The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper UNDERGROUND DRILLING AND

EQUIPMENT SELECTION G.S. Harper 1. Introduction The current method used to extract the majority of ore from deep level South African gold and platinum mines is one of drilling and blasting. At 2010 production levels, this method of mining requires the drilling of approximately 700 000 holes each day at an estimated annual cost of R6 Billion and is achieved using an estimated 28 000 hand held pneumatic drills of which at any one time approximately 50 per cent are in use, the remainder either being under repair or held as spares. Virtually all of these rock drills are mounted on thrust legs and are controlled by hand using a crew of one or two men, depending on the size of the drill and the mining conditions. Hand held pneumatic drills have been successfully used by the South African mining industry for the past 117 years1 and although considerable resources have been invested to improving pneumatic drilling, the benefits achieved to date have become marginal and the overall efficiencies of compressed air systems and the rock drills themselves remain very low. Furthermore, for reasons to be discussed in this presentation, the performance of pneumatic rock drills decreases in the increasingly fractured rock conditions encountered in deep mines. Hydraulic powered rock drills with their higher power output overcome the disadvantages of the pneumatic drills and provide further advantages of lower noise levels and the elimination of the fogging associated with the exhaust air of pneumatic drills. 2. Background While the South African de facto tool for underground drilling of blast- and supportholes is the hand-held pneumatic rotary-percussive rock drill, this machine can trace its origins to the middle of the 19th century2. Human power and steam as the motive force, over time, gave way to compressed air, and pneumatic machines reached commercial proportions in 1861 during the excavation of the alpine Mont Cenis tunnel3. Patents for hydro-powered rock drills are reported as being issued in 18564, with the first electric drills appearing in 18875. All of these early machines operated on a rotary-percussive basis, emulating the manual method of a hammer-strike on a chisel, which was then twisted to access a new surface. The succeeding 140 years has seen the power source for rock drills being predominated by compressed air, owing to its ease of production and suitability for transmission over long distances. It was only during the last two decades of the last century when handheld hydro-powered drills regained some prominence in selected South African mines, owing, in part, to a need for a more powerful drill at deeper levels of mining. Recently, electrically powered drills have re-emerged and are currently undergoing production trials in a few selected South African gold and platinum mines.

Page 1

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper To say that the pneumatic machines have not progressed since the late 18th century would be irresponsible. Advances in the understanding and modelling of the stresswave propagation and transfer from the percussion element through the drill rod (or string) to the rock6-10 have allowed more efficient designs of drilling machine. Similarly, developments in metallurgy, rock-specific bit design, the use of knock-off bits and thrust legs, amongst others, have allowed greater advance rates and more efficient drilling. Despite this, however, the fundamental mechanical design of the pneumatic rock drill has changed little since its early development. Ergo, little significant work has been done, and reached commercial application, which controls or limits sound emissions from available pneumatic drills to below acceptable levels. While some manufacturers do offer exhaust-muffled drills as a standard product, un-muffled drills are freely available and tend to attract a higher market share. 3 Blasting Requirements To obtain effective efficient rock breaking by the drill an blast method requires:1. The correct amount and type of explosive, 2. Correctly positions and, 3. Detonation with the right sequence and timing. Effective methodologies have been established for the determination of the amount and placement of explosives and shock tube initiation systems and electronic delay detonators have overcome the deficiencies of fuse and igniter cord. The remaining crucial factor to effective rock breaking is the drilling accuracy. The most critical factor is the position of the bottom of the hole, since this controls the burden at the toe, whereas the drilling angle to the face and hole spacing at the collar are of secondary importance and consequently the suggested location tolerances are 50 mm diameter at the hole bottom and 300 mm diameter at the collaring position. Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate the variability of the face angle for manually drilled stope holes and table one shows the increase in burden that results from non-parallel holes.

Page 2

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper
Drilling Angles
60

50

Percentage of Holes

40

30

20

10

0 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99

Hole Angle (Degrees)

Figure 1

Distribution of angles of drilled stope face holes

Figure 2

Example of top and bottom drilled stope face holes

The primary stope drilling requirements of the South African mining industry must, therefore, be the cost effective drilling of accurately placed and directed blast holes with minimal exposure of the operators to environmental and health risks.

Page 3

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper Table 1 Hole Length (mm) Effect of drilling accuracy on burden Hole Spacing at Collar (mm) 500 500 500 550 550 550 Drilling Angle to the Stope Face (Degrees) Hole 1 70 70 60 70 70 60 Hole 2 70 80 80 70 80 80 Hole Spacing at Toe (mm) 500 670 830 550 720 880 Per Cent Increase in Burden at Toe of Hole 0 34 66 0 31 60

1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100

The most direct and obvious solution to the provision of accurately positioned blast holes is the use of drill guides or drill rigs. However, whilst numerous drill rigs have been developed and implemented over the last five to seven decades, each reportedly providing improved productivity and drilling accuracy, the majority of blast holes are still drilled by hand and we must recognise why this should be since rigs provide the following significant advantages: Holes can be accurately placed and spaced. Drills can be thrust at optimum levels to maximise the drilling rate. In-line thrusting reduces bending loads on the drill steel and reduces drill steel breakage In-line thrusting reduces wear on drill shanks and hex-inserts In-line thrusting permits the application of the noise reduction strategies described later. By reducing the number of operators the overall exposure to falls of ground is reduced. Drill rigs are amenable to remote control operation enabling further improvement to the health and safety of operators both from falls of ground and noise exposure.

Further to the engineering and practical difficulties encountered during the evaluation of drill rigs, human behavioural factors were reported as a major negative influence on the general acceptance of drill rigs11. These factors include11: High mobility rate amongst black workers, Changes in senior management, Change and resistance to change, Reimbursement of workers, Administrative difficulties; having a team to set up the project that was different from the line management who would run it, and Communication problems;

Page 4

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper Examples of some drill rigs are shown in Table 2 whereas Figure 3 shows a hydropower rig in operation. Table 2 Type TDS Twin Boom MME Twin Boom Sulzer Twin Boom Novatek Single Boom Drill Rig Details Power Compressed air Hydropower Hydropower Hydropower Cost (1989 Rand) R170 000 R395 000 R135 000 R40 000 Comments

Requires a power pack or hydropower Requires a power pack or hydropower Requires a power pack or hydropower

Figure 3

Hydropower rig in operation

4 Drill Design Requirements Percussive or rotary-percussive drilling methods have long been accepted as one of the most efficient ways of drilling blast holes in hard rock. Percussive drilling is a process of energy transformation in which the kinetic energy of a relatively slow moving rock drill piston is transformed, during impact with the drill rod, to strain energy in a fast moving strain pulse within the drill steel. The drill steel acts primarily as a conduit for this energy. Drilling is achieved following the removal of the rock fragments produced by the interaction of the strain pulse with the rock face. The efficiency of drilling is therefore determined to a large extent by the efficiency of energy transfer from piston to drill steel to rock.

Page 5

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper The first item for consideration in percussive rock drilling is the generation of energy by accelerating the piston and allowing the piston to impact the drill steel. 4.1 Engineering Requirements With the following identities: F = actuator force (N) provided by whatever mechanism is selected L = stroke (m) M = mass of piston (kg) The impact velocity, frequency, impact energy and drill power can be estimated as follows:Impact velocity v (m/s) is given by:

2.l.F .m (4.1) Assuming the full actuator force operates over the full length of the stroke. Hustralid determined a generic equation for the piston velocity of pneumatic rock drills that includes a factor B0 to compensate for these assumptions. 2.l.F v = B0 .m (4.2) 6 The value of B0 for pneumatic machines is, according to Hustralid , 0.68 v=
Frequency f (Hz) is given by :

F 2.l.m (4.3) (Assuming return stroke time is the same as the drive stroke and there is no dwell at reversal) f = 0.5
Impact Energy Ei (J) is given by: E i = l .F Drill Power Pw is given by : l .F 3 Pw = 0.5 2.m (4.5) (4.4)

Assuming that the new percussive device should provide a drilling performance at least equivalent to existing pneumatic machines then a device of at least 4kw percussive power is required (to accommodate the assumptions and simplifications) and a minimum blow energy of 25 joules for a hole diameter of 36 mm.

Page 6

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper Figure 4 shows the relationships between blow energy, frequency, impact velocity and the required actuator force for a 4kW device with a piston mass of 1 kg.
Data for 4kW Percussive Actuator (Piston mass 1 kg)
600 16

14 500

Blow Energy (J) / Frequency (Hz)

400 10

300

Frequency (Hz) Blow Energy (J) Actuator Force (kN) Impact velocity (m/s)

200 4 100 2

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Stroke (mm)

Figure 4

Data for a 4kW Percussive Actuator

It is important to note that most of the engineering restrictions result directly from the constraints of a hand-held rock drill and would be avoided by the use of a remote controlled drill rig. 4.2 Drill operation requirements Having generated the requisite energy within the piston it is important to consider how this energy is to be transferred to the rock to effect breaking. In the most common configurations the energy is transferred to a drill bit via impact of the piston on a drill steel. The piston energy is thereby converted to a strain pulse in the drill steel. The effective transfer of this energy requires that the striking face of the piston and the drill steel should be as close in diameter as possible. The shape of the strain pulse is highly dependant on the shape of the piston as shown in figure 5.

Page 7

Actuator Force (kN) Impact Velocity (m/s)

12

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper

Hyd rau lic

2l/c Length = l e Strain pulse Rock threshold stress level

Piston (Mp,Vp)

Drill steel

Rock

Pn eu ma tic
Length = l e

2l/c Rock threshold stress level Strain pulse

Piston (Mp,Vp)

Drill steel

Rock

Figure 5

Strain pulse shape

The final stage in the process is the transfer of the energy within the strain pulse to the rock. This transfer required that the drill bit be maintain in contact with the rock by thrusting the drill. The thrust force requirement Ft has been determined by Hustralid6 as:-

f Ft = (1+ ) i dt 30

When a rock drill is not thrust correctly the strain energy is not fully transferred to the rock and a significant reflected wave is generated within the drill steel with significant consequence with regard to the fatigue life of the drill steel (Figure 6).

Page 8

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper

Correct thrust Strain

Under thrust Time

Figure 6 Effect of thrust on strain within a drill steel The overall effect of the thrust force on the performance of a rock drill is clearly shown in Figure 7

PR 1

PR 2

F1

Ft

Thrust

Figure 7

Effect of thrust force on drill penetration rate

4.3 Energy Considerations The power usage of the pneumatic rock drills is calculated from the air mass flow rates and air supply pressure as follows.

Page 9

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper

E = Ps .Qs
Where: E is the energy in watts,

Ps is the supply pressure in Pascal and Qs is the mass flow rate (at the supply pressure )in kg per second.
A combination of E and the time to drill a one metre hole of diameter 34 mm provides the power usage of the pneumatic rock drills in kWh/m. The energy usage for several rock drills to drill a 34mm diameter hole one metre deep is presented in table 3 below. Table 3 Power usage of rock drills to drill a 34 mm diameter hole one metre deep Power usage kWh/m Drill Type Surface Air supply pressure (kPa) 350 Boart Longyear S215 std Boart Longyear S215 muffled Boart Longyear S215 muffled AWS Sulzer ADDS Hilti TE MD20 (205) Hilti TE MD20 (250) 0.201 0.194 0.194 0.230 450 0.224 0.185 0.185 0.244 0.212 0.215 550 NA NA NA NA Underground Air supply pressure (kPa) 350 0.089 0.117 0.117 0.126 450 0.100 0.130 0.130 0.148 0.107 0.108 550 0.094 0.108 0.108 0.159

The cost of drilling a blast hole is determined from a summation of the costs of consumables, maintenance, power and manpower and therefore, while the energy requirement for drilling a blast hole with a pneumatic rock drill supplied at a low air supply pressure may be similar to that when using a high supply pressure, the total cost of drilling will be substantially higher because of the increased manpower costs. This is particularly true of the Hilti TE MD20 rock drill, which, while having one of the lowest energy requirements, has the lowest penetration rate, and would therefore attract the highest manpower cost for drilling. Finally, it should be noted that the total energy efficiency for the pneumatic systems of an established mine is of the order of only one to two percent.

Page 10

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper 5. Alternative technologies OBrien et al.12 details numerous studies conducted on new and emerging works that have the potential to either generate holes in rock at sound pressure levels below that of the conventional pneumatic drill, or provide effective attenuation of the drill generated noise. The techniques discussed are summarised in the following sections, highlighting the most promising techniques. 5.1 Rotary-percussive drilling Studies of rotary percussive drilling are primarily concerned with the understanding of the transmission of the stress waves from the hammer (or piston) to the rock / bit interface. In-depth understanding of these mechanics has the potential to increase the efficiency of transmission of the percussive energy, diminishing inefficiencies or lost energy, which has the potential to be converted to sound energy. However, little work appears to have been done on noise itself12. 5.1.1 Blow frequency An argument for the abatement of noise induced hearing loss is to shift the generated noise spectrum to above that detected by the adult human ear. Studies conducted on dental workers and operators of ultrasonic cleaning and welding equipment have indicated that whilst damage does occur, it is of a lower severity than from equivalent sound pressure levels within the audible spectrum23. This, superficially, would increase the equivalent exposure time and allow drill operators to work for longer periods in a noisy, but high frequency, environment. Applying this to the rotary-percussive drill, only anecdotal evidence exists for the deliberations surrounding the use of a high-frequency short-pulse wave, versus a lowfrequency long-pulse wave. Pemberton24 stated that Boart Longyear had developed the Nova machine, a 3,5 kW, independent rotation hand-held drill that operates at 53 Hz and delivers 66 Joules of blow energy. During testing of this machine, the rock-removal rate per kilo Watt of power was the same as for a rifle bar machine operating at 35 Hertz and 97 Joules blow energy. Further, there is evidence of a trend for other drill manufacturers to move towards a higher-frequency lower-blow-energy machine design, with Tamrock and Atlas Copco either developing, or offering drills with (relatively) high blow frequencies (115 Hz and 102 Hz, respectively)24. Tamrock have additionally developed their KHZ machine, which is stated to operate in the kilo Hertz range, with a variable blow frequency that can be tailored to the rock being drilled25, and is reported to have achieved five metres per minute in hard granite. The reasons for moving to these higher frequencies are not clear, and it is assumed, in the absence of published literature, that the bulk of the research work on the influence of percussion frequency is either incomplete or company confidential. 5.1.2 DTH and churn drilling Down-the-hole (DTH) hammer drills are inherently quieter than the top-hammer drills, due to the percussive element advancing into the hole as the penetration progresses, thus using the rock to muffle the noise. Under optimal thrust considerations, (theoretically)

Page 11

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper DTH and churn drilling are more efficient than conventional top-hole drills for rocks with low penetration resistance26. At higher penetration resistances, the three (top-hole, DTH and churn) drills approximate one another. However, to maintain adequate blow energies, the piston size limits the minimum diameter at which such drills can work effectively (in a churn drill the piston and the bit are a single mechanism). However, recent advances in magnetostrictive and shape memory steels, and piezoelectric elements may indicate the use of these for down-thehole purposes27, allowing the potential to reduce the diameter of the in-hole percussive components. 5.2 Drag-bit cutting Drag bit cutting is an established technology, predominantly used in the oil- and gaswell industry. Haase28 has demonstrated that penetration rates comparable with rotarypercussive drilling can be achieved but, in order to do this, expensive bits and complementary water jetting are required. Table 2 presents normalised penetration rates, required thrust forces and bit costs for various types of rotary drag bits, normalised against the equivalent data for a hydraulic percussive rock drill. Table 2: A comparison of hydraulic percussive drilling and rotary drilling28 Bit Type Dimensions (mm) Hydraulic percussive rock drill Impregnated 40 Rate of penetration (m/min) 1,0 Maximum thrust (kN) 1,0 Bit Costs (R/m) 1,0(*)

48 x 32 0,11 0,16 25 2,5 10,1 37 x 23 Natural diamond, surface 48 x 32 0,07 -0,11 25 5,0 5,9 set 37 x 23 Polycrystalline diamond, 37 x 23 0,14 8 10,9 surface set 60 x 42 0,55 1,27 8 18,5 (*) Cost for the complete drill, thrust leg and bit, based on 1989 Rands (R1,19/m). Table 2 shows that the thrust forces required to achieve comparable penetration rates are considerably higher than those for conventional rotary percussive drilling, implying the use of hydraulic actuators to achieve the required forces. 5.3 Fluid-jet cutting The use of water jets, with and without abrasive entrainment, has been used for some years, and is reaching maturity in the engineering materials field of application for the cutting and shaping of ceramics, reinforced composites and heat-sensitive materials. Water-jet cutting has typically three guises, viz: Pure water at high pressure, supplied as either a continuous, pulsed or cavitating jet;

Page 12

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper Water at high pressure with entrained abrasive and / or air; and Mechanically assisted water-jet cutting, where any of the two above techniques operate in conjunction with a mechanical drill or cutter.

The cutting action of the jet is generally a function of the stagnation pressure as it impinges onto the rock, implying that the actual delivery pressure of the fluid to the nozzle does not necessarily have to exceed the compressive strength of the rock. These parameters define what is commonly termed the threshold pressure of cutting, or the minimum pressure required to cause fracturing. With mechanically assisted water-jet cutting, the jet causes a form of strain softening of the rock ahead of the cutter, implying that it may not be necessary to provide as high a pressure as for pure water-jet cutting29. The threshold pressure for damaging typical South African quartzitic rock is 100 MPa28. The typical drawbacks to this form of cutting are the high quantities of water required, as well as the size of the power packs needed to generate the high pressures and jet momentum (flow rate). Koll30 states that for the abrasive slurry drilling, the mass of abrasive used per mass of rock removed is always greater than unity, and may go as high as 20 times that of the displaced rock. Extrapolating from Kolls example given for granite, a blast hole of 34 mm diameter by 1,2 m depth would require 74 kg of abrasive. Thus when abrasives are being used, these can be expensive adding an additional logistical load to the mines transport system. Their recovery post-cutting may also prove an additional process burden prior to reaching the dewatering pumps. 5.4 Thermal methods OBrien et al.12 considers several methods of using heat sources to melt or spall holes of varying diameters in rock. These methods included direct heat sources (thermal lances, or jets, for example), lasers, and microwave concentration. All have been demonstrated to create holes in rock and concrete. The direct heat source methods, however, were generally discarded for detailed examination as typical mining tools, owing to their inherent practical and safety implications. 5.4.1 Laser drilling Lasers have received considerable attention recently in the US as tools for developing oil wells, and it has been shown that they operate on rock by either spalling (thermal stress induced) or direct melting and vaporisation. In general, however, the literature is consistent in reporting that when blind holes are being drilled, the melt pool tends to shield the laser beam, resulting in a deceleration of the penetration rate with depth22. 5.4.2 Microwave drilling Jerby and Dikhtyar32 describe the microwave drill (US patent number 6,114,676) as being capable of drilling into many non-conductive (to electro-magnetic radiation) materials, such as (amongst others) concrete, rocks, ceramics, wood and glass. The principle of operation is to concentrate the microwave energy using a wave-guide into a small spot underneath this near-field concentrator, causing a localised hot spot, which

Page 13

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper melts the material. The pin of the concentrator is then pushed into the melt pool, forming a hole. On retraction of the concentrator pin, the molten material solidifies, leaving a lined aperture. This principle is illustrated in Figure 8. Jerby and Dikhtyar32 claim to have drilled into concrete using a 600 W microwave drill, creating a two millimetre diameter hole, two centimetres deep, in less than one minute. Correspondence with the patent holder has indicated that this device is capable of being scaled to 40mm in diameter, and that larger diameter drilling of concrete has been achieved33. While the authors claim that the microwave drill is quiet and does not produce dust, there are safety concerns arising from the potential for operator exposure to the microwaves and radio frequency interference with other electronic devices.
Microwaves in

Coaxial waveguide

Concentrator

Concentrated energy

Figure 8: Microwave drill principles32 5.5 Plasma drilling The CSIR assessed the potential for use of a new type of rock drill that used the shock wave produced by the generation of a high-frequency, short-rise-time electric discharges generated under water to break rock35. Patents for this device, known as the plasma hole maker (PHM), are held by the Tetra Corporation (US). Several studies of the device have been undertaken by the CSIR, primarily for use as a roof bolt drill owing to its relatively compact design, its capability for drilling long holes with a low reaction force and, hence, suitability for use in narrow stoping widths35,36. Indications are that the typically existing in-stope electrical system would be sufficient to power the device, thus obviating the need for any additional electrical infrastructure to the panel. The concept of operation is shown in Figure 9.

Page 14

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper Tests conducted by the CSIR36 have indicated the ability to penetrate typical South African formations. A-weighted peak-level sound measurements recorded during some of these tests indicated 88,6 dB(A) at a distance of 2,5 m from the device. Noting that the noise emission is the spark created at the rock interface under water, it can be anticipated that this sound level will diminish with penetration into the rock.

PHM

Support mechanism

Feed drive mechanism

Pulse generator
e hin ac dm Po r in we r in Wa te

s To

on ec

Figure 9: Conceptual plasma roof bolt drill36 While penetration rates have been estimated to be of the order of 0,5 m/min37, numerous mechanical and electrical failures of the machine were encountered. Recent 38 communication with the intellectual property owner has indicated that the PHM has been redesigned, and that a new patent has been taken out to cover the changes made. This new design is stated to be five to ten times more efficient that that tested by Haase36, and should consume as little as two to five Kilowatts for the same penetration rates. 5.6 Ultrasonic drilling Distinct from the high frequency / ultrasonic rotary percussive drilling researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) have developed an ultrasonic/sonic/drilling/coring (USDC) device that drills into rock without the need for rotary motion of the bit39. A piezoelectric stack is excited to between 20 kHz and 23 kHz, and a free-floating end-effector (drill or corer) converts this to a combination of high frequency and sonic waves in the 60 Hz to 1 000 Hz frequency spectrum. Free masses on the opposite end of the piezoelectric stack further enhance the drilling action and springs maintain the contact between the drill and the stack. The USDC is stated as being capable of clearing the hole of debris via its ultrasonic vibration, implying that no flushing water or fluid is required.

Page 15

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper While no quantified specific energies of drilling are provided, Bar-Cohen et al.40 state that the device was capable of drilling a six millimetre hole in basalt to a depth of 25 mm in some two hours, using and average of ten Watts of power (peak at 25 W). It is unlikely that this device can be scaled to a size suitable for blast hole drilling. 6. Noise Issues The noise emitted from the un-muffled machine typically exceeds 115 dB(A), and these machines are recognised as leading contributors to noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). Despite mines issuing HPDs, the compensation payments to affected individuals by the mining industry is high. In recognition of the effects of excessive noise in the workplace, the Mine Health and Safety Council (MHSC) of South Africa published two milestones at their 2003 annual summit12, requiring that the hearing conservation programmes implemented by industry must: By 2008, ensure that there is no deterioration greater than ten per cent in hearing amongst occupationally exposed individuals; and By 2013, the total noise emitted by all equipment installed in the workplace must not exceed 110 dB at any location in the workplace. In is extremely important to recognise that: Seldom, if ever, are rock drills used in isolation and, There is a significant change in sound power level between the free field conditions under which the sound pressure level (SPL) of a machine is usually measured and reported and the conditions generally prevailing within a stoping environment. The difference in SPL for a standard pneumatic rock drill under free field (surface) conditions and an underground stoping environment is shown in figure 10 and table 3

Page 16

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper
Standard Pneumatic Rock Drill
Mean SPLs

120.0

110.0

100.0

SPL (dB)

90.0 Surface 500 Surface 450 Surface 350 70.0 Underground 550 Underground 450 Underground 350

80.0

60.0

50.0
Laeq (dBA) calc 16 Hz 32 Hz 63Hz 125 Hz 250Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz 8000 Hz 16000 Hz

Figure 10 SPL spectra of a standard pneumatic rock drill under free field (surface) and underground stoping conditions at air supply pressures of 350, 450 and 550 kPa. Table 3 SPL results of several rock drills determined under free field conditions and a stoping environment at different air supply pressures. Rockdrill Type Air Supply Pressure (kPa) 350 450 550 350 450 550 350 480 550 NA Free field SPL (dBA) 104 107 109 96 100 101 97 101 102 95 Underground SPL (dBA) 112 116 119 108 108 110 102 106 108 102 Change (dBA) 8 9 10 12 8 9 5 5 6 7.

Standard pneumatic Muffled pneumatic (a) Muffled pneumatic (b) Electric

6.2. Rotary-percussive pneumatic rock drills The current exposure limits of mine workers to physical pollutants, under the Mine Health and Safety Act12 is 85 dB LAeq,8h, with a peak sound pressure level of 135 dB(A). A previous study sponsored by the MHSC12 have indicated that the operator equivalent noise exposure from an un-silenced pneumatic drill, Neq, for a five-hour shift, to be in the range 113,8 dB to 116,8 dB at supply pressure of 400 kPa and 600 kPa respectively.

Page 17

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper A silenced drill exposes the operator to marginally less noise over the same time period, namely 105,4 dB to 109,6 dB at the same respective supply pressures. These sound pressure levels, therefore, place a legal onus on employers to monitor workers for NIHL, effect noise control programmes, and issue affected workers with suitable hearing protection devices12. The source of the noise emitted by an un-muffled or un-silenced pneumatic drill has been studied14,15, and can be summarised in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Discreet sources of noise from a pneumatic rock drill14 Evident from Figure 11 is that the expansion of exhaust air from the exhaust ports, the drill steel and the drill body, rank, in order, as the major contributors to the overall sound emission from a pneumatic rock drill. Table 4 categorises the noise sources further14: Sound pressure level measurements recorded underground for an un-silenced hand-held pneumatic rock drill at two air supply pressures are depicted in figure 12, and show a marked increase above 500 Hz13. Table 4: Noise sources in pneumatic rock drills by frequency15 Frequency Range (Hz) 40 to 100 100 to 2000 2000 and above Source Impact between the piston and drill steel and impact between the drill steel and rock Exhausting air from the exhaust ports Resonance of the steel parts of the drill and resonance of the drill steel

Page 18

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper
120

110

SPL (dB)

100

90

80

70 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz 8000 Hz Centre Frequency 400 kPa 600 kPa

Figure 12: Sound pressure level distribution un-silenced pneumatic drill13 From Table 4 and Figure 12, the exhaust noise and the resonance of the mechanical parts, including the drill steel ring, are therefore the dominant noise sources. 6.2.1 Acoustic isolation of the drill Early MHSC sponsored work16 assessed the overall noise situation in both coal and hard rock mines, and described work conducted predominantly by the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM). In general, it was reported that the use of exhaust mufflers degraded the penetration performance of drills, owing to an associated increase in exhaust backpressure. The USBM programme of work on hand-held drills encompassed four key areas, viz: Redesign of the rotation mechanism, by the fitment of an independent rotation motor (to counter noise from the rifle-bar arrangement; to allow redesign of the inlet and exhaust valve arrangements; and to compensate for any degradation caused by exhaust muffling); Design and fitment of an acoustic shroud (muffler) to cover the exhaust as well as the drill body; Development of a drill-steel shroud; and Redesign of the drill controls to allow the operator to stand further away.

Two models of drill were produced, one for coal and the other for hard-rock mining, differing mainly in the blow energy and the construction of the outer drill-body shroud.

Page 19

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper

Figure 13: USBM Hard rock stoper drill15 Both models were reported to be lighter than the drills they replaced, and sound-level measurements showed an average decrease of 15 dB(A) for the coal drill, (down to 102 dB(A)), with drill-steel damping accounting for a five dB(A) decrease on its own. The penetration rate of this coal drill was reported to be greater than the unmodified drills. The hard-rock model, with a higher blow energy, was reported to emit some 104 dB(A), with the drill-steel shroud accounting for a three dB(A) decrease in sound pressure level. Penetration rates were reported to be comparable to the unmodified version. Methods specifically for damping the drill-steel ring will be described later, albeit that it was indicated that the shroud increased the time to change the drill steel, it obscured the operators vision of the steel rotation, and interfered with the chip extraction. Harper and Scanlon18,17 recognized the performance degradation implications of muffling a standard pneumatic drill, as well as the problematic introduction of drill steel shrouding. They opted to totally enclose the drill and steel in a sound damping shroud, which would be offered directly to the rock as a single enclosed entity. The authors reasoned that and drop of performance due to the exhaust muffling could be offset by optimising the thrusting of the drill, and thus thrust was provided inline from within the shroud. Figure 14 illustrates this machine, which utilises an unmodified SECO S215 drill.

Page 20

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper

Figure 14: Totally enclosed drill of Harper and Scanlon17,18 A constrained layer damping system was developed for the drill steel consisting of a thin-walled tubular metal cover bonded to the drill steel by a visco-elastic material that adhered well to both surfaces. Surface testing of the initial prototypes in Norite yielded decreased sound pressure levels from 115 dB(A) to 93 dB(A), but showed that the original thrusting performance was inadequate. Further modifications saw an increase in sound pressure levels to 102 dB(A), and refinements of the method of thrusting18 resulted in a proof of concept that could be taken to full commercialisation. Otterman et al.19 refined the concept of Harper and Scanlon further (Figure 15), making use of custom moulded casings and a geared air motor lead screw thrust arrangement. Surface testing of the experimental rock drill (XRD), again in Norite, yielded a reduction to 90 dB(A), with penetration rates equal to the unmodified drill.

Page 21

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper

Figure 15: XRD (after Otterman et al.19) Underground testing revealed numerous shortfalls, the most significant of which were the machines weight and associated handling difficulties; corrosion of metallic parts; a build up of water inside the tube with an associated excessive air exhaust back pressure; and an inability to reach the bottom footwall corner during drilling. Despite these difficulties, Otterman et al.19 noted that the machine had the potential to be developed to the point where one operator could manage several jig-mounted machines simultaneously. This would allow the operator to be located further away from the noise source. Figure 16 graphically summarizes the progress of MHSC sponsored noise reduction developments, depicting recent comparative work conducted by Heyns21 with earlier work of Franz et al.13. Note that the work of Heyns21 was conducted in an artificial stope with differing acoustic properties to the true underground environment. The figures reported by Franz et al.13 were recorded underground. Thus figure 16 is included as an indicative comparison only.

Page 22

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper
120 115 110 105 Sound Level (dBA) 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 Pneumatic Muffled Pneumatic Water Hydraulic Heyns (2003) Electric QRD, Normal QRD, Cladded Steel Steel

Franz et al. (1996)

Figure 16: Achieved noise reduction (MHSC sponsored work) The influence of the expansion of the exhaust air from a pneumatic machine is evident in Figure 16 by comparing the values recorded by Heyns21 for the water hydraulic and electric drills. Franz et al.12 recorded sound pressure levels underground for a water hydraulic drill that exceeded those of a silenced pneumatic drill (Figure 16), but ascribes this to a higher drill-steel ring resulting from the greater blow energy. As the drill steel is common to all drills, irrespective of their motive power, damping the noise from the steel is discussed in more detail in the following section. 6.2.2 Reducing drill steel ring Maneylaws et al.16 report that misalignment between the piston-chuck-drill steel can account for as much as 20 per cent of the impact energy being redirected towards establishing transverse waves in the drill steel. The presence of transverse waves not only reduces the effective energy available for penetration, but also gives rise to unwanted sound vibrations. These authors recommended closer tolerances in the manufacture of the chuck and drill steel shank, including a longer drill steel shank to assist with alignment in the chuck. Interalia, these comments also apply to the maintenance of the drills and periodic, accurate dressing of the drill-steel shanks. Recognising this latter aspect, the Chamber of Mines Research Organisation (CoMRO) developed nylon chuck bush inserts that fitted between the drill steel shank and the hexagonal bore of the chuck20. By taking up the play between these two components, not only was the wear on the drill-steel shank reduced, but the noise emissions from the

Page 23

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper drill dropped by approximately two to three dB(A), by eliminating chatter. Since the cost of the drill chuck modifications required to accept these inserts was relatively high, the inexpensive and disposable chuck bush inserts never gained commercial acceptance. Addressing the damping of the drill steel itself, many methods have been employed. The most common is the use of a thin steel outer tube with an outer diameter below that of the bit outer diameter, and an inner diameter sufficient to fit over the hexagonal steel. Maneylaws et al.16 reports that these loose shrouds were difficult to fit, and operators frequently drilled without them, despite the shroud yielding a respectable lowering of the noise level. Bonding these shroud tubes to the drill steel with a viscoelastic compound required turning the hexagonal steel down to a circular section, and while providing the sound damping properties, weakened the steel leading to bending and failure under thrust20. Ultimately, the shrouds added an additional cost to the drilling operation, and were abraded by the rock. The USBM developed concentric drill steels15, consisting of an inner steel rod designed to transmit the percussion force, and an outer torque tube to provide the rotation. This outer tube additionally provided the sound damping. Figure 17 illustrates this concept. Field trials of these concentric steels in a hand-held drill yielded a three dB(A) reduction in the incident sound pressure level, and did not influence the penetration rate19. They also stated that commercial production of these steels was being considered, but that patent rights were under dispute. The present literature is devoid of direct reference to commercial production of these drill steels.

Figure 17: Concentric drill steel19

Page 24

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper 6.3. Noise Conclusions It is unlikely that the conventional pneumatic rotary-percussive drill will be completely phased out within the time spans envisaged by the 2008 MHSC guideline. The unsilenced pneumatic drill is the established workhorse of the South African mining industry, and the drill most commonly encountered underground. The advent of silenced pneumatic and electrically powered drills, offering approximately a seven dB(A) to 15 dB(A) decrease in sound pressure levels respectively, morally obliges employers to give these serious consideration for phasing into a mines drilling programme. In the absence of regulations, suppliers will continue to ply un-silenced machines, justified on a direct cost basis. The totally enclosed rock drills of Harper and Scanlon17 and Otterman et al.19 appear to offer an immediate method of reducing noise in the stopes of producing mines. However, apart from exhibiting relatively minor technological shortcomings, these machines are stated to be unwieldy in the underground situation, and have received negative comment from miners and drillers. Nonetheless, their current development status is the most advanced, with prototypes available for field acceptance testing on a larger scale. In terms of the MHSC guidelines, therefore, these drills, as a new technological offering, have the shortest critical path to implementation. 7. Conclusions While there continue to be significant advances in the field of mechanized rockbreaking there can be no doubt that drill and blast will remain the predominant method of ore winning in South African deep level mines for decades to come. Given the current importance of cost and safety and health issues further exacerbated by the availability of skilled drill operators the mining industry finds itself the difficult position of having no immediately apparent technical solution. The pneumatic rock drill is a mature technology will very little prospect of any new major development and while there are potential new technologies available for drilling application they will not become commercially available for decades. The primary stope drilling requirements of the South African mining industry must, therefore, be the cost effective drilling of accurately placed and directed blast holes with minimal exposure of the operators to environmental and health risks. It is possible however to meet these requirements with currently available technology by a concerted change from hand operated drilling to drilling using remote controlled drill rigs. The use of rigs immediately addressed the accuracy of drilling whilst allowing the application of all the current noise attenuation methods and other environmental improvements without being constrained by the method of powering (pneumatic, hydraulic or electric) and therefore allows the retrofitting of any new drilling technology.

Page 25

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper References 1. IEPPE, C.B. 1946 Gold Mining on the Witwatersrand, Vol 1, Published by the Transvaal Chamber of Mines. 2. Hapgood, F., 2004. The underground cutting edge, The American heritage of invention and technology, Fall 2004 edition, 2004 American Heritage Inc. 3. The Living Age, Volume 80, Issue 1030, February 27, 1864, pp. 405-406, Little, Son & Co., Boston (Publ.), (Available at the Making of America web pages of the University of Cornell library, http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/ ) 4. Scientific American, Volume 11, Issue 30, 5 April 1856, pg. 234, Munn & Co., New York (Publ.) (Available at the Making of America web pages of the University of Cornell library, http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/ ) 5. The Manufacturer and Builder, Volume 19, Issue 8, August 1887, pp. 179180, Western and Company, New York (Publ.), (Available at the Making of America web pages of the University of Cornell library, http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/ ) 6. Hustralid, W.A., 1971. The percussive drilling of quartzite, SAIMM Journal, July 1971. 7. Lundberg, B., 1982. Microcomputer simulation of stress wave energy transfer to rock in percussive drilling, Int. J. Rock Mech., Min., Sci. & Geomech., Vol. 19, pp. 229-239. 8. gren, J.E., 1983. A dynamic photoelastic study of flexural wave generation in a model of percussive drilling, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 86(2), pp. 243-252. 9. Lundberg, B. and Okrouhlik, M., 2001. Influence of 3D effects on the efficiency of percussive rock drilling, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 25 (2001) pp. 345-360. 10. Lundberg, B. and Okrouhlik, M., 2005. Efficiency of a percussive rock drilling process with consideration of wave energy radiation into the rock, International Journal of Impact Engineering (article in press), 2005 Elsevier Ltd. 11. Dicks K.V. 1980. A follow-up on Integrated Stoping at Vaal Reefs, Paper presented to The Association of Mine Managers, May 1980 12. Republic of South Africa, Department of Minerals and Energy, 2002. Regulation gazette number 7400, Vol. 445, 02 July 2002, Pretoria: Government Printer. 13. Franz, R. M., van Rensburg, A. J., Murray-Smith, A.I. and Hodgson, T.E., 1996. A comparison of three types of hand-held rockdrills for noise emission and operator exposure in development and stope drilling, Revised draft interim report for project GEN 011, SIMRAC. 14. Harper, G.S. and Radzilani, M.A., 1996. Development of a quiet blast-hole drilling system, SIMRAC Symposium, 5 September 1996, Mintek, Randburg. 15. Visnapuu A. and Jensen. J.W., 1975. Noise reduction of a pneumatic rock drill, U.S Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigation, RI 8082. 16. Maneylaws A., Norman G., Von Glehn F. H.,1997. An Examination of methods whereby noise levels in current and new equipment may be reduced, SIMRAC GEN 420. 17. Harper, G.S. and Scanlon, T., 1997. Develop a quiet non-atmospheric polluting blast hole drilling system, SIMRAC GEN 207.

Page 26

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Scanlon, T. and Harper, G.S., 1998. Evaluation and further development of a quiet non atmospheric polluting balst hole drilling system, SIMRAC report GEN 311. Otterman R.W., Burger, N.D.L., von Wielligh, A.J. and de Wet, P.R., 2001. Design and development of a quiet, self-thrusting blast hole drilling system, SIMRAC GAP 642. Harper, G.S., 2005. Personal communications relating to the use of chuck bush inserts, and drill-steel shrouding. Heyns, P.S., 2003. Rock drill noise and vibration measurements, Kroonsteen Artificial Stope, 20 November 2002, SIMRAC Health 806 Part II. Dias, Dr B., 2005. Personal communications related to the physiological effects of high frequency and ultrasonic noise. Pemberton, G., 2005. Personal communications regarding the influence of percussive frequency on drilling. Tamrock, 2004. Tamrock KHZ- rocking the drilling industry, press release issued by Tamrock, 2004-10-10. Lundberg, B. and Okrouhlik, M., 2001. Influence of 3D effects on the efficiency of percussive rock drilling, International Journal of Impact Engineering, 25 (2001) pp. 345-360. Swart, P.H., 2005. Personal communications related to the use of smart materials as percussive elements. Haase, H.H., 1989. The potential to use rotary drilling with diamond tools for the generation of blastholes in quartzitic rock, Reference report No. 11/89, Project No. GS8A, CSIR. Bonge, N.J. and Wang, F.D., 1981. Advanced application of water jets to small hole drilling, Proc. First U.S.Water Jet Symposium, April 7, 8, 9, 1981, Golden, Colorado, Colorado School of Mines. Koll, J.J., 1999. A comparison of water jet, abrasive jet and rotary diamond drilling in hard rock, Tempress Technologies, 1999, available at www.tempresstech.com. Hallada, M.R., Walter, R.F. and Seiffert, S.L., 2001. High power laser rock cutting and drilling in mining operations: Initial feasibility tests, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 4184, pp. 590-593. Jerby, E. and Dikhtyar, V., 2001. Drilling into hard non-conductive materials by localized microwave radiation, 8th Ampere Proc., Bayreuth, Sept. 2001. Jerby, E., 2005. Personal electronic communications related to the scale-up of the microwave drill. Ryder, J.A., 2002. Mechanical properties of rock (in Ryder, J.A. and Jager, A.J. (Eds.) Rock mechanics for tabular hard rock mines, Published by SIMRAC, ISBN 0-7988-5547-9). Haase, H.H., MacNulty, N.M. and Jager, A.J., 1995. Feasibility assessment of new roofbolt drilling technology for narrow stopes, CSIR report number 41/95. Haase, H.H., 1997. Development and testing of a plasma device for creating roof bolt holes in stopes, CSIR report number 97-0092. Willis, R.P.H., 1998. New roofbolt drilling technology for narrow stopes using electric-pulse discharge (EPD), Mechanical Technology, April, 1998. Moeny, W., 2005. Personal electronic correspondence relating to the current status and developments with the PHM technology.

Page 27

The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Drilling and Blasting 2011 G Harper 39. Bar-Cohen, Y., Sherrit, S., Dolgin, B., Pal, D., Peterson, T., Kroh, J. and Krahe R., 2000. Ultrasonic/sonic drilling/coring (USDC) for in-situ planetary applications, Proceedings of the SPIE Smart Structures Conference, Vol. 3992, Paper No. 101, Newport Beach, CA., March 2000. Bar-Cohen, Y., Sherrit, S., Bao, X. and Chang, Z., 2003. Realtime sensing while drilling using the USDC and integrated sensors, Eurosensors XVII Conference, Guimaraes, Portugal, September 21-24, 2003.

40.

Page 28