Measurement 167 (2021) 108447

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Study of the effect of drill bits hardness, drilling machine operating

parameters and rock mechanical parameters on noise level in hard rock
drilling process
Mostafa Piri a, *, Reza Mikaeil b, Hamid Hashemolhosseini c, Alireza Baghbanan d,
Mohammad Ataei e
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology (IUT), Zip Code: Isfahan- 84156-83111, Isfahan, Iran
b
Faculty of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, Urmia University of Technology, Urmia, Iran
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology (IUT), Isfahan, Iran
d
Department of Mining Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology (IUT), Isfahan, Iran
e
Department of Mining Engineering, Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Rock drilling systems have extensive use in many industries including mining, construction, and oil and water
Noise level extraction. The process of drilling inevitably creates some noise at the drill-rock collision surface. Loud noises
Hard rock drilling cause serious safety issues in the workplace. Noise level can also be a good indicator of the performance of the
Rock properties
drilling tool. This study measured and compared the noise levels created in the drilling environment during the
Coated drill bit
Multivariate statistical analysis
drilling of three types of hard rock, namely Khoshtinat, white Natanz and Nehbandan granites with three types of
drill bit with tungsten carbide, Diamond-DLC, and Titanium-Aluminum-Silicon coatings. The software SPSS was
used to develop several multivariate linear and nonlinear statistical models for predicting noise level. The results
showed that as the mechanical parameters of the drilled rock increased, so did the noise level. Also, in all
specimens, as the hardness of the drill bit increased, the noise level generated by drilling decreased. The results of
statistical tests showed, at above 90% confidence level, that the developed models can provide reasonably ac­
curate predictions of the noise level to be generated in drilling environments based on the mechanical properties
of the drilled rock, the hardness of the drill bit, and operating specifications.

1. Introduction
Rock drilling systems have extensive use in many industries
including mining, construction, and oil and water extraction [1]. In
essence, drilling is the process of removing particles from a rock surface
through the application of a mechanical force. Naturally, this process
creates some noise at the point where the drill bit comes into contact
with the rock [2]. High noise levels are not only detrimental to workers’
wellbeing but may also cause serious safety issues in the workplace.
Noise level can also be a good indicator of the performance of the dril­
ling tool [3]. Geng et al. (2019) analyzed the delamination formation in
two methods of core drilling and rotary ultrasonic machining [4]. Geng
et al. (2019) also reviewed an up-to-date summary of progress in
delamination coming from drilling in composite laminates [5]. While
noise has long been used as a diagnostic means in mechanical industries,
little attention has been paid to the potential use of noise in the pre­
diction of rock properties [6]. In a study by Rajesh Kumar et al. (2011),
they investigated the relationship between noise level produced during
drilling and physical parameters of sedimentary rocks including uniaxial
compressive strength, tensile strength, and porosity [7]. Gradl et al.
(2012) recorded the noise created from drill-rock interactions during
drilling by a standard microphone and analyzed the relationship of this
noise with the drill’s vibration properties [8]. Sometimes, the analysis of
the noise generated by the drilling process can reveal the type (class) of
the rock being drilled. In other words, it is possible to find noise waves
that are specific to the drilling of a certain rock or at least a class of rocks
[9]. Research on the acoustic propagation of noise waves of rocks began
with the efforts of Obert and Duvall in 1941 and 1942 to predict rock

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: M.Piri@mi.iut.ac.ir (M. Piri), reza.mikaeil@uut.ac.ir (R. Mikaeil), hamidh@cc.iut.ac.ir (H. Hashemolhosseini), bagh110@cc.iut.ac.ir
(A. Baghbanan), ataei@shahroodut.ac.ir (M. Ataei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108447
Received 19 April 2020; Received in revised form 2 August 2020; Accepted 6 September 2020
Available online 14 September 2020
0263-2241/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Piri et al. Measurement 167 (2021) 108447

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the study.

explosions in mines [10,11]. Following these studies, researchers thickness was used to analyze various relevant parameters including
focused more on the changes that occur in the amplitude of the acoustic shear angle, specific energy required for machining and cutting force
noise wave in a frequency band as stress increases [12–15]. The studies [29]. Oloruntobi et al. (2018) introduced a new technique for predicting
of Zborovjan et al. (2003) and Miklusova et al. (2006) on the rock pore pressure based on the concept of Hydro-Rotary Specific Energy
drilling noise showed that when processed by Fourier transform, the (HRSE) [30]. Csanádi et al. (2019) investigated the deformation and
noise signal created during rotary drilling can be used in the control of fracture behavior of Tungsten carbide (WC, WC/WC), and Tungsten
rock disintegration process [9,16]. In a study by Delibalta et al. (2015), carbide-cobalt (WC/Co) boundaries and the main factors that affect
they attempted to predict the physical and mechanical properties of the tensile stress-induced cracking [31]. Choi et al. (2019) studied the effect
rock based on the noise created during cutting by a diamond saw [17]. of titanium addition on the mechanical properties and especially the
Kumar et al. (2019) developed a new method for the estimation of rock fracture toughness of Mo-Si-B alloys [32]. In a study by Gren et al.
properties based on dominant frequencies of the sound pressure level (2020), the temperature dependence of interface and surface energies in
produced during drilling operations [18]. In a study by Benjamin et al. WC-Co cemented carbides at temperatures up to and above the melting
(2018) they recorded the noises created during oil and gas well drilling temperature of cobalt was studied by a computational approach [33].
and construction in a residential area in Colorado [19]. Yari and
Bagherpour (2018, 2019) formulated a number of mathematical equa­
tions for the relationships between rock mass properties and the domi­
nant acoustic frequencies generated during the drilling process by the
use of Fourier series transform [20–22]. In a study by Rajesh Kumar et al.
(2013), regression analysis and artificial neural network models were
used to predict the properties of rocks based on noise levels produced
during drilling [23]. Rempel et al. (2019) compared the efficiency,
noise, vibration and dust generation of two types of drill bits in the
concrete drilling operations [24]. In a study by Masood (2015) the noise
level created during drilling of igneous rocks with different properties
was measured by a portable device [25]. In a laboratory-scale study,
Vardhan et al. (2009) managed to predict the properties of rocks based
on the noise produced during drilling [26]. Kivade et al. (2015) used
artificial neural network models to predict the properties of sedimentary
rocks based on penetration rate and noise of percussion drilling [27].
Garcia et al. (2016) analyzed in-situ high-temperature stress of Titanium
Carbonitride (Ti(C,N)) coatings on functionally graded cemented car­
bides using energy dispersive synchrotron X-ray diffraction [28]. In a
study by Gunjal et al. (2020), the existing empirical research on chip
Fig. 2. View of the PVD device [35]

2
M. Piri et al. Measurement 167 (2021) 108447

Table 1
Important mechanical properties of the rocks.
Dimension stone sample Commercial name Name of quarry SF-a (N/mm) YM (GPa) Mh UCS (MPa)

A1 Granite Khoshtinat 10.42 28.9 5.65 133

A2 Granite Sefid Natanz 13.4 43 5.7 150

A3 Granite Nehbandan 14.84 39 5.95 155

Dormishi et al. (2018) used statistical methods to predict the energy

consumption of stonecutting saws in the cutting of carbonate rocks Table 2
based on rock properties [34]. Piri et al. (2020) compared the wear rate noise measuring device characteristics.
of drill bits with Tungsten carbide (WC), Diamond-DLC, and Titanium- Parameter Description
Aluminum-Silicon (TiAlSi) coatings and studied the effect of physical Level Range Lo = 30~80 dB; Med = 50~100 dB; Hi = 80~130 dB
and mechanical properties of the drilled rock and tool specifications on Accuracy ±1.5 dB (ref 94 dB@1 KHz)
the wear rate of the drill bit [35]. As mentioned above, the relationships Frequency Weighting A/C
Time Weighting Fast, Slow
between drilling noise, mechanical properties of the drilled rock, tool
Dynamic Range 50 dB
specifications, and drilling performance have been investigated in many Frequency Range 31.5 Hz to 8 KHz
studies. However, none of the researches has studied the simultaneous Microphone Electret condenser microphone
effect of rock mechanical parameters and instrumental characteristics Auxiliary Outputs AC/DC Output
on the volume. Considering the potential benefits of the analysis of noise Battery 9 V battery
Dimensions 275*64*30 mm
level created during drilling, The purpose of the present study is to Weight Approx.280 g
investigate the simultaneous effect of mechanical parameters (Schmia­
zek abrasivity factor (SF-a), Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS), Mohs
Hardness (MH) and Young’s Modulus (YM)) of rock as well as instru­ the noise level in each rock was investigated.
mental characteristics (coating) on noise level.To this end, three types of
hard rock namely Khoshtinat granite (A1), white Natanz granite (A2) and 2. Method
Nehbandan granite (A3) were drilled with three types of drill bit with
diamond-DLC, TiAlSi and WC coatings and the effect of each drill bit on This study consisted of field and laboratory phases complemented by

Fig. 3. An overview of the a) drilling machine; b) drill bits; and c) noise measurement device.

3
M. Piri et al. Measurement 167 (2021) 108447

Fig 4. View of the drilled rocks.

3.1. Characteristics of drill bits

Table 3
Noise level calculated for WC coated drill bit in rock A2. This study was carried out using drill bits with WC, TiAlSi and
Penetration Speed of Noise Environment Noise value Diamond-DLC coatings with a diameter of 10 mm. The substrate of these
rate (m/min) rotation value noise value (db) of drilling coatings was HSS tool steel. The Diamond-DLC coating was created
(rpm) (db) (db) using a Plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition (PACVD) device.
12 × 10− 3 850 95.38 77.5 17.88 After optimizing the device settings (e.g. temperature, duration, voltage,
12 × 10 − 3 900 96.43 77.5 18.93 etc.), the coating was created by approximately 120 min of processing
12 × 10− 3 950 95.73 77.5 18.23 with argon, methane, and hydrogen at a temperature of about 1500 ◦ C.
3 850 95.44 77.5 17.94
The TiAlSi coating was created using a Physical vapor deposition (PVD)
18 × 10−
device. After optimizing the device settings, the coating was formed by
18 × 10− 3 900 97.15 77.5 19.65
240 to 300 min of processing at a temperature of about 300 ◦ C[35].
18 × 10− 3 950 96.15 77.5 18.65
Fig. 2 shows an image of the PVD device.
24 × 10− 3 850 96.15 77.5 18.65
After forming the coatings on the drill bits, the thickness, structure,
24 × 10− 3 900 96.02 77.5 18.52
texture, abrasivity, and hardness of these coatings were examined.
24 × 10− 3 950 96.6 77.5 19.1 Diamond-DLC and TiAlSi coatings had a thickness of 1–3 µm and 4–8
µm, respectively. Vickers hardness of WC, Diamond-DLC and TiAlSi
coatings was measured to 1570, 3100 and 3750, respectively [35]. The
statistical analysis in SPSS. The laboratory phase of the study involved
point angle and the helix angle of the bits are 130 and 32◦ , respectively.
testing the coatings to measure their properties and building a
In the next step, the intact rock specimens were cut into blocks of
laboratory-scale drilling machine capable of measuring and recording
equal size and prepared for drilling with the laboratory scale drilling
noise levels under different operating conditions with different coatings.
machine. Water fluid was used as a lubricant and coolant with a flow
The flowchart of the research procedure is illustrated in Fig. 1.
rate of one liter per minute for the experiment. An image of the drilling
machine, the drill bits, and the noise measurement device is shown in
3. Laboratory work
Fig. 3.
The noise measuring device with a 4-digit display, a resolution of 0.1
In the laboratory phase of the study, first, three specimens of hard
dB and other characteristics are described in Table 2[36].
rock with specific dimensions were collected and transferred to the Rock
The tests of this study aimed to investigate the effect of tool speci­
Mechanics Laboratory of Isfahan University of Technology for the
fications and operational parameters and the mechanical properties of
measurement of mechanical properties (Fig. 2). In this phase, four
the drilled rocks on the noise generated during drilling. Considering the
important mechanical properties of the rocks were measured: Schmia­
large number of tests performed for this purpose, in the following, the
zek abrasivity factor (SF-a), Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS), Mohs
paper only compares the average noise level generated by different drills
Hardness (MH) and Young’s Modulus (YM) [35]. Table 1 shows the
in each rock specimen. The measurements were repeated 3 times for
results of tests conducted on the rock specimens in the rock mechanics
each type of rock according to the operational parameters and the
laboratory.
average results were recorded for each type of rock (for example, for A1

Table 4 Table 5
Noise level calculated for Diamond-DLC coated drill bit in rock A2. Noise level calculated for TiAlSi coated drill bit in rock A2.
Penetration Speed of Noise Environment Noise value Penetration Speed of Noise Environment Noise value
rate (m/min) rotation value noise value (db) of drilling rate (m/min) rotation value noise value (db) of drilling
(rpm) (db) (db) (rpm) (db) (db)

12 × 10− 3 850 90.07 77.5 12.57 12 × 10− 3 850 87.26 77.5 9.76
12 × 10 − 3 900 89.59 77.5 12.09 12 × 10 − 3 900 88.15 77.5 10.65
12 × 10− 3 950 90.82 77.5 13.32 12 × 10− 3 950 88.21 77.5 10.71
18 × 10− 3 850 91.59 77.5 14.09 18 × 10− 3 850 88.09 77.5 10.59
18 × 10− 3 900 90.28 77.5 12.78 18 × 10− 3 900 89.63 77.5 12.13
18 × 10− 3 950 90.76 77.5 13.26 18 × 10− 3 950 88.01 77.5 10.51
24 × 10− 3 850 89.69 77.5 12.19 24 × 10− 3 850 89.04 77.5 11.54
24 × 10− 3 900 91.77 77.5 14.27 24 × 10− 3 900 90.26 77.5 12.76
24 × 10− 3 950 91.86 77.5 14.36 24 × 10− 3 950 88.74 77.5 11.24

4
M. Piri et al. Measurement 167 (2021) 108447

Fig. 5. Noise-time diagram plotted for drilling with WC, Diamond-DLC and TiAlSi coated drill bits with a penetration rate of 12 mm/min and rotation speed of 900
rpm in rock A1 .

Fig. 6. Noise-time diagram plotted for drilling with WC, Diamond-DLC and TiAlSi coated drill bits with a penetration rate of 12 mm/min and rotation speed of 900
rpm in rock A2 .

Fig. 7. Noise-time diagram plotted for drilling with WC, Diamond-DLC and TiAlSi coated drill bits with a penetration rate of 12 mm/min and rotation speed of 900
rpm in rock A3 .

with a drill with TiAlSi coating at a penetration rate of 12 mm / min and
a rotation speed of 900 rpm, the experiment was repeated 3 times and
the mean value was recorded as 89.19).Drilling tests were performed
with a laboratory-scale drilling machine on cuboid specimens at rotation
speeds of 850, 900 and 950 rpm and penetration rates of 12, 18 and 24
mm/min. A view of the drilled rocks is shown in Fig. 4.
Since the base noise level of the test environment and the drilling
machine was measured to be 75–80 dB, before any analysis or com­
parison, the average of these figures (77.5 dB) was deducted from all
measured noise levels. The noise level calculated for each drill bits in
rock A2 are presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5:
Figs. 5, 6, and 7 display the noise-time diagram plotted for drilling
with WC, Diamond-DLC and TiAlSi coated drill bits in each rock with a
penetration rate of 12 mm/min and rotation speed of 900 rpm.
As Figs. 5 to 7 show, drilling with WC-coated drill bit generated a
higher level of noise than drilling with Diamond-DLC and TiAlSi-coated
drill bits. Among the drill bits, the one coated with TiAlSi generated the
least noise when drilling in A1, A2, and A3 rocks at a constant rotation
speed and penetration rate.
4. Statistical analysis of drilling performance
To investigate the relationship between operating parameters
(rotation speed), drill bit characteristics (coating hardness) and noise
level, the obtained test results were subjected to a statistical analysis
involving univariate linear regression and multivariate linear and
nonlinear regression in SPSS and Excel software. Figs. 8 to 10 show the
relationship between the noise level and changes in operating

5
M. Piri et al. Measurement 167 (2021) 108447

Fig. 8. Relationship between the noise level and mechanical parameters of studied rocks.

Fig. 9. Relationship between the noise level and hardness of the drill bit.

Fig. 10. Relationship between the noise level and speed of rotation (H = 1570).

6
M. Piri et al. Measurement 167 (2021) 108447

Table 6
Multivariate linear regression results for prediction of Noise level.
Model coefficients Coefficients Coefficients F Tabulated F-value t Tabulated t-value R

model 1 Constant 19.117 2.697 174.16 3.78 7.089 1.65 0.918

H − 0.003 0 22.79
SR − 0.007 0.003 2.293
PR 44.85 23.82 1.88
MH 1.425 0.11 12.98
model 2 Constant 23.378 2.309 238.67 3.78 10.125 1.65 0.938
H − 0.003 0 26.11
SR − 0.007 0.002 2.627
PR 44.85 20.796 2.157
SFa 0.318 0.02 16.174
model 3 Constant 18.662 2.51 174.52 3.319 7.44 1.65 0.933
H − 0.003 0 25.1
SR − 0.007 0.003 2.52
PR 44.85 21.64 2.07
UCS 0.045 0.004 10.9
YM 0.057 0.026 2.18

parameters for the three drill bits.

The results presented in Figs. 8 to 10 show that as the mechanical
parameters of the drilled rock increased, so did the noise level. Also, in
all specimens, as the hardness of the drill bit increased, the noise level
generated by drilling decreased. As the hardness and compressive
strength of the drilled rock increased, the noise level became more
sensitive to the hardness of the drill bits. It was also observed that when
drilling with a drill bit of a given hardness, as rotation speed increased,
the noise level decreased.
The relationships between the noise level and the mechanical
properties of the drilled rock, the hardness of the drill bit, and operating
parameters were analyzed by multivariate linear and nonlinear regres­
sion. The results of this statistical analysis are presented in Tables 6 and
7.
The following statistical models show the relationship between noise
level and operating parameters, rock properties, and hardness of the
drill bit.
NL = 19.117 − 0.003H − 0.007SR + 44.85PR + 1.425MH (1)

NL = 23.378 − 0.003H − 0.007SR + 44.85PR + 0.318SFa (2)

NL = 18.662 − 0.003H − 0.007SR + 44.85PR + 0.045UCS + 0.057YM (3)

PR0.066 × Mh0.543 × 103.949

NL = (4)
SR0.439 × H 0.529

PR0.066 × SFa0.07 × 104.285

NL = (5)
SR0.439 × H 0.529
Fig. 11. Relations control and validation stages.

Table 7
Multivariate nonlinear regression results for prediction of Noise level.
Model coefficients Coefficients Coefficients F Tabulated F-value t Tabulated t-value R

model 4 Constant 3.949 0.634 157.32 3.78 6.233 1.65 0.91

SR − 0.439 0.211 2.08
PR 0.066 0.034 1.94
H − 0.529 0.026 20.62
MH 0.543 0.039 13.9
model 5 Constant 4.285 0.635 155.89 3.78 6.74 1.65 0.91
SR − 0.439 0.212 2.07
PR 0.066 0.034 1.94
H − 0.529 0.026 20.54
SFa 0.07 0.005 13.9
model 6 Constant 3.268 0.612 141.33 3.319 5.34 1.65 0.92
SR − 0.439 0.201 2.18
PR 0.066 0.032 2.04
H − 0.529 0.024 21.63
UCS 0.543 0.035 11.9
YM 0.057 0.076 1.6

7
M. Piri et al. Measurement 167 (2021) 108447

Fig. 12. A comparison between the predicted and observed noise value for model 1.

Fig. 13. A comparison between the predicted and observed noise value for model 2.

Fig. 14. A comparison between the predicted and observed noise value for model 3.

8
M. Piri et al. Measurement 167 (2021) 108447

Fig. 15. A comparison between the predicted and observed noise value for model 4.

Fig. 16. A comparison between the predicted and observed noise value for model 5.

Fig. 17. A comparison between the predicted and observed noise value for model 6.

9
M. Piri et al.
PR0.066 × UCS0.421 × YM 0.117 × 103.268
NL = (6)
SR0.439 × H 0.529
In the presented models, NL denotes the noise level in db, UCS the
uniaxial compressive strength in MPa, YM the Young’s modulus in GPa,
SFa the Schimazek abrasivity factor in N/mm, Mh the Mohs hardness,
PR the penetration rate, SR the drill bit rotation speed, and H the coating
hardness. In all models, noise level was considered as the dependent
variable and the properties of rock and drill bit and the operating pa­
rameters were considered as independent variables. The t-test and the F-
test were used to check the validity of the obtained models. The flow­
chart illustrated in Fig. 11 shows the steps followed to control and
validate the obtained models.
As shown in Fig. 11, the F test was used to check the significance of
the model, and the t-test was used to check the significance of each in­
dependent variable. The results of the F-test and t-test are presented in
Tables 5 and 6.
Since the F statistic obtained from the distribution table was greater
(at 99% confidence level) than the F statistic obtained from all models,
the null hypothesis that there is no linear relationship between the
dependent variable (maximum noise level) and independent variables
(rock characteristics, drill bit hardness, and operating parameters) was
rejected, meaning that at least one of the regression coefficients is not
zero. After checking the significance of the model as a whole with the F
test, the t-test was used to check the significance of independent vari­
ables. Using this test, one can check whether the regression coefficient of
an independent variable is zero. The results showed that for every
model, the t statistic obtained from the related distribution table was
smaller (at 90% confidence level) than the t statistic obtained from the
independent variables. Therefore, the hypothesis that the coefficients of
the independent variables are zero was rejected. One of the key re­
quirements of statistical analyses, especially those involving the devel­
opment of statistical models, is to reach rationally justifiable coefficients
or in other words, observing that the model conforms to the scientific
logic of the analysis. After checking whether this requirement is satis­
fied, it was determined that the coefficients of all models are consistent
with the scientific logic of the subject.
Another method of evaluating statistical models is to determine the
amount of estimation error by the developed models to predict the
sound level caused only by drilling. Figs. 12 to 17 show comparisons
between drilling sound levels for both predicted and observed modes for
models 1 to 6. The closer the estimated points and the observed points
are, the higher the accuracy of the model in predicting the sound level of
drilling. In addition, in all these forms, a bar chart related to the per­
centage of estimation error has been drawn.
From the above diagrams, it can be deduced that the models are
highly accurate in estimating the noise level generated during the dril­
ling process.
5. Discussion and conclusion
This study investigated the relationship between noise level gener­
ated during the drilling of hard rocks and the and mechanical properties
of these rocks and the operating characteristics of three types of drill bit
with different coatings includes tungsten carbide (WC), Diamond-DLC,
and Titanium-Aluminum-Silicon (TiAlSi) coatings . For this investiga­
tion, 3 types of hard rock were selected to be used as test specimens. The
results of studies on this sample of rocks showed that:
• drilling with WC-coated drill bit generated a higher level of noise
than drilling with Diamond-DLC and TiAlSi-coated drill bits. Among
the drill bits, the one coated with TiAlSi generated the least noise
when drilling in A1, A2, and A3 rocks at a constant rotation speed
and penetration rate.
• By increasing the mechanical parameters of the rock from sample A1
to A3 for the WC bit, the percentage of sound changes due to drilling
10
Measurement 167 (2021) 108447
alone is approximately equal to 23%. These changes for the TiAlSi bit
for the two samples are approximately 8.7%. These changes show
that with increasing bit hardness, the effect of mechanical parame­
ters of the rock on changes in sound level due to drilling decreases.
• when drilling with a drill bit of a given hardness, as rotation speed
increased, the noise level decreased.
• During this research, several linear and non-linear multivariate sta­
tistical models were developed to predict the sound level using SPSS
software. The results of statistical tests for selected models with a
confidence level and correlation coefficient above 90% showed that
the sound level in drilling environments can be accurately deter­
mined with the help of mechanical characteristics of the rock, the
hardness of the drilling bits and evaluated operational specifications.
Also, among the studied models, Model 2 has a higher correlation
coefficient (93.8%) than other models. This model shows that there
is a significant relationship between the noise level due to drilling
with independent variables including head stiffness, bit rotation
speed, penetration rate and Schmiazek abrasivity factor of rock.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mostafa Piri: Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft,
Visualization. Reza Mikaeil: Conceptualization, Software, Project
administration. Hamid Hashemolhosseini: Validation, Data curation,
Supervision. Alireza Baghbanan: Methodology, Writing - review &
editing. Mohammad Ataei: Formal analysis, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] L.E. Izquierdo, L.E. Chiang, A methodology for estimation of the specific rock
energy index using corrected down-the-hole drill monitoring data, Mining
Technology 113 (4) (2004) 225–236.
[2] C. Gradl, A.W. Eustes, G. Thonhauser, “An analysis of noise characteristics of drill
bits”. in ASME 2008 27th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic
engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection (2008).
[3] Karakurt, I., G. Aydın, and K. Aydıner, Experimental and Statistical Investigation
on Noise Level of Diamond Sawblades in Granitic Rock Sawing.
[4] D. Geng, Y. Liu, Z. Shao, M. Zhang, X. Jiang, D. Zhang, Delamination formation and
suppression during rotary ultrasonic elliptical machining of CFRP, Composites Part
B: Engineering 183 (2020), 107698.
[5] D. Geng, Y. Liu, Z. Shao, Z. Lu, J. Cai, X. Li, X. Jiang, D. Zhang, Delamination
formation, evaluation and suppression during drilling of composite laminates: a
review, Composite Structures 216 (2019) 168–186.
[6] B.R. Kumar, H. Vardhan, M. Govindaraj, Sound level produced during rock drilling
vis-à-vis rock properties, Engineering geology 123 (4) (2011) 333–337.
[7] B.R. Kumar, H. Vardhan, M. Govindaraj, Prediction of uniaxial compressive
strength, tensile strength and porosity of sedimentary rocks using sound level
produced during rotary drilling, Rock mechanics and rock engineering 44 (5)
(2011) 613–620.
[8] Gradl, C., A.W. Eustes, and G. Thonhauser, An analysis of noise characteristics of
drill bits, Journal of energy resources technology, Vol. 134(1), 2012.
[9] M. Zborovjan, I. Lesso, L. Dorcak, Acoustic identification of rocks during drilling
process, Journal of Acta Montanistica Slovaca 8 (4) (2003) 91–93.
[10] L. Obert, Use of subaudible noises for prediction of rock bursts, Vol. 3555, US
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1941.
[11] Obert, L. and W. Duvall, Use of subaudible noises for the prediction of rock bursts,
part II, US Bureau of Mines RI, Vol. 3654, 1942.
[12] Marceau, J. and Y. Moji, Application of fracture mechanics testing to process
control for adhesive bonding, Document D6–41145, Boeing Commercial Airplane
Company, 1973.
[13] J. Knill, J. Franklin, A. Malone, A study of acoustic emission from stressed rock,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts. Elsevier (1968).
[14] Hardy, H.R., Application of acoustic emission techniques to rock mechanics
research, in Acoustic Emission. 1972, ASTM International.
[15] J. Byerlee, Friction of rocks, in: Rock friction and earthquake prediction, Springer,
1978, pp. 615–626.
M. Piri et al.
[16] V. Miklusova, L. Usalova, L. Ivanicova, F. Krepelka, Acoustic signal–new feature in
monitoring of rock disintegration process, Contributions to geophysics and geodesy
36 (2006) 125–133.
[17] M. Delibalta, S. Kahraman, R. Comakli, The usability of noise level from rock
cutting for the prediction of physico-mechanical properties of rocks, Fluctuation
and Noise Letters 14 (01) (2015) 1550006.
[18] C.V. Kumar, H. Vardhan, C.S. Murthy, N. Karmakar, Estimating rock properties
using sound signal dominant frequencies during diamond core drilling operations,
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (4) (2019) 850–859.
[19] B.D. Blair, S. Brindley, E. Dinkeloo, L.M. McKenzie, J.L. Adgate, Residential noise
from nearby oil and gas well construction and drilling, Journal of exposure science
& environmental epidemiology 28 (6) (2018) 538–547.
[20] M. Yari, R. Bagherpour, Investigating an innovative model for dimensional
sedimentary rock characterization using acoustic frequency analysis during
drilling, Rudarsko-Geolosko-Naftni Zbornik 33 (2) (2018) 17–25.
[21] M. Yari, R. Bagherpour, Implementing Acoustic Frequency Analysis for
Development the Novel Model of Determining Geomechanical Features of Igneous
Rocks Using Rotary Drilling Device, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 36
(3) (2018) 1805–1816.
[22] M. Yari, R. Bagherpour, M. Khoshouei, Developing a novel model for predicting
geomechanical features of carbonate rocks based on acoustic frequency processing
during drilling, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 78 (3)
(2019) 1747–1759.
[23] B.R. Kumar, H. Vardhan, M. Govindaraj, G. Vijay, Regression analysis and ANN
models to predict rock properties from sound levels produced during drilling,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 61–72.
[24] D. Rempel, A. Antonucci, A. Barr, M.R. Cooper, B. Martin, R.L. Neitzel, Pneumatic
rock drill vs. electric rotary hammer drill: Productivity, vibration, dust, and noise
when drilling into concrete, Applied ergonomics 74 (2019) 31–36.
[25] Masood, Estimation of Sound Level Produced During Drilling of Igneous Rock
Samples using a Portable Drill set-up, Procedia earth and planetary science, Vol.
11: pp. 456-482, 2015.
11
Measurement 167 (2021) 108447
[26] H. Vardhan, G. Adhikari, M.G. Raj, Estimating rock properties using sound levels
produced during drilling, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 46 (3) (2009) 604–612.
[27] S.B. Kivade, C.S.N. Murthy, H. Vardhan, ANN models for prediction of sound and
penetration rate in percussive drilling, Journal of The Institution of Engineers
(India): Series D 96 (2) (2015) 93–103.
[28] J. García, H. Pinto, E. Ramos-Moore, C. Espinoza, J. Östby, R. Coelho, In-situ high
temperature stress analysis of Ti (C, N) coatings on functionally graded cemented
carbides by energy dispersive synchrotron X-ray diffraction, International Journal
of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 56 (2016) 27–34.
[29] Gunjal, S.U., S.B. Sanap, and N.G. Patil, “Role of cutting fluids under minimum
quantity lubrication: An experimental investigation of chip thickness”, Materials
Today: Proceedings, 2020.
[30] O. Oloruntobi, S. Adedigba, F. Khan, R. Chunduru, S. Butt, Overpressure prediction
using the hydro-rotary specific energy concept, Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Engineering 55 (2018) 243–253.
[31] T. Csanádi, M. Vojtko, J. Dusza, Deformation and fracture of WC grains and grain
boundaries in a WC-Co hardmetal during microcantilever bending tests,
International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 87 (2020), 105163.
[32] W.J. Choi, S.Y. Lee, C.W. Park, J.H. Park, J.M. Byun, Y. Do Kim, Effect of titanium
addition on mechanical properties of Mo-Si-B alloys, International Journal of
Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 80 (2019) 238–242.
[33] M.A. Gren, E. Fransson, G. Wahnström, A computational study of the temperature
dependence of interface and surface energies in WC–Co cemented carbides,
International Journal of Refractory Metals and Hard Materials 87 (2020), 105114.
[34] A. Dormishi, M. Ataei, R. Khalokakaei, R. Mikaeil, Energy consumption prediction
of gang saws from rock properties in carbonate rocks cutting process, International
Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering 9 (3) (2018) 216–227.
[35] M. Piri, H. Hashemolhosseini, R. Mikaeil, M. Ataei, A. Baghbanan, Investigation of
wear resistance of drill bits with WC, Diamond-DLC, and TiAlSi coatings with
respect to mechanical properties of rock, International Journal of Refractory Metals
and Hard Materials 87 (2020), 105113.
[36] http://www.centertek.com/product_d.php?lang=en&tb=1&id=253&cid=82.