Excavation engineering handbook

1. Introduction
CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK

R O C K E X C AVAT I O N
HANDBOOK

..

2

3
R O C K E X C AVAT I O N H A N D B O O K

P R E FA C E
The construction business is continuing to grow at a fast pace worldwide.
The construction business is closely related to the world economy as well
building of infrastructure. The building volume is increasing even though
there are big regional variations. Interesting part of construction is rock
excavation and the big variation of rock properties is challenging everybody
involved; contractors, consultants, equipment suppliers etc. At the same
time development of technology is offering new methods and solutions for
surface and underground applications. Sandvik Tamrock has published this
handbook to present these applications as well basic information to assist
selection.
Thus this handbook will serve anyone who deals with the construction excavation business. It is also good reference tool for those studying related
subjects.
Several people participated in writing this book and therefore I like to
extend my thanks to Unto Ahtola, Karlheinz Gehring, Pekka Kesseli, Peter
Kogler, Pasi Latva-Pukkila, Arne Lislerud, Maunu Mänttäri, Jukka Naapuri and
Tuomo Niskanen. Special thanks to Kirsi Nieminen, Nordberg Inc, Aimo
Vuento and his students at South Carelia Polytechnic, Raimo Vuolio,
Finnrock Inc and Pekka Särkkä, Helsinki University of Technology. Finally
I like to thank Leena K. Vanhatalo collecting and editing this handbook.

Matti Heiniö
Editor in chief
99-808-GB-6000 © Copyright Sandvik Tamrock Corp. 1999
Any diagramm, picture schematic or other matter contained herein is provided for
illustrative purposes only. Accordingly, any matter set forth herein schould not be
exclusively relied upon by the reader.

..

4

5

TABLE OF CONTENT

1.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................10

2.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

2.1 GEOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROCKS ...................................12
2.2 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND ROCK BEHAVIOUR ....................19
2.3 RATING ROCK MASS CUTTABILITY AND DRILLABILITY ..............20
2.4 ROCK ABRASIVITY – TOOL SERVICE LIFE ...................................30
2.5 ROCK MASS CHARACTERIZATION .................................................46
2.5.1 Importance .............................................................................46
2.5.2 Interbedding ...........................................................................46
2.5.3 Rock mass discontinuities.........................................................47
2.5.4 Classification of rock mass properties ........................................48
2.5.5 Rock pressure ..........................................................................52

2.6 BENCH BLASTING OPERATIONS ...................................................53
2.7 CRUSHABILITY..............................................................................57
2.8 CONCRETE .....................................................................................60

..

6


3.

4.2.1 Drilling and Blasting..............................................................142

PRINCIPLES OF ROCK EXCAVATION TECHNOLOGIES

4.2.2 Primary Breaking by Hydraulic Hammer ...................................183

3.1 MECHANICS OF ROCK BREAKING.................................................62
4.3 QUARRY CASE .............................................................................187
3.2 TOP-HAMMER DRILLING ...............................................................63
3.3 PRINCIPLE OF DTH DRILLING.............................................71

5.

3.4 ROTARY PERCUSSIVE DRILLING .........................................71

5.1 GENERAL .....................................................................................188

3.5 HYDRAULIC HAMMERS ......................................................71

5.2 METHODS ....................................................................................189

GENERAL CONTRACTING

5.2.1 Drill and Blast Excavation ......................................................189

3.6 CUTTER-CRUSHERS AND PULVERIZERS .......................................73
5.2.2 Demolition and Recycling .......................................................204

3.7 CUTTING .......................................................................................74

5.3 CASES ..........................................................................................211

3.8 LOADING AND HAULING ..............................................................76

5.3.1 Highway and Railway Cutting .................................................211
5.3.2 Demolition and Recycling .......................................................213

3.9 CRUSHING OPERATIONS...............................................................82
3.10 ROCK BLASTING ...........................................................................93

6.

3.10.1 Blasting products ..................................................................93

TUNNELLING

6.1 GENERAL .....................................................................................214

3.10.2 Rock blasting theory ............................................................120

6.2 METHODS ....................................................................................216

3.10.3 Blasting and environment.....................................................123

6.2.1 Drilling and blasting..............................................................216

4.

6.2.2 Mechanical tunneling .............................................................254

QUARRYING ..............................................................................

6.2.3 Shaft Excavation ...................................................................281

4.1 GENERAL .....................................................................................140
6.2.4 Rock reinforcement ................................................................290

4.2 METHODS ....................................................................................142
..

7

8


6.3 CASES ..........................................................................................299

8.

WATER WELL DRILLING

6.3.1 Railway tunnel ......................................................................299

8.1 GENERAL .....................................................................................324

6.3.2 Oil and gas storage................................................................300
6.3.3 Hydropower stations and waterworks.......................................301

8.2 METHODS ....................................................................................325

6.3.4 Hammer tunneling .................................................................302
6.3.5 Roadheader tunneling ............................................................303

7.

8.3 WELL DRILLING PROCESS ..........................................................336

DIMENSIONAL STONE QUARRYING

9.

EXPLORATION DRILLING

7.1 BUILDING STONE MATERIAL ......................................................306

9.1 GENERAL .....................................................................................340

7.2 METHODS OF ROCK EXTRACTION ...............................................308

9.2 METHODS ....................................................................................340

7.2.1 General.................................................................................308

10. PROJECT PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

7.2.2 Extraction and Cutting of Hard Rock........................................309

7.3 QUARRY PLANNING ....................................................................315

10.1 PROJECT COSTS ..........................................................................344

7.4 FINANCIAL RESULT OF QUARRYING ..........................................317

10.2 TAMROCK PROJECT STUDIES......................................................347

7.4.1 Costs ....................................................................................317

10.2.1 Excavation Process recommendations .....................................347

7.4.2 Methods of succesful quarrying ..............................................320

10.2.2 Equipment selection.............................................................347
10.2.3 Performance and cost studies................................................348

7.5 FOUNDING A QUARRY ................................................................320
10.3 SERVICE SUPPORT ......................................................................354
7.6 DRILLING TOOLS SELECTION FOR DIMENSIONAL
STONE INDUSTRY .......................................................................321
REFERENSIS ........................................................................................364

..

9

10


1. INTRODUCTION
Excavation activities at construction sites are very diverse. Contracting customers also vary
significantly in size. What is a typical construction project made up of? The answer is that all
construction projects are time-limited. Project duration varies from one month to several
years, and the schedules are almost always tight. Usually, immediate mobilization takes place
once the contract has been awarded and often there are penalties involved if the original
schedule does not keep. It is therefore important to choose the right excavation method
together with the right equipment to keep the project on schedule. This handbook covers all
modern excavation methods and also provides some recent case stories.
Excavation methods can be divided into groups. The following classification shows how it is
handled in this book.
Both aggregate and limestone quarrying by the drill & blast method and mechanical method
is discussed in the chapter called “Quarrying”.
General contracting includes a wide range of projects from rock foundation in buildings and
roads to channel excavation in dams, road cuttings etc. Underwater excavation is also included in this section.

Today, demolition and recycling play an important role and are discussed in detail in the
chapter on general contracting.
In the “Tunneling” chapter, which also includes underground excavation, both traditional drill
& blast and mechanical method are discussed. Underground excavation varies significantly
from sewage tunnels and powerhouses to railway and highway tunnels as well as from warehouses and parking halls to theaters, swimming pools and ice-hockey halls.
Dimensional stone quarrying is explained according to each method in use.
The last chapter concerning excavation methods describes water well and exploration drilling.
The final chapter is dedicated to project management. It describes issues that should be considered and remembered when handling an excavation project. Last but definitely not least is
service support.
At the end of every chapter, there is a case description providing a real-life example of a
typical excavation site.

..

11

2. Material Properties

12


2.1 GEOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF ROCKS
Geological and mechanical properties of rock are interrelated; both must be taken into
account when planning rock excavation, from designing underground openings and quarries
to estimating drilling and blasting performance. Rock characteristics are determined primarily
by origin, formation and mineral composition (FIGURE 2.1.-1).
Geologically speaking, the earth is in a state of flux where both rocks and minerals are constantly being formed and altered (FIGURE 2.1.-2). It is convenient to divide the rocks in the
earth´s crust into three categories based on origin: igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic
rocks.

FIGURE 2.1.-2. Geological cycle.

The way in which the composition of the earth´s crust is dominated by eight elements is presented in Table 2.1.-1. These elements, together with some others elements, form twelve
common minerals which comprise approximately 99% of the earth´s crust. The remainder of
the over 1,000 known rock-forming minerals make up less than 1% of the earth´s crust.
Table 2.1.-1. Major chemical elements in the earth´s crust.
FIGURE 2.1.-1. Formation of minerals and rocks.

Chemical Elements

MINERALS
All rocks consist of an aggregate of mineral particles. The proportion of each mineral in the
rock, together with the rock’s granular structure, texture and origin serves as a basis for
geological classification.
A mineral may be defined as an inorganic substance that has consistent physical properties
and a fixed chemical composition. With the exception of some carbon forms, sulfur and a few
metals, all minerals are chemical compounds each containing two or more elements in fixed
proportion by weight. Some elements are present in many minerals, the most common being
oxygen and silicon, while others, including most precious and base metals, form an insignificant proportion of the rocks within the earth´s crust.

Weight Percent (%)

Volume Percent (%)

Oxygen ( O )
Silicon ( Si )
Aluminum ( Al )
Iron ( Fe )
Calcium ( Ca )
Sodium ( Na )
Potassium ( K )
Magnesium ( Mg )

46.40
28.15
8.23
5.63
4.15
2.36
2.09
2.33

94.04
0.88
0.48
0.49
1.18
1.11
1.49
0.33

It can be assumed, therefore, that most, if not all, rocks encountered in mining and civil
engineering consist of two or more minerals, each with its own particular set of physical
properties that can affect the rock’s engineering properties, such as the preferred cleavage

13


14


direction and fracture. Hardness and crystal structure used to define minerals can, in some
situations, determine the rock’s reaction to outside forces, particularly where large amounts
of a relatively soft mineral with marked fracture properties, such as mica or calcite, or of a
particularly hard mineral such as quartz, are present.

ROCKS
Magma is essentially a hot silicate melt (600-1,200°C), and is the parent material of igneous
rocks. Magmas and the formation of igneous rocks can be observed in volcanic regions.
Usually, magma solidifies within the crust, and the formed rocks are later exposed at the surface due to erosion or earth movements - hence their classification as plutonic (intrusive),
hypabyssal or volcanic (extrusive), depending on the depth and rate of cooling, which affects
texture and crystal size.
Igneous rocks are also subdivided by composition into acidic, intermediate, basic (mafic) and
ultrabasic (ultramafic) rocks depending on the amount of silica in the composition as presented in Table 2.1.-2. A relatively high hardness as to mineral constituents in igneous rock
can immediately be seen. Mica content tends to be small.

considerably in chemical stability. Susceptibility to chemical attack of common rock-forming
minerals can be ranked as follows: olivine, augite and calcium feldspar
> hornblende, biotite and sodium feldspar
> potassium feldspar > muscovite > quartz.
Quartz is the only common mineral in igneous rocks that is highly resistant to weathering
processes. All minerals tend to be altered when attacked by oxygen, carbonic acid, and
water; forming new minerals that are more stable under the new conditions. The altered rock
crumbles under the mechanical effects of erosion and is transported by wind, water, or ice
and redeposited as sediments or remain in solution.
Sedimentary rocks can be subdivided into three main groups according to whether they were
mechanically formed, formed from organic remains or chemically deposited. (Table 2.1.-3.)
Table 2.1.-3. Geological classification of the most common sedimentary rocks.
Method of
Classification
Constituents
Formation

Rock Type

Description

MECHANICAL Rudaceous

Conglomerate

Large grains
in clay matrix
Medium round grains
in siliceous, calcareous
or clay matrix
Coarse angular grains
in matrix
Micro-fine grained
- plastic structure
Harder - laminated
compacted clay
Fossiliferous, coarse
or fine grained

Arenaceous

Table 2.1.-2. Geological classification of the most common igneous rocks.
Texture

Acidic
> 66% silica

Intermediate
66 - 52% silica

Basic
< 52% silica

Ultrabasic
< 45%

Gabbro

Peridotite
Dunite
Pyroxenite

Sandstone

Breccia

silica
Argillaceous
PLUTONIC
(coarse grained)

Granite

Syenite

Diorite

HYPABYSSAL

MicroGranite

MicroSyenite

Micro-Diorite

Diabase

VOLCANIC
(fine grained)

Rhyolite

Trachyte

Andesite

Quartz
Orthoclase
(Mica)

Various
Quartz, Feldspar, Mica,
Calcite

Kaolinite, Quartz, Mica

Basalt

Principal Mineral
Constituents

Clay

Principal Mineral

Shale

Plagioclase
Hornblende

Augite
Plagioclase

Augite
Olivine

Sedimentation is the result of atmospheric and hydrospheric interaction on the earth’s crust.
The original composition of the crust, igneous rock minerals, are more or less readily
attacked by air and water. Having been formed at high temperatures, and occasionally high
pressures, they do not remain stable under significantly varying conditions. Silicates vary

Calcareous (siliceous,
Limestone
ferruginous, phosphatic)
Carbonaceous
Coal

CHEMICAL
Orthoclase
Plagioclase
(Mica)

ORGANIC

Ferruginous

Ironstone

Calcareous
(siliceous, saline)

Dolomitic
Limestone

Calcite

Impregnated limestone Calcite, Iron Oxide
or clay (or precipitated)
Precipitated or replaced Dolomite, Calcite
limestone, fine grained

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

15


16


Metamorphism is defined as the result of the processes that, beyond weathering, causes the
recrystallization of either igneous or sedimentary rock material. During metamorphism, the
rock remains essentially solid; if remelting takes place, magma is produced, and metamorphism becomes magmatism. Metamorphism is induced in solid rock as the result of pronounced changes in the temperature (200-800°C), pressure and chemical environment. These
changes affect the physical and chemical stability of a mineral assemblage, and metamorphism results from the establishment of a new equilibrium. The rock’s composition changes
to minerals that are more stable under the new conditions and the minerals arrange themselves through the production of textures that are better suited to the new environment.
Metamorphism thus results in partial or complete rock recrystallization, with the production
of new textures and new minerals.
Heat, pressure, and chemically active fluids are the driving forces in metamorphism. Heat
may be created by increasing temperature with depth or by contiguous magmas. There are
two kinds of pressure: hydrostatic (uniform) pressure, which leads to a change in volume;
and directed (shear) pressure, which leads to a distortion of shape. Uniform pressure results
in the production of granular, non-oriented structures; directed pressure results in the production of parallel or banded structures. Uniform pressure affects the chemical equilibrium by
promoting a volume decrease, i.e. the formation of minerals of higher density. The action of
chemically active fluids is critical in metamorphism, since even when it does not add or subtract material from the rock, it promotes reaction by solution and redeposition. When it adds
or subtracts material, the process is called metasomatism. It is likely that some degree of
metasomatism accompanies metamorphism. Water is the principal chemically active fluid, and
it is aided by carbon dioxide, boric acid, hydrofluoric and hydrochloric acids as well as other
substances, often of magmatic origin.
Two major types of metamorphism are commonly recognized: thermal (contact) metamorphism, and regional metamorphism. Contact metamorphism is created around bodies of plutonic rocks. In this case, the temperature of metamorphism was determined mainly by proximity to the intrusive magma, which may also have given off chemically active fluids that
stimulated recrystallization of the country rock. Regional metamorphism, as the name
implies, is metamorphism developed over large regions, often over thousands of square kilometers in the root regions of fold mountains and in Precambrian terrain. (Table 2.1.-4.)

Table 2.1.-4. Geological classification of the most common metamorphic rocks.
Classification

Rock

Description

Principal Mineral Constituents

Contact

Hornfels

Micro-fine grained

Feldspar, Quartz, Mica

Regional

Quartzite
Marble
Gneiss
Slate
Phyllite
Schist
Felsic Gneiss

Fine grained
Fine to coarse grained
Medium - fine grained
Rock cleavage
Cleavage surfaces
Finely foliated
Coarsely foliated, banded

Quartz, Feldspar
Calcite or Dolomite
Feldspar, Hornblende
Kaolinite, Mica
Mica, Kaolinite

Argillaceous rock is mainly comprised of two types of shale: consolidated and cemented.
Both are normally closely bedded or laminated. The former is reasonably strong in a dry
state, but weak when wet; the latter tends to have intermediate strength under most conditions, but is easily deformed under pressure. The problems encountered when mining, tunneling or building foundations in this rock type are immediately apparent.

ROCK MASS DISCONTINUITIES
A rock mass is generally considered to be a linear elastic material in the absence of specific
information on rock mass discontinuities. Most rock formations are fractured to some extent;
where fracture planes represent non-continuous structural elements in an otherwise continuous medium. The stability of rock slopes and underground excavations are two areas of geotechnical engineering in which the effect of intact rock properties is perhaps less dominant
than the influence of rock mass discontinuities.
The structural mapping of rock formations consists of identifying the rock type, its distribution and degree of fracturing, and rating the predominant types of discontinuities. For practical use, this information must be accurately structured by geotechnical classification systems
specially designed for predicting rock mass behavior regarding structural stability and excavation performance in rock. (FIGURE 2.1.-3.)
Joint
Plane

The earth´s crust is made up of 95% igneous rock, 5% sedimentary rock and an insignificant
proportion of metamorphic rock. This does not, however, give a completely accurate
picture of the kind of rock likely to be encountered in engineering projects. It is assumed
that the earth’s crust is 30 - 50 km thick. Virtually all major projects take place within the
first few kilometers of the surface that contain the major part of sedimentary rocks. An engineer working on or near the surface must often contend with rock that is primarily sedimentary or metamorphosed. In addition, a high percentage of sedimentary rock is argillaceous,
while the majority of the rest is arenaceous or calcareous.

Intact
Rock

FIGURE 2.1.-3. Illustration of
typically fractured rock mass by a ´
single set of joints; and a simplified
geotechnical model consisting of
regularly spaced joints
of similar strength.

O
O

O

ƒ

Fractured Rock Mass

Geotechnical Interpretation

17


18


When two or more intersecting fracture sets are present in the rock mass, an equivalent or
mean fracture spacing based on the accumulated volumetric fracture plane area is:

µ = arcsin [ sin f • sin ( r - s ) ]

Omean = ( ·1 / Oset )-1 = ( · fracture area per m3 )-1 = [ m2 /m 3 ]-1
1
1
Omean = [ 1 + 0,5 + 0,5 ]-1 = 0,2m
1

2.2 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND ROCK BEHAVIOUR

In the NTH tunnel boring performance classification system, fracture types are grouped into
four classes based on fracture strength (aperture or openness, persistence, surface roughness
and waviness, and infilling material) :
- Systematically fractured rock mass characterized by:
- parallel-oriented joint sets (rated Sp)
- parallel-oriented fissure sets (rated St)
- foliation or bedding planes, or parting sets (rated St)
- Non-fractured rock mass (rated St 0)
- Marked single joints (rated ESP)
- Shear zones - evaluation of necessary ground support work rather than increased net exca
vation rates is required
The combination of fracture type or fracture strength rating, fracture set spacing and fracture
plane orientation to the tunnel axis forms the basis of the rock mass fracture factor ks. The
fracture factor ks for fissures and foliation planes is shown in FIGURE 2.1.-4.

IV

5 cm

4

3

III - IV

2
FIGURE 2.1.-4. Fracture

factor ks for full-face
tunnel boring performance
prediction as a function
of fissure class rating, angle
a and the mean spacing
between weakness planes.

III

36
0°

20°

40°

60°

10 cm

II
I
O

1

rate (unless the operator changes the set-point values) but results in reduced mean tool
forces when excavating increasingly fractured rock.

20 cm
40 cm

80°

TBM advance rates are more or less proportional to the fracture factor ks. However, unlike
full-face tunnel boring machines, partial face cutting machines, like the TM60, are typically
equipped with a profile cutting control system which maintains the tool depth of cut at a
preset value. Thus the degree of rock mass fracturing does not affect the TM60’s net cutting

Rock strength, or rock resistance to failure under load, is a mechanical rock property mainly
dependent on the nature of the rock itself. Rock cuttability, on the other hand, depends not
only on the rock, but also on the working conditions as well as the cutting process (depth of
cut, tool size, cutting speed, axial force, presence and extent of wetting, etc.). Therefore, the
environment for rating rock cuttability/drillability is continuously changing as rock excavation methods improve.
Systems for rating rock cuttability and drillability for specific cutting/drilling methods (such
as percussive drilling, rotary drilling, drag-tool and roller-disk cutting etc.) have been developed resulting in separate rating systems for each method. The rating systems are not directly connected, making it difficult to compare different cutting/drilling methods. Additionally,
they tend to be outdated as cutting/drilling technologies develop.
A variety of apparatus and procedures has been developed for measuring mechanical rock properties. This has simplified the study of cutting/drilling processes including the effects various
mechanical rock properties and other factors have on rock cutting/drilling performance.
Mechanical rock properties may be grouped as follows:
1. Strength
- Resistance to (bulk) failure under elementary stresses such as compression, tension or
shear
- Effect of confining pressure, temperature, strain rates, pore- fluid pressure, specimen
size, etc. on strength properties
2. Deformability
- Resistance to change of shape or volume
- Elastic and thermal expansion constants
3. Hardness
- Resistance to a local (surface) failure by indentation or scratching
4. Fracture toughness
- Resistance to fracture propagation
5. Coefficients of friction
- Resistance to sliding of two bodies with planar surfaces in contact
6. Crushability and millability
- Resistance to comminution (reduction of a substance to a powder)

19


20


7. “Extractability”
- Resistance to fragmentation and disruption by different extraction processes such as
rock cuttability, drillability, blastability, loadability of blast- rock and pumpability of
cuttings under certain “idealized” or standard operating conditions

for performance prediction purposes. These methods can be divided into the following
groups:

8. Abrasivity
- Ability of rock to induce wear on mechanical tools and apparatus

ROCK MASS
CHARACTERISATION

Most physical tests involve tabulation of a series of readings and calculation of an average
which represents the whole.
The question arises as to how representative this average is as the measure of the characteristic under investigation. Three important factors challenge the result:
- Instrumentation and procedural errors
- Variations in the rock specimens being tested
- Representability of selected rock specimens for the rock formation or zone under investigation as a whole
The largest source of error when determining mechanical rock properties for rock formations
or zones is without a doubt the representability of the selected rock specimens.

2.3. RATING ROCK MASS CUTTABILITY AND DRILLABILITY
While the geological classification of rocks based on origin, mineral content and geological
structure is generally useful for indicating certain strength parameters and trends, such classification provides little information to the engineer designing in or excavating rock. The
engineer requires a functional geomechanical classification of rock mass properties for use as
design and performance prediction criteria.

INTACT ROCK

DISCONTINUITIES

STRESS

Mineral constituents
principal
auxiliary
accessory

Orientation
strike, dip and direction
of advance

Initial stress
Stress around openings

Frequency, Spacing

Groundwater, gas

Persistence

Seismic activity

Lithology
grain size and shape
texture and cementation
anisotropy
pores and micro-fractures
weathering and alteration
Mechanical rock properties
strength
deformability
hardness
fracture toughness
abrasivity
....

Surface properties
roughness and coatings
Aperture, Openness
Infilling material
Genesis
bedding
joints
foliation
schisosity and banding
faults
shears

The following test methods for rating rock mass cuttability and drillability for performance
prediction purposes is valid for the listed rock cutting tools:
-

Roller-disk and studded roller-disk cutters
Rotary tricone bits
Drag tools
Percussive drilling bits

Rock mass cuttability and drillability is, in its simplest form, defined as a factor proportional
to net cutting or net penetration rates, or specific cutting/drilling energy. However, specific
energy is closely linked to the apparatus or drilling equipment with which it was determined.
Another, and perhaps more precise, definition for rock cuttability is rock resistance to tool
indentation for a unit depth of cut, such as the critical normal force Fn1 in roller-disk cutting, or K1 for percussive drilling.
Today, several empirical test methods are used for rating rock mass cuttability and drillability

GEOMECHANICAL
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
FOR ROCK EXCAVATION

Cuttability/Drillability
Blastability
Blast-Rock Loadability/Pumpability of Cuttings
Blast-Rock Assessment as Construction Material
Crushability/Millability
Tool Life Indices
Ground Support

FIGURE 2.2.-1. Relationship between rock mass characterization

and geomechanical classification systems for rock excavation.

1. Compiled historic performance data (generally
net cutting or net penetration rates) for a given
cutting/drilling equipment and tool combination by referencing net
penetration rates to
results obtained in a
standard rock type as a
means of rating rock
cuttability and drillability. The most commonly
used standard rock types
are:
- Barre Granite from
Vermont, USA
- Dresser Basalt from
Wisconsin, USA
- Myllypuro Granodiorite
from Tampere, Finland
2. Compiled historic performance data including
the utilized power levels
for a given cutting/
drilling equipment and
tool combination by correlating the specific cutting energy to mechanical properties of rock as
a means of rating rock
cuttability/drillability.
The most commonly used
mechanical rock properties are:

21


22


- Uniaxial compressive strength, UCS
- Brazilian tensile strength, BTS
- Point load index, Is
3. Stamp tests based on impact loading and crushing of a confined solid or aggregated specimen of intact rock. Due to the impact loading and crushing nature of stamp tests - they represent the relative energy required to break a given rock volume; thus allowing for the cutting/drilling performance or specific energy in the field to be related to stamp test indice
values.
The most commonly used stamp tests for rating drillability are:
- Drilling Rate Index, DRI
- Protodyakonov Rock Hardness, ƒ
- Rock Impact Hardness Number, RIHN
Performance prediction models based on rock cuttability/drillability indices often include the
effects of porosity and rock mass discontinuities by incorporating correction factors or modifiers for these rock mass characteristics using back analysis of experimental field performance
data.
4. Laboratory linear cutting tests for roller-disk and drag-tool
cutting for rating rock cuttability. In addition, cutterhead force prediction as a function of
net cutting rates in non-fractured rock mass conditions can be made using analytical models
by combining linear cutting test results with cutterhead lacing designs. Refer to Chapter 3.7.
5. Numerical simulation with finite element and particle flow codes. Rock loading by rollerdisk cutters causes macro-fractures to initiate from the corners of the tool rim, and to propagate sideways and upwards in curved trajectories. Preliminary results also indicate that a
small shear load of approx. one tenth the normal force significantly modifies the stresses in
the rock around the tool path. More importantly, in kerf cutting, tensile stresses may develop
from the adjacent kerf; hence it is possible for macro-fracture propagation to occur from an
adjacent kerf as well as from the kerf currently being cut.
6. Analytical analysis and simulation of stress wave propagation combined with bit indentation
tests (static or dynamic K1 values) to incorporate the dynamic nature of rock loading and bit
indentation encountered in percussive drilling. An example of this method is the CASE
program developed by Sandvik Mining and Construction.

INDENTATION ROCK CUTTING
When elastic deformation leads to failure, the material loses cohesion by developing a fracture or fractures across which the continuity of the material is broken. This type of behaviour
is called brittle behavior and governs the development of faults, joints and macro-fractures.
Ductile behavior, in contrast, produces permanent strain that exhibits smooth variations

across the deformed rock without any marked discontinuities. Most rock materials are capable
of exhibiting either brittle or ductile behavior depending on factors such as the size of differential stress, confining pressure, temperature, strain rate and pore-fluid pressure. Brittle
failure is typical of rocks at
low confining pressure and
low temperature. Pore-fluid
Fn
The indentation force Fn
is proportional to the
pressure has the effect of
tool tip contact area
reducing the shear stress
required for slip, for example,
it reduces the shear strength
of the rock since the direct
pressure between adjoining
grains caused by the confinApprox. the same amount of
ing pressure is countered by
energy is required to form a
shallow or a deep chip
loosening macro-fracture
the effect of the pore-fluid
pressure.Most mechanical
Tool indentation depth,
tools break rock by indenting DOC
the surface. Rock crushing,
Central macro-fractures
initiated by tool onloading and
Chip loosening macromacro-fracture propagation
originating from tool rim edges
fractures initiated by tool
off-loading; resulting in
and chip formation occur
large chips loosening from
behind the roller disk
under a loaded indentation
tool, but the sequence, relationship and amount of each
is largely unexplored. Thus
Fn
the parameters controlling
rock cuttability or rock resistance to tool indentation can
not be readily related to any
single mechanical rock property since the indentation
Fr
process (FIGURE 2.3.-1) is a
combination of the following
failure modes:
Tool path

- Initial tool indentation of
rock surface with crushing
and compacting of rock
material under the tool tip
- Development of macrofracture propagation
patterns resulting in rock
chip formation, chip
loosening and stress release

3.

2.

1.

Adjacent kerf

1.
2.
3.

Extent of macro-fracture growth from the 1st tool passing
Extent of macro-fracture growth from the 2nd tool passing
Macro-fracture growth completed; resulting in chip
loosening after the 3rd tool passing

FIGURE 2.3.-1. Roller disk indentation on a rock surface with
crushing under the tool tip produced macro-fracture growth patterns,
and consequent stages of chip formation, chip loosening and stress
release in multiple-tool pass cutting.

23


24


- Multiple pass cutting if chip loosening does not occur for every tool pass or load cycle
- Efficient chip and fines removal so as to avoid recutting and recompacting of broken
material in the tool path.
Rock cutting or drilling is therefore the art of maximizing chip formation and rock material
removal as cuttings. It is not the development of extensive macro-fracture propagation patterns under a tool. The influence of rock mass discontinuities on rock mass cuttability is generally on a larger scale than one individual tool. It typically affects several tools simultaneously and the cutting performance of the cutterhead as a whole.

test (FIGURE 2.3.-3). The hole depth in the rock sample is measured after 200 revolutions in
1/10 mm. A mean value of four - eight test holes is used.
The orientation of the rock specimen can affect test results. Therefore, the SJ value is always
measured for holes parallel to rock foliation. In coarse grained rocks, care must be taken to
ensure that a representative number of holes is drilled in the different mineral grain types.
The drilling rate index (DRI) is determined by the diagram shown in FIGURE 2.3.-4. The DRI
can also be seen as the brittleness value corrected for its SJ value.
A qualitative DRI drillability rating scale is shown in the following table.

EVALUATION OF CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR ROCK MASS
CUTTABILITY AND DRILLABILITY
The Drilling Rate Index DRI, developed by R. Lien in 1961, is a combination of the intact rock
specimen brittleness value S20 and Sievers miniature drill-test value SJ. The SJ miniature
drill test is an indirect measure of rock resistance to tool indentation (surface hardness); the
brittleness value, S20, is an indirect measure of rock resistance to crack growth and crushing.
S20 is determined by the Swedish Stamp Test (FIGURE 2.3.-2).
The rock aggregate is placed in a mortar and then struck 20 times with a 14-kg hammer. The
mortar aggregate volume corresponds to that of a 0.5 kg aggregate with a density of 2.6 5
tons/m3 in the fraction 11.2 - 16.0 mm.
S20 equals the percentage of undersized material that passes through a 11.2 mm mesh after
the droptest. S20 is presented as a mean value of three or four parallel tests.
The second DRI parameter is the SJ value. The SJ value is obtained from a miniature drill

Table 2.3.-1

Rating
Extremely low
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Extremely high

DRI
21
28
37
49
65
86
114

Table 2.3.-1 presents typical DRI values for various rock types and is used for general DRI

estimates. When increased accuracy is required to determine rock drillabilitiy, S20 and SJ
testing is performed.

FIGURE 2.3.-2. Measuring rock

brittleness by the stamp test.

FIGURE 2.3.-4. Diagram used to determine
FIGURE 2.3.-3. Sievers miniature drill test.

the drilling rate index, DRI.

25


26

Rocktype
Graywacke
Hematite ores
Hornfels
Limestone
Marble
Magnetite ores
Meta-Peridoties
Mica gneiss
Mica schist
Nickel ores
Norite
Olivine basalt
Pegmatite
Phyllite
Porphyrite
Quartzite
Rhyolite
Sandstone
Siltstone
Skarn
Sphalerite ores
Syenite
Tonalite
Tuff
Tuffites
TAMROCK**
Granodiorite

DRI
25...65
25...85
30...50
30...100
40...110
15...50
40...105
25...75
25...85
40...80
20...30
20...60
40...80
35...75
30...80
25...80
30...65
15...90
30...145
20...70
90...105
30...80
30...70
30...80
35...145
43...49

* Two rock samples only; coal is too brittle for the stamp test.
** Typical value for the TAMROCK test mine in Myllypuro.

A relationship between the unconfined, or uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and the DRI
has been established for 80 parallel tests (FIGURE 2.3.-5.) by grouping scattered plotted values according to rock type. Envelope curves clearly illustrate that when the uniaxial compressive strength is used for rating rock cuttability / drillability - the following should be noted:
- Cuttability of foliated and schistose (anisotropic) rock types such as phyllite, micaschist,
micagneiss and greenschist generally tend to be underestimated
- Cuttability of hard, brittle rock types such as quartzite generally tend to be somewhat
over-estimated

(
300

200

Greenstone

100

300

200

Limestone
100
Marble

Greenschist
Calcerous Shale
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

20

100

30

40

50

60

300

200

Coarse
grained
Granite

Micagneiss

Medium grained Granite

100

70

90

100

300
Quartzite

200
Sandstone

100

Micaschist

Phyllite

80

Drilling Rate Index, DRI

Compressive Strength, UCS (MPa)

DRI
30...80
85...115
30...50
15...75
29...75
30...70
20...75
40...70
40...90
110...120
115
25...75
30...90
70...125
30...50
25...65
40...55
25...40
30...65
25...75
30...80
25...80
30...55
20...45
40...70
20...75

g ,

Rock type
Andesite
Anhydrite
Anorthosite
Amphibolite
Arkosite
Augen Gneiss
Basalt
Black Shale, Alum
Claystone, Slate
Coal *
Concrete, C30
Conglomerate
Copper ores
Chromite
Diabase, Dolerite
Diorite
Dolomite
Epidotite
Gabbro
Gneiss
Granite
Granite, Gneiss
Granodiorite
Granulite, Leptite
Green schist
Greenstone

p

Table 2.3.-1. Typical range of DRI values for some common rock types.

Compressive Strength, UCS (MPa)

)


Siltstone

Shale
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


FIGURE 2.3.-5. Relationship between the DRI and UCS for some common rock types.

In performance prediction models based on UCS-rated rock cuttability, correction factors or
modifiers for rock type are commonly used to incorporate the effect of rock “toughness”.
The SJ value represents the aggregate rock surface hardness.
A useful correlation between SJ and the Vickers Hardness Number Rock (VHNR) for determining the degree of rock weathering is shown in FIGURE 2.3.-6. (typical VHN values for minerals are shown in Table 2.4.-2.). The S20 value represents rock brittleness, which comprises
grain size and grain bonding strength. Unfortunately, rock porosity has very little effect on
the brittleness value. Field performance follow-up in vesicular basalt indicates that 3 - 12%
porosity has a considerable effect on both the critical normal force, Fn1, and net penetration
rates for TBMs, and in addition the degree of rock fragmentation caused by blasting.
The brittleness value, S20, when combined with the stamped rock specimen flakiness value ƒ,
is commonly used for assessing blast-rock suitability for road and highway construction purposes, and as crushed aggregates in asphalt and concrete.

27


28

29

Sievers J Value, SJ


1000
900
800
700
600
500

Table 2.3.-2. Protodyakonov classification of rock hardness.
Category Hardness Level

I

20

II

Very hard

Very hard granitic rocks, quartz porphyry,
siliceous schist, weaker quartzites.
Hardest sandstone and limestone.

15

Hard

Granite (dense) and granitic rocks. Very hard
sandstones and limestones. Quartz veins.
Hard conglomerate. Very hard iron ore.

10

Hard

Limestones (hard). Weaker granites. Hard
sandstones, marble, dolomites and pyrites.

8

IV

Rather
hard

Ordinary sandstone. Iron ore.

6

IVa

Rather
hard

Sandy schists. Schistose sandstones.

5

V

Moderate

Hard shale. Non-hard sandstones
and limestones. Soft conglomerates.

4

Va

Moderate

Various schists (non-hard). Dense marl.

3

VI

Rather
soft

Soft schists. Very soft limestones, chalk,
rock-salt, gypsum. Frozen soil, anthracite.
Ordinary marl. Weathered sandstones,
cemented shingle and gravel, rocky soil.

2

VIa

Rather
soft

Detritus soil. Weathered schists,
compressed shingle and detritus,
hard bituminous coal, hardened clay.

1.5

VII

Soft

Clay (dense). Soft bituminous coal,
hard alluvium, clayey soil.

1.0

VIIa

Rock with "zero" grain
bonding

The hardest, toughest and most
dense quartzites and basalts.

IIIa

300

Highest

III

400

Description of Rock

Soft

Soft sandy clay, loess, gravel.

0.8

VIII

Earthy

Vegetable earth, peat, soft loam,
damp sand.

0.6

IX

Dry
Substances

Sand, talus, soft gravel, piled up earth,
substances extracted coal.

0.5

X

Flowing

Shifting sands, swampy soil, rare-fractioned
loess and other rare-fractioned soils.

0.3

200

100
90
80
70
60

Weathered rock

50
40
30

20

10
9
8
7

Non-weathered rock

6
5
4
3

2

1
100

200

300 400 500

700

1000

1500

FIGURE 2.3.-6. Relationship between
Vickers Hardness Number Rock (VHNR) and
Sievers J value for some common rock types.

A comparative scale for rock resistance to breakage is the stamp test and rock hardness ratio
ƒ, which was developed by M.M. Protodyakonov Sr. in 1926. This scale is primarily used in
Russia for assessing both rock drillability and blastability. Protodyakonov established the following relationship between the relative rock hardness scale and the uniaxial compressive
strength:
ƒ = 0.1 x UCS
Unfortunately the Protodyakonov rock hardness scale, (Table 2.3.-2), does not differentiate
between the hardness of rocks beyond 200 MPa.

Rock Hardness ƒ


30


2.4 ROCK ABRASIVITY - TOOL SERVICE LIFE

-

WEAR CLASSIFICATION
Tool wear can be defined
as the microscopic or
macroscopic removal or
fracture of material from
the working surface of a
tool or wearflat by
mechanical means. In
other words, any degradation that reduces tool life.
Wear classification is
based on the relative
movement between the
materials on contact,
including sliding, rolling,
oscillation, impact and
erosive wear. Generally,
the kind of tool wear
encountered in rock cutting is a combination of
various types of wear.
Some types of wear are
more predominant than
others. Wear types are
influenced by several parameters, many of which are
interdependent, such as
hardness and fracture
toughness of wear materials, contact mo-tion (for
example, sliding, im-pact),
wearflat temperature and
contact stresses.
Tool wear is, therefore, a
process in which the outcome is determined by the
material properties of the
tool tip, rock mass, and
force-related interactions
on the contact surfaces of

these materials. The wear capacity of a rock mass, (FIGURE

-

2.4.-1)

is a combination of:

Mineral constituents, including size and hardness of mineral grains
Strength and toughness of intact rock
Tool depth of cut and cutting speed
Occurrence of impact loading of tools (cutterhead bouncing, i.e. cutting in broken rock
and mixed face conditions or through shears)
Cutting type or contact motion in question (impacting, scraping, rolling, grinding, etc.)
Presence of coolants at the tool tip/rock interface
Efficient cuttings and fines removal
Strength, wear resistance and quality of the cutting tool

Various indices for tool life and wear rates are typically used for measuring the rock’s wear
capacity. The established relationships are mainly based on the correlation of historic field
performance data for predicting tool wear in the field. However, when new laboratory methods are developed, relevant field data is often not available. Consequently, relationships
between new and old tool life and wear rate indices are often established so that previously
reported field data can be used indirectly.

CLASSIFICATION OF WEAR MECHANISMS
The importance of wear mechanisms for cemented carbides may be classified according to
scale of damage they cause, for example, macroscopic and microscopic failure.

MACROSCOPIC FRACTURE AND STRUCTURAL FAILURE
Cemented carbides comprise a range of composite materials with hard carbide particles bonded together by a metallic binder. The proportion of carbide phase is generally between 70 97% of the total composite weight. Its grain size averages between 0.4 - 14µm. Tungsten
carbide (WC), the hard phase, together with cobalt (Co), the binder phase, forms the basic
cemented carbide structure from which other types of cemented carbide are developed. In
addition to straight tungsten carbide-cobalt compositions, cemented carbide may contain
various proportions of titanium carbide (TiC), tantalum carbide (TaC) and niobium carbide
(NbC). Cemented carbides, which have the cobalt binder alloyed with or completely replaced
by other metals such as iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), molybdenum (Mo) or alloys of
these elements, are also produced.

FIGURE 2.4.-1. Characterization of rock cutting tool degradation
and tool service life.

Structural overload and fatigue refer to the macroscopic failure or degradation of the tool tip
material structure caused by stresses induced in the bulk of the wear material. Voids and
flaws in materials serve as fracture-initiation sites due to stress concentrations at these
sites. In cemented carbides, such voids or defects can result from inherent porosity caused
by incomplete densification during the sintering process. They can also form during service
as a result of the stress history of the tool. In the presence of shear stresses, such as those

31


32


Toughness is defined and determined in many ways. Modern fracture mechanics provides a
means of explaining toughness as it deals with the conditions of micro-crack initiation and
growth in non-homogeneous materials under stress and where the material’s fracture toughness
is represented by the critical stress intensity factor KIC . An indirect method commonly used
for determining the toughness of cemented carbides is the Palmqvist method, in which the
sum of corner crack lengths for a Vickers hardness indentation is used to derive the fracture
toughness. The critical stress intensity factor for cemented carbides can be expressed as:
KIC = 6.2 x ( HV50 / · L )

1/2

[ MN/m

3/2

]

Toughness tests on cemented carbides show that the critical stress intensity factor increases
with Co content and WC grain size. The range for critical stress intensity factors for the
following materials is:
Cemented carbides
Intact rock specimens

KIC = 5 - 30 MN/m 3/2
KIC = 0.05 - 3 MN/m 3/2

Fracture toughness is substantially reduced at elevated temperatures. Due to the reduced
fracture toughness with temperature, cemented carbides may exhibit a decrease in strength
during cyclic loading at elevated temperatures. (FIGURE 2.4.-2.)

L1

abrasive wear preserves greater visual evidence of thermal cracks. These cracks penetrate
deeply into the bulk of the material, run in an intergranular fashion, and branch readily.
Fractures intersect, removing large flakes of material and forming relatively steep angular
craters. Once this process has started, the tool rapidly becomes useless for rock cutting.
Wear resistance (a surface property) and toughness (a bulk property) are two complex properties, both of which provide a material the ability to withstand destruction. High wear resistance for cemented carbides can only be achieved if the demand for high toughness is
reduced and vice versa. However, both high wear resistance and high toughness can be
achieved simultaneously, provided these properties can be re-distributed. There are two ways
of doing this: Dual Property (DP) cemented carbides, or coatings of highly wear resistant
materials such as polycrystalline diamond (PCD) on a cemented carbide substrate.
In an ideal case, tool life and tool wear rates are inversely proportional. However, a tool’s
service life is also determined by structural overloading, and the interval and rate of catastrophic tool failures. The generalized distribution curve in FIGURE 2.4.-3
100 %
Distribution Curve for Drag Tool
Replacements from Cutterheads

caused by friction at a wearflat, microscopic voids can nucleate at WC grain boundaries due
to the separation of WC grains from the Co binder and other WC grains.

Carbide Insert Wear

Carbide Insert and
Brazing Failures

L4

0%

FIGURE 2.4.-3. Generalized

distribution curve identifying the
main reasons for drag tool replacements on cutterheads in service as
a function of rock strength.

Rock Strength
L2
L3

FIGURE 2.4.-2. Illustration of Vickers pyramidal indentation
impression and resulting corner cracks used in the Palmqvist
method for determining the critical stress intensity factor KIC for
cemented carbides.

Cemented carbides are classified as brittle materials because practically no plastic deformation precedes fracture. However, cemented carbides show large variations in toughness
behavior due to their microstructure. The types of fracture seen are cleavage fractures in carbide grains, grain boundary fractures between carbide grains and shear fractures in the
binder. Generally, the amount of cleavage fractures increases with increased grain size and
the amount shear fractures with increased binder content. Expressed as fracture energy, the
major contribution is from the latter, for example, the crack propagation through the binder.
Thermal fatigue of cemented carbides is most noticeable in non-abrasive rocks since the low

for drag tool replacements on a cutterhead in service illustrates the increased sensitivity to
tool impact failures in harder rock formations as well as the detrimental effect of increased
tool loading required to cut harder rock. However, conical drag tools are not as sensitive to
catastrophic failures as radial drag tools.
Catastrophic tool failure caused by impact loading is typically a result of both tool and cutterhead bouncing which occurs for an unfortunate combination of rock mass structure, cutterhead lacing design, and selected rotary speed. The impact force on the tool is caused by
the striking action as it re-enters the kerf or harder portions of the rock structure. This leads
to progressive tool tip chipping and ultimately catastrophic failure of carbide inserts and disk
rims. For single-rowed carbide insert studded disks, a ripple breakage effect of the studs is
often experienced. Some typical examples of rock structure leading to reduced tool life are:

33


34


- Fractured rock mass resulting in rock fallout and voids in the face
- Variable rock structure hardness or mixed face conditions
The severity of tool damage caused by impact loading is increased by the hardness ratio for
mixed face conditions, for example VHNRmineral-2 / VHNRmineral-1 (as illustrated in
FIGURE 2.4.-4).

micro-ploughing

micro-cutting

abrasive grain

mica and chlorite

Banded rocks

quartz and feldspars

phyllites, mica schists and mica gneiss

micro-fatigue

Rubble type rocks
backfills, breccias and conglomerates

hard aggregates of
igneous rock

weak host rock of shale

Intrusive rocks
sills, dykes and stringers

micro-cracking

weak matrix of low
strength concrete

hard intrusions of igneous
rock

FIGURE 2.4.-4. Variable rock structure hardness or mixed face conditions which typically lead to impact loading
and shattering of drag tools in particular.

FIGURE 2.4.-5. The four basic types of material failure for abrasive wear.

One of the main properties of metallic materials required to resist abrasive wear is surface
hardness. Studies of tool wear rates show that abrasive wear mechanisms is a function of the
relative hardness of materials with sliding contact. It has been established that one material
will scratch another provided the difference between the respective surface hardnesses is
greater than ~20%.
Abrasive wear can be divided into two categories: Soft and hard abrasive wear.
Soft abrasive wear Hrock / Htool < 1.2

MICROSCOPIC FRACTURE AND WEAR MECHANISMS
Tool wear on the microscopic scale is the result of four basic wear mechanisms: Surface
fatigue, tribochemical reaction, adhesive and abrasive wear. Plastic deformation as such is
generally not regarded as a wear mechanism, but plays an important part in many wear
processes. Abrasive and adhesive wear mechanisms dominate the tool wear process during of
cutting rocks that contain minerals harder than the tool tip itself. Surface fatigue wear
mechanisms only play a role if the wear rates are low, thereby giving necessary time for
these processes to take place.

ABRASIVE AND ADHESIVE WEAR
Abrasive and adhesive wear mechanisms are the primary cause of the total wear encountered
by tools sliding across abrasive rock surfaces. Wear caused by sliding abrasion is divided into
four basic material failure types: Micro-ploughing, micro-cutting, micro-fatigue and microcracking (FIGURE 2.4.-5).

Wear rates are relatively low and do not greatly depend on the actual hardness ratio. Soft
abrasive wear in cemented carbides occurs when the abrasive particles (e.g. quartz at room
temperature) which are softer than WC grains yet harder than the Co binder, preferentially
remove the Co binder, leaving the WC particles free to be dislodged from the structure. In the
absence of thermal effect, soft abrasive wear rates are relatively low.
Hard abrasive wear

Hrock / Htool > 1.2

Wear rates increase significantly and become very sensitive to the hardness ratio. Hard abrasive wear in cemented carbides occurs when the abrasive particles harder than WC grains strike the composite and fracture WC grains on impact. This action causes a large degree of
plastic deformation as the particles cut grooves or craters into the wearflat surface, resulting
in voids and residual stresses that lead to additional fragmentation of WC grains.
(FIGURE 2.4.-6.)

35


36


Silicates typically cause most of the abrasive wear on rock cutting tools. A range of typical
room-temperature Vickers hardness values for some selected materials are:
Feldspars
Quartz
Cast iron and steels
WC-Co mining grades
Polycrystalline diamond, PCD

730 ... 800 kgf/mm 2
1,060 kgf/mm 2
200 ... 750 kgf/mm 2
800 ... 1,700 kgf/mm 2
4500 ... 7,000 kgf/mm 2

homogeneous wear materials
e.g. hardened steels

hard abrasive

composite wear materials
e.g. cemented carbides
soft abrasive

FIGURE 2.4.-6. Abrasive tool

Wear Rate

Abrasive Wear Rate

•
•
•
•
•

rock and tool materials, and the mechanical response in hardness testing and wear systems.
Adhesive wear contributes to the total wear when the wearflat temperature and contact
stress are high enough to weaken the tool tip material so that the cutting tool becomes
worn by hard abrasives. The ability to retain hardness at high temperatures, or hot hardness,
is one function of the WC-Co composite structure. WC grain hardness is not appreciably
affected by temperatures reached during normal cutting operations. Critical hardness loss
results when the Co binder absorbs sufficient heat to transform it into the plastic range
where deformation and creep of WC-Co composites readily occurs. Sintered cobalt within
cemented carbides melts at approx. 1,350°C. Bearing this in mind and due to the presence of
asperities, localized peak contact temperatures may be as high as 2,000°C. (FIGURE 2.4.-7.)

adhesive wear
mechanisms

wear rates as a function of the relative hardness ratio, Hrock / Htool of
the materials in contact. Refer also
to Figure 2.4.-9.
1.2
Hardness Ratio, Hrock / Htool

abrasive wear
mechanisms

FIGURE 2.4.-7. Typical trend of tool
wear rates for sliding motion contact as a
function of tool cutting velocity.
Vcritical

Both rock and tool tip materials are often non-homogeneous in hardness testing and may
consist of several components of varying hardness. The “aggregate surface hardness” of rock
and wear materials is the mean value based on the hardness of their components. However,
some components influence aggregate hardness more than others:
- Carbides in steel, for example, have a significant effect on the wear resistance of steel cutting tools, but do not influence the overall composite material hardness since they are too
small to be significant for the Vickers microindentation hardness.
- Quartz would be considered a soft abrasive relative to WC-Co composites. Yet rock cutting
tool wear in quartzitic rock occurs rapidly consistent with that produced by hard abrasives.
This behavior suggests that thermal effects are important. With increasing temperature, the
hardness of the wearflat drops more rapidly than that of quartz, therefore increasing the
Hrock /Htool ratio. Quartz particles may not attain the same temperature rise as the tool tip
due to the limited period of time that individual quartz particles are subjected to frictional
heating.
Thus, relative hardness between tool tip materials and rock mineral grains is insufficient to
describe their behavior in a wear system. This is partly true due to the different nature of

Tool Velocity

For wearflat temperatures below a threshold limit, WC-Co composites in rock cutting experience in wear produced by soft abrasives; while at higher temperatures wear is accelerated
and occurs by mechanisms associated with hard abrasives and adhesion.
The temperature at which tool tip materials first start to weaken is called the critical temperature, Tcritical, and the corresponding tool cutting velocity, vcritical. Critical velocity is affected by several factors such as tool tip geometry, tool tip material properties (especially WC
grain size since coarse WC grains improve thermal conductivity and thus enhance the transfer
of heat away from the wearflat), use of waterjets for cooling and rock wear capacity
(FIGURE 2.4.-8.).

37


38


WC-Co wear
resistance

High

Moderate

Low

Extremely
Low

Predominant
wear
mechanisms

Soft Abrasive

Hard Abrasive

Adhesive

Tribochemical
reaction

Hrock / Htool < 1.2

- Tool indentation depth (defines both the tool/rock contact area, i.e. where wear takes
place and which abrasive wear mode predominates)
- Effect of rock cutting mode (relieved/unrelieved cutting) on tool force levels

Hrock / Htool > 1.2

WC-Co
behaviour

* Co binder
* deformation
worn away;
hardening of
followed by loss
wearflat,
of WC grains
followed by
rupture of WC
grains
* occurrence of
surface fatigue
wear
mechanisms

Tool service conditions
- Actual cutting velocity relative to the critical velocity vcritical for the selected tool tip
material
- Presence of tool tip cooling (waterjets etc.)
- Cut length per revolution for drag tools
- Occurrence of structural overloading of tools and cutterhead bouncing
- General handling of tools during transport, tool change, etc.

* plastic
* hot-hardness
deformation and
reduction of
creep
wearflat
resulting in low
surface layer
* Co binder flow
wear resistance followed by Co
depletion in
wearflat
* oxidation of
WC-Co
accelerates

Wearflat
temperature
(or corresponding
cutting velocity)

~ 350° C

~ 500° C
Tcritical

~ 700° C

FIGURE 2.4.-8.
Generalized summary of the
behaviourand wear resistance
of cemented carbides as
a function of temperature.

The most common laboratory methods used for determining the wear capacity of rock specimens are:
- (Rosiwal Mineral Abrasivity Rating)
- Wear Index F
- CERCHAR Abrasivity Index, CAI
- Vickers Hardness Number Rock, VHNR
- Cutter Life Index, CLI (a combination of the Abrasion Value, AV and Sievers miniature
drill-test value, SJ)
- Hardgrove Grindability Index

METHODS FOR RATING WEAR CAPACITY OF A ROCK MASS

ROSIWAL MINERAL ABRASIVITY RATING

Parameters for characterizing and quantifying properties of intact rock specimens can be
divided into two groups:

A relative mineral abrasivity rating based on grinding tests was introduced in 1916, by A.
Rosiwal in which the mineral specimen volume loss relative to corundum was used as an
abrasivity rating:

1. Physical rock properties such as grain size, density and porosity. These parameters describe
insintric rock properties, which are inherent only to the rock itself.
2. Mechanical rock properties such as strength, deformability, hardness, toughness, wear
capacity etc. These properties are influenced by the test method.

Rosiwal = 1000 • volume loss corundum / volume loss mineral specimen

Tool consumption depends on the following wear process parameters:

WEAR INDEX F FOR DRAG-TOOL CUTTING

Tool tip material
- Carbide grade wear resistance to thermal and surface fatigue
- Carbide grade resistance to catastrophic failure due to structural overload, thermal shock
and shattering
- Carbide insert size, shape and arrangement of attachment to tool holder

The wear index F, proposed by J. Schimazek and H. Knatz in 1970, was the result of pin-ondisk wear tests on carboniferous rock from the coal mining districts in Germany. The Wear
Index F is linearly related to pin wear rates; and increases with relative mineral abrasivity,
mean quartz grain size and tensile strength of the rock specimen, i.e.
F
= Q • D • Z •10 -2

Kerf profile
- Fragment size and strength of kerf rock powder (both dependent on mineral grain surface
hardness)

Q
D
Z

Typical Rosiwal abrasivity ratings for some common non-weathered minerals that do not contain impurities are listed in Table 2.4.-2.

= Equivalent quartz percentage [ % ]
= Mean quartz grain size
[ mm ]
= Brazilian tensile strength
[ MPa ]

39


40


The equivalent quartz percentage takes both the amount and relative mineral grain abrasivity
to quartz into consideration. The Rosiwal mineral abrasivity rating used by Schimazek and
Knatz for determining the equivalent quartz percentage is:
Carbonates
Mica, chlorite, clay
Feldspars
Quartz

Typical CERCHAR abrasivity ratings for some common non-weathered minerals that do not
contain impurities are listed in Table 2.4.-2.

3%
4%
30 - 33%
100%

The abrasiveness of a rock specimen is not necessarily the same as the aggregate abrasiveness of its mineral constituents; factors such as grain size and angularity, grain cementation
and degree of weathering all affect wear capacity of rock.

Determining the equivalent quartz percentage for a typical sandstone is exemplified in the
following table:
Mineral

Mineral Content (%)

Quartz
Feldspar
Carbonate
Mica, clay

63
9
3
25

= 63.0
= 3.0
= 0.1
= 1.0 => 67.1

= 0.6 + 3.32 • F

The wear index F has been successfully used in very fine-grained and porous sedimentary
rocks in Central Europe. Unfortunately, using the Wear Index F in coarse grained metamorphic
and igneous rocks leads to highly misleading results. The Wear Index F was consequently
modified by G. Ewendt in 1989.

CERCHAR* ABRASIVITY INDEX, CAI
* CERCHAR is an acronym for the Centre d´Etudes et Recherches des Charbonnages de France.
The CERCHAR scratch test for rating rock wear capacity was introduced in 1971. It is defined
as follows: A pointed steel pin with a cone angle of 90° is applied to the surface of a rock
specimen, for approx. one second under a static load of 7 kgf to scratch a 10mm long
groove. This procedure is repeated several times in various directions always using a fresh
steel pin. The abrasivity index is obtained by measuring the resulting steel pin wearflat
diameter d in millimeters using an average value of 3 - 6 scratch tests depending on the
variability of the individual scratch test results:
CAI

The CERCHAR Abrasivity Index scale ranges from 0 to 7. Typical ranges for some common rock
types are given in Table 2.4.-1.

Equivalent Quartz Percentage (%)

63 • 1.0
9 • 0.32
3 • 0.03
25 • 0.04

The relationship between the Wear Index F and the CERCHAR Abrasivity Index, CAI for the
Saar Coal District in Germany, has been established as:
CAI

abrasivity index as CAI 3. The pin steel is specified by CERCHAR only as having a strength of
200 kgf/mm2.

= 10 • · d wearflat / n

Steel pin volume loss is proportional to the pin wearflat diameter as d3, and therefore to the

Table 2.4.-1. CERCHAR Abrasivity Index CAI for some common rock types.

Rock Type

CAI

Igneous Rock
Basalt
Diabase
Andesite
Diorite/Syenite
Granite

1.7
3.8
1.8
3.0
3.7

Sedimentary Rock
Limestone
Sandstone 1)
Sandstone 2)

0.1 - 2.4
0.1 - 2.6
2.3 - 6.2

-

5.2
5.4
3.5
5.6
6.2

Metamorphic Rock
Phyllite
1.3 - 4.3
Mica schist and mica gneiss 1.8 - 5.0
Felsic gneiss
3.7 - 6.3
Amphibolite
2.8 - 3.7
Quartzite
4.8 - 7.3
1) with carbonate and/or clayey cementation of mineral grains
2) with SiO2 cementation of mineral grains
The following relationship between the CERCHAR Abrasivity Index, CAI and Vickers Hardness
Number Rock VHNR for non-weathered rocks has been established for CAI > 0.7 as:
CAI

= VHNR / 145

41


42


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

Test Load

Notation for Metal Testing

Hot hardness rating
Hardness rating
KIC determination

500gf
30kgf
50kgf

HV0.5
HV30
HV50

The rock matrix is typically non-homogeneous on the scale of testing and may consist of several minerals of widely varying individual grain hardnesses. The Vickers Hardness Number
Rock, VHNR or the “surface hardness” of the rock is an aggregate value based on the
weighted hardness values of its mineral constituents, i.e.

VHNR = · ( VHNj ( % mineralj / 100 )

[ kgf/mm2 ]

VHNR = Vickers Hardness Number Rock

[ kgf/mm2 ]

% mineralj = percentage content of mineral j
in rock specimen

[%]

VHNj = Vickers Hardness Number for mineral j

[ kgf/mm2 ]

Typical mean values for the Vickers (VHN) and Knoop Hardness Numbers, Rosiwal and
CERCHAR Abrasivity Indices for a selection of non-weathered rock-forming minerals without
impurities are listed in Table 2.4.-2.

Table 2.4.-2. Typical mean values for Vickers (VHN) and Knoop Hardness Numbers, Rosiwal and
CERCHAR Abrasivity Indices for a selection of non-weathered rock-forming minerals.
Mineral
Corundum
Quartz
Garnet
Olivine
Hematite
Pyrite
Plagioclase
Diopside
Magnetite
Orthoclase
Augite
Ilmenite
Hyperstene
Hornblende
Chromite
Apatite
Dolomite
Pyrrhotite
Fluorite
Pentlandite
Sphalerite
Chalcopyrite
Serpentine
Anhydrite
Calcite
Biotite
Galena
Chalcocite
Chlorite
Gypsum
Talc
Halite
Sylvite

Chemical Composition
Al2O3
SiO2
Fe-Mg-Al-Mn-Ca-Cr silicates
(Mg, Fe)2SiO4
Fe2O3
FeS2
(Na, Ca)(Al, Si)AlSi2O8
CaMgSi2O6
Fe3O4
KAlSi3O8
Ca(Mg, Fe, Al)(Al, Si)2O6
FeTiO3
(Mg, FE)SiO3
NaCa2(Mg,FE, Al)5(Al,SI)8O22(OH)2
(Mg, FE)Cr2O4
Ca5(PO4)3(F, Cl, OH)
CaMg(CO3 )2
Fe1-xS
CaF2
(Fe, Ni)9S8
(Zn, Fe)S
CuFeS2
Mg6Si4O10(OH)8
CaSO4
CaCO3
K(Mg, Fe)3(AlSi3O10 )(OH)2
PbS
Cu2S
(Mg, Fe, Al)6(Al, Si)4O10(OH)8
CaSO4•2H2O
Mg3Si4O10(OH)2
NaCl
KCl

Vickers
2300
1060
1060
980
925
800
800
800
730
730
640
625
600
600
600
550
365
310
265
220
200
195
175
160
125
110
85
65
50
50
20
17
10

Knoop
1700
790

Rosiwal
1000
141

CERCHAR
5.7

4.7
4.7

560

52

4.4

395

7.3

3.1
3.3

163

4.3

1.9

0.8
85

4.08

0.8

32
12

0.85
0.82

0.3
0

43


44


Table 2.4.-3. Vickers Hardness Number Rock ( VHNR) for some common rock types.
Rock type
Amphibolite
Andesite
Anortosite
Basalt
Black shale
Chromite
Copper ores
Diabase/dolerite
Diorite
Epidotite
Gabbro
Gneiss
Granite/
Granite gneiss
Granodiorite
Granulite/leptite
Green schist
Greenstone
Hornfels
Limestone

VHNR
500...750
550...775
600...800
450...750
300...525
400...610
350...775
525...825
525...775
800...850
525...775
650...925

Rock type
Marble
Metadiabase
Metagabbro
Micagneiss
Micaschist
Nickel ores
Norite
Porphyrite
Pyrite ores
Phyllite
Quartzite
Rhyolite

VHNR
125...250
500...750
450...775
500...825
375...750
300...550
575...725
550...850
500...1450
400...700
900...1060
775...925

725...925
725...925
725...925
625...750
525...625
600...825
125...350

Sandstone
Serpentinite
Shale and silstone
Skarn
Sphalite ores
Tonalite
Tuffite

550...1060
100...300
200...750
450...750
200...850
725...925
150...850

ROCK CUTTABILITY “WINDOWS”
One of the main objectives for testing rock specimens and field follow-up for rating jobsite
rock mass cuttability and machine performance is to visualize a geotechnical excavator work
area or rock cuttability “window” for the evaluation of rock cutting productivity and economic excavation range of rock by tunneling machinery.
The Rock Cuttability Window for Intact Rock (FIGURE 2.4.-9) is a scatter plot of rock wear
capacity versus rock strength for rock specimens tested during a recent R&D program.
In essence, FIGURE 2.4.-9 is a scatter plot of rock surface hardness versus rock specimen
bulk strength.
There is an obvious trend illustrating that rock wear capacity increases with rock bulk
strength and mineral surface hardness. However, there are some important exceptions
as noted in FIGURE 2.4.-9 such as:
- Ultramafic rocks characterized by relatively high bulk strength and low rock wear capacity
values. Ultramafic rocks have relatively high bulk strength values since
fractures primarily propagate through mineral grains; and not along grain boundaries.

FIGURE 2.4.-9. The rock cuttability window for intact rock - a scatter plot of
rock wear capacity versus the bulk strength of rock specimens tested during a recent
R&D program.

- Anisotropic rocks characterized by low bulk strength and high rock wear capacity values.
Anisotropic rocks have relatively low bulk strength values due to fracture propagation
primarily along schistosity planes. This effect is especially pronounced in uniaxial compression tests of rock specimens.
- Porous rocks characterized by low bulk strength and high rock wear capacity values. These
rock types have relatively low strength values due to rapid fracture propagation originating at and radiating from voids in the rock matrix under stress, thus enhancing the cuttability or drillability of intact rock.

45


46


- Micro-fractured igneous rocks characterized by low bulk strength and very high rock wear
capacity values. Observations show that this micro-fracturing seldom, if ever, enhances
rock cuttability or drillability of intact rock. The phenomenon is typical for Pre-Cambrian
granites, granodiorites and felsic gneisses in the Fenno-Scandian Shield.
- Weathered and decomposed rocks characterized by low bulk strength and low rock wear
capacity values due to chemical alteration of the mineral grains.

project – also in areas where the rock mass is unavailable for investigation
- Forecast of rock types or conditions, which might become
critical or even limiting for the applied equipment or cutting technologies.
Surface mapping and well-planned drilling programs as well as area mapping and geophysical
preinvestigations are used to gain the necessary data and achieve a comprehensive picture
complex geological structures.

2.5. ROCK MASS CHARACTERIZATION

2.5.3. Rock Mass Discontinuities

2.5.1. Importance

GENERAL

Together with rock specimen properties, all rock mass irregularities are categorized systematically. The most important features are:

Another distinguishing feature in a rock mass are parting planes that intersect the massive
rock. Depending on their frequency and relative spacing, they can either be of no importance
or dominate the behavior of the rock during the excavation process.

Structural make up of a rock mass includes:
- Rock types
- Frequency of variation
- Geometrical boundaries of structural members
Rock mass discontinuities includes:
- Bedding planes
- Schistocity planes and cleavage
- Fractures and fissures
- Faults
Rock pressure due to gravity and/or tectonic stress; including the excavation process.

2.5.2. Interbedding
Interbedding describes the alternation of different rock types in a rock mass.
- Regular interbedding means a sequence of different rock types with approximately
parallel boundaries; and is typical for sedimentary rocks.
- Irregular interbedding stands for rock formations with non-parallel boundaries. It can
also be the result of interruptions in the sedimentation process, including larger
inclusions of other rock types, non-regular changes of rock type and local inclusions.
(Typical in igneous rocks and metamorphic rocks.)
Any technical process influenced by different rock type behavior (excavation stability of
structures) requires a thorough evaluation of the nature of interbedded rock structures
regarding:
- Frequency of rock type occurrence and a particularly interesting behaviour
- Potential development of interbedding structures and their behavior throughout a

Depending on their origin, the following parting planes can be found:
- Bedding planes
- Schistocity planes and cleavage
- Fractures and fissures

BEDDING PLANES
Bedding planes are the result of disturbances in the sedimentation process and are characteristic for all types of sedimentary rock, particularly mechanical sediments.
The following terms are widely used for characterizing the spacing between bedding planes:
Spacing between bedding planes (cm)

Classification

< 200
50 - 200
20 - 50
10 - 20
2 - 10
<2

Massive
Thickly bedded
Bedded
Thinly bedded
Layered
Thinly layered

Bedding planes can be characterized as:
Open
Closed
Stained
Slickensided
Filled
Cemented

-

with partial or no contact connection between strata
with no connection of strata, but full contact
plane surface coated by a gouge material -such as clay
visual evidence of polishing exists
partings filled with gouge material
partings filled with adhesive materials (mineralogical bonds)

47


48


SCHISTOCITY PLANES
Schistocity planes are typical in most metamorphic rocks. During metamorphism, mineral
grains are rearranged resulting in a predominant mineral grain orientation due to rock pressure. Thus “weakness” planes are generated especially if such planes are formed by mica or
other lamellar minerals. Pressure release and/or tectonic activity can open such planes. As
opposed to bedding planes, schistocity plane surfaces are mostly rough or undulating. If
schistocity planes have opened throughout the metamorphic process, they are often filled
with hydrothermal quartz and occasionally carbonates.

These systems have been developed primarily to assess the reduced stability of a rock mass
intersected by parting planes. However, they can also provide assistance for estimating the
influence of rock mass features during the excavation process.

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)

FRACTURES AND FISSURES
The following terms can be used for characterizing spacing between fractures and fissures:
Fracture/fissure
planes per m
1
2
4
6
10

<
>

1
2
4
6
10
20
20

Spacing between
planes per m
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.05

>
>

1
1
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.05

Classification
Massive
Slightly fissured or fractured
Moderately fissured
Fissured
Highly fissured
Extremely fissured
Mylonitic

The same terms used for describing bedding planes can also be used to describe the appearance of fracture/fissure plane surfaces.
FIGURE 2.5.-1. Procedure of RQD measurements and calculation.

JOINT SETS
Bedding, schistocity, fracture and fissure planes form the joint set of a rock mass. Joint sets
are characterized by frequency of occurrence and orientation.
In practice, most rock masses have a minimum of 2 joint sets. In sedimentary rocks, the second joint set is typically perpendicular to the bedding planes.

2.5.4. Classification of Rock Mass Properties
To utilize the mapping of rock mass discountinuities, it is necessary to classify and quantify
their effect on the rock excavation process.
The 3 most widely used geotechnical classification systems for ground support are:
• Rock Quality Designation (RQD-Index)
• Rock Mass Rating System (RMR-Value)
• Rock Mass Quality (Q System)

Deere proposed in 1964 a quantative index based on a modified core recovery procedure only
sound pieces of core that are 100 mm or greater in length. The principle is illustrated in
FIGURE 2.5.-1.

This basic approach of calculating the effect of a joint set is also used in many rating systems, but can also be used alone to evaluate the influence of parting planes and frequency
of occurance for roughly estimating the rock mass behaviour.
RQD (%)

Rock mass classification

90
75
50
25

Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor

>

100
90
75
50
25

49


50

51


ROCK MASS RATING SYSTEM (RMR)
The rock mass rating (RMR) system was developed by Bieniawski in 1973. This engineering
classification of rock masses, utilises the following six parameters, all of which are measurable in the field and can also be obtained from corchole data:
1.

Uniaxial compressive strength of rock material.

2.

Rock quality designation (RQD)

3.

Spacing of discontinuities.

4.

Condition of discontinuities.

5.

Groundwater conditions.

6.

Orientation of discontinuities.

Table 2.5.-1. Classification of jointed rock
Parameter
1 Strength of
intact rock
material

The RMR value is calculated as follows:
RMR = [Œ++Ž++] +‘
r Rating of an individual parameter.

The following rock mass classes are defined by
the RMR value:
RMR

I
II
III
IV
V

Uniaxial compressive
strength (Mpa)
Rating
2 Drill core quality RQD (%)
Rating
3 Spacing of discontinuities
Rating
4

Class No. Classification

100 – 81
80 – 61
60 – 41
40 – 21
< 20

Pointed load
strength index (Mpa)

Very good rock
Good rock
Fair rock
Poor rock
Very poor rock

Condition of discontinuities

Rating
5

Inflow per 10 ml
tunnel length (L/min)

ROCK MASS QUALITY (Q SYSTEM)
The Q - system of rock mass classification was
developed in Norway in 1974 by Barton, Lien
and Lunde, all of the Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute.
The Q Method is a rating system based on the
study of some 1000 tunnel case histories. It
includes the following parameters for rating
rock mass properties:

Ground water Ratio
Joint water pressure
Major principal stress
General conditions
Rating
6 Strike and dip
orientation of
joints
Ratings for Tunnels and mines
Foundations
Slopes

masses through the RMR system.
Range of values
>10

4-10

2-4

1-2

For this low range,
uniaxial compressive
test is preferred

>250

100-250

50-100

25-50

5-25

15
90-100
20
>2m
20
Very rough
surfaces
Not continuos
No separation
Unweathered wall
rock
30

12
75-90
17
0.6-2 m
15
Slightly rough
surfaces
Separation<1 mm
Slightly weathered
walls

7
50-75
13
200-600 mm
10
Slightly rough
surfaces
Separation<1 mm
Highly weathered
Continuous

4
25-50
8
60-200 mm
8
Slikensided
surfaces
or
Gouge<5 mm thick
Continuous

21
0
<25
3
<60 mm
5
Soft gouge >5 mm
thick
or
Separation>5 mm

25

20

10

0

None
or
0

<10
or
<0,1

10-25
or
0,1-0,2

25-125
or
0,2-0,5

>125
or
>0,5

or
Completely dry
15
Very favorable

or
Damp
10
Favorable

or
Wet
7
Fair

or
Dripping
4
Unfavorable

or
Flowing
0
Very unfavorable

discontinuity
0
0
0

-2
-2
-5

-5
-7
-25

-10
-15
-50

-12
-25
-60

1-5

<1


52


• Rock quality designation (RQD)

The following characteristics of rock pressure take place in tunneling:

• Number of joint sets (Jn) indicating the “freedom” of rock mass
• Roughness of the most unfavorable joint set (Jr)

- Stress field is relocated resulting in the elastic deformation of the face and roof of the
tunnel without fracture

• Degree of alteration or filling of the most unfavorable joint set (Ja)
• Degree of joint seepage, or joint water reduction factor (Jw)

- Stress release occurs by sudden rock failure ranging in intensity from spalling to rock burst

• Stress reduction factor, SRF, which calculates load reduction
due to excavation, apparent stress, squeeze and swelling.

- Fracture and consecutive deformation of rock in the tunnel face and roof takes place in
the rock mass with originally elastic or quasi-elastic behaviour

The above six parameters are grouped into three quotients to give the overall rock mass qual-

- Deformation and consecutive failure takes place in a rock masswith originally plasticviscous behavior.

ity Q as follows:
Q = (RQD/Jn)x(Jr/Ja)x(Jw/SRF)
Rock mass classification using the Q index:
Rock mass quality Q

1000 ® 400
400 ® 100
100 ® 40
40 ® 10
10 ® 4
4®1
1 ® 0,1
0,1 ® 0,01
0,01 ® 0,001

Behavior of rock mass in tunneling

Exceptionally good
Extremely good
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Extremely poor
Exceptionally poor

2.5.5. Rock Pressure
One important factor primarily in underground construction is rock pressure – the in situ
state of stress in a rock mass. In practice, the result of this stress is also called rock pressure. Primary rock pressure is the summary of stresses in a rock mass before influencing it,
for example, by excavating underground openings. Primary rock pressure is the result of overburden, residual or tectonic stresses. Secondary rock pressure is when the primary stress
field is altered by the excavation process. The secondary stress field can show considerable
changes throughout the excavation process, thus indicating an unbalanced state of
equilibrium.

All the above-mentioned reactions are time dependent. The type of reaction that takes place
also depends on the original state of stress and the rock mass behavior. It is also highly
influenced by the mode and sequence of the excavation operations, and the size and shape
of the openings.

2.6. BENCH BLASTING OPERATIONS
ASSESSMENT OF SHOTROCK FRAGMENTATION
At detonation, the bench is shattered or broken down; then thrown forward onto the quarry
floor. Shotrock fragmentation is not uniform throughout the pile, but varies in accordance as
to where the fragmented material originates within the bench itself.
The fragmentation of shotrock is not only due to stress-wave induced shattering at detonation. Rock fragments are also broken down by fragment collisions in the air and with the
quarry floor. This is especially true for the coarser fractions from the uncharged portion of
the bench.
Today, several commercial digital photo analysis systems are available for shotrock or muck
pile fragmentation measurement and analysis. Shotrock fragmentation can be described by a
Weibull 2 parameter (or Rosin Rammler) distribution such that:

P( k ) = 100

•

{

1 -e

-ln 2 • ( k / k50 )n

}

P(k) = cumulative passing for fragment size k
The goal of the excavation process is to achieve a balanced state while avoiding any intermediate condition that may endanger the excavation itself, and the people and equipment
working there. In practice, the stress itself does not form the critical factor, but the reactions
of the rock mass caused by it.

[%]

k

[mm]

= fragment size (dimension L)

k50 = fragment size for 50% passing
= volumetric mean fragment size
(defined by dimension L)

[mm]

n

[-]

= uniformity index

53


54


It is the combination of the mean fragment size k50 and the uniformity index n that
describes the overall degree of shotrock fragmentation.

UNIFORMITY INDEX, n
The fact that k50 and n are dependent parameters leads to a major simplification of shotrock
fragmentation data normalization work - since it is not necessary to find independent blast
design guidelines for shotrock fragmentation based on both fragmentation parameters - only
the mean fragment size k50.

1)

Targeted mean fragment sizes depend on primary crusher openings, primary crusher capacities and
marketability of fines
2) Blasts with a high portion of rock for transition zones (kmax = 200 mm)
3) Blasts with a high portion of rock for dam slope rip-rap and crown cap. Fragment size criteria for
supporting fill rock is generally kmax Å 2/3 of placement lyer thickness
4 ) Blasts with the largest mean fragment sizes were observed for or ebodies with low mechanical prop
erties for intact rock.

BENCH CHARGING AND BLASTING
For a given rock mass, the degree of shotrock fragmentation k50, depends on the type and
quantity of explosives used for blasting a cubic metre of solid rock. This is termed the specific charge (or powder factor) q .

A simplified expression for the uniformity index is :
n = 1,60 • (k50 / 270)0. 61 • fCL
Blast parameters that show little influence ( < 5 % ) on the
uniformity index n are :
- explosive energy and velocity of detonation, VOD
- sequential row firing
- mechanical properties of intact rock
- rock mass jointing
since these parameters influence the degree of shotrock fragmentation in bench blasting
operations primarily through their influence of the mean fragment size k50.

BENCH BLAST GUIDELINES FOR SHOTROCK FRAGMENTATION
Observed ranges for mean shotrock fragment sizes k50 from extensive field studies of various
bench blasting operations in Norway are shown in the following table:

The specific charge, in turn, affects the amount of drilling required to achieve this degree of
shotrock fragmentation since the drill pattern itself (burden x spacing) affects the mean
shotrock fragment size.
Studies linking the mean shotrock fragment size k50 to the specific charge or powder factor
q by various authors is shown in the following table:
Olsson (1952)1)

k50

= k1 • q-0,56

Lundborg (1971)2)

k50

= k2 • [S / B]-0,145 • [Q0,20 / q ]1,47

Kuznetsov (1973)3)

k50

= k3 • [Q0,21 / q ]0,80

Rustan (1983)4)

k50

= k4

[Q0,28 / q ]1,64

•

Brinkmann (1985)5) k50
Bench Blasting
Operation

Shotrock
Designation

Aggregate Quarries

Crushing & Screenin 125 - 290

Rockfill Dam Quarries
Fine Zone
Fine Zone
Coarse Zone
Coarse Zone
Open Pit Mining
Road Construction

Crushing & Milling
Sub Base

Mean Fragment
Size, k50
[mm]
1)

Supporting Fill:
2)
160 200 - 250
250 - 320
- 440 3)

Loading
Equipment

Wheel Loaders
or Front Shovels
Wheel Loaders
Wheel Loaders
Wheel Loaders
Wheel Loaders +
Hyd. Excavators

160 - 250 4)

Rope-Shovels +
Wheel Loaders

200 - 310

Hyd. Excavators

= k5 • q-1,37

Lislerud (1990)6)

= k6

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

k50

•

[Q1/5 • ␳4/5 / q ]␦ ; ␦ = ƒ { Q-0.05 }

ditch blasting
bench blasting - small blastholes
bench blasting - large blastholes
laboratory model - scale blasting in m agnetite - concrete
underground blasting - hand held equipment
bench blasting - small and large blasthole operations

k1-6 basically rock mass and/or explosive strength constantsResults of bench blasting similitude modelling for a given rock mass show the following important relationships for bench
blasting:

55


56


- the reduced drill pattern, ( BxS )1/2 or the square drill pattern burden, B increases in prin
ciple with drill-hole diameter as d4/5 for a constant mean fragment size, k50
- the specific charge, q increases in principle with drill-hole diameter as d2/5 for a constant
mean fragment size, k50
Results of bench blasting similitude modelling for a given powder factor and blasthole charge
including parameters such as:
- mechanical properties of intact rock (anisotropy, strength or modulus of elasticity, density
and porosity)
- rock mass jointing (joint type, frequency of occurrence and orientation)
- explosive strength (charge density, explosive energy and VOD) illustrates the following
important relationships for bench blasting regarding rock mass blastability and explosive
strength:

LOADING OF SHOTROCK
The most commonly used equipment for loading shotrock in quarries are wheel loaders, front
shovels and hydraulic excavators. The choice between these loaders depends on production
requirements, shotrock fragmentation, loading conditions and selected haulage method.
Loaders

Muck Pile

Disadvantages

Advantages

Wheel loaders

low and flat

toe problems
tire wear in
wet conditions

high capacity
flat quarry floor
versatile equipment

Front shovels

topped

not so mobile
coarse

loading very
shotrock

low capacity

clearing toe problems
clearing high-walls

Hydraulic Excavators

␴

/(␳

Rock Mass Blastability

k50 = ƒ { Ia

Explosive Strength

k50 = ƒ {CD1/5 / ( EE2/5 • VOD2/5 )}

3/5

•

O

1/2

•

3/10

4/5

n

•

2/5

)}

In other words, rock mass blastability decreases systematically with rock specimen an
isotropy, joint spacing, rock specimen strength or modulus of elasticity but increases with
rock specimen porosity.
Several geomechanical classification methods are available today for rating rock mass blastability for bench blast design - such as:
Kuznetsov (1976) Blastability Index A
(used in the Kuz-Ram Model; A is partly based on the Protodyakonov
rock hardness value ƒ )
Lilly (1986)

Blastability Index BI
(used in the Kuz-Ram Model; A ~ 0.12 • BI )

Accurate drilling decreases the amount of oversize and reduces the occurrence of loading
problems. The drill pattern can also be increased; which in turn affects the explosives consumption. However, the max fragment size kmax increases disproportionately with blasthole
diameter.

2.7 CRUSHABILITY
GENERAL
Rock crushability is defined as the capacity of a crusher to produce a certain product fraction. It is also the capability of a crusher to produce good product gradation and particle
shape. Rock crushability is a combination of many elements. Rock tests generally measure a
single mechanical rock property that gives a rough estimation of its crushability. In addition
to mechanical rock properties, feed gradation also has an impact on the quantity and quality
of the crushed product.

Lislerud (1990) Prediction model used in Tamrock´s Surface Study Programme

SPECIFIC GRAVITY
Achieving the optimum bench blast design for a particular rock mass type, be it in quarrying
or mining, can be an expensive and time - consum ing procedure. In particular obtaining a
good first-estimate or starting point for the quantity of explosives required (powder factor)
to achieve satisfactory shotrock fragmentation can be problematical. Estimates are usually
based on the operator´s experience and/or the experience of a hired consultant.

Crushing capacity is generally measured in tons per hour. Crusher throughput in compressive
crushing depends on the volume of the material, which means that a crusher running on a
constant setting provides approximately the same capacity in cubic meters per hour for all
rock materials. The heavier the rock is, the higher the capacity in tons per hour. Crusher
manufacturers report crusher capacities usually in tons per hour for rock material, which specific gravity is 2.65-2.7 t/m3 or bulk density of zero based fraction is 1.6 t/m3. If the specific
gravity or bulk density differs from these values, crusher capacity in tons per hour is correted
in proportion to actual and reference values.

57


58


WORK INDEX

A=2•M•H/C

In the 1950´s, F. C. Bond developed the Impact Work Index (Wi) that defines the theoretical
power consumption of comminution in relation to the crusher product gradation.
The higher the Wi is, the coarser the product gradation is. For example, if granite and limestone have a Wi of 16 kWh/t and 10 kWh/t, then the setting of the crusher for granite must
be smaller than for limestone in order to produce the same gradation. Because a smaller
setting means a lower capacity, the crusher gives a lower capacity for granite than for
limestone.

where A is impact strength [kpm/cm], M is the mass of one hammer [kp], H is the drop
height [m] of hammer when the sample breaks, and C is thickness of the sample [cm].
Work Index is calculated accordingly:

10-15 specimens were selected for the tests. The ideal sample is approximately 50 x 75 mm,
with two natural parallel or near parallel sides of 50 to 75 mm in width. These samples can
not be prepared by cutting or any other method not normally used in the crushing process.
This is very important because a sample must have the exact same characteristics as in the
actual crushing process. (FIGURE 2.7.-1.)

where A is impact strength [kpm/cm], M is the mass of one hammer [kp], H is the drop
height [m] of hammer when the sample breaks, and C is thickness of the sample [cm].
Work Index is calculated accordingly:
Wi = 47.6 • A / p
where Wi is work index [kWh/t], A is impact strength [kpm/cm] and p is specific rock gravity
[t/m3].The final result is the average Wi of all the samples. The maximum value of Wis is also
recorded. Average Work Index for granite is approximately 16 kWh/t.
Table 2.7.-1. shows the crushability for different Wis.

Table 2.7.-1
Crushability
Very easy
Easy
Average
Difficult
Very difficult

Wi [ kWh/t ]
Wi < 10
10 < Wi < 14
14 < Wi < 18
18 < Wi < 22
22 < Wi

LOS ANGELES VALUE
The Los Angeles value is correlated to the work index so it can be used to estimate crushability if the work index value is not available. Table 2.7.-2. shows the crushability estimation
for different Los Angeles values.
FIGURE 2.7.-1. Test device.

The test device (FIGURE 2.7.-1.) consists of two 17 kg hammers which strike the sample
simultaneously and perpendicular to the parallel surfaces. This allows the impact force to
transverse the sample between the two parallel surfaces. The dropping height of the hammers
is increased until the sample breaks.Rock impact strength is calculated by the following
formula:

Table 2.7.-2.
Crushability
Very difficult
Difficult
Average
Easy
Very easy

LosA
LosA < 7
7 < LosA < 14
14 < LosA < 25
25 < LosA < 40
40 < LosA

59

Excavation engineering handbook

Excavation engineering handbook

More Related Content

Excavation engineering handbook