Politecnico di Torino

Porto Institutional Repository

[Article] Surface Miners: Evaluation of the Production Rate and Cutting

Performance Based on Rock Properties and Specific Energy

Original Citation:
Origliasso C.; Cardu M.; Kecojevic V. (2014). Surface Miners: Evaluation of the Production Rate
and Cutting Performance Based on Rock Properties and Specific Energy. In: ROCK MECHANICS
AND ROCK ENGINEERING, vol. 47 n. 2, pp. 757-770. - ISSN 0723-2632
Availability:
This version is available at : http://porto.polito.it/2506448/ since: March 2013
Publisher:
Springer-Verlag Wien
Published version:
DOI:10.1007/s00603-013-0393-8
Terms of use:
This article is made available under terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Article
("Public - All rights reserved") , as described at http://porto.polito.it/terms_and_conditions.
html
Porto, the institutional repository of the Politecnico di Torino, is provided by the University Library
and the IT-Services. The aim is to enable open access to all the world. Please share with us how
this access benefits you. Your story matters.

(Article begins on next page)

 1

Surface Miners: Evaluation of the Production Rate and Cutting

Performance Based on Rock Properties and Specific Energy

Chiara Origliasso • Marilena Cardu •

Vladislav Kecojevic

Abstract The purpose of this research was to evaluate the 1 Introduction

production rate (PR) and cutting performance of surface
miners (SM) based on rock properties and specific energy Surface miners (SM) were initially developed in the mid-
(SE). We use data from equipment manufacturers and 1970s (Pradhan and Dey 2009), and their use has gained
experimental data in this study and propose a new method popularity since the 1990s, with improved cutting drum
and equations to determine both the PR and the cutting design and higher engine power leading to more efficient
speed of SM. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) machines. These improvements have enabled operators to
of the rock, its abrasivity, and the machine’s engine power excavate rock in a more eco-friendly and economical
are the three most important factors influencing the PR. manner (Fig. 1).
Moreover, the cutting depth, UCS, and engine power have For cost-effective rock excavation by SM, two basic
a significant impact on the cutting speed. We propose a elements have to be considered: the machine and the rock-
new method and equations to determine the energy mass. The machine can be modified to suit specific
required to cut a volume unit and a surface unit, i.e., spe- requirements, but the rock-mass is obviously a natural
cific energy, and establish the relationship between SE, component and thus immutable. Therefore, it is imperative
UCS, and PR. The results of this study can be used by to have good understanding of the characteristics of the
surface miner operators to evaluate the applicability of the rock to be excavated in order to select the most appropriate
machines to a specific mine site. machine.
Various methods for evaluating the applicability of
surface miners based on the rock properties have been
developed in the past. The main aim of these evaluations
was to reduce the need for on-site machine trials, which are
expensive and time consuming although currently accepted
as the most accurate and reliable method of assessment.
C. Origliasso The evaluation methods that are most common in the lit-
Department of Mining Engineering, Coassolo, Turin, Italy
erature focus mainly on the cutting aspects of the
M. Cardu machines.
Department of Land, Environment and Infrastructures (DIATI), In this paper, we first review previous studies on
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24, Turin 10129, Italy various types of roadheaders (RH). Despite differences
between RH and SM, the cutting tools are generally
M. Cardu similar, and the analogy between the cutting drum and
CNR-IGAG, Turin, Italy the cutter head allows meaningful comparisons to be
made. A new method for the calculation of production
V. Kecojevic
Department of Mining Engineering, West Virginia University
rate (PR) and cutting speed is proposed here, based on
359C Mineral Resources Building, Morgantown, analysis of data obtained from both the literature and
WV 26506, USA manufacturers.
 2

2 Methods for Estimating Production Rate P

ICR ¼ 0:8  ð3Þ
SEopt
2.1 Previous Studies and Parameter Classification
where ICR is the instantaneous PR (m3/h), P is the power of
Empirical models are based mainly on previous experience the cutting machine (kW), SEopt is the Optimum specific
and on-site test data. The reliability and accuracy of these energy requirement (kWh/m3).
models depends primarily on the quantity and quality of the The results obtained by these methods were significantly
available data. One empirical method widely used to pre- different from those observed in field tests.
dict the performance of RH was developed by Bilgin et al. More recently, a new rock-mass classification was
(1997a). According to this study, the cutting performance developed by Dey and Ghose (2008) after considering the
can be evaluated by using Eq. (1): following key parameters: point load strength index Is,
volumetric joint count JV, rock abrasivity AW, machine
ICR ¼ 0:28  P  0:974RMCI ð1Þ cutting direction with respect to the joint direction Js, and
the engine power of the cutting machine M. The ratings of
where ICR is the instantaneous cutting rate (m3/h), P is the these parameters are given in Table 1, and the new cutta-
cutting power (kW) of the machine, RMCI is the rock mass bility index is given as the sum of these ratings:
  2=3
cuttability index = UCS  RQD
100 , UCS is the uniaxial CI ¼ Is þ Jv þ Aw þ Js þ M ð4Þ
compressive strength (MPa), RQD is the rock quality
designation (%). The point load index Is was used instead of the uniaxial
Based on various experimental data, a relationship compressive strength in order to simplify the testing
between the PR of continuous surface miners and the rock procedure. If this parameter is obtained from samples
UCS was proposed by Jones and Kramadibrata (1995). The whose diameter is different from 50 mm, a size correction
authors established the logarithmic relationship between factor can be added, as suggested by Greminger (1982):
PR and UCS in the following equation:
Is50 ¼ F  Is ð5Þ
PR ¼ 1005  559  Log ðUCSÞ 2Þð where F is the (sample’s diameter/50) . 0.45

It should be noted that Eq. (2) refers only to UCS values Abrasivity is an important property of rock that has a
lower than 60 MPa, even though it has been experimentally significant effect on both the machine performance and the
proven that SM can work in harder rocks. tool maintenance costs. An abrasive rock can cause fre-
Bilgin et al. (1997b) performed linear cutting tests on quent machine shut-downs in order to replace the cutting
large stone blocks (70 9 50 9 50 cm). A full-sized cutting tools. AW, the abrasivity considered here is called the
tool was used in laboratory conditions where peak forces Cerchar abrasivity as described by West (1989), and is
were recorded. Following the cutting tests, the specific determined using a test pick and a stereo-microscope with
energy required for different cutting depths and bit spacing an ocular micrometer.
was calculated. The volumetric joint count JV incorporates the proba-
The PR according to Rostami et al. (1994a, b) and bility of the SM finding a weakness plane, which will
Eskikaya et al. (2000) can be calculated as follows: eventually decrease the rock-mass strength. Parameter Jv
can be directly measured on site, or derived from RQD as
suggested by Palmstro¨m ( 1985):
RQD ¼ 115  3:3  Jv ð6Þ
Similarly, the motion of the SM with respect to the plane
of weakness is also important and is incorporated here. The
machine power should be taken into account, because a
machine with a higher power and weight can perform better
and has the capability to cut rocks with higher compressive
strengths. Based on these new cuttability concepts, the
classification according to Dey and Ghose (2008) of the
ease of rock excavation using SM is given in Table 2. This
CI rating is easy to derive and gives a first-hand insight into
the applicability of surface miners. Once the CI has been
Fig. 1 An example of a surface miner (http://www.wirtgen.de/en/ derived, the production performance of the SM can be
produkte/surface_miner/) estimated as follows:
 3

Table 1 Rock-mass classification parameters (Dey and Ghose 2008)

Class I II III IV V

Point load index (Is50) \0.5 0.5–1.5 1.5–2.0 2.0–3.5 [3.5

Rating (Is) 5 10 15 20 25
Volumetric joint count (n./m3) [30 30–10 10–3 3–1 1
Rating (Jv) 5 10 15 20 25
Abrasivity \0.5 0.5–1.0 1.0–2.0 2.0–3.0 [3.0
Rating (Aw) 3 6 9 12 15
Direction of cut with respect to major joint direction 72–90° 54–72° 36–54° 18-36° 0-18°
Rating (Js) 3 6 9 12 15
Machine power (kW) [1,000 800–1,000 600–800 400–600 \400
Rating (M) 4 8 2 16 12
0

Table 2 Ease of rock cutting according to the cuttability index CI The first parameter to be considered in determining the
rating (Dey and Ghose 2008) applicability of the SM to a specific site is the PR. Figure 2
Cuttability index Possibility of cutting shows the relationship between the PR and the rock UCS for
five different values of cutting drum width and engine power.
50 [ CI Very easy excavation
Using MS Excel, the trend of the PR for each machine was
50 \ CI \ 60 Easy excavation established. It should be noted that the PR takes into account
60 \ CI \ 70 Economic excavation not only the cutting time, but also ancillary operations such
70 \ CI \ 80 Difficult excavation, maybe not economic as maneuvering and servicing.
CI [ 80 Surface miners should not be employed Previous studies have reported (Dey and Ghose 2008;
Plinninger et al. 2002) that the PR is significantly affected by the
rock’s abrasivity. Therefore, abrasivity needs to be taken into the
  account when determining the PR. In order to verify our newly

CI
L ¼1 k Mc ð7Þ developed model, we conducted a series of tests using data from
100
Indian case studies collected by Dey and Ghose (2011). In these
where L* is the production or cutting performance (m3/h), Mc case studies, all the rock and machine parameters at the operation
is the rated capacity of the machine (m3/h), CI is the sites w e r e k n o w n ; t h u s , t h e r e a l P R was derived.
cuttability index, k a factor that takes into account the We compared the PR values estimated by our method with those
influence of specific cutting conditions, and is a function of derived by the methods of Dey and Ghose (2011), Bilgin et al.
pick lacing (array), pick shape, atmospheric conditions, etc. (1997a) and Jones and Kramadibrata (1995), even though the
It varies between 0.5 and 1. former was originally developed for RH and the latter applied for
quite low UCS values.
The speed maintained by the machines during the cut-
2.2 New PR Estimation Method
ting process is another important parameter for calculating
the PR once the cutting depth and width of the cutting drum
Data on the technical parameters of the SM were collected
are known. Assuming that for a particular value of UCS the
from various manufacturers including Wirtgen, Trencor,
PR remains almost constant regardless of depth, it is clear
TenovaTakraf, Larsen and Toubro, and Vermeer. Each of
that the speed trends will vary according to the cutting
these manufacturers builds machines with slightly different
depth. Therefore, it is required to determine a unique
characteristics:
equation in order to describe the speed variation according
– Wirtgen and Larsen and Toubro mainly manufacture to the UCS, cutting depth, and power.
machines on four tracks with the cutting drum in the
middle;
– Trencor and Vermeer manufacture trenchers on two 3 Evaluation of the Production Rate
tracks that are normally equipped with a cutting chain,
but which can be replaced by an attached drum for 3.1 Machine Power and Rock Properties
surface mining applications;
– TenovaTakraf manufactures front cutting drum It is important to emphasize that each machine has a wide
machines on three crawler tracks. range of PRs, particularly for the lower values of UCS.
 4

Table 3 Indian case studies: rock’s features and achieved production rates (Dey and Ghose 2011)
Material Density Point CAI Joint n° Cutting Machine UCS From RQD Real PR
(t/bm3) load (n°/m3) direction (°) power (kW) Is50 From Jv (t/h)

1. Coal 1.6 1.1 0.4 32 80 448 25 9 225

2. Limestone 2.2 2.1 1.5 20 86 448 48 49 143
3. Coal gray 1.9 2.5 1.0 20 80 448 57 49 160
shale patch
4. Shaly coal 1.6 2.2 0.4 33 80 671 50 6 394
5. Limestone 2.2 2.1 1.5 20 86 448 48 49 143
6. Limestone 2.2 2.5 1.5 20 86 671 57 49 264
7. Hard limestone 2.2 2.7 1.5 10 90 559 61 82 210
8. Hard limestone 2.2 3.5 1.5 12 90 783 80 75 317

Fig. 2 Average productivity

versus UCS for various SM
parameters

Thus, this comparison should be seen only as a preliminary data used to draw the graphs were average values given by
way to evaluate the performance of the different SM. We the manufacturers, and only referred to UCS and machine
used manufacturer’s data of five machines, four with four power.
tracks and a central drum, and one machine with three In Fig. 2, we assume that CAI = 0.5 (an easy-to-dig non-
tracks and a frontal drum (Fig. 2). The trend for all the abrasive material). Higher abrasivity acts on the machine’s
machine models can be well represented by an exponential performance as an increase of UCS; thus, the higher the CAI
curve and by the following equation: index, the lower the PR. Eq. (9) can therefore be modified as
PR ¼ a  ebUCS ð8Þ
PR ¼ ð 2  Pw  600Þ  e0:024ðUCSþ10ðCAI0:5ÞÞ ð10Þ
The exponent b is considered constant and equal to
0.025, and the value a can be plotted as a function of the The value 10 in the exponent has been chosen to
machines’ power (Fig. 3). The average PR depends, with a increase the value of CAI (normally variable between 0 and
good approximation, on the machine power and the rock 6) by an order of magnitude in order to make it comparable
UCS, and can be represented by the following equation: with higher UCS values. In our example of a 1,000 kW
machine, the PR values decrease when the CAI increases
PR ¼ ð 2  Pw  600Þ  e0:024UCS ð9Þ
(Fig. 4).
PR is measured in (m3/h), the machine power Pw in (kW), A comparison of the results obtained by different
and the UCS in (MPa). authors discussed above and our new method (Eq. 10), in
The main drawback to Eq. (9) is that the abrasivity of the terms of production rates and related errors, is given in
material is not taken into account, even though exper- Table 4. It appears that the reliability of the estimated PR is
imental evidence suggests that the final performance almost the same or even higher than the one quoted by Dey
depends heavily on this parameter. The omission of the and Ghose (2011) and is much higher than the values
Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI) is due to the fact that the obtained by the methods of Bilgin et al. (1997a) and Jones
 5

Fig. 3 Trend of parameter

‘‘a’’ as a function of the
cutting machine’s power

Fig. 4 Change in production

rate output of a 1,000 kW
machine for various CAI values

and Kramadibrata (1995) (Tables 1, 2, 3). The error in our – average time necessary to change the cutting tools,
method was within 25 %. As mentioned before, the method – time necessary to turn and reposition the machine at the
suggested by Jones and Kramadibrata (1995) is designed to end of each row cut (row length is usually
calculate PRs of SM in rocks with UCS lower than 60 MPa, 100 m\ l \ 200 m),
which is a significant limitation when applied to larger – average sump-in and sump-out time at the end of each
machines. The method proposed by Bilgin et al.(1997a) was row.
developed for RH that usually have lower power and
Hence, rock abrasivity, here in the form of the CAI
therefore a smaller PR. The RH and PR results were
index, though normally a parameter influencing the per-
compared with those for smaller SM using our new method
formance indirectly, needs to be taken into account when
(Fig. 5). The range of RH PR values indicates that the
determining the PR.
performance of RH appears to be less dependent than that of
SM on the variation of the UCS values.
The classification results (Table 5) of Dey and Ghose 3.2 Speed and Cutting Depth
(2011) suggest that UCS, CAI, and Machine Power are the
three most important factors influencing the machine per- Once the cutting depth and the width of the cutting drum
formance. Other more detailed information relating to the are known, the speed that the machines can maintain dur-
material structure (joint number), or cutting mode (working ing the cutting process has to be considered for calculating
direction in respect to major joints position) does not have a the PR.
significant influence on the preliminary prediction of the Many models have been developed in order to evaluate
average performance. the force between the cutting tools and the rock during the
In the discussions presented above, the predicted values cutting process. Examples are the Evans model (Evans
of PR have to be considered as operating parameters, i.e., 1972a, b, 1982, 1984a, b; Roxborough and Phillips 1975)
values that already take into account: for rolling tools, and the Nishimatsu model (Nishimatsu
 6

Table 4 Comparison of the results obtained by different authors and our new method, in terms of production rates and related errors
Bilgin et al. (1997a) Jones and Kramadibrata (1995) New method
Production rate ICR (t/h) Error % Production rate ICR (t/h) Error % Production rate ICR (t/h) Error %

201 11 357 59 266 18

276 93 146 2 163 14
238 49 46 72 127 20
301 24 88 78 366 7
276 93 146 2 163 14
413 56 53 80 328 24
344 64 / / 205 2
481 52 / / 247 22

Fig. 5 Production rate trends

calculated with two different
methods for a 450 kW machine
and rock of CAI = 1.5 and
RQD = 30

Table 5 Dey and Ghose (2011) production rate results and related depth, this would imply that the specific energy SE (the
errors energy required to cut the material) remains the same,
Is50 Aw Jv Js M C IM c K Production rate Error regardless of the cutting depth.
(m3/h) L* (t/h) % However, this is only a theoretical model, as it is known
that the scale effect deeply influences the rock’s strength. In
10 3 5 3 16 37 400 0.6 242 8
addition, it is experimentally proven (Nishimatsu 1972,
20 9 10 3 16 58 400 0.5 185 29
Pradhan and Dey 2009) that deeper cutting depths gener-
17 6 8 3 16 50 400 0.6 228 43
ally lead to bigger grain size distribution; therefore, less
15 3 5 3 10 36 668 0.6 410 4
work is needed due to dissipation than that required when
20 8 10 3 16 57 400 0.5 189 32
obtaining smaller grained material.
22 8 10 3 10 53 668 0.5 345 31
Referring to the average production rates shown previ-
23 8 15 3 16 65 600 0.5 231 10
ously (Table 4 and Figs. 4, 5) by assuming that those
25 8 15 3 9 60 845 0.5 372 17
values should remain roughly unchanged for different
working patterns, it is clear that the average cutting speed
1972) for drag tools, which are considered the closest to the has to change proportionally to the cutting depth (always
SM working features. considering different compressive strengths of the rock) in
The main goal of this work is to find the relationship order to give the same value of cut volume per unit time. If
between the cutting force and the cutting depth (other the cutting work is the same regardless of the cutting depth,
conditions being constant) using the models mentioned since the cutting work can be expressed through Eq. (11), it
above. If the cutting force is proportional to the cutting is clear that the speed must change according to the depth:
 7

Z ZZ 4 The Specific Energy

L¼Fx¼ ðrdAÞ  x ¼ ðrdDdWÞ  x ð11Þ
4.1 Previous Studies of Surface Miner Specific Energy
where L is the work, F is the force (N), x is the advance-
ment = speed 9 time unit (m), A is the area (m2), r is the When evaluating the performance of a surface miner, the
stress (Pa), D is the depth (m), and W is the width (m).
UCS of the rocks and the specific energy SE need to be
Figure 6 shows the variation of cutting speed with depth
taken into account. Both of these parameters have a sig-
for various UCS values for a 1,200 kW machine. The
nificant influence on the PR of the SM.
average advancement speed S (m/h) is related to the cutting
Several researchers have studied the relationship among
depth CD (cm) by an exponential function with a constant
various parameters of cutting machines.
exponent equal to -1:
SE was considered by Thuro (1997) for evaluating the
K drilling process, and was referred to as ‘‘specific destruc-
S¼ ð12Þ
CD tion work.’’ The author conducted experiments to deter-
where K is a coefficient that varies according to the rock mine the specific destruction work from the stress–strain
UCS and the machine. curve of a rock sample under unconfined compression.
From Fig. 6, one can derive a general correlation that The ‘‘specific destruction work’’ or specific energy
provides the average value of cutting speed for a known obtained through laboratory tests was then used by Thuro
cutting depth, UCS, and engine power. and Plinninger (1998, 1999) and Plinninger et al. (2002,
Since the coefficient K depends on the machine’s power 2003) to determine the cutting performance of RH. The
and another parameter, we can write Eq. (12) a s authors determined the relationship between PR (m3/h) and
SE (kJ/m3) to be logarithmic.
PW  Y Fowell and Johnson (1991) conducted tests for medium-
S¼ ð13Þ
CD weight RH (23–50 t) and heavy-weight RH (50–80 t). The
where S is the speed in (m/min), PW is the machine power results of the tests showed that the relationship between PR
in (kW), CD is the cutting depth in (cm), and Y is a (m3/h) and SE (kJ/m3) was exponential.
parameter that depends on UCS (Fig. 7). Barendsen (1970) established a relationship between the
Following the previous considerations, one can calculate inverse of SE and UCS for machines working on the cut-
the approximate advancement speed as ting principle (drag bit) and those working on the crushing
principle (rotary bit). The trends (Fig. 8) appeared to be
PW  ð 59:6  12 ln UCSÞ
S¼ ð14Þ exponential.
CD Roxborough and Phillips (1975) used SE derived from
Therefore, for a given job site, a reliable evaluation of instrument cutting tests (core cuttability tests) to evaluate
the required cutting time can be obtained according to the the performance of medium-weight and heavy-weight RH.
machine (power), rock (compressive strength) features, and The author established the relationship between SE and
the interaction among them. UCS as follows:

Fig. 6 Speed trends versus

cutting depth for various UCS
values. Machine power
Pw = 1,200 kW
 8

Fig. 7 Correlation between Y

and UCS

machine power and the PR obtained for rocks with dif-

ferent unconfined compressive strength. The data presented
in Fig. 9 (Evans 1982) for various SM models were acquired
from the equipment manufacturer, and it can be seen that
the relationship between SE and PR is exponential.

The specific energy is measured in (kWh/m3), the

machine power PW in (kW), and the net PR in (m3/h). The
relationship can be represented by the following equation:
SE ¼ PW=PR ð16Þ
The trends shown in Fig. 9 are similar to the results
obtained by Thuro and Plinninger (1998, 1999) and Fowell
Fig. 8 Prediction of energy required for cutting (redrawn from
and Johnson (1991) for RH although the PRs in our SM
Eskikaya et al. 2000) results are much higher than those for the RH. In addition,
the specific energy that can be produced by the SM is two to
three times higher.
SE ¼ 0:25  UCS þ C ð15Þ
The impact of UCS on the inverse of the SE is shown in
The parameter C varies according to the type of material: Fig. 10. Note that the data for the SM with different
for sedimentary rocks the most common value is 0.11, machine power are quite close together and the trend seems
which can sometimes be approximated to 0. Separating the to be exponential as in Barendsen (1970). The two sets of
values obtained by Eq. (15) into five groups, the author results are very similar, even though the range of UCS
determined the SE for medium- and heavy-weight RH and considered for the SM was smaller than that for the RH.
provided a descriptive classification of general cutting Figure 11 shows the relationship between SE and UCS.
performance (Table 6). Regardless of the SM model, the specific energy required to
Despite differences between RH and SM, the previous cut the unit volume grows according to an exponential law.
studies on RH and their results represent a valuable source The SE values of the different machines are very similar for
of information when considering SM. We now describe a low values of UCS up to 80 MPa. For UCS values of 100
new method for determining the energy required to cut MPa and higher, the SE values are more dispersed, rising
both a unit volume and a unit surface, i.e., SE. The rela- above 10 kWh/m3, mostly for the smaller machines. The
tionship between SE, UCS, and PR is also discussed. Data equation describing the trend for specific energy (kWh/m3)
on the technical parameters of SM were collected from and UCS (MPa) is as follows:
Wirtgen, a leading manufacturer of SM for surface mining.
SE ¼ 0:734  e0:026USCS ð17Þ
Wirtgen produces mainly machines on four tracks with the
cutting drum in the middle. Although the Roxborough classification refers to RH, one
can compare Eqs. (15) and (17) and note the differences and
4.2 Work Required to Cut a Unit Volume similarities between the two trends. As shown in Fig. 12, the
two datasets are similar for UCS \ 90 MPa. For values
The specific energy related to cutting of a certain type of higher than 90 MPa, the curve derived from the
rock can be represented by simply dividing the total experimental data provided by the manufacturers is much
 9

Table 6 Performance of selected roadheaders based on laboratory-specific energy tests (http://www.wirtgen.de/en/produkte/surface_miner/)

Upper value of laboratory-specific energy (MJ/m3) General cutting performance
Heavy weight machines Medium weight machines

25–32 15–20 Machine can cut economically if bed is thin (\0.3 m)

20–25 12–15 Poor cutting performance. Point attack tool may be more beneficial
and low speed cutting motor will improve stability
17–20 8–12 Moderate to poor cutting performance. For abrasive rocks frequent
pick change is required
8–17 5–8 Moderate to good cutting performance with low machine wear
\8 \5 High advanced rate and high productivity

Fig. 9 Relation between

production rate (m3/h) and
specific energy (kWh/m3) for
four SM models having different
power (SM1 600 kW; SM2 780
kW; SM3 1,200 kW; SM4 1,200
kW). SM3 and SM4 have the
same power but different cutting
drum widths

Fig. 10 Relation between UCS

(MPa) and the inverse of specific
energy (m3/MJ*100) for four SM
models having different power
or drum width (SM1 600 kW;
SM2 780 kW; SM3 1,200 kW;
SM4
1,200 kW)
 10

Fig. 11 Relationship between

specific energy and UCS for
four SM models having
different power or drum width
(SM1 600 kW; SM2 780 kW;
SM3 1,200 kW; SM4
1,200 kW)

Fig. 12 Specific energy as a

function of UCS according to
Eqs. (1) and (3)

steeper than the one derived by Roxborough. This may be Figure 13 shows the PR and SE trends for varying UCS
explained by the fact that Eq. (15) was developed for heavy- values. The PR and SE curves show opposite trends,
weight machines that can be used for very strong rocks, though both can be expressed through an exponential law.
while Eq. (17) considers the performance of machines This indicates that with increasing UCS, the PR decreases
ranging between 50 and 200 t. as fast as the energy necessary for cutting the unit volume
Therefore, the Roxborough classification can be used for grows.
SM where SE is less than 25 MJ/m3. Values of SE above 25
MJ/m3 are related to rocks that are most difficult to cut 4.3 Work Required to Cut a Unit Surface
according to Roxborough’s classification (Roxborough and
Phillips 1975). On the basis of previous studies discussed in Sect. 3.2, and
It should be noted that Eqs. (16) and (17) account only also taking into account the power employed to cut a unit
for the ‘‘actual’’ cutting time; the ancillary times, which surface area (in other words, the influence of working depth
can range between 30 and 70 % of the actual time, are not is considered) the relations shown in Figs. (14, 15, 16, 17)
considered. can be established. The SE per square meter for each type
 11

Fig. 13 Production rate

(maximum and minimum, solid
line) versus specific energy
(broken line) for various UCS

Fig. 14 Specific energy per unit

area for machine SM1 and
different cutting depths
(d = 5–35 cm)

of SM depends on the cutting depth and the UCS: the fit is SE ¼ 0:0063  d  e0:026UCS ð18dÞ
very good for SM2, SM3, and SM4, whereas a certain
where SE is expressed in (kWh/m2), UCS in (MPa), and
scattering is observed on SM1, probably due to the fact that
d is the depth in (cm). The laws describing the trend of
the small machines are not designed for working in hard
energy per square meter cut (kWh/m2) are exponential; the
rocks. Surface miners SM3 and SM4 have the same power
basis is a function of cutting depth while the exponent
(1,200 kW), but different cutting drum widths.
depends on the rock’s UCS. Eqs. (18a–d) can be
Based on the relationships shown in Figs. (14, 15, 16,
approximated by the following expression:
17), the trend between SE and UCS for various cutting
depths and machine powers can be described by the fol- SE ¼ 0:0073  d  e0:024UCS ð19Þ
lowing equations:
Note that, regardless of the type of selected SM, the
0:022UCS ð18aÞ specific energy per square meter cut is almost the same. This
SE ¼ 0:0075  d  e
0:026UCS value depends only on the mechanical properties of the rock
SE ¼ 0:0073  d  e ð18bÞ
(unconfined compressive strength) and the thickness of the
SE ¼ 0:0078  d  e0:023UCS ð18cÞ layer cut.
 12

Fig. 15 Specific energy per unit

area for machine SM2 and
different cutting depths
(d = 10–60 cm)

Fig. 16 Specific energy per unit

area for machine SM3 and
different cutting depths
(d = 10–60 cm)

5 Conclusions three parameters were found to be the most important in

determining a reliable output.
A review of the pre-existing methods for rating the per- We derived a series of graphs describing the trend of the
formance of SM has been discussed. cutting speed (m/h) according to the rock UCS and cutting
We collected and analyzed a large amount of data from depth for machines of various powers (kW). Equation (10)
the literature and proposed a new method for predicting proved to be reliable when tested with case studies found in the
SM PR. This process led to a new equation (Eq. 10) for literature, returning errors of the same magnitude or lower than
determining the PR which is derived from the values of the those obtained through other methods.
rock’s uniaxial compressive strength UCS (MPa) and Specific energy can be used to compare the performance
abrasivity (CAI) and the machine power Pw (kW). These of various SM. Determining how much energy is required
 13

Fig. 17 Specific energy per unit

area for machine SM4 and
different cutting depths
(d = 10–80 cm)

per unit volume or per unit surface is useful for evaluating Bilgin N, Balci C, Eskikaya S, Ergunlap D (1997a) Full scale and
the order of magnitude of SM efficiency. small scale cutting tests for equipment Selection in a Celestine
mine. In: Proceeding of the 6th International Symposium on
We established a general relationship for SE (MJ/m3 or Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, Wroclaw, pp 387–392
kWh/m3) and found that when the UCS of the rock Bilgin N, Kuzu C, Eskikaya S (1997b) Cutting performance of rock
increases, the PR decreases and the SE increases. The hammers and roadheaders in Istanbul Metro drivages. In:
influence of cutting depth was also taken into account: we Proceeding World Tunnel Congress, Tunnels for People, Balk-
ema, pp 455–460
derived a relationship between the energy required to cut a Dey K, Ghose AK (2008) Predicting ‘‘cuttability’’ with surface
surface unit (kWh/m2), the cutting depth (cm), and the miners—a rock-mass classification approach. J Min Met Fuels
rock’s compressive strength (MPa). The results of this study 56(5–6):85–92
can be used by machinery operators to select the most Dey K, Ghose AK (2011) Review of cuttability indices and a new
rock-mass classification approach for selection of surface miners.
applicable SM for a specific mine site. Rock Mech Rock Eng 44(5):601–611. doi:10.1007/
s00603-011-0147-4
Eskikaya S, Bilgin N, Ozdemir L et al (2000) Development of rapid
6 Websites excavation technologies for the Turkish mining and tunnelling
industries. NATO TU Excavation SfS Programme project report.
Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Mines, Istanbul pp 172
http://www.astecunderground.com/www/docs/135/trencor- Evans I (1972a) Line spacing of picks for efficient cutting. Int J Rock
literature. Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 9:355–359
Evans I (1972b) Relative efficiency of picks and discs for cutting
rock. MRDE Report No. 41, National Coal Board, UK, p 6
http://www.takraf.com/files/brochures/tenova_takraf_surface_ Evans I (1982) Optimum line spacing for cutting picks. Min Eng
miner_en.pdf. 3:433–434
http://www.larsentoubro.com/lntcorporate/. Evans I (1984a) A theory of the cutting force for point attack picks.
Int J Min Eng 2:63–71
Evans I (1984b) Basic mechanics of the point attack pick. Colliery
http://www.miningcongress.com/pdf/presentations- Guardian, London, pp 189–193
downloads/Vermeer-Jim-Hutchins-2.pdf. Fowell RJ, Johnson ST (1991) Cuttability assessment applied to drag
tool tunneling machines. In: Proceeding of the 7th International
http://www2.vermeer.com/vermeer/NA/en/N/industries/surface_ Congress on Rock Mechanics, A.A. Balkema, Aachen,
pp 985–990
mining. Greminger M (1982) Technical Note: experimental studies of the
influence of rock anisotropy on size and shape effects in point
load testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 19:241–
246
References Jones IO, Kramadibrata S (1995) An excavating power model for
continuous surface miners. Ausimm Proc 300(2):33–40 ISSN:
Barendsen P (1970) Tunneling with machines working on the 1034–6783
undercutting principle. In: Proceedings of the South African Nishimatsu Y (1972) The mechanics of the rock cutting. Int J Rock
Tunneling Conference, Atlanta, pp 53–58 Mech Min Sci Geomech 9:261–271
 14

Palmström A (1985) Application of the volumetric joint count as a Rostami J, Ozdemir L, Neil D (1994b) Performance Prediction, The
measure of rock mass jointing. Int. Symp. on Fundamentals of Key Issue in Mechanical Excavation. Mining Engineering, CSM
Rock Joints, Björkliden, pp 103–110 Internal Report, Golden
Plinninger RJ, Spaun G, Thuro K (2002) Prediction and classification Roxborough FF, Phillips HR (1975) Rock excavation by disc cutter.
of tool wear in drill and blast tunneling, Engineering Geology for Intern J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech 12(12):361–366
Developing Countries—Proceedings of the 9th Congress of the Thuro K (1997) Drillability prediction—geological influences in hard
International Association for Engineering Geology and the rock drill and blast tunnelling. Geol Rundsch 86:426–438
Environment, Durban, pp 16–20 Thuro K, Plinninger RJ (1998) Geological limits in roadheader
Plinninger RJ, Kasling H, Thuro K, Spaun G (2003) Testing excavation—four case studies. In: Proceedings of the 8th
conditions and geomechanical properties influencing the Cerchar international association for engineering geology congress,
abrasiveness index CAI value. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40: Rotterdam
259–263 Thuro K, Plinninger RJ (1999) Roadheader excavation perfor-
Pradhan P, Dey K (2009) Rock cutting with surface miner: a mance—geological and geotechnical influences. In: Proceedings
computational approach. J Eng Technol Res 1(6):115–121 of the 9th international congress on rock mechanics, Paris
Rostami J, Ozdemir L et al (1994a) Roadheaders performance West G (1989) Technical note: rock abrasiveness testing for
optimization for mining and civil construction. In: Proceeding of tunnelling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 26(2):
13th Annual Technical Conference, Institute of Shaft Drilling 151–160
Technology (ISDT) Las Vegas