EngineeringGeology-v65-2002-CorrelaçãoEscavabilidadeTBMBritabilidadeRocha-Kahraman

8/13/2019 EngineeringGeology-v65-2002-CorrelaoEscavabilidadeTBMBritabilidadeRocha-Kahraman

1/15

Correlation of TBM and drilling machine performances

with rock brittleness

S. Kahraman*

Geological Engineering Department, University of Nigde, 51100 Nigde, Turkey

Received 3 May 2001; accepted 19 November 2001

Abstract

The correlations between three different methods of measuring brittleness and both drillability and borability were

statistically investigated using the raw data obtained from the experimental works of different researchers. Strong exponential

relationships between the penetration rates of tunnel boring machine (TBM) and the brittleness ofB1(the ratio of compressive

strength to tensile strength) and B2(the ratio of compressive strength minus tensile strength to compressive strength plus tensile

strength) were found. There is no correlation between the penetration rates of the diamond drilling tool and the brittleness

values. Strong exponential correlations exist between the penetration rates of rotary drills and the brittleness of B1 and B2.

However, no correlation between the penetration rate of rotary drills and the brittleness ofB3(the product of percentage of fines

in impact strength test and compressive strength) was found. The penetration rate of percussive drills does not exhibit a

correlation with the brittleness of B1 and B2, but the penetration rate of percussive drills is strongly correlated with thebrittleness ofB3. It was concluded that each method of measuring brittleness has its usage in rock excavation depending on

practical utility. D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Rock brittleness; TBMs; Rotary drills; Percussive drills

1. Introduction

Rotary and percussion drilling equipment is wide-ly used in rock excavation. Tunnel boring machines

(TBMs) are ubiquitous in civil engineering applica-

tions. Having some prior knowledge of the potential

performance of the selected rock drilling equipment

or boring machines is very important in rock excava-

tion projects for the planning and the cost estimation

purposes. Drillability and borability can be predicted

from a combination of machine characteristics and

rock properties. Uniaxial compressive strength is themost widely used parameter for predicting the perfor-

mance of tunnelling machines and drilling rigs (Paone

and Madson, 1966; Paone et al., 1969a,b; Barendsen,

1970; Fowel and McFeat-Smith, 1976; Brown and

Phillips, 1977; Poole and Farmer, 1978; Aleman,

1981; Hughes, 1986; Karpuz et al., 1990; Bilgin et

al., 1996, Kahraman, 1999). In addition, a wide range

of empirical tests has been used to predict the perfor-

mance of drilling or boring machines. Among these

are: Schmidt hammer, Taber abrasion, point load, cone

0013-7952/02/$ - see front matterD 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.P I I : S 0 0 1 3 - 7 9 5 2 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 3 7 - 5

* Fax: +90-388-225-0112.

E-mail address:[email protected] (S. Kahraman).

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Engineering Geology 65 (2002) 269283


2/15

indenter, Shore hardness, drilling rate index (DRI) and

coefficient of rock strength (CRS) (McFeat-Smith and

Fowel, 1977; Howarth, 1986; Nilsen and Ozdemir,

1993; Li et al., 2000). Recently, rock mass classifica-

tion systems, such as Q-system and RMR-system,

have been used for the estimation of TBM perform-

ance (Alber, 1996; Barton, 1999).

Evans and Pomeroy (1966) theoretically showed

that impact energy of a cutter pick is inversely

proportional to brittleness. Singh (1986) indicated that

cuttability, penetrability and Protodyakonov strength

index of coal strongly depended on the brittleness of

coal. Singh (1987) showed that a directly proportional

relationship existed between in situ specific energy

and brittleness of three Utah coals. Goktan (1991)

stated that the brittleness concept might not be a

representative measure of rock cutting-specific energy

consumption.

Brittleness is one of the most important mechan-

ical properties of rocks. However, there is no avail-

Table 1

The test data of Model TBM (Howarth et al., 1986) and calculated brittleness values

Rock type Penetration rate

(cm/min)

Dry unconfined

compressive

strength (MPa)

Dry tensile

strength (MPa)

B1a B2

a

Ipswich sandstone 1.307 64.7 6.3 10.3 0.82

Gosford sandstone 1.269 44.1 3.3 13.4 0.86

Mt. Crosby sandstone 1.244 36.6 2.4 15.3 0.88

Helidon sandstone 1.717 35.1 3.0 11.7 0.84

Carrara marble 0.093 93.6 4.2 22.3 0.91

Ulan marble 0.439 49.9 3.0 16.6 0.89

Thrust: 3.16 kN, rpm: 14.a Calculated by the author.

Fig. 1. Penetration rate vs. brittleness for the model TBM (the graphs were plotted by the author using the data in Table 1).

S. Kahraman / Engineering Geology 65 (2002) 269283270


3/15

Table 2

The laboratory test data of impregnated diamond bits (Clark, 1979) and calculated brittleness values

Rock type Penetration

rate (cm/min)

Unconfined

compressive

strength (MPa)

Tensile

strength

(MPa)

B1a B2

a

Alabama limestone 15.60 34.2 2.5 13.5 0.86

Rockville granite 3.35 143.5 10.8 13.3 0.86

Charcoal granite 1.65 233.1 12.4 18.8 0.90

Basalt 4.62 296.8 15.4 19.3 0.90

Taconite 2.49 343.7 16.4 21.0 0.91

Taconite 1.40 449.4 30.8 14.6 0.87

Sioux Quartzite 5.87 394.8 18.6 21.2 0.91


Table 3The field test data of impregnated diamond bits (Clark, 1979) and calculated brittleness values


rate (cm/min)

Unconfined

compressive

strength (MPa)

Tensile

strength

(MPa)

B1a B2

a

Granite 2.95 154.0 9.5 16.2 0.88

Taconite 0.89 322.7 15.4 20.9 0.91

Taconite 0.20 343.7 16.8 20.5 0.91

Taconite 1.14 449.4 26.6 17.0 0.89

Trap rock 3.86 68.6 5.1 13.5 0.86

Anorthosite 5.44 123.2 7.3 16.9 0.89

Gabbro 1.62 208.0 12.0 17.3 0.89

Granite 3.75 142.1 7.4 19.2 0.90

Granite 2.79 134.4 7.7 17.5 0.89Granite 1.02 224.0 14.4 15.6 0.88

Limestone 1.65 121.8 4.7 25.9 0.93

Marble 1.85 183.4 8.5 21.6 0.91

Marble 2.18 172.9 10.1 17.1 0.89

Gabbro 2.46 177.1 8.1 21.9 0.91


Table 4

The laboratory test data of impregnated diamond bits (Howarth, 1987) and calculated brittleness values

Rock type Penetrationrate (cm/min)

Unconfinedcompressive

strength (MPa)

Tensilestrength

(MPa)

B1a

B2a

Ashgrove granite 13.26 234.0 15.2 15.4 0.88

Beenleigh hornfels 8.44 100.5 13.5 7.4 0.76

Moogerah microsyenite 16.44 137.1 8.0 17.1 0.89

Caboolture Trachyte 10.44 202.4 8.2 24.7 0.92

Mt. Morrow basalt 12.57 219.8 16.4 13.4 0.86

Carrara marble 17.89 93.6 4.2 22.3 0.91

Ulan marble 17.89 49.9 3.0 16.6 0.89

Thrust: 770 N, rpm: 750, water pressure: 552 kPa, water flow rate: 2 l/min.a Calculated by the author.

S. Kahraman / Engineering Geology 65 (2002) 269283 271


4/15

able published material on the relationship between

brittleness and both drillability and borability. In this

study, the correlations between brittleness and both

drillability and borability were analyzed using the

raw data obtained from the experimental works of

different researchers. Rock properties and perform-

Fig. 2. Penetration rate vs. brittleness for impregnated diamond bits tested in the laboratory (the graphs were plotted by the author using the data

in Table 2).

Fig. 3. Penetration rate vs. brittleness for impregnated diamond bits tested in the field (the graphs were plotted by the author using the data in

Table 3).



5/15

ance data obtained from the different researchers were

listed in the respective tables. The calculation of brit-

tleness values and generation of the plots were per-formed by the author.

2. Brittleness

Morley (1944) and Hetenyi (1966) defined brittle-ness as the lack of ductility. Materials such as cast

Fig. 4. Penetration rate vs. brittleness for impregnated diamond bits tested in the laboratory (the graphs were plotted by the author using the data

in Table 4).

Table 5

The field test data of rotary drills (Bilgin et al., 1993; Kahraman, 1999) and calculated brittleness values


rate (cm/min)

Unconfined

compressive

strength (MPa)

Brazilian

tensile strength

(MPa)

% fines in

impact

strength test

B1a B2

a B3a

Soma/Isklar marl-1 57 88.7 6.0 15.0 14.8 0.87 1330.5

Soma/Isklar marl-1 78 88.7 6.0 15.0 14.8 0.87 1330.5

Soma/Isklar marl-1 60 88.7 6.0 15.0 14.8 0.87 1330.5

Soma/Isklar marl-2 94 64.9 4.4 24.8 14.7 0.87 1609.5

Soma/Isklar marl-2 81 64.9 4.4 24.8 14.7 0.87 1609.5

Soma/Isklar marl-2 91 64.9 4.4 24.8 14.7 0.87 1609.5

Soma/Isklar marl-2 87 64.9 4.4 24.8 14.7 0.87 1609.5

Soma/Ksrakdere marl 61 82.4 6.3 26.0 13.1 0.86 2142.4

Soma/Isklar limestone 97 77.5 5.5 35.0 14.1 0.87 2712.5

Tuncbilek/panel 36 marl-1 203 48.9 4.5 35.0 10.9 0.83 1711.5

Tuncbilek/panel 36 marl-2 167 21.4 2.2 30.1 9.7 0.81 644.1

Tuncbilek/Beke marl 174 13.5 1.5 29.6 9.0 0.80 399.6

Orhaneli marl 185 45.5 5.3 46.0 8.6 0.79 2093.0

Seyitomer marl 243 10.5 1.0 22.0 10.5 0.83 231.0

Bit: 251 mm WC tri-cone bit, thrust: 50 59 kN, rpm: 118 120.a Calculated by the author.



6/15

iron and many rocks usually terminating by fracture

at or only slightly beyond the yield stress have been

defined as brittle by Obert and Duvall (1967). Ram-

say (1967) defines brittleness as follows: when theinternal cohesion of rocks is broken, the rocks are

said to be brittle. The definition of brittleness as a

mechanical property varies from author to author.

However, it may be stated that with higher brittleness

the following facts are observed (Hucka and Das,

1974):

low values of elongation, fracture failure, formation of fines, higher ratio of compressive to tensile strength, higher resilience,

Fig. 5. Penetration rate vs. brittleness for rotary drills observed in the field (the graphs were plotted by the author using the data in Table 5).



7/15

higher angle of internal friction, and formation of cracks in indentation.

Different definitions of brittleness have been sum-marised and discussed by Hucka and Das (1974). The

three equations used in this study are as follows:

B1 rc

rt

1

B2 rc rtrc rt

2

B3 qrc 3

where, B1,B2 and B3 equals brittleness, rc is uniaxial

compressive strength, rt is tensile strength, and q is

the percentage of fines formed in Protodyakonov

(1963) impact test.

3. Evaluation of some experimental data

3.1. Tunnel boring

Howarth et al. (1986) reported the performancecharacteristics of a model TBM in six sedimentary

rock types. The model TBM had an overall diameter

of 106 mm and was fitted with six tungsten carbide-

tipped square-faced drag bits of dimensions 9.5 9.5

mm and a spacing between adjacent cutters of 7.5

mm. Penetration rates, rock properties and calculated

brittleness values are given in Table 1.

The performance characteristics of the model TBMwere analysed using the method of least squares

regression. The equation of the best-fit line, the 95%

confidence limits and the correlation coefficients (r)

were determined for each regression. Penetration rates

were correlated with the brittleness values. The plots

of the penetration rates as a function of the brittleness

values are shown in Fig. 1. It is seen that there are

exponential relationships between the penetration

rates and the brittleness ofB1 and B2.

3.2. Diamond drilling

Clark (1979) reported the drilling performances of

impregnated diamond bits tested on seven rock types

in the laboratory and on 21 rock types in the field

(Tables 2 and 3). Laboratory drilling experiments

were carried out with AX size bits with a medium

hard matrix. The drill rig was an electrohydraulic

diamond drill with instrumentation for measuring

thrust, rotary speed and torque. Field drilling experi-

ments were performed with a trailer-mounted dia-

mond drill machine equipped with hydraulic thrust.

Howarth (1987) reported the performance charac-teristics of a diamond drilling tool in crystalline and

sedimentary rock types. The type of diamond drilling

tool used was a thin-walled impregnated bit with

water flushing. The impregnated bit had an outer

Table 6

The laboratory test data of percussion drilling (Howarth, 1987) and calculated brittleness values


rate (cm/min)

Unconfined

compressive

strength (MPa)

Tensile

strength

(MPa)

B1a B2

a

Ashgrove granite 18.64 234.0 15.2 15.4 0.88

Beenleigh hornfels 19.16 100.5 13.5 7.4 0.76

Moogerah microsyenite 20.20 137.1 8.0 17.1 0.89

Caboolture Trachyte 15.90 202.4 8.2 24.7 0.92

Mt. Morrow basalt 15.38 219.8 16.4 13.4 0.86

Carrara marble 20.15 93.6 4.2 22.3 0.91

Ulan marble 24.10 49.9 3.0 16.6 0.89

Gosford sandstone 32.39 44.1 3.3 13.4 0.86

Mt. Crosby sandstone 38.51 36.6 2.4 15.3 0.88

Helidon sandstone 53.96 35.1 3.0 11.7 0.84

Thrust: 441 N, air pressure: 450 kPa.a Calculated by the author.



8/15

diameter of 31.9 mm and an internal diameter of 28.1

mm. Drilling data, rock characteristics and calculated


The data in Tables 24 were analysed using the

least square regression method. Penetration rates vs.

the brittleness values are plotted and it is seen that

Table 7

The laboratory test data of percussion drilling (Selim and Bruce, 1970) and calculated brittleness values


rate (cm/min)

Unconfined

compressive

strength (MPa)

Tensile

strength

(MPa)

B1a B2

a

Mankato stone 82.55 54.1 9.5 5.7 0.70

Kasota stone 90.40 103.7 6.4 16.2 0.88


Rainbow granite 44.90 198.2 14.3 13.9 0.87


Dresser basalt 20.60 312.8 17.5 17.9 0.89

Jasper quartzite 40.00 396.5 18.7 21.2 0.91

AuroraTaconite A 37.10 451.3 31.1 14.5 0.87

Babbitt Taconite B 25.60 473.5 21.4 22.1 0.91

Operating pressure: 632.7 kPa, feed pressure: 492 kPa.a Calculated by the author.

Table 8

The field test data of percussion drilling (Schmidt, 1972) and calculated brittleness values


rate (cm/min)

Unconfined

compressive

strength (MPa)

Tensile

strength

(MPa)

B1a B2

a

Humboldt iron silicate 13.28 418.64 14.62 28.6 0.93

Hornblende schist 20.83 208.09 7.59 27.4 0.93Granite pegmatite 34.29 89.63 8.65 10.4 0.82

Wausau quartzite 34.80 222.50 17.65 12.6 0.85

Wausau argillite 18.29 220.74 18.42 12.0 0.85

Winona dolomite 52.32 97.01 4.22 23.0 0.92

Mankato stone 91.44 125.13 6.40 19.6 0.90

New Ulm quartzite 32.51 156.42 15.82 9.9 0.82

Jasper quartzite 21.84 307.21 20.74 14.8 0.87



Diamond gray granite 31.50 171.18 12.51 13.7 0.86

Dresser basalt 17.02 286.82 28.26 10.2 0.82

Shiely limestone 48.26 99.83 5.76 17.3 0.89

Mt. Iron taconite 21.34 360.99 30.44 11.9 0.84

Aurora taconite 15.49 368.37 22.21 16.6 0.89

Babbitt taconite 13.97 364.51 28.89 12.6 0.85

Babbitt diabase 21.34 374.70 24.96 15.0 0.88

Ely gabbro 27.69 208.09 15.11 13.8 0.86

Trap rock 46.23 68.89 5.13 13.4 0.86

Anorthosite 40.64 131.46 10.55 12.5 0.85

Duluth basalt 33.78 186.30 13.99 13.3 0.86

Marble 38.10 127.59 7.10 18.0 0.89

Primax gabro 28.45 176.10 12.72 13.8 0.87

Iron ore 32.51 225.31 11.81 19.1 0.90

Operating pressure: 703 kPa.a Calculated by the author.



9/15

there is no correlation between the penetration rates

and the brittleness values (Figs. 24).

3.3. Rotary drilling

Bilgin et al. (1993) and Kahraman (1999) meas-

ured the drilling performance of rotary blast hole drills

in the open pit mines of Turkish Coal Enterprises and

determined the physical and mechanical properties of

the rocks drilled. Impact strength tests were carried

out with the device designed by Evans and Pomeroy

(1966). Performance results, rock properties and cal-

culated brittleness values are given in Table 5.

Using the method of least squares regression, the

penetration rates of rotary drills were correlated with

the brittleness values. Exponential relationships bet-

Table 9

The field test data of percussion drilling (Kahraman, 1999) and calculated brittleness values


rate (cm/min)

Unconfined

compressive

strength (MPa)

Brazilian tensile

strength (MPa)

% fines in

impact strength

test

B1a B2

a B3a

Pozant limestone 71 123.8 6.6 17.1 18.8 0.90 2117.0

Pozant limestone 82 123.8 6.6 17.1 18.8 0.90 2117.0

Altered sandstone 170 20.1 1.2 29.6 16.7 0.89 595.0

Altered sandstone 158 20.1 1.2 29.6 16.7 0.89 595.0

Bahce dolomite 115 68.0 6.0 16.6 11.3 0.84 128.8

Erikli limestone 121 51.3 7.0 17.8 7.3 0.76 913.1



Bit diameter: 76 mm, rock drill power: 14 15.5 kW, bpm: 3000 3600, pulldown pressure: 60 70 bar, blow pressure: 100 120 bar, rotational

pressure: 60 65 bar.a Calculated by the author.

Fig. 6. Penetration rate vs. brittleness for percussive drills tested in the laboratory (the graphs were plotted by the author using the data in Table

6).



10/15

ween the penetration rates and the brittleness of B1andB2were found (Fig. 5a,b). There is no correlation

between the penetration rate and the brittleness ofB3(Fig. 5c).

3.4. Percussive drilling

Howarth et al. (1986) carried out percussion drill-

ing tests on 10 sedimentary and crystalline rocks. The

Fig. 7. Penetration rate vs. brittleness for percussive drills tested in the laboratory (the graphs were plotted by the author using the data in Table

7).

Fig. 8. Penetration rate vs. brittleness for percussive drills tested in the field (the graphs were plotted by the author using the data in Table 8).



11/15


12/15

fined to 3.81-cm cross bits. Penetration rates, rock

properties and calculated brittleness values are given

in Table 7.

Schmidt (1972) reported the performance charac-

teristics of two percussive drills mounted on a truck in

25 rock types. The drill included in this study was a

standard drifter having a bore diameter of 6.67 cm. Bit

type was H-thread carbide and bit diameter was 5.08

cm. Penetration rates, rock properties and calculated


Kahraman (1999) measured the drilling perform-

ance of hydraulic top hammer drills in open pits,

motorway sites and quarries and determined the

physical and mechanical properties of the rocks

Fig. 10. The correlation between the brittleness ofB1and B2 (the graph was plotted by the author using the data in Table 8).

Fig. 11. The correlation between the brittleness ofB1and B3 (the graph was plotted by the author using the data in Table 5).



13/15

drilled. Impact strength tests were carried out with the

device designed by Evans and Pomeroy (1966).

Performance results, rock properties and calculated

brittleness values are given in Table 9.The data in Tables 6 9 were evaluated using

regression analysis. As it is seen in Figs. 69a,b, there

is no correlation between the penetration rate and the

brittleness ofB1and B2. However, the penetration rate

is strongly related with the brittleness of B3. The

relation between the penetration rate and the brittleness

ofB3 follows a power function (Fig. 9c).

4. Correlations among the three different methods

of measuring brittleness

To see whether a method of measuring brittleness

differs from the other methods, the data in Tables 19

were analysed using the least square regression

method. It was seen that there is a strong logarithmic

relationship between the brittleness ofB1and B2. Fig.

10 was given as an example. As seen in the examples

of Figs. 11 and 12, there is no correlation between the

brittleness ofB3and the brittleness of both B1and B2.

Consequently, it can be said that the brittleness ofB3is different from the brittleness of bothB1and B2. This

is probably because the method of measuring brittle-

ness of B3 is different from that of the brittleness of

both B1 and B2. Moreover, Hucka and Das (1974)

stated that there is no uniformity in different formu-

lation of brittleness.

5. Conclusions

Brittleness, defined differently by different authors,

is an important mechanical property of rocks, but the

correlations between the brittleness and both drill-

ability and borability have not been clearly explained

yet. The relationships between three different methods

of brittleness and both drillability and borability were

statistically examined using the raw data obtained

from the experimental works of different researchers.

There are strong exponential relationships between

the penetration rates of TBM and the brittleness ofB1andB2. There is no correlation between the penetration

rates of diamond drilling tool and the brittleness values.

Exponential relationships with high correlation coef-

ficients between the penetration rates of rotary drills

and the brittleness ofB1and B2were found. However,

no correlation between the penetration rate of rotary

drills and the brittleness ofB3was found. There is no

correlation between the penetration rate of percussive

drills and the brittleness of B1 and B2, but the pene-

Fig. 12. The correlation between the brittleness ofB2 and B3 (the graph was plotted by the author using the data in Table 5).



14/15

tration rate of percussive drills is strongly related with

the brittleness ofB3. Besides, the brittleness ofB3 is

different from the brittleness of both B1and B2.

The lack of correlation between the penetration rateof rotary drills and the brittleness ofB3is probably due

to the fact that the brittleness ofB3is obtained from the

impact test. Similarly, the absence of correlation bet-

ween the penetration rate of percussive drills and the

brittleness ofB1and B2is probably due to the fact that

the brittleness ofB1and B2is obtained from compres-

sive and tensile strengths. That the rock-breaking pro-

cess in rotary drilling is different from that in percus-

sive drilling explains better this situation. Percussion is

the dominant factor in percussive drilling, whereas

thrust and crushing are the dominant factors in rotary

drilling.

It can be concluded that there is no uniformity in

different formulations of brittleness. Each should be

used separately in rock excavation, depending on prac-

tical utility.

Brittleness, which is a combined property, is one of

the most important properties of rocks. Knowing the

degree of the brittleness of rock would lead to an im-

proved excavation technology. Thus, further research

is necessary in this area. For example, whether fracture

toughness can be used as an alternative to brittleness

should be investigated.

References

Alber, M., 1996. Prediction of penetration and utilization for hard

rock TBMs. In: Baria, M. (Ed.), Prediction and Performance in

Rock Mech. and Rock Eng., Torino, vol. 2. Balkema, Rotter-

dam, pp. 721725.

Aleman, V.P., 1981. A strata strength index for boom type road-

headers. Tunn. Tunn. 13, 5255.

Barendsen, P., 1970. Tunnelling with machines working on under-

cutting principle. In: Goodman, R.E. (Ed.), Proc. South African

Tunnelling Conf. (The Technology and Potential of Tunnelling),pp. 53 58.

Barton, N., 1999. TBM performance estimation in rock using QTBM.

TT Int. 31, 3034.

Bilgin, N., Eskikaya, S., Dincer, T., 1993. The performance analysis

of large diameter blast hole rotary drills in Turkish Coal Enter-

prises. In: Almgren, T., Kumar, T., Vagenas, T. (Eds.), The 2nd

Int. Symp. on Mine Mech. Automation, Lulea, pp. 129 135.

Bilgin, N., Yazc, S., Eskikaya, S., 1996. A model to predict the

performance of roadheaders and impact hammers in tunnel driv-

ages. In: Barla, M. (Ed.), Prediction and Performance in Rock

Mech. and Rock Eng., Torino, vol. 2, pp. 715720.

Brown, E.T., Phillips, H.R., 1977. Recording drilling performance

for tunnelling site investigations. Rept to CIRIA (UK), Techni-

cal Note, No. 81, 120 pp.

Clark, G.B., 1979. Principles of Rock Drilling. Colorado School of

Mines, Colorado, 91 pp.Evans, I., Pomeroy, C.D., 1966. The Strength Fracture and Work-

ability of Coal. Pergamon, 277 pp.

Fowel, R.J., McFeat-Smith, I., 1976. Factors influencing the cutting

performance of a selective tunnelling machine. Tunnelling 76,

Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 311.

Goktan, R.M., 1991. Brittleness and micro-scale rock cutting effi-

ciency. Min. Sci. Technol. 13, 237241.

Hetenyi, M., 1966. Handbook of Experimental Stress Analysis.

Wiley, New York, 115 pp.

Howarth, D.F., 1986. Review of rock drillability and borability

assessment methods. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. (Sect. A: Min.

Ind.) 95, A191A201.

Howarth, D.F., 1987. The effect of pre-existing microcavities on

mechanical rock performance in sedimentary and crystalline

rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 24,

223233.

Howarth, D.F., Adamson, W.R., Berndt, J.R., 1986. Correlation of

model tunnel boring and drilling machine performances with

rock properties. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 23, 171 175

[Technical Note].

Hughes, H.M., 1986. The relative cuttability of coal-measures stone.

Min. Sci. Technol. 3 (2), 95109.

Kahraman, S., 1999. Rotary and percussive drilling prediction using

regression analysis. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36, 981989

[Technical Note].

Karpuz, C., Pasamehmetoglu, A.G., Dincer, T., Muftuoglu, Y.,

1990. Drillability studies on the rotary blasthole drilling of lig-nite overburden series. Int. J. Surf. Min. Reclam. 4, 8993.

Li, X., Rupert, G., Summers, D.A., Santi, P., Liu, D., 2000. Analysis

of impact hammer rebound to estimate rock drillability. Rock

Mech. Rock Eng. 33 (1), 113.

McFeat-Smith, I., Fowel, R.J., 1977. Correlation of rock properties

and the cutting performance of tunnelling machines. Proc. of a

Conference on Rock Engineering, The University of Newcastle

upon Tyne, 581602.

Morley, A., 1944. Strength of Materials. Longman, London 35 pp.

Nilsen, B., Ozdemir, L., 1993. Hard rock tunnel boring prediction

and field performance. In: Bowerman, L.D., Monsees, J.E.

(Eds.), Proc. of the Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conf.,

Boston, MA, pp. 833852.

Obert, L., Duvall, W.I., 1967. Rock Mechanics and the Design ofStructures in Rock. Wiley, New York, 278 pp.

Paone, J., Madson, D., 1966. Drillability studiesimpregnated dia-

mond bits. USMB RI 6776, 16 pp.

Paone, J., Madson, D., Bruce, W.E., 1969a. Drillability studies

laboratory percussive drilling. USMB RI 7300, 22 pp.

Paone, J., Bruce, W.E., Virciglio, P.R., 1969b. Drillability studies

statistical regression analysis of diamond drilling. USMB RI

6880, 29 pp.

Poole, R.W., Farmer, I.W., 1978. Geotechnical factors affecting

tunnelling machine performance in coal measures rocks. Tunn.

Tunn. 10, 2730.



15/15

Protodyakonov, M.M., 1963. Mechanical properties and drillability

of rocks. Proc. 5th Symp. Rock Mech., University of Minnesota,

Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 103118.

Ramsay, J.G., 1967. Folding and Fracturing of Rocks. McGraw-

Hill, London, 289 pp.Schmidt, R.L., 1972. Drillability studiespercussive drilling in the

field. USMB RI 7684, 31 pp.

Selim, A.A., Bruce, W.E., 1970. Prediction of penetration rate of

percussive drilling. USMB RI 73964, 21 pp.

Singh, S.P., 1986. Brittleness and the mechanical winning of coal.

Min. Sci. Technol. 3, 173180.

Singh, S.P., 1987. Criterion for the assessment of the cuttability of

coal. In: Szwilski, A.B., Richards, M.J. (Eds.), Underground

Mining Methods and Technology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp.225239.


EngineeringGeology-v65-2002-CorrelaçãoEscavabilidadeTBMBritabilidadeRocha-Kahraman

Documents

Transcript of EngineeringGeology-v65-2002-CorrelaçãoEscavabilidadeTBMBritabilidadeRocha-Kahraman