See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248508449

A rippability classification system for

marls in lignite mines

Article in Engineering Geology · August 2004

Impact Factor: 1.74 · DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.04.004

CITATIONS READS

22 117

2 authors:

Hakan Basarir C. Karpuz

University of Western Australia Middle East Technical University
29 PUBLICATIONS 196 CITATIONS 121 PUBLICATIONS 473 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Hakan Basarir
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 31 May 2016
 Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303 – 318
www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

JOURNAL
A rippability classification system for marls in lignite mines
H. Basarir a, C. Karpuz b,*
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Inonu University, 44280 Malatya, Turkey
b
Department of Mining Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Inonu Bulvari, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
Received 20 August 2003; accepted 21 April 2004
Available online

Abstract

This paper describes the development of a rippability classification system for marls in lignites mines based on direct ripping
runs, specific energy concept and indirect rippability assessment methods. Extensive field and laboratory studies were
undertaken in six different panels of Turkish Coal Enterprises and Sivas-Kangal Lignite mines. Rock mass descriptions were
made, seismic P-wave velocities are measured at the field, direct cutting tests and rock material property determination tests
were carried out in the laboratory. The proposed method includes rock parameters such as uniaxial compressive strength,
seismic P-wave velocity, discontinuity spacing and Schmidt hammer hardness value. In the developed method, rock properties
are graded separately and rippability classes of rocks are determined according to the final grade. Appropriate dozer types and
their productions are also proposed. Hence, both main components of rippability, rock and equipment properties are satisfied in
the proposed system.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rippability classification; Specific energy; Direct ripping; Rock properties

1. Introduction In surface mining, overburden loosening is usually

The selection of suitable overburden loosening
method has a crucial importance in geotechnical
engineering and mining engineering design projects.
Environmental constrains, rock properties and size of
site play an important role in the selection of equip-
ment required for overburden loosening. Due to its
high cost, there will be unrecoverable expenses in the
case of wrong selection of equipment and technique.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-312-210-26-55 or 210-26-54;
fax: +90-312-210-26-65.
E-mail address: karpuz@metu.edu.tr (C. Karpuz).
accomplished by ripping or drilling and blasting
operations. Since 1950s, ripper has been used, and
dozer forces and weight has been improved. Due to
these improvements in dozer manufacturing technol-
ogy, the use of rippers as an overburden removal
techniques has been competing more and more with
drilling and blasting method. Also restrictions on
blasting in urban areas construct lead many contrac-
tors to use ripping to loose the ground instead of
drilling and blasting.
Blasting or other ground preparation methods may
be considered necessary when either the physical limit
of ripping is reached, or the cost of ripping become
too expensive. For these reasons, rippability classifi-

0013-7952/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.04.004
304 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318
cation, including up to date equipment information,
has a vital importance.
2. Rippability assessment methods
Many classification systems were developed to
determine the rippability of rocks. These systems
can be divided into two main groups, namely direct
and indirect rippability assessment methods.
When a conclusive determination of rippability is
difficult by using available rock mass data or when the
equipment for trial test is already available, a trial
demonstration or direct ripping may more appropri-
ately decide the issue: such trial demonstration or
direct ripping can be used to obtain good estimates of
ripping production for given equipment. One of the
ripper manufacturing companies, Caterpillar Tractor
(Anon, 1988), reported three direct methods of esti-
mating ripper production according to availability and
practicality of dozers. If field trial or direct ripping
runs cannot be conducted, then indirect methods
become useful and in most cases it is the only way
of estimating rippability of rocks.
2.1. Direct methods
In direct methods, dozers carry out direct ripping
runs. This is the most valuable method to obtain the
rippability classes and ripping production. From the
hourly production, the cost of ripping and blasting is
compared and the economical way of loosening
ground can be selected. There are three general
methods of estimating ripper production (Anon,
1988).
2.1.1. Volume by weight
It is the best method to record the spent time
and then to weigh the material removed by ripping.
The hourly production is obtained in dividing the
ripped material weight by the spent time. In this
method, care should be taken to weigh only the
ripped material.
2.1.2. Volume by cross-sectioning
The area is first cross-sectioned, then time spent
during ripping is recorded. After removing the ripped
material, the ripped area is cross-sectioned again and
the volume of ripped material is calculated. The ratio
between the ripped volume and the ripping time gives
the hourly production.
2.1.3. Volume by length
The last method is based on the time required for
ripping material over a measured distance. This meth-
od is valuable for quick estimation on the job and
widely used since it does not need any auxiliary
equipments such as surveying tools, trucks, loaders
and balance, etc. Average cycle time is determined
from the number of cycles. In this cycle time, turn
around and back up times must be included. Average
ripping length, width, distance and penetration depth
are measured by observing the ripper tyne behind the
dozer. These data give the volume per cycle from
which the production in bank cubic meters can be
calculated. In this paper, this method was utilized to
calculate the direct ripping productions.
2.2. Indirect methods
Indirect rippability assessment methods can be
divided into three main groups, as follows:
2.2.1. Seismic velocity based methods
For many years, many researchers concentrated on
developing indirect rippability classification methods.
Initially these systems are purely based on P-wave
velocities of rock mass. Dozer manufacturer compa-
nies such as Caterpillar (Anon, 1988) and Komatsu
(Anon, 1987) proposed rippability estimation charts
based on seismic P-Wave seismic velocities of rock.
These methods were followed by Atkinson (1971),
Bailey (1975) and Church (1981).
Although seismic velocity is widely used as a
parameter for determining the rippability of rocks,
seismic refraction method may not sometimes rep-
resent real field properties of the rock units. It has
some certain drawbacks (i.e. masked layers, hidden
layers, presence of water). For this reason, some
additional rock properties, contributing this unique
parameter, are needed for an ideal classification
system.
2.2.2. Grading methods
A grading classification systems based on indirect
rippability methods were proposed by many research-
 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318
ers. The oldest of these methods was Weaver’s (1975)
method. Other methods were then developed by
Kirsten (1982), Müftüoglu (1983), Smith (1986),
Singh et al. (1987), Karpuz (1990), MacGregor et
al. (1994) and Hadjigeorgiou and Poulin (1998), etc.
When those classification systems are closely
reviewed; it is clearly noticed that the input parame-
ters were different in each system and also the
assigned grades to the same parameters show great
variations one from to the other. In some methods,
over grading of parameters still exists because of the
interrelated nature of rocks. Therefore, over grading
resulting from interrelated nature cannot all easily be
avoided. Also some of these methods give qualitative
results instead of quantitative results, this induces
personnel bias and requires experienced site engineer.
Thus, the importance and the grades of parameters
used in all classifications are still argued and needs to
be improved.
2.2.3. Graphical methods
Graphical methods have been developed since
1970s. These methods consider only two parameters,
discontinuity spacing and strength values, respective-
ly. The oldest graphical method is the Franklin’s et al.
(1971) method, and this method has been then reval-
ued and modified by many researchers. Franklin’s
method was followed and modified by Bozdag
(1988) and by Pettifer and Fookes (1994). Pettifer
and Fookes modified and highlighted that whenever
possible a three-dimensional discontinuity spacing
index should be used as often as possible, as this will
Fig. 1. Location map of studied sites.
305
provide a more realistic assessment of the average
block size. These kinds of methods are useful espe-
cially when a quick estimation of rippability classes of
rocks is needed. Graphical methods also need to be
continuously updating as dozer-manufacturing tech-
nique advances.
Among all these methods, no particular method is
universally accepted for several reasons; lack of
awareness of previous case studies, difficulties in
determining input parameters, such as limitations of
applicability to specific geological environment.
However, a successful classification system should
be easy to use (quantifiable data, easy to determine,
user friendly) and system should also give information
about the current available equipment.
3. Studied sites
Studies have been carried out in two different
lignite open pit mines in Turkey from which the
conclusions given in this paper are developed. The
first mine belongs to GLI division (located in Tuncß
bilek district of Kütahya Province) of Turkish Coal
Enterprises. Four different panels of GLI namely, 34
Makina, Omerler, 18 PH and Kuspinar have been
investigated. The second mine belongs to the private
mining company, Demir Export’s Sivas-Kangal (SKL)
lignite mine, located in Kangal district of Sivas
province. In this mine, two different panels were
utilized namely, 305 and 310 panels. There two mines
are located in the map of Fig. 1.
306 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318
3.1. Geology
3.1.1. Kütahya –Tuncßbilek mine
Tuncßbilek coal basin comprises two series of Neo-
gen sediments. The lower one is called the Tuncßbilek
series and is in discordantly on an ophiolitic basement.
The coal seam is in this series. The upper one is called
the Domanicß series and this younger series lies on the
Tuncßbilek series with slight discordance.
After the Upper Cretaceous, the region was ex-
posed to terrestrial environment and subjected to
erosion. During the lower Miocene, sedimentation
began in the newly evolved soft-water lakes. Deep-
ening of these lakes has given birth to quick-sands and
high forests growing leading to the formation of coal.
Sediments of terrestrial and lagoonal environment
contain half cementated conglomerates, clay, marl,
siltstone, sandstone, lacustrine limestone, strata with
sand and gypsum and of course coal. As the conse-
quence of volcanic activity from the upper Miocene
till the Pliocene lava, tuff and agglomerate were
intercalated in the sediments. Lower and upper series
of Tuncßbilek region Neogene sediments are illustrated
in Figs. 2 and 3.
The lowest bed of Tuncß bilek series is a clastic
sediment showing a decreasing grain size from bottom
to top. The claystone lying on this layer exhibits
intercalations of coal, which are not mined for eco-
nomical reasons. The main coal seam is interbedded
in the clay – marl unit, which is several hundred meters
thick. The upper boundary of Tuncßbilek series is the
lacustrine limestone containing chert nodules on the
top due to the volcanic activity. Concurrent tectonic
activity has increased the dip angle of Tuncßbilek series
and caused formation of faults. Therefore, Domanicß
series, which is almost horizontal, lies in discordance
on the Tuncßbilek series.
Domanicß series begins with agglomeratic rocks and
marl. The thick-lava formation on the top of the marl
layer shows that volcanic activity that begun in Tuncß
bilek series has reached its climax. The lava contains
andesites and basalts. Domanicß series ends with
calcareous rocks containing chert nodules (Kara,
1979).
3.1.2. Sivas-Kangal mine
Widely extending coal seams have been found
within the young Neogene (Pliocene) formations.
Starting from the oldest, the following rock units
may be observed (Onel, 1972).
1. Jurassic – Cretaceous Massive Limestones: Base
forming massive limestones form island-like out-
crops at several places within the Pliocene
deposits. These bluish-grey limestones correspond
to the base of the productive Pliocene formations.
2. Pliocene Formations: These formations are widely
distributed at and around Kangal. Lithologically,
they can be divided into two units:
(a) Upper Measures (Series): Main rocks of this
series are light colored and mostly white
lacustrine limestones. These 40-m-thick lime-
stones include marl intercalations and overlie
lower series.
(b) Lover Measures (series): Main units are coal
bearing marl, clay and conglomerates: This
series contain coal seams in the upper part and
clay, marl and conglomerate alternations in the
lower part. It reaches a maximum thickness of
180 m at the exploration site. Toward north
and northwest, this conglomerate grades into
sandstones and marls.
3. Basalts: They are located in the south part of the
region especially between Karaveren and Sßuul
villages. They overlie Pliocene formations.
4. Alluviums: They may be observed along the
stream channels. The alluviums along Tohma creak
and around Hamal and Ötegecß e villages are
cultivated by the villagers.
3.2. Rock mass descriptions
In Tuncbilek district, Upper Miocene upper marl
above main coal seam has been utilized. At 34 Panel,
slightly weathered grey marl unit is observed. There
is slight discoloration on main discontinuity surfaces.
Mainly two discontinuity sets were determined. Dis-
continuity spacing is ranging from 0.8 to 2.0 m, with
an average of 1.5 m. Bed thickness is approximately 2
m for the panel. Fresh and highly strong marl unit is
observed in Omerler panel. There is no sign of
weathering on discontinuity surfaces. There are two
sets of discontinuity, perpendicular to the bedding
planes. Spacing is in the range of 1.5 –2.5 m, with an
average of 2.0 m. The average thickness of the
bedding is again 2.0 m. In 18 PH panel of Tuncbilek
 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318 307

Fig. 2. Stratigraphic column of Neogeneous series of Tuncbilek.

mine, fresh to slightly weathered and slightly strong the range of 0.5– 1 m, average spacing is 0.7 m. The
light grey marl unit is present. There is slight discol- average thickness of the layer is 1.0 m ranging from
oration on major discontinuity surfaces. Two main 0.5 to 1.5 m. In Kuspinar panel, slightly weathered
discontinuity sets were distinguished, the spacing is in strong marl unit grey in color is observed. There are
308 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318

Fig. 3. Geological map and section of Tuncbilek region.

 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318 309

Table 1
Geotechnical descriptions of rock masses and seismic velocities of the panels
Enterprise and Panel name Rock Degree of Number of Schmidt Discontinuity Bed thickness, Seismic
district name type weathering discontinuity sets hammer spacing, m m P-wave
value SHV velocity, m/s
GLİ Tuncßbilek 34 Makina Marl Slightly 2 discontinuity sets 48 0.8 – 2.0 (1.50) 1.0 – 2.0 (2.0) 2330
and bedding plane
Omerler Marl Fresh 2 discontinuity sets 51 1.5 – 2.5 (2.0) 1.5 – 2.5 (2.0) 2900
and bedding plane
18 PH Marl Slightly 2 discontinuity sets 30 0.5 – 1.0 (0.70) 0.5 – 1.5 (1.0) 1960
and bedding plane
Kuspinar Marl Slightly 2 discontinuity sets 44 0.5 – 2.0 (1.00) 0.5 – 1.0 (1.0) 2000
and bedding plane

SKL Kangal 305 Clayey Fresh 2 discontinuity sets < 20 0.4 – 1.0 (0.40) 0.5 – 1.0 (1.0) 875
Marl and bedding plane
310 Marl Slightly 2 discontinuity sets 50 1.0 – 2.0 (1.25) 1.0 – 2.0 (1.5) 2300
and bedding plane

two main discontinuity sets. The spacing of those
sets is in the range of 0.5– 2 m, with an average
spacing of 1.0 m. The thickness of layer is domi-
nantly around 1 m.
In Sivas-Kangal districts, marl from the Pliocene
formation upper series, which is intercalated with
limestone, is utilized. In 305 panel, fresh soft clayey
marl unit is composed of light green to grey in color.
Two main discontinuity sets are distinguished with
mostly 0.4-m spacing. The thickness of the beds is in
the range of 0.5– 1 m, the average spacing domi-
nantly was around 1 m. Generally slightly weath-
ered, white strong marl unit exists in 310 panel. Two
main discontinuity sets perpendicular to bedding
plane are observed. Discontinuity spacing is 1 to 2
m with an average of 1.25 m. Bed separation
changes from 1 to 2 m, with an average layer
thickness of 1.5 m.
4. Field and laboratory studies
Field investigations include direct ripping runs,
characterization of rock masses (ISRM, 1978) in
terms of rock type, weathering, discontinuity set
number, discontinuity spacing, bedding thickness, P-
wave velocitiy determination (Anon, 1986) and
Schmidt hammer hardness tests. Results of field
investigations are given in Table 1.
Block samples were taken from the panels, and
then some rock property tests were conducted on
specimens cored from those blocks, at the Rock
mechanics laboratory of the Mining Engineering
department of Middle East Technical University
(METU). These tests are: uniaxial compressive
strength, point load strength, indirect tensile strength,
density determination, traxial compressive strength,
deformability and direct cutting. Among these tests

Table 2
Laboratory test results
Enterprise and Panel Rock Uniaxial Point Density, Indirect
district name name type compressive load strength, g/cm3 tensile
strength, MPa MPa strength, MPa
GLİ Tuncßbilek 34 Makina Marl 24.9 0.76 2.02 3.56
Omerler Marl 34.0 1.50 2.10 7.90
18 PH Marl 16.9 0.46 2.09 2.13
Kuspinar Marl 24.8 0.72 2.27 2.29

SKL Kangal 305 Clayey 2.7 0.07 1.53 0.06

Marl
310 Marl 23.8 1.05 2.41 6.03
310 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318

Table 3
The recorded and measured direct ripping parameters
District Panel Rock Dozer Operator Ripping Man. Ripping Ripping Ripping
name type type efficiency, % time, s time, s depth, m width, m length, m
GLİ Tuncßbilek 34 Makina Marl D155A 80 89 17 0.75 0.70 50
Omerler Marl D8N 90 90 15 0.65 0.50 50
18 PH Marl D155A 95 88 12 0.90 1.30 50
Kuspinar Marl D155A 95 79 5 0.80 1.05 50

SKL Kangal 305 Clayey D8N 95 50 23 1.10 1.03 50

Marl
310 Marl D8N 90 109 25 0.65 0.85 50

those which were used in classification systems are
given in Table 2.
All laboratory experiments and field investigations
were conducted in accordance with the International
Society for Rock Mechanics Suggested methods
(ISRM, 1983).
5. Direct ripping runs
Volume by length direct ripping estimation meth-
od was used in the studied panels to be consistent
in the measurements and having systematic error in
all mines. Because in some mines, it was not
possible to provide all the auxiliary equipments to
utilize the other direct methods. Direct ripping runs
were conducted both to assess the ease of ripping
and to calculate the hourly ripper production. Cat-
erpillar D8N and Komatsu D155A type dozers were
used. They both have approximately similar techni-
cal characteristics. The measured and recorded
parameters are: the length of run, the width of
ripping, the ripping depth, the time taken for ripping
predefined length, maneuvering time, assessment of
the ease of ripping, judgment on the efficiency of
the operator, dozer manufacturer and type. The
direction of ripping was selected as perpendicular
to the strike of main discontinuity sets in mines to
obtain the most favorable crushing conditions. The
cutting directions of the samples in laboratory were
also favorable with respect to the main discontinuity
orientations. All of the recorded parameters are
given in Table 3, and the calculated production
values are presented in Table 4.
The hourly ripper production is calculated by using
the following formula (Bozdag, 1988);
60
Q r ¼ qr Er
Cr
where qr: production during a cycle, bank m3/h; Cr:
cycle time (ripping and maneuvering time), min; Er:
operator efficiency, %.
Quantifying the operator efficiency is a difficult
task and includes some personnel bias. For exam-

Table 4
The calculated direct ripping production values
District Panel Rock type Cross-sectional Production in Hourly Ripper
area, m2 cycle, m3 production, depth
m3/h percentage, %
GLI Tuncbilek 34 Makina Marl 0.26 13.13 357 63
Omerler Marl 0.16 8.13 251 54
18 PH Marl 0.59 29.25 1000 75
Kuspinar Marl 0.42 21.00 855 67

SKL Kangal 305 Clayey Marl 0.57 28.33 1327 92

310 Marl 0.28 13.81 334 54
 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318 311

ple, Caterpillar tractor company’s (Anon, 1988) Table 5

states that the productivity of an average operator Laboratory direct cutting test results
can be 15% higher than the poor operator. In this District Panel Rock type Specific energy,
MJ/m3
study, the operator efficiencies were determined
numerically based on the site engineers opinions, GLİ Tuncßbilek 34 Makina Marl 8.23
Omerler Marl 10.18
observations of the site workings of the operators
18 PH Marl 4.93
and finally the engineering judgments of the Kuspinar Marl 5.82
authors. The determined operator efficiencies are
tabulated in Table 3. SKL Kangal 305 Clayey Marl 3.63
310 Marl 7.50
Cr ¼ tr þ tm

Ripped volume of rock in a cycle, qr is:
qr ¼ Car  L
where Car: cros-sectional area, m2; L: ripping
length, m
DW
Car ¼
2 commonly accepted measure of cutting efficiency and
where D: ripper depth, m; W: ripping width, m.
The shape of cross-sectional area mainly depends
on the rock type going to be ripped. For marl type
rocks, this cross-sectional area is observed as trian-
gular in the field. Additionally, the study carried
out by Bozdag (1988) at similar coal measure rocks
and results of ripping modeling studies indicated
that the dominant ripping shape is triangular.
6. Determination of specific energy
Laboratory direct cutting tests were carried out to
determine the specific energy. Specific energy is the
work done per unit volume of rock excavated. It is a
when it is obtained under specified conditions, it
provides a realistic and meaningful measure of rock
cut ability by road heading machines and tunnel boring
machines (Fowell and Pyrcroft, 1980). Specific energy
is also used as a good indicator to estimate surface
excavation machine performance as Koncagül (1997)
stressed up.

Fig. 4. A complete set of equipments required for direct cutting test.

312 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318

Table 6 length cut, L measured in meters. The mean cutting

Ripping classes of studied panels force Fc measured by a triaxial dynamometer. The
Panel Ripper depth Direct ripping Assessed class specific cutting energy SE is calculated from the
percentage, % production, m3/h
following formula as MJ/m3.
34 Makina 63 257 Difficult
Omerler 54 251 Very difficult
18 PH 75 1000 Easy
Fc L
SE ¼
Kuspinar 67 855 Moderate V
305 91 1327 Very easy
310 54 334 Difficult The calculated specific cutting energies of rocks are
given in Table 5.
Direct cutting tests were carried out on block Since the experiments were carried out in accor-
samples obtained from six different open pit lignite dance with the standard cutting test procedure, the
mines. The test set up consists of the following items; effect of confinement was not studied any more.
triaxial dynamometer, recorder unit and shaping ma-
chine. The standard test conditions are:
7. Ease of rippability assessment studies
Depth of cut: 5 mm
Cutting speed: 150 mm/s 7.1. Based on direct ripping runs
Type of cutting pick:
Rake angle:  5j The ripper depth percentages and productions
Back clearance angle: 5j give useful evidence about the ease of ripping
Cutting pick width: 12.7 mm
especially when they are combined with site obser-
Composition: Tungsten carbide with 10% cobalt
vations. The rock unit marl at 305 and 18 PH
panels are considered as the most easily rippable
A complete specific energy determination set up is sites when production and ripper depth percentages
shown in Fig. 4. The cutting tool can accommodate are used as criteria. The productions and ripper
the block of rock having a maximum length of 50 cm, depth percentages for 305 and 18 PH panels are
a width of 35 cm and height of 30 cm. The cutting 1327 m3/h and 91% and 1000 m3/h and 75%,
tests are carried out on marl blocks perpendicular to respectively. These panels are evaluated as very
strike of main discontinuity sets at the above standard easy and easy rippable panels.
cutting conditions (Fowell and Johnson, 1982). The Kuspinar and 34 Makina panels hourly ripper
cut material is weighted in grams and using the productions and ripper depth percentages are lower.
density, the volume cut (V) is calculated in m3, the They are 855 m3/h and 67% and 357 m3/h and 63%

Fig. 5. The relationship between specific energy and ripper production.

 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318 313

for panels, rippability classes of these panels are Table 8

assessed as moderate and difficult. The suggested production, specific energy ranges and rippability
class boundaries
Omerler and SKL 310 panels have the minimum
Specific energy, Direct ripping Descriptive
depth and production values among other panels.
MJ/m3 production, m3/h terms
Omerler and SKL 310 panels are classified as very
>9.00 0 – 250 Very difficult
difficult and difficult rippable panels with hourly
7.00 – 9.00 250 – 400 Difficult
ripper production and ripper depth percentage values 5.25 – 7.00 400 – 900 Moderate
of 251 m3/h and 54% and 334 m3/h and 54%, 3.75 – 5.25 900 – 1300 Easy
respectively. < 3.75 >1300 Very easy
The assessed ease of ripping, ripper depth percen-
tages and hourly direct ripping productions are given
in Table 6. existing rippability assessment methods or differences
of parameter grading in grading systems.
7.2. Based on specific energy The boundaries of different ease of ripping classes
were determined by combining the production and
The relationship between the specific energy and specific energy values and the final assessed classes of
ripper production showed strong correlation (Fig. 5). studied panels. In the determination, the natural break
From this relation, it can be suggested that specific points and the experience and the judgements of
energy can be used as a reflective parameter for authors as well as the indirect ripping classifications
assessing the rippabilities of rocks. of those panels were utilized (Table 8).

7.3. Based on indirect methods

These assessed classes are also compared with the
results of existing classification systems. As men-
tioned before, there are three main groups of ripp-
ability classification systems based on seismic
velocity, grading and graphical methods. The classi-
fication of these sites with respect to these main
groups of indirect rippability methods and assessed
classes of panels, by using descriptive terms, is
presented in Table 7. As it is seen from the Table
7, there is a slight differences between the suggested
descriptions to each site of existing rippability clas-
sification systems. The differences can probably
resulted from the aforementioned inadequacies of
8. Development of a new indirect rippability
classification system
Based on both site observations and the analysis
of the relationships between the rock properties and
hourly ripper productions, the most relevant param-
eters are determined as: seismic P-wave velocities of
rocks, intact rock strength, average discontinuity
spacing and Schmidt hammer hardness value. Weath-
ering, which is an important parameter and also
included in many of the classification systems, did
not considered here since almost all the rock types
were fresh or fresh to slightly weathered. However, it
was also aforementioned before, because the interre-

Table 7
Assessed rippability classes of marls based on indirect methods
District Panel Rock type Seismic velocity- Graphical methods Grading methods Assessed class
based methods
GLİ Tuncßbilek 34 Makina Marl Difficult Difficult Difficult Difficult
Omerler Marl Very difficult Very difficult Very difficult Very difficult
18 PH Marl Difficult Moderate Moderate Moderate
Kuspinar Marl Difficult Moderate Moderate Moderate

SKL Kangal SKL 305 Clayey Marl Very easy Very easy Easy Very easy
SKL 310 Marl Difficult Difficult Difficult Difficult
314 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318

Table 9
Rippability rating chart
Parameter Class
1 2 3 4 5
Seismic P-wave 0 – 800 800 – 1000 1000 – 2000 2000 – 2500 >2500
velocity, m/s
Grade 0–5 5 – 15 15 – 20 20 – 30 30
Point load index, MPa < 0.1 0.1 – 0.5 0.5 – 1 1–2 >2
Uniaxial compressive <5 5 – 15 15 – 25 25 – 45 >45
strength, MPa
Grade 0–5 5 – 18 15 – 25 25 – 35 35
Average discontinuity < 0.5 0.5 – 1 1 – 1.5 1.5 – 2.5 >2.5
spacing, m
Grade 0–3 3 – 10 10 – 14 14 – 20 20
Schmidt hammer < 15 15 – 35 35 – 45 45 – 50 >50
hardness
Grade 0–2 2–7 7 – 10 10 – 15 15

lated nature of the rock properties, the over grading nuity spacing) which totally rock mass and material
is inevitable. These parameters also satisfy the fol- properties have 50% weight on this suggested rip-
lowing: it is easy and practical to determine and all ping classification system. The measured ranges of
of these parameters are relevant to rock mass prop- those used parameters at panels (maximum to min-
erties as well as rock material properties. imum ratios) were also considered to assign different
Having production values and being assessed grades. On this basis, the highest graded parameter
classes of sites, rating of each class, which is among others is the intact rock strength which has
proportional to their direct ripping productions, is close correlation to hardness value obtained from
assigned. To do this, maximum production value is uniaxial compressive strength test or from point load
assumed as 1500 m3/h. Then, according to the site strength test. The second highest graded parameter is
observations and personnel experiences, grades are the P-wave seismic velocity of rock masses, which
allocated for each rock property. During ranking of has closely interrelated to discontinuity spacing. The
the parameters, previously assigned classes of sites, third parameter is the average discontinuity spacing,
the numerical values of these parameters and their which covers both discontinuity spacing and bedding
likely effect on ripper productions are considered. thickness. As well known, the size and shape of
Four parameters are selected to be used to classify blocks comprising the rock mass going to be ripped
the ripping of marls. Two of them characterize the play an important role on ripper performance. Due to
material properties (Uniaxial compressive strength their lower tensile strength of the discontinuity, the
and SHV) and the other two them mostly reflect
the mass properties (P-wave velocity and disconti- Table 11
Hourly ripper productions from numerical modeling and direct
Table 10 ripping runs for CATD8 type dozer
Rippability classes of marls for D8 dozer District Panel Hourly productions, m3/h
Class Grade Specific For CATD8 dozer
Direct 3DEC
energy
Assessed class Production, ripping
m3/h
GLI Tuncbilek 34 Makina 357 614
1 0 – 20 < 3.75 Very easy >1300 Omerler 251 569
2 20 – 55 3.75 – 5.25 Easy 900 – 1300 18 PH 1000 1154
3 55 – 70 5.25 – 7.00 Moderate 400 – 900 Kuspinar 855 965
4 70 – 85 7.00 – 9.00 Difficult 250 – 400
5 85 – 95 >9.00 Very difficult < 250 SKL Kangal SKL 305 1327 1749
6 95 – 100 – Blast 0 SKL 310 334 501
 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318 315

Fig. 6. 3DEC calculated production versus direct ripping run productions.

intensity and orientation of discontinuities have a
strong effect on rock rippability. The last and lowest
graded parameter is the Schmidt hammer hardness
value, due to its practicality and simplicity, lots of
data from site can be taken by this simple device.
Each input parameter, used in the classification
system, is subdivided into five subgroups and they
were graded by considering their likely effect on
rippability.
Since, it is not always possible to have uniaxial
compressive strength values of rocks, in the devel-
oped system, uniaxial compressive strength and point
load strength values are combined together. This also
makes the system flexible, since it is enough to have
one of these two parameters. To combine these
parameters, data from the case studies were used.
The established relation, between these two strength
parameters, was used to convert one to another.
The rippability rating chart showing the parameters
and their allocated grades are given in Table 9. The
developed rippability classification system, being the
sum of the values of the weighted parameters, is used
to indicate the quality of the rock in relation to its
rippability. All parameters used in the developed
system are quantitative parameters. By this way, the
proposed system becomes more useful and practical,
since there is no need for experienced site engineer
and ordinary site engineer can use the system without
any difficulty.
On the other side, it is tried to establish to link
between the ease of rippability and the type of
equipment. The classification system also gives the
hourly production values for Caterpillar D8N or its
equivalent types of dozers. The proposed rippability
classes of rock for Caterpillar D8 type of dozer
according to their summed grades and specific ener-

Table 12
Extended rippability classes of marls
Class Grade Specific D8 Dozer D9 Dozer D10 Dozer D11 Dozer
Grade Energy Production, Assessed Production, Assessed Production, Assessed Production, Assessed
m3/h class m3/h class m3/h class m3/h class
1 0 – 20 < 3.75 >1300 Very easy >1500 Very easya >6000 Very easya >10000 Very easya
2 20 – 55 3.75 – 5.25 900 – 1300 Easy 1000 – 1500 Easy 4300 – 6000 Very easya 7000 – 10000 Very easya
3 55 – 70 5.25 – 7.00 400 – 900 Moderate 450 – 1000 Moderate 1900 – 4300 Very easya 3000 – 7000 Very easya
4 70 – 85 7.00 – 9.00 250 – 400 Difficult 285 – 450 Difficult 1200 – 1900 Easy 2000 – 3000 Very easya
5 85 – 95 >9.00 < 250 Very < 285 Very < 600 Difficult < 800 Easy
difficultb difficultb
6 95 – 100 – 0 Blast 0 Blast < 150 Very < 250 Difficult
difficultb
a
For these cases, there is point in using D10 or D11 type dozer, since even D8 type dozer will work in these site with high efficiency.
b
In these sites, there in no need to use D8, D9 or D10 type dozers, since both type will results in too low production.
316 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318

Table 13
Grading of studied
Rippability panels
characteristics in relation to the rock hardness by Bell (2004)
District Panel Rock type Seismic UCS, Average disc. Schmidt hammer Total
velocity, m/s MPa spacing, m hardness grade
GLİ Tuncßbilek 34 Makina Marl 2330 24.9 1.5 48 78.53
Grade 26.60 24.9 14 13
Omerler Marl 2900 34 2.0 51 91.50
Grade 30 29.50 17 15
18 PH Marl 1961 16.90 0.7 30 50.69
Grade 19.81 19.33 5.80 5.75
Kuspinar Marl 2000 24.80 1.0 44 64.56
Grade 20 24.86 10 9.70

Sivas-Kangal 305 Clayey marl 876 2.67 0.4 < 20 15.87

Grade 8.80 2.67 2.40 2.00
310 Marl 2300 23.8 1.25 50 77.16
Grade 26 24.16 12 15

gies of rocks are shown in Table 10. As it is seen from
the table, specific energies of rocks can be used as a
solely indicator for estimating rippability classes of
rock. Since the specific energy determination is not
every time possible, some relations were established
between some rock properties and specific energy, to
use in the classification system. The relation between
uniaxial compressive strength and specific energy is
determined as:
SE ¼ 0:2UCS þ 2:41
with the correlation coefficient of R2 ¼ 0:81
It is also important to extend this rippability
classification system for heavier dozer types, i. e.
CatD9, D10 and D11. A numerical modeling study
was used for this purpose to obtain the production
values for different types of dozers. The numerical
modeling program called as 3DEC, distinct element
code by Itasca (Anon, 1998) Basarýr, simulated the
direct ripping operation in three dimensional envi-
ronment and the ripping mechanism and the pro-
duction values for different types of dozers have
been obtained. Rocks mass and material parameters
were input to 3DEC. The production values
obtained from numerical modeling and direct rip-
ping runs were compared with the each other
(Table 11 and Fig. 6) and the validity of model
was verified (Basarýr, 2002). From this graph, it is
shown that the productions from numerical model-
ing can be used to estimate direct ripping run
productions and can be extended to the larger size
dozer types.
D8 dozer direct run production values and ease of
rippabilities, established was the milestone of both in
numerical modeling and actual data. So a link has
been established between D8 dozer and other types of
dozers both for productions and ease of rippabilities.
Finally, a complete rippability classification system,
including different dozer types, is proposed and pre-
sented in Table 12.

Table 14
Total grades, classes and dozer types of studied panels
Panel Direct ripping Total grade D8 Class D9 Class D10 Class D11 Class
production m3/h
34 Makina 357 79 Difficult Difficult Easy Very easy
Omerler 251 92 Very difficult Very difficult Difficult Easy
18 PH 1000 51 Easy Easy Very easy Very easy
Kuspinar 855 65 Moderate Moderate Very easy Very easy
305 1327 16 Very easy Very easy Very easy Very easy
310 334 78 Difficult Difficult Easy Very easy
 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318
Developed system also back analyzed with the case
studies. The grades and classes of studied panels are
tabulated in Tables 13 and 14, respectively.
Grades of all parameters are given in certain
ranges. This brings flexibility to the developed
system. An experienced site engineer can adjust
the grade of parameter in a given range based on
his experiences. However, for an inexperienced site
engineer, grade of parameter can be allocated by
correlating the value of property with the grade of
parameter, both given in a range. For example, the
seismic velocity of rock is 2330 m/s as in 34
Makina panel, by correlating this velocity with the
grades, the allocated grade for this velocity is found
as 26.60.
305 and 18 PH panels are classified as rippable
with Caterpillar D8N types of dozer. Kuspinar panel
is classified as moderate, and can be ripped with D9
types of dozer possibly with higher production.
However 34 Makina and 310 panels are classified
as difficult with Caterpillar D8N type dozer, they
become easy rippable class when D10 type dozer is
used. Whereas, in order to rip the hardest panel,
Omerler, at least Caterpillar D11 type of dozer
required.
9. Conclusions and recommendations
Based on a study carried out at six different
panels of Turkish Lignite mines, a rippability clas-
sification system is developed for mainly marl type
coal measure rocks. The developed system is based
on both rock mass and material properties, direct
ripping runs and specific energy values of rocks.
Introducing of specific energy concept to the ripp-
ability of rock is the new and main contribution of
the proposed system. Good correlation has been
established between uniaxial compressive strength
and specific energy. All the parameters are quanti-
tative and need no experience and are easy to
determine and to measure without detailed site
studies.
Continuously improving dozer-manufacturing
techniques should always be considered for an effec-
tive and reliable ripper classification system. In this
respect, the developed systems consider the present
dozer models and can be extended to the new types of
317
dozers. However, more data, which covers the other
rock types, is needed to extend the developed system
to those rock types.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Turkish Coal
Enterprises and Demir Export A.a. for their contribu-
tions. Special thanks also go to Dr. Taylan Bozdağ for
his kind guides throughout the study.
References
Anon, 1986. Multichannel Signal Enhancement Seismograph, Op-
eration Manual. EG and G Geometrics, Sunnyvale, Canada.
Anon, 1987. Specifications and Application Handbook, 10th edi-
tion. Komatsu, Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Anon, 1988. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, 19th edition. Cat-
erpillar, Peoria, IL, USA.
Anon, 1998. 3DEC User Manual. Itasca Consulting Group, Minne-
apolis, MN, USA.
Atkinson, T., 1971. Selection of open pit excavating and loading
equipment. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. 80, 101 – 129.
Bailey, A.D., 1975. Rock types and seismic velocity versus ripp-
ability. Highway Geology Symposium Proceeding, vol. 26,
pp. 135 – 142.
Basarýr, H., 2002. Rippability assessment based on ‘‘Direct ripping,
specific energy concept and numerical modeling’’, PhD thesis,
METU, Ankara, Turkey (174 pp.).
Bozdag, T., 1988. Indirect rippability assessment of coal measure
rocks, MS thesis, METU, Ankara, Turkey (86 pp.).
Church, H.K., 1981. Excavation Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New
York, USA.
Fowell, R.J., Johnson, S.T., 1982. Rock classification and assess-
ment for rapid excavation. In: Farmer, I.W. (Ed.), Proceedings
of the Symposium on Strata Mechanics. Newcastle Upon
Tyne. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 241 – 244.
Fowell, R.J., Pyrcroft, A.S., 1980. Rock machinability studies for
the assessment of selective tunneling machine performance. In:
Summers, D. (Ed.), Proc. U.S. Mechanics Symp., 21st, Rolla,
MO, pp. 149 – 158.
Franklin, J.A., Broch, E., Walton, G., 1971. Logging the mechan-
ical character of rock. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. 80, A1 – A9.
Hadjigeorgiou, J., Poulin, R., 1998. Assessment of ease of excava-
tion of surface coal mines. J. Terramech. 35, 137 – 153.
ISRM, 1978. Suggested methods for quantitative description of
discontinuities in rock masses. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
15, 319 – 368.
ISRM Suggested Methods, 1983. In: Brown, E.T. (Ed.), Rock Char-
acterization Testing and Monitoring, ISRM Suggested Methods.
Pergamon, New York, p. 211.
Kara, A., A., 1979. An investigation into the strata control aspects
318 H. Basarir, C. Karpuz / Engineering Geology 74 (2004) 303–318
of the longwalls in GLI Tuncbilek Lignite Coal Mine. MS the-
sis, METU, Ankara, Turkey (81 pp.).
Karpuz, C., 1990. A classification system for excavation of surface
coal measures. Min. Sci. Technol. 11, 157 – 163.
Kirsten, H.A.D., 1982. Efficient use on construction of tractor
mounted rippers. Civil Engineer in South Africa 24, 293 – 308.
Koncagül, O., 1997. Diggability Assessment of bucket wheel exca-
vators in elbistan lignite mine, PhD thesis, Middle East Techni-
cal University, Ankasa, Turkey.
MacGregor, F., Fell, R., Mostyn, G.R., Hocking, G., McNally, G.,
1994. The estimation of rock rippability. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 27,
123 – 144.
Müftüoglu, Y.V., 1983. A study of factors affecting diggability in
British surface coal mines, PhD thesis, University of Notting-
ham, England.
Onel, H., 1972. Method of mining and cost analysis at two different
production rates of the lignite mines at Kangal Sivas, Ms. thesis,
METU, Ankara, Turkey. 103 pp.
Pettifer, G.S., Fookes, P.G., 1994. A revision of the graphical meth-
od for assessing the excavatability of rock. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 27,
145 – 164.
Singh, R.N., Denby, B., Egretli, I., 1987. Development of new
rippability index for coal measures excavations. In: Proc. 28th
US Symp. on Rock Mech., Tuscon, AZ. Balkema, Boston, MA,
pp. 935 – 943.
Smith, H.J., 1986. Estimating rippability of rock mass classifica-
tion. In: Proc. 27th US Symp. on Rock Mech., Tuscaloosa, AL.
AIME, New York, pp. 443 – 448.
Weaver, J.M., 1975. Geological factors significant in the assessment
of rippability. Civil Engineer in South Africa 17, 131 – 136.