Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

Numerical study on impact energy transfer and rock damage mechanism in

percussive drilling based on high temperature hard rocks
Hengyu Song, Huaizhong Shi *, Zhenliang Chen, Gensheng Li, Ran Ji, Han Chen
State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Prospecting, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Key words: Percussive drilling is suitable for fragmentation of high temperature hard rocks in geothermal wells. In actual
Percussive drilling geothermal drilling, the heat exchange will occur between the low temperature drilling fluid and the high
High temperature hard rocks temperature rocks. This heat transfer effects can cause thermal stress in rocks. High temperature environment
heat transfer
and thermal stress will cause rock damage. Therefore, when analyzing percussive drilling based on high tem­
Tensile damage
Energy transfer efficiency
perature rock, the high temperature and heat transfer need to be considered. This article focuses on the effects of
mechanical percussion-heat transfer couplings on impact stress wave propagation, energy transfer efficiency and
rock damage in percussive drilling. At first, the physical model for mechanical percussion-heat transfer coupled
process was built. And then the heat transfer model, fully coupled thermal stress calculation method,
temperature-dependent plasticity damage model for rocks, and impact energy transfer model were introduced.
Finally, the mechanical percussion-heat transfer coupled process were simulated. The main findings show that
the high temperature effect will reduce the impact energy transfer efficiency. However, it can also reduce the
rock strength, which contributes to the generation of rock tensile damage in percussive drilling. The heat ex­
change between low temperature drilling fluid and the high temperature rock will cause the tensile thermal stress
in rocks. This tensile thermal stress can induce rock tensile damage, which will improve the impact energy
transfer efficiency in percussive drilling. As the control group, the rocks being heated will reduce the energy
transfer efficiency in percussion drilling. When the input impact energy (less than 102 J under the present
simulation conditions) is small, the impact energy transfer efficiency of stinger teeth is greater than that of
hemispherical teeth. And when the input impact energy is large, the impact energy transfer efficiency of
hemispherical teeth is greater than that of stinger teeth. The key findings of this study are expected to provide
some theoretical guidance for high-efficiency fragmentation of high temperature hard rocks in percussive
drilling.

1. Introduction
Geothermal resource is one of the most competitive renewable and
clean energies (Yu et al., 2018). However, High temperature hard for­
mations and rocks, for example granite are often encountered when
drilling geothermal wells, which brings huge challenges and high costs
to drilling operation(He et al., 2019; Hu et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019).
Percussive drilling has proven to be a feasible drilling technology
capable to significantly increase the penetration rate when drilling hard
rocks. In general, percussive drilling is the use of downhole impact de­
vices to apply additional impact energy to the drill bit, forcing the bit to
impact on rocks. For its detailed working principle, see (Song et al.,
2019). Impact energy transfer efficiency is the ratio of the actual impact
energy used for rock fragmentation to the input energy generated by the
impact devices. The study of energy transfer efficiency and rock damage
characteristics is important to improve impact energy utilization as well
as rock breaking efficiency in percussive drilling.
Predecessors have done a lot of studies on the energy transfer effi­
ciency and rock fragmentation mechanism in percussive drilling. Li
et al. (2001) studied the transmission process of the dynamic stress
waveform and reflected energy in percussive drilling based on experi­
ments. A bit-rock interaction model was built to study energy transfer
efficiency of the impact system in percussive drilling (Franca, 2011). The
energy transfer efficiency of percussive drilling by analyzing shape of
the incident wave was optimized(Lundberg and Collet, 2010, 2015) .
Yang et al. (2019) analyzed the effects of four different incident wave

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shz@cup.edu.cn (H. Shi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102215
Received 9 April 2021; Received in revised form 4 June 2021; Accepted 26 July 2021
Available online 2 August 2021
0375-6505/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Song et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215

shapes (exponent, rectangle, triangle, and sine) on the energy transfer

efficiency through theory modelling and found that the energy transfer
efficiency under the condition of rectangular wave is the largest. Song
et al. (2019) used the finite element method to establish a
three-dimensional percussive system model to study the energy transfer
efficiency of percussive drilling considering the strong nonlinearity of
the percussive process. Mardoukhi et al. (2018) conducted experimental
study of the dynamic indentation damage in thermally shocked granite
and analyzed damage characteristics of the heated rock after impacted
on. Song et al. (2020a) built an axial-torsional coupled percussive sys­
tem model to study impact energy transfer in axial-torsional coupled
percussive drilling. Saksala et al. (2014) conducted numerical and
experimental study of percussive drilling with a triple-button bit, and
analyzed the fragmentation characteristics of the rock during percus­
sion. Song et al. (2020b) considered the strain rate effect of the material
and investigated effect of the button numbers and multiple Impacts on
the energy transfer and rock crushing mechanism of percussive drilling. Fig. 1. Physical model.
Saksala et al. (2020) developed a two-dimensional single tooth model to
study thermal shock assisted percussive drilling, and analyzed the effects percussion-heat transfer coupled simulation zone is presented in Fig. 1.
of thermal shock on rock damage. When we only need to analyze effects of rock temperature, impact ve­
Totally, most previous studies focused on the energy transfer effi­ locity, and teeth shape, the heat flux can be set to 0.
ciency and rock damage in percussive drilling based on normal tem­
perature rocks. There are few studies concerning effects of the rock 2.2. Heat transfer model
temperature and the heat exchange on impact stress wave propagations,
energy transfer efficiencies and rock fragmentation characteristics in The following models are referenced from Ref. (Shi et al., 2018; Shi
percussive drilling. The mechanical properties of high temperature rocks et al., 2021; Simulia, 2011). According to the energy conservation
are very different from that of normal temperature rocks. As the tem­ principle, the heat balance equation can be derived from the first law of
perature increases, the compressive and tensile strength of the rock thermodynamics. The increment of energy in a closed system is equal to
decreases (Yin et al., 2015). Moreover, in geothermal drilling, there is the work done on it by the external source. Therefore, we can obtain the
heat exchange between high temperature rocks and low temperature following equation:
drilling fluid. The heat exchange process will generate thermal stress
inside the rock, which may have large implications for percussive dril­ dEΩ dKΩ
+ = Pext + Qexch , (1)
ling. Therefore, it is essential to investigate energy transfer efficiency dt dt
and rock damage characteristics in percussive drilling based on high
where EΩ is internal energy, KΩ is kinetic energy, Pext is mechanical
temperature hard rocks. This study was carried out on the basis of our
power of forces applied to the system, and Qexch is exchanged heat rate.
previous studies (Song et al., 2019; Song et al., 2020a). The main pur­
The kinetic energy and mechanical power should also satisfy the
pose of this paper is to simulate the mechanical percussion-heat transfer
following correlation:
coupled process, and analyze effects of the rock temperature and heat
exchange on the energy transfer efficiency and rock damage in percus­ dKΩ
+ Pstr = Pext , (2)
sive drilling. The outline of this study is as follows. At first, the physical dt
model for mechanical percussion-heat transfer coupled process was
built. And then heat transfer model, fully coupled thermal stress calcu­ where Pext is stress power. Hence, we can obtain the following heat
lation method, temperature-dependent rock damage model, and impact balance equation:
energy transfer model were introduced. Finally, the mechanical dEΩ
= Pstr + Qexch . (3)
percussion-heat transfer couplings were simulated. For heat transfer dt
process simulation, our main object is the heat exchange process be­
The heat balance equation in the spatial frame is as follows:
tween high temperature rock and low temperature fluid, which means
the high temperature rocks are cooled. Then as the control group, we ∂E
ρ + ρu⋅∇E + ∇⋅(q + qr ) = σ : D + Q, (4)
also simulated the process of high temperature rocks being heated. ∂t

where σ is the stress tensor, D is the strain rate tensor, q is heat flux by
2. Model description
conduction, qr is heat flux by radiation, Q is additional heat sources, and
2.1. Physical model
ρ is density of the material.
In addition to the energy equation, the solution process also needs to
satisfy mass and momentum conservation laws. The mass conservation
Our main studies focus on the mechanical percussion-heat transfer
equation is:
coupled process in percussive drilling. As shown in Fig. 1, the percussive
system contains percussive hammer with initial velocity, anvil, multiple- ∂ρ
+ ∇⋅(ρu) = 0, (5)
tooth bit, and rocks. When the percussive hammer strikes the upper end ∂t
face the anvil, the upward-propagating stress waves and the downward-
propagating stress waves will appear simultaneously. The downward- where u is velocity. The linear momentum conservation is:
propagating stress waves are the carriers of the input energy in the ∂u
percussive system, namely input stress waves. The input stress waves are ρ + ρ(u⋅∇)u = ∇⋅σ + Fv , (6)
∂t
transmitted along the anvil to the drill bit and is applied to rocks by the
teeth. Rocks will be damaged by the action of impact stress waves. With Where Fv is force. The angular momentum conservation is:
reference to Ref. (Saksala, 2020), we applied heat flux to the impacted
σT = σ, (7)
surface of the rock to simulate the heat exchange process. Mechanical

2
H. Song et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215

and the heat transfer equation in solids is: where the subscripts t and c refer to tension and compression, respec­
(
∂T
)
dS tively; εpl pl pl pl
te and εce are the equivalent plastic strains, ε̇te and ε̇ce are the
ρC p + utrans ⋅∇T + ∇⋅(q + qr ) = − αT : + Q, (8) equivalent plastic strain rates, θ is the temperature, and fi are other
∂t dt
predefined field variables. The equivalent plastic strain under
where Cp is the specific heat, T is the absolute temperature, utrans is the compression is calculated by
velocity vector of translational motion, α is the coefficient of thermal σyc × Dc
expansion, and S is the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor. εplte = , (16)
(1 − Dc ) × Ec

2.3. Fully coupled thermal-stress calculation method where εepc is equivalent plastic strain, σyc is yield stress, and Ec is elas­
ticity modulus under compression. The equivalent plastic strain under
The fully coupled thermal-stress analysis and dynamic temperature- tension is calculated by
displacement explicit solver in ABAQUS were selected in this study
σyt × Dt
(Simulia, 2011). For the fully coupled analysis, the stress analysis is εplce = , (17)
(1 − Dt ) × Et
dependent on the temperature distribution and the temperature distri­
bution depends on the stress solution. In dynamic
where εept is equivalent plastic strain, σ yt is yield stress, and Et is elas­
temperature-displacement explicit solver, the heat transfer equations
ticity modulus under tension. The yield function is used to describe the
are integrated using the explicit forward-difference time integration
yield characteristics of rocks. The yield function can be defined by
rule:
1 ( ( ) ) ( )
F= q − 3αp + β εpl σmax − σ c εpl
c , σ max > 0, (18)
(9)
N
θN(i+1) + = θN(i) + Δt(i+1) θ̇(i) , 1− α

where θ is temperature, N is node of the computational Domain, and i is 1 ( )

(q − 3αp + γσmax ) − σ c εpl (19)
F= c , σ max < 0,
the increment number in an explicit dynamic step. The initial value of 1− α
N
θ̇(i) can be computed by where ε is strain, the superscript “pl” indicates plasticity, the subscript
( ) ( ) “c” indicates compression, α is flow stress ratio, σ is effective stresses.
(10)
N NJ − 1
θ̇(i) = C PJ(i) − J
F(i) , The degraded response of the rock is characterized by two independent
uniaxial damage variables dt and dc, which are functions of the plastic
where CNJ is the lumped capacitance matrix, PJ is the applied nodal strains, temperature, and field variables:
source vector, and FJ is the internal flux vector. The equations of motion ( )
for the body are integrated using the explicit central-difference inte­ dt = dt εpl
te , θ, fi , (0 ≤ dt ≤ 1), (20)
gration rule: ( )
dc = dc εpl
ce , θ, fi , (0 ≤ dc ≤ 1), (21)
Δt(i + 1) + Δt(i) N
u̇N( ) = u̇N( ) + üi , (11)
i+1 2 i− 1
2
2
If E0 is the initial (undamaged) elastic stiffness of the material, the stress-
strain relations under uniaxial tension and compression loading can be
described by
uN(i+1) = uN(i) + Δt(i + 1)u̇N( ) , (12)
( )
i+12 σ t = (1 − dt )Et εt − εplte , (22)
( )
where u is freedom degree of the motion. The initial value of üN(i) can be σ c = (1 − dc )E0 εc − εplce . (23)
computed by
The effective cohesion stresses determine the size of the yield (or failure)
(
üN(i) = M NJ
)− 1 ( J J
P(i) − I(i)
)
, (13) surface. The “effective” tensile and compressive cohesion stresses are
defined as
where MNJ is the mass matrix, PJ is the applied load vector, and IJ is the σt ( )
σ te = = E0 εt − εpl
te , (24)
internal force vector. (1 − dt )

σc ( )
2.4. Temperature-dependent rock plasticity damage model σ tc = = E0 εc − εpl
ce . (25)
(1 − dc )
We chose the plasticity damage model in Abaqus for the rock. Ac­
where σ te is effective tensile cohesion stress, σ tc is effective compressive
cording to Ref. (Genikomsou and Polak, 2015; Jankowiak and Lody­
cohesion stress. Considering the stiffness reversion factor, the level of
gowski, 2005; Lee and Fenves, 1998; Lubliner et al., 1989), this
rock damage can be determined by the following equation:
plasticity damage model can not only describe the tensile damage and
( )
compressive damage of rocks, but also present the temperature sensi­ σ = (1 − D)E0 ε − εpl , (26)
tivity of the rock mechanical parameters. For the plasticity damage
calculation model in Abaqus, the uniaxial stress-strain curves can be (1 − D) = (1 − st dc )(1 − sc dt ). (27)
converted into stress versus plastic-strain curves. This conversion is
performed automatically by Abaqus from the user-provided stress versus where D is damage variable, s is stiffness recovery factor. For a more
“inelastic” strain data. The tensile and compressive stresses to which the detailed description of the above models, see Ref. (Simulia, 2011).
rock elements are subjected can be expressed as
( ) 2.5. Model for impact energy transfer efficiency
σ t = σt εplte , ε̇plte , θ, fi , (14)
This model has been introduced in detail in our previous work (Song
( )
et al., 2019). The impact energy transfer efficiency is calculated by
σc = σc ε pl pl
ε̇
ce , ce , θ, fi , (15)

3
H. Song et al.
WO
η= , (28)
WI
where η is efficiency, WO is output energy of percussive system, and WI is
input energy of percussive system. WO is calculated by
∫ the rock temperature under compression. The yield stress here refers to
WO = F(u)du, (29)
and WI is the kinetic energy of the percussive hammer:
1
WI = mv2 , (30)
2
where F is the bit-rock interaction force, u is penetration depth of the
teeth, m is mass of the percussive hammer, and v is impact velocity of the
percussive hammer.
3. Simulation parameters setup
3.1. Geometrical parameters of the percussive system
Fig. 2 presents the geometrical model of the percussive system. Rocks
were meshed with the structured grid. The mechanical percussion-heat
transfer coupled simulation zone of rocks was meshed by a finer grid.
The size of the coupled simulation zone is 100 mm×100 mm, and the
grid size is 1.25 mm. The total elements of the rock model are 317269.
The hemispherical teeth and the multiple-tooth bit were selected. The
size of the tooth is Φ12mm. The percussive hammer size is
Φ37mm×300mm. The anvil size is Φ64mm×300mm. Other dimen­
sional parameters of the percussive system model have been presented
in Fig. 2.
3.2. Model parameters
We first setup the mechanical parameters of the rocks. The built rock
model in this study needs the following mechanical parameters: the
yield stress and inelastic strain under compression, the yield stress and
cracking strain under tension, and the compressive damage factor and
the tensile damage factor. In addition, we also need to consider the
Fig. 2. Geometrical model of the percussive system.
4
Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215
temperature sensitivity of these parameters. The maximum tensile
damage value is set to 0.81, and the maximum compressive damage
value is set to 0.5. Fig. 3 a shows the relationship between the yield
stress/cracking strain and the rock temperature under tension, and Fig. 3
b presents the relationship between the yield stress/ inelastic strain and
the stress applied to the rock when the plastic deformation first occurs.
The cracking strain is the strain at which the tensile damage of the rock
reaches the maximum value of 0.81, and the inelastic strain is the strain
at which the compressive damage of the rock reaches the maximum
value of 0.5. When the temperature is 298.15 K, the rocks’ Elastic
modulus is 33.7GPa, Poisson’s ratio is 0.26, Dilation angle is 5◦ , Shape
factor is 0.667, Flow stress ratio is 1.16, Eccentricity is 0.1, and Density
is 2630 kg/m3. For more descriptions of rock mechanical parameters,
please see our previous work (Song et al., 2020a) and Ref. (Shi and Xu,
2015; Yin et al., 2015).
Next, we continue to set the thermodynamic parameters of rocks.
These parameters include the specific heat, conductivity, and expansion
coefficient. According to Ref. (Dwivedi et al., 2008), we obtained the
variation of these thermodynamic parameters with rock temperature (as
shown in Table. 1).
The Elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio, and Density of the other ma­
terials of the percussive system are set as 210 GPa, 0.28, and 7800 kg/
m3, respectively. The teeth are regarded as rigid bodies, and its density is
set to 15630 kg/m3.
3.3. Initial condition and boundary condition
The bottom surface of the rock model is fixed. The percussive
hammer is given an initial impact velocity in the predefined field, and its
impact velocity will gradually decay during percussion. There is a fixed
connection between the anvil and the drill bit. In the initial state, the
teeth are in contact with the rocks, but the force between them is 0. The
heat flux is applied in the mechanical percussion-heat transfer coupled
simulation zone (as shown in Fig. 2).
4. Simulation results and discussion
The propagation patterns of the impact stress wave were first
analyzed during the percussion. Then the effects of rock temperature on
percussive process were studied. Subsequently, we analyzed effects of
heat exchange on the percussive process, impact energy transfer
H. Song et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215

Fig. 3. a. Variation of yield stress/cracking strain with temperature under tension; b. Variation of yield stress/inelastic strain with temperature under compression.

0. In this section, we will study the force/stress at three positions: stress

Table. 1
on the upper end face of the anvil, stress on the lower end face of the
Thermodynamic parameters of the rock.
anvil, and bit-rock interaction force (these positions are presented in
Temperature Specific heat (J/ Conductivity (W/ Expansion Fig. 2). The stress on the upper end face of the anvil was calculated from
(K) (kg•K)) (m•K)) coefficient (1/K)
the contact force between the percussive hammer and the anvil. The
298.15 832.65 2.561 3.4×10− 6 stress on the lower end face of the anvil was solved as follows: first, we
373.15 876.60 2.364 7.2×10− 6 output the stresses of all elements on this end face, and then calculated
473.15 935.20 2.127 1.17×10− 5
673.15 1052.40 1.739 2×10− 5
the weighted average value of the stresses based on the area of each
873.15 1169.60 1.465 2.94×10− 5 element, which is regarded as the stress value on this end face. Fig. 4
presents the stress waves of all elements (total 320 elements) at impact
velocity of 8 m/s.
efficiency. Then the temperature, thermal stress, and rock damage dis­ This weighted average stress can be calculated by
tributions of the rocks under the mechanical percussion-heat transfer ∑
couplings were studied. Finally, we also studied the effects of different σ ave =
(σeach cell × Seach cell )
, (31)
tooth shapes. S

where σ each_cell is stress of each element, Seach_cell is area of each element,

4.1. Percussive process and impact stress wave analysis
Percussive drilling is the utilization of a percussive hammer with
initial velocity to impact on the anvil. This percussive action generates
impact stress waves, which are transmitted to the rocks, causing
instantaneous fragmentation of the rocks. When the impact stress wave
travels to the bit-rock interface, it is transformed into two parts of the
waves. One part is the incident waves which are incident into the rock,
and the other is the reflected waves which are reflected to percussive
system. When the reflected waves are transmitted to the upper end of the
anvil, it will be reflected again and retransmitted to the rock in the form
of incident waves, and so on, until the bit-rock interaction force becomes
and S is total area of this end face.
Fig. 5 a. presents the relationship between the stress on the upper end
of the anvil and time. This stress waves are the input stress waves of the
whole percussive system. The stress wave amplitude increases when the
impact velocity is enhanced. The input stress wave is basically a square
wave with the duration of about 0.12ms, which has a fast loading speed
and a fast unloading speed. Moreover, as shown in Fig. 5 a, the impact
velocity of the percussive hammer has essentially no effect on the
duration of the input stress wave. Within 0.12 ms time, the stress waves
which are transmitted to the rock have not yet been reflected to the
upper end face of the anvil, therefore, the rock temperature have no

Fig. 4. Stresses on all elements of the lower end face of the anvil versus time at impact velocity of 8 m/s (a. rock temperature: 298.15 K; b. rock temperature:
873.15 K).

5
H. Song et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215

Fig. 5. a. Stress wave of the upper end of the anvil (input stress wave); b-d. Stress wave of the lower end of the anvil (b. impact velocity: 4m/s; c. impact velocity:
6m/s; d. impact velocity: 8m/s;).

effect on the input stress wave. Fig. 5 b, c, d illustrate effects of the rock
temperature and impact velocity of the percussive hammer on the
impact stress wave of the lower end face of the anvil. Negative stress
means the stress waves propagate downward, which are the incident
waves of this end face. Positive stress means the stress waves propagate
upward, which are the reflected waves of this end face. The incident and
reflected processes of stress waves in the percussive system are repeated
six times within the simulation time of 1 ms. The first incident and first
reflect have been marked in Fig. 5 d. The remaining five incident and
reflected waves are well identified in the figure, so they are not specif­
ically marked. As the impact velocities of percussive hammer augment,
the amplitudes of both the incident and reflected waves increase. And as
shown in Fig. 5, the rock temperature has no effect on the first incident
wave of the lower end face of the anvil, but has a significant effect on the
subsequent stress waves. As Fig. 5 b shows, the amplitudes of the first
two reflected stress waves rise with the increase of the rock temperature.
As shown in Fig. 5 c and d, the amplitudes of the third and fourth
incident stress waves increase with the rock temperature increasing. The
rock temperature has little effect on other incident and reflected waves. Fig. 6. The bit-rock interaction force.
Fig. 6 shows the bit-rock interaction forces in the percussive process.
The amplitude of the bit-rock interaction force augments when impact interaction force is represented by Fg. As shown in Fig. 6, Fg lasts about
velocity is increased. As the rock temperature increases, the interaction 0.6 ms. The three fluctuations of this interaction force curve correspond
force amplitude decreases. Furthermore, the increase in the rock tem­ to the first three incidence and reflection of the impact stress waves,
perature will lengthen the interaction time between the bit and rocks. respectively. As the rock temperature increases, the fluctuation number
When the rock temperature is 298.15K (25℃), the interaction time is of the interaction force curve increases, leading to an increase in the
about 0.6ms, while when the rock temperature is 873.15K (600℃), the duration of the force. The reasons for this are described below. As shown
interaction time is prolonged to 0.8~0.9ms. Comparing Fig. 5 d and in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, the rock strength decreases as the rock temperature
Fig. 6, each fluctuation of the interaction force curve represents an increases. The degradation of rock strength means a decrease in elastic
incidence and reflection of the impact stress waves. Taking the bit-rock modulus of the rocks. The decrease in the rock elastic modulus will
interaction force at the impact velocity of 8m/s and the rock tempera­ reduce the propagation speed of the stress wave within the rock, which
ture of 298.15K as an example, we analyzed the relationship between makes the bit-rock interaction time longer.
the stress wave propagation and the bit-rock interaction force. This Fig. 7 presents axial stress distribution at different moments. The

6
H. Song et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215

Fig. 7. Axial stress propagation process and rock damage.

stress waves generated by axial percussion are longitudinal waves. At

1.5×10− 5 s, the impact stress wave is generated on the impact surface
and propagates upward and downward at the same time. When the time
reaches 6×10− 5 s, the stress wave propagates approximately to the
lower end face of the anvil, which shows that the propagation velocity of
stress waves is about 5000 m/s. When the time reaches 1.2×10− 4 s, the
stress distribution shows that the stress waves have arrived at the rock
and the stress concentration area appears on the impacted surface of the
rock under the bit teeth. Subsequently, the stress concentration area
gradually expands(5×10− 4 s). At this moment, one part of the stress
waves is incident into rocks, and the other is reflected to the percussive
system. The transient stress concentration caused by axial percussion
will result in brittle fragmentation of rocks and the generation of
crushed craters under the teeth and tensile cracks between the teeth
(Fig. 7), which is main rock breaking mechanisms in percussive drilling.

4.2. Effects of rock temperature on impact energy transfer efficiency and

rock damage
In Section 4.1, we analyzed the transmission process of impact stress
waves. What we expect is that the impact energies carried by the stress
waves can be used to crush the rock or reduce the rock strength as much
as possible, which is to improve the efficiency of impact energy transfer.
In this section, we will analyze the effects of rock temperature on energy
transfer efficiency and rock damage. In this simulation, we set the
impact velocity of the percussive hammer to 8 m/s. The rock tempera­
ture was set to 298.15 K, 373.15 K, 473.15 K, 673.15 K, and 873.15 K
separately. Rock temperature parameters were set in the predefined
field of the finite element calculation platform.
Fig. 8 presents relationship between the bit-rock interaction force
and penetration depth at different rock temperatures. As the tempera­
ture rises, the maximum interaction force decreases, while the
maximum penetration depth of the bit teeth increases during percussion.
As shown in Fig. 8, when the rock temperature is low (e.g. 298.15 K), the
maximum interaction force and the maximum penetration depth do not
occur at the same moment, i.e., the penetration depth is not the
maximum when the interaction force reaches its maximum. When the
rock temperature is high (e.g. 873.15 K), the maximum interaction force
and the maximum penetration depth occur basically at the same
moment. As described in the previous section, the rock strength de­
creases with the temperature increasing. The larger the rock stiffness is,
the easier it is to produce strong stress concentrations at the bit-rock
Fig. 8. Relationship between the bit-rock interaction force and penetration
depth at different rock temperatures.
contact areas during percussion. As the stress concentration effect in­
creases, the bit-rock interaction force increases. The increase in rock
temperature weakens the stress concentration effect, which leads to a
decrease in the interaction force. The reduction of rock strength can also
enhance the maximum penetration depth of the bit teeth.
Fig. 9 presents the relationship between output energy/energy
transfer efficiency of the percussive system and the rock temperature. As
the temperature increases, both the output energy and energy transfer
efficiency of the percussive system decline. When the rock temperature
is increased from 298.15 K to 873.15 K, the energy transfer efficiency
decreases from 32.7% to 17.1%. The percentage reduction reaches
47.8%. The possible reasons for this are as described below. The increase
in rock temperature leads to a decrease in its strength, which weakens
the instantaneous stress concentration effect of rocks during percussion.
And the stress concentration causing the rock instantaneous fragmen­
tation is the main characteristic of percussive drilling. Therefore, the
increase in rock temperature will reduce the energy transfer efficiency in
percussive drilling.
Fig. 10 illustrates the tensile damage and compressive damage dis­
tributions of the rocks at different temperatures. As shown in Fig. 9,
when the rock temperature is augmented, impact energy transfer

7
H. Song et al.
Fig. 9. Variation of the output energy/energy transfer efficiency of the
percussive system with rock temperature.
Fig. 10. Distributions of tensile damage and compressive damage at different
rock temperatures.
efficiency will decline, which means that the actual impact energy
(output energy of the percussive system) absorbed by the rock decreases.
As a result, the tensile and compressive zones formed under the teeth are
slightly reduced as the rock temperature increases. However, the rock
strength, especially tensile strength, decreases with the increase of the
temperature. As shown in Fig. 10, the increase in rock temperature will
promote the extension and connectivity of the tensile damage zones in
percussive drilling.
4.3. Mechanical percussion-heat transfer coupled simulation
In geothermal drilling, the heat exchange between the hot rocks and
the low temperature drilling fluid usually occurs, which can lead to
thermal stresses inside rocks. Moreover, in recent years, some new
drilling methods which are used to assist in breaking high temperature
hard rocks, such as liquid nitrogen injection and microwave radiation,
have received increasing attentions (Jerby et al., 2002; Wu et al., 2019).
These drilling methods can also cause thermal stress inside rocks. In this
section, we plan to simultaneously simulate mechanical percussion and
heat transfer processes. As shown in Fig. 1, we applied the heat flux on
the mechanical percussion-heat transfer coupled simulation zone to
simulate the heat exchange process, and gave the percussive hammer an
initial impact velocity at the same time. A positive heat flux means that
the rocks are heated, which is used to simulate the thermal radiation
effects of microwaves. A negative heat flux represents that the rocks are
8
Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215
cooled, which is used to simulate the cooling effects of low temperature
drilling fluid or liquid nitrogen. The initial temperature of the high
temperature rocks was set to 600 K. The impact velocity of percussive
hammer was set to 4 m/s, 6 m/s, and 8 m/s, respectively. The simulation
duration was set to 1.2×10− 3 s. We refer to Ref.(Huang et al., 2020;
Saksala, 2020) to set the heat flux values. The negative heat flux was set
to -1×108 W/m2, -5×107 W/m2, -3×107 W/m2, -1×107 W/m2, -5×106
W/m2, and -1×106 W/m2. The positive heat flux was set to +1×108
W/m2, +5×107 W/m2, +3×107 W/m2, +1×107 W/m2, +5×106 W/m2,
and +1×106 W/m2. Fig. 11 presents the relationship between the
bit-rock interaction force and penetration depth at different impact ve­
locities and different heat fluxes. The effects of heat transfer on the
force-penetration curves of the bit is relatively small. In order to present
the change patterns of these curves more clearly, we only analyze here
the curves when the heat flux is set to its maximum value. For
comparative analysis, the curve at zero heat flux was also plotted in
Fig. 11. As shown in Fig. 11, cooling high temperature rocks has a
relatively significant effect on the bit-rock interaction, while heating
high temperature rocks has little effect on this process during
percussion.
Fig. 12 presents the relationship between the energy transfer effi­
ciency and the heat flux. In order to clearly compare the differences
between heating rocks and cooling rocks, here the heat fluxes are pre­
sented in absolute values, and the heating process and the cooling pro­
cess have been marked in Fig. 12. The energy transfer efficiency
augments with the impact velocity increasing. When the rock is cooled,
the energy transfer efficiency increases as the heat flux increases. When
the rock is heated, the energy transfer efficiency decreases as the heat
flux increases. The following conclusions can be obtained: cooling high
temperature rocks can improve the impact energy transfer efficiency,
while heating high temperature rocks will reduce the energy transfer
efficiency. Moreover, cooling rocks has a greater influence on the impact
energy transfer efficiency.
Fig. 13 shows the temperature distributions of rocks at different heat
fluxes and different impact velocities. Because the heat transfer time is
very short (1.2×10− 3 s), so the cooling area or heating area are
distributed in a very thin layer on the rock surface. Within the me­
chanical percussion-heat transfer coupled simulation zone, the temper­
ature change is greatest at the rock surface, and the value of temperature
change decreases from the rock surface downwards. As shown in Fig. 13,
when the impact velocity is set to 8m/s, the temperature distribution in
the bit-rock interaction areas is significantly different from other areas.
As shown in Fig. 13, we choose the Line "ab" on the rock profile and
analyze the rock temperature distributions along this line. Fig. 14 pre­
sents temperature distributions along Line "ab" after the rocks are
heated, and Fig. 15 presents temperature distribution along Line "ab"
after the rocks are cooled. As shown in Fig. 14, the temperature of the
bit-rock interaction areas is significantly higher than that of other areas,
and the temperature of the areas between adjacent teeth is significantly
lower than that of other areas. Similarly, as shown in Fig. 15, the tem­
perature of the bit-rock interaction areas is significantly lower than that
of other areas, and the temperature of the areas between adjacent teeth
is significantly higher than that of other areas. Moreover, it is found that
this temperature difference increases as the impact velocity increases.
This indicates that the mechanical percussion influences the heat
transfer process. The bit-rock interaction areas are subjected to
compressive stress, and the areas between adjacent teeth are subjected
to tensile stress. Therefore, the mechanical percussion promotes heat
transfer process in compressive stress areas, and restrains heat transfer
process in tensile stress areas.
Fig. 16 presents maximum principal stress distributions of the me­
chanical percussion-heat transfer coupled simulation zone at time of
3.6×10− 4s. At this moment, the penetration depth of the bit is exactly at
the maximum. A positive maximum principal stress means that this re­
gion is mainly subject to tensile stress, while a negative maximum
principal stress means that this region is mainly subject to compressive
H. Song et al. Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215

Fig. 11. Relationship between the bit-rock interaction force and penetration depth at different impact velocities and heat fluxes.

compressive stress. The tensile stress zone of the rocks will expand after
being cooled, and the tensile stress zone of the rocks will shrink after
being heated. Moreover, the compressive stress zone under teeth slightly
expand after being heated. This indicates that the thermal stresses inside

Fig. 12. Variation of energy transfer efficiency with heat flux.

stress. As shown in Fig. 16, as the impact velocity of percussive hammer

increases, the areas that are subjected to tensile stress gradually expand
and interconnect. The bit-rock interaction areas are mainly subject to Fig. 14. Temperature distributions along Line "ab" after the rocks are heated.

Fig. 13. Temperature distribution at different heat fluxes and impact velocities.

9
H. Song et al.
Fig. 15. Temperature distributions along Line "ab" after the rocks are cooled.
rocks generated by being cooled are mainly tensile stresses, and the
thermal stresses inside rocks generated by being heated are mainly
compressive stresses.
Fig. 17 presents rock damage distributions at different heat fluxes.
The tensile damage areas of rocks will shrink after being heated, while
the tensile damage areas of rocks will expand after being cooled. The
simulation results show that the heat transfer has little effect on the
compressive damage of rocks. The compressive stresses can be generated
when the rocks are heated, which can slightly expand the compressive
stress zone under teeth. However, the compressive strength of rocks is
Fig. 16. Maximum principal stress distribution of the mechanical percussion-heat transfer coupled simulation zone at different heat fluxes and different
impact velocities.
Fig. 17. Rock damage distribution at different heat fluxes (impact velocity is set to 8 m/s).
10
Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215
much larger than tensile strength. The compressive thermal stresses
inside rocks generated by being heated is not enough to cause rock
damage.
We also choose the Line "ab" (Line "ab" is shown in Fig. 13) on the
rock profile and analyze the tensile damage and compressive damage
distributions along this line. As shown in Fig. 17, the tensile damage
areas are mainly distributed between adjacent teeth, while the
compressive damage areas are mainly distributed under teeth.
In this section, the simulations of rocks being heated are used as a
control group. Our main research objective remains the heat transfer
process between high temperature rocks and low temperature fluids,
which is more in conformity with the current geothermal drilling. The
following conclusions can be drawn from the above simulations. The
heat exchange between the high temperature rock and the low tem­
perature drilling fluid will generate tensile thermal stress. Because the
tensile strength of the rocks is small, this thermal stress will promote
rock tensile damage and induce tensile cracking, which can reduce the
rock strength. At the meantime, the heat exchange between the high
temperature rocks and the low temperature drilling fluid can also
slightly improve the impact energy transfer efficiency during percus­
sion. Under the couplings of mechanical percussion and heat transfer,
the rock tensile damage between adjacent teeth generated by axial
percussion and the rock tensile damage induced by thermal stress
contribute to each other and jointly reduce the rock strength.
4.4. Effects of different tooth shapes
Referring to the previous studies, the hemispherical teeth were
H. Song et al.
chosen in the above simulations. Hemispherical teeth have good impact
resistance, but it also has some disadvantages, such as the limited
penetration depth during percussion. Previous research (Xiong) has
shown that stinger teeth have a good performance for breaking high
temperature hard rock. The stinger teeth have the following advantages.
1. Compared with hemispherical teeth, the contact areas between
stinger teeth and rocks are smaller, which will produce a strong stress
concentration effect under teeth and enhance the penetration depth of
the bit. 2. The small contact areas between the stinger teeth and the high
temperature rocks can reduce the risk of thermal failure of the teeth. In
this section, we will analyze effects of different tooth shapes on impact
energy transfer and rock damage by comparing hemispherical tooth bit
and stinger tooth bit. The geometric sizes of these teeth are shown in
Fig. 18.
The rock temperature was set to 298.15 K. The impact velocity of
percussive hammer was set to 4m/s, 6m/s, 8m/s, 10m/s, 12m/s, 16m/s,
respectively. Fig. 19 and Fig. 20 present the relationships between the
bit-rock interaction force and the penetration depth of the bit in
percussive drilling with stinger tooth bit and hemispherical tooth bit,
respectively. The force-penetration curves of stinger teeth are obviously
different from hemispherical teeth. Compared with hemispherical teeth,
the stinger teeth have smaller bit-rock interaction force and larger
penetration depth.
Fig. 21 illustrates the relationship between impact energy transfer
efficiency and impact velocity of percussive hammer at different tooth
shapes.
At low impact velocities, the energy transfer efficiency in percussive
drilling with stinger teeth is higher than that of hemispherical teeth.
While, at high impact velocities, the energy transfer efficiency in
percussive drilling with hemispherical teeth is higher than that of stinger
teeth. When the impact velocity approximately reaches 9m/s, the energy
transfer efficiencies of these two types of teeth are equal. When the
impact velocity is 9 m/s, the corresponding input impact energy is 102 J.
The reasons for this phenomenon are as follows. As mentioned above,
the contact areas between the stinger teeth and rocks are small, and its
penetration depth during percussion is large, resulting in the rock
damage areas being concentrated under teeth (as shown in Fig. 22). The
hemispherical teeth have larger contact areas with rocks. Although its
penetration depth is small, the hemispherical teeth can lead to larger
rock tensile damage areas. As shown in Fig. 22, the compressive zones
caused by stinger teeth are larger than that of hemispherical teeth.
While, the tensile damage zones between adjacent teeth and the tensile
damage zones extending outward by hemispherical teeth are larger than
those of the stinger teeth. When the impact velocity is small, the tensile
damage zones between adjacent teeth have not been formed or is small,
Fig. 18. Geometric sizes of the stinger teeth and hemispherical teeth.
11
Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215
so the impact energies are mainly concentrated on the compressive
damage zone under teeth, which makes the energy transfer efficiency of
stinger teeth higher than that of hemispherical teeth. When the impact
velocity is large, the tensile damage zones between adjacent teeth start
to expand rapidly, making the impact energy start to gradually
concentrate on the tensile damage zones. As shown in Fig. 22, the tensile
damage zones caused by hemispherical teeth is larger than that of
stinger teeth.
5. Conclusions
This article adopted the numerical method to study mechanical
percussion-heat transfer coupled process, impact stress wave propaga­
tion, energy transfer efficiency, and rock damage in percussive drilling
based on high temperature hard rocks. The effects of impact velocity,
rock temperature, heat transfer, and tooth shape were analyzed. The
following conclusions are drawn. As the rock temperature increases, the
bit-rock interaction force decreases, and both duration of the interaction
forces and the penetration depth of teeth increase. Moreover, the in­
crease in rock temperature reduces the energy transfer efficiency, while
promotes the extension and connectivity of the rock tensile damage
zones in percussive drilling. In the mechanical percussion-heat transfer
coupled simulation, it is found that the thermal stress generated after the
rocks being cooled has more significant effects on the percussive process
than that of being heated. After being heated, the rocks generate
compressive thermal stress. This compressive thermal stress will inhibit
the expansion of the rock tensile damage zones, and reduce the impact
energy transfer efficiency in percussive drilling. After being cooled, the
rocks generate tensile thermal stress. This tensile thermal stress will
promote the expansion of the rock tensile damage zones, and improve
the impact energy transfer efficiency in percussive drilling. The heat
transfer process between high temperature rocks and low temperature
drilling fluid is more in conformity with the actual geothermal drilling.
Therefore, in geothermal drilling, the mechanical percussion-heat
transfer coupled effects can promote rock tensile damage and induce
the tensile cracking, which will reduce the rock strength and improve
rock-breaking efficiency. Compared with the hemispherical teeth, the
bit-rock interaction force by stinger teeth is smaller, and the penetration
depth by stinger teeth is larger. The stinger teeth tend to concentrate the
impact energy on the bit-rock interaction areas under teeth, while the
hemispherical teeth are more likely to expand and connect the rock
tensile damage zones. At low impact velocities (less than 9 m/s under
the present simulation conditions), the energy transfer efficiency in
percussive drilling with stinger teeth is higher than that of hemispherical
teeth. While, at high impact velocities (higher than 9 m/s), the energy
H. Song et al.
Fig. 19. Relationship between force and penetration depth in percussive drilling with stinger tooth bit.
Fig. 20. Relationship between force and penetration depth in percussive dril­
ling with hemispherical tooth bit.
Fig. 21. Relationship between energy transfer efficiency and impact velocity at
different tooth shapes.
transfer efficiency in percussive drilling with hemispherical teeth is
higher than that of stinger teeth.
Author statement
Hengyu Song, Huaizhong Shi, and Gensheng Li conceived the idea
for this manuscript. Hengyu Song built the mechanical percussion-heat
transfer coupled model and conducted the simulations. Zhenliang Chen,
Ran Ji, and Han Chen performed data analysis. All authors discussed the
simulation results and contributed to the final manuscript.
12
Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215
Fig. 22. Tensile damage and compressive damage distributions at different
tooth shapes.
Declaration of Competing Interest
No conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors give their thanks to the financial support of National Key
R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2019YFC0604904) and the Joint
Funds of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
U19B6003-05). The authors also gratefully acknowledge the comments
of the reviewers and the editors.
References
Dwivedi, R.D., Goel, R.K., Prasad, V.V.R., Sinha, A., 2008. Thermo-mechanical properties
of Indian and other granites. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 45 (3), 303–315.
Franca, L.F.P., 2011. A bit–rock interaction model for rotary–percussive drilling. Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 48 (5), 827–835.
Genikomsou, A.S., Polak, M.A., 2015. Finite element analysis of punching shear of
concrete slabs using damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS. Eng. Struct. 98, 38–48.
He, W., Hayatdavoudi, A., Shi, H., Sawant, K., Huang, P., 2019. A Preliminary Fractal
Interpretation of Effects of Grain Size and Grain Shape on Rock Strength. Rock Mech.
Rock Eng. 52 (6), 1745–1765.
Hu, X., et al., 2018. An analytical model to evaluate the heating conditions for drilling in
hard rock using an innovative hydrothermal spallation method. Appl. Therm. Eng.
142, 709–716.
Huang, Z., Zhang, S., Yang, R., Wu, X., Hung, P., 2020. A review of liquid nitrogen
fracturing technology. Fuel 266, 117040.
Jankowiak, T., Lodygowski, T., 2005. Identification of parameters of concrete damage
plasticity constitutive model. Found. Civil Environ. Eng. 6 (1), 53–69.
Jerby, et al., 2002. The microwave drill. Science.
Lee, J., Fenves, G.L., 1998. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete
structures. J. Eng. Mech. 124 (8), 892–900.
Li, X., Lok, T.S., Summers, D.A., Rupert, G., Tyler, J., 2001. Stress and energy reflection
from impact on rocks using different indentors. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 19 (2), 119–136.
H. Song et al.
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., Oñate, E., 1989. A plastic-damage model for concrete.
Int. J. Solids Struct. 25 (3), 299–326.
Lundberg, B., Collet, P., 2010. Optimal wave with respect to efficiency in percussive
drilling with integral drill steel. Int. J. Impact Eng. 37 (8), 901–906.
Lundberg, B., Collet, P., 2015. Optimal wave shape with respect to efficiency in
percussive drilling with detachable drill bit. Int. J. Impact Eng. 86, 179–187.
Mardoukhi, A., Hokka, M., Kuokkala, V.-T., 2018. Experimental study of the dynamic
indentation damage in thermally shocked granite. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka 51 (1),
10–26.
Saksala, T., 2020. Thermal shock assisted percussive drilling: A numerical study on the
single-bit axisymmetric case. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 132, 104365.
Saksala, T., Gomon, D., Hokka, M., Kuokkala, V.T., 2014. Numerical and experimental
study of percussive drilling with a triple-button bit on Kuru granite. Int. J. Impact
Eng. 72 (4), 56–66.
Shi, L., Xu, J., 2015. An experimental study on the physico-mechanical properties of two
post-high-temperature rocks. Eng. Geol. 185 (4), 63–70.
Shi, Y., et al., 2018. Numerical investigation on the reservoir heat production capacity of
a downhole heat exchanger geothermal system. Geothermics 72, 163–169 mar.
Shi, Y., Song, X., Song, G., 2021. Productivity prediction of a multilateral-well
geothermal system based on a long short-term memory and multi-layer perceptron
combinational neural network. Appl. Energy 282.
13
Geothermics 96 (2021) 102215
Simulia, D., 2011. Abaqus 6.11 analysis user’s manual.
Song, H., et al., 2019. The percussive process and energy transfer efficiency of percussive
drilling with consideration of rock damage. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 119, 1–12.
Song, H., Shi, H., Li, G., Chen, Z., Li, X., 2020a. Numerical simulation of the energy
transfer efficiency and rock damage in axial-torsional coupled percussive drilling.
J. Petroleum Sci. Eng. 196, 107675.
Song, H., Shi, H., Li, G., Ji, Z., Li, X., 2020b. 3D numerical simulation of energy transfer
efficiency and rock damage in percussive drilling with multiple-button bit. J. Energy
Res. Technol. 1–14.
Wu, X., et al., 2019. Variations of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Heated Granite
After Rapid Cooling with Liquid Nitrogen. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.
Xiong, C. et al., Comparative analysis cutting characteristics of stinger PDC cutter and
conventional PDC cutter. J. Petroleum Sci. Eng., 189.
Yang, Y., Liao, H., Xu, Y., Niu, J., Yang, L., 2019. Theoretical investigation of the energy
transfer efficiency under percussive drilling loads. Arabian J. Geosci. 12 (5).
Yin, T., Li, X., Cao, W., Xia, K., 2015. Effects of thermal treatment on tensile strength of
laurentian granite using brazilian test. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 48 (6), 2213–2223.
Yu, S., et al., 2018. Numerical investigation on heat extraction performance of a
downhole heat exchanger geothermal system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 134.
S1359431117373015.