,06 2,14 73,59 70,23 0,040 0,043 10,6
peo2 1,86 2,25 102,95 112,47 0,037 0,043 13,9
123
These scaled cutting test constants are shown on the following graphs as a:
( i ) scatter plot of the scaled critical normal force Fnuîinear (or standard
cuttability resistance) versus the uniaxial compressive strength, UCS.
(ii) scatter plot of the cutter constant, C\.\imar versus disk diameter, d.
200
i 150
<
76linear (
100
80 . 1/
60
>
U, 50 •
rce,
40
o 30
i
u.
Ay
Normal
20
a
o
* 10
o
10 20 30 40 50 6080 100 150 200250300
Figure 4-2. Scatter plot of the scaled critical normal force Fnn.76imear (or
standard cuttability resistance) versus the uniaxial compressive strength
UCS; for d = 432 mm, W = 12.7mm, S = 76.2 mm and DOC = 1 mm/pass.
0.10
0.09
0.08
_ ^ _ _
0.07 »
u
0.06 • i
ca
V, 0.05
^ t
c
o
o
o
w
0) 0.04
0.03
I
r
0.02
100 200 300 400 500 600
Disk Diameter, d (mm)
Figure 4-3. Scatter plot of the cutter constant, Ci-imear versus disk diameter, d.
124
Finally, the presented cutting test constant prediction equations [4-4] and
[4-5] for linear roller disk cutting were determined by linear regression of
the listed constants in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.
Normal Force Fllll-761inear = 0.00195 UCS W ( d S / 76.2 ) 1/2 [4-4]
Rolling Force *-l-linear = 0.0433 ( 432 / d ) 1/2 [4-5]
Example of Prediction Model Application
Rock Type Granodiorite

Uniaxial compressive strength, UCS 141 MPa
Brazilian tensile strength, BTS 9.1 MPa
Bulk density, p 2.69 g/cm3
Young's modulus of elasticity, E 67.7 GPa
Poisson's ratio, v 0,27
Drilling Rate Index, DPJ 46
Cerchar Abrasivity Index, CAI 5.9
Vickers Hardness Number Rock, VHNR 780
Mineral Content Percentage (thin section)

Quartz 34 %
Plagioclase 32 %
Orthoclase 20 %
Biotite 14 %
Disk Cutting Geometry

Disk diameter, d 127 mm (5")
Disk rim contact width, W 8.2 mm
Kerf spacing, S 25 mm
Table 4-3. Prediction of mini-disk performance for DOC = 5 mm/pass in

Granodiorite.
m
Critical normal force Fn H i n e a r = 0.00195 • 141 8.2 ( 127 25 / 76.2 ) = 14.6kN/disk
m
Normal force Frin^ = 14.6 • 5 = 32.6kN/disk
m
Cutter constant C Minear = 0.0433 • ( 432 / 1 2 7 ) = 0.080
m
Cutter coefficient k,inear = 0.080 5 = 0.179
Rolling force Fr,inear = 0.179 32.6 = 5.82kN/disk
Specific energy SE iineal = 0.080 2 2
14.6 / ( 1 • 25 6 0 / 1000 ) = 13.0kWh/m 3
125
4.4 RELEVANCE OF LCM TEST CUTTING RESULTS TO

FACE CUTTING PERFORMANCE
The linear cutting test constants Fni i-76iinear and Ci_iinear, combined with the
cutterhead tool lacing design, can be used to predict partial or full face
cutting performance as exemplified in Chapter 5.6. However, the following
parameters and their effects on cutting performance must be considered:
8 linear cutting rig stiffness

3 recorded cut length
S in-line kerf cutting modes.
Effect of Linear Cutting Rig Stiffness
Hydraulic rams are the most common method of providing thrust on

tunnelling machines as well as linear cutting rigs. However, due to the
compressibility of mineral oil, hydraulic systems are flexible and the axial
stiffness of cylinders is reduced as the stroke is increased.
The hydraulic stiffness for individual tools mounted on a cutterhead can be

expressed as:
Hydraulic stiffness per tool = n A • K/(N • L)
where: n is the number of thrust cylinders working on the cutterhead

A is the cross-sectional area of one cylinder
N is the number of tools on the cutterhead
L is the distance between the cylinder head and the piston face
K is the bulk modulus of the hydraulic oil (typical bulk modulus
for mineral oils with no entrained air taken as 1700 N/mm 2 ).
Typical hydraulic stiffness range for TBM cutterheads is 500 - 5000 kN/mm
depending on the piston face position in the cylinder, and correspondingly
20 - 200 kN/mm for individual tools on the cutterhead. Typical hydraulic
stiffness range for individual drag tools mounted on boom supported
cutterheads for lightweight roadheaders is 2 -15 kN/mm.
The linear cutting test constants for Gregory Sandstone are presented in
Table 4-4. The results show that the linear cutting rig stiffness has a
pronounced effect on the cutting performance of roller disk cutters, i.e. as
the stiffness decreases, both the rolling and normal forces acting on the disk
and the specific energy increase.
The effect of machine stiffness on normal forces can be stipulated, i.e.
Fn = f{ ( Hydraulic Stiffness ) •"*}

126
Table 4-4. Linear cutting test constants in Gregory Sandstone (for details
refer to the gresand 1 .xls file printout in Appendix 4).
Linear Rig Stiffness Cutter Constant Critical Normal Force Specific Energy
(kN/mm) C,.Unear SE 76llnear
147.6 0.0598 19.23 4.19

21.5 0.0664 30.23 7.32
The observed increase in cutter axle forces and specific energy with
decreasing machine stiffness can be explained by studying the normal force
time traces. Figure 4-4 shows that the normal force curves consist of a series
of peaks and troughs; with the variations becoming more smooth with
decreasing stiffness. In a stiff machine the load builds up to a peak at which
rock failure occurs and a chip is formed; it then falls back to near zero
before building up again to another peak. In the case of a soft machine the
same peak normal force is required to cause a chip to form, but in between
chip formation, the tool is held in contact with the rock by the spring-like
action of the soft machine.
Thus, the peak normal force is near independent of machine stiffness, as is

the case in stiff and soft testing machines, but the mean normal force
increases with decreasing stiffness.
In addition, the experimentally determined cutter constants are 11% lower

than the analytically determined cutter constants in Chapter 1-2; as
illustrated below for the standard disk diameter rim of d = 432mm:
100
^ 80
1 60
40
20 Stiffness = 21.5 kN/mm, DOC = 8 mm, S = 40 mm
0
100
6 80
I °
*"" 40
20
Stiffness = 147.6 kN/mm, DOC = 8 mm, S = 40 mm
Time (seconds)
Figure 4-4. Typical normal force traces in Lindley Sandstone.

127
Experimentally C,.linear = 0.0433 •( 432 / d ) m [4-5]
Analytically k = (DOC / d ) m [1-20]
C,,inear = ( 1 / 432 ) m • (432 / d ) m
= 0.0481 ( 4 3 2 / d ) ' / 2
Effect of Recorded Cut Length
The scatter of the experimentally determined cutter constant values, as can

be seen in Figure 4-3, increases with disk rim diameter. This increase in
scatter may be due to the relatively shorter recorded cut lengths for the large
diameter disks; thus resulting in the formation of relatively fewer large chips
and consequently fewer force peaks over the recorded length of cut.
The effect of insufficient recorded cut length for large diameter linear disk
cutting tests may also be the explanation for the linear relationship found
between the critical normal force (or standard resistance to roller disk
indentation) Fnn-76]inear and the uniaxial compressive strength UCS in
equation [4-4]. Both TBM and raiseboring field performance followup work
shows that Fnu-76iinear is typically a function of UCS 3/4 .
As opposed to linear drag tool cutting test results, the peak to mean tool
force ratios for in-line kerf cutting with roller disks listed on the lintestl.xls
file printout in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 seem to vary little with rock cuttability or
kerf cutting geometries. Typical values for the roller disk peak/mean force
ratios are:
Normal Force Ratio Fiipeak / Fri^-an ~ 2.0

Rolling Force Ratio F r ^/ F r , , ^ =3.0
In addition, the normalization of linear roller disk cutting data shows that the
UCS/BTS ratio relates poorly to the critical normal force Fnn.76ijnear. This
ratio is deemed to be of importance for drag tool cutting where it represents
a rating of rock toughness. It should be noted that the variation of the
UCS/BTS ratio increases with decreasing rock strength as illustrated in
Figure 3-7. Drag tool cutting is typically used in low strength, low abrasive
rock.
Effect ofln-Line Kerf Cutting Modes
Kerf spacing has a pronounced effect on how the rock between adjacent (not
necessarily neighbouring) kerfs breaks out as chips. The resulting cutting
modes are termed as the single tool pass or multiple tool pass cutting modes.
128
Single Tool Pass versus Multiple Pass Tool Cutting
Kerf (groove) deepening is the result of multiple tool pass cutting, i.e. when
the kerf spacing between adjacent cutting tools is too great for the depth of
cut taken during each tool pass to allow the rock between the adjacent tool
paths to break out, then the kerf will be progressively deepened by
successive tool passes until breakout occurs. Breakouts will occur when the
induced lateral fracture development required to form chips from the
material between two kerfs is completed. Kerf deepening is therefore a
condition described by insufficient induced lateral fracture length
propagation per tool pass as illustrated in Figure 3-4.
Kerf deepening occurs in face cutting operations as a result of tools

operating under conditions other than those defined by optimum S/DOC
ratios, i.e.
(i) for low or insufficient machine thrust causing a lower than

desirable depth of cut to be achieved
( ii) insufficient tool strength to maintain the desirable depth of cut
( Hi ) hard bands of rock in the face causing a local reduction in depth of
cut
(iv) for a badly worn or broken tracking tool causing an effective
increase in kerf spacing for neighbouring tools.
Disk ring
Chip loosening
Adjacent kerf
Crushed and compacted

rock powder
Lateral fracture
propagation
W> chips from the 1st tool passing

O chips from the 2nd tool passing
Figure 4-5. Kerf formation and chipping at the face.

129
Kerf Deepening and Specific Energy
Specific energy, i.e. the energy required to excavate a unit volume of rock, is
used as a basis for comparing the relative efficiencies of selected kerf
spacings for linear cutting tests. When the cuttings produced over the
recorded length of cut are collected and weighed, the actual specific energy
required for a cut is:
SEactual = Fr • length of cut I ( weight of cuttings per cut I p ) [4-6]
The average specific energy for a particular pass varies considerably from
cut to cut. This suggests that on some cuts, where a high specific energy is
recorded, kerf deepening occurs since the yield of cuttings is fairly small;
whilst on other passes, where a low specific energy is recorded, the kerf
depth has been sufficiently developed to allow breakouts to adjacent kerfs to
occur with a correspondingly larger yield of cuttings.
However, the specific energy is also defined by the cutting test constants, i.e.
the calculated specific energy is:
SEcalculaKd = C,,inear • Fn,,inear/ ( S • 60 2I 1000000 ) [4-7]
= constant • CMinear • Fnn.lineiir/ ( S "2 • 60 2 / 1000000 ) [4-8]
When the specific energy SEactuai is plotted against the kerf spacing to depth
of cut ratio, the graph typically reveals a minimum value for the specific
energy; as can be observed for the linear cutting tests in Gregory Sandstone
and Shap Granite (refer to the gresandl.xls and shagranl.xls file printouts
in Appendix 4).
The specific energy is not a function of tool depth of cut, but

( kerf spacing ) ' / l as expressed by equation [4-8]. When the two expressions
for specific energy, i.e. equations [4-6] and [4-8] are equal, this point
corresponds to the "optimum" kerf spacing for a given tool/rock
combination as illustrated in Figure 4-6.
In-Line Kerf Cutting Modes and Prediction Model Upbuilding.
Kerf spacing for linear cutting tests can be readily varied so that an optimum
S/DOC ratio can be found. However, for face or field cutting conditions, no
optimum kerf spacing can be determined since the cutterhead tool lacing is
fixed and the rock mass cuttability varies as the tunnel progresses.
The effect of sub-optimal kerf spacing for face cutting conditions manifests
itself as multiple tool pass cutting as shown in Table 4-5.
130
Underbreaking
Single tool pass cutting
Multiple tool pass cutting
CO
1 \
" • • •
I
UJ
\ \
SE
p actual
>i ^ SJÔDtilHum
S>
<D
UJ • \
O
•5
•
(0 SE
calculated
Kerf Spacing to Depth of Cut Ratio, S/DOC
Figure 4-6. Determination of the optimum kerf spacing.
Table 4-5. Effect of cutting modes on chip width and thickness, tool passes
and cutterhead advance rates.
Chip Width Tool Passes Cutterhead Advance Rates
Single Tool Pass Cutting

Wchip = S k e r f ( S P R / T P L ) m=l AR = D 0 C n m a . • S P R R P M 6 0 / 1 0 0 0
Multiple Tool Pass Cutting

W chip = Skerf m = T chip / DOCn max AR**= DOCn max TPL RPM 60 / 1000
for underbreaking; Tchtp ^

typical for partial face drag tooled cutterheads operating in soft rock
and for linear roller disk cutting tests
typical for full face roller disk tooled cutterheads operating in hard
rock with sub-optimal kerf spacing.
131
Multiple tool pass cutting therefore has a pronounced effect on cutterhead

advance rates. Equation [4-1] applies to linear disk cutting tests and single
tool pass cutting; not multiple tool pass cutting common for face cutting
conditions where multiple disk arrays are simultaneously in contact with the
rock. This situation is described by equation [2-25] as a generalized
expression or envelope type curve for the mean normal force developed in
Chapter 2.2 for constant section roller disk cutters, i.e.
Fn = / { o, G,c / S, constant • W • d m • DOC m • S "2 } [2-24]
Fn = Fn,, • DOCl/b [2-25]
Fn,, = / { o, G,c / S, constant • W • d "2 • S m }
= rock resistance to multiple pass in-line kerf cutting

* rock resistance to single pass disk cutting
The kerf cutting exponent b is the factor in the generalized expression [2-25]
which represents the chipping frequency; in other words how many times a
cutterhead must rotate to achieve a sufficient number of tool passes for a
complete breakout of rock between kerfs at the face as illustrated in Figure
4-5.
The following functional relations have been developed in Chapter 2:
Fn = a • constant • W • d m • DOC m • S m
[2-18]
Fn = G, c • ( constant • W • d m • DOC m • S m
)m [2-23]
The generalized expression [2-25] used for normalizing field data therefore
represents a link between these two expressions. Field performance
followup work has shown that a relationship exists between the kerf cutting
exponent b and the critical normal force Fni . In addition, the disk tip
dullness or rather disk rim width has a significant effect on the kerf cutting
exponent b.
Field performance followup work for tunnel boring and raise boring
machines show that the typical range for the kerf cutting exponent b is for:
Studded Roller Cone Cutters 1.5 < b < 3.5
Constant Section Disk Cutters 1.5 < b < 4.5
The principle reasons for the variation of the kerf cutting exponent b are
listed in Table 4-6.
132
Table 4-6. Effect of cutting modes on cutterhead performance and the kerf
cutting exponent b in equation [2-25] exemplified for constant section disk
cutters.
Tool Cutting Exponent Description of the In-Line Kerf Cutting Process

Mode
Single Pass b<2 Under breaking; characterized by excessive lateral

fracture propagation relative to indentation depth and
the volume of rock removed. The kerf spacing should
in principle be increased.
Single Pass b=2 Optimum kerf spacing and in-line roller disk kerf
cutting conditions for constant section disk cutters.
Multiple Pass b>2 Kerf deepening; characterized by insufficient

induced lateral fracture propagation relative to
indentation depth. However, in hard rock formations,
this can also be an indication of insufficient disk
indentation depth as illustrated in Figure 4-7. The
kerf spacing should in principle be reduced.
Kerf cutting controlled

by rock resistance to
disk indentation
O
O
Envelope Curve [2-25]
o
u
a. Kerf cutting controlled by
0) rock resistance to lateral
O fracture propagation
Normal Force, Fn (kN/cutter)
Figure 4-7. Illustration of the three different depth of cut prediction

equations established for roller disk cutting with constant section disk
cutters.
133
The effect of in-line kerf cutting modes has been exemplified for constant
section disk cutters in Table 4-6. A summary of the ideal case condition
values for the kerf cutting exponent b for other types of roller cutter disk rim
geometries are listed in Table 4-7.
The roller disk rim contact area Aeon can be used for comparison of the
normal forces obtained for kerf cutting by various disk rim geometries such
as studded and constant section disk cutters.
Table 4-7. Summary of the ideal case condition values for the kerf cutting
exponent b for some typical roller cutter disk rim geometries given single
tool pass cutting; and the resulting expressions for the disk normal force Fn.
Disk Type Exponent Normal Force for Single Pass Cutting
Pristine Wedge-Shaped Disks b = 2/3 Fn = o • constant • tan p/2 • d • DOC. 3/2

3/2 c 3/2
•S
Studded Disks with b = 1 Fn = o constant • t DOC S / d

Hemispherical Inserts
1/2
Studded Disks with b = 2 Fn = a • constant W L • d DOC " 2 S m
Tapered Inserts
Constant Section Disk Cutters b = 2 Fn = a constant • W d m • DOC m • S m

Constant Section Disk Cutters b = 4 Fn = G,c- ( constant • W d 1/2 • DOC m S " 2 ) "2
134
TOOL AND CUTTERHEAD FORCES ON DOMED

AXIAL ROTATION MACHINES
Axial rotation machines for cutting and boring are devices that rotate a
cutting head about the axis of advance. In the drilling and excavation of rock
and other materials; this category of machine includes items such as rotary
drills, augers, tunnel boring machines, raiseborers, Marietta miners and
some snow ploughs.
This chapter deals with the geometry, motion and forces of axial rotation
machines tooled with roller disk cutters. The intention is to provide a digest
of theory for describing the rock cutting process in detail and provide a basis
for performance prediction modelling of in-line roller disk kerf cutting.
5.1 TOOL PATHS, DEPTH OF CUT AND CUTTERHEAD

ADVANCE RATES
Tool Paths for the Sump Cutting Mode
As a cutterhead rotates at a constant angular frequency / and simultaneously

advances at a constant axial rate AR, any tool on the cutterhead at a given
radius R\ will follow a helical path around a circular surface of radius R j as
illustrated in Figure 5-1.
= 27i * f
Pitch A
Advance Rate AR
Figure 5-1. The helical tool path for axial rotation machines.
135
The Cartesian description of the helix is usually given in parametric form for
tool i as:
X; = Rj cos <p
Yj = R] • sin cp
Z, = A R ( t / 6 0 2 ) - 1000
Xj, Y|, Z| = coordinates for tool i at time t
where co is the angular velocity ( t o = 2K • f ), (p the total cutterhead rotation

angle (cp = cot), and / = ( RPM / 60 ) the angular frequency.
The helix pitch A, or advance per cutterhead revolution is:
A = AR/(/-6O2/lOOO)
= AR/(RPM-60/1000)
The helical path length Sj is:
Si = ((P/2:r)-[(27tRi)2 + (A)2]1/2
= <pRr [ 1 + ( A / 2 T c R i ) 2 ] " 2
and the helix angle Pi, defined at a given point as the angle between the
tangent to the helix of radius Rf and the tangent to the concentric circle of
radius Ri passing through the same point, is:
tan Pi = vadvance / vro[atlon = A / ( 2TI • Rj)
These relations describe the motion of fixed cutting tools (drag tools), or the
motion of roller cutter bearing.
Tool Depths of Cut and Cutterhead Advance Rates
The cutterhead advances by the helix pitch A during each revolution. Thus,
for a given rotary speed, the cutterhead advance rate will be:
AR = A RPM-60/1000
The sector between two consecutive cutterhead revolutions or tool paths

represents the material cut by one tool pass. Tool depth of cut therefore
equals the helix pitch A, and is independent of the cutterhead rotational
angle cp, i.e.
DOCrw =A
The above discussion is only valid if there is only one tool at each axial
location (line) on the cutterhead. With more tools evenly spaced at each
axial location; TPL such trajectories must be drawn to represent the cutting
136
pattern. However, the shape of the freshly cut sector does not change, but
the depth of cut per tool now takes the following form:
DOCnmax = AR/(TPLRPM-60/1000) [5-1]
Equation [5-1] applies to the cutting of materials where chipping between

adjacent kerfs does not necessarily take place for every tool pass, i.e.
• in metal cutting
• in rock cutting where kerf (groove or tool path) deepening
occurs and multiple tool pass cutting is required to allow the
rock between adjacent kerfs to break out as chips.
Equation [5-2] applies to the cutting of materials where chipping between

adjacent kerfs does take place for every tool pass, i.e.
DOCrw = AR / ( { 360 / AAPscrolls ^ line } RPM -60 / 1000 )

= AR / ( SPR • RPM • 60 / 1000 ) [5-2]
Kerf (groove) deepening can generally be avoided by selecting a kerf

spacing that is not too large. The validity and importance of equations [5-1]
and [5-2] for both linear and field cutting tests are discussed in Chapters 4
and 6.
5.2 CUTTING WITH DOMED AXIAL ROTATION

CUTTERHEADS
Typical for kerf cutting of rock with axial rotation cutterheads is that the:
B individual tool depth of cut is dependent on toolholder location

on the cutterhead
B individual tool cutting forces are dependent on toolholder
location on the cutterhead
• cutterhead lacing design must incorporate the two above
mentioned factors
8 individual tool forces do not vary with cutterhead rotary
position - but are dependent on tool depth of cut, kerf spacing
and cutterhead tool configuration
M actual kerf spacing is a function of cutterhead advance rate, tool
line spacing and tools per line for the sump cutting mode.
The principle cutterhead forces are the sum of the generated individual tool
cutting forces. Since the principle tool cutting forces Fn, Fr and Fs vary with
toolholder location on a domed cutterhead; an average cutterhead mean tool
force must be determined to simplify field performance followup and
prediction modelling work.
137
The variation of depth of cut and cutting forces for individual tools due to
cutterhead doming is illustrated in Figure 5-2; and the principle cutterhead
forces in Figure 5-3.
Toolholder #N
DOCnmax,Fnmax
tiltj> DOCn., Fn.
tilt i ,.
•~ Fn. • cos tilt.
t
thrust
Figure 5-2. Generation of individual tool depth of cut and cutting ft

orces.
Note: Tool normal forces drop significantly towards the cutterhead
periphery due to cutterhead doming and reduced individual tool
depth of cut in the normal force direction.
138
5.3 CUTTING FORCES ON DOMED AXIAL ROTATION

CUTTERHEADS
Individual Tool Forces for Linear Roller Disk Cutting
The cutting forces generated by individual tools during linear cutting tests
are a function of the following parameters:
• tool depth of cut, DOC

• tool path or kerf spacing, S
* tool cutter constant, C[_nneai
• rock cuttability/tool tip constant or critical normal force, Fni.unear-
The functional relationships between these parameters for linear roller disk
kerf cutting have been established in Chapter 2.4 as:
m
Normal force Fn t DOC • Sm [2-18]
Rolling force Fr = k Fn
= C J -linear • D O C m
• Fn [1-21]
Individual Tool Depths of Cut on Domed Cutter heads
The actual depths of cut for individual tools mounted on a cutterhead are a
combination of cutterhead advance rates, cutterhead doming and tool lacing
design. The direction of the tool normal force is always defined as equaling
the direction of tool penetration.
Max tool depth of cut DOOw = AR / ( TPL • RPM • 60 / 1000 )
Individual tool depth of cut DOCnj = DOCn,™* • sin tiltj

= DOC,inear ; given tiltj = 90°
Mean tool depth of cut DOCnân = 1 DOCn, / N

= Z D O G w • sin tilti / N
= DOCnmax • SINTM
Note: The depth of cut for individual tools in the normal force direction
DOCni decreases towards the cutterhead periphery due to cutterhead
doming and resulting toolholder tilt angles.
The dome factor SINTM equals the tilt angle for the mean cutterhead
tool, i.e.
SINTM = I sin tilts / N = sin tilt „,,,,

139
Individual Tool Cutting Forces on Domed Cutterheads
The cutting forces generated by individual tools mounted on a cutterhead

can now be expressed as a function of tool depth of advance, kerf spacing,
toolholder mount or tilt angle and tools per line.
Depth of advance DOAnmax = AR / ( RPM 60 / 1000)
DOCrii = DOAnmax • sin tilt; / TPL
Normal force Fn, = Fn,.|inear • (DOAn max • sin tilt; / TPL) m • (Snj / Sn max )" 2
Rolling force Fr, = k| • Fn,
\l/2
Side force Fs, = (DOAn max • cos tilt: / T P L ) ' " • (Sn, / Sn m a x )
Mean Tool Forces for Domed Cutterheads
The mean tool forces for domed cutterheads can now be expressed as:
Mean kerf spacing Snmean = I Sns / N
Mean normal force Fnmean = Z Fn, / N
Fnmean = I Fn,.linear • ( DOAnmax • sin tilt, / TPL ) m • ( Sn; / S n ^ ) m

IN
F n m a x • SINTM m • Sn m
Mean rolling force Fr mean Z Fri / N
Fr mean I kj • Fni / N
C Minear • ( DOAn max • sin tilt, / TPL ) mm • Fn, / N
=
^ ll-mean
- ' rn
Mean side force Fsmean = £ Fs, / N
F s ^ = I F ni . linear • ( DOAn max • cos tilt, / TPL ) m • ( S n i / S n m a x ) m I N
lu
= Fnmax • COSTM •( I Snmax)
The following relationship has been found to apply for well designed axial
rotation cutterheads on TBM's for individual tool line spacings:
140
«n 2 tilti [5-3]
Snmean = Sn^SINTM2
Cutting Test Constants for Domed Cutterheads
The relationship between the rock cuttability/tool tip constants are

determined by the cutting mode and cutterhead tool lacing design. This
implies for domed axial rotation cutterheads with variable line spacing and
tool density that the critical normal force relationships are:
m
Fn m a x = Fn, DOAn m a x = F n , . ^ • DOCn m a x m • T P L
m m
Fn m e a n = I Fn, • ( DOAn m a x • sin tilt;) • ( Sns / S n m a x ) IN
= Fn,. mean • DOCn m e a n mm • T P L mm • (( SSnnm e a n // Sn

TPL Snmax ) m
= n, • DOQjneur " = Fni. l i n e a r • DOC]j ne ar
Fn,/TPL' / 2 = Fn,. max = Fn,. mean = Fn,. linear / T P L m
Using the same procedure as for the critical normal force, the following
relationships can be found for the cutter constant:
k max = C, • ( D 0 A n m a x / T P L ) m • Fn milx = C,. max • DOAn m a x m

• Fn m a x
kmean = I C, • ( D O A n m M • sin tilt; / T P L ) " 2 • Fllj / N
= C, • ( DOAn m e a n / T P L ) m • F r w = C , . ^ , , • DOAnmean m
• Fn
DOC|jnear • rri|j n e a r = C\.ylneaI- DOC|jnear
Ci/TPL = Ci. m a x = Ci. m e a n = Ci. linear / T P L
The cutting test constants are determined by normalizing cutting test data;
and constitute the basis for prediction modelling of axial rotation machine
performance, i.e.
M Fn/.unear and C'i-unear from linear cutting tests

M Fni-,nean and Ci.mean from field cutting tests
141
5.4 THE PRINCIPLE CUTTERHEAD FORCES

The main cutterhead forces are represented by the machine thrust force
ust, cutterhead side force Fsjde and cutterhead torque Tdemand, i.e.
Cutterhead thrust I Fz =0
:
* c yylinder
lim r 1 thrust
:
^"cylinder ' ^ P ' A C y | j n ( j e r
* thrust : Z Fn; • sin tilt,

: m
Z Fn^jnea, • ( DOAnj / TPL ) m • ( Sn, / Sn :) -sin tilt,
: N • Fnmean • ( Snmean / S n m x ) m • SINTM
thrust = N • ( /
Side forces ZF side =0
Z ( Fnj • cos tilt j • cos APj - Fri • sin APj)
S ( Fnj • cos tilt j • sin APj + Fri • cos AP,)
FS1,ide 0 for a wandering or eccentric running

cutterhead. Refer to Chapter 6.3 for a
detailed analysis of cutterhead side forces.
Cutterhead torque 2* 1 centerline ~ "
Tk =
1 demand
•• motor
= Pmo l o r -60/(2JtRPM)
= ( 1/2 - Z Frj) • 2Rmean ; refer to Figure 5-3

= k m ean(F thrust /SINTM ) R m e a n
1/9
1 demand
IN • rTroea / olljnax )
Rn Z R, / N
f") T demand = Z Fr, • Ri

m
= Z kj • Fn,.,inear • ( DOAn, / TPL ) m • ( S n j / w ) • R,
/ J>nmax )
= IN • ) •K
Cutterhead power Pdemand = Z Frj Vj
1/2
Pdemand = Z Kj • F n j . i j n e a r • ( 1 i/TPL) -(Sn i /Sn m a x ) 1 / 2 -Vj
\ 1/2
= N • Fr^n • ( S
142
Specific energy t =
"demand ' ( Acutterhead '
SE I Fri • vi / ( DOCni • Stii • \, • 6 0 2 / 1000 2 )

DOAnmeim / T P L ) • S nmean • 60 2 / 1000
\l/2
C
l-l,n e a r
T motor
DOCnr
side
thrust
Figure 5-3. The principle cutterhead forces acting on domed axial rotation
cutterheads.
143
5.5 BALANCING OF INDIVIDUAL TOOL NORMAL

FORCES AND LINE SPACINGS
The above expressions regarding the distribution of individual cutting tool
forces on cutterheads include the effects of both tool tilt angles and line
spacings. The next step is to relate the rock cutting done by each individual
tool to the cutterhead lacing design; i.e. match individual tool normal forces
to individual line spacings so as to avoid localized overloading of individual
tools on the cutterhead. Localized tool overloading typically results in
premature disk and bearing failures and unnecessarily frequent tool
replacements in these toolholder positions.
To equalize neighbouring tool normal forces; line spacings should be

modified in the following way:
F n
i
=
sin
Fn,+I Fn, r > /Sn i + 1
Sn, = Sn i + 1 • ( s i n tilt f / sin tilt j+ 1 ) ' [5-4]
Equation [5-4] is used as a guideline for cutterhead lacing design for tunnel
boring and raiseboring machines. The relevance of this design criteria has
been verified numerous times by cutterhead tool replacement followup
profiles in the field.
5.6 SUMMARY OF PREDICTION EQUATIONS FOR AXIAL

ROTATION MACHINES TOOLED WITH ROLLER DISK
CUTTERS
Net advance rate AR = DOAn max RPM • 60 / 1000
Net cutting rate NCR = Acuuerhead • AR
Depth of advance DOAn max = DOC, inear • TPL = DC-Cn,™ • TPL
Critical normal force Fill-mean = FOl-max = Fni.linear / T P L
Cutter constant I-mean — ^—l-max — *— I -linear' 1 * L-
Individual tools DOAn, = DOArw • sin tilt;
Fn, = Fn,.linear • ( DOAn; / TPL ) "2 • ( S ni / S n m )
SE, = Fr, / (( DOAn, / TPL ) • Sn; • 60 2 / 1 0 0 0 2 )

144
Mean tool = DOAn m a x SINTM
= I Srii / N
. 1/2
Fnmean = Fnmax • SINTM • ( Snmean / S n m a x ,
• DOAnmean "2 • ( S n ^ n / Snmax ) ш
ean
Frmean = к™an * ^ " m e a n

„«an • D O A n m e a n m • Fnte rana
Cutterhead F,hrast = N - Fnmean • ( S n ^ ^ / S n ^ u)
1 demand = N- Fr^-CSn« ) m
- R
1 4
mean = / • R™
"demand = N- an/Snmax ) • « . vr
• Tdemand ' R P ^ 4/60
SE = Pdemand NCR
Examples of application as to cutterhead and individual roller disk cutting

force predictions are enclosed on the file printouts, i.e.
• curforcl.xls for individual tool and cutterhead forces given TPL = 1 in

pages 163 and 164
• cutpredl.xls for cutterhead performance prediction given TPL = 1 in
Appendix 5
• cutpredl.xls for cutterhead performance prediction given TPL = 2 in
Appendix 6.
5.7 SEQUENTIAL CUTTING WITH DOMED

CUTTERHEADS
Concentric and Sequential Cutting with Axial Rotation Machines
The most effective sequence of cuts which can be made by cutting tools is a
series of "relieved" cuts where each cut is made adjacent to a preceding cut
at a predetermined spacing small enough to substantially reduce the tool
forces compared with an isolated (i.e. unrelieved) cut made to the same
depth. Although relieved cutting is the most common and desirable type of
cut, many machines have tools arranged in such a way that more complex
forms of cut are made.
145
The use of scrolled tool vanes or lines in concentric and sequential rock
cutting as illustrated in Figure 5-4 is an attempt to ensure relieved cutting for
individual tools whilst maintaining a well balanced cutterhead with smooth
running characteristics.
For varying tool density across the cutterhead:
TPLmean = X disks or carbide insert rows / I kerfs
SPR = ( 3 6 0 / A A P s c r o l l s per line)
AAPtools
SPR = 2
TPL = 2
Scroll #1
Scroll #2
AAP.tools
. . . . - - Scroll #1
Scroll #2
Figure 5-4. Concentric and sequential in-line kerf cutting with 2 scrolled
tool vanes.
146
Cutterhead Constants for Domed Axial Rotation Machines
Cutterhead constants are used as practical input parameters for cutterhead

lacing design and performance prediction models. The itemized effects of
cutterhead geometry and tool lacing taken into account are:
• dome factors SINTM and COSTM

• mean tool tilt angle, tiltmean
• mean tool torque radius, Rmean
• mean tool torque radius factor, /
• mean tool kerf spacing, Snmean
S starts per revolution, SPR
• tool density or tools per line,
Cutterhead constants are readily determined on spreadsheets for a given

cutterhead profile geometry and tool lacing pattern. The effect of cutterhead
lacing design is illustrated in the cutforcl.xls file printout in pages 163 and
164 using the established rock cutting prediction equations for each
individual tool mounted on a cutterhead.
Individual Tool and Cutterhead Bouncing for Sequential Cutting
Individual tool bouncing is caused by the following mechanisms as

illustrated in Figure 5-5:
(i) Inability of a tool to cut variable rock hardness formations to a

constant depth of cut; resulting in transient tool peak loading.
(ii) Tool hammering when re-entering the tool path after passing through
a void. Voids are created by fallouts along intersecting joints and
fissures in the tunnel face (heading).
( Hi) The recutting of chips and fallouts on the tunnel invert (especially in
fractured rock) also initiates tool bouncing.
Cutterhead bounce frequency and cutterhead bounce amplitude for

sequential cutting is a combination of:
• individual tool bouncing

• bounce amplitude for individual cutters decreases as roller cutter
diameter increases; and denoted as the "buggy wheel" effect
S differential angular position AAP of the tracking tool in the
adjacent kerf
a cutterhead rotary speed RPM
® the adverse effect of peak or transient tool loading due to tool
bouncing is enhanced for cutterheads with low hydraulic
stiffness; refer to Chapter 4.4.
147
Cutterhead bouncing is readily illustrated for the sump cutting mode as in

Figure 5-6. Cutterhead bounce frequencies originate as follows:
S individual tool bouncing occurs for tools a,b in line i

• the tracking tools a,b in line i + 1 bounce individually after a
given time At = ( 60 / RPM ) • ( AAP / 360 ) resulting in a
cutterhead excitation frequency / = 1 / At.
• >„ DOC
hard layer
DOC
joint
rock fallout
* DOC
Figure 5-5. Individual tool bounce mechanisms.

148
The cutterhead bounce frequency / functions as an excitation frequency for

boom and machine body vibrations. This excitation frequency can not be
eliminated and must be designed away from the natural boom or machine
frequency. There are two controllable design variables that affect cutterhead
excitation bounce frequencies, i.e.
* cutterhead RPM (advantage with variable speed drive electrical

motors)
• differential angular position AAP of tracking tools in the
adjacent kerfs
Example of Application - Hydra Tools Intl. Cutterhead #24
Natural boom frequency /boom = 6 Hz

(Measured by impact hammer tests)
Cutterhead excitation frequency /excitation = l / { ( 6 0 / 7 ) - ( 7 . 5 / 3 6 0 )}
= 5.6 H z
AAP
Figure 5-6. Illustration of cutterhead bouncing mechanisms for sumping

with axial rotation machines.
149
Actual Tool Path or Kerf Spacing for the Sump Cutting Mode
The effective tool path or kerf spacing is illustrated in Figure 5-7 for the
transitional tool positions on a cutterhead. However, the found expressions
apply to all tool positions on a domed cutterhead including:
• forward mounted tools with AL = 0

8 side mounted tools with AR = 0.
The effective tool path or kerf spacing increases with DOAnmax; but is
independent of cutterhead rotary speed.
A L + DOCn max TPL

360
AR
The actual or effective individual tool kerf spacing can be found using the
following expressions for the tool path helix angle /?:
DOCn mjx TPL(p/360 advance

tan 27t-R,-<p/360
AL + DOCn mM • TPL cp/360
Snt
AR + S,
AL + DOC m a • TPL • (p I 360

Snt = AR + sin ft
tan/3
150
AR
" AL
DOCnmax
max TPL <P
-—
3 6 Q
kerf
360
v
rotation
v
advance
Figure 5-7. The actual kerf spacing for domed axial rotation cutterheads.
151
Cutterhead Profiles and Coning Geometry for Axial Rotation Machines
Cutterheads are in principle built with cross-sectional profiles characterized

as:
( i) domed heads; with the coning commencing from the center

cutters
( ii) flat-faced heads; with the coning commencing just prior to the
gauge cutters
The difference in cross-sectional profiles between these two cutterhead types

is illustrated in Figure 5-8.
Concentric and sequential in-line roller disk kerf cutting is illustrated in

Figure 5-4. The doming of cutterheads is an attempt to maintain relieved
cutting for individual tools by introducing a corrective coning angle CA as
illustrated in Figure 5-9. "Optimum" cone angles are dependent on
anticipated cutterhead advance rates and tool lacing patterns, i.e.
ADOC = A • ( AAP / 360) = DOCnmai • TPL • ( AAP / 360 )
tan CA; = ADOC / Sn, = DOCn^ • TPL • (AAP / 360 ) / Sni
tilt,+1 = 90° -
1=1
Gauge cutters are typically mounted with tilt angles of 20°±10° on

cutterheads for tunnel boring machines. Large diameter cutterheads tend to
have flat cross-sectional profiles and small diameter cutterheads can be both.
Small diameter cutterheads tooled with large diameter disk cutters tend to be
more difficult to design due to the limited space available for toolholder
placement on the cutterhead shell.
Table 5-1. Cutterhead coning angles as a function of tool depth of advance

and tool lacing design; i.e. shown for TPL = 2, AAP = 90° and Sn = 50 mm.
DOAnmax = DOCnmax TPL tan CA CA

(mm/rev) (°)
5 0.025 1.43
10 0.050 2.83
15 0.075 4.29
Note: Cutterheads designed for cutting hard rock (smaller depth of

advance) tend to be flat-faced. However, when tunnelling in broken
rock, domed cutterheads generally run more smoothly.
152
L max-flat
L max-dome
Figure 5-8. Typical cross-sectional profiles for the two main cutterhead
types used on axial rotation machines.
AAP
1b 1a" P 2 a'
2b
2a,b
ADOC
1b •cAr
1a 2a'
Sn
AR
tilt 1 a b = 90°
= 90°- CAi
= 90°- 2 - C A ,i+1
Figure 5-9. Effect of tool depth of advance on cutterhead coning angles.

153
6 CUTTERHEAD TOOL LACING DESIGN
6.1 TOOL LACING DESIGN PARAMETERS

The following factors must be taken into account when positioning cutting
tools across a cutterhead shell:
• structural considerations so that sufficient space for toolholder

attachment to the shell, bolt-holes for lifting, water-way connections,
etc. is ensured
• smooth running characteristics by minimizing cutterhead oscillations
so as to reduce peak and eccentric loading of gearboxes and drive
motors
• a balanced cutterhead tool configuration so as to avoid localized
overloading of individual tools. In practical terms, this means that a
cutterhead tooled with roller disk cutters should develop a
"triangular" cutter replacement followup profile. In addition, after
replacing worn tools, excessive protrusion of individual tool tips
should be avoided by replacing tools in neighbouring lines as well.
• design the cutterhead bounce excitation frequency away from the
boom or machine body natural frequency range.
The first factor requires that tools be well distributed over the available
cutterhead shell area - rather than just concentrated along a few spokes. The
second requires that there should be no unbalanced moments at any point on
the cutterhead. The third requires the use of domed and scroll-vaned
cutterheads with variable tool line spacings for sequential cutting.
A balanced distribution of tools over a cutterhead can be achieved by

arranging the following tool positioning or lacing design parameters in a
planned fashion:
• radial tool spacing, AR

• axial tool spacing, AL
• angular tool spacing, AAP
• tool density or tools per line, TPL.
However, the effect of these tool and tool path positioning parameters on
rock chipping, cutting performance and tool life must be understood with
regard to:
sequential and relieved cutting

tool density, tool forces, tool depth of cut and cutterhead advance
tool tilt angles and kerf spacing
kerf deepening and chipping frequency
cutterhead tool replacement profiles.
The expression cutting tool has been used deliberately in this chapter since
these considerations apply to both drag tool and roller disk cutterhead tool
lacing designs.
154
Radial Tool Spacing, AR
Cutterhead tool lacing design is based on toolholders set at various radii in

such a way that the tools, for the sump cutting mode, sweep out a concentric
set of kerfs. These kerfs are separated by ribs of uncut material. Thus, only a
local force is applied to 15 - 25% of the rock surface for the extraction of the
whole face. The uncut ribs are removed indirectly, either by lateral
overbreak to the side(s) of the tools, or by the eventual formation of an
unstable rib after several tool passes (i.e. kerf or groove deepening).
A uniform radial line spacing can be maintained for flat-faced cutterheads.

However, for domed cutterheads, the individual line spacing must be seen in
relation to the tool tilt angles to maintain evenly distributed individual tool
normal forces.
*& chips from the 1st tool passing

O chips from the 2nd tool passing
Figure 6-1. Kerf formation and chipping at the face.
Axial Tool Spacing, AL
Tools are often offset relative to each other in the axial direction (refer to
Chapter 6.2) with the result that the face being cut has a concave profile.
This can yield a number of advantages, including lateral stabilization of the
cutterhead, potential for relieved cutting, special design of center tool
placement and convenience of cuttings removal.
The center section of a cutterhead is sometimes placed in front of the main

cutterhead itself, e.g. the pilot bit on a boxhole machine cutterhead. An
alternative is to have the center of the cutterhead recessed, thereby reducing
the workload of the central tools (center cutters, sumpers, etc.). For the
traverse cutting mode, these recessed sumpers are not in contact with the
rock - thereby eliminating unnecessary pick wear on axial type cutterheads
for roadheaders.
155
Angular Tool Spacing, AAP
In a simple arrangement where tools are arrayed along two or more spokes
as in Figure 6-2, it is obviously desirable to have the radial spokes at
uniform angular spacings. On each of the n spokes there is a resultant of the
rolling (cutting) force Fr acting at a radius R, and the sum of the moments
about the center of the head, nRFc, equals the applied cutterhead torque T.
With an equal angular spoke spacing 2n/n, the moments sum to zero for all
points on the cutterhead, and there is no tendency for turning about other
than the central axis. With irregular angular spacings, as is generally not the
case for flat-faced cutterheads, there is a tendency for eccentric running.
If simple radial tool spokes are inconvenient for structural purposes or in

hard rock formations where a more evenly distributed axial load on the
cutterhead shell is desirable, then the individual tools can be dispersed
across the head as spirals, scrolls or vanes, such that the angular spacings
remain uniform at any given radius as illustrated in Figure 6-3. This will not
disturb the balance of moments.
AAP
Figure 6-2. Example of balanced tool arrays for 3 starts per revolution and
an angular spacing of2n/3.
Figure 6-3. Typical 3-spoked and 3-scroll-vaned cutterheads,.

156
Tool Density or Tools per Line, TPL
Tool density is perhaps the least appreciated lacing design parameter. The
effect of cutting with more than one tool per line is illustrated in Figure 6-4.
The effect of tool density on cutterhead lacing design is best illustrated by

the tool strike grid concept; as shown in Figure 6-5 for a traversing barrel
type cutterhead used on continuous miners. A wrap or scroll angle has, for
simplicity, not been included in the drawings. The parameter tools per line
TPL affects the tool strike grid, and therefore the chip width and thickness
of rock broken off between neighbouring (not necessarily adjacent) kerfs;
i.e.
Single Pass Cutting ( SPR / TPL )

Multiple Pass Cutting Wchl , ~ Skerf
hll
Typical tool density values for roller cutter tooled hard rock TBM
cutterheads:
SPR = 2 (tool vanes scroll with an angular tool spacing of typically 45°)
TPL = 1
Typical tool density values for drag tooled medium to heavy duty
roadheader cutterheads:
SPR = 2-8 (depending on cutterhead diameter)

TPL = 1-3
L__l Uncut area

CZH Area cut once
WZM Area cut twice
Figure 6-4. Effect of cutting with more than one tool per line TPL as a
function of the cutterhead rotation angle for axial rotation cutterheads.
157
CASE 1 - Single Array

Direction of Cut
SPR = 1
PPL= 1
Pick strike "grid" SPR/PPL = 1
for cp = 90
1 revolution t 'MM' DOCn max
TR * 1000
RPM
1 revolution DOCn max
-f- • • •
S S S
CASE 2 - Dual Array
Direction of Cut
SPR = 2
PPL = 2
Pick strike "grid" SPR/PPL = 1
for <p - 90°
TR * 1000
ff DOCn,
1 revolution f I SPR * RPM
DOCn,
s s s
CASE 3 - Modified Dual Array SPR = 2

PPL = 1
SPR/PPL = 2
D omitted pick positions

Pick strike "grid"
for <p = 90°
TR * 1000
DOCn m a x
1 revolution " SPR * RPM
DOCn
Figure 6-5. The tool strike grid for traversing barrel type cutterheads used
on continuous miners illustrating the effects of starts per revolution SPR
and tools per line TPL on chip dimensions.
The use of complex cutterhead lacing design patterns leads to:
II increased cutterhead sumping or traversing rates by increasing

tools per line. Tools per line TPL has the same effect as
increasing tool passes or "cutterhead RPM's" with regard to
advance rates
9 the use of starts per revolution SPR is a systematic way of
omitting tool positions from the cutterhead so as to reduce the
total number of tools on the cutterhead.
158
The effect of tool density on individual tool and cutterhead forces and torque
are shown in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Relative cutterhead force and torque requirements as a function

of tool density for roller disk cutting given RPM = 1.
Tools per Cutterhead Individual Individual Cutterhead Cutterhead

Row Advance Tool Tool Force Torque
TPL AR DOCnmax J**/f * ''thrust * demand
* **max
1 1 1 l 1 1
2 1 1/2 0.707 1.414 1
3 1 1/3 0.577 1.732 1
1 2 2 1.414 1.414 2
2 2 I 1 2 2
• given Fnmax = FnrfDOAn^/TPL)'" = Fn,
6.2 THE STEPWISE TOOL LACING DESIGN PROCEDURE

The basic rock cutting and tool lacing parameters which must be taken into
account if a balanced cutterhead tool lacing design is to be achieved are:
Rock Cutting Parameters Cutterhead Design Parameters
DOCni
tiltj, CAi
rock cuttability/tool tip constants AP,
Fnh Frh Fs, TPL, SPR
Cutterhead tool lacing therefore consists of an optimized combination of the

following parameters:
toolholder tilt angle

line spacing
tools per line
tool starts (spokes or scrolled vanes) per revolution
density of spirals towards the center and periphery of the cutterhead
angle between two tracking tools in adjacent kerfs
torque peak load smoothening by introducing scrolled tool vanes.
Since tool path lengths increase with tool radii, and thus the requirement for
tool replacements; there are in principle two ways to compensate for this
uneven tool replacement requirement on cutterheads so as to obtain a flat
tool replacement profile for drag tooled cutterheads. This is typically
achieved by:
159
S introducing more tools to the cutterhead periphery by decreasing

line spacings towards the periphery or by increasing the number
of tool starts towards the periphery
8 use of larger tools (more wear material) for peripheral tools.
The procedure for designing scroll-vaned cutterhead tool lacing design

patterns in a stepwise fashion is illustrated in Figure 6-6.
THE STEPWISE TOOL LACING DESIGN

PROCEDURE
STEP1 STEP 2
TPL = 1
SPR = 1
N =6
STEP 3 STEP 4 AAP
TPL = 2
SPR = 2 Dummy scroll of
N =12 "empty" toolboxes
A AP= 90°
STEP 5 STEP 6 AAP
Center Cutterhead
TPL = 2 Bounce
SPR = 2 Control
Periphery
TPL = 6
SPR = 6
Figure 6-6. Illustration of the stepwise cutterhead tool lacing design

procedure.
160
STEP 0 Select cutterhead coning start point. Startup tool tilt angles are
given by the "optimized" cutterhead cone angles for relieved
cutting as shown in Chapter 5.7:
tan CA, = DOCnmax • ( AAP / 360 ) / Sri;
tilt, = 90° -
STEP 1 Line spacings must be adjusted according to toolholder tilt

angles to equalize the normal forces between neighbouring lines
as shown in Chapter 5.5:
Sumping with full face and partial face machines
Sn; = Sn m a x • sin tiltj
=> line spacings are reduced towards the periphery
Cutterheads for full face tunnelling machines are designed with

compromise rather than "optimum" face line spacings since the
machines will operate in varying rock mass conditions throughout
their useful lives.
Traversing with partial face machines
Srij = Sn^x • cos2 tilt;
=> line spacings are increased towards the periphery
Cutterheads for partial face tunnelling machines such as the axial

traverse type for roadheaders use both the sump and traverse
cutting modes; and are therefore based on a compromise with
regard to tool lacing design to suit both these cutting modes.
The axial tool spacing AL* can be found by selecting tool radii
ARj startup values:
ALj = ( Sni2 - ARi2) m
Finally, as a check, the startup tool tilt angles from STEP 0

should ensure that tools are mounted perpendicular to the cut
rock surface:
tan tilt. = AR,/ALj
Should this condition not be met; then the startup tilt angle
values for tool radii AR; must be changed - thus creating an
iteration process for this lacing design step.
161
AR J
i +1
i+3
STEP 2 Select number of tools per line, TPL.
STEP 3 Select number of tool starts (spokes, arrays scrolled-vanes) per

revolution SPR.
STEP 4 Introduce a tool scroll vane (wrap or spiral) angle to enhance

smooth running characteristics.
STEP 5 Introduce intermittent tool vanes due to:
H lack of space for toolholders at the center of the

cutterhead
8 bring about a more balanced cutterhead tool
replacement profile (by reducing peripheral tool
workloads and thereby reduce tool replacements in
the periphery for sumping type cutterheads).
STEP 6 Check cutterhead bounce properties as shown in Chapter 5.7

with regard to:
B cutterhead excitation frequencies generated by

cutting
• natural boom or machine body frequency.
Note: The difference between spoked and scroll-vaned cutterheads are:

162
f i) tools in a start line for spoked cutterheads cut the

rock at equal depths - but not sequentially
(ii) spoked cutterheads have poor smooth running

characteristics for cutting in fractured rock and
mixed face conditions.
STEP 7 CUTTERHEAD CONSTANTS
The cutterhead lacing design can be summarized by a few

cutterhead constants which are readily calculated on
spreadsheets. The constants are used for predicting individual
tool and cutterhead forces and torque versus cutterhead advance
rates.
Sumping with full face machines
• tool density or tools per line TPL

• tool starts per revolution SPR
» mean tool torque radius Rmean = I Rt IN
• mean tool tilt angle tiltmean= arcsin SINTM
• mean radius factor / = Rmm IR^
• mean line spacing Snân = £ Sn; / N
• dome factor SINTM = I sin tilt; / N
<•! '
Sumping with partial face machines
• TPL - tool density or tools per line

• Vsump - total volume of the sump
• Snsump - function of line spacing, AAP, SPR and
sump advance rates
• Rsump - function of tools in cut, i.e. cutterhead depth
in the sump
• SINTM and COSTM - doming factors which are a
function of cutterhead depth in the sump
Traversing with partial face machines
• TPL - tool density or tools per line

• mean tool attack position for:
* L,rav - distance from cutterhead tip to mean tool
* Rtrav - torque radius of mean tool
* tiltmean - mean tool tilt angle
* Atrav - active cutterhead coverage area
* Sntrav - mean kerf spacing
• NT,™ - number of tools in cut
m SINTM and COSTM - doming factors
163
6.3 CUTTERHEAD FORCES AND TORQUE

EQUALIZATION ON DOMED AXIAL
ROTATION CUTTERHEADS
The procedures for cutterhead tool lacing design must take the following
factors into account, i.e.
• the tool lacing geometry must suit the rock mass cuttability so
that the generated individual tool forces remain within the tool
strength specifications
M a well balanced cutterhead with regard to rotational torque, i.e.
• no eccentric loading
• peak torque load smoothing
S minimize the effect of cutterhead bounce on machine vibrations
• a well balanced cutterhead tool replacement profile. The
importance of this aspect increases disproportionately with rock
hardness and abrasivity.
The balancing of forces and moments acting on a cutterhead is based on the

summed effect of the individual tool forces and their location on the
cutterhead as shown on Figure 6-7.
The Principle Cutterhead Forces
Z Fz, = 0 Fz = Z Fri; • sin tilt;
Z Fxj = 0 Fx = Z ( Frii • cos tilt; • cos AP, - Fr, • sin A P : )
Z Fyi = 0 Fy = Z ( Fri; • cos tilt; • sin AP, + Fr; • cos AP;)
where: F ^ = Fz
Fside = (Fx 2 + Fy 2 ) 1 / 2
The Principle Cutterhead Moments
I Mzi = 0 Mz = I ( Fxj • Yi - Fy, • X,)
Z Mx; = 0 Mx = I ( Fyj • Zi - FZJ • Yj)
Z My, = 0 My = Z ( Fx, • Z> - Fz* • X, )
where: X; = Rj • cos APj
Tdemand =
164
iFnl * costilt I • cos API

— • X
Figure 6-7. Individual tool forces and location on a domed cutterhead.
The objective of cutterhead force and torque balancing is to ensure non-

eccentric loading situations and smooth running characteristics by
minimizing or eliminating the:
B principle non-axial forces, i.e. Fx = Fy = 0

• principle non-axial moments, i.e. Mx = My = 0
M oscillating cutterhead loads, i.e. the principle cutterhead force
and moments Fx, Fy, Mx, My are, in addition to the stationary
tool positioning angle APj, a function of the cutterhead rotational
angle 9 (or rather 9 + APj) and thus the source of oscillating
cutterhead loads.
The practical use of the cutterhead force and torque balancing equations are
shown on the following cuttorql.xls file and as graphs printouts in Figures
6-8.
165
Cutterhead Principle Force and Torque Balance

cuttorql.xls/A. Lislerud
Cutterhead Diameter, D 2,90 m Max Depth of Cut, DOCnmax 7,11 mm/rev

Number of Cutters, N 20 Critical Force, Fnlmax 51,4 kN/cutter
Disk Diameter, d 368 mm Cutter Constant, Clmax 0,0511 m m " 2
Cutterhead Rotary Speed 7,9 RPM Max Line Spacing, Snmax 88,9 mm
Cutterhead Rotation Angle, <p 360"
Cutter Tool Tilt Angular Tool Tip Line Line Individual

# Radius Angle Position Coordinates Spacing Spacing Tool Tool
Depth Norm,
of Cut, Force,
i Ri ARi ALi tilti APi Xi Yi Zi Sni sin (tilt i) Sni- DOCni Fni
theo
(mm) (mm (mm) (°) (°) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm/ (kN/
rev) cutter)
1 58 58 0 90 0 58 0 0 58 1,00 89 7,1 111
2 142 84 0 90 180 -142 0 0 84 1,00 89 7,1 133
3 227 85 0 90 0 227 0 0 85 1,00 89 7,1 134
4 316 89 0 90 180 -316 0 0 89 ,00 89 7,1 137
5 405 89 0 90 92 -14 405 0 89 ,00 89 7,1 137
6 494 89 0 90 245 -209 -448 0 89 ,00 89 7,1 137
7 583 89 0 90 0 583 0 0 89 ,00 89 7,1 137
8 672 89 0 90 180 -672 0 0 89 ,00 89 7,1 137
9 761 89 0 90 92 -27 760 0 89 ,00 89 7,1 137
10 850 89 0 90 260 -148 -837 0 89 ,00 89 7,1 137
11 939 89 0 90 0 939 0 0 89 1,00 89 7,1 137
12 1027 89 0 90 180 -1027 0 0 89 1,00 89 7,1 137
13 1116 89 0 90 92 -39 1116 0 89 1,00 89 7,1 137
14 1198 81 -5 82 270 0 -1198 -5 81 0,99 87 7,0 131
15 1279 81 -8 67 340 1202 -437 -13 82 0,92 75 6,5 126
16 1351 72 -25 50 144 -1093 794 -38 77 0,77 52 5,4 111
17 1402 51 -38 37 70 480 1318 -76 64 0,60 32 4,3 90
18 1428 25 -64 27 288 441 -1358 -140 68 0,45 18 3,2 81
19 1443 15 -38 17 7 1432 176 -178 41 0,29 8 2,1 50
20 1448 5 -25 17 215 -1186 -830 -203 26 0,29 8 2,1 40
857 1448 •203 78 0,87 72 <S,16 2378
Rmean Rmax Lmax Snmean SINTM DOCn £ Fni
mean
Note Design line spacings Sni are not well matehed

to the theoretical Sni-theo line spacings.
166
Cutter Individual Individual Individual Force Components Torque Components

# Tool Tool Tool Lateral
Rolling Torque Force
Force, Fri Fri-Ri Fn( • cos (tilt i ) Fxi Fyi Fzi Mxi Myi Mzi
(kN/ (kNm/ (kN/ (kN/ (kN/ (kN/ (kNm/ (kNm/ (kNm/
cutter) cutter) cutter) cutter) cutter) cutter) cutter) cutter) cutter)
1 15,14 0,88 0,00 0,00 15,14 111, 0,00 -6,49 -0,88
2 18,13 2,58 0,00 0,00 -18,13 133, 0,00 18,92 -2,58
3 18,27 4,15 0,00 0,00 18,27 134, 0,00 -30,48 -4,15
4 18,67 5,90 0,00 0,00 -18,67 137, 0,00 43,34 -5,90
5 18,67 7,57 0,00 -18,66 -0,65 137, -55,49 1,94 -7,57
6 18,67 9,23 0,00 16,93 -7,89 137, 61,36 28,61 -9,23
7 18,67 10,89 0,00 0,00 18,67 137, 0,00 -79,89 -10,89
8 18,67 12,55 0,00 0,00 -18,67 137, 0,00 92,07 -12,55
9 18,67 14,21 0,00 -18,66 -0,65 137, -104,19 3,64 -14,21
10 18,67 15,87 0,00 18,39 -3,24 137, 114,67 20,22 -15,87
11 18,67 17,53 0,00 0,00 18,67 137, 0,00 -128,63 -17,53
12 18,67 19,19 0,00 0,00 -18,67 137, 0,00 140,81 -19,19
13 18,67 20,85 0,00 -18,66 -0,65 137,1 -152,90 5,34 -20,85
14 17,70 21,20 18,17 17,70 -18,17 129,3 154,92 -0,09 -21,20
15 16,47 21,07 49,24 51,91 -1,36 116,0 50,76 -140,07 -21,07
16 13,29 17,96 71,63 -65,76 31,35 85,4 -69,00 95,83 -17,96
17 9,50 13,32 71,77 15,62 70,69 54,1 -76,64 -27,12 -13,32
18 7,44 10,62 72,17 29,37 -66,34 36,8 59,19 -20,33 -10,62
19 3,71 5,35 48,14 47,33 9,55 14,7 -4,29 -29,49 -5,35
20 2,95 4,27 38,26 -29,65 -24,36 11,7 14,66 19,90 -4,27
309,3 235,2 45,8 -15,1 2196,7 -6,9 8,0 •235,2
I Fri Z Fri • Ri I Fxi IFyi ZFzi I M x i I Myi ZMzi
DOCni = DOCnmax • sin tilt i

Fni = Fnlmax-(DOCni-Sni/Snmax) A 0.5
Fri = Clmax • DOCniA0.5 • Fni
ARi = Ri+1 - Ri
ALi = Li+1 - Li
Sni = (ARiA2 + ALiA2 )A0.5
Sni-theo = Snmax • sinA2 (tilt i )
Xi = Ri • cos APi
Yi = Ri-sin APi
Zi
Fx = Z ( Fni cos (tilt i) • cos APi - Fri • sin APi)
Fy =• Z (Fni cos (tilt i) • sin APi + Fri • cos APi)
Fz = ZFni • sin (tilt i )
Mx = Z ( Fyi • Zi - Fzi • Yi)
My = Z ( Fxi • Zi - Fzi • Xi)
Mz. = Z ( Fxi • Yi - Fyi • Xi)
Fthrust = ZFzi
Fside = ( FxA2 + FyA2 )A0.5
Tdemand = ZMzi
167
15.0
-~ 10.0
-15.0
Cutterhead Rotation Angle (°)
360
Cutterhead Rotation Angle (°)
Figure 6-8. The principle non-axial cutterhead forces and moments as a

function of the cutterhead rotation angle (p.
168
FIELD PERFORMANCE PREDICTION

Rock breakage is effected when a cutting tool is pressed against the rock
surface. In brittle rock, the loading causes the region immediately under the
tool to be crushed, and at a later point in the loading cycle, tensile cracks
initiate from the edge of this crushed zone and propagate either to the rock
surface or to an adjacent, previously cut kerf to form rock chips.
The ultimate goal for rock excavation prediction modelling is the

development of rock mass characterisation procedures utilizing common
geotechnical and geological structural parameters to yield an index of rock
mass cuttability. Such a procedure may well follow a similar process to the
well known Q and RMR geomechanical support classification systems or
the NTH rock mass classification system for rating tunnel boring
performance. The model(s) would help define the most appropriate machine
for an application, the likely performance of the machine, likely machine
power, weight and mechanical characteristics, likely cutting tool
performance, consumption and possible failure mode (abrasive or adhesive
wear, or impact damage).
Structuring Principles of Performance Prediction Models
A wide variety of performance prediction methods and principles are used in

different countries and by various machine manufacturers. Most of these
methods are based on one or two mechanical properties of intact rock as
input parameters (e.g. uniaxial compressive strength and CERCHAR
Abrasivity Index), whilst others are based on a combination of
comprehensive laboratory and field cutting data.
In general, methods for predicting net cutting rates are based on one or more
of the following principles:
• selective field trials combined with site characterisation

including items such as sampling of intact rock specimens and
face/wall mapping
• small scale laboratory testing (linear cutting tests)
* full scale laboratory testing (cutterhead cutting tests)
81 empirical/statistical methods based on field performance data
• theoretical models such as dimensional analysis, FEM analysis.
Contrary to percussive rock drilling, full scale field testing is seldom a

feasible option for cutting and boring machine performance prediction. Full
scale laboratory rock cutting tests are carried out at the:
S Colorado School of Mines, Earth Mechanics Institute (TBM and

raiseboring cutterheads)
B USBM Pittsburgh Research Center (Continuous Miners).
169
In brief, the most advanced machine prediction models contain elements of

all five principles. However, common to all machine performance prediction
methods is that field work with regard to rock sampling and tunnel mapping
are key issues. If the sampling of intact rock or face/wall mapping is not
representative of the actual tunnelling conditions, prediction estimates can
and will not be reliable.
On the basis of the current state of rock mechanics modelling; the following
aspects regarding performance prediction model upbuilding should be kept
in mind:
( i) A model is a simplification rather than an imitation of reality. It is an

intellectual tool that has to be designed or chosen for a specific task.
(ii) The design of the model should be driven by the questions that the
model is supposed to answer rather than by the details of the system
that is being modelled. This helps to simplify and control the model.
( Hi) It might even be appropriate to build a few simple models rather than
one complex model; the simple models would either relate to different
aspects of the problem or address the same questions from different
perspectives.
f iv j The aim should not be to attempt to validate a model but to gain

confidence in it and modify it in use. One's approach to the model
should be like that of a detective rather than a mathematician.
First, a simple model is built and exercised in a conjectural way. The results
almost always suggest new ways of obtaining data or new ways of
interpreting available data. New data, in turn, suggest improvements to the
model or ideas for new models. Implementing these improvements leads to
requirements for new data or insights, and so on. The whole process may be
termed "adaptive modelling".
To summarize; performance prediction models required for mechanized

rock excavation are:
B rock mass cuttability/drillability and abrasivity

8 net cutting and net advance rates
B tool consumption
8 machine utilisation
B individual tool forces, cutterhead forces and moments
• cutterhead tool lacing design
• cutterhead bouncing
S tunnelling costs.
Some of these topics lie within the scope of this report.

170
The flow and linkups of field data collection required for the upbuilding of
performance prediction models for mechanical rock excavation are
illustrated in Figure 7-2. The use of cutting control and monitoring systems
on tunnelling machines as illustrated in Figure 7-1 has greatly increased the
availability of in situ cutting data. However, one of the major drawbacks of
computer based data acquisition systems is the lack of inexpensive but
sophisticated software for reducing the large amounts of sensor generated
data to a comprehensive and readily usable source of information for
practical field follow-up work.
OVERVIEW OF CUTTING CONTROL

AND MONITORING SYSTEMS
ROCK
I
TUNNELLING
MACHINE
ACTUATORS SENSORS
! CONTROL STRATEG SIGNAL PROCESSING

I
DATA LOGGING
DATA OPERATOR
OFF-LOADING DISPLAY/INPUTS
GEOLOGY AND \
GROUND SUPPORTS- MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION ; REPORTS
Figure 7-1. Flow chart for machine monitoring, cutting control and
performance data acquisition.
171
FIELD FOLLOWUP CHART
Excavation Site Tunnelling

Characterization Machine
Performance
Tunnel Size Net Advance Rates

Tunnel Alignment Tool Life
Face/Wall Mapping Tool Replacement Profiles
Intact Rock Material Testing Cutter head Bouncing
In Situ Rock Stress Machine Utilisation
Ground Support Measures
Station No.
or
Tunnel Zone
Face/Wall Mapping Net Cutting and Net Advance Rates

• rock mass distribution • cutterhead forces versus net cutting
• rock mass jointing rates and rock mass characterisation
• type • net advance rates versus net cutting
• orientation rates for partial face machines
• frequency • individual tool force distribution and
• shears, mudseams, ... cutterhead tool lacing design
Testing of Intact Rock Specimens Tool Consumption and Tool Life

mineralogy • tool life versus tool type, tool
rock strength geometry and rock mass
rock surface hardness characterisation
porosity • cutterhead RPM's (VSD)
cuttability/drillability • cutterhead tool replacement profiles
abrasivity • occurrence of cutterhead bouncing
Machine Utilisation
• itemized operational unit times
• scope of ground support work
Figure 7-2. Field followup chart for matching site characterization and
machine performance.
172
8 TERMINOLOGY
The terms and expressions used in this report to describe essentially similar
components or functions of rock cutting machines may vary with the
industry or country in which the machine is built or used, or with the
technical background of the people using the terms.
8.0 GENERAL EXPRESSIONS

Kinematics deals with the inherent relationships defined by the geometry
and motion of the machine and its cutting tools - without much reference to
the properties of the material being cut. Dynamics deals with the forces
acting on the machine and its cutting tools - taking into account machine
characteristics, operating procedures and material properties. Energetics
deals largely with the specific energy relationships that are determined from
power considerations involving forces and velocities in various parts of the
system - taking into account properties of the materials being cut.
A simplified classification of excavators based on the characteristic motions

of the major machine element and the cutting tools categorises machines as
transverse rotation, continuous belt, axial rotation, or planers; while the
action of cutting tools is divided into parallel motion and normal-
indentation.
Transverse rotation devices turn about an axis that is perpendicular to the

direction of advance; as in circular saws. The category includes equipment
such as bucket-wheel trenchers and excavators, rotary-drum pavement
graders, coal shearers, roadheaders, continuous miners and booms with
ripping heads, some rotary snow ploughs, and some cutterheads for
dredging. In addition, the Robbins Mobile Miner represents a special form
of transverse rotation devices, i.e. the sweeping of a rotating wheel-type
cutterhead. Continuous belt machines represent a special form of transverse
rotation devices in which the rotor has been changed to a linear element; as
in chain saws. The category includes "digger chain" trenchers, ladder
dredges, coal saws, shale saws, and similar devices. Axial rotation devices
turn about an axis that is parallel to the direction of advance; as in drills. The
category includes equipment such as rotary drills, augers and shaft-sinking
machines, tunnel and raiseboring machines, corers, Marietta Borers, and
certain types of snow ploughs. Planing devices only use a horizontal
translation movement; as in carpentry planes. The category includes
equipment such as coal ploughs, asphalt planers and some snow ploughs.
A few excavators and some operations do not really fit this classification.
For example, certain roadheaders and ripping heads sump in by axial
rotation and produce largely by traversing; and there may be some question
as to the classification of tunnel reamers and tapered drill bits.
173
Boring machines are generally large full-face (full bore) excavators;

typically equipped with an axial rotation cutterhead with either drag tools,
disk cutters or studded roller cone cutters depending on the properties of the
materials being cut.
Cutting machines are generally partial face machines; typically equipped

with a transverse rotation or an axial rotation cutterhead and equipped with
drag tools.
There are four basic cutterhead modes of operation, i.e. sumping,

traversing, sweeping and planing. These modes of operation are listed for
the most common excavator categories in the following table:
Cutterhead Mode Axial Rotation Transverse Continuous Planing

of Operation Rotation Belt
Sump 1 +2 (3) + 4 + 6 8
Traverse 2 4 + 5+7 8
Sweep 3 +6
Plane 9
1. Tunnel and raiseboring machines, Marietta Borers, reamers, ...

2. Roadheaders with axial rotation cutterheads (in-line cutterheads)
3. Roadheaders with transverse rotation cutterheads (milling
cutterheads), ...
4. Continuous miners, bolter miners, ...
5. Coal shearers,...
6. Robbins Mobile Miner
7. Wohlmeyer type machines
8. Trenchers,...
9. Coal ploughs, asphalt planers, ...
8.1 CUTTING TOOLS

Cutting tools are the actual cutting elements attached to a cutterhead. The
tool attachment device on a cutterhead shell is termed a toolholder, or:
S pickbox - for drag tools

• saddle - for roller cutters
On domed cutterheads the toolholder mount angle relative to the cutterhead

rotation axis is the toolholder tilt angle.
174
Pickboxes must be skewed inwards for a pick tip to run in the intended line
(due to pick tip protrusion u ahead of the radial distance between cutterhead
and pickbox centerlines). Thus, pick skew angles decrease with kerf radii.
However, pick skewing in the chip loosening direction must also be ensured
for point attack picks, so as to enhance pick rotation in the toolholder.
Parallel-motion tools operate with a planing action which moves the tool
parallel to the surface that is being cut. This category includes tools such as
carbide-tipped drag tools (roadheaders, continuous miners, coal ploughs and
soft-rock tunnel boring machines), hard faced teeth (large augers), steel
cutting blades (ice drills), and diamond tipped tools (core drilling).
The term drag tool (bits in the US and picks in the UK) is used for the two
principle types of parallel-motion tools; namely point attack or conical tools
(which rotate in the toolholder) and radial tools which do not.
Normal-indentation tools in the present context is limited to the various

types of roller cutters that are thrust into the surface being cut by high
normal forces. More generally, the category would also include bits for
percussive drilling.
The term roller cutter is used for all types of unpowered cutters that work
primarily by means of a rolling action indentation. Examples of such devices
are wheel-type glass cutters, tricone bits for rotary drilling, disk cutters,
studded disk cutters, steel-toothed disk cutters, studded roller cone cutters,
etc.
Cutter radius is taken as the radius to the extreme tip of a continuous disk
rim, the studs, or teeth.
Inserts, studs, or buttons, are hard projections, usually of cemented carbide,

set into the disk rim or cutter cone frustum.
Stud protrusion is taken as the radial distance between the tip of the stud
and the disk or cone perimeter.
The rim edge angle of a roller disk cutter is the apex angle for the part of the
tool that penetrates the rock, i.e. the cross section of the rim. The half-angle
is denoted by p, so that the total wedge angle is 2p\ However, the most
commonly used roller cutter rim geometry today are disks with constant
section rims.
175
8.2 CUTTERHEADS FOR AXIAL ROTATION MACHINES

For axial rotation machines, the cutterhead is the complete rotor which
revolves about the central axis of the hole, shaft or tunnel that is being
bored. Its diameter corresponds to that of the bore. Thus fox full-face tunnel
boring machines it is the face plate onto which the cutters are attached. On
partial-face machines, it is the boom mounted rotating shell onto which
drag tools are attached. Some excavators have two or more booms and/or
cutterheads, e.g. Marietta Borers.
Reamers are devices that increase the diameter of an existing pilot hole
using a tapered cutterhead to attack the hole walls continuously; or they may
consist of a series of annular boring heads that cut out a set of discrete steps,
each larger in diameter than the preceding one. Some raiseborers and tunnel
boring machines fall into this category.
The advance axis is the central axis of the hole that is being bored, and the
axis about which the cutterhead rotates.
Net penetration rate or net advance rate is the speed at which the
cutterhead advances in the axial direction.
The rotational velocity of a cutterhead is its angular velocity GO (radians per

unit time), but it is often expressed as angular frequency f (revolutions per
unit time).
The absolute tool speed for a given point on a disk rim is the velocity of that
point relative to the rock, taking into account the components of motion due
to both rotation and penetration, i.e. it is the time derivative of the tool
trajectory. In the case of fixed tools (drag tools), it is equivalent to "surface
meters per minute". Tool speeds vary with the radius of the tool on the
cutterhead; at the periphery of the head, where speeds are highest, tangential
velocity derived from rotation alone is usually a good approximation. In the
case of roller cutters, the velocity of the center of the roller is typically taken
as the "tool speed" although indentation velocity of the rim is more directly
relevant to cutting.
The trajectory of a fixed cutting tool, or the trajectory of a fixed part of a

roller cutter, is the helical path traced relative to fixed axes (relative to the
rock) as the cutterhead advances. The cutting trajectory for a roller cutter is
the path traced relative to the rock by a given point on the disk rim; it
approximates a cycloid or epicycloid superimposed on a helix.
The helix pitch A (as described by the cut tool path) is the cutterhead
advance for one complete revolution in the axial direction.
176
The helix angle at any given radius Rj on a cut helical tool path is the slope
angle defined by fj = atan ( A /
A tracking tool follows one or more identical tools set at the same radius on
the cutterhead. If there are n tracking tools at a given radius, they are
normally uniformly spaced with an angle 2K I n between their positions. The
most commonly used term for expressing the number of tracking tools is
tools per line, i.e. TPL = n.
Angular position AP refers to the angular spacing of cutting tools relative to

a given tool.
The most effective sequence of cuts which can be made by cutting tools is a
series of "relieved" cuts where each cut is made adjacent to a preceding cut
at a predetermined spacing small enough to substantially reduce the tool
forces compared with an isolated (i.e. unrelieved) cut made to the same
depth. The use of scrolled tool vanes or lines in concentric kerf cutting is an
attempt to ensure sequentially relieved rock cutting for individual tools
whilst maintaining a well balanced cutterhead with smooth running
characteristics.
Center cutters are tools set at or near the cutterhead axis of rotation. Tool
trajectory helix angles approach 90°, and the tools must progress directly
into the rock in the axial direction with cutter rotation approaching nil. This
frequently leads to tool skidding and reduced tool service life.
Skidding of roller cutters, especially for coned roller cutters is almost

unavoidable, when non-tilted roller cutters of standard design are attached to
flat-faced cutterheads at different radii. Skidding has a detrimental effect on
disk and cutter life, since it gives rise to facet wear of the disk rim - and
ultimately frozen or locked cutter bearings.
Gauge or peripheral tools are the tools set at the full radius of the bore.
They have to cut the corner or angle that marks the transition from face to
hole wall.
Cutting with constant penetration with roller cutters means that the normal
distance between the axle and the (smooth) rock surface remains constant as
the roller cutter travels, so that the depth of cut does not vary. For constant
penetration operation, the mountings of the roller cutter must be stiff.
Cutting with constant thrust with roller cutters means that the normal
component of the cutting force remains constant as the roller cutter travels.
In reality, constant thrust is virtually unattainable in brittle materials (the
requirements are perfect compliance and zero inertia).
The compliance of a tool in any given direction is the tool deflection

divided by the applied force. Compliance is the reciprocal of stiffness (force
divided by deflection).
177
8.3 ROCK CUTTING MODES

A pit, or crater, made by an indenter is usually taken to be the cavity that
remains when the indenter is withdrawn and loose fragments have been
removed. In brittle materials this cavity is usually larger than the volume of
the indenter that penetrated; partly due to rock breakage to the sides, and
partly due to rock crushing under the tip of the indenter.
A normal-indentation tool is a device that forms a pit, crater or kerf in the

rock surface by penetrating in a direction more or less perpendicular to the
surface. The indentation process may involve:
a brittle failure, with formation of loose rock fragments or chips

towards the free surface
B ductile yielding, with displacement of material towards the free
surface
• compaction of a readily compressible material.
A kerf or tool path is the slot gorged out in the rock face by a cutting tool.
Parallel kerfs swept out by adjacent tools are separated by ridges or ribs of
rock yet to be broken up as chips.
A kerf made by a roller cutter is the channel, often irregular, left after
passing of the cutter. As in the case of a crater, the cross-sectional area of a
kerf in brittle material is usually greater than the cross-sectional area of the
rim of the roller cutter that penetrated the rock. For drag tool cutting in
brittle materials a kerf usually has sloping sides resulting from overbreak.
Overbreak is the rock removed as chips on the unrelieved side of a cut.
Underbreak is the rock removed as chips below the level of tool tip
penetration.
The depth of cut for an indenting tool is the distance from the starting rock
surface to the tip of the indenter, measured normal to the surface.
Kerf spacing describes the shortest distance between two cut kerfs or tool
paths traced in the rock face. The tool line spacing describes the shortest
distance between circles described by individual tools on a freely rotating
cutterhead.
Relieved cutting is an expression characterising the rock breakage along the

cut tool path by chipping towards an adjacent kerf from a preceding cut. The
preceding cut enhances the process of chip formation and loosening.
Unrelieved cutting is an expression characterising the rock breakage along

the cut tool path by chipping where no preceding or adjacent kerf is present
(or the spacing to the adjacent cut is too large to enable any interaction);
178
resulting in breakout angles typical for the tool, rock type and depth of cut
as used for the specific cut.
Single-Pass cutting is an expression for relieved rock cutting characterised

by continuous rock breakage by chipping along the cut tool path.
Multi-Pass cutting is an expression for unrelieved rock cutting

characterised by discontinuous rock breakage by chipping along the tool
path, i.e. necessitating multiple tool passes (or cutterhead revolutions) to
remove all the rock (ridges) between adjacent kerfs as chips.
Kerf profiling, kerf deepening or overcoring is the process resulting from

unrelieved cutting where little or no lateral chipping has occurred on
previous tool pass(es) towards the adjacent kerfs, and the kerf is deepened
into a groove.
Chipping is the process where the growth of lateral macro-fractures extends

to neighbouring kerfs or macro-fractures generated by previous tool passes
in the neighbouring kerfs resulting in the formation and loosening of rock
fragments as chips.
Chipping frequency relates to the number of tool passes (or cutterhead

revolutions) required to remove the rock (ridges) between kerfs as chips.
Yield is the volume of rock excavated per unit distance of cut.
In-Line cutting is an expression characterising rock cutting where the tools

always pass in previously cut kerfs or tool paths (typical for full-face
machines such as tunnel and raiseborers with concentric kerfs in the face).
The crushed and compacted rock material remaining in the kerf obviously
affects the transfer of tool forces to the rock during the next tool pass.
Off-Line cutting is an expression characterising rock cutting where the tools

in principle never pass in previously cut kerfs or tool paths (typical for
sweeping cutterheads such as the Robbins Mobile Miner and milling
cutterheads for roadheaders).
Undercutting is an expression characterising rock cutting where the tools

attack the rock at an inclined angle - thus utilising an additional free face to
enhance chip formation and loosening under the tool (as opposed to lateral
chipping typical for in-line and off-line kerf cutting). The distance from the
additional free surface to the kerf or tool path is now taken as the kerf
spacing. If this distance is so large that macro-fracture growth originating
from the tool contact area does not extend to this free surface; the rock is
then removed by wedging of the cut groove. This rock cutting method is
termed Cut & Break. Undercutting was first introduced with the Wohlmeyer
machine equipped with drag tools.
179
8.4 CUTTING FORCES AND SPECIFIC ENERGY

The principle cutterhead forces are the sum of the individual tool cutting
forces. Since the principle tool cutting forces Fn, Fr and Fs vary with
toolholder location on a domed cutterhead; an average "mean tooV force for
the cutterhead must be determined so as to simplify field performance and
prediction modelling work.
The thrust force is the average force applied to the cutterhead in the
direction of the advance to maintain a prescribed advance rate.
Tool forces or cutting forces are the forces generated by the individual
cutting tools on a cutterhead to maintain a prescribed depth of cut.
The individual tool cutting forces are either resultant forces, or components
of the resultant force at some specified stage of tool penetration. For simple
indenters the cutting force is usually the direct thrust, more or less normal to
the surface.
The cutting forces are usually measured at the axle of a roller cutter, and
defined in terms of orthogonal components parallel and normal to the
surface and direction of cutter travel, i.e.
Mean normal force The average normal force Fn imposed on a

cutting tool to maintain a given depth of cut.
The mean normal force is proportional to the
tool contact area (or foot print area) for
single-pass tool cutting.
Mean rolling force The average rolling force Fr imposed on a

roller cutter to maintain a given depth and
arises mainly from the rolling resistance of the
cutter.
Mean side force The average side or lateral force Fs imposed

on a cutting tool. This force, albeit generally
small, manifests itself typically in relieved
cutting operations when large chips are
formed.
The ratio of the major tool force components, i.e. the ratio of the radial to
the tangential tool force component is:
8 cutting coefficient k = Fc / Fn for drag tools

8 cutter coefficient k = Fr /Fn for roller cutters
180
The specific energy of an indentation tool is the work put into the
indentation process per unit of material displaced. Alternatively, for a
continuous uniform process it is the power input for indentation divided by
the volumetric displacement rate. The dimensions of specific energy are
energy per unit volume, which is the same as force per unit area (e.g. J / m 3
= N / m 2 ). This parameter can be regarded as an indication of the cutting
"efficiency" - which includes the effects of rock cuttability and drillability,
toolholder and cutterhead compliance and kerf spacing.
8.5 ROCK MASS CUTTABILITY AND WEAR CAPACITY

Most rock mass formations are fractured to some degree; where the fracture
planes represent non-continuous structural elements in an otherwise
continuous medium {intact rock).
Rock mass cuttability and drillability is its simplest form defined as being a
factor proportional to net cutting or net advance rates, or specific
cutting/drilling energy. However, the specific energy is closely linked to the
apparatus or drilling equipment with which it has been determined. Another
and perhaps more precise definition for rock cuttability is rock resistance to
tool indentation for a unit depth of cut, i.e. such as the critical normal force
for roller disk cutting or Ki for percussive drilling.
Rock resistance to tool indentation is the generated tool normal force for a
given tool indentation depth (generally taken as 1 mm/pass or 1 mm/rev/start)
for a standard cutting tool geometry and kerf spacing. This rock
cuttability/tool tip constant is commonly denoted as the critical normal
force Fnj.
Tool wear is defined as microscopic or macroscopic removal or fracture of

material from the working surface of a tool or wearflat by mechanical
means; in general any degradation that reduces tool service life.
Tool wear rate is measured as tool weight, volume or height loss per cut or
rolled distance.
The wearflat on cutting tools or studs is the abraded area of the tool tip.
Tool service life is measured in cut or rolled distance. However, tool service
life in cutting hours per tool is a more practical unit of measure.
Tool consumption is the reciprocal of tool service life.

181
8.6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Uniaxial compressive strength [MPa]
ucs [MPa]
Brazilian tensile strength BTS
Point Load Index Is [MPa]
Young's modulus of elasticity E [GPa]
Poisson's ratio V
Density P [g/cm3]
Critical energy release rate G,c [J/m2]
3/2
Critical stress intensity factor KIC [MN/m = MPa • m"2]
Joint spacing 0 [m]

Joint orientation a
Strike s
Dip /
Azimuth r
n
Tungsten carbide we
Cemented carbide WC/Co
Vickers hardness for metals HV [kgf/mm2]
Drilling Rate Index DRI

Brittleness Value S20
Sievers J Value SJ
Protodyakonov Rock Hardness /
Rosiwal Abrasivity Rating Rosiwal

Wear Index F F
CERCHAR Abrasivity Index CAI
Vickers hardness number (minerals) VHN [kgf/mm2]
Vickers hardness number rock VHNR [kgf/mm2]
Disk diameter d [mm]

Disk radius r [mm]
Disk rim width W [mm]
Studs on a disk rim n
Angular stud spacing 6 = 271 / n [°]
Stud rim spacing RS = 2rcr / n [mm]
Stud protrusion P [mm]
Depth of cut DOC [mm/pass or mm/rev/tool]

Helix pitch A [mm/rev]
Line spacing Sline [mm]
Kerf spacing Skerf [mm]
Tool contact area [mm2]
Mean normal force Fn [kN/disk or kN/row or kN/pick]

Mean rolling force Fr [kN/disk or kN/row or kN/pick]
Mean cutting force Fc [kN/pick]
Mean side force Fs [kN/disk or kN/row or kN/pick]
Critical normal force Fn, [kN/disk or kN/row or kN/pick]
Kerf cutting exponent b
182
Cutter coefficient k = Fr/Fn = C, • DOC l/2

Cutting constant C,
Tool cutting velocity v [m/s]
Critical tool cutting velocity Vcntical [m/s]
Specific energy SE [2.7810 • kWh/m = J/nv = N/m 2 ]
7 3
Tools on cutterhead N
Cutterhead rotary speed RPM
Tool radius on cutterhead [m]
Tool line number
Radial tool spacing AR [mm]

Axial tool spacing AL [mm]
Longitudinal tool spacing AZ [mm|
Angular tool spacing AAP
Tools per line TPL
Cutterhead rotation angle

Tool rotation angle
Tool path helix angle P atari ( A / 27lR,)
Tool tilt angle tilt, atari ( AR, / AL;)
Skew angle atari ( u I R j )
Clearance angle
Rake angle
Cutterhead advance rate AR [m/h]

Net cutting rate NCR [nr/h]
Cutterhead torque T ikNm]
Cutterhead power P [kW]
Cutterhead thrust f" thrust [kNJ
Cutterhead side force F.side [kN]
Tool wear rates WR [mg/mj

Tool consumption [tools/m3]
Tool service life [mVtool]
Tool service life [hours/tool or meters/tool]
Conversion Factors
lkg = 9.81 N
= 0.4536 lb
1 MPa = 1 N/mm2
= 1 • 106N/m2
= 145.14 psi
1 bar = 0.1 MPa
1 kN = 0.00445 lbf
1 kWh/m3 = 0.976 HPh/yd3

183
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A summary of the main items in this study on mechanical rock cutting by

roller cutters are:
B phenomenological model based on similarity analysis for roller

disk cutting
& review of rock mass properties which affect rock cuttability and
tool life
H principles for linear and field cutting tests and performance
prediction modelling
S review of cutterhead lacing design procedures and principles
In detail, the mechanics of cutting and boring are presented in Chapter 1. A

phenomenological model based on similarity analysis for the cutting action
of roller disk cutters is presented in Chapter 2. Rock mass properties which
affect rock cuttability and tool life are presented in Chapter 3. The principles
of linear test cutting machines and prediction modelling of roller disk
cutting based on linear cutting test and field trial results are presented in
Chapter 4. A procedure for calculating individual tool and cutterhead forces
is presented in Chapter 5, followed by a presentation of cutterhead tool
lacing design in Chapter 6, including some aspects of field performance
prediction modelling in Chapter 7.
As a conclusion of this study, the following items have been carried out:
• construction of a test rig

• field tests proposed and started up
8 the study results can be used to improve the performance
prediction models used to assess the feasibility of different
mechanical excavation techniques at various repository
investigation sites.
184
LITERATURE
Autio, J. & Kirkkomäki, T. 1996. Boring of full scale deposition holes
using a novel dry blind boring method. Report POSIVA-96-07, Posiva Oy,
Helsinki and similar report in SKB's (Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB)
report series Projekt Rapport PR 96-21.
Baker, W.E., Westine, P.S. and Dodge, F.T. (1973). Similarity Methods in
Engineering Dynamics. Hayden Book Company Inc.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1984). Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and

Tunnelling. A.A. Balkema, p 272.
Blindheim, O.T. (1979). Bergarters borbarhet. Borbarhetsprognoser for

tunnelanlegg. Dr ing avhandling, Geologisk Institutt, NTH, p 406.
Ewendt, G. (1989). Erfassung der Gesteinsabrasivität und Prognose des

Werkzeugverschleißes beim maschinellen Tunnelvortrieb mit
Diskenmeißeln. Bochumer geologische und geotechnische Arbeiten, Heft
33,p88.
Fenn, O., Protheroe, B.E. and Joughin, N.C. (1985). Enhancement of

Roller Cutting by Means of Water Jets. Chapter 21, RETC Proceedings,
Vol.1, 1985.
Gertsch, R.E. (1993). Tunnel Boring Machine Disk Cutter Vibrations.

Colorado School of Mines, MSc Thesis, p 144.
Gertsch, R.E. and Özdemir, L. (1991). Performance Prediction of

Mechanical Excavators in Yucca Mountain Welded Tuffs from Linear
Cutter Tests. CSM/Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, SAND91-7038.
Hoek, E. and Bray, J.W. (1977). Rock Slope Engineering. Institution of

Mining and Metallurgy, London, p 402.
Jaeger, J.C. and Cook, N.G.W. (1971). Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics.

Chapman and Hall Ltd., p 515.
Lislerud, A. (1990). Hard Rock Tunnel Boring. Sandvik Rock Drilling

Days, Sandviken, October 1990, pp 49-70.
Mason, B. and Berry, L.G. (1968). Elements of Mineralogy. W.H.

Freeman and Company, p 550.
185
Manttari, MJ. (1997). Laboratory Scale Rock Drillability Tests. Licentiate

Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, p 131.
NTH (1988). Project Report 1-88: Hard Rock Tunnel Boring. University of
Trondheim, p 183.
NTH (1990). Project Report 13-90: Drillability - Drilling Rate Index

Catalogue. University of Trondheim, p 179.
Obert, L. and Duvall, W.I. (1967). Rock Mechanics and the Design of
Structures in Rock. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p 650.
Rostami, J. (1992). Design Optimization, Performance Prediction and

Economic Analysis of Tunnel Boring Machines for the Construction of the
Proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository. Colorado School of
Mines, MSc Thesis, p 248.
Sandvik Hard Materials (1997). Understanding Cemented Carbide. H-

9100-ENG, p20.
Schmidt, R.L. (1972). Drillability Studies. Percussive Drilling in the Field.

USBM Report of Investigations 7684.
Snowdon, R.A., Ryley, M.D., Temporal, J. and Crabb, G.I. (1983). The
Effect of Hydraulic Stiffness on Tunnel Boring Machine Performance. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol. 20, No. 5, pp 203-214.
TVO 1992. Final Disposal of Spent Fuel in the Finnish Bedrock, Technical
Plans and Safety Assessment. Helsinki. Teollisuuden Voima Oy. Report
YJT-92-31-E.
186
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Excel file printouts of Disk Contact Angle Formula,

2 pages
Appendix 2. Excel file printouts of Coefficient of Rock Strength versus

Unaxial Compressive Strength, 1 page
Appendix 3. Excel file printouts of Skewed and Off-Line Micro-Disk

Lathe Cutting Tests, 2 pages
Appendix 4. Excel file printouts of Normalized Linear Roller Disk

Cutting Tests, 44 pages
Appendix 5. Excel file printouts of Tool and Cutterhead Forces for

Sumping Cutterheads (1), 1 page
Appendix 6. Excel file printouts of Tool and Cutterhead Forces for

Sumping Cutterheads (2), 1 page
n
Disk Contact Angle w Formulae Q.
><
contangl.xls/A. Lislerud
Disk diameter, d 305 mm

Disk radius, r 152.5 mm
Disk edge width, W 10 mm
Actual disk contact angle co' = acos ( ( r - DOC or co1 = atan ((d-DOC - DOCA2 )A0.5 / (r - DC
Approx. disk contact angle co = ( 360/rc )•( DOC/d )A0.5
Actual chord length Lchord = 2 • (d-DOC - DOC A 2 ) A 0.5
Actual disk contact arc Lore' = Ttdio / 360
Approx. disk contact arc Larc = (d-DOC ) A 0.5
Actual disk edge contact area Aeon'= Wjidco/360

Approx. disk edge contact area Aeon = W ( d-DOC ) A 0.5
Actual disk indentation area Aindenf = 7irA2< co/360 ) - 1 / 2 ( r - DOC )•( d-DOC - DOC A 2 ) A 0.5
Approx. disk indentation area Aindent = r A 2( p-DOC / d ) A 0.5 - 1 / 2 ( r - p-DOC )•( d-p-DOC ) A 0.5
Indentation depth at resultant force attack point DOCresultant = p D O C
Indentation depth ratio, p 0.75
Mean disk edge indentation depth DOCmean = Aindent' / ( 1 /2 • Lchord )
Approx. resultant force attack angle toresultant = acos ( ( r - ( 1 - p ) D O C ) / r )

Actual cutting coefficient k' = tan coresultant
Approx. cutting coefficient k = ( DOC / d ) A 0.5
Max Disk Actual Approx. Actual Approx. Actual Approx. Mean Disk Disk Actual Approx. Resultant Disk Actual Approx.
Indentation Disk Disk Disk Disk Disk Disk Indentation Indentation Disk Disk Force Attack Contact Cutting Cutting
Depth Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Contact Depth Depth Ratio ndentation indentation Angle Angle Ratio Coeff. Coeff.
Angle Angle Arc Arc Area Area Area Area
DOC co1 CO Larc' Larc Aeon' Aeon OOCmean DOCmean/OOC Aindenf/2 Aindent/2 coresultant axesultant/w k' k
(mm) (°) O (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm2) (mm) (mm2) (mm2)
o
0.1 2.08 2.07 5.5 5.5 55.2 55.2 0.069 0.691 0.18 0.18 1.04 0.500 0.0181 0.0181
0.5 4.64 4.64 12.4 12.3 123.5 123.5 0.336 0.672 2.06 2.01 2.32 0.500 0.0405 0.0405
1 6.57 6.56 17.5 17.5 174.7 174.6 0.670 0.670 5.82 5.67 3.28 0.500 0.0573 0.0573
2 9.29 9.28 24.7 24.7 247.2 247.0 1.338 0.669 16.43 16.04 4.64 0.500 0.0812 0.0810
3 11.38 11.37 30.3 30.2 302.9 302.5 2.006 0.669 30.16 29.47 5.68 0.499 0.0995 0.0992
4 13.15 13.12 35.0 34.9 350.0 349.3 2.676 0.669 46.39 45.37 6.57 0.499 0.1151 0.1145
5 14.71 14.67 39.2 39.1 391.5 390.5 3.347 0.669 64.76 63.41 7.34 0.499 0.1288 0.1280
6 16.13 16.07 42.9 42.8 429.1 427.8 4.018 0.670 85.05 83.36 8.04 0.499 0.1413 0.1403
7 17.43 17.36 46.4 46.2 463.8 462.1 4.691 0.670 107.07 105.04 8.69 0.499 0.1528 0.1515
8 18.64 18.56 49.6 49.4 496.1 494.0 5.364 0.671 130.68 128.34 9.29 0.498 0.1636 0.1620
9 19.78 19.69 52.6 52.4 526.5 523.9 6.039 0.671 155.78 153.14 9.85 0.498 0.1737 0.1718
10 20.86 20.75 55.5 55.2 555.2 552.3 6.714 0.671 182.27 179.35 10.39 0.498 0.1833 0.1811
11 21.90 21.76 58.3 57.9 582.7 579.2 7.390 0.672 210.07 206.92 10.90 0.498 0.1925 0.1899
12 22.88 22.73 60.9 60.5 608.9 605.0 8.068 0.672 239.12 235.77 11.38 0.498 0.2013 0.1984
13 23.83 23.66 63.4 63.0 634.1 629.7 8.746 0.673 269.35 265.84 11.85 0.497 0.2098 0.2065
14 24.74 24.55 65.8 65.3 658.5 653.5 9.425 0.673 300.71 297.10 12.30 0.497 0.2180 0.2142
15 25.63 25.41 68.2 67.6 681.9 676.4 10.105 0.674 333.16 329.49 12.73 0.497 0.2260 0.2218
Mean Value 2/3 1/2
NO
Coefficient of Rock Strength versus Uniaxial Compressive Strength
pendi
usbm7684.xis/A. Lislerud Drillability Studies. Percussive Drilling in the Field. USBM Ri 7684 R.L, Schmidt
Geologic Commercial Location Tensile CompressiveShore Hardness Density Static Young' : Poisson'sCoefficientof*
Name Name Strength Strength (Scleroscope Modulus Ratio Rock Strength •
(psi) (psi) Units) (g/cm3) (10**6-psi) CRS
Negaunee Iron Formation Humboldt Iron Silicate Humboldt, Mich. 2080 59550 76 3.50 11.1 0.13 2.39
Banded Grey Gneiss Hornblende Schist Randville, Mich. 1080 29600 76 2.99 14.6 0.24 1.64
Granite Pegmatite Randville, Mich. 1230 12750 88 2.63 5.9 0.07 0.77
Rib Hill Quartzite Wausau Quartzite Wausau, Wis. 2510 31650 100 2.64 10.5 0.07 0.78
Welded Tuff Wausau Argillite Wausau, Wis. 2620 31400 72 2.73 7.6 0.23 2.28
Dneta Member, Prairie du Chien Formatior Winona Dolomite Winona, Minn. 600 13800 52 2.62 0.47
Dneta Member, Prairie du Chien Formatior Mankato Stone Mankato, Minn. 910 17800 49 2.60 7.4 0.27 0.45
Sioux Quartzite New Ulm Quartzite New Ulm, Minn. 2250 22250 66 2.61 5.8 0.14 0.75
Sioux Quartzite Jasper Quartzite Jasper, Minn. 2950 43700 92 2.63 9.4 0.03 1.01
Rockville Quartz Monzonite Rockville Granite Cold Spring, Minn. 1300 22000 91 2.65 9.6 0.26 0.84
St Cloud Gray Granodiorite Charcoal Granite St. Cloud, Minn. 1850 28950 87 2.66 9.8 0.25 1.21
Warman Quartz Monzonite Diamond Gray Granite Isle, Minn. 1780 24350 88 2.65 9.3 0.23 0.82
Dresser Basalt Dresser, Wis. 4020 40800 81 2.99 13.1 0.29 2.86
Dneta Member, Prairie du Chien Formatior Shiely Limestone St. Paul Park, Minn. 820 14200 35 2.48 6.2 0.28 0.57
Biwabik Iron Formation Mt. Iron Taconite Mt. Iron, Minn. 4330 51350 80 3.36 15.7 0.19 1.47
Biwabik Iron Formation Aurora Taconite Hoyt Lakes, Minn. 3160 52400 83 3.07 13.3 0.16 2.62
Biwabik Iron Formation Babbit Taconite Babbitt, Minn. 4110 51850 86 3.12 13.0 0.22 2.84
Babbitt Diabase Babbitt, Minn. 3550 53300 90 2.99 11.7 0.24 2.44
Duluth Gabbro Ely Gabbro Ely, Minn. 2150 29600 89 2.85 12.9 0.28 1.21
Trap Rock Tofte, Minn. 730 9800 43 2.68 8.5 0.28 0.64
Anorthosite Tofte, Minn. 1500 18700 91 2.71 12.2 0.27 0.73
Duluth Gabbro Ely Gabbro Duluth, Minn. 1990 26500 75 2.91 9.2 0.27 2.11
Bad River Dolomite Marble Grandview, Wis. 1010 18150 52 2.85 11.6 0.26 0.68
Gabbro Primax Gabbro Mellen, Wis. 1810 25050 82 2.93 14.8 0.27 1.02
Negaunee Iron Formation Iron Ore Palmer, Mich. 1680 32050 65 3.33 10.0 0.23 1.28
Conversion Factor '{MPa} = 0.006889-{psi} Coefficient of Rock Strength, CRS USBM modified version of the Protodyakonov test
Skewed and Off-Une Micro-Disk Lathe Cutting Tests
Erfassung der Gesteinsabrasivitat und Prognose des Werkzeugverschleisses beim maschinellen Tunnelvortrleb mlt Diskenmeissein.
Bochumer Geologlsche und Geotechnische Arberten. Heft 33, 1989.
G. Ewendt Q.
bochum35.xls/A. Uslerud
Disk Diameter 35 mm
Disk Rim Angle 70°
Disk Tip Radius 2.0 mm
Disk Steel Hardness 60HRC
Cutting Speed 0.17 m/s
Rock Type ~~KeT?—Depth Cutting B55T Critical Standard Mean—Weight Weight Weight Mean Critical Standard Mean Uniaxial—Point Youngs—TIcEiTi CERCHAR—CERCHAR—W5a7"
Spacing of Ratio Normal NormalCritical Value Loss Loss Loss Value Weight Critical Value Compress. Load Modulus Hardness Abrasivlty Abrasivity Index
Cut Force ForceNormal Control' Loss Weight Strength Index Rock "Smooth" "Rough"
Force Loss
S DOC S/OOC Fn Fnl Fnll Fnll WLM WLM3 WLM3 WLM3 WIM1 WLM11 WLM11 UCS IsSO E VHNR CAI CAI F
(mm) (mm) (kN/dlsk) (kN/dlsk) (kN/dlsk) (kN/disk) (mg/m) (g/m*) (g/m*) (g/m*) (mg/m) (mg/m) (mg/m) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (kgf/mm') (N/mm)
Basalt 3 0.2 15.0 2.75 6)5 6.15 0.14 301 233 0.700 0.700
Basalt 3 0.3 100 3.55 6.48 6.48 0.23 254 256 0.767 0.767
Basalt 6 0.3 20.0 462 8.43 5.96 0.42 235 233 1.400 0.700
Basalt 6 0.6 10.0 5.75 7.42 5.25 0.95 267 264 1.583 0.792
Basalt 6 0.6 10.0 5.70 7.36 5.20 5.81 0.88 244 244 246.1 1.467 0.733 0.738 11.8 77.9 770 2.8 3.4 1.1
Gabbro 3 0.3 10.0 2.00 3.65 3.65 0.03 32 33 0.100 0.100
Gabbro 3 0.6 5.0 2.74 3.54 3.54 0.04 21 22 0.067 0.067
Gabbro 3 0.9 3.3 3.22 3.39 3.39 0.04 15 15 0.044 0.044
Gabbro 6 0.3 20.0 2.92 5.33 3.77 0.07 39 39 0.233 0.117
Gabbro 6 0.6 10.0 3.75 4.84 3.42 0.07 18 19 0.117 0.058
Gabbro 6 0.9 6.7 4.41 4.65 3.29 0.15 24 28 0.167 0.083
Gabbro 9 0.9 10.0 457 4.82 2.78 0.16 19 20 0.178 0.059
Gabbro 12 0.3 400 4.13 7.54 3.77 0.14 39 39 0.467 0.117
Gabbro 12 0.6 20.0 5.15 6.65 332 0.20 27 28 0.333 0.083
Gabbro 12 0.9 13.3 6.25 6.59 3.29 3.42 0.40 37 37 28.0 0.444 0.111 0.084 168 7.9 56.5 687 3.5 4.1 3.3
Gneiss/P 3 0.3 10.0 2.30 4.20 4.20 0.06 68 67 0.200 0.200
Gneiss/P 6 0.3 20.0 2.65 4.84 3.42 0.12 70 67 0.400 0.200
Gnelss/P 6 0.6 10.0 3.73 4.82 3.41 0.21 61 58 0.350 0.175
Gneiss/P 6 0.9 6.7 4.56 4.81 3.40 0.25 52 46 0.278 0.139
Gneiss/P 9 0.6 15.0 4.79 6.18 3.57 0.34 63 63 0.567 0.189
Gneiss/P 9 0.9 100 6.09 6.42 3.71 3.62 0.63 77 78 63.1 0.700 0.233 0.18! 181 2.4 49.2 748 4.2 5.2 2.4
Gneiss/N 3 0.3 10.0 2.88 5.26 526 0.15 161 167 0.500 0.500
Gneiss/N 3 06 5.0 3,72 4.80 4.80 0.29 160 161 0.483 0.483
Gneiss/N 6 0.6 10.0 4.23 5.46 386 0.42 115 117 0.700 0350
Gneiss/N 6 0.9 6.7 5.17 5.45 3.85 0.82 147 152 0.911 0.456
Gneiss/N 9 0.6 15.0 5.03 6.49 3.75 0.50 92 93 0.833 0.278
Gneiss/N 9 0.9 10.0 5.87 6.19 3.57 4.1S 0.92 114 114 133.7 1.022 0.341 0.401 180 7.5 41.2 748 4.2 5.2 7.4
Granite 3 0.3 10.0 2.04 3.72 3.72 0.38 426 422 1.267 1.267
Granite 3 0.6 5.0 3.13 4.04 4.04 0.48 268 267 0.800 0.800
Granite 6 0.3 20.0 3.38 6.17 4.36 0.28 158 156 0.933 0.467
•o
Granite 6 0.6 100 3.50 4 52 3.20 0.65 181 181 1.083 0.542 Q.
Granite 6 0.9 6.7 4.82 5.08 3.59 0.89 164 165 0.989 0.494
Granite 9 0.9 10.0 5.58 5.88 3 40 3.72 1.45 179 179 189.3 1.611 0.537 0.568 170 7.2 55.2 869 3.2 5.2 16.7
Quarfzite 3 0.3 10.0 3.42 6.24 6.24 0.75 833 833 2.500 2.500
Quartzite 6 0.3 20.0 4.27 7.80 5.51 0.59 325 328 1.967 0.983
Quartzlte 6 0.6 10.0 4.78 6.17 4.36 1.36 377 378 2.267 1.133
Quartzite 6 0.9 6.7 5.68 5.99 4.23 5.09 1.98 367 367 357.4 2.200 1100 1.072 180 10.4 58.5 1060 2.8 4.9 4.0
Sandstone 3 0.3 10.0 1.53 2.79 2.79 0.03 36 33 0.100 0100
Sandstone 3 0.6 5.0 2.03 2.62 2.62 0.07 37 39 0.117 0.117
Sandstone 3 0.9 3,3 2.39 252 252 0.10 38 37 0.111 0.111
Sandstone 6 0.3 20.0 2.32 4.24 3.00 0.05 28 28 0.167 0.083
Sandstone 6 0.6 10.0 3.02 3.90 2.76 0.09 26 25 0.150 0.075
Sandstone 6 0.9 6.7 3.37 3.55 2.51 010 20 19 0.111 0.056
Sandstone 9 0.3 30.0 3.15 5.75 3.32 0.11 41 41 0.367 0.122
Sandstone 9 0.6 15.0 3.92 5.06 2.92 0.18 33 33 0.300 0.100
Sandstone 9 0.9 10.0 4.35 4.59 2.65 0.23 31 28 0.256 0.085
Sandstone 12 0.3 40.0 3.51 641 320 0.08 23 22 0.267 0.067
Sandstone 12 0.6 20.0 4.80 6.20 3.10 0.16 22 22 0.267 0.067
Sandstone 12 1.2 10.0 5.52 5.04 2.52 2.83 0.40 28 28 29.6 0.333 0.083 0.089 165 6.0 34.6 4.5 5.1 1.5
Sandstone #2 9 0.6 15.0 3.04 3.92 2.27 0.29 53 54 0.483 0.161
Sandstone #2 9 0.9 10.0 3.58 3.77 2.18 2.22 0.31 38 38 46.0 0.344 0.115 0.138
Data Normalisation Fnl =Fn/DOC**l/2

Fnll = Fn/(DOC'(S/3))"l/2 = Fnl / ( S / 3 )"l/2
"Contror = WLM " 1000 / (DOC • S)
WLM1 = WLM / DOC
WLM11 = W L M / ( D O C ' S / 3 ) = WLM'(Fnll / F n ) " 2
Prediction Model Fn = Fnll * (DOC* S / 3 ) " ' l / 2
Fnll = rock cuttability/dtek tip constant
WLM =WLM11 * ( D O C ' S / 3 ) (mg / m)
WLH = WLM ' v * 3600 (mg / h)
= WLM11 * ( DOC ' S / 3 ) • v * 3600
WLM3 = WLM" 1000/(DOC'S) ( g / m3)
= WLM11 * 1000/3
WLM 11 = rock abrasivity/ disk tip constant
Comments Gneiss/F = disk penetration parallel to foliation
Gneiss/P> = disk penetration normal to foliation
Sandstoi = artificial "laboratory" rock
CAI-Rou = measurements on natural failure surfaces
is)
CSM Linear Cuffing Tests Tamrock Technology Center
n
Arne Lislerud a.
x
-p-
Source MSc Thesis, Jamal Rostami, CSM
File bersandl.xls
Rock Type Berea Sandstone

Uniaxia] Compressive Strength, UCS 46.2MPa
Brazilian Tensile Strength, BTS l.lMPa
Cutter Type "Wedged" Constant Section

Cutter Code RobbinsA30581
Cutter Diameter, d 432mm (17")
Cutter Edge Width. W 12.7mm (0.5")
Kerf Disc Cutting Mean Mean Cutting Cutting Critical Critical Specific
Spacing Penetration Ratio Normal Rolling Coefficient Constant Normal Normal Energy
S DOC S/DOC Fn Fr k Cl Fnl Fnl1-76 SE
(mm) (mm) (kN/disc) (kN/disc) (kN/disc) (kN/disc) (kWh/m3)
76.2 25.4 3.0 121.8 20.2 0.1660 0.0329 24.16 24.16 2.90
76.2 38.1 2.0 155.4 41.5 0.2672 0.0433 25.17 25.17 3.97
152.4 25.4 6.0 139.8 33.5 0.2400 0.0476 27.73 19.61 2.41
152.4 38.1 4.0 183.1 47.6 0.2600 0.0421 29.66 20.98 2.28
Overall Average Mean 0.0415 22.48
Coefficient of Rock Strength versus Uniaxiai Compressive Strength
pendi
•
usbm7684.xls/A. Lisierud Driliability Studies. Percussive Drilling In the Field. USBM Ri 7684 R.L. Schmidt
Geologic Commercial Location Tensile CompressiveShore Hardness Density Static Young' :Poisson' ^Coefficient of *
Name Name Strength Strength (Scleroscope Modulus Ratio Rock Strength •
(psi) (psi) Units) (g/cm3) (10**6-psi) CRS
Negaunee Iron Formation Humboldt Iron Silicate Humboldt, Mich. 2080 59550 76 3.50 11.1 0.13 2.39
Banded Grey Gneiss Hornblende Schist Randville, Mich. 1080 29600 76 2.99 14.6 0.24 1.64
Granite Pegmatite Randville, Mich. 1230 12750 88 2.63 5.9 0.07 0.77
Rib Hill Quartzite Wausau Quartzite Wausau, Wis. 2510 31650 100 2.64 10.5 0.07 0.78
Welded Tuff Wausau Argillite Wausau, Wis. 2620 31400 72 2.73 7.6 0.23 2.28
Dneta Member, Prairie du Chien Formatior Winona Dolomite Winona, Minn. 600 13800 52 2.62 0.47
Dneta Member, Prairie du Chien Formatior Mankato Stone Mankato, Minn. 910 17800 49 2.60 7.4 0.27 0.45
Sioux Quartzite New Ulm Quartzite New Ulm, Minn. 2250 22250 66 2.61 5.8 0.14 0.75
Sioux Quartzite Jasper Quartzite Jasper, Minn. 2950 43700 92 2.63 9.4 0.03 1.01
Rockville Quartz Monzonite Rockville Granite Cold Spring, Minn. 1300 22000 91 2.65 9.6 0.26 0.84
St Cloud Gray Granodiorite Charcoal Granite St. Cloud, Minn. 1850 28950 87 2.66 9.8 0.25 1.21
Warman Quartz Monzonite Diamond Gray Granite Isle, Minn. 1780 24350 88 2.65 9.3 0.23 0.82
Dresser Basalt Dresser, Wis. 4020 40800 81 2.99 13.1 0.29 2.86
Dneta Member, Prairie du Chien Formatior Shiely Limestone St. Paul Park, Minn. 820 14200 35 2.48 6.2 0.28 0.57
Biwabik Iron Formation Mt. Iron Taconite Mt. Iron, Minn. 4330 51350 80 3.36 15.7 0.19 1.47
Biwabik Iron Formation Aurora Taconite Hoyt Lakes, Minn. 3160 52400 83 3.07 13.3 0.16 2.62
Biwabik Iron Formation Babbit Taconite Babbitt, Minn. 4110 51850 86 3.12 13.0 0.22 2.84
Babbitt Diabase Babbitt, Minn. 3550 53300 90 2.99 11.7 0.24 2.44
Duluth Gabbro Ely Gabbro Ely, Minn. 2150 29600 89 2.85 12.9 0.28 1.21
Trap Rock Tofte, Minn. 730 9800 43 2.68 8.5 0.28 0.64
Anorthosite Tofte, Minn. 1500 18700 91 2.71 12.2 0.27 0.73
Duluth Gabbro Ely Gabbro Duluth, Minn. 1990 26500 75 2.91 9.2 0.27 2.11
Bad River Dolomite Marble Grandview, Wis. 1010 18150 52 2.85 11.6 0.26 0.68
Gabbro Primax Gabbro Mellen, Wis. 1810 25050 82 2.93 14.8 0.27 1.02
Negaunee Iron Formation Iron Ore Palmer, Mich. 1680 32050 65 3.33 10.0 0.23 1.28
Conversion Factor '{MPa} = 0.006889> {psi} Coefficient of Rock Strength, CRS USBM modified version of the Protodyakonov test
Skewed and Off-Line Micro-Disk Lathe Cutting Tests
Erfassung der Gesteinsabrasivitat und Prognose des Werkzeugverschleisses beim maschinellen Tunnelvortrieb mit Diskenmeisseln. "a
Bochumer Geologische und Geotechnische Arbeiten, Heft 33, 1989.
G. Ewendt a.
bochum35.xls/A, Lislerud
x
Disk Diameter 35 mm
Disk Rim Angle 70 °
Disk Tip Radius 2.0 mm
Disk Steel Hardness 60 HRC
Cutting Speed 0.17 m/s
Rock Type Kerf Depth Cutting Mean Critical

Standard Mean Weight Weight Weight Mean Critical Standard M i a n Uniaxial Point Youngs Vickers CERCHAR CERCHAR Wear
Spacing of Ratio Normal Normal
Critical Value Loss Loss Loss Value Weight Critical Value Compress. Load Modulus Hardness Abrasivity Abrasivity Index
Cut Force Force
Normal Control' Loss Weight Strength Index Rock "Smooth" "Rough"
Force Loss
S DOC S/DOC Fn Fnl Fnll Fnl 1 WLM WLM3 WLM3 WLM3 WLM1 WLM11 WLM11 UCS ls50 E VHNR CAI CAI F
(mm) (mm) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (mg/m) (g/m') (g/m') (g/m') (mg/m) (mg/m) (mg/m) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (kgf/mm') (N/mm)
Basalt 3 0.2 15.0 2.75 6.15 6.15 0.14 301 233 0.700 0.700
Basalt 3 0.3 10.0 3.55 6.48 6.48 0.23 254 256 0.767 0.767
Basalt 6 0.3 20.0 4.62 8.43 5.96 0.42 235 233 1.400 0.700
Basalt 6 0.6 10.0 5.75 7.42 5.25 0.95 267 264 1.583 0.792
Basalt 6 0.6 10.0 5.70 7.36 5.20 5.81 0.88 244 244 246.1 1.467 0.733 0.738 440 11.8 77.9 770 2.8 3.4 1.1
Gabbro 3 0.3 10.0 2.00 3.65 3.65 0.03 32 33 0.100 0.100
Gabbro 3 0.6 5.0 2.74 3.54 3.54 0.04 21 22 0.067 0.067
Gabbro 3 0.9 3.3 3.22 3.39 3.39 0.04 15 15 0.044 0.044
Gabbro 6 0.3 20,0 2.92 5.33 3.77 0.07 39 39 0.233 0.117
Gabbro 6 0.6 10.0 3.75 4.84 3.42 0.07 18 19 0.117 0.058
Gabbro 6 0.9 6.7 4.41 4.65 3.29 0.15 24 28 0.167 0.083
Gabbro 9 0.9 10.0 4.57 4.82 2.78 0.16 19 20 0.178 0.059
Gabbro 12 0.3 40.0 4.13 7.54 3.77 0.14 39 39 0.467 0.117
Gabbro 12 0.6 20.0 5.15 6.65 3.32 0.20 27 28 0.333 0.083
Gabbro 12 0.9 13.3 6.25 6.59 3.29 3.42 0.40 37 37 28.0 0.444 0.111 0.084 168 7.9 56.5 687 3.5 4.1 3.3
Gneiss/P 3 0.3 10.0 2.30 4.20 4.20 0.06 68 67 0.200 0.200
Gneiss/P 6 0.3 20.0 2.65 4.84 3.42 0.12 70 67 0.400 0.200
Gneiss/P 6 0.6 10.0 3.73 4.82 3.41 0.21 61 58 0.350 0.175
Gneiss/P 6 0.9 6.7 4.56 4.81 3.40 0.25 52 46 0.278 0.139
Gneiss/P 9 0.6 15.0 4.79 6.18 3.57 0.34 63 63 0.567 0.189
Gneiss/P 9 0.9 10.0 6.09 6.42 3.71 3.62 0.63 77 78 63.1 0.700 0.233 0.189 181 2.4 49.2 748 4.2 5.2 2.4
Gneiss/N 3 0.3 10.0 2.88 5.26 5.26 0.15 161 167 0.500 0.500
Gnelss/N 3 0.6 5,0 3.72 4.80 4.80 0.29 160 161 0.483 0.483
Gneiss/N 6 0.6 10.0 4.23 5.46 3.86 0.42 115 117 0.700 0.350
Gneiss/N 6 0.9 6.7 5.17 5.45 3.85 0.82 147 152 0.911 0.456
Gneiss/N 9 0.6 15.0 5.03 6.49 3.75 0.50 92 93 0.833 0.278
Gneiss/N 9 0.9 10.0 5.87 6.19 3.57 4.18 0.92 114 114 133.7 1.022 0.341 0.401 180 7.5 41.2 748 4.2 5.2 7.4
Granite 3 0.3 10.0 2.04 3.72 3.72 0.38 426 422 1.267 1.267
Granite 3 0.6 5.0 3,13 4.04 4.04 0.48 268 267 0.800 0.800
Granite 6 0.3 20.0 3.38 6.17 4.36 0.28 158 156 0.933 0.467
NJ
XI
X)
tt>
Granite 6 06 10.0 3.50 4.52 0.65 181 181 1.083 0.542 Q.
t—•
Granite 6 0.9 6.7 4.82 5.08 3.59 0.89 164 165 0.989 0.494 X
Granite 9 0.9 10.0 5.58 5.88 3.40 3.72 1.45 179 179 189.3 1.611 0.537 0.568 170 7.2 55.2 869 3.2 5.2 16.7
Quartzite 3 0.3 10.0 3.42 6.24 6.24 0.75 833 833 2.500 2.500
Quartzite 6 0.3 20.0 4.27 7.80 5.51 0.59 325 328 1.967 0.983
Quartzite 6 0.6 10.0 4.78 6.17 4.36 1.36 377 378 2.267 1.133
Quartzite 6 0.9 6.7 5.68 5.99 4.23 5.09 1.98 367 367 357.4 2.200 1.100 1.072 180 10.4 58.5 1060 2.8 4.9 4.0
Sandstone 3 0.3 10.0 1.53 2.79 2.79 0.03 36 33 0.100 0.100
Sandstone 3 0.6 5.0 2.03 2.62 2.62 0.07 37 39 0.117 0.117
Sandstone 3 0.9 3.3 2.39 2.52 2.52 0.10 38 37 0.111 0.111
Sandstone 6 0.3 20.0 2.32 4.24 3.00 0.05 28 28 0.167 0.083
Sandstone 6 0.6 10.0 3.02 3.90 2.76 0.09 26 25 0.150 0.075
Sandstone 6 0.9 6.7 3.37 3.55 2.51 0.10 20 19 0.111 0.056
Sandstone 9 0.3 30.0 3.15 5.75 3.32 0.11 41 41 0.367 0.122
Sandstone 9 0.6 15.0 3.92 5.06 2.92 0.18 33 33 0.300 0.100
Sandstone 9 0.9 10.0 4.35 4.59 2.65 0.23 31 28 0.256 0.085
Sandstone 12 0.3 40.0 3.51 6.41 3.20 0.08 23 22 0.267 0.067
Sandstone 12 0.6 20.0 4.80 6.20 3.10 0.16 22 22 0.267 0.067
Sandstone 12 1.2 10.0 5.52 5.04 2.52 2.83 0.40 28 28 29.6 0.333 0.083 0.089 165 6.0 34.6 4.5 5.1 1.5
Sandstone #2 9 0.6 15.0 3.04 3.92 2.27 0.29 53 54 0.483 0.161
Sandstone #2 9 0.9 10.0 3.58 3.77 2.18 2.22 0.31 38 38 46.0 0.344 0.115 0.138
Data Normalisation Fnl =Fn/DOC"l/2

Fnll =Fn/(DOC*(S/3))"l/2 = Fnl / (S / 3 ) " l / 2
"Control' = WLM * 1000 / ( DOC * S )
WLM1 = WLM / DOC
WLM11 = W L M / ( D O C ' S / 3 ) = WLM * ( Fnl 1 / F n ) " 2
Prediction Model Fn =Fnll * ( D O C * S / 3 ) " l / 2
Fnl 1 = rock cuttability/disk tip constant
WLM = WLM11 * ( DOC * S / 3 ) (mg / m)
WLH = WLM " V * 3600 (mg/h)
= WLM11 * (DOC * S / 3 ) * v* 3600
WLM3 =WLM* 1000 / ( D O C ' S ) (g / m3)
= WLM11 * 1000/3
WLM 11 = rock abraslvify/ disk tip constant
Comments Gneiss/F = disk penetration parallel to foliation
Gneiss/r> = disk penetration normal to foliation
Sandstoi = artificial "laboratory" rock
CAI-Rou = measurements on natural failure surfaces
tsj
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tomrock Technology Center X)
-a
Arne Lislerud n>
CL
I—
X
File bersandl .xls

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, UCS 46,2MPa

Cutter Code Robbins A30581
Cutter Edge Width, W 12.7mm (0.5")
76.2 25.4 3.0 121.8 20.2 0.1660 0.0329 24.16 24.16 2.90
76.2 38.1 2.0 155.4 41.5 0.2672 0.0433 25.17 25.17 3.97
152.4 25.4 6.0 139.8 33.5 0.2400 0.0476 27.73 19.61 2.41
152.4 38.1 4.0 183.1 47.6 0.2600 0.0421 29.66 20.98 2.28
>
-a
n
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrocic Technology Center Q.
Arne Lislerud
File bersandl.xls

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, UCS 46.2MPa

S DOC S/DOC Fn Fr k Cl Fnl Fnll-76 SE
76.2 25.4 3.0 121.8 20.2 0.1660 0.0329 24.16 24.16 2.90
76.2 38.1 2.0 155.4 41.5 0.2672 0.0433 25.17 25.17 3.97
152.4 25.4 6.0 139.8 33.5 0.2400 0.0476 27.73 19.61 2.41
152.4 38.1 4.0 183.1 47.6 0.2600 0.0421 29.66 20.98 2.28
t-o
XI
XI
0!
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center Q.

X
Arne LislerucS 4=-
File bersand2.xls

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, UCS 46.2MPa
Cutter Type Constant Section

Cutter Code RobbinsAM1724
Spacing Penetration Ratio Normal Roiling Coefficient Constant Normal Normal Energy
S DOC S/DOC Fn Fr k Cl Fnl Fnil-76 SE
76.2 25.4 3.0 156.8 27.6 0.1760 0.0349 31.11 31.11 3.96
76.2 38.1 2.0 166.0 42,3 0.2546 0,0412 26.90 26.90 4.04
152.4 25.4 6.0 159.4 39.4 0.2472 0.0491 31.62 22.36 2.83
152.4 25.4 6.0 165.5 46.3 0.2800 0.0556 32.83 23.22 3,32
-p-
0>
zs
Q,
X
Rock Type Colorado Red Granite

Compressive Strength (MPa) 137.8
Tensile Strength (MPa) 11.7
Disk Code Robbins A30581
Disk Diameter (mm) 432(17")
Disk Width (mm) 12.7(0.5")
Cutting Speed (m/s) 0.254
Test Cut Cut Ratio Mean Mean Mean Critical Critical Cutter Cutter Specific
Cut Depth Spacing Normal Roll Side Thrust Thrust Coeff. Constant Energy
# DOC S S/DOC Fn Fr Fs Fnl Fnl 1-76 k el SE
(mm/pass) (mm) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kWh/m3)
1 1.91 76.2 39.9 99.7 5.02 2.17 72.13 72.13 0.0504 0.0364 9.58
2 2.54 76.2 30.0 96.4 6.07 2.93 60.50 60.50 0.0630 0.0395 8. 71
3 3.18 76.2 24.0 111.9 8.30 3.24 62.76 62.76 0.0742 0.0416 9.51
4 3.81 76.2 20.0 121.0 11.44 3.52 62.00 62.00 0.0945 0.0484 10.95
5 5.08 76.2 15.0 128.5 14.03 4.47 57.01 57.01 0.1092 0.0484 10 .07
6 6.35 76.2 12.0 147.2 19.18 8.58 58.39 58.39 0.1303 0.0517 11 .01
7 7.62 76.2 10.0 159.1 22.27 13.60 57,65 57.65 0.1399 0.0507 10 .65
-P-
XI
X
Test Peak Peak Peak Ratio Ratio Ratio -P-
Cut Normal Roll Side Normal Roll Side
# Fnpeak Frpeak Fspeak Fnpeak/Fn Frpeak/Fr Fspeak/Fs
(kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk)
1 200.9 17.04 26.10 2.02 3.39 12.03
2 194.3 17.51 29.88 2.02 2.88 10.20
3 236.8 22.95 35.82 2.12 2.77 11.06
4 247.3 28.58 38.97 2.04 2.50 11.07
5 261.5 31.74 40.35 2.04 2.26 9.03
6 283.1 43.44 46.56 1.92 2.26 5.43
7 305.5 49.90 56.58 1.92 2.24 4.16
Overall Average Mean 2.01 2.62 9.00
Data Normalization Fni = Fn/(DOC)**l/2
Foil = Fn/(DOC*(S/76.2))**l/2
k = Fr/Fn . .
cl = k/(DOC)**l/2
SE = (Fr/3600)/(DOC*S/1000000) {kWh/m3}
SE = Fr*1000/(DOC*S) {MJ/m3}
Prognosis Model Fn = Fn11*(DOC*S/76.2)**1/2
Fni = rock cuttability/disc tip constant
Fr = Fn*cr(DCC)**1/2
Conversion Factors {KN} = 0.004445*{lb}
{MPa} = 0.006889*{psi}
{kWh/m3} = 0.976*{hph/yd3}
Comments (0 peak value = overall peak (max) value for an individual cut sequence
rock seems to "soften" as higher loads are applied
-p-
a>
Q.
x'
Illlil

Disk Code RobbinsA30581
# DOC S S/DOC Fn Fr Fs Fnl Fnll-76 k cl SE
24 1.91 63.5 33.2 10/.3 4.58 3.56 77.62 85.03 0.0427 0.0309 10.49
25 2.54 63.5 25.0 116.4 5.01 4.70 73.02 79.99 0.0430 0.0270 8.63
26 3.18 63.5 20.0 126.0 7.00 2.48 70.65 77.39 0.0556 0.0312 9.63
27 3.81 63.5 16.7 128.6 9.48 8.23 65.87 72.16 0.0737 0.0378 10.88
31 5.08 63.5 12.5 150.3 13.70 9.14 66.68 73.04 0.0912 0.0404 11.80
32 6.35 63.5 10.0 164.6 18.58 14.01 65.33 71.57 0.1129 0.0448 12.80
n>
Q.
X
Test Peak Peak Peak Ratio Ratio Ratio

24 193.3 17.70 26.23 1.80 3,86 7.37
25 204.7 17.42 29.21 1.76 3.48 6.21
26 228.1 21.77 28.67 1.81 3.11 11.56
27 246.4 24.12 37.24 1.92 2.54 4.52
31 296.5 32.57 39.52 1.97 2.38 4.32
32 318.1 42.93 50.83 1.93 2.31 3.63
Data Normalization Fnl = Fn/(DOC)**l/2

Fnl 1 = Fn/(DOC*(S/76.2))**1 /2
k = Fr/Fn
cl = k/(DOC)**l/2
SE = (Fr/3600)/(DOC*S/1000000) {kWh/m3}
SE =Fr*1000/(DOC*S) {MJ/m3}
Prognosis Model Fn = F n l l *(DOCS/76.2)"1 /2
Fn 1 = rock cufrability/disc tip constant
Fr =Fn*cl*(DOC)**l/2
Conversion Factors {kN} = 0.004445*{lb}
{MPa} = 0.006889*{psi}
{kWh/m3} = 0.976*{hph/yd3}
Comments (i) peak value - overall peak (max) value for a n individual cut sequence
(li). rock seems to "soften" as higher loads are applied
XI
CD
CL
liiili

# DOC S S/DOC Fn Fr Fs Fnl Fnl1-76 k cl SE
9 1.91 50.8 26.6 72.5 3.97 3.36 52.47 64.26 0.0548 0.0396 11.37
10 2.54 50.8 20.0 78.8 5.00 4.57 49.43 60.54 0.0635 0.0398 10.76
11 3.18 50.8 16.0 89.8 6.95 3.84 50.37 61.70 0.0774 0.0434 11.95
12 3.81 50.8 13.3 92.7 8.46 5.85 47.47 58.13 0.0913 0.0468 12.14
13 5.08 50.8 10.0 106.0 11.16 8.68 47.02 57.58 0.1053 0.0467 12.01
14 6.35 50.8 8.0 120.8 14.47 12.35 47.92 58.69 0.1198 0.0476 12.46
00
4?
a>
Q.
x"
-ft-
9 160.4 14.13 23.18 2,21 3.56 6.90
10 177.7 16.58 27.68 2.26 3.32 6.06
11 196.6 21.01 29.77 2.19 3.02 7.75
12 208.6 23.86 33.35 2.25 2.82 5.70
13 233.7 29.22 42.40 2.20 2.62 4.88
14 259.9 40.44 48.18 2.15 2.79 3.90
Fnll =:Fn/(DOC*(S/76.2))**l/2
k = Fr/Fn
cl = k/(DOC)**l/2
SE = (Fr/3600)/(DOC*S/1000000) {kWh/m3}
SE = Fr*1000/(DOC*S) {MJ/m3}
Prognosis Model Fn =Fnir(DOC*S/76.2)"l/2
Fnl = rock cuttability/disc tip constant
Fr = Fn*cT(DOC)**l/2
{MPa} = 0.006889*{psi}
{kWh/m3} - 0.976*{hph/yd3}
Comments (i). . p e a k value = overall p e a k (max) value for a n individual c u t sequence
(ii) rock seems to "soften" as higher loads are a p p l i e d
TJ
ft)
ZS
Q.
^^^^|gS|S£HS

33 1.27 38.1 30.0 62.5 3.04 1.74 55.48 78.46 0.0486 0.0431 17.45
34 1.91 38.1 19.9 73.9 5.09 2.04 53.44 75.57 0.0689 0.0499 19.43
35 2.54 38.1 15.0 79.9 5.25 4.20 50.13 70.89 0.0657 0.0412 15.07
36 3.18 38.1 12.0 87.8 7.16 7.10 49.21 69.59 0.0816 0.0458 16,42
37 3.81 38.1 10.0 95.4 8.81 7.87 48.87 69.11 0.0924 0.0473 16.86
38 5.08 38.1 7.5 107.3 11.63 12.08 47.60 67.31 0.1084 0.0481 16.69
39 6.35 38.1 6.0 120.5 14.33 15.22 47.83 67.64 0.1189 0.0472 16.45
o
>
X)
T)
D

33 117.4 12.58 12.92 1.88 4.14 7.43
34 132.3 21.03 14.40 1.79 4,13 7.06
35 146.4 16.31 18.63 1.83 3.11 4.44
36 172.9 18.22 26.01 1.97 2.54 3.66
37 186.5 21.91 29,26 1.96 2.49 3.72
38 193.9 27.11 36.23 1.81 2.33 3.00
39 217.7 32.40 41.17 1.81 2.26 2.70
Data Normalization Fnl =Fn/(DOC)^l/2

Fnll = Fn/(DOC*(S/76.2))** 1 /2
k = Fr/Fn
cl • = k/(DOC)**l/2
SE = (Fr/3600)/(DOC*S/1000000) {kWh/m3}
Prognosis Model Fn = Fnl 1*(DOC*S/76.2)**l/2
Fnl = rock cuttability/disc tip constant
Conversion Factors {kN} = 0.004445* {Ib}
{MPa} = 0.006889*{psi}
{kWh/m3} = 0.976*{hph/yd3}
Comments (i) peak value = overall peak (max) value for an individual cut sequence
(it) rock seems to "soften" as higher loads are applied
"D
Q.
iiiili iiill iliiilii x'

16 0.64 25.4 39.7 42.4 1.60 5.01 52.99 91.78 0.0377 0.0472 27.34
17 1.27 25.4 20.0 47.1 2.42 3.51 41.79 72.39 0.0514 0.0456 20.84
18 1,91 25.4 13.3 57.8 3.93 4.04 41.82 72.43 0.0680 0.0492 22.50
19 2.54 25.4 10.0 63.8 4.81 6.70 40.03 69.33 0.0754 0.0473 20.71
20 3.18 25.4 8.0 72.8 6.10 8.89 40.80 70.67 0.0838 0.0470 20.98
21 3.81 25.4 6.7 80.8 7.30 11.24 41.41 71.72 0.0903 0.0463 20.95
22 5.08 25.4 5.0 95.3 9.07 16.61 42.28 73.23 0.0952 0.0422 19.53
23 6.35 25.4 4.0 115.9 12.43 25.79 45.99 79.66 0.1073 0.0426 21.41
XI
X}
X
16 84.1 7.34 13.54 1.98 4.59 2.70
17 94.7 8.46 14.32 2.01 3.50 4.08
18 111.2 11.36 17.89 1.92 2.89 4.43
19 124.5 13.29 21.48 1.95 2.76 3.21
20 142.4 15.37 26.24 1.96 2.52 2.95
21 146.3 17.75 29.42 1.81 2.43 2.62
22 169.3 20.82 38.52 1.78 2.30 2.32
23 197.4 27.48 51.09 1.70 2.21 1.98

Fnli = Fn/(DOC*(S/76.2))**l/2
k = Fr/Fn
cl = k/(DOC)**l/2
SE = (Fr/360G)/(DOC*S/1000000) {kWh/m3}
SE = Fr*10Q0/(DOC*S) {MJ/m3}
Prognosis Model Fn =Fn1l*(DOC*S/76.2r*1/2
Fnl = rock cuttabiiity/disc tip constant
Fr =Fn*cr(DOC)**l/2.
Conversion Factors {kN} = 0.004445* {Ib}
{MPa} = 0.006889*{psi}
{kWh/m3} = 0.976*{hph/yd3}
Comments (i) peak value = overall peak (max) value for an individual cut sequence
(ii) rock seems to "soften" as higher loads are applied
(V
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center X

Arne Lislerud
File colosprl.xls
Rock Type Colorado Spring Granite

Brazilian Tensile Strength, BTS 7,8MPa

Cutter Edge Width, W 12,7mm (0,5")
69.9 2.5 27.5 147.7 10.9 0.0737 0.0462 92.64 96.76 17.03
69.9 3.8 18.3 165.5 13.7 0.0830 0.0425 84.80 88.57 14.34
69.9 5.1 13.8 193,9 19.9 0.1028 0.0456 86.01 89.83 15.60
69.9 6.4 11.0 220.1 27.1 0.1232 0.0489 87.34 91.22 16.98
-p-
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center
Arne Lislerucl Q,
X
-P-
File colospr2.xls
Rock Type Colorado Spring Granite


69.9 2.54 27.5 134.8 10.85 0.0805 0.0505 84.59 88.36 16.99
69.9 3.81 18.3 140.9 12.14 0.0862 0.0441 72.18 75.39 12.67
69.9 5.08 13.8 164.9 15.51 0.0941 0.0417 73.15 76.40 12.14
69.9 6.35 11.0 174.3 19.84 0.1138 0.0452 69.16 72.24 12.43
69.9 7.62 9.2 195.8 25.53 0.1304 0.0472 70.93 74.08 13.32
69.9 8.89 7.9 191.4 27.77 0,1451 0.0487 64.19 67.04 12.42
69.9 10.16 6.9 230.1 38.97 0.1694 0.0531 72.19 75.40 15.25
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center Q.
X
Arne Lislerud -P-
File daksand2.xls
Rock Type Dakota Sandstone


Cutter Diameter, d 394mm (15,5")
76.2 12.7 6.0 77.6 17.0 0.2193 0.0615 21.77 21.77 4.88
76.2 19.1 4.0 120.6 28.5 0.2361 0.0541 27.63 27.63 5.45
101.6 12.7 8.0 98.1 19.6 0.1997 0.0560 27.54 23.85 4.22
101.6 19.1 5.3 130.9 30.1 0.2299 0.0527 29.99 25.98 4.32
-p-
T3
Anglo American Corp. Linear Cutting Tests ro
3
CL
Tamrock Technology Center Arne Lislerud x'
Source Enhancement of Roller Cutting by Means of Water Jets

Chapter 21, RETC 1985
O. Fenn, B. Protheroe & N.C. Joughin
File fennl.xls Cutter Type Wedged
Cutter Diameter, d 305mm (12"
Rock Type Norite Disk Tip Radius, t 1.5mm
Uniaxial Compressive Strength, UCS 254MPa Disk Tip Angle 105°
Brazilian Tensile Strength, BTS 11.9MPa Disk Tip Contact Width, W 9.4mm
Poisson's Ratio, v 0.23 Cutting Speed 0.6m/s
Density, p 2.92g/cm3 Waterjets unassisted
Linear Rig Stiffness lOOOkN/mm
Kerf Depth Cutting Mean Mean Cutting Cutting Critical Critical Specific
Spacing of Cut Ratio Normal Rolling Coefficient Constant Normal Normal Energy
S DOC S/DOC Fn Fr k Cl Fnl Fnll-19 SE-calc
(mm) (mm) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kWh/m3)
15 2 7.5 51.2 5.76 0.1125 0.0795 36.20 40.80 53.33
30 2 15.0 73.9 6.63 0.0897 0.0634 52.26 41.64 30.69
60 2 30.0 116.7 8.11 0.0695 0.0491 82.52 46.50 18.77
90 2 45.0 141.1 8.32 0.0590 0.0417 99.77 45.90 12.84
15 4 3.8 79.2 10.35 0.1307 0.0653 39.60 44.63 47.92
30 4 7.5 107.2 12.84 0.1198 0.0599 53.60 42.71 29.72
45 4 11.3 127.4 14.46 0.1135 0.0568 63.70 41.45 22.31
60 4 15.0 144.4 14.96 0.1036 0.0518 72.20 40.68 17.31
90 4 22.5 188.4 17.91 0.0951 0.0475 94.20 43.34 13.82
-P-
x'
i ^ ^ f e l ^ f e i ^ ' lislerud;
-R-
Rock Type Paintbrush Tuff

Locality Fran Ridge TsW2, Nevada Test Site
Test Cut # Average 8,9,10,11 12,13,14,15 16,17,18
Compressive Strength (MPa) 86.3 53.3 129.7 75.9
Tensile Strength (MPa) 14.7 15.7 14.3 14.1
Density (g/cm3) 2.29 2.276 2.304 2.291
Cerchar Abrasivity Index, CAI 4.23 4.28 3.93 4.47
Disk Type Constant Section
Disk Width (mm) 11.43 (0.45")
Test Cut Cut Ratio Mean Mean Mean Critical Critical Average Cutter Cutter Average
Cut Depth Spacing Normal Roll Side Thrust Thrust Mean Coeff. Constant Mean
# DOC S S/DOC Fn Fr Fs Fnl Fnl1-76 Fnl1-76 k cl cl
(mm/pass) (mm) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk)
8 5.08 76.2 15.0 100.0 8.94 4.15 44.35 44.35 0.0894 0.0397
9 7.62 76.2 10.0 132.7 16.58 12.49 48.08 48.08 0.1249 0.0453
10 10.16 76.2 7.5 138.9 19.98 12.31 43.56 43.56 0.1439 0,0451
11 12.70 76.2 6.0 156.4 24.19 17.22 43.88 43.88 44.97 0.1547 0.0434 0.0434
12 5.08 101.6 20.0 113.2 10.69 3.40 50.23 43.50 0.0944 0.0419
13 7.62 101.6 13.3 113.6 16.40 9.01 41.17 35.65 0.1443 0.0523
14 10.16 101.6 10.0 142.6 23.61 11.57 44.75 38.75 0.1655 0.0519
15 12.70 101.6 8.0 177.8 28.58 15.33 49.89 43.21 40.28 0.1607 0.0451 0.0478
16 5.08 127.0 25.0 116.4 12.26 5.69 51.66 40.01 0.1053 0.0467
17 7.62 127.0 16.7 135.2 16.78 5.07 48.96 37.93 0.1241 0.0450
18 10.16 127.0 12.5 144.3 19.18 5.77 45.28 35.08 37.67 0.1329 0.0417 0.0445
•p-
-p-
19
Appendix
O CN O CM oo o CO CO
r cq q LO o CM CN
-d <> od •6
in
o_ ^ o N
O O \— LO r - •—
CO C> CM -— -q
CO S3 CN
IS 8 N CN N CN CM CM CM CM
Q.
,co O c o •— ^ r
CM o CN CN CN
O_ CM •— cq
CM CM CM CS
££ CN CM CM CN CN
CO T CN O LO O CM LO
1
C> CN r-~ CO •—; —\ O
co r^ O O" CO "=0" r^.
ICL CM "=T LO -O 'sT"i
CO
oo LO 00
•o o o LO r-%•^T
o o CO
|LO <5 c> "=T o od CD
CO co LO
CM co ^ r--.
oq -q -q -q -o p CM r-
D E LO led co o <5 LO <5 <>
Y> r CM LO _ LO
;2! CM CO CM CM CO CM co
CM CO
C
lea
2 > LO 0 0 LO LO OO CN co 2.
5 Si" oq cq Cs OO *— O
© ® <«
n C LO sf O)
ILO LO -O <3
s
!
arall >
CN CO ^ LO -o co
>
fD
Q.
rmqnc^ X
^ =
;::
^ : = - ™
:
" ^ : - • - • - ^ = ™ . ^
-p-
:ânrid2;xls/A;; LJsSerud: •
Rock Type Paintbrush Tuff

Locality Fran Ridge TsW2, Nevada Test Site
Test Cut # Average 33,34,35 28,29 31,32
Compressive Strength (MPa) 95.3 68.0 129.7 88.2
Tensile Strength (MPa) 11.5 12.8 14.3 7.5
Density (g/cm3) 2.28 2.259 2.304 2.267
Cerchar Abrasivity Index, CAl 4.20 4.43 3.93 4.25
Disk Type Constant Section
Disk Code RobbinsAM1723
Disk Width (mm) 13.72(0.54")
# DOC S S/DOC Fn Fr Fs Fnl Fnl1-76 Fnl1-76 k cl cl
33 5.08 76.2 15.0 112.1 15.64 4.55 49.72 49.72 0.1396 0.0619
34 7.62 76.2 10.0 127.0 20.59 6.39 46,01 46.01 0.1621 0.0587
35 10.16 76.2 7.5 152.9 29.38 8.53 47.95 47.95 47.89 0,1922 0,0603 0.0603
28 5.08 101.6 20.0 115.0 14.79 4.53 51.00 44.17 0.1287 0.0571
29 7.62 101.6 13.3 134.6 19.74 6.49 48.77 42.24 0.1466 0,0531
42 10.16 101.6 10.0 163.7 22.84 6.31 51.35 44.47 43.63 0.1395 0.0438 0.0513
30 5.08 127.0 25.0 122.0 14.75 0.08 54.13 41.93 0.1209 0.0536
31 7.62 127.0 16.7 128.8 18.41 2.90 46.66 36.14 0,1429 0.0518
32 10.16 127.0 12.5 137,9 21.34 3.47 43.26 33.51 37.20 0.1547 0.0485 0.0513
O
X>
a>
Test Specific Peak Peak Peak Ratio Ratio Ratio a.
x
Cut Energy Normal Roll Side Normal Roll Side
# SE Fnpeak Frpeak Fspeak Fnpeak/Fn Frpeak/Fr Fspeak/Fs
(kWh/m3) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk)
33 11.22 234.4 33.94 21.33 2.09 2.17 4.69
34 9.85 282.1 47.90 29.63 2.22 2.33 4.64
35 10.54 393.8 85.49 57.19 2.58 2.91 6.70
28 7.96 265.6 35.68 25.90 2.31 2.41 5.72
29 7.08 334.3 52.42 33.39 2.48 2.66 5.14
42 6.15 374.3 54.64 35.72 2.29 2.39 5.66
30 6.35 278.7 35.76 5.73 2,28 2.42 71.63
31 5.28 301.4 43.55 31.81 2.34 2.37 10.97
32 4.59 260.2 43.42 25.59 1.89 2.03 7.37
Data Normalization Fnl = Fn/(DOQ**l/2

Fnil = Fn/(DOC*(S/76.2))**l/2
k . = Fr/Fn
cl = k/(DOC)**1/2
SE = (Fr/3600)/(DOC*S/100000Q) {kWh/m3}
SE = Fri000/(DOC*S) {MJ/m3}
Prognosis Mode! Fn = Fnll*(DOC*S/76.2)**l/2
Fnl - rock cuttability/disc tip constant
Fr = Fn*cl*(DOC)"l/2
{MPa} = 0.006889*{psi}
{kWh/m3} = 0,976*{hph/yd3}
Comments (i) peak value = overall pea! (max) value for an individual cut sequence
TRRL Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center -a
gresandl.xls Arne Lislerud 3
Q.
X
Source The Effect of Hydraulic Stiffness on Tunnel Boring Machine Performance

R.A. Snowdon, M.D. Ryley, J. Temporal and G.I. Crabb
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 203-214, 1983
Rock Type Gregory Sandstone Cutter Type Wedged

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, UCS 50MPa Cutter Diameter, d 200mm (7 7/8")
Brazilian Tensile Strength, BTS 3.5MPa Disk Tip Radius, t 2.5mm
Bulk Density, p 2.35g/cm3 Disk Tip Angle 80°
Porosity, n 14.8% Disk Tip Contact Width, W 15.7mm
Linear Rig Stiffness Variable
Kerf Nominal Actual Cutting Mean Mean Cutting Cutting Critical Critical Specific Specific
Spacing Depth of Cut Depth of Cut Ratio Normal Rolling Coefficient Constant Normal Normal Energy Energy
S DOC DOC S/DOC Fn Fr k C1 Fnl Fnl1-76 SE-calculated SE-measured
(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kWh/m3) (kWh/m3)
30 6 6.0 5.0 23.6 3.5 0.1483 0.0605 9.63 15.36 5.4 5,8
60 6 6.0 10.0 37.2 5.4 0.1452 0.0593 15.19 17.11 4.2 3.0
90 6 6.0 15.0 57.5 8.0 0.1391 0.0568 23.47 21.60 4.1 3.7
120 6 6.0 20.0 58.4 8.2 0.1404 0.0573 23.84 19.00 3.2 6.2
50 10 10.0 5.0 36.4 7.4 0.2033 0.0643 11.51 14.21 4.1 4.5
100 10 10.0 10.0 66.3 13.1 0.1976 0.0625 20.97 18.30 3.6 2.1
150 10 10.0 15,0 109.9 20.4 0.1856 0.0587 34.75 24.77 3.8 4.5
200 10 10.0 20.0 120.2 22.5 0.1872 0.0592 38.01 23.46 3.1 5.5
Overall Average Mean for Stiffness 147.6kN/mm 0.0598 19.23
X)
XI
fD
O.
X
Kerf Nominal Actual Cutting Mean Mean Cutting Cutting Critical Critical Specific Specific
Spacing Depth of Cut Depth of Cut Ratio Normal Rolling Coefficient Constant Normal Normal Energy Energy
S DOC DOC S/DOC Fn Fr k Cl Fnl Fnl 1-76 SE-calculated SE-measured
(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kWh/m3) (kWh/m3)
30 6 6.4 4.7 31.0 4.9 0.1581 0.0625 12.25 19.53 7.1 6.7
60 6 7.1 8.5 59.2 9.7 0.1639 0.0615 22.22 25.04 6.3 4.9
90 6 6,2 14.5 96.1 14.8 0.1540 0.0619 38.59 35.51 7.4 6.4
120 6 7.4 16.2 127.6 23.7 0.1857 0.0683 46.91 37.38 7.4 8.6
50 10 11.1 4.5 58,2 12.4 0.2131 0.0639 17.47 21.57 6.2 6.1
100 10 10.1 9.9 97.9 25.3 0.2584 0.0813 30.81 26.89 7.0 3.1
150 10 10.1 14.9 182.1 39.8 0.2186 0.0688 57.30 40.84 7.3 7.5
200 10 12.6 15.9 202.0 45.4 0.2248 0.0633 56.91 35.13 5.0 10,2
Overall Average Mean for Stiffness 21 .5kN/mm 0.0664 30.23
INJ
X)
a.
Rock Type Felsic Gneiss

Locality Onaping Mine, Sudbury
Compressive Strength (MPa) 269
Density (g/cm3) 2.77
Cerchar Abrasivity Index, CAI
Disk Width (mm) 8.2 (0.32")
Disk Hardness HRB 57 (steel disk used for lab testing only)
# DOC S S/DOC Fn Fr Fs Fnl Fnll Fnii k cl cl
MD01 0.635 19.05 30.0 20.04 1.74 0.41 25.15 25.15 0.087 0.1088
MD02 1.270 19.05 15.0 27.72 2.77 1.07 24.60 24.60 0.100 0.0888
MD03 1.905 19.05 10.0 34.94 4.05 2.22 25.31 25.31 25.02 0.116 0.0841 0.0939
MD04 1.270 38.10 30.0 42.76 4.77 1.10 37.94 26.83 0.112 0.0990
MD05 1.524 38.10 25.0 41.29 4.63 0.74 33.45 23.65 0.112 0.0909
MD06 1.905 38.10 20.0 44.00 4.92 2.04 31.88 22.54 0.112 0.0811
MD07 2.540 38.10 15.0 47.97 5.98 1.56 30.10 21.28 23.58 0.125 0.0783 0,0873
MD08 1.905 50.80 26.7 44.56 5.73 -0.80 32.29 19.77 0.129 0.0931
MD09 2.540 50.80 20.0 48.90 6.83 2.24 30.68 18.79 0.140 0.0877
MD10 3.175 50.80 16.0 51,91 7.80 0,52 29.13 17.84 18.80 0.150 0.0843 0.0884
-p-
-p-
-o
Test Specific Peak Peak Peak Ratio Ratio Ratio Sdev Sdev Sdev Sdev Sdev Mean Sdev XI
0>
Cut Energy Normal Roll Side Normal Roll Side Normal Roll Side Normal Normal Normal a.
# SE Fnpeak Frpeak Fspeak Fnpeak/Fn Frpeak/Fr Fspeak/Fs Fn-sdev Fr-sdev Fs-sdev Fnl-sdev Fnll-sdev Fnll-sdev x
(kWh/m3) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) -B-
MD01 39.91 85.33 12.13 10.90 4.26 6.98 26.68 11.73 1.16 1.83 14.72 14.72
MD02 31.85 79.61 11.90 16.63 2.87 4.29 15.50 13.00 1.52 2.68 11.54 11.54
MD03 31.03 104.83 14.75 16.23 3.00 3.64 7.30 15.25 2,06 3.31 11.05 11.05 12.44
MD04 27.38 145.19 19.49 18.11 3.40 4.09 16.40 18.83 2.34 4.61 16.71 11.81
MD05 22.16 117.05 18.13 19.86 2.83 3.91 26.81 19.17 2.44 5.05 15.53 10.98
MD06 18.85 138.44 17.57 21.30 3.15 3.57 10.42 20.75 2.48 4.87 15.04 10.63
MD07 17.17 148.91 24.90 26.61 3.10 4.16 17.03 21.86 3.05 5.71 13.72 9.70 10.78
MD08 16.45 120.42 25.61 28.24 2.70 4.47 -35.14 19.09 2.94 7.22 13.83 8.47
MD09 14.71 165.31 23.07 33.90 3.38 3.38 15.16 24.11 3.56 7.73 15.13 9.27
MD10 13.43 164.26 28.52 41.67 3.16 3.66 80.70 24.93 4,08 7.89 13.99 8.57 8.77
Overall Average Mean 3.19 4.22 24.00 10.67
Data Normalization Fnl =Fn/(DOC)**l/2

Fnl 1 = Fn/(DOC*(S/19.05))** 1/2
k =Fr/Fn
cl =k/(DOCr*l/2
SE =(Fr/3600)/(DOC*S/1000000) {kWh/m3}
Prognosis Model Fn = Fnl 1*(DOC*S/19.05)** 1/2
Fnl • = rock cuttability/disc tip constant
Conversion Factors {kN} = 0,004445*{lb}
{MPa} = 0.006889*{psi}
{kWh/m3} = 0.976*{hph/yd3}
Statistics standard deviation means that 68,3% of the observations are within the range (x+-sdev)
Comments (i) peak value = overall peal (max) value for an individual c u t sequence
X3
a>
3
Q.
x"
Rock Type Norite

Tensile Strength (MPa)
Density (g/cm3)
Disk Width (mm) 6,4 (0.25")
Disk Hardness
# DOC S S/DOC Fn Fr Fs Fnl Fnll Fnll k cl cl
MD42 1.905 19.05 10.0 32.76 3.30 1.17 23.74 23.74 0.101 0.0730
MD44 2.540 19.05 7.5 37.91 4.92 2.39 23.78 23.78 0,130 0.0814
MD46 3.175 19.05 6.0 42.05 5.81 3,73 23.60 23.60 23.71 0.138 0.0775 0.0773
MD41 1.905 25.40 13.3 37,85 3.67 1,63 27.42 23.75 0.097 0.0703
MD43 2.540 25.40 10.0 43.20 5.39 2.69 27.10 23.47 0.125 0.0783
MD45 3.175 25.40 8.0 48.23 6.74 4.10 27.07 23.44 23.55 0,140 0.0785 0.0757
MD36 1.905 38.10 20.0 46.06 4.75 1.39 33.37 23.60 0.103 0.0747
MD38 2.540 38.10 15.0 52.35 6.79 -0.17 32.85 23.23 0.130 0.0813
MD40 3.175 38.10 12.0 52.68 7.65 3.37 29.56 20.90 22.58 0.145 0.0815 0.0780
MD35 1.905 50.80 26,7 43.04 4.42 0,55 31.18 19.10 0.103 0.0744
MD37 2.540 50.80 20.0 51.39 6.41 3.61 32.25 19.75 0.125 0.0782
MD39 3.175 50.80 16.0 58.00 8.35 5.11 32.55 19.93 19.59 0.144 0,0808 0.0778
-P-
-P-
Appendix 27
CO g
*2 o o •=3 om
C E
;? «p CM CO
D O CO CO CO CO 00
© Z
-&2
2 XJ .2o oo
o CM CO CO CO
CO CO CO 00
t^ CM CM LO
CO
E <f» -aCO
O
CO
CO CO 00 CO r-.O co o t-v 00 o o
o —z
> o
1.55
1.05
2.76
3.20
CM
ES=5 o
9.04
9.62
8.00
8.39
o
CO LO
Z C ^ r> d
> ^
CM
CO CO
o LO CM
o CO
o s
LO
CO
CO
o
•o oLO
CO CM •
LO •o o
o o o
1o LO
CM r—
CN CO CO CM CO CO CO CO CO CO
CN LO
o > LO •O o r- CM CO o
£ T3 -5 CO CM o CO CM <> LO CO o
•o
CO CO LO CO o CM OCM •o
13
z i£ • * CM
CM
1D774 "
2879V "
7762 "
o ©£
-82.42
0.99
5.18
5.36
5.09
4.40
5.82
4.56
9.56
O-.2 •o CM CO CO •oCO o CM oo o
00
o 3 CO o CN 00
co
u a CO CO co co CM CM CO CM co CM CM <n
ii;: i:« m. ti iffi11* 5 ;i«rii i,i>iJi mm
r-. O O CM O
mmmim\Mm
O
LO
O O OB CO O o
r-
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
CO O CM CO O -o CO O
© TD M O O o O CO O
ffi Q- _ - ,— c^j
co CO •Oj t.N
s
o
CN CO CO CO O O LO
CM CM
O
8 s
24
28
02
CO CO i; %'%'% •^• ll 27:i;; :

O O lO
S1L Z ..CM O CO CM LO CO •q- o CO
CM
CO
CM
fk •* •*
s
121 .25
101 .05
ea
46
LO 00 O
.13
L.I/
di
r-- O
Is O CO CO
o
CM
6o
Mean
00 CO O :iO>|
mmmm
i 1: U l h -& ''• i: ii-1
CO CM OO
CM CM •O s CO O CO
CM LO
CO o 00
CO §>
Overall Aver<
-O CO 00 TO o CM CO
28
n *>r
21
CN
MD39
MD40
MD38
MD45
MD46
MD43
MD37
MD44
O
MD42
LO
MD41
CO 3 CO CO
Q Q
X5
Q.
x'
Rock Type Norite

Density (g/cm3)
Disk Hardness
MD48 1.905 19.05 10.0 37.85 4.06 1.49 27.42 27.42 0.107 0.0778
MD50 2.540 19.05 7.5 43.11 5.18 2,39 27.05 27.05 0.120 0.0754
MD52 3.175 19.05 6.0 48.35 6.41 3.72 27.14 27.14 27.20 0.133 0.0744 0.0759
MD47 1.905 25.40 13.3 42.73 4.94 2.69 30.96 26.81 0.116 0.0838
MD49 2.540 25.40 10.0 45.99 5.52 3.24 28.86 24.99 0.120 0.0753
MD51 3.175 25.40 8.0 49.35 6.69 3.74 27.70 23.99 25.26 0.136 0.0761 0.0784
ro
Appendix 29
dev
a X36 2 CO CN
co
c;
E •5 0
D o z t> CO
© z u_
0)
-sd
fdis
3UUJ
O LO CO CO CM
1.40
XJ O CN 0
co 0 *~ 0 c> CO CO [~^
z LA.
disk)
Fnl- sdev
"a 0 LO CO '•¥c:mmi.m
iev
E ilQifMflli
.31
0 CM c>
yj r 0 <> CO 0 0 00
CO o
^ j l;f|ll:f.!i
© © ©
XJ
>
0 0 CN 00
if!!
CO CO m
^dis
XJ
w CO
in CO LO
m •it
mm
CO CO <q- •q- LO O
|
Fs-
/disk)
0
•oil
© r— 0 •0 9 •0
CN •0
co DC "8 co
u-
i CN CO CO CO CO
111 -i z&ui
tlJH
<>i
_
>
> D (D LO CO -O O co CO
© XJ XJ CO CO O *q" 00
"D 5
I -q- LO ^r O m
15.
Fn-s
CO
Z nffltî
s m.
Ratio
0 CN O gfi,R,H3i
XJ 0 CN -0 O LO
co a CO ^q1 LO LO iri«d Imm
co
LA.
^^!§sm
ik/Fr
:
: "vyi f.V.-**i;"
,o= O CO 0 O CM •;•.*.:. - V i r - i :
O 0 LO CO 3 CO CO
at CO CO CN co CO CM ^~
CO •?iC>5o"G;-
a
rma
3tiO
a -0 LO
L>
§ -q-
0 h
© CN CN CN CM CM CM
o r—
c
Q.
u_
© O ^. CO CN
CO 0
D XJ <D O CM CN
I
Fsp
© co CM
£: <O c> 0
CN
CO 0 -O O CO •0
O a ,XJJ2CM O CN CM CO
© Q. z <q- •0 r^ LO CO CO
disk) (kl
u.
•5 O 0 CO O CO
a
'.70
© 0 CO CO O
io.-
92.
96.
0
8/.
Nor
Fnp
©
81.
0 C
92.
a
a> : : ; :
;.-iir;. ;M:j •?{-; T 'i ": 1- ;:•;!. ;: •':" f £ :i";j :| ^ 5 ;. ;:i
CO
Spec ific
<D
D) 0 CO CO LO • 0 :i
;:!:;m
1 O) ; iW!H
Over 1 Avera
5 LU —. I— CO r^«. 0
29.
28.
c to 0 CO CO 'i-i ri;i-:i-S '• '•<::- ^ O

CO CN CN !J ;j! i;- :v;-i.;'; il. •;• > f ? : 'i; J !£~'i" ^^
LU | CN i;-::i; 1! •:••;!:•!•, i : . ; j ; : : O s I Q \ \]
CO 0 CN O , 0
MD4
Test
MD5
MD5
Cut
MD5
MD4
|
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center ft
CL
Arne Lislerud x'
File holsliml.xls
Rock Type Holston Limestone

Brazilian Tensile Strength, BTS lOJMPa

76.2 6.4 12.0 172.1 24.6 0.1431 0.0568 68.28 68.28 14.14
76.2 8.9 8.6 193.8 31.1 0.1602 0.0537 64.99 64.99 12.73
101.6 3.8 26.7 142.7 15.0 0.1052 0.0539 73.12 63.33 10.78
101.6 5.1 20.0 186.5 21.7 0.1162 0.0515 82.76 71.67 11.66
101.6 7.6 13.3 242.1 30.3 0.1250 0.0453 87,72 75.97 10.86
101.6 8.9 11.4 284.7 36.1 0.1268 0.0425 95.49 82.69 11.11
Overall Average Mean 0.0506 71.16 o
4?
>
x>
0)
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center D
Q.
X
Arne Lislerud
File holslim2.xls
Rock Type Hoiston Limestone

Brazilian Tensile Strength, BTS laiMPa

S DOC S/DOC Fn Fr k Cl Fnl Fnil-76 SE
76.2 6.4 12.0 174.9 13.3 0.0761 0.0302 69.41 69.41 7.64
76.2 8.9 8.6 211.1 24.4 0.1154 0.0387 70.81 70.81 9.99
101.6 6.4 16.0 205.5 19.1 0.0932 0.0370 81.53 70.61 8.24
101.6 8.9 11.4 266.4 38.8 0.1455 0.0488 89.36 77.39 11.92
x>
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center a.
x
Arne Lislerud
File indiliml.xls
Rock Type Indiana Limestone

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, UCS 44MPa
Brazilian Tensile Strength, BTS 5.2MPa

76.2 25.4 3.0 120.8 26.5 0.2195 0.0436 23.96 23.96 3.80
76.2 38.1 2.0 140.5 32.5 0.2317 0.0375 22.76 22.76 3.11
152.4 25.4 6,0 168.8 36.6 0.2167 0.0430 33.50 23.69 2.63
152.4 38.1 4.0 182.7 48.3 0.2644 0.0428 29.60 20.93 2.31
X)
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center X
Arne Lislerud
File indilim2.xls
Rock Type Indiana Limestone

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, UCS 44MPa
Brazilian Tensile Strength, BTS 5.2MPa

Cutter Code RobbinsAM1724
76.2 25.4 3.0 189.7 37.4 0.1973 0.0391 37.63 37.63 5.37
76.2 38.1 2.0 207.4 43.9 0.2114 0.0343 33.60 33.60 4.20
152.4 25.4 6.0 230.9 45.6 0.1973 0.0392 45.82 32.40 3.27
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center 3
Q.
X
Arne Lislerud -p-
File lesbasl.xls
Rock Type Lesotho Basalt


69.9 1.3 55.0 86.0 3.6 0.0415 0.0368 76.35 79.74 11.18
69.9 2.5 27.5 124.0 5.6 0.0448 0.0281 77.80 81.26 8.69
89.7 1.3 70.6 96.5 4.1 0.0421 0.0374 85.59 78.90 9.90
89.7 2.5 35.3 136.8 6.2 0.0450 0.0282 85.83 79.13 7.50
89.7 3.8 23.5 171.0 10.5 0.0615 0.0315 87.60 80.76 8.55
-P-
-P-
ft
CL
i—•
X
Arne Lislerud -p-
File Iesbas2.xls
Rock Type Lesotho Basalt - NAB


69.9 3.81 18.3 108.2 7.43 0.0686 0.0352 55.45 57.92 7.76
69.9 7.37 9.5 123.9 13.58 0.1096 0.0404 45.64 47.67 7.33
69.9 12.45 5.6 187.0 24.98 0.1336 0.0379 52.98 55.34 7.98
89.7 3.81 23.5 114.9 8.33 0.0725 0.0371 58.85 54.26 6.77
89.7 7.37 12.2 191.3 21.41 0.1119 0.0412 70.47 64.97 9.00
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center 3
Arne Lislerud
File Iesbas3.xls
Rock Type Lesotho Basalt - MAB

Brazilian Tensile Strength, BTS ll,9MPa

S DOC S/DOC Fn Fr k Cl Fni Fnll-76 SE
69.9 3.81 18.3 88.2 6.24 0.0707 0.0362 45.20 47.21 6.51
69.9 7.37 9.5 123.3 16.45 0.1334 0.0491 45.42 47.44 8.88
69.9 12.45 5.6 163.5 26.37 0.1613 0.0457 46.32 48,38 8.42
89.7 3.81 23.5 102.3 7.14 0.0698 0.0358 52.41 48.32 5.81
89.7 7.37 12.2 134,8 17.25 0.1280 0.0471 49.66 45.78 7.25
ON
ID
I—.
X
Arne Lislerud
File Iesbas4.xls
Rock Type Lesotho Basalt - HAB

Uniaxial Compressive Strength, UCS lll.lMPa

69.9 3.81 18.3 101.1 7.53 0.0745 0.0382 51.80 54.10 7.86
69.9 7.37 9.5 125.7 15.46 0.1230 0.0453 46.30 48.36 8.34
69.9 12.45 5.6 141.5 22.01 0.1556 0.0441 40.09 41.87 7.03
89.7 3.81 23.5 117.0 8.52 0.0728 0.0373 59.93 55.24 6.93
89.7 7.37 12.2 154.1 20.92 0.1357 0.0500 56.78 52.34 8.79
VjO
•e-
XI
n>
Polyethylene Oxide (PEO) Tests peol.xIs/A. Lislerud Q.
x
Rock Type Colorado Red Granite Disc Type Robbins AM 1723
Locality Lyons, Colorado Disc Diameter (mm) 432(17")
Compressive Strength (MPa) 138 Disc Width (mm) 12,7(0.5")
Tensile Strength (MPa) 11.7 Cutting Speed (m/s) 0.254
Density (g/cm3) 2.62
Rock Surface Hardness, VHNR 858
Test Cut Cut Ratio Mean Mean Critical Critical Cutter Cutter Specific Peak Peak Ratio Ratio
Cut Depth Spacing Normal Roll Thrust Thrust Coeff. Constant Energy Normal Roll Normal Roll
# DOC S S/DOC Fn Fr Fnl Fnl1-76 k cl SE Fnpeak Frpeak Fnpeak/Fn Frpeak/Fr
(mm/pass) (mm) (kN/disc) (kN/disc) (kN/disc) (kN/disc) (kWh/m3) (kN/disc) (kN/disc)
5 6.350 114.30 18.0 210.24 17.78 83.43 68.12 0.0846 0.0336 6.80 492.95 39.56 2.34 2,23
7 12.700 114.30 9.0 305.37 44.45 85.69 69.96 0.1456 0.0408 8.51 594.30 91.12 1.95 2.05
10,11,15 6.350 57.15 9.0 180.46 20.00 71.61 82.69 0.1108 0.0440 15.31 339.60 42.67 1.88 2.13
Overall,Average Mean 73.59 0.0395 2.06 2.14
D
CL
x'
Linear Mini-Disk Cutting Tests in Serpentinite

Mechanized Mining of Narrow Chrome Seams
3rd Intl. Symp. on Mine Mech. and Automation
L, Ozdemir & D. Magaisa
zimchr52.xls/A. Lislerud
Rock Type Serpentinite

Locality Great Dyke, Zimbabwe
Density (g/cm3)
# DOC S S/DOC Fn Fr Fs Fni Fnll Fnll k cl cl
dmp-2s 2.54 25.4 10.00 12.21 1.60 0.45 7.66 6.63 0.131 0.0822
dmp-3s 3.81 25.4 6.67 12.79 2.40 1.50 6.55 5.67 0.188 0.0961
dmp-4s 5.08 25.4 5.00 14.42 2.32 1.20 6.40 5.54 5.95 0.161 0.0714 0.0832
dmp-5s 2.54 50.8 20.00 13.01 1.68 -0.54 8.16 5.00 0.129 0.0810
dmp-6s 5.08 50.8 10.00 19.69 3.74 0.01 8.74 5.35 0.190 0.0843
dmp-7s 7.62 50.8 6.67 21.23 4.17 2.16 7.69 4.71 5.02 0.196 0.0712 0.0788
Appendix 4.
,— p -
o
CM
©£ ? o LO CO -o •sT CM
-q •q CO CM
w 2, •- CN
© E CO O
5
CO
c> OCM' OCO CO
CO CM CO -O
TJ .ii </>— LO
CM' CoM CM
w «" J, Z
> -* O
© .2 c> 1
d d 5
1 d d
•= > A!
> O Q) « o CM CO o
© c "O ^3 o CO CM LO
CO LO
«n ° c- Z "^ •sf
o
CM CM CO 1 p 1—
CM CO CO CO
LO CO CO LO CM CO 00
LO
p| CO
O c> CO
CO O
LO CO CO
w X AS LO CM •ST
O o.cq CO
sis
• * © O .2 LO CO CO O CO
P -O © CO <> LO CM i—
© ii Q. CM CM" LO
u
LU:;U..'^: :0:C0:iVJ:
AS _ H .2 CO o o LO
CM •sr o
go ©5. o
CO CO
r^ LQ
LO
^
Vj:;- g:;;?:::::.c«r
AS O •O CM CM
O CO
©
O •o CO LO
M::M<U'::;:::ti!i:i.?
LO
CM CM
c> CM CO CO d
CM CO
'— c
©
iitfl'i fotlffi JJI:
"3 O O- o CM CO o
©
O *- i CO CO <3 O
O ® t o D
•O •6•sf CO CM ©
ioiii: 3::i>O-::
CO CO CO CO CO CO
CM CO •sT LO •O
d ddddd
EEEEEE>
T3 "D O
XI
0>
Linear Disc Cutting Tests in Charcoal Grey Granite Q.
x'
Polyethylene Oxide (PEO) Tests peo2.xls/A. Lisierud
Rock Type Granodiorite

Locality St. Cloud, Minnesota Disc Type RobbinsAM1723
Compressive Strength (MPa) 221 Disc Diameter (mm) 432(17")
Tensile Strength (MPa) 13.1 Disc Width (mm) 12.7(0.5")
Density (g/cm3) 2.71 Cutting Speed (m/s) 0.254
Rock Surface Hardness, VHNR 758
Test Cut Cut Ratio Mean Mean Critical Critical Cutter Cutter Specific Peak Peak Ratio Ratio
Cut Depth Spacing Normal Roll Thrust Thrust Coeff. Constant Energy Normal Roll Normal Roll
# DOC S S/DOC Fn Fr Fnl Fnl1-76 k cl SE Fnpeak Frpeak Fnpeak/Fn Frpeak/Fr
(mm/pass) (mm) (kN/disc) (kN/disc) (kN/disc) (kN/disc) (kWh/m3) (kN/disc) (kN/disc)
22 6.350 114.30 18.0 225.80 23.56 89.61 73.16 0.1043 0.0414 9.02 468.50 55.56 2.07 2.36
24 3.175 57.15 18.0 176.02 9.33 98.78 114.07 0.0530 0.0298 14.29 324.93 28.00 1.85
26 3.175 57.15 18.0 181.35 9.33 101.78 117.52 0.0515 0.0289 14.29 320.48 24.45 1.77
33 6.350 57.15 9.0 225.36 24.89 89.43 103.27 0.1105 0.0438 19.05 426.28 55.56 1.89 2.23
38 6.350 57.15 9.0 232.91 24.00 92.43 106.73 0.1031 0.0409 18.37 395.16 52.01 1.70 2.17
Data Normalization Fnl =Fn/(DOC)**l/2 Prognosis Model Fn = Fnl 1 *(DOC*S/76.2)**1 /2

Fnl 1 - Fn/(DOC*(S/76.2))**1 /2 Fnl = rock cuttability/disc tip consi
k =Fr/Fn Fr = Fn*c1*(DOC)**l/2
cl . = k/(DOC)**1/2
SE = (Fr/3600)/(DOC*S/1000000 { k W h / m 3 } Conversion Factors {kN} = 0,004445* {Ib}
SE = Fr*1000/DOC*S) {MJ/m3} {MPa} - Q,006889*{psi}
{kWh/m3] = 0,976*{hph/yd3}
CSM Linear Cutting Tests Tamrock Technology Center XI
x>
Arne Lisierud fD
Q.
X
Source Alcove Excavator for the Yucca Mountain

Experimental Study Facility.
Earth Mechanics Institute, CSM
J.E. Friant, E. Ronnkvist & L. Ozdemir
File tivcan.51.xls
Note Data taken from graphs
Rock Type Tiva Canyon Welded (Rhyolitic) Tuff

Brazilian Tensile Strength, BTS
Cutter Type Rounded tip

Cutter Code CSM Minidisk
Disk Diameter, d 127mm (5")
Disk Edge Width, W 8,2mm
Kerf Disk Cutting Mean Mean Cutting Cutting Critical Critical Specific
S DOC S/DOC Fn Fr k Cl Fni Fnll-19 SE
(mm) (mm) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kWh/m3)
76.2 1.91 39.9 39.5 4.82 0.1220 0.0883 28,59 14.29 9.20
76.2 2.54 30.0 40.5 5.02 0.1240 0.0778 25.41 12.71 7.21
76.2 3.53 21.6 52.6 6.79 0.1290 0,0687 28.01 14.00 7.01
>
x>
Q.
X
Linear Mini-Disk Cutting Tests in Chromite Ore

Mechanized Mining of Narrow Chrome Seams
3rd Intl. Symp. on Mine Mech. and Automation
L. Ozdemir & D. Magaisa
zirnchr51 .xls/A. Lislerud
Rock Type Chromite Ore

Locality Great Dyke, Zimbabwe
Compressive Strength (MPa)
Density (g/cm3)
dmp-lc 1.27 25.4 20.00 16.20 1.35 0.04 14.38 12.45 0.083 0.0739
dmp-2c 2.54 25.4 10.00 21.59 2.34 -0.29 13.55 11.73 0.108 0.0680
dmp~3c 3.81 25.4 6.67 26.32 4.67 3.59 13.48 11.68 0.177 0.0909
dmp-4c 5.08 25.4 5.00 46.22 8.98 5.23 20.51 17.76 13.40 0.194 0.0862 0.0798
dmp-5c 2.54 50.8 20.00 45.45 5.15 4.86 28.52 17.46 0.113 0.0711
dmp-6c 5.08 50.8 10.00 51.75 9.11 0.36 22.96 14.06 0.176 0.0781
dmp-7c 7.62 50.8 6.67 71.68 16.41 0,76 25.97 15.90 15.81 0.229 0.0829 0.0774
Overall >Average Meani 14.43 0.0787
•a
a.
Test Specific Peak Peak Peak Ratio Ratio Ratio Sdev Sdev Sdev Sdev Sdev Mean Sdev
Cut Energy Normal Roll Side Normal Roll Side Normal Roll Side Normal Normal Normal
# SE Fnpeak Frpeak Fspeak Fnpeak/Fn Frpeak/Fr Fspeak/Fs Fn-sdev Fr-sdev Fs-sdev Fnl-sdev Fn 11-sdev Fnll-sdev
(kWh/m3) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN/disk)
dmp-lc 11.63 27.46 2.83 3.08 1.70 2.10 77.00 6.52 0.72 1.82 5.79 5.01
dmp-2c 10.08 36.18 4.45 5.98 1.68 1.90 -20.62 6.74 0.92 3.24 4.23 3.66
dmp-3c 13.40 44.01 8.38 10.04 1.67 1.79 2.80 8.80 1.86 3.84 4.51 3.90
dmp-4c 19.33 66.35 14.92 15.03 1.44 1.66 2.87 10.52 2.65 5.48 4.67 4.04 4.15
dmp-5c 11.09 63.50 9.33 10.66 1.40 1.81 2.19 12.82 1.93 3,12 8.04 4.93
dmp-6c 9.81 87.22 16.22 14.49 1.69 1.78 40.25 16.45 3.45 7.85 7.30 4,47
dmp-7c 11.78 104.48 25.17 16.44 1.46 1.53 21.63 16.26 4.58 8.13 5.89 3.61 4.33
Fnl :=Fn/(DOC)**l/2
: Fryj 1
Êi-FgcM^
":-;•;;= r o c k e u f f a b i l i t y / d i s Q : t i p - c o p i s t a n t ; :3BB;::;:"~'"•:: • ^•^:^:-,\;-i:~:i£;:;,~u.^=~>,:»

§;Ss:FBM"(D0C:f*l/2; s
|actors::
af ;^
;!i oslsippMglJ;-i:£;:•: ^^^
je:yj'g|fcn-TO^
; i; peak value = : overqll peai <rac^ vgfUQfQr an; individual cut s
; to-"soften" as higherldads-are;applled:.::: : : : ;;;; •••;;;;';::\£:zEr:.
Tool and Cutferhead Forces for Sumping Cufterheads ID
D
cutpredl .xls/A. Lisleruc! Q.
x'
Cutterhead Diameter, D 2.90 m Max Line Spacing, Snmax 88.9 mm
Cutterhead Radius Factor, f 0.592 Mean Line Spacing, Snmean 77.8 mm
Number of Cutters, N 20 Cutterhead Rotary Speed 7.9 RPM
Tools per Line, TPL 1 Dome factor, SINTM 0.866
Starts per Revolution, SPR 1 Rock Type Limestone
Disk Rim Diameter, d 310 mm Uniaxia! Compressive Strength, UCS 120 MPa
Disk Rim (Constant Section) Width, W 11.6 mm Critical Normal Force, Fnl -linear 51.4 kN/disk
Cutter Constant, Cl -linear 0.0511
Max Depth Mean Depth Max Depth Net Advance Net Cutting Mean Normal Cutting Mean Rolling Thrust Cutterhead Cutterhead Specific
of Cut of Cut of Advance Rate Rate Force Coefficient Force Force Torque Power Energy
DOCnmax DOCnmean DOAnmean AR NCR Fnmean kmean Frmean Fthrusf Tdemand Pdemand SE
(mm/rev/tool) (mm/rev/tool) (mm/rev) (m/h) (m3/h) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN) (kNm) (kW) (kWh/m3)
1 0.87 0.87 0.47 3.1 44.7 0.0476 2.1 783.2 34.2 28.3 9.03
2 1.73 1.73 0.95 6.3 63.3 0.0673 4.3 1107.6 68.4 56.6 9.03
3 2.60 2.60 1.42 9.4 77.5 0.0824 6.4 1356.5 102.6 84.8 9.03
4 3.46 3.46 1.90 12.5 89.5 0.0951 8.5 1566.3 136.7 113.1 9.03
5 4.33 4.33 2.37 15.7 100.1 0.1064 10.6 1751.2 170.9 141.4 9.03
6 5.20 5.20 2.84 18.8 109.6 0.1165 12.8 1918.4 205.1 169.7 9.03
7 6.06 6.06 3.32 21.9 118.4 0.1259 14.9 2072.1 239.3 198.0 9.03
8 6.93 6.93 3.79 25.0 126.6 0.1345 17.0 2215.1 273.5 226.2 9.03
9 7.79 7.79 4.27 28.2 134.2 0.1427 19.2 2349.5 307.7 254.5 9.03
10 8.66 8.66 4.74 31.3 141.5 0.1504 21.3 2476.6 341.8 282.8 9.03
11 9.53 9.53 5.21 34.4 148.4 0.1578 23.4 2597.5 376.0 311.1 9.03
12 10.39 10.39 5.69 37.6 155.0 0.1648 25.5 2713.0 410.2 339.4 9.03
13 11.26 11.26 6.16 40.7 161.3 0.1715 27.7 2823.8 444.4 367.6 9.03
14 12.12 12.12 6.64 43.8 167.4 0.1780 29.8 2930.4 478.6 395.9 9,03
15 12.99 12.99 7.11 47.0 173.3 0.1842 31.9 3033.2 512.8 424.2 9.03
Tool and Cufferhead Forces for Sumping Cutterheads
cutpr©d2.xls/A. Lislerud a.
x'
ON
Cutterhead Diameter, D 2.90 m Rock Type Limestone
Cutterhead Radius Factor, f 0.592 Uniaxial Compressive Strength, UCS 120 MPa
Number of Cutters, N 40 Critical Normal Force, Fnl -linear 51.4 kN/disk
Tools per Line, TPL 2 Cutter Constant, Cl -linear 0.0511
Starts per Revolution, SPR 2 Max Line Spacing, Snmax 88.9 mm
Disk Rim Diameter, d 310 mm Mean Line Spacing, Snmean 77.8 mm
Disk Rim (Constant Section) Width, W 11.6 mm Cutterhead Rotary Speed 7.9 RPM
Dome factor, SINTM 0.866
Max Depth Mean Depth Max Depth Net Advance Net Cutting Mean Normal Cutting Mean Rolling Thrust Cutterhead Cutterhead Specific
of Cut of Cut of Advance Rate Rate Force Coefficient Force Force Torque Power Energy
DOCnmax DOCnmean DOAnmean AR NCR Fnmean kmean Frmean Fthrust Tdemand Pdemand SE
(mm/rev/tool) (mm/rev/tool) (mm/rev) (m/h) (m3/h) (kN/disk) (kN/disk) (kN) (kNm) (kW) (kWh/m3)
1 0.87 1.73 0.95 6.3 44.7 0.0476 2.1 1566.3 68.4 56.6 9.03
2 1.73 3.46 1.90 12.5 63.3 0.0673 4.3 2215.1 136.7 113.1 9.03
3 2.60 5.20 2.84 18.8 77.5 0.0824 6.4 2713.0 205.1 169.7 9.03
4 3.46 6.93 3.79 25.0 89.5 0.0951 8.5 3132.7 273.5 226.2 9.03
5 4.33 8.66 4.74 31.3 100.1 0.1064 10.6 3502.5 341.8 282.8 9.03
6 5.20 10.39 5.69 37.6 109.6 0.1165 12.8 3836.7 410.2 339.4 9.03
7 6.06 12.12 6.64 43.8 118.4 0.1259 14.9 4144.2 478.6 395.9 9.03
8 6.93 13.86 7.58 50.1 126.6 0.1345 17.0 4430.3 546.9 452.5 9.03
9 7.79 15.59 8.53 56.4 134.2 0.1427 19.2 4699.0 615.3 509.0 9.03
10 8.66 17.32 9.48 62.6 141.5 0.1504 21.3 4953.2 683.7 565.6 9.03
11 9.53 19.05 10.43 68.9 148.4 0.1578 23.4 5195.0 752.0 622.2 9.03
12 10.39 20.78 11.38 75.1 155.0 0.1648 25.5 5426.0 820.4 678.7 9.03
13 11.26 22.52 12.32 81.4 161.3 0.1715 27.7 5647.5 888.8 735.3 9.03
14 12.12 24.25 13.27 87.7 167.4 0.1780 29.8 5860.7 957.1 791.8 9.03
15 12.99 25.98 14.22 93.9 173.3 0.1842 31.9 6066.4 1025.5 848.4 9.03
LIST OF REPORTS 1(2)
LIST OF POSIVA REPORTS 1997, situation 12/97
POSIVA-97-01 Model for diffusion and porewater chemistry in compacted bentonite

Theoretical basis and the solution methodology for the transport model
Jarmo Lehikoinen
VTT Chemical Technology
January 1997
ISBN951-652-026-X
POSIVA-97-02 Model for diffusion and porewater chemistry in compacted bentonite

Experimental arrangements and preliminary results of the porewater
chemistry studies
Arto Muurinen, Jarmo Lehikoinen
January 1997
ISBN 951-652-027-8
POSIVA-97-03 Comparison of 3-D geological and geophysical investigation methods

in boreholes KI-KR1 at Aanekoski Kivetty site and RO-KR3 at Kuhmo
Romuvaara site
Katriina Labbas
Helsinki University of Technology
Material Science and Rock Engineering
January 1997
ISBN 951-652-028-6
POSIVA-97-04 Summary Report - Development of Laboratory Tests and the Stress-

Strain Behaviour of Olkiluoto Mica Gneiss
Matti Hakala, Esa Heikkila
Laboratory of Rock Engineering
Helsinki University of Technology
May 1997
ISBN 951-652-029-4
POSIVA-97-05 Radionuclide solubilities at elevated temperatures - a literature study

Torbjorn Carlsson, Ulla Vuorinen
Technical Research Centre of Finland
July 1997
ISBN 951-652-030-8
POSIVA-97-06 Surface complexation modelling: Experiments on sorption of nickel on

quartz, goethite and kaolinite and preliminary tests on sorption of
thorium on quartz
Esa Puukko, Martti Hakanen
University of Helsinki
Department of Chemistry
Radiochemistry laboratory
September 1997
ISBN 951-652-031-6
LIST OF REPORTS 2(2)
POSIVA-97-07 Diffusion and sorption of HTO, Np, Na and Cl in rocks and minerals
of Kivetty and Olkiluoto
Vesa Kaukonen, Martti Hakanen
University of Helsinki
Department of Chemistry
Laboratory of Radiochemistry
Antero Lindberg
Geological Survey of Finland
October 1997
ISBN 951-652-032-4
POSIVA-97-08 Regression methodology in groundwater composition estimation with

composition predictions for Romuvaara borehole KR10
Ari Luukkonen, Juhani Korkealaakso, Petteri Pitkanen
VTT Communities and Infrastructure
November 1997
ISBN 951-652-033-2
POSIVA 97-09 Dissolution of unirradiated UO2 fuel in synthetic saline groundwater •

Experimental methods and preliminary results
Kaija Ollila
December 1997
ISBN 951-652-034-0
POSIVA 97-10 Application of surface complexation modelling: Nickel sorption on

quartz, manganese oxide, kaolinite and goethite and thorium on silica
Markus Olin, Jarmo Lehikoinen
December 1997
ISBN 951-652-035-9
POSIVA 97-11 FEPs and scenarios - Auditing of TVO-92 and TILA-96 against
International FEP database
Timo Vieno, Henrik Nordman
VTT Energy
December 1997
ISBN 951-652-036-7
POSIVA 97-12 Principles of Mechanical Excavation

Arne Lislerud
Tamrock Corp.
December 1997
ISBN 951-652-037-5

Principles of Mechanical Excavation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Principles of Mechanical Excavation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FI9800048

The conclusions andviewpoints presented in t h e r e p o r t a r e

Tekija(t) - Author(s) Toimeksiantaja(t) - Commissioned by

Arne Lislerud Posiva Oy

PRINCIPLES OF MECHANICAL EXCAVATION

Tekijä(t) - Author(s) Toimeksiantaja(t) - Commissioned by

Arne Lislerud Posiva Oy

MEKAANISEN LOUHINNAN PERUSTEET

Nykyään on yleisesti käytössä useita erityyppisiä mekaanisia louhintamenetelmiä kuten tunnelin

1 MECHANICS OF CUTTING AND BORING 3

2 A PHENOMENOLOGICAL MODEL FOR THE CUTTING

2.4 PRACTICAL USE OF THE NON-DIMENSIONALTI-TERMS 40

4 LINEAR CUTTING TESTS 115

5 TOOL AND CUTTERHEAD FORCES ON DOMED AXIAL

5.1 TOOL PATHS, DEPTH OF CUT AND CUTTERHEAD

6.1 TOOL LACING DESIGN PARAMETERS 153

8.0 GENERAL EXPRESSIONS 172

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 183

The study of mechanical rock cutting by roller cutters presented in this

FIELD FOLLOWUP CHART

Excavation Site Tunnelling

Tunnel Size Net Advance Rates

1.1 TOOL TRAJECTORIES AND VELOCITIES ON AXIAL

As a cutterhead rotates at a constant angular frequency / and simultaneously

Xj, Yj, Zj = coordinates for tool i at time t

where co is the angular velocity (co = 2K • f ), 9 the total cutterhead rotation

and the helical path length Sj is:

tan Pi = vadvance / vrotauon = A / ( 2JI • Rj) [1-4]

In other words, a tool at the center of a cutterhead has to progress directly

Trajectories of Continuous Disk Rings and Studded Disk Roller Cutters

Continuous Disk Ring Cutters

= r • ( 27t / 360 • acos { 1 - DOC / r } - [ ( 2 • DOC / r ) - ( DOC / r ) 2 ] m )

When a disk cutter rotates without skidding, there is a simple relation

0r = Si = <pRj-[ 1+(A/2TCR,)2]I/2 [1-7]

Figure 1-3. The cycloidal indentation path of a disk rim-point.

<|) • r = cpRj [1-8]

Studded Disk Cutters

= acos { 1 - DOC / r } [1-9]

Figure 1-4. The rolling action of hemispherical indenter studs.

Speed of Fixed Cutting Tools

(j)-r = <p R • I" 1 + ( A / 2 j t R ) 2 j " *

Speed and Geometry of Studded Multi-Row Roller Cutters

( 2nf • R / r ) • [ 1 + ( A / 2TIR ): T ' "

Figure 1-5. Geometry of a studded multi-row roller cutter.

(. Qouler ' Ujnner ) ~ \ *V>uter '

do uter / dinner - ( Ri CW / Rln CW [1-12]

where CW is the slant width of the cutter measured radially on the

= atari ( di nner / 2Rm ne r) = atan ( d outer

Ri nner-optimum — v_W / ( douter ' dinner " * [1-13]

where Rinner-optimum is the inner multi-row cone cutter radius on the

Figure 1-6. Multi-row roller cutters on a large cutterhead.

( dOUIer / dinner ) = 1 + C W • Sin 0C I R, nn er

Sin a I R,nner = ( douter / dinner - 1 ) / CW [1-14]

hi other words, sin a has to be proportional to the setting radius (measured

sin a — R inner ' ^inner-optimum [1-15]

Figure 1-7. Multi-row roller cutters on a domed cutterhead.

Example 1-3. A 2.75 m (9') diameter cutterhead of typical full-face design

Rinner-optimum = 255 / ( 279 / 229 - 1 ) = 1 168 Him

a = asin (Rinner/ 1 168 )

where Rinner is in millimeters. The required value of a would be 45° at

1.2 ROLLER DISK CUTTER INDENTATION MECHANISMS

Dynamics of Simple Roller Disk Cutters

dy/dx = dy/d§ • d§ /dx = r • sin <)) / r • ( 1 - cos ())) = cot (|) II