Scholarly article on topic 'Estimation of Sound Level Produced During Drilling of Igneous Rock Samples Using a Portable Drill Set-up'

Estimation of Sound Level Produced During Drilling of Igneous Rock Samples Using a Portable Drill Set-up Academic research paper on "Materials engineering"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Procedia Earth and Planetary Science
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"drill unit" / "single piston pump" / "water storage and supply unit" / "noiseless motor and hydraulic sub unit."}

Abstract of research paper on Materials engineering, author of scientific article — Masood

Abstract The mechanical strength of rock is one of the most important factors of concern to engineers involved in mining operations. Information about rock strength is used in rock excavation planning and design operations in civil and mining engineering. Drilling is widely carried out in hard rocks for blasting the rock mass so that the blasted material can be easily loaded by the excavators. The drillability of rock depends on many factors including rock properties whereas properties such as compressive strength, porosity, density etc. are uncontrollable parameters during drilling process. A number of studies have been reported recently on the application of sound level which have been concentrated on using either CNC or jack hammer machine for drilling purpose. It is worth mentioning that neither CNC machine nor jack hammer drill set-up is the normal way of drilling in rock, nor in mining, civil or any other operations, not even in working with rock in installation of countertops. Therefore, it is difficult to exactly say whether the noise generated during drilling is only from the rock drilling or from the drilling unit itself. In view of the above, it is important to fabricate a new drilling set-up which is a silent unit in itself. Such unit when used for drilling purpose will clearly indicate the change in sound level produced with different rock properties.

Academic research paper on topic "Estimation of Sound Level Produced During Drilling of Igneous Rock Samples Using a Portable Drill Set-up"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 11 (2015) 469 - 482

Global Challenges, Policy Framework & Sustainable Development for Mining of Mineral and Fossil Energy Resources (GCPF2015)

Estimation of Sound Level Produced During Drilling of Igneous Rock Samples Using a Portable Drill Set-up

Masood

Adichunchanagiri Institute of Technology, Chikmangalore, 577102, India

Abstract

The mechanical strength of rock is one of the most important factors of concern to engineers involved in mining operations. Information about rock strength is used in rock excavation planning and design operations in civil and mining engineering. Drilling is widely carried out in hard rocks for blasting the rock mass so that the blasted material can be easily loaded by the excavators. The drillability of rock depends on many factors including rock properties whereas properties such as compressive strength, porosity, density etc. are uncontrollable parameters during drilling process. A number of studies have been reported recently on the application of sound level which have been concentrated on using either CNC or jack hammer machine for drilling purpose. It is worth mentioning that neither CNC machine nor jack hammer drill set-up is the normal way of drilling in rock, nor in mining, civil or any other operations, not even in working with rock in installation of countertops. Therefore, it is difficult to exactly say whether the noise generated during drilling is only from the rock drilling or from the drilling unit itself. In view of the above, it is important to fabricate a new drilling set-up which is a silent unit in itself. Such unit when used for drilling purpose will clearly indicate the change in sound level produced with different rock properties.

© 2015Publishedby Elsevier B.V. This isan openaccess article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Peer-reviewunder responsibilityoforganizingcommitteeof theGlobal Challenges,Policy Framework & Sustainable Development for Mining of Mineral and Fossil Energy Resources.

Keywords:drill unit, single piston pump, water storage and supply unit, noiseless motor and hydraulic sub unit.

1. Introduction

The drilling setup has been fabricated is an inexpensive and portable device. The cost of the drilling set up is not significant compared to other equipments like CNC or Jack hammer drill which has been used by other investigators in the recent past. Further, the noise emission from this drilling setup is very low, thereby making it more suitable for this research work. Both the thrust and RPM on this drill set up can be easily controlled making it very suitable for field applications. Hence it can be anticipated that this set up will be a possible alternative for the estimation of physico-mechanical properties of igneous rock samples using sound level produced during drilling.

1878-5220 © 2015 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the Global Challenges, Policy Framework & Sustainable Development for Mining of Mineral and Fossil Energy Resources. doi:10.1016/j.proeps.2015.06.047

2. Literature review

Though, sound level measurements are commonly used in India as a diagnostic tool in mechanical engineering, its applications for rock engineering may be a promising tool. Bradford et al. [1] and Horsrud [2] reported laboratory test results on the North Sea sandstone and shale, respectively. In general, the process of drilling always produces noise as a by-product. This noise is generated from the bit-rock interface regardless of the type of bit or material the bit is drilling in (rock, wood, concrete, metal). During the process of drilling, it is important to know the type of rock being drilled. One possible way to determine the type of rock is to analyze the noise produced during drilling by identifying the specific acoustic signature of each drilled rock. A number of studies have been reported recently on the application of sound level measurement in determining rock properties. Rajesh et al. ^ i4^ ^ ^ [7]. However, all these studies have concentrated on using CNC machine for drilling purpose. It is worth mentioning that CNC machine is not a normal way of drilling in rock, nor in mining, civil or any other operations, not even in working with rock in installation of countertops. While the findings of the investigation sheds light on the potential of using noise for improving the prediction of rock properties, it is far from being sufficient for such purpose. A few exploratory studies are also reported in the literature pertaining to estimation rock properties using jack hammer drill. Vardhan et al. ^[9]. Vardhan & Yadav. [10]. Kivade et al. i11^ [12]. However, in all these studies, jack hammer drill machine was used in the investigation which itself is a highly noise making unit. Therefore, it is difficult to exactly say whether the noise generated during drilling is only from the rock drilling or from the drilling unit itself. In view of the above, it is important to fabricate a new drilling set-up which is a silent unit in itself. Such unit when used for drilling purpose will clearly indicate the change in sound level with different rock properties. Determination of these rock properties using sound levels produced during drilling can be used for the purpose of selecting suitable explosives and designing blast hole patterns as rock or rock mass properties are very essential for rock excavation planning and design. Assessing the physico-mechanical properties of rock is one of the important factors of concern to the engineers in the general field of rock excavation, especially for performance prediction purposes. Since 1974, and through its commission on testing methods, the International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) has generated a succession of suggested methods for measuring the rock properties both in the laboratory as well as in the field. Some of the Laboratory methods are determination of water content, porosity, density and related properties, hardness and abrasiveness of rocks, sound velocity, point load strength, uniaxial compressive strength and deformability of rock materials, shear strength, tensile strength of rock materials, complete stress strain curve for intact rock in uniaxial compression etc. These tests along with site characterisation and field tests were compiled and edited by Ulusay and Hudson [13]. Schmidt designed a portable hammer to conduct non-destructive tests on concrete [14]. The Schmidt hammer is one of the widely used portable instruments for estimating rock strength indirectly. It measures the surface rebound hardness of the tested material. Aydin [15] proposed a revised suggested method, which supersedes the portion of earlier ISRM document for determining the rebound hardness of rock surfaces both in laboratory conditions and in situ with an emphasis on the use of this hardness value as an index of the UCS and E of rock materials.

Using samples of various rock types, Verwaal and Mulder [16], investigated the possibility of predicting UCS from the Equotip L-value. They presented a diagram showing the UCS versus L-value relationship and discussed the influence of the surface roughness on the Equotip measurement. Kawasaki et al. [17] considered the use of Equotip testing to establish the strength of rocks in the field. They focused on unweathered rocks and established the effects of the test conditions, including the size, shape, roughness and the impact direction. Equotip hardness tests, unconfined compression tests and elastic wave measurements were undertaken by Kawasaki et al. [18] using cored samples of a number of rock types including sandstone, shale, greenschist, hornfels and granite, collected from several locations in Japan. They suggested that UCS could be estimated from the Equotip L-values using the UCS = aL + b, where L is Equotip hardness, a and b are coefficients depending on rock types. Szlavin [19] analyses whether there were statistically significant correlations between the mechanical properties of rock which would enable estimates to be made of one property from any other single property. Various tests such as compressive strength, tensile strength, shore hardness, indentation, specific Energy and abrasivity were conducted on number of samples and the arithmetic mean value was calculated and used in the analysis. A program was devised so that the test results could be fed into a computer and the relationships between the variables were obtained in terms of regression coefficients, standard deviations and correlation coefficients. A comparison of the results showed that the majority of the 'direct' mechanical properties, i.e. strength and hardness, can be estimated with reasonable accuracy from each other but greater errors

are involved in the determination and calculation from the energy based units, i.e. specific energy index and abrasivity. It was also said that the ratio of uniaxial compressive strength and specific energy is approximately constant. The other conclusion was that National Coal Board's (NCB) cone indenter is considered to be suitable instrument for making rapid assessment of rock strength and specific energy. Szwedzicki [20], proposed a standard indentation test as a measure of hardness and its use as a predictor of the UCS. The proposed procedure includes application of a standard indenter, specification of a standardized loading rate, criteria for termination of the test, specification for the properties of the cementing agent and application of continuous data logging. It was said that standardized indentation testing allows for the characterization of mechanical properties of rock and also there is a relationship between the value of the indentation hardness index and the UCS. It was concluded that the value of the calculated index can be used to classify the hardness of rock and serve as an independent method for assessment of rock strength. Kim and Gao [21], proposed a statistical approach for the calculation of the mechanical properties of rock mass. It was said that the approach accounts for the uncertainty due to the variability of the rock material properties and the pattern of the discontinuities in rock mass. All parameters describing the rock mass properties are considered random variables instead of a constant. Alvarez and Babuska [22], Finol et al.[23] studied the fuzzy model for the prediction unconfined compressive strength of rock samples. Gogceoglu [24] carried out studies on fuzzy triangular chart to predict UCS. Yilmaz and Yuksek [25] [26] carried out investigation on an example of artificial neural network application for indirect studies and prediction of the strength and elasticity of gypsum using multiple regression, ANN, ANFIS models and their comparison.

2.1. Portable drill machine

The entire set-up was fabricated for the purpose of experimental investigation to full-fill the following objectives; i)Development and fabrication of a portable, cost effective, rotary drilling set-up for drilling in rocks of varying physical properties. ii) Development of general prediction mathematical model using multiple regression analysis to find the relationship between sound level produced during drilling and the physical properties of different types of igneous rocks. Basically, the set-up which can provide a maximum thrust of 28 kg/cm2 is portable and noiseless unit in itself consists of three important parts as explained below.

Fig.1 (a).Drill unit with different components. (b). Water storage and supply unit of the experimental drill set-up

Figure 1(a) indicates the drilling unit with different components .Further this unit is supported on a strong and rigid metal base, which is most commonly used in drilling machines. The loading structure is designed and fabricated such that it not only withstands the weight of the machine but also strong enough for cyclic loading during drilling. Further, the metal base is connected to a solid rigid structure for accurate and fast drilling of the collected rock samples. The drill machine is equipped with 1 HP noiseless

motor which transmits the power through a belt pulley arrangement; the arrangement is such that the transmission loss is negligible, the speed of the motor can be easily monitored using a motor regulator knob provided just beside the motor assembly, the speed of the drill machine in RPM is displayed by a digital tachometer provided near the speed regulator knob.

To hold the drill bit used in the present investigation a chuck with a specialised clamp is used to hold the object firmly during the process of drilling. A two pulley wheel has been equipped to transmit the power where the drive element of a pulley system is belt that runs over the pulley inside the groove. For accurate holding of the work piece a sample holder with a bolt nut arrangement is provided, such that the rock samples with different sizes can be placed and changed depending upon the length of the bolt to ensure that drilling takes place within few rotations of the drill bit as soon as it comes in contact with the surface of the rock sample. To facilitate the upward and downward moment of the drill bit a reciprocating piston is provided which reciprocates inside the cylinder which is the central working part of the drill unit, which ascends and descends accordingly with respect to the applied thrust.

2.1.1. The water storage and supply unit

Figure 1(b) indicates different parts of the water storage and supply unit. Further to reduce acceleration heads, air vessels commonly used on both suction and delivery pipes as for the satisfactory working of a reciprocating pump, the pressure inside the cylinder at any instant must not be less than the vapour pressure of the liquid. In this unit a pressure vessel holds the liquid at a pressure substantially different from the ambient pressure. If the pressure inside the cylinder is less than or equal to vapour pressure of the fluid then separation will occur. There are two situations of the piston where this (separation) can happen. One is at the beginning of the suction stroke and the other is at the end of the delivery stroke. Maximum speed in the case of reciprocating pump is determined based on above mentioned condition i.e., pressure inside the cylinder during suction and delivery stroke should not fall below vapour pressure of the flowing fluid in the suction and delivery pipe.

The pressure at which separation takes place is known as separation pressure and the head corresponding to separation pressure is called separation pressure head, hsep. Since an Air vessel is a closed chamber (cast iron closed chamber) having an opening at its base through which water flows into the vessel or from the vessel and fitted on the suction as well as on the delivery side near the pump cylinder to reduce the accelerating head.

Development of acceleration head in the reciprocating pump is undesirable, since it becomes an extra head against which the pump has to work. It is also known that higher the speed and longer the pipe, higher is the acceleration head However, there is a limit to the speed with which the pump may work from the cavitation close to the cylinder as possible. The vessel is fitted with compressed air which can contract or expand to absorb most of the pressure fluctuations. An air vessel in a reciprocating pump acts like a flywheel of an engine. Whenever, the pressure rises, water in excess of the average discharge is forced into the air vessel. As the level of the liquid in the air vessel rises, the air held in air chamber gets compressed. When the water pressure in the pipe falls, the compressed air ejects the excess water out.

These vessels are capable of absorbing fluctuations in pressure or velocity, it is assumed that the velocity in suction and delivery pipes between air vessels and the cylinder is fluctuating and there is a uniform velocity in pipes beyond the air vessels. When the mean velocity of water in the suction pipes is less than the instantaneous velocity of water in the suction pipe between the air vessel and the cylinder, the required excess water goes out of the air vessel to the cylinder and when the mean velocity is more than the instantaneous velocity, the excess water goes into the air vessel. Similarly, for the delivery side, when the mean velocity of water is less than the instantaneous velocity the excess water goes into the air vessel and vice versa.

2.1.2. Hydraulic sub unit

Figure.2 indicates the different parts of the hydraulic pump assembly which pumps water from the water storage and feeds to the supply unit which is used by the drilling unit for applying thrust necessary to move the piston downwards as well as upwards during the process of drilling can be controlled manually using control valve.

Fig. 2. The hydraulic sub unit

2.2. Working principle of drill set-up

The pump and the motor operations are parallel and not dependent on each other. The working procedure for the experimental drilling set-up is as follows:

• Open all the valves of the pressure vessel once and close the supply and release valves.

• Fit the drill rod to the drill chuck.

• Place the sample on the wooden base and clamp the sample using the sample holder.

• Switch on the motor and pump.

• Set the pressure using the main valve and the RPM using the regulator provided.

• Now open the Valve-3 (Release valve) and then Valve -1 (Supply valve).

• Now the piston in the cylinder moves down thus moving the Girder down.

Thus the drill rod comes in contact with the sample and drills the rock block.

2.3. Cost considerations and effectiveness of drill set-up

The drilling setup which has been fabricated is an inexpensive and portable device. The cost of this drilling set up is not at all significant compared to other equipments like CNC or Jack hammer drill which has been used by other investigators in the recent past. The overall cost of the complete set-up is only Rs. 1, 25,000.00 which is comparatively less than both CNC machine and that of a jack hammer drill set up. Further, the noise emission from this drilling setup is very low (only of the order of 110 dB), thereby making it more suitable for this research work. Both the thrust and RPM on this drill set up can be easily controlled making it very suitable for field applications. Hence it can be anticipated that this set up will be a possible alternative for estimation of physico-mechanical properties of igneous rock samples using sound level produced during drilling in the field.

3. Investigation of sound level for different igneous rock samples

The sound level measurements for different igneous rock specimens are as shown in the following tables

Table 1. Granite grey

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 96.0 95.2 95.8 95.6 95.7 95.2

18 15 96.9 96.3 96.1 96.2 96.3 96.0

20 15 96.8 96.1 97.0 97.2 97.3 96.9

16 25 97.0 97.1 96.9 97.2 97.3 97.9

18 25 97.2 97.6 97.5 97.3 97.5 97.0

20 25 97.8 96.2 97.6 97.8 97.9 97.0

*P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 represents sound levels in dB(A)

Table 2. Aptite Anathpur

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 98.5 97.9 98.6 98.3 98.7 98.6

18 15 98.8 98.9 98.7 98.3 98.7 99.3

20 15 98.9 98.3 99.5 99.6 99.1 99.2

16 25 98.9 98.5 98.0 98.7 98.6 98.69

18 25 98.9 98.9 98.2 98.1 98.7 98.3

20 25 99.5 99.7 99.7 99.3 99.6 99.5

*P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 represents sound levels in dB(A)

Table 3. Felsite Mysore

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 100.1 100.1 100.2 100.1 100.0 100.1

18 15 100.5 100.6 100.7 100.6 100.5 100.7

20 15 101.0 100.9 101.0 100.9 101.1 101.3

16 25 100.2 101.5 100.6 100.6 100.5 100.6

18 25 101.0 101.3 101.1 101.1 101.5 101.5

20 25 101.8 101.7 101.7 101.9 101.8 101.6

*P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 represents sound levels in dB(A)

Table 4. Gabbro greenish

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 101.6 101.5 101.3 101.1 101.1 101.3

18 15 101.8 101.7 101.7 101.7 101.7 101.9

20 15 102.0 102.0 102.3 102.3 102.3 102.0

16 25 101.9 101.8 101.7 101.5 101.6 101.5

18 25 102.0 102.2 102.3 102.3 102.3 102.0

20 25 102.5 102.9 102.8 102.2 102.3 102.5

Table 5. Granite pink Mysore

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 101.9 101.8 101.7 101.6 101.6 101.7

18 15 102.3 102.2 102.0 102.0 102.2 102.2

20 15 102.3 102.5 102.5 102.6 102.6 102.5

16 25 102.3 102.3 102.3 102.5 102.5 102.2

18 25 102.6 102.7 102.5 102.5 102.5 102.6

20 25 102.9 102.9 102.8 102.9 102.7 102.9

*P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 represents sound levels in dB(A)

Table 6. Syenite

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 102.0 102.2 102.0 102.3 102.3 102.0

18 15 102.5 102.6 102.6 102.6 102.7 102.5

20 15 102.7 102.8 102.8 102.7 102.8 102.7

16 25 102.5 102.5 102.6 102.6 102.6 102.5

18 25 102.8 102.7 102.7 102.7 102.8 102.8

20 25 102.9 102.9 102.8 102.9 102.9 102.8

*P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 represents sound levels in dB(A)

Table 7. Granite porphyry

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 105.6 105.5 105.6 105.6 105.6 105.5

18 15 105.9 106.0 106.0 105.9 105.8 105.7

20 15 106.2 106.1 106.6 106.6 106.5 106.5

16 25 105.8 105.7 105.7 105.8 105.9 106.0

18 25 106.2 106.3 106.3 106.3 106.5 106.7

20 25 106.8 106.9 106.9 106.9 106.7 106.7

*P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 represents sound levels in dB(A)

Table 8. Basalt Nagpur

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 109.1 109.2 109.2 109.2 109.1 109.0

18 15 109.3 109.5 109.3 109.6 109.6 109.3

20 15 109.8 109.7 109.7 109.8 109.8 109.7

16 25 109.6 109.8 109.8 109.9 109.9 109.7

18 25 109.9 109.8 109.7 109.9 109.6 109.6

20 25 110.0 110.1 110.0 110.1 110.1 110.3

*P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 represents sound levels in Table 9. Syenite porphyry dB(A)

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/ cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 110.8 110.9 110.9 110.6 110.6 110.9

18 15 111.0 111.3 111.3 111.0 111.2 111.2

20 15 111.5 111.5 111.6 111.5 111.5 111.6

16 25 111.0 111.2 111.3 111.3 111.5 111.5

18 25 111.6 111.5 111.5 111.5 111.6 111.7

20 25 111.8 111.9 111.9 111.9 111.8 111.7

*P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 represents sound levels in dB(A)

Table 10. Diorite porphyry

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 113.3 113.2 113.1 113.3 113.0 113.1

18 15 113.5 113.6 113.5 113.6 113.6 113.6

20 15 113.7 113.7 113.8 113.8 113.8 113.7

16 25 113.5 113.6 113.6 113.6 113.5 113.7

18 25 113.8 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.8 113.8

20 25 113.9 113.9 113.8 113.8 113.9 113.9

*P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 represents sound levels in dB(A)

Table 11. Granite Karnataka

Dia(mm) Thrust pressure(kg/cm2) P1* P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 116.5 116.5 116.2 116.2 116.1 116.2

18 15 116.8 116.9 116.9 116.8 116.9 116.8

20 15 117.0 117.1 117.2 117.1 117.2 117.0

16 25 116.9 116.9 116.8 116.9 116.8 116.7

18 25 117.0 117.2 117.1 117.2 117.3 117.2

20 25 117.5 117.5 117.6 117.6 117.6 117.5

Table 12. Gabbro Madduru

Thrust

Dia(mm) „ , 2 P1* pressure(kg/cm2) P2* P3* P4* P5* P6*

16 15 118.8 118.9 118.7 118.7 118.6 118.9

18 15 119.0 119.1 119.1 119.1 119.2 119.0

20 15 119.5 119.3 119.5 119.5 119.3 119.5

16 25 119.1 119.2 119.2 119.0 119.1 119.1

18 25 119.5 119.6 119.5 119.3 119.6 119.3

20 25 119.8 119.7 119.8 119.9 119.8 119.8

*P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6 represents sound levels in dB(A)

Table 13. The statistical values of mechanical properties of different igneous rock samples .

Igneous rock sample Tensile strength UCS SRN Density Porosity

(Mpa) i. \11 id j (MPa) (gm/cc) (%)

Granite grey 5.23 46.23 39 2.39 1.73

Aptite Anathpur 5.32 46.50 42 2.40 1.62

Felsite mysore 5.52 47.60 43 2.41 1.56

Gabbro greenish 5.70 47.80 47 2.43 1.37

Granite pink Mysore 5.93 48.0 48 2.50. 1.33

Syenite 5.95 48.1 51 2.51 1.33

Granite porphyry 6.34 51.7 57 2.53 1.20

Basalt nagpuru 6.73 53.2 60 2.56 1.15

Syenite porphyry 6.81 53.9 62 2.57 0.92

Diorite porphyry 6.95 57.9 65 2.61 0.83

Granite Karnataka 9.30 77.9 72 2.91 0.56

Gabbromadduru 12.3 102.6 77 3.30 025

The respective graphs for the measured sound level v/s different mechanical properties of igneous rock samples are shown below for drill bit dia of 16 mm and applied thrust of 15kg/cm2

120 115

A^ - A

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 TS (MPa)

Fig. 3 Measurement of tensile strength v/s equivalent sound level at 16mm dia and thrust value of 15 kg/cm2

1? ■ —

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

UCS (MPa)

Fig.4 Uniaxial compressive strength v/s equivalent sound level at 16mm dia and thrustvalue of 15 kg/cm2

120 115 110

& 105 -J

100 95

40 50 60 70 80

Fig. 5 Schmidt rebound number v/s equivalent sound level at 16mm dia and thrust value of15 kg/cm2

pa ■a

"¡q 105

2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3

Density p (kg/m )

Fig. 6 Density v/s equivalent sound level at 16mm dia and thrust value of 15 kg/cm2

1? 105 —

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

Porosity %

Fig. 7 Percentage of porosity v/s equivalent sound level at 18mm dia and thrust value of 25 kg/cm2

? 105 hJ

TS (MPa)

Fig. 8 Measurement of tensile strength v/s equivalent sound level at 18mm dia and thrust value of 25 kg/cm2

1? —

' A - A

■ A A

A ■ A

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 UCS (MPa)

Fig. 9 Uniaxial compressive strength v/s equivalent sound level at 18mm dia and thrust value of 25 kg/cm2

40 50 60 70

Fig. 10 Schmidt rebound number v/s equivalent sound level at 18mm dia and thrust value of 25 kg/cm2

: A A A

■ A A A

A ■ A

2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4

Density p (kg/m )

Fig. 11 Density v/s equivalent sound level at 18mm dia and thrust value of 25 kg/cm2

120 115 110

^105 J

100 95

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0

Porosity %

Fig. 12 Percentage of porosity v/s equivalent sound level at 18mm dia and thrust value of 25 kg/cm2

4. Conclusions

From the figures shown above, it is observed that A-Weighted equivalent sound level produced during drilling process increases nonlinearly as the mechanical properties like UCS, SRN, Density, Tensile strength and abrasivity of the igneous rock increases. This may be due to increase in resistance offered against drilling. Further, it may be argued that sound produced from the fabricated drill set up itself may affect the sound level measurement during rock drilling. It is important to mention here that the motor used in the set up is noise less with negligible sound level and hence do not have any impact on the equivalent sound level measurements.

References

1. Bradford, I.D.R., Fuller, J., Thompson, P.J. and Walsgrove, T.R. (1998). "Benefits of assessing the solids production risk in a North Sea reservoir using elastoplastic modeling." Proc., SPE/ISRM Eurock '98, Trondheim, Norway, 261-269.

2. Horsrud, P. (2001). "Estimating mechanical properties oof shale from empirical correlations." SPE Drill Complet. 16, 68-73.

3. RajeshKumar, B.,Vardhan, H.and Govindaraj, M. (2010); "Estimating rock properties using sound level during drilling: Field investigation " International Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering; Vol.2 (3); pp. 169-184. (InderScience Publishers)

4. Rajesh Kumar, B.,Vardhan, H.and Govindaraj, M. (2010); "Sound level produced during rock drilling vis-a-vis rock properties" (Elsevier Publishers)

5. Rajesh Kumar, B., Vardhan, H. and Govindaraj, M. (2011); 'Study oof relationship between uniaxial compressive strength of metamorphic rock and sound levels produced during drilling', Proceedings of International conferenceon Earth Science and Engineering, held t Hong Kong, China from 20th - 21st February 2011, paper id 1214.

6. Rajesh Kumar, B., Vardhan, H. and Govindaraj, M. (2011); "A new approach for estimation ofproperties of metamorphic rocks"; International Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering Vol.3(2); pp. 109-123.; Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering; 10.1007/s00603-011-0160-7. (Springer Publishers)

7. Rajesh Kumar, B., Vardhan, H. and Govindaraj, M. (2011); "Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength, tene strength and porosity of sedimentary rocks using sound level produced during rotary drilling"; Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering; Vol.44(5), pp. 613-620.

8. Vardhan H, Murthy ChSN. An experimental investigation of jack hammer drill noise with special emphasis on drilling in rock s of different compressive strengths. Noise Control Eng J 2007;55(3):282-93 (American Institute of Physics).

9. Vardhan, H., Adhikari, G.R. and Govindaraj, M. (2009). "Estimating rock properties using sound levels produced during drilling." Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 46(3), 604-612.

10. Vardhan, H., Badal Yadav. (2010). "An experimental study and analytical approach for estimating rock properties using sound levels from drilling." Mining Engineers Journal; Vol. 12(6); pp. 10-14

11. Kivade, S. B., Murthy, Ch. S. N. and Vardhan, H. (2011); "Assessment of noise and effect oof thrust on penetration rate in percussive drilling"; Journal of Institution of Engineers (India); Mining Engineering Division; Vol. 91; February; pp. 3-7.

12. Kivade, S. B., Murthy, Ch. S. N. and Vardhan, H. (2011); "Study of noise sources in pneumatic rock drills — its effect and control — a critical review"; The Indian Mining and Engineering Journal; Vol. 50(1); January; pp. 12-23.

13. Ulusay, R. and Hudson, J.A., eds., (2007). "The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974 —2006." Compilation arranged by the ISRM Turkish national group, Ankara, Turkey, 628 p., ISBN: 978975-93675-4-1.

14. Schmidt, E. (1951). "A non-destructive concrete tester." Concrete, 59, 34-35.

15. Aydin, A. (2009). "'ISRM suggested method for determination of schmidt hammer rebound hardness: revised version. " Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci,. 46, 627-634.

16. Verwaal, W. and Mulder, A. (1993). "Estimating rock strength with the Equotip hardness tester. " Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.

- A A

Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 30, 659-662.

17. Kawasaki, S., Tanimoto, C., Koizumi, K. and Ishikawa, M. (2002). "An attempt to estimate mechanical properties of rocks using the Equotip hardness tester." J. Jpn. Soc. Eng. Geol., 43, 244-248.

18. Kawasaki, S., Yoshida, M., Tanimoto, C. and Masuya, T. (2000). "The development of property evaluation method for rock materials based on the simple rebound hardness test: investigations on the effects of test conditions and fundamental properties." J. Jpn. Soc. Eng. Geol., 41, 230-241.

19. Szlavin, J. (1974). "Relationship between some physical properties of rock determined by laboratory tests. " Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 11(2), 57-66.

20. Szwedzicki, T. (1998). "Technical Note - Indentation hardness testing of rock." Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 36(6), 825829.

21. Kim, K. and Gao, H., (1995). "Probabilistic approaches to estimating variation in the mechanical properties of Rock masses." Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 32(2), 111-120.

22. Alvarez, G.M. and Babuska, R. (1999) "Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconfined compressive strength of rock samples." Int. J.Rock Mech. Min Sci.,36,339-349.

23. Finol, J., Guo, Y.K. and Jing, X.D (2001). "A rule based fuzzy model for the prediction ofpetrophysical rock parameters." J. Pet. SCi. Eng., 29, 97-113.

24. Gokceoglu, C. (2002). "A fuzzy triangukar chart to predict the uniaxial compressive strength of the Ankara Agglomerates from theirpetrographic composition." Eng Geol., 66, 39-51.

25. Yilmaz, I and Kaynar, O. (2011). Multiple regression, ANN (RBF< MLP) and ANFIS models for prediction of swell potential of clayey soils" Expert Syst. Appl., 38, 5958-5966.

26. Yilmaz, I. and Yuksek, A.G. (2008). An example of artificial neural network application for indirect estimation of rock parameters." RockMech Rock Eng., 41(5), 781-795.