Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering (2021) 54:1707–1730

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-020-02355-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based

on Rock Properties, Pilot Hole Drilling Data and Raise Inclination
Aydin Shaterpour‑Mamaghani1 · Hanifi Copur1 

Received: 23 March 2020 / Accepted: 26 December 2020 / Published online: 9 February 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, AT part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The basic aim of this study is to develop empirical models for predicting performances of pilot hole drilling and reaming for
raise boring operations using rock properties and pilot hole drilling operational parameters for classified raise inclinations
[vertical (90°) and inclined (70°)] that could be used in feasibility and operational stages of a project. Field study includes
collecting performance and operational parameters including rotational speeds, tricone bit and reamer head torques, weight
on bit (pushing force), net reaming thrust (pulling) force, unit penetration rate, and field-specific energy. Totally 21 different
rocks are sampled in eight different sites to define physical and mechanical properties. The empirical models developed by
performing multi-variable regression analyses for the vertical and inclined reaming and pilot hole drilling data groups indicate
that static elasticity modulus, dynamic elasticity modulus, uniaxial compressive strength, Brazilian tensile strength, and rock
quality designation are the most important intact rock and rock mass properties affecting performances of the vertical and
inclined reaming and pilot hole drilling. This study should be continued to develop more generalized and reliable prediction
models, especially by adding different reamer head diameters and raise inclinations to the database as predictive parameters.

Keywords  Raise boring machines · Performance prediction · Pilot hole drilling · Reaming · Rock properties · Raise
inclination

1 Introduction very hard (uniaxial compressive strength > 400 MPa) and

Shafts and raises (vertical and/or inclined) have crucial
importance in the construction of underground structures
of mining, tunneling and hydropower plants, which are
commonly used to ventilate mine, tunnel or structure and to
transport material and ore. Use of Raise Boring Machines
(RBMs) for excavation of a circular hole between two lev-
els of underground structures increases day by day due to
their superior advantages against classical drilling and blast-
ing method. The flexibility in different angles//gradients//
inclinations (from horizontal to vertical) and diameters (up
to around 6–7 m) is a great advantage of the raise boring
method compared to the drill and blast method, in addition
to safer and faster excavation (in favorable ground condi-
tions) with lower overall cost. However, capital costs of
RBMs are higher and they are not able to cut economically
* Hanifi Copur
copurh@itu.edu.tr
1
Mining Engineering Department, Istanbul Technical
University, 34469 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey
very abrasive rocks (Cerchar Abrasivity Index > 4.0) (Bilgin
et al. 2014).
The machine is set up on the upper level of the two levels
in the conventional raise boring operation. Then, a small
diameter hole (pilot hole) is drilled by a tricone bit towards
the lower level as a guide to the reamer head for reaming
operation; the cuttings are removed from the hole with the
aid of classical borehole flushing system during this pro-
cess. Once the pilot drill bit has broken into the opening of
the target level, it is removed and a reamer head mounted
with button (kerf) cutters is connected to the drill string and
raised back towards the upper level to enlarge the pilot hole
up to the desired diameter; the excavated material falls to
the bottom of the hole by gravity from where it is removed.
Improvement of performance of mechanical miners in
mining and tunneling applications is one of the important
subjects that is directly related to the information gained
from the geological-geotechnical site and laboratory investi-
gations in the related project sites. Rock mechanics and rock
engineering play a very essential role to define especially
the context (extend) of the site and laboratory investigation

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

1708
campaign based on the type of application, project size,
machines used, and/or site geological characteristics; and
thus, the success of the design affords. Once the main geo-
logical-geotechnical properties of rocks are defined, the
engineer, planner and designer would be able to use this
information for the defined purpose; in this case to forecast
the performance of the mechanical miner for the project site.
Therefore, mechanized excavation requires an understanding
of the rock/rock mass behavior and properties to deal effec-
tively with applied different mechanical miner parameters
such as reaming thrust (pulling) force.
Predicting performance of an RBM in the feasibility
(planning) stage is one of the important subjects in the
mechanized shaft/raise excavation to estimate costs and job
completion time (scheduling) that directly affects the pro-
ject economics. The accurate prediction and optimization of
RBM performance could lead to more realistic planning and
reduce the overall costs of shaft/raise excavation operations.
Early studies on the raise boring performance were lim-
ited to general case studies and included some attempts
for performance prediction based on the indentation test
results. The studies on indentation tests were performed to
understand the rock breakage mechanism under mechanical
stresses, and then, used for performance prediction of some
mechanical miners and drillers by Maurer (1967), Morris
(1969), Seiler (1972), Dollinger (1977), Howarth (1986),
Pang et al. (1989), Dollinger et al. (1998), Kahraman et al.
(2000), Copur et al. (2003), Su et al. (2013), Jeong et al.
(2016), and Shaterpour-Mamaghani et al. (2016). The basic
approach was to find a relationship between penetration of
an indenter into a rock sample and normal (thrust) force gen-
erated on the indenter during penetration, and thus, to use
this relationship for predicting the force acting on a real-life
cutting tool for designing and predicting the performance of
a mechanical miner using these cutting tools. However, these
types of evaluations and predictions require some conver-
sion factors and empirical coefficients to reach a prediction,
which reduces reliability. Among them, the study of Morris
(1969) suggested a deterministic model based on the inden-
tation test results for predicting the instantaneous penetra-
tion rate of RBMs. The details of the RBM performance
prediction models found in the literature are summarized
in Table 1.
Most of the developed models for predicting the perfor-
mance of RBMs are of empirical nature, as seen in Table 1.
Empirical models are generally based on statistical relation-
ships between the field performance and physical–mechani-
cal properties of the excavated rocks; their accuracy depends
on the number and quality of the data. The most widely used
rock property in empirical prediction models for RBMs was
uniaxial compressive strength and most of the previous stud-
ies attempted to predict only the instantaneous penetration
rate of reaming operations. Other rock properties and RBM
13
A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur
performance and operational parameters were added to the
literature in recent years (Shaterpour-Mamaghani and Bilgin
2016; Shaterpour-Mamaghani et al. 2018a). One of the other
important issues seen in Table 1 is that some of the empirical
or deterministic models evaluated combined data including
both vertical (90°) and inclined raise boring data, and most
of the literature did not give/mention any information on
the inclination angles of the projects. There is one study
(Shaterpour-Mamaghani et al. 2018a) suggesting perfor-
mance prediction models for inclined (68°) reaming opera-
tions. Models for vertical reaming operations, vertical and
inclined pilot hole drilling operations are missed or limited
in the literature and this gap of the literature should be filled.
Laboratory rock cutting test, together with determinis-
tic estimation and/or computer simulation, is also one of
the most reliable methods for predicting the performance
of mechanical miners. There are also limited studies on
performance prediction of RBMs based on rock cutting
tests (Takaoka et al. 1973; Lindqvist 1982). Those cutting
experiments were performed in a laboratory by rotary cut-
ting machines in a load-controlled manner (constant load,
variable penetration) and provided quite limited data.
Mechanical Specific Energy (MSE) has been widely used
to evaluate the drilling performance in the oil and gas wells
drilling studies (Pessier and Fear 1992; Wyering et al. 2017;
Behboud et al. 2017; Chen et al. 2018). MSE concept was
developed by Teale (1965) as the energy required to remove
a unit volume of rock and estimated as given in Eq. (1):
WOB 2𝜋NT
Es = + , (1)
AB AB ROP
where Es is the specific energy, WOB is the weight on bit or
thrust, AB is cross-sectional area of the drill bit, N is the rota-
tional speed of drill bit, T is the torque of drill bit, ROP is the
rate of penetration (drilling rate). According to this equation,
increasing the rate of penetration decreases the MSE indi-
cating the efficiency of the drilling operation. The question
might be raised here as is it possible to use the performance
prediction models developed for the oil and gas wells drill-
ing operations in the evaluation of the performance of the
pilot hole drilling of a raise boring operation? The answer
is yes; it could be investigated. However, there are some
important points that should be considered. The first point
is related to the cutters used in oil and gas wells drilling and
pilot hole drilling. The oil industry has used tricone bits for
several decades; in the literature, there are some models to
evaluate the drillability of the tricone bits based on some
parameters such as weight on bit and rotational speed (Bour-
goyne and Young 1974; Walker et al. 1986; Xu et al. 1998;
Dupriest and Koederitz 2005; Guerrero and Kull 2007). In
the meantime, nowadays Polycrystalline Diamond Compact
(PDC) cutters are generally used in oil and gas wells drilling
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot… 1709

Table 1  Summary of the raise boring machine performance prediction models found in literature
Intact and mass Mechanical Predicted Applied method Operation Data type (inclina- References
rock ­parametersa ­parametersb ­parametersc tion)

p’, E k, RPM, W, N, N′ IPR Empirical, deter- Pilot drilling/ Indefinite Morris (1969)
ministic reaming
σc – IPR Empirical Reaming Indefinite Wilson and Graham
(1972)
σc – IPR Empirical Pilot drilling Indefinite Everell (1972)
σc FN IPR Empirical Reaming Indefinite Graham (1976)
– N, N’, Dr, n, f, FTc Tq Deterministice Reaming Indefinite Home (1978)
σt FN IPR Empirical Reaming Indefinite Farmer and Glossop
(1980)
σc Dr IPR Empirical Pilot drilling/ Combinedd Breeds and Conway
reaming (1992)
σc N, N’ FT, Tq, IPR Empirical, Reaming Indefinite Bilgin et al. (2014)
­deterministice
SELAB Dr, Dp, hr Tq Empirical Reaming Indefinite Liu and Meng
(2015)
σc N, N′, Dr, n, f, FTc FT, Tq, p, IPR, Pw, Empirical, Deter- Reaming Vertical Shaterpour-Mama-
NCR ministic e ghani and Bilgin
(2016)
σc, σt, Esta, Edyn, – RPM, Tq, IPR, Empirical Reaming Inclined (68°) Shaterpour-
SSH, RQD ­SEFIELD Mamaghani et al.
(2018a)
a
 p’ laboratory indentation penetration, E laboratory indentation threshold load, σc uniaxial compressive strength, σt Brazilian tensile strength,
SELAB required energy to break unit volume of rock, Esta static elasticity modulus, Edyn dynamic elasticity modulus, SSH Shore sclerescope hard-
ness, RQD rock quality designation
b
 k a coefficient, RPM rotational speed, W drilling weight, N number of effective bits, N’ total number of carbide inserts in reamerhead, FN aver-
age thrust force per cutter, Dr reaming diameter, n number of cutters, f cutting coefficient, FTc thrust force capacity of raise boring machine, Dp
pilot hole diameter, hr drilling depth (shaft length)
c
 IPR instantaneous penetration rate, Tq consumed reamerhead torque, FT field total thrust force, p unit penetration rate, Pw consumed reamerhead
power, NCR net cutting rate, SEFIELD field specific energy
d
 The data included both vertical and inclined raise boring operations in varying inclination angles
e
 Uses the model suggested by Morris (1969) for prediction of consumed reamerhead torque

that are fitted with industrial diamond bits (Dougherty et al.
2014). The second point is related to the applied rotational
speed values in the mining and oil industry. The applied
rotational speed values in the investigated projects of this
study varied between 4.5 and 42.5 rev/min (average value of
16.1 rev/min). However, the literature survey indicated that
the applied rotational speed is quite higher than these values
in the oil industry, usually between 50 and 500 rev/min (Xu
et al. 1998; Kok et al. 2008; Ashrafi et al. 2019; Zhao et al.
2020). As a result, the comparison between the used tricone
bit performances in the mining and oil industries should be
considered based on the lower and upper limits of applied
parameters.
This study differs from the previous empirical perfor-
mance prediction literature in a way that reaming perfor-
mance is predicted based on operational data of the pilot
hole drilling performed at the exact same alignment/location
of a reaming operation and raise inclination is also taken
into consideration as classified groups of vertical (90°) and
inclined (70°). This type of performance predictions cannot
be used in the feasibility stage since there would be no pilot
hole drilled in the feasibility stage of a raise boring project,
only some core samples of rocks would be available from a
site investigation campaign. Performance prediction mod-
els during the operational stage (after completing pilot hole
drilling) would provide very useful information and a chance
to re-plan the project during the operational stage (after the
feasibility stage). The operators of raise boring machines,
site engineers and managers require any information to see
the future of their raise boring operation to reduce their costs
and plan their jobs either in the feasibility stage or during
their operations after the feasibility stage. Another differ-
ence of this study is that it would fill the gap in the literature
since the literature includes only a few performance predic-
tion models for vertical and inclined reaming operations and
almost none for pilot hole drilling operations.

13

1710
The basic aim of this study is to develop empirical models
for predicting performances of pilot hole drilling and ream-
ing operations using rock properties and pilot hole drilling
and reaming operational parameters for classified raise incli-
nations. Field performance data of the pilot hole drilling and
reaming operations are collected in eight different raise bor-
ing projects. Recorded and observed operational parameters
are rotational speeds, consumed tricone bit and reamer head
torques, weight on bit (pushing force) of pilot hole drill-
ing and net reaming thrust (pulling) force. Recorded and
observed performance parameters of reaming and pilot hole
drilling are unit penetration rate and specific energy. Totally
21 different rock types representing different lithological
units with different geological origins are collected and
some laboratory tests are performed on them to define physi-
cal and mechanical properties, including density, uniaxial
compressive strength, Brazilian (indirect) tensile strength,
static elasticity modulus, static Poisson’s ratio, velocity of
acoustic P-wave, velocity of acoustic S-wave, dynamic elas-
ticity modulus, dynamic Poisson’s ratio, Schmidt hammer
hardness, Shore scleroscope hardness and Cerchar abrasiv-
ity index. Rock quality designation (RQD) values are also
included as a rock mass property especially in the inclined
raise boring data. Linear and non-linear multi-variable step-
wise regression analyses are performed to search for statis-
tical relationships between the rock properties, the ream-
ing and pilot hole drilling operational parameters and the
reaming and pilot hole drilling performance parameters (unit
penetration rate and specific energy) to use in feasibility and
operational stages for the vertical (90°) and inclined (70°)
raise boring data groups.
2 Field and Laboratory Studies
2.1 General Information on Field Studies
Different raise boring operation sites in Turkey were vis-
ited in total 6 years starting from 2014 to 2019 (Table 2).
One of these operations was in the construction industry
and the other operations were in the mining industry. Field
Table 2  Information on the Year Client
raise boring operation sites
investigated 2014 Eti Bakir A.S
2014 Eczacibasi Esan
2015 Eczacibasi Esan
2017 Eczacibasi Esan
2016 Limak-Cengiz-Kolin JV
2018 Tuprag
2019 Tuprag
2019 Eti Bakir A.S
13
A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur
studies included a collection of information related to the
raise boring operation sites (geology of the field, specifica-
tions of the raise boring machines), field performance and
operational data for both pilot hole drilling and reaming,
observation of the raise boring operations and sampling of
the rocks to be excavated. Some of the previous studies of
the authors related to some (limited number) of the raise
boring operations mentioned in this study have already
been published in Shaterpour-Mamaghani and Bilgin
(2016), Shaterpour-Mamaghani et  al. (2016, 2018a,b,
2019).
Two different brands of RBMs are used in the studied
shaft projects: Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) and Atlas Copco
(73RH C) in different lengths, inclinations and lithological
units (Table 3). Pilot hole diameters vary between 0.28 m
and 0.31 m, almost the same for all of the pilot holes stud-
ied. Reaming diameters vary between 1.50 m and 2.60 m.
The shafts are driven generally in two inclinations: vertical
shafts (90°) and inclined shafts (~ 70°, varying between 68°
and 72°). Total length of the shafts investigated is 1204 m,
of which 606 m is inclined and the rest (598 m) is vertical.
A total of 132 m of the raises is excavated by Atlas Copco
(73RH C) in one vertical and one inclined shaft/raise and
the remaining 1072 m is excavated by Sandvik (Rhino 1088
DC) in four vertical and two inclined shafts/raises. These
values indicate that the data consists of mostly the field per-
formance of the Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) machine and the
dominant reaming diameter is 2.44 m. Total excavation time
is 354 days (147 days for pilot hole drilling and 207 days for
reaming), excluding the time for site preparation, equipment
mobilization and support installation. All of the reaming
operations are realized in one pass and upwards in all of the
sites investigated, after drilling the pilot holes downwards.
The basic specifications of the RBMs used in the studied
sites are summarized in Table 4. As seen, the basic charac-
teristics of the two RBMs may be assumed to be very simi-
lar. They both have integrated cutterhead structure, which
is common for reaming diameters up to 3 m, and designed
to excavate a single diameter in one pass (Fig. 1). However,
these reamer heads can be replaced providing for different
diameters. They have several paired cutter housings. Both
Scope Location Name
Ventilation shaft (Copper Mine) Kure Shaft 3
Ventilation shaft (Lead–Zinc Mine) Balya Shaft 3
Ventilation shaft (Lead–Zinc Mine) Balya Shaft 4
Ventilation shaft (Lead–Zinc Mine) Balya Shaft 5.2
Energy shaft (HEPP) Yusufeli Shaft 2
Ventilation shaft (Gold Mine) Efemcukuru Shaft 2
Dewatering shaft (Gold Mine) Efemcukuru Shaft 3
Ore Pass (Copper Mine) Adiyaman Shaft 2
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot… 1711

Table 3  General information on the raise boring projects investigated

Project location Raise boring machine Pilot hole Reaming Number Raise inclination Raise length Excavation time
diameter diameter of cutters
Pilot hole Reaming
(m) (m) (–) (degrees) (m) (days) (days)

Kure (Shaft 3) Atlas Copco (73RH C) 0.30 2.60 16 90 22.2 3 4

Balya (Shaft 3) Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) 0.31 2.44 14 90 198.9 18 17
Balya (Shaft 4) Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) 0.31 2.44 14 90 195.8 31 53
Balya (Shaft 5.2) Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) 0.31 2.44 14 68 331.4 38 63
Yusufeli (Shaft 2) Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) 0.31 2.44 14 90 130.3 15 34
Efemcukuru (Shaft 2) Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) 0.31 2.44 14 90 50.6 8 10
Efemcukuru (Shaft 3) Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) 0.31 1.50 8 72 165.0 28 21
Adiyaman (Shaft 2) Atlas Copco (73RH C) 0.28 1.80 10 70 110.0 6 5

Table 4  Basic specifications of Manufacturer (Brand) Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) Atlas Copco (73RH C)
the raise boring machines
Excavation (reaming) diameter 0.66–2.44 m 1.50–2.60 m
Derrick mass 16,500 kg 13,150 kg
Thrust capacity 4000 kN 4159 kN
Power capacity 252 kW 250 kW
Breakout torque capacity 300 kNm 210 kNm
Reaming torque capacity (intermittent) 160 kNm 173 kNm
Rotational speed of reaming 0–21 rpm 0–17 rpm
Rotational speed of pilot drilling 0–60 rpm 0–52 rpm
Drill pipe diameter/length 254/1524 mm 254/1524 mm
Drill angle (from horizontal) 90°–0° 90°–60°
Derrick height (extended/retracted) 5316/3350 mm 5190/3800 mm

housings of each paired set are mounted on an equal distance
from the center of the reamer head.
Multi-row carbide-insert cutters (with steel kerfs) with
a row spacing of around 30–60 mm (average 45 mm) in
Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) machine and 30–70 mm (aver-
age around 50 mm) in Atlas Copco (73RH C) machine are
used in all of the fields investigated. CMR41 (four-row) and
CMR52 (five-row) cutters are used as a pair with Sandvik
(Rhino 1088 DC), and MVKC55N (five-row) cutters are
used with Atlas Copco (73RH C). These row spacing values
set the cut spacing, while their halves are the line spacings.
Thus, their cutting patterns are double spiral, as described
in Copur et al. (2017), with an angular spacing of 180° for
each cutter of a paired set.
Multi-row carbide cutters have the shape of a truncated
cone with around 14° of cone angle, which cuts rocks in a
non-true rolling way. The diameter of each row in a cutter
varies as being smaller in the inner part and larger towards
the outer part (starting from 10 inches up to 13.5 inches
for CMR41 and CMR52; from 11 inches up to 15 inches
for MVKC55N). Spacings (pitch) between the inserts of a
row vary from the inner rows to the outer rows to prevent
tracking. The total number and diameter of the inserts in a
cutter are 129 + 129 (as a pair) and 22 mm for the cutters
of the Atlas Copco (73RH C) machine and 104/four-row-
cutter + 128/five-row-cutter (as a pair) and 22 mm for the
cutters of the Sandvik (Rhino 1088 DC) machine. The cut-
ters are employed in flat-shaped reamer head profiles. No
water spray system is used for dust suppression in the ream-
ing operations in the studied project sites.
2.2 Experimental Studies
Totally 21 different rock types representing different geo-
logical origins and lithological units are collected and some
laboratory tests are performed on them to define physi-
cal and mechanical properties (Table 5). The samples are
obtained from the core boxes of the boreholes drilled in
the sites being cored mostly very close to the shafts. It is
seen that the rock samples or data collection zones are in
all types of geological origins (igneous, metamorphic and
sedimentary).
Physical and mechanical property tests including uni-
axial compressive strength, Brazilian (indirect) tensile

13

1712
Fig. 1  Pictures of the raise boring machines used in the studied project sites
strength and static elasticity modulus are performed based
on ISRM suggestions (ISRM 2007). Acoustic velocity tests
(dynamic elasticity modulus and Poisson’s ratio) are per-
formed based on ASTM D2845 (2008). Cerchar abrasivity
tests are performed based on ASTM D7625-10 (2010).
Uniaxial compressive strength and acoustic wave velocity
tests are performed on the grinded core samples with a
length to diameter ratio of around 2.5 and the loading rate
13
A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur
is 0.5 kN/s. Brazilian tensile strength tests are performed
on the core samples at 0.25 kN/s loading rate and the ratio
of length to the diameter of around 0.5. The results of
physical–mechanical property tests along with RQD val-
ues, which is a rock mass characteristic, are summarized in
Table 6. RQD values are obtained from the same boreholes
where the representative samples are taken.
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot… 1713

Table 5  Information on the rock samples collected

Sample (Rock) Lithology Geological origin Project location (Shaft name) Sampling distance
ID to Shaft (m)

1 Basalt (Submarine) Igneous Kure (Shaft 3) –

2 Dacite Igneous Balya (Shaft 3) 122–181
3 Limestone Sedimentary Balya (Shaft 3) 122–181
4 Andesite Igneous Balya (Shaft 3) –
5 Dacite Igneous Balya (Shaft 4) 16
6 Metasedimentary Sedimentary Balya (Shaft 4) 16
7 Andesite Igneous Balya (Shaft 4) 16
8a Limestone Sedimentary Balya (Shaft 4) 16
9 Dacite Igneous Balya (Shaft 5.2) 1.5
10 Hornfels Metamorphic Balya (Shaft 5.2) 1.5
11b Andesite Igneous Balya (Shaft 5.2) 1.5
12 Pyrite ore Igneous (Hydrothermal) Balya (Shaft 5.2) 1.5
13 Limestone-1 Sedimentary Balya (Shaft 5.2) 1.5
14 Metasedimentary Sedimentary Balya (Shaft 5.2) 1.5
15 Limestone-2 Sedimentary Balya (Shaft 5.2) 1.5
16 Skarn Metamorphic Balya (Shaft 5.2) 1.5
17 Diabase Igneous Yusufeli (Shaft 2) 50–180
18 Granodiorite Igneous Yusufeli (Shaft 2) 50–180
19 Hornfels Metamorphic Efemcukuru (Shaft 2) 1.0
20 Hornfels Metamorphic Efemcukuru (Shaft 3) –
21c Basalt/Marble/Dolomite Igneous/Metam./Sed Adiyaman (Shaft 2) 20–130
a
 No testing could be performed on Rock Sample ID 8 (Limestone), since no rock sample could be obtained. However, both pilot hole drilling
and reaming performance and operational data are available for this rock
b
 To obtain representative sample of this zone (locally named as fault zone rock in the related mine) only the high-quality intact samples were
selected for performing the laboratory tests. During excavation of this zone, other rocks (in short lengths) were also encountered. The thin sec-
tion analysis indicated that the tested samples were andesite (Sample ID 11)
c
 Basalt, marble and dolomite were excavated in Adiyaman Project (Shaft 2) with raise boring length of 110 m. When the performance was being
measured, it was not possible to distinguish the different lithological units (performance was averaged arithmetically for complete raise boring
length). Their thicknesses were reported to be close to each other. Therefore, each lithological units of the Sample ID 21 were tested and the
results were averaged arithmetically (not thickness weighted)

The experimental results indicate that the mechanical thrust (pulling) force are obtained from the data logger
properties of the samples vary in a wide range: uniaxial records of the RBMs. Unit penetration rate is calculated
compressive strength of 43–212  MPa, tensile strength based on the instantaneous penetration rate and rotational
of 2.4–16 MPa, static elasticity modulus of 10–34 GPa, speed records. Field-specific energy is calculated based on
static Poisson’s ratio of 0.10–0.27, P-wave velocity of the consumed tricone bit/reamer head power (kWh or MJ)
2500–6000 m/s, S-wave velocity of 1500–3100 m/s, and and net cutting rate (­ m3/h). The performance parameters of
Cerchar abrasivity index of 1.2–4.0. RQD values vary RBMs are calculated using Eqs. (2–6):
between 37 and 93%; and usually are greater than 50%, since
Le
the raise boring operations are preferred for massive rock IPR = × 60, (2)
masses. The samples obtained in the years 2014 and 2015 te
(Sample IDs from 1 to 8) did not include Schmidt hammer
hardness, Shore scleroscope hardness, Cerchar abrasivity IPR 1000
p= × , (3)
index and RQD. RPM 60

2.3 Field Performance Data RPM

Pw = 2 × 𝜋 × × Tq , (4)
60
Rotational speed, consumed tricone bit and reamer head
torques, weight on bit of pilot hole drilling, and net reaming NCR = IPR × Ash , (5)

13

1714 A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur

Table 6  Physical and Sample ID ρ σc σt Esta νsta VP VS Edyn νdyn SHH SSH CAI RQD
mechanical properties of the
samples along with RQD (g/cm3) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa) – (m/s) (m/s) (GPa) – – – – (%)

1 2.81 81.6 10.96 11.28 0.14 5994 3083 71.00 0.32 – – – –

2 2.47 71.8 4.63 15.70 – 2977 1634 16.97 0.27 – – – –
3 2.67 43.6 8.84 10.50 – 4643 2612 46.83 0.26 – – – –
4 2.54 114.1 15.97 10.70 – – – – – – – – –
5 2.47 94.6 8.50 11.90 0.11 3000 1977 21.55 0.22 47.9 76.0 – –
6 2.57 79.2 7.00 21.58 0.10 3256 2144 26.41 0.12 45.5 80.0 – –
7 2.65 116.6 8.44 30.40 0.23 3928 2492 38.30 0.26 50.8 76.8 – –
9 2.58 74.3 8.00 32.12 0.23 3679 2087 38.29 0.25 52.2 87.1 3.16 93
10 2.65 85.7 2.40 16.35 0.14 3440 2113 28.42 0.19 46.3 78.0 2.29 52
11 2.62 211.4 13.48 34.10 0.18 3316 2169 37.74 0.23 59.1 97.4 3.71 51
12 3.44 126.7 5.41 23.62 0.27 2578 1705 32.47 0.31 39.1 68.1 2.85 92
13 2.67 74.5 6.91 21.42 0.15 3158 1956 24.23 0.18 39.4 56.1 1.28 53
14 2.61 133.2 10.57 19.37 0.13 3592 2280 31.57 0.16 54.0 90.2 2.97 91
15 2.73 115.8 5.41 28.27 0.19 3509 2079 38.94 0.22 49.7 79.5 3.53 89
16 3.14 53.3 – – – – – – – 26.7 48.8 1.21 49
17 2.90 53.3 8.01 25.00 0.20 5324 2955 64.15 0.26 – – 2.84 78
18 2.68 90.4 10.16 13.55 0.15 5138 2739 53.58 0.30 – – 3.29 61
19 2.76 83.7 12.59 20.44 0.10 3409 2186 30.44 0.15 51.1 92.6 3.95 86
20 – 119.3 – – – – – – – – – – –
21 2.78 58.5 7.28 14.52 0.14 2815 1594 17.61 0.25 36.6 55.0 1.84 37

ρ density, σc uniaxial compressive strength, σt Brazilian tensile strength, Esta static elasticity modulus, νsta
static Poisson’s ratio, VP velocity of P-wave, VS velocity of S-wave, Edyn dynamic elasticity modulus, νdyn
dynamic Poisson’s ratio, SHH Schmidt hammer hardness, SSH Shore scleroscope hardness, CAI Cerchar
abrasivity index, RQD rock quality designation
Since no sample could be obtained on Rock Sample ID 8 (Limestone), it is removed from this table

Pw Scatterplots of the reaming data for combined data set

SEfield = , (6)
NCR
where IPR is instantaneous penetration rate (m/h), Le is
drilling/excavation length (m), te is drilling/excavation time
(min), p is unit penetration (mm/rev), RPM is rotational
speed (rev/min), Pw is consumed tricone bit/reamer head
power (kW), Tq is consumed tricone bit/reamer head torque
(kNm), NCR is net cutting rate ­(m3/h), Ash is shaft cross-
sectional area ­(m2), and ­SEfield is field-specific energy (kWh/
m3). It should be noted that some researchers used Rate of
Penetration (ROP) or net Advance Rate (AR) instead of
instantaneous penetration rate (IPR). In addition, the units
of the specific energy values are converted to MJ/m3 in the
modeling studies. A summary of the field performance and
operational data collected for different rocks sampled during
this study is presented in Table 7 for the pilot hole drilling
and reaming operations. Torque values include the losses
due to self-turning of the drill bits and reamer heads. Ream-
ing thrust force values are the net values excluding lifting the
self-weights of the drill rods and the reamerheads (the force
only required for penetrating into the rock).
(vertical + inclined operations) are presented in Fig. 2 to
see if the data shows the expected trends. It is seen that
the relationship between reaming torque and net reaming
thrust force, as well as reaming unit penetration rate and
specific energy, show the theoretically expected trends/
relations, while the other relations is highly scattered. The
reason for the discrepancy might be due to different raise/
shaft inclinations. It is considered that lifting the whole
mass of the reaming equipment in the vertical reaming
and carrying the reaming equipment with a fraction of
its mass based on a frictional coefficient in the inclined
reaming operations would result in different performances.
When the data is grouped/categorized/classified as vertical
(90°) and inclined (70°), it is seen that the relationships
are improved with some exceptions and the trends become
clearer. The relationships between the reaming torque and
the net reaming thrust force, as well as the reaming unit
penetration rate and the specific energy, are given in Fig. 3
separately for the vertical and inclined data sets. The pilot
hole drilling performance and operational data shows also
similar behavior for the combined data.

13
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot… 1715

Table 7  Summary of the field performance and operational data for the pilot hole drilling and reaming operations
Sample ID RPMp Tq-p FWOB pp SEp RPMr Tq-r Fthrust pr SEr Dr α
(rev/min) (kNm) (kN) (mm/rev) (MJ/m3) (rev/min) (kNm) (kN) (mm/rev) (MJ/m3) (m) (°)

1 27.1 4.4 130 1.40 337 8.0 79 1264 3 43 2.60 90

2 12.1 3.7 128 2.12 161 3.3 39 607 11 5 2.44 90
3 14.7 4.1 154 2.01 186 4.1 62 1108 6 18 2.44 90
4 14.0 4.0 150 1.82 190 4.0 63 1141 9 10 2.44 90
5 17.1 4.0 173 1.15 341 3.9 48 1000 2 41 2.44 90
6 16.0 4.0 165 1.34 277 3.8 46 974 3 29 2.44 90
7 17.1 3.9 168 0.99 365 3.7 44 909 2 43 2.44 90
8 15.4 3.8 156 1.78 235 3.7 42 880 4 20 2.44 90
9 13.1 5.6 131 0.94 601 3.6 30 395 1 56 2.44 68
10 4.5 7.1 44 5.68 121 3.9 40 507 4 16 2.44 68
11 8.0 9.8 80 10.70 254 3.1 37 326 9 19 2.44 68
12 14.0 7.8 139 1.16 577 3.9 49 768 2 33 2.44 68
13 10.9 9.0 109 3.36 237 3.4 50 607 5 21 2.44 68
14 10.8 5.1 108 3.59 339 4.0 49 841 2 45 2.44 68
15 14.7 10.0 147 2.13 569 3.8 54 813 3 37 2.44 68
16 10.6 5.0 106 2.36 218 3.5 31 317 2 18 2.44 68
17 18.2 5.7 189 1.09 463 4.0 57 937 2 49 2.44 90
18 18.6 6.1 193 1.04 495 4.0 64 1074 2 60 2.44 90
19 15.3 5.1 144 1.14 461 3.9 73 1145 3 49 2.44 90
20 22.5 7.2 216 0.96 722 5.0 83 1368 5 63 1.50 72
21 42.5 7.0 40 0.83 808 9.0 60 900 6 25 1.80 70

The subscripts “p” and “r” denote for pilot hole drilling and reaming operations, respectively
RPM rotational speed, Tq consumed torque, FWOB weight on bit (pushing force of tricone bit), Fthrust net reaming thrust (pulling) force of reamer-
head, p unit penetration rate, SE field specific energy, Dr reaming diameter, α raise inclination

3 Modeling Studies
The basic objective in the pre-bid (feasibility) stage of a
mechanized excavation project, such as in the case of hard
rock tunnel boring machines being similar to RBMs, is to
predict penetration (production) rate, which directly affects
job duration and cost, using the ground characteristics
(intact rock and rock mass properties), machine-related
parameters including technical properties of the machines
(sizes—geometries, capacities) and operational parameters
such as thrust force (usually as field penetration index: thrust
force/cutter/advance rate per revolution of cutterhead), cut-
terhead torque requirements and rotational speed (Rostami
and Ozdemir 1993; Bieniawski et al. 2007; Yagiz 2008; Has-
sanpour et al. 2010; Farrokh et al. 2012). Machine opera-
tional parameters such as thrust, torque and rotational speed
are controllable by operators and changing these parameters
would directly affect penetration rate.
In field applications of raise boring operations, the
operator basically changes reaming thrust force, as well as
rotational speed, up to a limit value to achieve an optimum
penetration rate for the excavated ground. Increasing thrust
force increases penetration and thus, torque (or power), and
reduces specific energy. The operator usually sets a required
level of penetration, and then, observe thrust force and
torque and tries to keep thrust force (and torque) within the
machine capacity. If thrust force and/or torque fluctuate due
to changing ground conditions at a set value of penetration,
then thrust (advance speed of the hydraulic push cylinders)
and cutterhead/reamer head rotational speed are changed
to obtain an optimum level of penetration within the limits
of thrust force and torque capacities, as well as within the
maximum allowable cutter speed. The input of controllable
operational parameters, which are interrelated to each other,
defines output parameters of penetration rate and specific
energy. Specific energy showing the efficiency of excava-
tion, which is defined as energy spent for excavation of unit
volume or mass of ground, can also be considered as an
output parameter since it is a function of unit penetration
rate, which is a function of thrust (pulling or pushing) force,
torque (or power), rotational speed and rock properties.
The input and output parameters used for the modeling
studies are summarized in Fig. 4 based on the causality
(cause and effect) consideration mentioned above. Pilot hole
drilling and reaming performance parameters are predicted
for “feasibility” and “operational” stages of a raise boring

13

1716 A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur

Combined Data Combined Data

1600 12

Reaming Unit Penetration Rate

Reaming Thrust Force (kN)
1400
y = 18.011x - 92.624 10
1200 R² = 0.7843
8
1000

(mm/rev)
800 6
600
4
400
2
200
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Reaming Torque (kNm) Reaming Torque (kNm)

Combined Data Combined Data

70 12

Reaming Unit Penetration Rate

Reaming Specific Energy

60 10
50
8
(MJ/m3)

(mm/rev)
40
6
30
4
20
10 2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Reaming Torque (kNm) Reaming Thrust Force (kN)

Combined Data Combined Data

70 70
Reaming Specific Energy

Reaming Specific Energy

60 60
50 50 y = 60.256e-0.185x
(MJ/m3)

(MJ/m3)

40 40 R² = 0.6332

30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 0 3 6 9 12
Reaming Thrust Force (kN) Reaming Unit Penetration Rate (mm/rev)

Fig. 2  Scatterplots of the reaming performance and operational data (combined data set: vertical + inclined)

operation. All of the data used in the modeling studies are
also categorized as “vertical (90°)” and “inclined (70°)”.
The models for unit penetration are first mentioned for the
vertical and then, for the inclined raise boring, and finally
the models for specific energy are mentioned in the subsec-
tions of this section. Firstly, the reduced number of the rock
properties (by choosing the most significant rock properties
with the best subsets analysis) are used as input together
with the respective operational parameters for predicting
performances of the reaming and pilot hole drilling for use
in the feasibility stage. Then, for predicting the reaming per-
formance after completion of the pilot hole drilling opera-
tion, the reaming operational parameters together with the
reduced number of the pilot hole drilling operational param-
eters and the rock properties are used together as input for
use in the operational stage.
It is considered that the pilot hole drilling operation
would give additional information about the excavation per-
formance of the reaming operation. It is logical to predict
excavation performance of a reaming operation using the
pilot hole drilling operational data obtained at the same
position/alignment/location of the reaming, in addition to
the reaming operational parameters and the rock properties.
Since the pilot hole is drilled before a reaming operation
to provide a guide to the reamer head, it is expected that
it would reflect the performance of the reaming operation.
Linear and non-linear multi-variable regression analy-
sis (stepwise) method is used to develop empirical models.
Minitab 2016 statistical software is used in the analyses.
The best subset method is used to see the possible statis-
tical relationships and their strengths. The minimum con-
fidence limit is taken as 75%, which requires a maximum
significance value of 0.25. Variation inflation factor (VIF)
is also taken into consideration, as it should be lower than
10, to avoid any multi-collinearity problem (high correlation
(R ≥ 0.85) between the independent/predictive parameters),
which might generate erratic predictions especially at around
the model limits/boundaries. It should be noted that the signs

13
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot… 1717

Fig. 3  Scatterplots of the verti- 1600

cal and inclined reaming perfor-
mance and operational data
1400 y = 11.533x + 356.2
R² = 0.763

Reaming Thrust Force (kN)

1200

1000
y = 19.884x - 277
800 R² = 0.934
600

400
Vertical (90 deg.)
200
Inclined (70 deg.)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Reaming Torque (kNm)

70
Vertical (90 deg.)
Reaming Specific Energy (MJ/m 3)

60
Inclined (70 deg.)
50 Inclined Outlier (70 deg.)

40 y = 72.829e-0.24x
R² = 0.9487
30

20

10 y = 45.951x-0.448
R² = 0.5148
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Reaming Unit Penetration Rate (mm/rev)

of each input parameter in the suggested models are also
taken into consideration. If the sign is not in the theoretically
expected direction, then that model is rejected.
Statistical “t” (two-tailed) and “F” (one tailed/right tail)
tests are also taken into consideration, requiring that their
estimated values must be greater than their tabulated values.
Reliability of the models developed is also evaluated based
on scatterplots of the measured (realized) versus predicted
performance and operational values together with the 1:1
line. Non-linear regression analysis is preferred to be per-
formed by taking natural logarithms of the dependent and
independent variables of the vertical raise boring data. How-
ever, it is performed by taking the inverse and/or square root
of the dependent or independent variables of the inclined
raise boring data, since the natural logarithm does not yield
any reliable model. The model being statistically most reli-
able, either linear or non-linear, is given as the accepted
model. Coefficient of determination (R2) values given in the
equations are adjusted values. Strengths of the relationships
(R2) are evaluated in this study as moderately strong between
50 and 69%, strong between 70 and 89% and very strong if
it is greater than or equal to 90%. A relationship having R2
value smaller than 50% is rejected.
Both the statistical t test and F test require a minimum
data number of 20. The grouping of the data based on the
raise inclination reduces the number of data in each data
group (11 for the vertical and 10 for the inclined operations).
In this case, the normality of the data should be checked.
Normality is checked by histograms of each parameter (rock
properties and RBM performance and operational records).

13

1718
Fig. 4  Input and output parameters for the modeling studies
It is seen that most of the parameters are normally distrib-
uted and the others show a slight deviation from the normal
distribution. It is assumed in this study that the data sets dis-
tribute normally; the effect of slight deviation from normal-
ity of only limited parameters on the predictions is assumed
to be insignificant and ignored.
Reaming diameter of 2.44 m is constant for the verti-
cal reaming operations since all of the vertical raise boring
data consists of 2.44 m reaming diameter, except for one
case of 2.60 m diameter with 22.2 m reaming length (exca-
vated one rock type) as seen in Tables 3 and 7, of which its
effect on the performance models might be insignificant. The
inclined raise boring data set includes three different diam-
eters: 1.5 m used in one rock type, 1.8 m used in one rock
type, and 2.44 m used in 8 rock types. It is seen that 2.44 m
13
A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur
is also a dominant reamer head diameter for the inclined
reaming operations. An effort is made to add reamer head
diameter as predictive/input parameter in the modeling stud-
ies; however, no reliable model can be generated for predic-
tion of the reaming performance and operational parameters.
Also, normalization of the instantaneous penetration rate
(estimated based on the unit penetration rate and rotational
speed values) and the net reaming thrust force with the
reamer head diameter do not result in any reliable/logical
model. Therefore, the reamer head diameter is neglected as
predictive parameter in the modeling studies, although it is
an important input parameter for predicting the performance
and operational parameters.
The shaft inclinations include 8 operations of 68°, one
operation of 70° and one operation of 72°. Since these
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot… 1719

Table 8  Models developed for the vertical (90°) raise boring unit penetration rate
Parameter Equation R2 (%) Equation No
Models for feasibility stage

Models for pilot hole drilling performance by using rock properties and pilot hole drilling operational parameters
pp pp = 0.43933.45 0.706 R2 = 50% (7)
Esta ×RPM p

Models for reaming performance by using rock properties and reaming operational parameters
pr pr = 0.346Tq−r − 2.21𝜎t − 0.113Edyn + 7.90 R2 = 66% (8)
Models for operational stage (after completion of pilot hole drilling)

Models for reaming performance by using rock properties, pilot hole drilling and reaming operational parameters
pr No reliable model is obtained

Notations of the parameters are as given in Tables 6 and 7

angles are very close, the inclination is assumed to average
70° in this study for the inclined raise boring data. However,
if there were additional inclined data with a wide range,
it would be possible to make an adjustment based on the
inclination (including sin(angle) as input parameter, as being
always smaller than Sin (90°) = 1) that reflects reaming
thrust force reduction in the inclined hole. As seen in Fig. 3,
the reaming thrust force of the inclined reaming is generally
lower than that of the vertical reaming for the similar reamer
head torque values (or for similar rock properties).
Atlas Copco (73RH C) RBM is used for excavation of
only one vertical shaft in Kure (excavation of Sample ID 1)
and one inclined shaft in Adiyaman (excavation of Sample
ID 21), the remaining 19 samples are excavated by the Sand-
vik (Rhino 1088 DC) machine. Since the cutters and reamer
heads are also quite similar in the two brands of RBMs men-
tioned in this study, it is assumed that machine brand does
not have any significant effect on the performance; or its
effect may be ignored.
3.1 Models of Unit Penetration Rate for Vertical
Pilot Hole Drilling and Reaming
The results of the modeling studies for the vertical pilot
hole drilling and the reaming for both of the feasibility
and operational stages are summarized in Table 8. The
vertical pilot hole drilling unit penetration rate model
(Eq. 7) with a low strength, is obtained as a function of
the tricone-bit rotational speed and the static elasticity
modulus of rock. The vertical reaming unit penetration
rate model given in Eq. (8) with a moderate strength
is a function of the reamer head torque, the tensile
strength and the dynamic elasticity modulus of rock.
Adding the operational parameters of the pilot hole
drilling and reaming to the rock properties does not
improve the relationships or does not result in any reli-
able model for the unit penetration rate of the vertical
reaming.

Table 9  Models developed for inclined (70°) raise boring unit penetration rate
Parameter Equation R2 (%) Equation No
Models for feasibility stage

Models for pilot hole drilling performance by using rock properties and pilot hole drilling operational parameters
pp No reliable model is obtained
Models for reaming performance by using rock properties and reaming operational parameters
pr pr = 1 R2 = 90% (9)
0.0193RQD+0.177RPMr −0.00165Fthrust −0.65
Note: The data for Sample ID 13 is removed as outlier in this model
Models for operational stage (after completion of pilot hole drilling)

Models for reaming performance by using rock properties, pilot hole drilling and reaming operational parameters
pr No reliable model is obtained

Notations of the parameters are as given in Tables 6 and 7

13

1720

13
Table 10  Models developed for prediction of specific energy in the vertical (90°) and inclined (70°) raise boring data
Models for feasibility stage

Models for pilot hole drilling specific energy by using rock properties
Vertical (90°) Inclined (70°)
No reliable model is obtained No reliable model is obtained
Models for pilot hole specific energy by using rock properties and pilot hole drilling operational parameters
Vertical (90°) R2 = 76% (10) Inclined (70°) R2 = 91% (13)
SEp = 124Tq−p + 1.20𝜎c + 5.06Esta − 418 SEp = 20.3RPMp + 5.61RQD − 256
Models for reaming specific energy by using rock properties
Vertical (90°) R2 = 52% (11) Inclined (70°)
SEr = 0.34𝜎c + 3.34𝜎t + 0.36Edyn − 33.5 No modeling study (only based on intact rock/rock mass parameters) is performed for the
inclined reaming specific energy in this study, since a model has already been suggested in
literature (Shaterpour-Mamaghani et al. 2018a)
Models for reaming specific energy by using rock properties and reaming operational parameters
Vertical (90°) Inclined (70°) R2 = 71% (14)
No reliable model is obtained SEr = 2.55RPMr + 0.58RQD − 20.2
Models for operational stage

Models for reaming specific energy (after completion of pilot hole drilling) by using rock properties and pilot hole drilling operational parameters
Vertical (90°) Inclined (70°)
No reliable model is obtained No reliable model is obtained
Models for reaming specific energy (after completion of pilot hole drilling) by using rock properties, pilot hole drilling and reaming operational parameters
Vertical (90°)
√ R2 = 54% (12) Inclined (70°)
√ R2 = 61% (15)
SEr = 0.06Fthrust + 0.86RPMr + 0.09Esta − 8.72 SEr = 0.03F thrust + 0.45RPMr + 0.002VP − 4.95

The notations of parameters are as given in Tables 6 and 7

A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot… 1721

Table 11  Statistical results for the models developed for the vertical (90°) and inclined (70°) pilot hole drilling and reaming unit penetration rate
Equation No Predictor Estimated t-value Tabulated p value VIF R2 (%) Adj R2 (%) Estimated F Tabulated
t-value F-value

Equation (7) Constant 3.43 1.83 0.011 – 61.0 49.9 5.5 3.3

Esta − 2.54 0.039 1.0
RPMp − 2.27 0.057 1.0
Equation (8) Constant 2.97 1.86 0.031 – 78.5 65.6 6.1 3.6
Tq-r 2.92 0.033 7.1
σt − 3.73 0.014 4.9
Edyn − 2.41 0.061 2.1
Equation (9) Constant − 3.88 2.36 0.018 – 94.1 89.6 21.2 6.6
RQD 7.60 0.002 2.8
RPMr 5.16 0.007 3.9
Fthrust − 6.22 0.003 3.3

3.2 Models of Unit Penetration Rate for Inclined 3.4 Reliability of the Suggested Models

Pilot Hole Drilling and Reaming
The results of the modeling studies for the inclined pilot hole
drilling and the reaming for the feasibility stage are summa-
rized in Table 9. A very strong unit penetration rate model
is obtained and given in Eq. (9) as a function of RQD, the
rotational speed and thrust force of the reamer head. Add-
ing the operational parameters of the pilot hole drilling and
reaming to the rock properties as input does not improve the
relationships or does not result in any reliable model for the
unit penetration rate of the inclined reaming.
3.3 Models of Specific Energy for Vertical
and Inclined Pilot Hole Drilling and Reaming
The results of the modeling studies for the specific energies
of the vertical and inclined pilot hole drilling and ream-
ing are summarized in Table 10. As seen, no reliable mod-
els are obtained for both of the vertical and inclined pilot
hole drilling specific energies using rock properties. In the
next step, the operational parameters of pilot hole drilling
together with the rock properties are used as input for mod-
eling the specific energies of the vertical and inclined pilot
hole drilling and reaming. Then, only rock properties are
used as input for modeling the specific energy of the verti-
cal reaming. No modeling study based on only rock proper-
ties is performed for the inclined reaming specific energy
in this study since a model has already been suggested in
the literature (Shaterpour-Mamaghani et al. 2018a). For the
operational stage, rock properties together with the pilot
hole drilling and reaming operational parameters are used
as input for modeling the specific energies of the vertical
and inclined reaming.
The reliability of the suggested models is tested with the
scatterplots of the measured versus predicted performance
and operational parameters of the vertical (90°) and inclined
(70°) raise boring data along with the 1:1 line, in addition to
the statistical parameters of R2, t-test, F-test, variation infla-
tion factor (VIF) and significance value (p-value).
Summary of the statistical results for Eqs. (7–9) devel-
oped for the vertical and inclined pilot hole drilling and
reaming unit penetration rate are presented in Table 11. As
seen, all of the equations pass the statistical tests. Scatter-
plots of the measured versus predicted unit penetration rate
values for these equations are presented in Fig. 5. Equa-
tions (7, 8) are considered as having a high scatter reducing
their reliability; therefore, they should be used cautiously. In
addition, it is seen that Eq. (9) shows some scatter reducing
its reliability, although a general trend is seen along the 1:1
line. This equation should not be used beyond 6 mm/rev unit
penetration rate. It should be noted that in the residual plot
of this equation (between measured and predicted values),
it is observed that one of the predicted data shows unusual
values compared to the rest of the data, therefore this data is
considered an outlier in this equation.
Summary of the statistical results for Eqs. (10–15) devel-
oped for specific energies of the vertical and inclined pilot
hole drilling and reaming are presented in Table 12. As seen
in Table 12, all of the equations pass the statistical tests.
Scatterplots of the measured versus predicted specific energy
values for these equations are presented in Fig. 6. Equa-
tion (10) is strong in terms of coefficient of determination.
Scatterplot of Eq. (10) for the vertical pilot hole drilling spe-
cific energy indicate strong correlation without any signifi-
cant scatter, and its linear regression curve/lines lay along

13

1722 A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur

Fig. 5  Scatterplots of the meas- Vertical Raise Data (Eq. 7)

ured versus predicted vertical 2.3
(90°) and inclined (70°) pilot
hole drilling and reaming unit

Predicted Pilot Hole Drilling Unit

penetration rate parameter 2.0

Penetration Rate (mm/rev)

R² = 0.656
1.7

1.4

1.1

0.8

0.5
0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3
Measured Pilot Hole Drilling Unit Penetration Rate (mm/rev)

Vertical Raise Data (Eq. 8)

12
Predicted Reaming Unit Penetration Rate

10

8
R² = 0.7851
(mm/rev)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Measured Reaming Unit Penetration Rate (mm/rev)

Inclined Raise Data (Eq. 9)

10
Predicted Reaming Unit Penetration Rate

6
(mm/rev)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Measured Reaming Unit Penetration Rate (mm/rev)

13
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot… 1723

Table 12  Statistical results for the models developed for the vertical (90°) and inclined (70°) specific energy
Equation No Predictor Estimated t-value Tabulated p value VIF R2 (%) Adj R2 (%) Estimated F Tabulated
t-value F-value

Equation (10) Constant − 2.81 1.23 0.031 – 83.8 75.7 10.35 1.8

Tq-p 4.98 0.002 1.1
σc 1.33 0.232 1.1
Esta 1.70 0.140 1.0
Equation (11) Constant − 1.54 1.24 0.185 – 70.2 52.3 3.92 1.9
σc 1.62 0.166 1.2
σt 1.57 0.177 1.4
Edyn 1.37 0.229 1.5
Equation (12) Constant − 2.18 1.23 0.072 – 69.2 53.8 4.49 1.8
FWOB 2.85 0.029 1.2
RPMr 2.50 0.047 1.2
Esta 1.35 0.225 1.2
Equation (13) Constant − 2.71 2.31 0.035 – 93.1 90.8 40.53 5.1
RPMp 8.63 0.000 1.1
RQD 4.99 0.002 1.1
Equation (14) Constant − 1.55 1.40 0.172 – 78.5 71.3 10.92 2.1
RPMr 1.59 0.162 1.2
RQD 4.66 0.003 1.2
Equation (15) Constant − 1.36 1.25 0.245 – 77.7 61.1 4.66 2.1
FWOB 3.41 0.027 1.5
RPMr 2.19 0.094 1.8
VP 2.01 0.114 1.3

the 1:1 line. Scatterplots of Eqs. (11 and 12) for the vertical
reaming specific energy indicate strong/moderately strong
correlations with slight scatter, and their linear regression
curve/lines slightly deviate from the 1:1 line. Equation (13)
is very strong in terms of coefficient of determination. Scat-
terplot of Eq. (13) for the inclined specific energy indicate
very strong correlation without any significant scatter, and
the linear regression curve/line lays along the 1:1 line. Equa-
tions (14 and 15) show good linearity with low scatter and
insignificant deviation from the 1:1 line, which may be
evaluated as having a high predictive ability and reliability.
4 Discussions of Results
It is considered that it is really difficult to collect long time
operational data in raise boring operations. Although this
study includes raise boring operational data collected in
6 years, it has still some limitations such as number of the
data, rock mass parameters, different (variable) reamer head
diameters, and different inclination angles. The models
introduced in this study are limited with the data content,
the upper and lower boundaries of the data, and the assump-
tions made on a few issues mentioned before in this study.
Performance prediction should also cover cutter con-
sumption rate in addition to the performance estimated in
this study. However, it is a known fact that insert/kerf cutters
have a really higher cutter life compared to the other cutter
types used in mechanical miners and there is not much litera-
ture on this issue. The field studies mentioned in this study
indicate that average life of each cutter is around 250 m of
the linear raise boring length.
It should also be noted that, although unit penetration rate
allows for estimation of instantaneous penetration rate in
(m/h), it is required but not enough for estimating job com-
pletion time. Daily advance rate (m/day), which is a function
of machine utilization time, should also be known/predicted
for prediction of overall performance. Daily advance rate is
the raise driving length in a day (or week, month) including
the stoppages/delays, which is a function of number shifts
in a day and working hours in a shift. Machine utilization
time is the percentage of the time spent for only excavation
of the total project time. Mobilization of the equipment and
job site preparation are also important parameters for esti-
mation of the job completion time. The field studies men-
tioned in this study indicate that if there is a ready raise
boring machine on site, the machine utilization time varies
generally between 45 and 85%, excluding the time spent for

13

1724 A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur

Vertical Raise Data (Eq. 10) Vertical Raise Data (Eq. 11)
600 70

Predicted Pilot Hole Drilling Specific Energy

Predicted Reaming Specific Energy (MJ/m3)

500 60
R² = 0.8381
50
400
R² = 0.7019
40
(MJ/m3)

300
30
200
20
100
10

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Measured Pilot Hole Drilling Specific Energy (MJ/m3) Measured Reaming Specific Energy (MJ/m3)

Vertical Raise Data (Eq. 12) Inclined Raise Data (Eq. 13)
10 1000

Predicted Pilot Hole Drilling Specific Energy

Measured Reaming Specific Energy

8 800
R² = 0.9311
R² = 0.6919
6 600
(MJ/m3)

(MJ/m3)
4 400

2 200

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Measured Reaming Specific Energy (MJ/m3) Measured Pilot Hole Drilling Specific Energy (MJ/m3)

Inclined Raise Data (Eq. 14) Inclined Raise Data (Eq. 15)
60 8
Predicted Reaming Specific Energy (MJ/m3)
Predicted Reaming Specific Energy (MJ/m3)

50 7
R² = 0.7845 R² = 0.7775
40 6

30 5

20 4

10 3

0 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Measured Reaming Specific Energy (MJ/m3) Measured Reaming Specific Energy (MJ/m3)

Input parameters:
Eq.10: Pilot hole drilling torque, uniaxial compressive strength, static elasticity modulus.
Eq. 11: Uniaxial compressive strength, Brazilian tensile strength, dynamic elasticity modulus.
Eq. 12: Weight on bit, reaming rotational speed, static elasticity modulus.
Eq. 13: Pilot hole drilling rotational speed, rock quality designation.
Eq. 14: Reaming rotational speed, rock quality designation.
Eq.15: Reaming thrust force, reaming rotational speed, velocity of P-wave.

Fig. 6  Scatterplots of the measured vs predicted vertical (90°) and inclined (70°) pilot hole drilling and reaming specific energy parameters

equipment mobilization and site preparation. If there is a Rostami (2011) reported that machine utilization time for
weak geological zone along the raise alignment, long dura- raise boring machines might vary between 45 and 60%, of
tions can be encountered, and the machine utilization time which the lower boundary is close to the one observed in
may get lower; and thus, the raise boring cost increases. this study.

13
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot…
Fig. 7  Variation of the reaming
instantaneous penetration rate
Reaming Instantaneous Penetration Rate
with the ratio of pilot hole drill-
ing instantaneous penetration
rate to reaming diameter for
vertical raises (generated based
on the data after Breads and
Conway 1992)
(m/h)
Average daily advance rates of the reaming operations
mentioned in this study vary between 3.7 m/day and 11.7 m/
day, excluding the highest daily advance rate of 22 m/day in
Adiyaman (inclined), in where two shifts/day working pat-
tern is being applied differently from the other project sites
working in one shift/day pattern. The average daily advance
rates are 5.1 m/day for the vertical reaming operations and
5.9 m/day for the inclined reaming operations, giving a gen-
eral (combined) average of 5.4 m/day. The slight difference
between the vertical and inclined daily advance rates being
higher with the inclined reaming might be basically due to
site-based features such as experience of the contractor crew.
When the average instantaneous penetration rate is esti-
mated based on the unit penetration rate and the reamer head
rotational speed, it is seen that the average instantaneous
penetration rate is 1.0 m/h for the vertical and 1.1 m/h for the
inclined reaming operations (combined average of 1.04 m/h).
As seen, the difference between the average instantaneous
penetration rates for the vertical and inclined reaming opera-
tions is around 10% being higher with the inclined reaming.
The difference might be due to lifting the whole mass of
reaming equipment in the vertical reaming operations, while
carrying the reaming equipment with a fraction of its mass
based on a frictional coefficient and inclination angle in the
inclined reaming operations, requiring lower pulling (lifting)
force, which reduces total reaming thrust force. However,
this consideration should be clarified with further studies.
Breeds and Conway (1992) published the instantane-
ous penetration rates of 44 raise boring cases (performed
between 1972 and 1989), of which the reaming diameters
varied between 1.52 m and 6.17 m including mostly verti-
cal raise boring operations (37 cases) excavated in varying
1725
Vertical Data (90°), Breeds and Conway (1992)
5
y = 1.3838x - 0.0788
4 R² = 0.791
3
2
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Pilot Hole Drilling Instantaneous Penetration Rate / Reaming Diameter
(1/h)
lithological units with the uniaxial compressive strength
varying between 34 and 324 MPa. If the data was grouped
as vertical and inclined, the average instantaneous penetra-
tion rate was 1.3 m/h for the vertical and 0.7 m/h for the 7
inclined reaming operations (mostly between 65° and 80°,
except the one with 21.5° and the one with 86.5° inclina-
tion), having a combined average of 1.2 m/h. As seen, the
average instantaneous penetration rate for the vertical ream-
ing was almost twice as much as the inclined reaming. The
difference in instantaneous penetration rates between this
study and the study of Breeds and Conway (1992) might
be attributed to the possible use of disc cutters in the past
applications (types of cutters used is not definite in the study
of Breeds and Conway 1992), while button (kerf) cutters are
currently the common technology of reaming operations. It
is a known fact that disc cutters generate quite lower spe-
cific energy values, and thus excavate faster, compared to
button cutters (Ozdemir 1995). The reason for using kerf
(button) cutters with reamer heads instead of disc cutters
is that the kerf cutters have very much longer life than the
disc cutters, although the kerf cutters are inefficient as they
over-crush the rock, causing extensive grinding and fines
production, excavating slower than the disc cutters. Cutter
replacement in reaming operations is quite a time-taking
and costly operation requiring drawdown of all drill rods
and reamer head and pull up again all of them after cut-
ter replacement. Breeds and Conway (1992) stated that the
cost of cutter replacement took approximately 20–70% of
the total cost.
When the 37 vertical pilot hole drilling and reaming cases
given by Breeds and Conway (1992) is re-analyzed by omit-
ting the 7 cases of inclined data, it is seen that there is no
13

1726 A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur

Fig. 8  Variation of the reaming Vertical Data (90°), This Study

instantaneous penetration rate 2.5
with the ratio of pilot hole drill-

Reaming Instantaneous Penetration Rate

ing instantaneous penetration
rate to reaming diameter for the y = 2.74x2.10
vertical and inclined raise bor- 2.0 R² = 0.60
ing data of this study

1.5

(m/h)
1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Pilot Hole Drilling Instantaneous Penetration Rate / Reaming
Diameter (1/h)

Inclined Data (70°), This Study

5.0
Reaming Instantaneous Penetration Rate

4.0 y = 1.14x1.21
R² = 0.65

3.0
(m/h)

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Pilot Hole Drilling Instantaneous Penetration Rate / Reaming
Diameter (1/h)

relationship between the uniaxial compressive strength of
rocks and the instantaneous penetration rates of pilot hole
drilling and reaming. Tensile strengths of rocks are also
omitted in this analysis since they were generated by divid-
ing the uniaxial compressive strength by a constant of 14.
A trend (very weak relationship with R2 of 38% in power
function) can be seen between the reaming diameter and
the instantaneous penetration rate of reaming such that the
penetration rate reduces with the increasing reaming diam-
eter. There is a moderate linear relationship (with R2 of 56%)
between the instantaneous penetration rates of pilot hole
drilling and reaming. If the instantaneous penetration rate
of pilot hole drilling is normalized by the reaming diameter,
the strength of the linear positive relationship increases to

13
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot… 1727

Fig. 9  Scatterplot of the Wilson and Graham (1972)

predicted versus measured
instantaneous penetration rate 14

Predicted Instantaneous Penetration Rate

of the vertical reaming data
of the current study using the 12
model generated based on the
data after Wilson and Graham
(1972) 10

of Reaming (m/h)
8

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Measured Instantaneous Penetration Rate of Reaming (m/h)

Fig. 10  Scatterplot of the Everell (1972)

predicted versus measured
instantaneous penetration rate 6
Predicted Instantaneous Penetration Rate

of the vertical pilot hole drilling

data of the current study using
the model generated based on
5
the data after Everell (1972)
of Pilot Hole Drilling (m/h)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Measured Instantaneous Penetration Rate of Pilot Hole Drilling
(m/h)

79%, as given in Fig. 7. The study of Breeds and Conway
(1992) included only instantaneous penetration rates of the
pilot hole drilling and reaming as performance indicators;
specific energy and operational parameters (such as rota-
tional speeds, torque, weight on bit and reaming thrust force)
were not included. An indefinite issue in their study was
that if the reaming operations were single pass or multi-
pass, which might affect the performance. When generating
Fig. 7, it is assumed that all the data included single pass
reaming operations (upwards), as in the reaming operations
mentioned in this study.
The same normalization process with the reamer head
diameter is also performed for the vertical and inclined raise
boring data of this study (Fig. 8). As seen, there are moder-
ately strong (as power function) relationships between the
normalized pilot hole drilling instantaneous penetration rate
and reaming instantaneous penetration rate for the vertical
and inclined raise boring data of this study. However, these
relationships should be further improved by adding different

13

1728
reamer head diameters to the database to obtain more reli-
able and generalized results, since the 2.44 m reamer head
diameter is a dominant diameter for the reaming operations
mentioned in this study. It should be noted that in Fig. 7
based on data of Breeds and Conway (1992) and Fig. 8 based
on data of this study, the effects of reaming thrust force are
neglected.
Wilson and Graham (1972) gave some data including
the uniaxial compressive strength and the instantaneous
penetration rate of reaming. Although they did not give
any relationship for these parameters, after generating
a relationship between these two parameters, it is seen
that the coefficient of determination is moderately strong
(58%). A prediction using this relationship for the vertical
reaming data given in the current study indicates that the
data of the predicted versus measured is highly scattered
as seen in Fig. 9, although a general trend can be seen
along the 1:5 line. However, it should be mentioned that
it is not proper to compare the data based on old and new
fashion RBM technologies.
This study indicates also that static and dynamic elas-
ticity modulus, uniaxial compressive strength and tensile
strength of rocks are the most dominant properties affect-
ing the performance of vertical and inclined reaming opera-
tions, including RQD for the inclined reaming and pilot hole
drilling. This finding is in accordance with the findings of
Everell (1972) and Graham (1976) that mentioned uniaxial
compressive strength (with low and/or moderate correla-
tions) could be used to evaluate the performance of raise
boring machines. However, it is seen in the regenerated data
of Wilson and Graham (1972) study, there is no relationship
between reaming instantaneous penetration rate and uniaxial
compressive strength. The findings of Shaterpour-Mama-
ghani et al. (2018a) also indicated that uniaxial compressive
strength had a lower importance than the other rock proper-
ties for predicting instantaneous penetration rate and specific
energy of the inclined reaming operations.
There are quite limited studies related to the performance
of pilot hole drilling according to the best knowledge of the
authors of this study. Everell (1972) gave some data includ-
ing uniaxial compressive strength and instantaneous penetra-
tion rate of pilot hole drilling. Although Everell (1972) did
not give any relationship for these parameters, after generat-
ing a relationship between these two parameters based on the
data given by Everell (1972), it is seen that the coefficient
of determination is quite low (46%). A prediction using this
relationship for the vertical pilot hole drilling data given
in the current study indicates that the data of the predicted
versus measured is highly scattered as seen in Fig. 10. How-
ever, it should be mentioned that it is not proper to compare
the data based on old and new fashion RBM technologies.
Breeds and Conway (1992) gave some instantaneous
penetration rates of pilot hole drilling operations along
13
A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur
with uniaxial compressive strength of rocks; it is seen in
the regenerated data that there is no relationship between
them. However, in the current study, uniaxial compressive
strength, P-wave velocity, static elasticity modulus and RQD
are important rock properties for predicting the vertical and
inclined pilot hole drilling performance.
Currently, the basic method for performance estimation of
RBMs is the empirical method; almost nothing has changed
since Breeds and Conway (1992) stated this in their publi-
cation. The models developed in this study are of empirical
nature. Deterministic modeling based on laboratory rock
cutting tests along with computer simulation may also be
used for predicting the performance of RBMs, which is
more advantageous since machine design is also possible
and more precise results may be obtained. However, deter-
ministic performance prediction is a much more complex
and time-taking process compared to empirical predictions.
It is a well known fact that time and budget are two crucial
aspects of mechanical excavation operations. Particularly, pro-
ject managers need to know the completion time of excavation
work to better manage the project. Such predictions based on
rock properties and pilot hole drilling performance data on
the hand would be very easy to use and useful for operators
when they ream at the same location; so that one could develop
action plans for safer and faster operation with lower support
and cutter costs and providing for ventilation of the lower level
or transportation of the excavated ore by completing the exca-
vation fast.
5 Conclusions
A set of empirical models are introduced for predicting
the unit penetration rates and specific energies of verti-
cal and inclined pilot hole drilling and reaming, which
could be used in the feasibility and operational stages of
raise boring projects. The study indicates the importance
of raise inclination for reaming and pilot hole drilling
performances. It also shows the importance of using the
pilot hole drilling operational parameters for predicting
the performance of especially vertical reaming operations
in the operational stage.
Static elasticity modulus, dynamic elasticity modulus,
RQD, uniaxial compressive strength and Brazilian tensile
strength are the dominant intact rock and rock mass prop-
erties in most of the suggested models for the vertical and
inclined reaming and pilot hole drilling. Uniaxial compres-
sive strength is an important rock property for predicting
specific energy of pilot hole drilling and reaming of verti-
cal raise boring operations.
The reliabilities of some models developed in this
study for use in the feasibility stage are low or moderate,
although some of them are strong. No reliable model can
Empirical Performance Prediction for Raise Boring Machines Based on Rock Properties, Pilot…
be obtained for vertical and inclined reaming unit pen-
etration rate, while useful models are developed for verti-
cal and inclined reaming specific energy that can be used
in the operational stage of a raise boring operation. This
study may be further continued to develop more general-
ized, reliable and precise performance prediction models,
especially adding cases with larger reaming diameters
and different raise inclinations to the database and to
develop models including these parameters as independ-
ent variables. It should be noted that theoretical analyses
and experimental studies by laboratory full-scale cutting
facilities are also required to improve the design of raise
boring machines and to provide for different methods of
performance prediction modeling.
Acknowledgements  This study summarizes some of the results of PhD
research work carried out by the first author. The authors are grateful
for the support of the Scientific and Technological Research Council of
Turkey (TUBITAK) in Project MAG-217M729. The authors acknowl-
edge the contributions of Eti Bakir AS (Kure and Adiyaman facilities),
Esan Eczacibasi (Balya lead-zinc mine), DSI (State Hydraulic Works),
Joint-venture Limak-Cengiz-Kolin, Tuprag (Efemcukuru Gold Mine),
and Sargin Construction and Machinery Industry Trade Inc, without
whom this study could not be accomplished. Kazim Kucukates, Ser-
kan Omer Koc, Fatih Yazar, Nugman Dereci, Onur Sirin, and fore-
man Caner Unal from Eti Bakir; Engin Dogan, Ahmet Basturk, and
Deniz Arslan from Esan Eczacibasi; Ayhan Kocbay and Hasan Huseyin
Ozturk from DSI, Ferudun Unsal and Ismail Hakki Celik from joint-
venture Limak-Cengiz-Kolin; Ergun Altintas, Muammer Berber, and
Akin Baskurt from Tuprag; Tayfun Erdogan, foreman Fettah Topal,
Selcuk Oksuzoglu, Recep Solak, and Dursun Bora from Sargin Con-
struction and Machinery Industry Trade Inc are gratefully thanked for
their help during the field studies. The authors also thank Prof. Nuh
Bilgin for his generous contributions to the raise boring studies of the
authors.
Funding  This study was funded by the Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) (MAG-217M729).
Compliance with Ethical Standards  Proceeding symposium on exploration for rock engineering,
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Ashrafi SB, Anemangely M, Sabah M (2019) Application of hybrid
artificial neural networks for predicting rate of penetration (ROP):
a case study from Marun oil field. J Petrol Sci Eng 175:604–623
ASTM D2845 (2008) Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determina-
tion of Pulse Velocities and Ultrasonic Elastic Constants of Rock.
American Society for Testing and Materials
ASTM D7625-10 (2010) Standard Test Method for Laboratory Deter-
mination of Abrasiveness of Rock Using the CERCHAR Method.
American Society for Testing and Materials
Behboud MM, Ramezanzadeh A, Tokhmechi B (2017) Study-
ing empirical correlation between drilling specific energy and
1729
geo-mechanical parameters in an oil field in SW Iran. J Min Envi-
ron 8(3):393–401
Bieniawski ZT, Celada B, Galera JM (2007) Predicting TBM excav-
ability—part I. Tunnels & Tunnelling International (September),
pp 32–35
Bilgin N, Copur H, Balci C (2014) Mechanical excavation in mining
and civil industries, 1st edn. CRC Press, New York
Bourgoyne AT, Young FS (1974) A multiple regression approach to
optimal drilling and abnormal pressure detection. Soc Petrol Eng.
https​://doi.org/10.2118/4238-PA
Breeds CD, Conway JJ (1992) Rapid excavation. In: Hartman HL (ed)
SME mining engineering handbook, 2nd edn. Littleton, Colorado,
pp 1871–1917
Chen X, Yang J, Gao D (2018) Drilling performance optimization
based on mechanical specific energy technologies. Drill Ariffin
Samsuri IntechOpen. https​://doi.org/10.5772/intec​hopen​.75827​
Copur H, Bilgin N, Tuncdemir H, Balci C (2003) A set of indices based
on indentation tests for assessment of rock cutting performance
and rock properties. J S Afr Inst Min Metall 103:589–599
Copur H, Bilgin N, Balci C, Tumac D, Avunduk E (2017) Effects of dif-
ferent cutting patterns and experimental conditions on the perfor-
mance of a conical drag tool. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50:1585–1609
Dollinger GL (1977) Choosing cutters for the best boreability. Com-
press Air Mag 82:15–19
Dollinger GL, Handewith HJ, Breeds CD (1998) Use of the punch test
for estimating TBM performance. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
13(4):403–408
Dougherty PSM, Pudjoprawoto R, Higgs CF (2014) Bit cutter on-rock
tribometry: analyzing friction and rate-of penetration for deep
well drilling substrates. Tribol Int 77:178–185
Dupriest FE, Koederitz WL (2005) Maximizing drill rates with real-
time surveillance of mechanical specific energy. Soc Petrol Eng.
https​://doi.org/10.2118/92194​-MS
Everell MD (1972) Performance of raise borers as a function of geol-
ogy and rock properties. In: Proceeding of the 8th Canadian
rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, November–December, pp
83–100.
Farmer IW, Glossop NH (1980) Mechanics of disc cutter penetration.
Tunn Tunn 12(6):22–25
Farrokh E, Rostami J, Laughton C (2012) Study of various models for
estimation of penetration rate of hard rock TBMs. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 30:110–123
Graham PC (1976) Rock exploration for machine manufacturers. In:
Johannesburg, South Africa, Nov, pp 173–180
Guerrero CA, Kull BJ (2007) Deployment of an SeROP predictor
tool for real-time bit optimization. Soc Petrol Eng. https​://doi.
org/10.2118/10520​1-MS
Hassanpour J, Rostami J, Khamehchiyan M, Bruland A, Tavakoli HR
(2010) TBM performance analysis in pyroclastic rocks: a case
history of Karaj water conveyance tunnel. Rock Mech Rock Eng
43:427–445
Home LW (1978) Limiting factors on economical use of a raise drill.
In: Third Australian tunnelling conference, Sydney, pp 90–98
Howarth DF (1986) Review of rock drillability and boreability assess-
ment methods. IMM Trans A 95:A191–A202
ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock char-
acterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay R,
Hudson JA (eds) Suggested methods prepared by the ISRM com-
mission on testing methods, compilation arranged by the ISRM
Turkish National Group. Kozan Ofset, Ankara, p 628
Jeong HY, Cho JW, Jeon S, Rostami J (2016) Performance assessment
of hard rock TBM and rock boreability using punch penetration
test. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49:1517–1532
13

1730
Kahraman S, Balci C, Yazici S, Bilgin N (2000) Prediction of the pen-
etration rate of rotary blast hole drills using a new drillability
index. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:729–743
Kok MV, Guzeloglu L, Akin S (2008) Database development for drill-
ing bit selection. Energy Sourc Part A Recov Util Environ Eff
30(4):377–383
Linqvist PA (1982) Energy consumption in disc cutting of hard rock.
In: Jones MJ (ed) Tunnelling ’82: papers presented at the third
international symposium, organized by the Institution of Min-
ing and Metallurgy. The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy,
London, pp 189–196
Liu Z, Meng Y (2015) Key technologies of drilling process with raise
boring method. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 7:385–394
Maurer WC (1967) The state of rock mechanics knowledge in drilling.
In: Fairhurst (ed) 8th Symposium on rock mechanics. AIME, New
York, pp 355–395
Morris RI (1969) Rock drillability related to a roller cone bit. Soc
Petrol Eng. https​://doi.org/10.2118/2389-MS,pp.79-86
Ozdemir L (1995) Comparison of cutting efficiencies of single-disc,
multi-disc and carbide cutters for microtunneling applications.
No-Dig Eng 2(3):18–23
Pang SS, Goldsmith W, Hood M (1989) A force indentation model for
brittle rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 22:127–148
Pessier RC, Fear MJ (1992) Quantifying common drilling problems
with mechanical specific energy and a bit specific coefficient of
sliding friction. In: Proceedings of the IADC/SPE drilling con-
ference and exhibition, Washington D.C., October, 4–7. SPE
24584-MS
Rostami J (2011) Mechanical rock breaking. In: Darling P (ed) SME
mining engineering handbook, 3rd edn. Society for Mining, Met-
allurgy, and Exploration, Inc. (SME), pp 417–434
Rostami J, Ozdemir L (1993) A new model for performance predic-
tion of hard rock TBMs. Rapid Excavation Tunneling Conference,
Boston, Massachusetts, June 13–17, pp 793–809
Seiler WK (1972) Hard rock boring with tungsten carbide insert big
cutters. In: 1st North American rapid excavation and tunneling
conference, Chicago, Proceedings, vol 2, pp 1149–58
Shaterpour-Mamaghani A, Bilgin N (2016) Some contributions on the
estimation of performance and operational parameters of raise
borers—a case study in Kure Copper Mine, Turkey. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 54:37–48
Shaterpour-Mamaghani A, Bilgin N, Balci C, Avunduk E, Polat C
(2016) Predicting performance of raise boring machines using
empirical models. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(8):3377–3385
Shaterpour-Mamaghani A, Copur H, Dogan E, Erdogan T (2018a)
Development of new empirical models for performance estima-
tion of a raise boring machine. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
82:428–441
13
A. Shaterpour‑Mamaghani, H. Copur
Shaterpour-Mamaghani A, Copur H, Dogan E, Erdogan, T (2018b)
Study of the impacts of intact rock properties and RQD on the
performance of raise boring machine (RBM) during pilot hole
drilling. In: Proceedings of 10th Asian rock mechanics sympo-
sium-ARMS10, Singapore (ISBN: 978-981-11-9003-2)
Shaterpour-Mamaghani A, Copur H, Dogan E, Erdogan T (2019)
Importance of physical-mechanical properties of rocks for appli-
cation of a raise boring machine. World Tunnel Congress, Naples,
Italy, pp 1136–1143 (ISBN: 978-1-138-38865-9)
Su O, Yarali O, Akcin NA (2013) Comparison of drilling performance
of chisel and button bits on the electro hydraulic driller. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 46:1577–1587
Takaoka S, Hayamizu H, Misawa S, Kuriyagawa M (1973) Studies
on the cutting of rock by rotary cutters. Part II: Cutting using a
spherical chip and a milled tooth cutter. Tunn Tunn 5(3):276–277
Teale R (1965) The concept of specific energy in rock drilling. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2:57–73
Minitab 16 Statistical Software. (Licensed by Istanbul Technical Uni-
versity, Turkey).
Walker BH, Black AD, Klauber WP, Little T, Khodaverdian M (1986)
Roller-bit penetration rate response as a function of rock proper-
ties and well depth. Soc Petrol Eng. https:​ //doi.org/10.2118/15620​
-MS
Wilson JW, Graham PC (1972) Raise-boring experiences in the gold
mines of the Anglo-American corporation group. J S Afr Inst Min
Metall 73:103–115
Wyering LD, Villeneuve MC, Kennedy BM, Gravely DM, Siratovich
PA (2017) Using drilling and geological parameters to estimate
rock strength in hydrothermally altered rock—a comparison
of mechanical specific energy, R/N-W/D chart and Alteration
Strength Index. Geothermics 69:119–131
Xu H, Hatakeyama T, Yonezawa T, Suzuki A (1998) Evaluation of bit
performance using an advanced drilling-test-system. In: IADC/
SPE Asia Pacific drilling conference, Jakarta, Indonesia, pp 1–6
Yagiz S (2008) Utilizing rock mass properties for predicting TBM
performance in hard rock condition. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
23:326–339
Zhao Y, Noorbakhsh A, Koopialipoor M, Azizi A, Tahir MM (2020)
A new methodology for optimization and prediction of rate of
penetration during drilling operations. Eng Comput 36:587–595
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.