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

net/publication/320324101

Drillability Assessments in Hard Rock

Conference Paper · October 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 1,840

5 authors, including:

Javier Macias Filip Dahl

JMConsulting-Rock Engineering AS SINTEF
29 PUBLICATIONS   99 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   384 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Amund Bruland Heiko Kaesling

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Technische Universität München
65 PUBLICATIONS   758 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   295 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Rock Drillability Assessments View project

Cutter Wear in Hard Rock Tunnel Boring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Javier Macias on 19 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403

DRILLABILITY ASSESSMENTS IN HARD ROCK

Francisco Javier Macias (javier.macias@sintef.no)

SINTEF Building and Infrastructure - Rock and Soil Mechanics Group
Norway

Filip Dahl1, Amund Bruland2, Heiko Käsling3, Kurosch Thuro3

1SINTEF Building and Infrastructure - Rock and Soil Mechanics Group
Norway
2 NTNU Department of Civil and Transport Engineering

Norway
3TUM Chair of Engineering Geology

Germany

ABSTRACT

Drillability is an important parameter in order to assess the influence that intact rock properties have on
performance prediction and cost evaluations in connection with drill-and-blast tunnelling, TBM tunnelling,
excavations by roadheaders and hydraulic impact hammers and also rock quarrying. Especially in hard rock
conditions, drillability will be of great importance for selection of excavation method and a successful project
execution. Unanticipated situations and/or inappropriate assessments can result in considerable delays and
great risk of cost overruns. Reliable predictions are therefore required; prediction of net penetration rate and tool
wear, time consumption and excavation costs, including risk and assessing risk linked to variation in rock mass
boreability, establishing and managing contract price regulation. Several methodologies are available to assess
drillability (i.e. rock strength, rock surface hardness, rock brittleness, rock abrasivity or rock petrography). This
paper includes a review of the state-of-the-art and discussion of relevant parameters that involves drillability
assessments in hard rock conditions.

KEYWORDS

Drillability, Hard rock excavation, Breakability, Abrasivity

INTRODUCTION

Rock properties have a large impact in connection with excavation and tunnelling by use of drill-and-blast, TBMs,
roadheaders, hydraulic impact hammers and also for rock quarrying, especially in hard rock conditions. The term
drillability is commonly used to describe the ability of the rock to be drilled or bored and it will be of great
importance on performance predictions, cost evaluations and selection of excavation method. Unanticipated
situations and/or inappropriate assessments can result in considerable delays and great risk of cost overruns.
Reliable predictions are therefore required for; prediction of net penetration rate and tool wear, time consumption
and excavation costs, including risk and assessing risk linked to variation in rock mass boreability, establishing
and managing contract price regulation. Several methodologies are available to assess drillability (i.e. rock
strength, rock surface hardness, rock brittleness, rock abrasivity or rock petrography). This paper includes a brief
review of the state-of-the-art and discussion of relevant parameters that involves drillability assessments in hard
rock conditions.

1. DRILLABILITY

Drillability can be defined as the ability of the rock to be drilled or bored. Drillability considers the influence that
intact rock properties, breakability and abrasivity, have during drilling and boring in hard rock.
There are several methodologies available to assess the influence of intact rock properties in hard rock
excavation. The main intact rock properties and commonly used test methodology are listed in the following:
 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403

- Strength: Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS), Brazilian Tensile Strength (BTS), Point Load Test
(PLT).
- Surface hardness: Sievers’ J miniature drill test (SJ), Vickers hardness (VH).
- Brittleness: brittleness tests (S20), several definitions including: strain, UCS and tensile strengths, stress-
strain relations.
- Abrasivity: Cerchar test (CAI), LCPC test, Abrasion Value Steel test (AVS), abrasive minerals content,
Vickers hardness number of rock (VHNR).
- Rock petrography (rock texture, mineral composition).

The term ‘hard rock’ is not always precisely defined and can be defined by the rock strength. According to the
classification of rock types in terms of Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) presented by the International
Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM), the term 'hard rock' fall within the categories high, very high and extremely
high strength (UCS > 50 MPa).

2. LABORATORY TEST METHODS TO ASSESS DRILLABILITY

2.1. General

It should be emphasised that the drillability of rock is a complex issue and that it is dependent on different
combinations of various individual intact rock properties. It is due to this not possible to assess the drillability of
rock with certainty by use of a single laboratory test method. A best possible understanding and determination of
the drillability can hence only be achieved based on evaluation of the results from a dedicated set of test
methodologies used to describe both breakability and abrasivity properties of the rock. The information achieved
by the physical testing should ideally also be supported and combined with information on the mineralogical
composition and the petrographic features (grain size, grain bindings, micro cracking, alteration and weathering)
of the rock.

2.2. Laboratory test methods for determination of breakability

The breakability properties of intact rock have a major influence on the drillability of rock. The relatively wide
definition breakability is however including and covering a variety of more specific properties that could be
classified as strength, brittleness and surface hardness properties. There are currently several individual test
methods which are used to determine breakability and some of the most well-known and commonly used are
listed in Table 1.

The Uniaxial compressive test is used to determine the UCS, Poisson's ratio and Young's modulus of the intact
rock. UCS is the primary test method and the most often used to characterize the mechanical behaviour of the
intact rock, strength and deformability. This test uses circular cylinders of rock samples which are compressed
along the longitudinal axes (ISRM, 1979).

The Brazilian Tensile Test is an indirect tensile method to assess the tensile strength of the rock (ISRM, 1978
and ASTM, 2008). The stress failure in the rock sample is a function of the applied load, the sample diameter
and the thickness at the centre of the specimen (Figure 1b) resulting in the Brazilian Tensile Strength (BTS).

The PLT is intended as an index test for the strength classification of rock and it may also be used to predict
other strength parameters as uniaxial tensile and compressive strength (ISRM, 1985). Rock specimens (core,
block or irregular lump) are broken by application of concentrated load through a pair of spherically truncated,
conical platens.

The Brittleness Value (S20) constitutes a measure of the rock brittleness or ability to be crushed by repeated
impacts, and it is determined by use of an impact apparatus. The Brittleness Value (S20) is defined as the
percentage of a pre-sieved fraction that passes through the finer sieve after 20 impacts.
 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403
The punch test, developed by Handewith (1970), has been used by many researchers to evaluate parameters
such as rock drillability, cutting force estimates and TBM penetration rate (Dollinger et al., 1998; Yagiz, 2002,
2009). In this test, a standard conical indenter is pressed into a rock sample that has been cast in a confining
steel ring. The load and displacement of the indenter are recorded with a computer system. The slope of the
force-penetration curve indicates the excavatibility of the rock, i.e., the energy needed for efficient chipping. This
is affected by the stiffness, brittleness, and porosity of the sample.

The LCPC test was originally developed for determination of rock abrasivity and presented by the Laboratorie
Central des Ponts et Chaussées in the 1980s (Normalisation Française P18-579, 1990). The LCPC is also used
to determine an index called the ‘LCPC Breakability Coefficient' (LBC) to quantify the breakability or brittleness
of the sample material (Thuro et al. 2007; Wilfing, 2016). The LCPC Breakability Coefficient LBC is defined as
the fraction below 1.6 mm in the grain size distribution curve after testing.

The Sievers' J- miniature drill test was originally developed by H. Sievers in the 1950s. The Sievers' J-Value (SJ)
constitutes a measure of the rock surface hardness or resistance to indentation.
The SJ value is defined as the mean value of the measured drill hole depths in 1/10 mm, after 200 revolutions of
the 8.5 mm miniature drill bit (Dahl et al., 2012).

Table 1. Some of the most common laboratory test methods for measuring rock breakability in connection with
hard rock drilling and boring.
Test method Index Principle Rock sample Testing tool Reference
Uniaxial Cut and ISRM
The specimen is loaded
Compressive UCS grinded rock Hydraulic press (1978)
axially until failure occur
Strength core
Brazilian Hydraulic press ISRM
The specimen is loaded
Tensile BTS Cut rock disc equipped with (1978)
until failure occur
Strength steel loading jaws
Hydraulic press ISRM
Rock core equipped with (1985)
Point Load The specimen is loaded
PLS (Is50) section or spherically-
Strength until failure occur
lumps truncated, conical
platens
Indentation Indentor under applied Rock sample Loading frame ISRM
Hardness IHI load penetrates into the with top end and hard material (1998)
Testing rock surface saw-cut conical indenter
Indenter penetrating the Yagiz
Punch Penetration Rock core Conical tungsten
surface of a confined (2009)
penetration index (PI) section carbide indenter
rock core sample
LCPC Käsling and
Impeller (medium hard
LCPC Breakability Crushed rock Thuro
steel) rotating in a vessel Steel impeller
Breakability Coefficient (4-6.3 mm) (2010)
containing crushed rock
(LBC)
Surface Dahl (2012)
Penetration depth of Cut rock
hardness/ Sievers' J- 8.5 mm tungsten
drillings after 200 specimen with
resistance to Value (SJ) carbide drill bit
revolutions parallel sides
penetration
Brittleness Brittleness The prepared sample is Crushed rock Mortar with lid and Dahl (2012)
Value Value (S20) exposed to 20 impacts (11.2 – 16 mm) a 20 kg weight

In addition to the aforementioned test methods, the rock properties, density and porosity, should also be
included and considered since they may have strong influence on the breakability of the rock. The density is
defined as the mass per volume of a substance (gr/cm3) and porosity is defined as the nonsolid or pore-volume
fraction. Porosity is a volume ratio and thus dimensionless, and is usually reported as a fraction or percent
(ISRM, 1977).
 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403

Figure 1 Some of the most common laboratory test methods for measuring rock breakability in connection with
hard rock drilling and boring., a) UCS, b) BTS, c) PLT, d) S20 (Dahl et al., 2012), e) Punch test (Yagiz, 2009), f)
LCPC (Thuro et al., 2007) and g) SJ (Dahl et al., 2012)

There are in addition some methods that adopt approaches that are different from model testing. The
measurement of mineralogical parameters such as quartz content, ‘Equivalent Quartz Content’ (EQC) or the
‘Vickers Hardness Number Rock (VHNR)’ are commonly also used to assess breakability of hard rock. The
‘Equivalent Quartz Content’ parameter encompasses the influence of the entire mineral content of the rock on
abrasiveness relative to quartz, while the ‘Vickers Hardness Number’ is used as a measure of the hardness of
each individual component mineral. Individual Vickers hardness values, combined with the percentage of each
mineral found in a rock, can be used to calculate the so-called Vickers Hardness Number Rock, or VHNR
(Salminen and Viitala, 1985).

2.3. Laboratory test methods for rock abrasivity

During recent decades, many test methods have been employed to measure rock abrasivity. Several
researchers, e.g. Plinninger and Restner (2008), Macias (2016) …, have summarized and discussed abrasivity
testing. Table 2 provides a list of the most commonly used methods in connection with tunnel boring.

Table 2. The most common laboratory test methods for measuring rock abrasivity in connection with hard rock.
Test method Index Principle Rock sample Testing tool
CERCHAR Indenter (hard steel)
CERCHAR test
Abrasivity Index moves over a rock Intact rock Steel stylus
(1986)
(CAI) surface
Impeller (medium hard
LCPC abrasivity Crushed rock
LCPC test (1990) steel) rotating in a vessel Steel impeller
Coefficient (LAC) (4-6.3 mm)
containing crushed rock
NTNU/SINTEF Abrasion Value Tungsten carbide piece Crushed rock Tungsten
abrasivity (1960) (AV) sliding over crushed rock (<1mm) carbide piece
Abrasion Value
NTNU/SINTEF Cutter ring steel piece Crushed rock Cutter ring steel
cutter Steel
abrasivity (1983) sliding over crushed rock (<1mm) piece
(AVS)

The content of quartz and other hard and abrasive minerals found in the rock is normally significantly influencing
rock abrasiveness. As previously discussed, the measurement of mineralogical parameters such as quartz
 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403
content, ‘Equivalent Quartz Content’ (EQC) or the ‘Vickers Hardness Number Rock (VHNR)’ involve methods
that adopt approaches that are different from model testing.

Figure 2. The most common laboratory test methods for measuring rock abrasivity in connection with hard rock
a) Outline of the CERCHAR test apparatus (West, 1989)., b) The LCPC abrasivity testing device (Thuro et al.,
2007) and c) Outline of the Abrasion Value (AV) and Abrasion Value Cutter Steel (AVS) test (Dahl et al., 2012).

The CERCHAR abrasivity test is used to determine the CERCHAR Abrasivity Index (CAI) and was originally
developed and presented by the Centre d'Études et Recherches des Charbonnages de France in the 1970s
(Valantin, 1974). The test measures the wear on the tip of a steel stylus having a Rockwell Hardness of HRC 55
(ISRM, 2014) or HRC 40 (ASTM, 2010). A rock specimen is held firmly in the test apparatus while a sharpened
steel stylus under a normal force of 70 N is moved a total distance of 10.0 mm across the rock. (Figure 2a). The
CAI is a dimensionless unit and is calculated by multiplying the wear surface on the steel stylus in units of 0.01
mm by 10.

The LCPC test is used to determine an index called the ‘LCPC Abrasivity Coefficient’ (LAC) for classifying the
abrasivity of the rock. As aforementioned, the testing principle was originally developed and presented by the
Laboratorie Central des Ponts et Chaussées in the 1980s (Normalisation Française P18-579, 1990).
An outline of the test apparatus is given in Figure 2b. The impeller is a rectangular metal plate of dimensions 50
× 25 × 5 mm made of standardised steel with a Rockwell hardness of B 60–75. It rotates for 5 minutes at a
speed of 4,500 rpm inside a cylindrical container filled with the rock sample material, which consists of 500 ± 2
grams of a crushed, sieved (fraction 4–6.3 mm) and air-dried rock specimen. The impeller is weighed before and
after testing and its weight loss constitutes a measure of rock abrasivity.

The Abrasion Value (AV) index was originally developed and presented by NTNU at the beginning of the 1960s
while the Abrasion Value Cutter Steel was introduced at the beginnings of the 1980s. The test methods are
often referred to as the "Norwegian abrasion test methods" (Figure 2c). The AV and AVS indices represent a
measure of rock abrasion or the ability of a rock to induce wear on tungsten carbide and cutter ring steel
respectively. It is a time-dependent parameter determined by measuring the abrasion of tungsten carbide and
cutter steel caused by crushed and sieved (< 1.0 mm) rock powder. Figure 2 is an illustration of the method
(Dahl et al., 2012).
The AV index is defined as the weight loss of the test piece after 5 min testing (100 revolutions) of testing while
the AVS index is defined as the measured weight loss of the test piece in milligrams after 1 minute (20
revolutions) of testing.

Recently a new rock abrasivity test method for cutter life assessments in hard rock tunnel boring: the Rolling
Indentation Abrasion Test (RIAT) has been developed (Macias et al., 2016; Macias, 2016; Macias 2017). The
Rolling Indentation Abrasion Test method (RIAT) involves the use of miniature rolling discs that penetrate the
surface of an intact rock sample (Figure 3). A suitable drive unit provides the rotation, torque and vertical thrust
of the tool. The RIAT Abrasivity Index (RIATa) is defined as the weight loss (in mg) incurred by a miniature cutter
ring during a RIAT test. The RIAT Indentation Index (RIATi) is defined as the average value of ten evenly
distributed measurements of cutter penetration depth (measured in 1/100 mm).
 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403

Figure 3. Outline and photograph illustrating the components of the Rolling Indentation Abrasion Test (RIAT)
method (Macias et al., 2016).

3. DRILLABILITY ASSESSMENTS IN HARD ROCK

3.1. General

Several excavation methods for hard rock are widely used in mining and construction and the Quarrying and
underground construction industry has been experiencing a strong development with enormous technological
improvement. In underground hard rock projects, drill and blast excavation (D&B), tunnel boring machine (TBM),
roadheader and hydraulic impact hammer methods are currently widely used with great success.

In hard rock tunnelling selection of the most suitable excavation method is however not a simple issue. It may,
as experience has shown, result in undesired situations. The choice is more complex than a simple economic
issue and it is rarely clear in the early stages of the projects. It is necessary to have an entire overview of the
parameters involved in the excavation method choice (Macias and Bruland, 2014).
Many parameters are involved with different roles in every project case; project characteristics and purpose,
environmental aspects or even social issues are involved. Every project is unique and a comprehensive and
detailed study should be carried out.

3.2. Assessments for drilling in hard rock

Drilling rate and drill bit wear for drill-and-blast tunnelling and rock quarrying is dependent of several parameters.
The net penetration rate of any drilling equipment (top hammer, coprod, DTH, rotary) is very dependent upon the
rock drillability (Olsen, 2009). According to Thuro (1997), the principal parameters influencing drilling velocity
may be jointing of rock mass, orientation of schistosity (rock anysotropy), degree of interlocking of
microstructures, porosity and quality of cementation of clastic rock, degree of hydrothermal decomposition and
weathering of a rock mass. The abrasive minerals (equivalent quartz content), porosity or the quality of the
cementation may influence drilling bit wear. Figure 4 shows an illustration of the main factors, machine and
geological parameters, influencing drilling in tunnelling.

Figure 4. Illustration of the main factors influencing hard rock drilling (Thuro, 1997).
 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403
Several models to predict the net penetration rate and tool consumption in drilling equipment have been
developed. It exists a wide variability of drilling applications.
Table 3 summarises only some of the existing performance and tool life prediction models for drilling equipment.

Table 3. Some of the existing performance and tool life prediction models for drilling.
Model Basic input parameters Output Reference
Rock parameters Machine parameters parameters
Drill-and-blast UCS (Destruction work) Power of the Drilling velocity, Thuro (1997)
tunnelling Porosity, Joint spacing, percussive drill tool life (m/bit)
EQC
Drilling DRI Drill bit diameter Drilling velocity Sandvik Tamrock
(1999)

Rock Abrasivity UCS, EQC Drill bit lifetime Plinninger et al.

Index (CAI) - Drill- (m/bit) (2002).
and-blast tunnelling Plinninger (2010)
Drill-and-blast DRI, VHNR Power of the Drilling velocity, Zare (2007)
tunnelling percussive drill, drill tool life
hole diameter
Quarrying DRI, VHNR Drill bit/hole diameter, Drilling velocity, Olsen (2009)
hole depth, percussive tool life
drill type and capacity

3.3. Assessments for tunnel boring in hard rock

Several prediction models for estimates of performance and cutter wear in hard rock tunnel boring have been
developed in recent decades. Table 4 summarises the main basic input and output parameters of the common
performance prediction models.

Table 4. Commonly used performance prediction models for hard rock tunnel boring including their input and
output parameters.
Penetration rate Basic input parameters Output Reference
model Rock parameters Machine parameters parameters
Gehring model UCS Penetration rate Gehring (1995)
Wilfing (2016)
CSM Model UCS, BTS, Rock mass Cutter diameter, cutter Penetration rate Rostami (1997)
fracturing tip width, average Yagiz (2014)
cutter spacing, number
of cutters, cutterhead
rpm, thrust force
NTNU model DRI, porosity, degree of TBM diameter, Cutter Penetration rate, Macias (2016)
fracturing, orientation, diameter, number of advance rate
CLI, quartz content cutters, gross average
cutter thrust, rpm
QTBM Q-value (with RQDo), Average cutter load, Penetration rate, Barton (2000)
rock mass strength, TBM diameter advance rate
CLI, quartz content,
induced biaxial stress
on tunnel face, porosity
RME RMR parameters, DRI TBM diameter, type of Penetration rate, Bieniawski et al.
machine advance rate (2006)
 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403
In addition, recent methods and models have been developed to make cutter life assessments. Table 5 shows
commonly used cutter life models.

Table 5. Common cutter life models for hard rock tunnel boring including their input and output parameters.
Basic input parameters
Cutter life
Output parameters Reference
model
Rock parameters Machine parameters

Gehring CAI, UCS Wear rate, cutter life Gehring (1995)

Cutter life, delays,

CSM CAI Cutterhead rpm Rostami (1997)
total cost
Cutterhead diameter (m),
CLI, quartz content cutter diameter (mm), Cutter life, delays,
NTNU Macias (2016)
(%) number of cutters, total cost
cutterhead rpm
Average cutter ring
Maidl CAI, UCS Maidl et al. (2008)
life
Bieniawski et al.
RME CAI, UCS Cutter life
(2009)
Cutter life, delays,
Frenzel CAI Cutterhead diameter (m) Frenzel (2011)
total cost

The CERCHAR Abrasivity Index (CAI), as defined by the ASTM (2010) and/or the ISRM (2014) is used by the
CSM model and the Gehring model (Gehring, 1995), Maidl model (Maidl et al., 2008), Bieniawski (Bieniawski et
al., 2009) and Frenzel (Frenzel (2011). The drillabity parameters that influence cutter wear in the NTNU model
are the Cutter Life Index (CLI) and rock quartz content (%). As aforementioned, the Cutter Life Index (CLI) is
evaluated based on the Sievers’ J-value and the Abrasion Value Cutter Steel (AVS) as defined by Bruland
(2000). Hassanpour et al. (2014) have proposed a new empirical TBM cutter wear prediction model where
mineral hardness (quantified using the VHNR) and UCS are the drillability parameters.

3.4. Assessments for roadheader and hydraulic impact hammer excavation

The use of roadheaders is normally not recommended for rocks with high strength (Bilgin et al., 2005) and
therefore, the method might result on limited application in hard rock conditions. However, Bilgin et al. (2005)
reported an instantaneous cutting rate of 5 m3/h in high strength rock formation (> 100 MPa) but with a high tool
consumption resulting in a low machine utilization and low advance rate.

Several models exist to assess performance predictions for roadheaders. Table 6 summarises the main basic
input and output parameters of the common performance prediction models for roadheaders.

Table 6. Commonly used performance prediction models for roadheaders including their input and output
parameters (modified from Balci et al., 2004).
Penetration Basic input parameters Output parameters Reference
rate model Rock parameters Machine parameters
Bilgin et al. UCS, RQD* Machine power Instantaneous cutting rate Bilgin et al.
(1988,1990)
Gehring UCS Instantaneous cutting rate Gehring (1989)

Thuro UCS Instantaneous cutting rate Thuro and Plininger

(1999)
Balci et al. UCS Machine power Instantaneous cutting rate Balci et al. (2004)

*RQD: Rock Quality Designation

 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403

Regarding to estimation of tool consumption of roadheaders, the CAI test is used according to Johnson and
Fowell (1986).

The main rock parameters used to predict the impact hammer excavation are UCS and RQD according to the
equation proposed by Bilgin et al. (1997; 2002). Later, the influence the thickness of dikes with high rock
strength was introduced by Ocak and Bilgin (2010).

4. CONCLUSIVE REMARKS

Several methods for excavations in hard rock conditions have been generally used with success but in too many
cases, due to unanticipated situations and/or inappropriate assessments, with undesirable consequences. Some
of the most commonly used are drill-and-blast tunnelling, TBM tunnelling, roadheaders and rock quarrying.
Especially in hard rock conditions, intact rock properties play a significant role in excavation. Drillability is
commonly used to describe the ability of the rock to be drilled or bored and it is used to assess the influence that
intact rock properties have on performance prediction and cost evaluations in drill-and-blast tunnelling, TBM
tunnelling, roadheaders and rock quarrying.

The drillability of rock is however not representing one clearly defined property determined by a single laboratory
test method. Drillability can basically be defined as a combination between the breakability and the abrasivity of
the rock. Breakability and abrasivity are again dependent on combinations of several individual properties and a
best possible determination of the drillability of intact rock can hence only be achieved by evaluating the
information gained from a dedicated set of laboratory test methods used to determine both the breakability and
abrasivity. Each dedicated test method will represent a certain defined rock property and it is important to
achieve a good understanding of the principle of the test method in order to be able to evaluate and use the
information which can be gained from the test results.

There are currently several performance prediction models available for estimation of time and cost in
connection with excavation of hard rock by use of the various excavation methods. The common thread for most
of them are that they are using several rock properties along with different machine parameters as input
parameters in order to obtain a best possible estimate. Drillability plays a significant role in the prediction models
for performances, breakability, and for tool life assessments, abrasivity. More effort should be emphasized on
understanding the rock breaking process and tool wear tribological system as well as continuously extending
and improving the existing prediction models for the different excavation methods.

REFERENCES

ASTM (2008). D3967-08: standard test method for splitting tensile strength of intact rock core specimens. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken.
ASTM (2010). Standard test method for laboratory determination of abrasiveness of rock using the CERCHAR
method. Designation: D7625-10.
Balci, C., Demircin, M.A., Copur, H., Tuncdemir, H. (2004). Estimation of optimum specific energy based on rock
properties for assessment of roadheader performance. The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, December 2004, pp 633-641.
Barton, N. (2000). TBM tunnelling in jointed and faulted rock. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam (2000). ISBN 90 5809
341 7.
Bieniawski, Z.T., Celada, C. B., Galera, J. M. and Tardaguila, I. G. (2009). Prediction of Cutter Wear using RME.
Proceedings ITA-ITAES World Tunnel Congress, Budapest, Hungary (2009).
Bilgin, N., Seyrek, T., Shahriar, K. (1988). Roadheader performance in Istanbul, Golden Horn clean-up
contributes valuable data. Tunnels and Tunneling, June 1988, pp. 41-44.
Bilgin, N., Seyrek, T., Erdinc, E., Shahriar, K. (1990). Roadheaders clean valuable tips for Istanbul Metro.
Tunnels and Tunneling, Oct. 1990, pp. 29-32.
Bilgin, N., Kuzu, C., Eskikaya, S. (1997).Cutting performance of rock hammers and roadheaders in Istanbul
Metro drivages. Proceedings, World Tunnel Congress, Tunnels for People, Balkema, pp. 455-460.
 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403
Bilgin, N., Dincer, T., Copur, H. (2002).The performance prediction of impact hammers from Schmidt hammer
rebound values in Istanbul metro tunnel drivages. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 17 (2002)
237-247..
Bilgin, N., Tumac, D., Feridunoglu, C., Karakas, A.R., Akgul, M. (2005). The performance of a roadheader in
high strength rock formations in Küçüksu tunnel. Proceedings of the WTC 2005, Istambul (Turkey).
Bruland, A. (2000). Hard Rock Tunnel Boring: Vol 1-10. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway, 2000.
Dahl, F., Bruland, A., Jakobsen, P.D., Nilsen, B., Grøv, E. (2012). Classification of properties influencing the
drillability of rocks, based on the NTNU/SINTEF test method. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
28 (2012) 150-158.
Dollinger, G.L., Handewith, H.J. and Breeds, C.D. (1998). Use of the punch test for estimating TBM
performance. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology Vol 13 (4) (1998), pp. 403–408
Frenzel, C. (2011). Disc Cutter Wear Phenomenology and their Implications on Disc Cutter Consumption for
TBM. 45th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium, San Francisco, USA (2011).
Gehring, K. (1989). A Cutting comparison. Tunnels and Tunnelling International. Volume 21, Issue 11,
November 1989, Pages 27-30.
Gehring, K. (1995). Leistungs- und Verschleißprognosen im maschinellen Tunnelbau. Felsbau, Vol. 13, no. 6
(1995), pp 439-448 (in German).
Handewith, H.J. (1970) Predicting the economic success of continuous tunneling and hard rock. 71st Annual
General Meeting of the CIM, vol. 63, pp. 595–599.
Hassanpour, J., Rostami, J., Tarigh Azali, S. and Zhao, J. (2014). Introduction of an empirical TBM cutter wear
prediction model for pyroclastic and mafic igneous rock; a case history of Karaj water conveyance tunnel,
Iran. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology Vol. 43 (2014), pp 222-231
ISRM International Society for Rock Mechanics. (1977). Suggested method for determining Water Content,
Porosity, Density, Absorption and Related Properties and Swelling and Slake-Durability Index Properties.
"The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring:1974-2006",
Edited by R. Ulusay and J.A. Hudson.
ISRM International Society for Rock Mechanics. (1978). Suggested methods for determining tensile strength of
rock materials. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts Vol
15 (3), 1978, pp 99-103.
ISRM International Society for Rock Mechanics. (1979). Suggested method for determining the uniaxial
compressive strength and deformability of rock materials. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
Science, Vol. 15 (1979), pp 137-140.
ISRM International Society for Rock Mechanics (1985). Suggested method for determining point load strength. –
Commission on Testing methods. International Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mining Science & Geomechanics,
Vol. 22 (1985), no. 2, pp 51-60.
ISRM International Society for Rock Mechanics (1998). Draft ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the
Indentation Hardness Index of Rock Materials. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
Vol 35 (6), 1998, pp. 831-835.
ISRM International Society for Rock Mechanics (2014). ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Abrasivity
of Rock by the CERCHAR Abrasivity Test. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering Vol. 47 (2014), pp 261-
266.
Johnson, S.T., Fowell, R.J. (1986). Compressive strength is not enough: Assessing pick wear for drag tool
equiped machines. In: Hartman, H.L., (Ed.), Proc. 27th US Rock Mech. SYmp., Tuscazoosa, AL, AIME, New
York, pp. 840-845.
Käsling, H., Thuro, K. (2010). Determining rock abrasivity in the laboratory. European Rock Mechanics
Symposium EUROCK 2010.
Macias, F.J. and Bruland, A. (2014). D&B versus TBM: Review of the parameters for a right choice of the
excavation method. The 2014 ISRM European Rock Mechanics Symposium (Eurock 2014), Vigo, Spain
(2014).
Macias, F.J., Dahl, F.E. and Bruland, A. (2016). New rock abrasivity test method for tool life assessments on
hard rock tunnel boring: The Rolling Indentation Abrasion Test (RIAT). Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, Vol. 49, no. 5 (2016), pp 1679-1693.
Macias F.J. (2016). Hard Rock Tunnel Boring: Performance Predictions and Cutter Life Assessments. PhD
thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), December 2016.
 3rd Nordic Rock Mechanics Symposium
October 11-12, 2017, Helsinki, Finland
Author's personal copy Johansson & Raasakka (eds)
ISBN 978-951-758-622-1
ISSN 0356-9403
Macias, F.J., Dahl, F.E. and Bruland, A. (2017). Applicability of the new rock abrasivity test method (RIAT) to
cutter life assessments in hard rock tunnel boring. WTC 2017, Bergen, Norway.
Normalisation Française P18-579 (1990). Granulats: Essai d' abrasivité et de broyabilité.
Maidl, B., Schmid, L. and Herrenknecht, M. (2008). Hard rock Tunnel Boring Machines. Ernst & Sohn (2008),
ISBN 978-3-433-01676-3.
Ocak, I., Bilgin, N. (2010). Comparative studies on the performance of a roadheader, impact hammer and drilling
and blasting method in the excavation of metro station tunnels in Istanbul. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology 25 (2010) 181-187.
Olsen, V. (2009). Rock Quarrying. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), 2009.
Plinninger, R.J., Restner, U (2008). Abrasiveness Testing, Quo Vadis? – A commneted Overview of
Abrasiveness Testing Methods. Geomechanics and Tunnelling: 2008, 1:61-70 (Wiley).
Plinninger, R.J. (2010). Hardrock abrasivity investigation using the Rock Abrasivity Index (RAI). Geologically
Activ – Willians et al. (eds).
Plinninger, R.J., Spaun, G., Thuro, K (2002). Prediction and Classification of tool wear in drill and blast tunneling.
Engineering Geology for Developing Countries, Proceedings of the 9th IAEG Congress, Durban, South
Africa:2226-2236.
Rostami, J. (1997). Development of a force estimation model for rock fragmentation with disc cutters through
theoretical modelling and physical measurement of crushed zone pressure, PhD Thesis. Colorado School of
Mines, Golden, Colorado, USA (1997).
Salminen, P. and Viitala, R. (1985). Rock Drillability Study. Helsinki University of Technology, Department of
Mining and Metallurgy. Laboratory of Mining Engineering. ISBN 951-753-591-0.
Sandvik Tamrock (1999). Rock Excavation Handbook. Sandvik Tamrock Corporation.
Thuro, K. (1997). Drillability prediction – geological influences in hard rock drill and blast tunnelling. Geol
Rundsch (1997) 86: 426-438.
Thuro, K., Plininger, R.J. (1999). Roadheader excavation performance – geological and geotechnical influences.
The 9th ISRM Congress, Theme 3: Rock Dynamics and tectonophysics/Rock cutting and drilling, Paris, 25
August, 1999, 362 pp.
Thuro, K., Singer, J., Käsling, H., Bauer, M. (2007). Determining abrasivity with the LCPC Test. ARMA-07-103.
1st Canada - U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, 27-31 May, Vancouver, Canada.
Valantin, A. (1974). Description des tests CERCHAR, “Durete et abrasivite des roches”. Travaux Publics 167, N
322, pp 88-92. November 1974 (in French).
West, G. (1989). Rock Abrasiveness Testing for Tunnelling, Technical Note. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics, Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts Vol. 26, no. 2. (1989), pp. 151-160.
Wilfing, L. (2016). The Influence of Geotechnical Parameters on penetration Prediction in TBM Tunneling in Hard
Rock. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany (2016).
Yagiz, S. (2002). Development of rock fracture and brittleness indices to quantity the effects of rock mass
features and toughness in the CSM model basic penetration for hard rock tunneling machines. PhD thesis,
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, USA (2002).
Yagiz, S. (2009). Assessment of brittleness using rock strength and density with punch penetration test.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 24 (2009), pp 66-74.
Zare, S. (2007). Drill and Blast Tunnelling – Advance Rate. PhD Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU).

View publication stats