Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Original article

Investigation of effect of CO2 laser parameters on drilling characteristics

of rocks encountered during mining
A. Bharatish ⇑, B. Kishore Kumar, R. Rajath, H.N. Narasimha Murthy
Department of Mechanical Engineering, R V College of Engineering, Bangalore 560059, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Application of laser technology for drilling rock samples reduces mining costs because of its higher trans-
Received 11 May 2017 mission capabilities providing an alternative to conventional drill bits and blasting techniques. This paper
Accepted 28 December 2017 investigates the effect of laser drilling parameters such as laser power, frequency, assist gas pressure and
Available online xxxx
piercing time on drilling characteristics of rock mineral samples such as limestone, shale and sandstone
using 12 kW CO2 Laser. For limestone, minimum specific energy of 46.14 kJ/mm3 and maximum rate of
Keywords: penetration 15.14 mm/s was achieved at 1000 W laser power, 1 kHz frequency, 6 bar assist gas pressure
Laser drilling
and 0.1 s piercing time. For sandstone, minimum specific energy of 14.33 kJ/mm3 and maximum ROP of
Specific energy
Rate of penetration
57.46 mm/s was achieved at 1000 W, 1 kHz, 2 bar and 0.1 s. For shale, minimum specific energy of 8.13
Rock minerals kJ/mm3 and ROP of 45.05 mm/s was achieved at 300 W, 5 kHz, 2 bar and 0.1 s, based on Response Surface
Response surface methodology Methodology. Morphological studies were reported on the drilled rock samples.
Ó 2017 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction and literature review
Application of advanced high power laser technology to oil and
gas well drilling has attracted the attention of many research insti-
tutes, petroleum industries, and universities (Dong-Gyu and
Gwang-Won, 2009). The conventional methods and equipment
used for drilling oil, gas and water wells have been developed to
crush various earth and rock formations (Williams, 1986). How-
ever, they do not perform well in the hardest rock formations
because of slower drilling rate and higher tool wear (Bazargan
et al., 2013). Laser technology applied to drilling and completion
operations can reduce drilling time by eliminating the rock contact
and need of mechanical bit replacement. With the adoption of laser
technology for perforation, the rock is cleaned and fluid flow paths
for oil and gas production are retained without destruction (Xu
et al., 2003a,b). Other advantages of laser include the creation of
a melted rock wellbore lining which can eliminate the need for
steel casing and improved flow performance, if adopted as a perfo-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bharatisha@rvce.edu.in (A. Bharatish).
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
rator (Batarseh et al., 2003). The rocks encountered in oil and gas
drilling include shale, a rock with fine grain size, sandstone, made
up of grains predominantly 62 microns and larger; and limestone.
The three different methods by which rock can be removed by
lasers include thermal spalling, melting and vaporization. The most
efficient rock removal mechanism would be to minimize energy to
remove unit volume of rock (specific energy) while maximizing the
rate of penetration (ROP) (Xu et al. (2002)). Modern high power
lasers have enough power to spall melt and vaporize all types of
rocks.
Some of the authors have reported laser – rock mineral interac-
tion studies using Nd:YAG and CO2 lasers. Gas Institute of Technol-
ogy (GTI) investigated the interaction of high power lasers with
different rock types to determine the extent of application in dril-
ling for mining purposes. GTI identified the specific energy (SE) to
remove rock samples such as sandstone, shale and limestone using
1.6 kW pulsed Nd: YAG laser beam (Parker et al., 2003a).
Ezzedine et al. (2015) investigated the influence of repetition
rate, pulse width, specific energy on hole diameter of sandstone
and lime stone using 1400 W CO2 laser. The spallation tempera-
tures induced by flame jet heating was below 5200 °C and no solid
phase transitions were reported. Parker et al. (2003b) investigated
the rock removal efficiency of the multiple laser beams by drilling
large diameter holes in rocks using 1.6 MW Mid-infrared Advanced
Chemical Laser (MIRACL). It was found that combination of several
small illuminated spots created a larger hole. Gahan et al. (2001)
investigated the effect of laser exposure time on specific energy

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2017.12.003
1018-3639/Ó 2017 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article in press as: Bharatish, A., et al. Investigation of effect of CO2 laser parameters on drilling characteristics of rocks encountered during
mining. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2017.12.003
2 A. Bharatish et al. / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Nomenclature

Lp Laser Power (W) SE Specific Energy

F Frequency of laser (kHz) ROP Rate of penetration
Pt Piercing time of laser (s) RSM Response Surface Methodology
Agp Assist gas pressure (Bar) TSM Trichomonas Stereo Measuring Microscope

using 1.6 kW pulsed Nd:YAG laser and found that the specific 2. Experimental studies
energy increased with increase in exposure time for shale mineral
when compared to limestone and sandstone. Rad et al. (2014) Laser drilling technique was employed by using 12 kW Trumph
investigated the thermal influence of gas laser drilling in different Laser Cell 1005. CO2 laser in continuous mode was used and smal-
composition of limestone samples. CO2 laser achieved greater rate ler diameter holes were obtained. The specifications of the laser
of penetration (ROP) compared to conventional operations and machine are as indicated in Table 1.The rock minerals such as lime-
were more effective than the solid state lasers. Hafez et al. stone, sandstone and shale were used in the experimental studies
(2015) carried out high specific power laser drilling and a com- and trepanning drilling technique was used for drilling holes in
puter control ROP laser system. It was concluded that the rock samples. Properties of the rock samples are presented in Table 2.
removal mechanism may be shifted from melting to spallation to Experiments were conducted based on L9 Taguchi’s orthogonal
achieve efficient laser drilling. array as shown in Table 3. Parameters like laser power (Lp), fre-
Salehi et al. (2007) developed a test plan to measure the amount quency (F), piercing time (Pt) and assist gas pressure (Agp) were
of energy required to remove the material from the rock samples chosen as factors. The specific energy and rate of penetration were
by minimising the secondary effect that tends to absorb laser selected as responses. When laser drilling was attempted on rock
power. Increase in beam repetition rate increased the material minerals samples with laser power lesser than 300 W, through
removal rate and increase in pulse width and repetitive pulse rate holes were not achieved and cracks were formed on the top surface
decreased the specific energy. Williams (1986) investigated the of the sample, thus resulting in failure.
thermal spallation during the drilling process. It was reported that
rapid heating during drilling produced a thin surface layer with
high temperature resulting in formation of spall. Xu et al. (2003a, 2.1. Scheme of measuring the drilling responses
b) investigated the interaction of 1.6 kW Nd:YAG laser with rock
samples such as shale, limestone and sandstone. The effect of laser Diameter and area of the drilled holes in rock minerals were
parameters on specific energy and spallation was evaluated. The measured using Trichomonas Stereo Measuring Microscope
lowest SE values were obtained in the spalling zone just prior to (TSM). The images were captured from TSM and were imported
the onset of mineral melt. The study found that increasing beam to Image J Software and Diameter of the hole and thickness was
repetition rate within the same material removal mechanism measured from which Drilled area was obtained. The drilled rock
increased the material removal rate. Damian et al. (2016) reported samples are as shown in Fig. 1(a)–(c).
the coupled thermal-mechanical physics inherent to laser rock
interaction. COMSOL Multiphysics was used to study the heat
transfer with phase change in laser-drilling of rocks. The numerical 2.2. Specific energy (SE)
results showed that it was possible to use an anisotropic thermal
conductivity, in the melting and vaporization phases, to account The amount of energy required to remove a unit volume of rock
for removing and evaporating materials. Leonenko et al. (2013) is known as specific energy. It is the absorbed energy that causes
investigated the laser treatment of carbonate rocks using continu- the rock heating and destruction. SE was evaluated using Eq. (1)
ous 600 W fiber-optic ytterbium laser radiation. It was found that
the depth of cut grew with increasing laser radiation power and Energy input
Specific EnergyðJ=mm3 Þ ¼ ð1Þ
the dolomite specimen had smaller cut depth than that in the lime- Volume removed
stone specimen.
The volume of the material removed is calculated using Eq. (2)
The review of literature indicated that the physical phe-
nomenon behind the laser drilling of rock minerals is not fully p
explored because of its strong dependence on material composi- Volume removedðmm3 Þ ¼  ðhole depthÞ  ðR2 þ r2
3
tion and grain size. Simultaneous optimisation of laser rock dril-
þ ðR  rÞÞ ð2Þ
ling responses in order to reduce the operation time is not yet
reported. Hence the present research focuses on studying the
effect of laser rock drilling parameters such as laser power, fre- where R and r are entrance and exit radius of hole respectively.
quency, assist gas pressure and piercing time on specific energy
and rate of penetration in rock minerals such as limestone, sand Table 1
stone and shale, based on Taguchi’s orthogonal array technique. Specifications of Laser Machine.
ANOVA was used to identify the significant effects of laser
Machine Model Trumpf Laser Cell 1005 CO2 laser
parameters on measured rock drilling responses. Multiple regres-
sion models were obtained to correlate laser parameters with Wavelength 10.6 m
Frequency 10 Hz–10 kHz
drilling responses. Simultaneous optimisation of drilling Power 1800 W–12,000 W
responses was achieved using Response Surface Methodology. Working distance 500 mm
Morphological features of laser drilled holes in rock samples Maximum field size 2000 mm  1500 mm
were investigated using scanning electron microscope and X- Beam diameter 0.25 mm
Mode of operation Continuous type
ray diffraction methods.

Please cite this article in press as: Bharatish, A., et al. Investigation of effect of CO2 laser parameters on drilling characteristics of rocks encountered during
mining. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2017.12.003
 A. Bharatish et al. / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (2018) xxx–xxx 3

Table 2 4. Response surface methodology models (RSM)

Properties of Rock Minerals.

Properties Limestone Sandstone Shale The relationship between the laser drilling parameters and the
Porosity (%) 0–20 5–30 0–10 responses was modelled using RSM. The general first order RSM
Density (kg/cm3) 2.5 to 2.7 2.3 to 2.4 2.3 model used to predict the influence of laser parameters on the
Specific heat (J/gK) 0.908 0.92 0.391 response factor is given by Eq. (5).
Thermal Conductivity (W/mK) 0.0048 0.0125 0.0042
Young’s Modulus (GPa) 20.70 18.45 8.46 Y i ¼ b0 þ ðb1  X i1 Þ þ ðb2  X i2 Þ þ :::: þ ðbq  X iq Þ þ i ði
Compressive Strength 60–170 90 to 140 70–120
(N/mm2) ¼ 1; 2; 3 . . . . . . ::NÞ ð5Þ
Hardness 3 to 4 6.5 to 7 3
(Mosh’s Scale) where yi is the response factor and xij are the values of ith observa-
tion and jth level of the drilling parameters .The terms bi are the
regression coefficients. For modelling purpose, the higher order lin-
2.3. Rate of penetration (ROP) ear effects were considered and the interactive effects were
neglected. The residual Єi is a measure of the experimental error.
The amount of material removed in unit time is known as rate First order RSM model was developed to predict the mathematical
of penetration and defined as ratio of specific power to specific relationship between measured responses such as specific energy
energy (Jaeger and Cook, 1976) given in Eq. (3) and rate of penetration and the process parameters such as laser
power, frequency, piercing time and assist gas pressure. The regres-
Specific power sion equations and corresponding R-Squared values for drilling
ROPðmm=sÞ ¼ ð3Þ
Specific energy responses of rock minerals obtained from Minitab-17 are presented
in Table 5.
The specific power of a laser is defined as the laser power per
In general, the response surface representing the SE as a func-
cross sectional unit area of the beam, given by Eq. (4)
tion of laser drilling parameters such as laser power (Lp), frequency
Laser Power (Fr) and assist gas pressure (Agp) and piercing time(Pt) were repre-
Specific PowerðW=mm2 Þ ¼ ð4Þ sented by Eq. (6)
Area
SE ¼ b0 þ ðb1  Lp Þ þ ðb2  Fr Þ þ ðb3  Agp Þ þ ðb4  Pt Þ ð6Þ
3. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of drilling responses Based on the experimental results of laser drilling, the regres-
sion models established for correlating SE and ROP with the laser
ANOVA was performed in order to determine the influence of parameters for limestone, sandstone and shale are presented in
parameters such as laser power, pulse frequency, piercing time the Table 5.
and assist gas pressure on SE and ROP. The assessment was made The adequacy of the model was further analysed by R-squared
based on F and p distributions as shown in Table 4. values. These values represented the confidence level of regression

Table 3
L9 Orthogonal array experimental layout for Limestone and Sandstone.

Sl No P (W) F (kHz) Agp (bar) Pt (s) Limestone Sandstone Shale

SE ROP SE ROP SE ROP
(kJ/mm3) (mm/s) (kJ/mm3) (mm/s) (kJ/mm3) (mm/s)
1 1000 1 2 0.1 79.53 15.86 16.65 59.97 8.13 47.59
2 1000 2 4 0.2 133.92 8.01 34.07 28.16 16.72 22.07
3 1000 5 6 0.3 196.01 5.29 55.50 19.46 20.75 15.51
4 1200 1 4 0.3 299.83 5.27 63.99 19.67 33.94 16.08
5 1200 2 6 0.1 75.61 16.10 21.34 56.62 9.96 46.58
6 1200 5 2 0.2 193.16 8.03 39.82 29.32 19.31 24.39
7 1500 1 6 0.2 216.08 7.85 47.52 26.98 39.68 22.90
8 1500 2 2 0.3 322.70 5.15 66.03 17.33 63.35 15.58
9 1500 5 4 0.1 366.48 6.58 81.95 15.38 19.90 47.24

Fig. 1. Laser Drilled holes in a) Limestone b) sandstone c) shale.

Please cite this article in press as: Bharatish, A., et al. Investigation of effect of CO2 laser parameters on drilling characteristics of rocks encountered during
mining. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2017.12.003
4 A. Bharatish et al. / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Table 4
ANOVA Results of Laser Drilling on Rock Materials.

Limestone Shale Sandstone Ftab

SE ROP SE ROP SE ROP
(kJ/mm3) (mm/s) (kJ/mm3) (mm/s) (kJ/mm3) (mm/s)
Fcal P Fcal P Fcal P Fcal P Fcal P Fcal P
6.10 16.20 6.42 0.0457 8.66 45.30 0.65 0.03 2.21 39.43 1.305 0.045 2
0.84 2.25 1.05 0.0075 1.27 6.65 1.70 0.09 0.93 16.55 0.967 0.0075 2
1.15 3.05 0.94 0.0067 0.72 3.79 1.34 0.07 1.06 19.02 1.03 0.0067 2
29.54 78.48 14048.6 99.940 8.44 44.23 1723.91 99.78 1.40 24.98 2.58 99.94 2

Fcal – Fisher’s calculated value, Ftab – Fisher’s tabulated value.

Table 5 tional laser energy. This melt acts as a barrier which prevents the
Regression models for Rock minerals. laser beam from fully interacting with limestone. Also, extra heat
Rock Responses Regression Equations R-sq dissipation will result in thermal expansion, fracture formation
minerals value and mineral decomposition tending to cause increase in specific
Limestone SE 147 + 1.183Lp + 3.3 Fr 43.6 Agp – 30Pt 86.10% energy values.
(kJ/mm3) ROP decreased with increase in piercing time at constant laser
ROP 20.71–0.00034 Lp 0.003 Fr + 0.017 Agp 92.62% power. This was mainly because increase in piercing time causes
(mm/s) 53.26 Pt increase in duration of laser exposure leading to higher interaction
Sandstone SE 62.5 + 0.0610 Lp + 4.58 Fr + 0.15 Agp + 71.54% with melt rather than substrate. This causes increase in width of
(kJ/mm3) 109.3 Pt melt zone in radial direction leading to lower ROP. This is in agree-
ROP 107.8–0.0334 Lp 3.70 Fr 0.30 Agp 78.35%
(mm/s) 125.8 Pt
ment with Hafez et al. (2015). The authors eventhough reported
that the dominant rock removal mechanism was melting, they
Shale SE 10.78 + 0.03740 Power 2.169 Fr 97.25%
(kJ/mm3) 1.701 Agp + 133.4 Pt
could not confirm the correlation between ROP and exposure time,
ROP 60.61 + 0.00004 Lp + 0.11 Fr 0.21 Agp 91.36% which was established from present study.
(mm/s) 157.1 Pt The desirability function approach is used for the optimization of
multiple responses. It finds the experimental factors which provide
and indicated that experimental and predicted values were in good the most desirable response values. For each response, a desirability
agreement with each other. function assigns numbers between 0 and 1 to the possible values of
the response. The response value equal to zero represents a com-
pletely undesirable value and the response value equal to one repre-
5. Results and discussion sents a completely desirable or ideal response value. The individual
desirabilities are combined using the geometric mean, which gives
5.1. Influence of laser parameters on specific energy and ROP of the overall or composite desirability. Using Minitab, Minimum
limestone Specific energy (46.142 kJ/mm3) and maximum ROP (15.141 mm/
s) were obtained at 1000 W laser power, 1 kHz pulse frequency, 6
From ANOVA results of SE & ROP, Fcal value was greater than Ftab bar assist gas pressure and 0.1 s piercing time.
value for laser power and piercing time, thus both were found to be
influencing factors for SE and ROP. From RSM plot as shown in 5.2. Influence of laser parameters on SE and ROP of sandstone
Fig. 2, SE increased with increase in laser power and piercing time.
Increase in piercing time lead to heating of interaction region and From ANOVA results (Table 5), Fcal value was greater than Ftab
secondary effects such as material melting which consumes addi- value for laser power with respect to SE, thus only laser power

Fig. 2. Response surface methodology plot for limestone.

Please cite this article in press as: Bharatish, A., et al. Investigation of effect of CO2 laser parameters on drilling characteristics of rocks encountered during
mining. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2017.12.003
 A. Bharatish et al. / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (2018) xxx–xxx 5

was found to be the influencing factor for SE. For ROP, since Fcal
value was greater than Ftab value for piercing time, same was influ-
ential. RSM plot (Fig. 3) depicts the effect of laser power and pierc-
ing time on SE. It was observed that, specific energy increased with
increase in laser power. Sandstone mainly contains clay particles
entrapped with water molecules. Increase in laser power causes
increase in surface temperature which in turn leads to vaporization
of water molecules. This increases the volume and pressure in the
pore and causes fractures. These fractures represent the loss of
energy, which results in higher values of specific energy of sand-
stone Xu et al. (2003a,b). ROP decreased with increase in piercing
time whereas power increased with increase in ROP throughout
the process. As the piercing time increases energy accumulates in
the form of heat, thus increasing local temperature of minerals of
sandstone to their melting point and forms a glassy melt. Since
sandstone has higher thermal conductivity compared to limestone
and shale, higher amount of heat energy is transferred due to prox-
imity of grains, resulting in higher melt. This melt acts as a barrier
for laser material interaction and hence ROP decreases (Gahan
et al., 2001). Minimum Specific energy (14.33 kJ/mm3) and maxi-
mum ROP (57.46 mm/s) were obtained at 1000 W laser power, 1
kHz laser frequency, 2 bar assist gas pressure and 0.1 s piercing
time.
5.3. Influence of laser parameters on specific energy and ROP of shale
ANOVA results (Table 5) indicated that SE was influenced by
laser power and piercing time and ROP was influenced by only
piercing time since corresponding Fcal value was found to be
greater than Ftab value. The effect of laser power and piercing
time on specific energy was indicated by RSM plot as shown in
Fig. 4. It was observed that, specific energy increased with
increase in power and piercing time. The shale sample was easily
drilled than limestone or the sandstone. Increase in laser power
causes higher material removal rate as well as induces secondary
effects, such as ex-solving gases which absorbs the beam energy

Fig. 3. Response surface methodology plot for sandstone.

Fig. 4. Response surface methodology plot for shale.

Please cite this article in press as: Bharatish, A., et al. Investigation of effect of CO2 laser parameters on drilling characteristics of rocks encountered during
mining. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2017.12.003
6 A. Bharatish et al. / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

or particles released from the sample (Parker et al., 2003c, 18).
ROP decreased with increase in piercing time whereas power
remained constant throughout the process. Increase in piercing
time causes non overlapping of laser spots and hence there is
a possibility of spikes and ridges of remnant materials forming
between the spots. This caused decrease in ROP (Parker et al.,
2003b, 9). Specific energy and ROP obtained as 8.13 kJ/mm3
and 45.05 mm/s respectively.
5.4. Morphological studies
5.4.1. Limestone
The laser drilled holes were examined under scanning electron
microscope (Model Hitachi SU-1500 SEM 15.0 kV) in order to char-
acterize the geometrical and metallurgical features and ascertain
the influence of laser parameters on drilling characteristics. The
laser drilled rock minerals were gold sputtered to study the region

Fig. 5. a) SEM Image of laser drilled hole in limestone b) XRD plot for limestone –. 1, 2, 3 -Ca37.6Mo12N56O3Sr13.4 – Calcium Strontium Tetranitridomolybdate Nitride Oxide. 4,
12 – Ca1O3Si1 – Calcium Catena-silicate. 5, 6 – C2Ca1Mg1O6 – Dolomite. 7 – Ca0.1Ce0.5Mg0.05O1.85 – Cerium Calcium Magnesium Oxide. 8, 9, 10, 11 – Al0.5Ca2Mg0.75O7Si1.75 –
Akermanite – Gehlenite.

Fig. 6. a) SEM image of laser drilled hole in sandstone b) XRD plot of sandstone –. 1 – H36 Ca2 Cd3 Cl10 O18 – Octaaquacalcium Catena-decachlorotricadmate Dihydrate. 2, 4 –
Ca1 O3 Si1 – Calcium Catena-silicate. 3 – Ca1 Cu3 O12 V4 – Calcium Tricopper(II) Tetrakis(trioxovanadate(IV)).

Fig. 7. a) SEM image of laser drilled hole in shale b) XRD plot of shale. 1 – Ca0.75 Hf1 O3 Sr0.25 – Calcium Strontium Hafnate. 2, 4 – H16 As1 Ca1 K1 O12 – Calcium Potassium
Arsenate Octahydrate. 3 – H4 Ca3 Cl2 O6 – Tricalcium Bis(chlorate(I)) Hydroxide. 5 – Ca0.3 Mn1 O3 Pr0.7 – Praseodumium Calcium Manganese Oxide (0.7/0.3/1/3).

Please cite this article in press as: Bharatish, A., et al. Investigation of effect of CO2 laser parameters on drilling characteristics of rocks encountered during
mining. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2017.12.003
 A. Bharatish et al. / Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences xxx (2018) xxx–xxx
around the hole for grain structure and micro cracks. Fig. 5(a)
shows the hole drilled in limestone at 1000 W laser power, 1 kHz
pulse frequency, 6 bar assist gas pressure and 0.1 s piercing time
and Fig. 5(b) shows the XRD plot of the same. Laser drilled lime-
stone indicated a large melted zone on the top surface along with
micro cracks and pores mainly due to higher laser power intensity
and lower piercing time
5.4.2. Sandstone
Fig. 6(a) shows the hole drilled in sandstone at 1000 W laser
power, 2 kHz pulse frequency, 4 bar assist gas pressure and 0.2 s
piercing time. During the laser sandstone interaction, the greater
percentage of quartz in the rock samples causes the higher laser
energy consumption in secondary mechanism, including melting
and vaporization. The clay particles get dehydrated when exposed
to high temperature which enhances the permeability and creates
micro fractures as evidenced in the Fig. 6 (a). A sharp peak with
high intensity was detected at the 2h value of 15.34° which con-
firmed the presence of quartz after laser drilling process as shown
in the Fig. 6(b).
5.4.3. Shale
Fig. 7(a) shows the hole drilled in shale at 300 W laser power, 5
kHz pulse frequency, 6 bar assist gas pressure and 0.3 s piercing
time. During the laser shale interaction, shale requires least speci-
fic energy to remove a unit volume of rock since it do not contain
any moisture content in inter layers. A sharp peak with high inten-
sity was detected at the 2h value of 74.35° which confirmed the
presence of calcium strontium hafnate after laser drilling process
as shown in the Fig. 7(b).
6. Conclusions
CO2 laser drilling studies on rock mineral samples such as lime-
stone, sandstone and shale was carried out to investigate the effect
of laser parameters on specific energy and rate of penetration char-
acteristics. The following conclusions were arrived at:
1. SE and ROP of limestone were influenced by laser power and
piercing time. SE and ROP of sandstone were influenced by laser
power and piercing time respectively. SE of shale was influ-
enced by laser power and piercing time and ROP of shale was
influenced by piercing time.
2. For limestone, minimum specific energy of 46.14 kJ/mm3 and
maximum ROP of 15.14 mm/s could be achieved at 1000 W
Laser power, 1 kHz Frequency, 6 bar Assist gas pressure and
0.1 s Piercing time. For sandstone, minimum specific energy of
14.33 kJ/mm3 and maximum ROP of 57.46 mm/s could be
achieved at 1000 W, 1 kHz, 2 bar and 0.1 s. For shale, minimum
specific energy of 8.13 kJ/mm3 and ROP of 45.05 mm/s could be
achieved at 300 W, 5 kHz, 2 bar and 0.1 s, based on Response
surface methodology results.
3. The morphological studies of laser drilled limestone indicated a
large melted zone on the top surface along with micro cracks
and pores mainly due to higher laser power intensity and lower
Please cite this article in press as: Bharatish, A., et al. Investigation of effect of CO2 laser parameters on drilling characteristics of rocks encountered during
mining. Journal of King Saud University – Engineering Sciences (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2017.12.003
7
piercing time. During the laser sandstone interaction, the
greater percentage of quartz in the rock samples caused the
higher laser energy consumption in secondary mechanism,
including melting and vaporization. The clay particles were
dehydrated when encountered to high temperature enhancing
the permeability and formation of micro fractures. Shale
required least specific energy (8.13 kJ/mm3) to remove a unit
volume of rock because of the absence of moisture content in
inter layers.
References
Batarseh, S., Gahan, B.C., Graves, R.M., Parker, R.A., 2003. Well perforation using
high-power lasers. Soc. Petrol. Eng. SPE 84418 (2003), 1–10.
Bazargan, M., Jalalifar, H., Koohian, A., Habibpour, M., 2013. Feasibility of Using
Laser Bit beside of Common Bits to Drilling Slim Holes. International Petroleum
Technology Conference, IPTC-16453-MS.
Damian, P., Batarseh, S., Han, Y., 2016. Numerical Modeling of Thermal and
Mechanical Effects in Laser-Rock Interaction–An Overview. 50th US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, ARMA 142.
Dong-Gyu, A.H.N., Gwang-Won, J.U.N.G., 2009. Influence of process parameters on
drilling characteristics of Al 1050 sheet with thickness of 0.2 mm using pulsed
Nd: YAG laser. Trans. Nonferrous Metals Soc. China 19, 157–163.
Ezzedine, S.M., Rubenchik, A., Yamamoto, R., 2015. Laser-Enhanced Drilling and
Laser Assisted Fracturing for Subsurface EGS Applications. Proceedings, Fortieth
Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, 2015.
Gahan, B.C., Parker, R.A., Batarseh, S., Figueroa, H., Reed, C.B., Xu, Z., 2001. Laser
drilling: determination of energy required to remove rock. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE
71466.
Hafez, A., Ibrahim, E., Omar, E., Eddeen, F., Beshay, K., 2015. Laser Drilling Using Nd:
YAG on Limestone, Sandstone and Shale Samples: ROP Estimation and the
Development of a Constant ROP Drilling System. SPE North Africa Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 175848-MS.
Jaeger, J.C., Cook, N.G.W., 1976. Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics. A Halsted Press
Book,. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York.
Leonenko, N.A., Sekisov, G.V., Cheban, Y., Shemyakin, S.A., Kuz’menko A P., Silyutin I
V, 2013. Rock failure under laser radiation. J. Min. Sci. 49 (5), 749–756.
Parker, R.A., Gahan, B.C., Graves, R.M., Batarseh, S., Xu, Z., Reed, C.B., 2003c. Laser
drilling: effects of beam application methods on improving rock removal. SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers,
SPE – 84353 – MS.
Parker, R.A., Gahan, B.C., Graves, R.M., Batarseh, S., Xu, Z., Reed, C.B., 2003a. January.
Laser drilling: effects of beam application methods on improving rock removal
paper, SPE 84353. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, October 5–8.
Parker, R.A., Xu, Z., Reed, C.B., Graves, R., Gahan, B.C., Batarseh, S., Plaines, D., 2003b.
Drilling large diameter holes in rocks using multiple laser beams. ICALEO 2003,
Congress Proceedings 01/2003.
Rad, A.G., Bazargan, M., Koohian, A., Jalalyfar, H., 2014. The Effects of carbon dioxide
laser irradiation on drilling of limestone included crude oil. J. Modern Phys. 5
(05), 248.
Salehi, I.A., Gahan, B.C., Batarseh, S., 2007. Laser drilling-drilling with the power of
light. (Technical Report DE-FC26-00NT40917, Institute of Gas Technology,
Illinois).
Williams, R.E., 1986. The thermal spallation drilling process. Geothermics 15 (1),
17–22.
Xu, Z., Reed, C.B., Konercki, G., 2003a. Specific energy for pulsed laser rock drilling. J.
Laser Appl. 15 (1), 25–30.
Xu, Z., Claude, B.R., Keng, H.L., 2003, Application of High Powered Lasers to Drilling
and Completing Deep Wells, Topical Report ANL/TD/TM03-02, DOE/NGOTP
Contract Number 49066.
Xu, Z., Reed, C.B., Parker, R.A., Gahan, B.C., Graves, R.M., Figueroa, H., 2002, Laser
rock drilling by a super-pulsed CO {sub 2} laser beam (No. ANL/TD/CP-108414).
Argonne National Lab., IL (US).