INTRODUCTION
Several years ago extensive field surveys were conducted in the iron ore mining industry in North America
with a view to relating rotary drill performance to rock
properties. These studies1 showed that a good correlation
could be obtained between penetration rate and rock
uniaxial compressive strength, provided sufficient tests
were conducted to obtain a statistically meaningful rock
strength. Instrumented field tests also indicated that the
penetration rate could be correlated linearly with the
weight/inch of bit diameter and with the rotational rate.
The results of this work can be expressed by the following
empirical equation:2
WRPM
(1)
P=(61-2810glOSe)T
300
P = Penetration rate (ft/hr)
Se = Uniaxial compressive strength,
in thousands of psi
W/4> = Wt. per inch of bit diameter,
in thousands of lb.
RPM = Revolutions of drill pipe/minute
Fig. 1 is the pattern produced at the bottom of a
drill hole by a tungsten carbide insert bit. Note the
pattern of the indentation where the tungsten carbide
inserts have been pushed into the rock. Laboratory
indent or tests were therefore run in which tungsten
carbide inserts were pushed into rocks of different
strengths. Generally the first part of the force penetration
curve was found to be linear and its slope could be
related to rock compressive strength or crushing strength.
This, we felt, was further indication that such an empirical equation was fitting since the linear force penetration
relationship fits well with the field data.
DISCUSSION
Rotary Drill Performance: Using equation (1) it is
possible to calculate the penetration rate for rocks of
different strengths and values of weight/inch of bit
diameter and RPM. The question which arises is what
value of weight/inch of bit diameter to use? As a rule
values of this used in the industry vary with the hole
diameter. As bits get larger bearings also increase in
size, so that greater loadings can be employed and still
experience good bit life. Fig. 2 shows typical values of
W/4>versus bit diameter which are recommended for
use. These range from 5 200 to 7 200 Ib/in. of bit diameter
in going from six in. to 12-1-in. diameter bits which makes
for an increase of 40 per cent in penetration rate in
Fig. 1-Bottom
rotary
JANUARY
1971 115
en
Q]
...J
I.L.
0
en
0
Z
<t
en
:::>
0
I
I0
a::
lJ.J
IlJ.J
10
:!:
<t
0
TABLE I
9
COSTS AND DRILLING
'"
'"
Type of Drill
'"
'"
l-
Q]
""
""
I
U
Z
a::
lJ.J
a..
14
10
12
BIT DIAMETER-IN
16
60R
28.00
60
50 R
32.00
55
4OR
34.00
50
70
60
0::
:J:
.....
I-
':W
'0
z
0
'0
Ie(
a:
~a:
'0
LIMESTONE
ASBESTOS
20
Iq
I
3"678010
.!cOG Se - PSI
"678"00
IN THOUSANDS
Fig. 3-Penetration
rate versus rock compressive
strength
for various hole diameters
at the recommended
weight per
inch of bit and 60 rpm.
60 R
16.00
75
50R
16.00
75
4OR
14.50
75
z
w
CL.
$/Drilling Hour
(Minus Bits)
COPPER
II
<.!)
lJ.J
;;:
t;j
MACHINES
TACONITE
I.L.
0
'"
13
./
1400
xl
12
1200
11
UJ
W
I
U 10
z
1000
/. j'
er:
w
I- 9
w
::;;
<t
:)
8
45,000
PSI
COMPRESSIVE
ST
X 25,000
18,000
PSI
PSI
COMPRESSIVE
COMPRESSIVE
ST
ST
1000
',BIT
W
lJ...
.-J 600
800
lJ...
x.
Fig. 4- Tungsten
I-
CD
400
3000
2000
(FEET)
LIFE
I-
diameter
200
for
2000
6000
12
10,000
DIAMETER
(LBS)
11
TACONITE
10
tu.
....
~3
tIf)
~ 9
~
w
>w
::?'
<t 8
0
7
6
1000
PSI COMPRESSIVE ST
8000 PS I COMPRESSIVEST
z'"
J
J
:;
3000
2000
BIT
Fig. 5-Steel
12,000
toothed
LIFE
5000
4000
diameter
OF THE SOUTH
AFRICAN
INSTITUTE
RE
x-
-. --.
COPPER
",LIMESTONE
for two
ORE
"'-
'"
10
II
12
The next logical question to ask is, what about the bit
life at lower pulldown weights than the recommended
ones? They generally increase further and then fall off.
The exact shape of the curves are not known reliably at
the present time. This represents one area that deserves
attention, particularly in those countries with lower
labour costs than North America, since this could produce a lower cost/ft, by operating at a lower pulldown
weight although by the same token a lower productivity.
Fig. 7 shows the overall cost situation for drilling
rotary blast holes of different diameters in the following
segments of the industry, taconite, iron ore, copper ore,
limestone and asbestos. It is noteworthy that in all but
the strongest of these materials, the taconite, the drilling
cost per foot is constant or falls off as the hole size
increases. The data are from single operations so that
rock variability from property to property has been
eliminated.
JOURNAL
/x
-o-oASBESTOS
IFEET)
0-----
--
0
u
.
Fig. 7-Drilling
cost/ft
Fig. 8 shows the drilling cost per ton for the same
operations. These are the actual values experienced for
different sizes of hole. At all values of rock strength the
drilling cost per ton falls off with increase of blast hole
size and in the hardest of rocks this represents about
2rf:/ton in going from lOin. to 12-1in. holes. In other areas
this represents a 50 per cent decrease in cost or about
41/ton. The fall-off in drilling cost in limestone in going
from two in. percussive to a 12-1in. rotary hole is dramatic
and is more than a factor of 12. In asbestos the fall off
is also marked being 100 per cent in going from a four
in. percussive hole to a 6i in. diameter rotary one. As
hole sizes have increased for operations large enough to
warrant it so have production levels, due to increased
penetration rate and blast hole spacings, Fig. 8b.
JANUARY 1971ut
12
\
10
UJ
a.
0
0
"-
\~
u
>-
8
z'"
-'
='
er
a
UJ
0
zq:
UJ
::J
0
:I:
I-
~~"'"
1-
COPP~.-
COALSTRIPPING-.ORE_X_X-
L-
10
HOLE DIAMETER
Fig. B-Drilling
cost/ton
versus
:I:
Ito
Z
W
IRON
.14
10
er:
I,
,~O
800D
0
>-
z
0
fU
::J
0
0
er:
0.
6000
4000
2000
40
30
w
>
20
a.
'"
::;;
0
u
10
\K
M~\.
'"\z~",
rocks.
f.
IOcr_,C
If)
If)
w
IINSI
\.
I'"
UJ
ORE
:.12
50
9 7/a
20
30
40
50
PENE-I RATION RATE I FT / HR)
10
Fig. 9-Penetration
strength
~0
'
x--
Fig. Bb-Tons
of
u;
6-
60
u.
0
If)
0
z
q:
If)
:::>
0
:I:
50
!:
50 R 197/.')
HAMMER DRILL
I
17")
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I HAMMERDRILL
I
/
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
/
;/
/
;
/
40
:I:
Ito
Z
W
I(/)
'"
30
W
~(/)
(/)
w
Il.
'"
::;;
0
u
20
,..- .10
./
,.,..-
19")
.-
DOLLARS I FT OF HOLE
Fig.
10-Comparison
of hammerdrill
and 50 R cost/It
of hole.
500
:~
a: 400
0
'"
A ASBESTOS
L LIMESTONE
-' 300
i3
<D
'-z
U)
~
I-
0200
>-
8
A
L
(j)
I0
<.) 6
....
~
(j)
0
...J
0X
4
75
L
LL
4
6
8
10
HOLE DIAMETER (INS)
Fig. 11-Explosives
cost/ton
in limestone
industries versus hole diameter for a common
of 0.33 Ibs/ton.
OF THE SOUTH
AFRICAN
INSTITUTE
Fig. 12-0versized
material
105
115
125
135
145
CONSUMPTION (ENERGY UNITS/TON)
versus
explosives
consumption.
Comparing Explosives
12
and asbestos
powder factor
95
EXPLOSIVE
85
OF MINING
AND
JANUARY
1971 119
2Me W
2 Wc/>
Me+Mporl+c/>
Vp
(2)
where:
W= (I -;~)
JANUARY
1971
120
z
0
f-
;;;
/-
100
t:
z
'"
>-
~
w
80
60
z
0(.)
40
/:~
z
w
f0..
::lE
::>
(f)
w
>
~
...J
20
ETITE,TACONITE
Ia UARTz- MAGN
COPPE R
ILIMESTONE!
0..
X
W
ASBESTosl
ISPECULARITE-MAGNETITE
QUARTZITE,GRANITE
10
20
COMPRESSIVE
Fig. 13-Explosive
strength
30
STRENGTH
40
50
(THOUSANDS
60
OF PSI)
70
consumption
versus rock compressive
(1#AN/FO=100 energy units)
Wall Control
REFERENCES
JOURNAL
OF THE SOUTH
AFRICAN
INSTITUTE
OF MINING
AND
1.
METALLURGY
JANUARY
1971 121