EUROCK 2015 & 64th Geomechanics Colloquium. Schubert (ed.

) © ÖGG

Rock Mechanical Aspects of Roadheader Excavation

Uwe Restner
Sandvik Mining and Construction G.m.b.H., Hard Rock Continuous Mining, Zeltweg, Austria

Ralf J. Plinninger
Dr. Plinninger Geotechnik, Bernried, Germany

ABSTRACT: Hard rock excavation by roadheaders presents an interesting alternative to

mechanical excavation methods or conventional drill and blast excavation. The very low vibration
emissions and precise profile of a roadheader excavation may effectively contribute especially to
projects with sensible infrastructure in the vicinity. However, the higher susceptibility of this
excavation method regarding the rock and rock mass properties does in fact imply a significant risk
potential to the application of this method. In order to limit risks connected to insufficient
excavation performance and high tool wear rates, the most important rock mass features, such as
intact rock strength, rock toughness and rock fracturing must be assessed carefully in the course of
preliminary site investigation. Once under operation, additional investigations, like performance
documentation, tool wear analysis and rock mechanical field and laboratory investigations may be
able to give a better understanding of the development of performance and tool wear as well as
consequent operating costs.

1 INTRODUCTION

Even if the very low vibration emissions and precise excavation profile of a roadheader may
significantly contribute especially to projects with sensible infrastructure in the vicinity, this
method is still regarded as rather “exotic” alternative to commonly used methods such as drill &
blast or TBM excavation. Reasons for this are usually the significant susceptibility regarding
encountered rock and rock mass properties as well as general uncertainties about their application.
An assessment on roadheader application will include estimates on excavation performance and
cutting tool wear, both parameters being significantly dependent from rock strength, rock abrasivity
and rock mass structure. The presented paper outlines an integrated approach to minimize
operational risk by giving easy-to-apply prediction tools and guidelines for preliminary site
investigation methods.

249
2 KEY PARAMETERS FOR ROADHEADER ASSESSMENT

For an assessment of roadheader efficiency, the following key parameters are used as standard
parameters:
The Net Cutting Rate [solid m³/nch] (NCR), is calculated from the excavated solid rock volume
divided by the Net Cutting Time [nch … net cutting hour]. The Net Cutting Time includes solely
the time, when the cutter head is in contact with the rock mass and disregards any time necessary
for moving of the cutterhead, loading and mucking, repositioning the roadheader, time for
maintenance or so on. Given this, the Net Cutting Rate represents a parameter which is mainly
influenced by the machinery layout and the geotechnical parameters of the rock mass.
The Cutting Rate [solid m³/ch] (CR) is calculated from the excavated solid rock volume divided
by the Cutting Time [ch … cutting hour] and besides the cutting includes all secondary operations
of the roadheader. Besides the influences coming from the machinery layout and geology this
parameter also includes any site specific logistical and operational influences.
The Specific Pick Consumption [picks/solid m³] (SPC), also known as „pick wear rate“ or
„quantitative pick wear“ is calculated from the consumption of point attack picks divided by the
excavated solid rock volume in that period of time. This parameter describes the duration of use
from inserting the new tool into the cutter head until it has to be removed regarding the amount of
rock volume excavated.

3 AN INTEGRATED APPROCH FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

The basic aim of the proposed performance assessment procedure is, to refer to internationally
used, intrinsic rock and rock mass parameters and common testing standards in order to allow a
rock mechanical understanding of the parameters that “steer” the application of a roadheader.
Additionally, the application of “standard” rock properties and the fact, that these might already be
available from other investigations, do much contribute to the cost effectiveness of this approach.
However, it has to be kept in mind that most preliminary site investigation programs and testing
procedures still are focused on the assessment of rock mass stability and some of the tests need to
be adapted or be corrected in order to serve as input parameters for the purpose of rock
excavatability assessment.
It has to be noted, that neither the proposed concept, nor the applied quantifications of
influencing factors itself represent a completely “new” approach: Gehring (1995) introduced a
similar concept for the estimation of TBM penetration, which has found broad application, and the
specific rock and rock mass properties referred to in this concept have extensively been
investigated by various authors as for instance Gehring (2000), Restner & Gehring (2002) or Thuro
& Plinninger (2003).

3.1 Deriving NCR from Intact Rock Strength (UCS)

In a massive to moderately fractured rock mass, the theoretical net cutting rate (NCR) of a
roadheader depends on the intact rock strength (UCS; [MPa]) and the nominal cutting power (P;
[kW]) installed on the roadheader. This “basic” Net Cutting Rate can be approximated as presented
in Equation 1.

7
NCR = ∙P (1)
𝑈𝐶𝑆
Application remark: Besides the use of this general equation, the authors strongly recommend to
refer to the empirical, machinery-specific so-called “cutting charts” which are provided by the
manufacturers for specific NCR assessment.

250
3.2 Adjusting NCR by use of k-factors ( NCReff)

Besides the intact rock strength, a number of other rock and rock mass properties have been found
to play an important role for roadheader performance, especially rock toughness and mechanically
active discontinuities. In order to adjust the basic Net Cutting Rate to the specific circumstances of
a project, an integrated approach is proposed by the authors, as described in the following Equation
2.
The presented equation allows a free adjustment of the number and parameters covered by the
so-called “k-value” correction factors. However, examples and suggestions for k1, k2 and k3 factors
are provided in the following Sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.3.

7
NCR eff = k1 ∙ k 2 ∙ k 3 ∙ … ∙ k i ∙ ∙P (2)
UCS
With: NCReff = effective Net Cutting Rate [solid m³/net cutting hour]; k1, k2, k3 ... ki = site
specific correction factors; UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength [MPa].

3.2.1 Rock Toughness Rating (k1)

The specific “rock toughness” will determine the ability of a rock to withstand fracture
propagation. With an increasing (“tough” behaviour) or decreasing (“brittle” behaviour) rock
toughness, the specific energy demand required for rock fragmentation will decrease or increase by
approximately ± 20-25% according to empirical data.
A number of rock mechanical concepts are available for the assessment of rock toughness,
including energy-related approaches, based on analysis of the stress-strain path of UCS tests in the
pre- and/or post-failure section (for instance “fracture energy”, “destruction work” concept).
Nevertheless, toughness assessment based of the ratio of Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)
and Brazilian Tensile Strength (BTS), also referred to as “Toughness Coefficient” (TC) is a quite
common, economical and proven method and this procedure is also recommended by the authors.
However, it has to be considered, that for an appropriate assessment of the Toughness
Coefficient UCS tests and BTS tests must be conducted on the same rock types and – in isotropic
rock types – must be tested in the same orientation regarding anisotropic structure (i.e. foliation,
bedding planes).
Based on empirical data, classification terms and values for k1 factor are given in the following
Table 1.

Table 1. Toughness Classification and k1-factors based on the Toughness Coefficient TC=UCS/BTS.
Toughness Coefficient TC Classification Correction factor k1
≤6 very tough –25 % / 0.75
6-8 tough –15 % / 0.85
8 - 15 normal ±0 % / 1.0
15 - 20 brittle +10 % / 1.1
> 20 very brittle +20 % / 1.2
Remark: Besides the use of this suggested procedure, the use of other methods, such as rock
plasticity, relative rock elasticity, specific fracture energy or destruction work might also be useful.

3.2.2 Discontinuity Rating using the RMCR (k2)

The “basic” Net Cutting Rate as derived from Equation 1 (Section 3.1) represents the “worst case”
excavation process, where the intact rock has to be chipped to small debris thus demanding a
relative high amount of energy. However, rock mass features, like mechanically active bedding
planes with spacings lower than 30 cm will significantly assist the cutting performance of a
roadheader. This effect might be taken into account by application of a k2-factor for rating the

251
effect of pre-existing discontinuities. According to the current state of knowledge, four main
influencing rock mass parameters have been identified:
1. Strength of the intact rock
2. Block size formed by discontinuities
3. Conditions of discontinuities
4. Orientation of discontinuities (main structures) in relation to the attack direction of the
cutting process
Detailed investigations resulted in the creation of a new rock mass rating system for rock mass
cuttability assessment, called “Rock Mass Cuttability Rating” (RMCR) first published by Restner
& Gehring, 2002. The parameters for calculating the RMCR are presented in Equation 3 and
Tables 2 - 5.

RMCR = R ucs + R BS + R JC + R Ori (3)

With: RMCR = Rock Mass Cuttability Rating; RUCS = Rating factor for Unconfined Compressive
Strength; RBS = Rating factor for block sizes; RJC = Rating factor for joint conditions; ROri = Rating
factor for orientation of joint set.

Tables 2 – 5.RMCR Rating factors for UCS, Block Size, Joint Conditions and Orientation of Joint Sets.
RUCS – Rating of Unconfined RBS – Rating of Block Size
Compressive Strength Block size [m³] Rating
UCS [MPa] Rating > 0.6 20
1-5 15 0.3 – 0.6 16
5 - 25 12 0.1 – 0.3 10
25 - 50 7 0.06 – 0.1 8
50 - 100 4 0.03 – 0.06 5
100 - 200 2 0.01 – 0.3 3
> 200 1 < 0.01 1

RJC – Rating of Joint Conditions ROri – Orientation of Joint Sets

Surface Aperture Wall/Fill Rating Orientation Rating
rough closed hard, dry 30 very favorable -12
slightly < 1 mm hard, dry 20 favorable -10
rough
slightly < 1 mm soft, dry 10 fair (and block size -5
rough < 0.03 m³)
smooth 1 – 5 mm soft, damp 5 unfavorable -3
very > 5 mm soft, wet 0 very unfavorable 0
smooth

The RMCR value can be used to estimate the k2-factor for the specific influence of the rock mass
structure as shown in Equation 4 (see Figure 1 for data background).

k 2 = 45.6 ∙ RMCR−0.9821 (4)

With: k2 = correction factor for discontinuity effect; RMCR = Rock Mass Cuttability Rating.
Application remark: The following Figure 1 gives rise to the supposition, that the RMCR value
is additionally influenced by the specific cutting speed. The higher torque of the cutter gear, which
is a consequence of the cutting speed reduction, could explain the effect of the cutting speed on the
RMCR value. Consequently, the application of low cutting speed increases the positive effect of
rock mass features on the roadheader cutting process. This effect also has to be considered in the
rock mass cuttability assessment.

252
) Evaluation of Rock Mass Influence on NCR
)
(Low cutting speed - 1.4 m/s)

10
9 Erzberg Stillwater Pozzano
NCReff / NCRtheor 8 Premadio Athens Bileca
RMCR=10 7 Fresnillo Montreal
RMCR=15
6
RMCR=20
RMCR=25 5
RMCR=30
RMCR=35
4 NCReff/NCRtheor = 45,553RMCR-0,9821
RMCR=40 3 R2 = 0,9332
RMCR=45
RMCR=50 2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 300
RMCR

Figure 1. The effect of RMCR on rock mass excavation strength and effective net cutting rate.

3.2.3 Stress Condition Rating (k3)

Several theoretical analysis as well as empirical experiences give rise to the supposition, that the
primary and secondary stress condition during underground excavation might play an additional
role for rock excavation and tool wear (Gehring, 1995, Alber, 2008). Regarding these findings,
high secondary stress conditions at the face might lead to decreasing excavation rates and
increasing tool wear rates.
However, from the author´s point of view there is no sufficient empirical data available in order
to derive an appropriate rating. As long as the specific application is well inside the usual range of
application it is therefore suggested to use a k3-factor of 1.0.

3.3 Deriving Cutting Rate (CR) from NCReff

In order to derive Cutting Rates from the adjusted Net Cutting Rates (NCR eff) several site specific
logistical and operational aspects have to be considered. The factor used for decreasing NCReff is
depending on the amount and duration of standstills / secondary works that have to be carried out
during operation of the roadheader and as well depending on the skill of the operator.
From the authors experiences a overall factor of about 0.5 might be used for a rough estimation
of CR from NCReff.

4 REMARKS ON UCS TESTING

Based on internationally applied rock testing standards UCS testing is usually carried out on
cylindrical rock specimen with a length-to-diameter ratio of l:d ≥ 2.0 and loading rates between 0.5
and 1.0 MPa/s. However, for the assessment of rock cuttability, adapted tests are commonly carried
out, which are performed on cylindrical rock specimen with an l:d ratio of ≈ 1.0 and a loading rate
of 10 kN/s, which is 5 to 10 times higher than the above mentioned standard rates if referred to a 50
mm diameter specimen. Those tests are usually also referred to in the empirical cutting charts as
provided by manufacturers for NCR assessment.
As a reason of these differences, the practical impact of loading rate and l:d-ratio on measured
UCS value have in the past been topic of a number of scientific researches as well as numerous
disputes on job sites. Based on the actual knowledge and taking into account the investigations
presented by Thuro et al, 2003 and Schaffer, 2008 the authors recommend the following:
 The influence of different l:d-ratios for homogenous rock types is in a range of
approximately 10 - 20 %, if comparing specimen with l:d = 1.0 to specimen with
l:d = 2.0. An additional effect is, that longer samples increase the probability of inherent
rock “defects" in the ample, which might reduce measured UCS. It is therefore

253
 advisable to consider the effect of differing l:d-ratios and to compensate UCS values for
instance by application of the Oberth & Duvall formula as presented in the DGGT,
2004 testing recommendation.
 The influence of differing loading rates has recently been investigated by Schaffer,
2008, who found an increase in UCS of only about 5 - 15 % as an result of a 9900-times
higher loading rate (0.1 kN/s vs. 990 kN/s) in selected homogenous sandstone and
granite (see Figure 2). These results are quite in accordance with similar results, as
presented for instance by Komura & Inada (2006) or Lajtai et al. (1991) and give rise to
the supposition, that in the usual scale of loading rates this effect might practically be
neglected.

240 240
Granite Sandstone
220 220

UCS [MPa]
200
UCS [MPa]

200
180 180
160 160
140 140
120 120
100 100
0,1 1 10 100 990 0,1 1 10 100 990

UCS [MPa] 180,24 194,61 201,98 222,47 204,81 UCS [MPa] 172,15 172,20 173,37 195,63 179,91

Maximum [MPa] 188,41 200,19 213,53 230,19 217,96 Maximum [MPa] 175,86 181,96 189,38 204,24 205,54

156,51 177,79 191,11 212,66 188,76 Minimum [MPa] 162,34 157,87 160,45 185,15 144,31
Minimum [MPa]
loading rate [kN/s] loading rate [kN/s]

Figure 2. Examples for the loading rate effect on the UCS of granite (left figure) and sandstone (right figure)
from: Schaffer, 2008.

REFERENCES

Alber, M. 2008. Stress dependency of the Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) and its effects on wear of selected
rock cutting tools. Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology 23(4), pp. 351-359.
DGGT - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geotechnik e.V. 2004. Neufassung der Empfehlung Nr. 1. des
Arbeitskreises 3.3. „Versuchstechnik Fels“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Geotechnik e.V.: Einaxiale
Druckversuche an zylindrischen Gesteinsprüfkörpern. Bautechnik, 81, 10, pp 825 - 834.
Gehring, K.H. 1995. Leistungs- und Verschleißprognose im maschinellen Tunnelbau. Felsbau 13, 6, pp. 439-
448.
Gehring K.H. 2000. Modern roadheader technology for tunnel excavation. In: Proceedings of Tunnel Maq’
2000, pp. 1-14, Madrid, Spain.
Komura, Y. & Inada, Y. 2006. The effect of the loading rate on stress-strain characteristics of tuff. In: J. Soc.
Mater. Sci, 55, 3, pp. 323-328.
Lajtai, E.Z., Scott Duncan, E.J. & Carter, B.J. 1991. The effect of strain rate on rock strength. In: Rock Mech.
Rock Eng., 24, pp. 99-109.
Restner, U. & Gehring, K.H. 2002. Quantification of rock mass influence on cuttability with roadheaders. In:
Proceedings of TUR 2002. pp. 53-68, University of Mining and Metallurgy, Kraków-Krynica, Poland.
Restner, U. 2008. Sandvik Mining and Construction’s Rock Testing Standards. Sandvik internal, not
officially published document. Zeltweg, Austria.
Schaffer, C.M. 2008. Qualification and quantification of the influence of specimen geometry and loading rate
on uniaxial compressive strength and parameters derived from the UCS test. Bachelor’s thesis.
Montanuniversität Leoben, Austria.
Thuro, K., Plinninger, R.J. & Zäh, S. 2001. Scale effects in rock strength properties. Part 1: Unconfined
compressive test and Brazilian test. - In: Särkkä, P. & Eloranta, P. (eds.): Rock Mechanics – A Challenge
for Society. - Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Symposium Eurock 2001, Espoo, Finland, 4-7 June
2001, pp. 169-174, Lisse (Balkema/Swets & Zeitlinger).
Thuro, K. & Plinninger, R.J. 2003. Hard rock tunnel boring, cutting, drilling and blasting: rock parameters
for excavatability. – Proceedings of the 10th ISRM Int. Congress on Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg,
South Africa, 8-12. September 2003, pp. 1227-1234.

254

View publication stats