CHAPTER

ROCK

16

MECHANICS

IMPROVED

AND

ROCK

THE

CUTTING

EVOLUTION

OF

METHODS

by J. J. Bailey and R. C. Dean, Jr.

Dr. Maurer has reviewedthe large and confusedfield of rock mechanics
and drilling. We have focusedour attention on advance drilling and the
disengagementof rock. To understand drilling in greater detail is certainly desirable, but such understandingdoes not necessarilyhold any
certain promiseof near-term practical advancement. In the longerterm,
it is probably essential.
Present work on drilling and our understandingof drilling falls roughly
into three separate classes(and, indeed, these are in no way peculiar to
drilling):

1) we have knowledgeof certain (scientific) topics which seemto be

relevant to the process,
2) we have knowledgeof the drilling processin both qualitative and

quantitativetermsfrom observationof the actualprocess,and

3) we have certain modelingprocedures,by which we bridge the gap
betweenthesetwo previousareas.

The usefulnessof our scientificknowledgedependscritically upon this

last item.

In all our following remarks we shall consideronly those problemsof

drilling and the disengagementof rock in which the rock behavior is
essentially brittle.

Let us start by examiningsomeof the problemsof constructingan

even moderately detailed theoretical model of the drilling processin the
small. The prospectsof any near-term successin that direction seem
extremelymeagre;nor is it clear that any great advancementin the practical art of drilling is even likely to result from the constructionof such
a detailedmodel. On the other hand, as we shall suggestlater, consideraJ. J. Bailey and R. C. Dean, Jr. are with Creare Inc., Hanover, N. tI.
396

ROCK MECHANICS AND IMPROVED ROCK CUTTING METHODS

397

tion of the grossparametersof drilling is able to suggestto us the directionsin whichthe nextmajor advancesare likely to bewon.
MODELS

OF THE

DRILLING

PROCESS

If we look at the bases from which to build theoretical models of the

drilling process,we find that a reasonablygoodtheoreticalbasisfor the

initial failure of brittle materials has been developedfrom Griffith's
beginnings.Griffith'sideashave beenenlargedupon for some40 years
now. Within the last decadeespecially,a reasonablygooddescription
of the initiation of failure in rock-like materialshas emerged.While this

theoreticaldescriptionis by no meanscomplete,it agreeswell with a

largebodyof data onthe strengthof rocksundersimpleloadingschemes.
However, when we turn to the more complicatedactual failure mechanismsthat are involvedin practical drilling devices(usually involving
shearingor indentingdevices),it becomesextremelydifficultto apply the
toolswhichtheoryhassofar suppliedus.
Dr. Maurer hasdescribed
a numberof modelsthat havebeenhypothesizedto describepractical processes.Let us examinevery briefly the
validity and usefulnessof these sorts of models. It seemsto be the cus-

tom in the literature frequently to describethese models as theories.

While perhapsthis may be purely a problemof semantics,

it tendsto
confusethe facts. As theoriesthesemodelscan be no strongerthan the
theoreticalpremiseson whichthey are based. No amountof mathematical
manipulation can changethat.

In the rockcuttingtheorywhichwe are considering

here,it is usualto
try to build a modelwhichprovidessomerelationshipbetweeneitherthe
forceor the work doneandthe volumeof rockremovedduringthe breakageprocess.However, thesemodelsalmostuniversally sufferfrom certain
very important debilities.

First,theactualstress
stateswhichoccurin therockarepoorlyunderstoodin detail. Oftensomestateof stressis postulated,
althoughwithout
evenany suggestion
that sucha state of stresscouldpossiblyoccurin
fact. Significant
andauthenticdescription
of the stressstateis particularly difficultbecause
the areamostcriticalin the description
is (or is
closeto) the contactareawith the tool. This is iust the regionwhere
the very least detailed information is available.

Next, althoughwe knowa fair amountfromboththeoryand experimentaboutthe conditions

underwhichrockwill initiallyfail, thisknow]edge is usuallynot in fact at all appliedin detail in the hypothesized
model. It is common,for example,to hypothesizethat a critical stress

stateis reachedat all pointssimultaneously

overa failureplane.Indeed,
in view of the great uncertaintysurrounding
the actual detailednature

398

FAILURE

AND BREAKAGE OF ROCKS

of the loading,it is Virtuallyimpossible

to apply to the problemthe
knowledge we have concerningthe initiation of fracture.
After failure has been initiated, we have little scientific information
on the propagation of failures. Again it is common (and necessary)to
hypothesizeprocessesabout which, in fact, we are very ignorant.

Finally, althoughin most practical drilling processes

the bit is working on rock that has already been significantly damaged by previous
passes,it is commonto presumethe samepropertiesfound in carefully
preparedundamagedrock specimens.
Therefore, the detailed modelsthat are hypothesizedare generallyvery
highly idealized,to the extentthat their connection
with either our knowledgeof rock mechanicsor our observationsof the actual phenomenain
practice is at bestextremely tenuous.
We do not wish to suggestthat this exerciseof trying to model practical rock failure mechanismsis without value. It is an interesting and a
necessaryintellectualpursuit. Two objectivesare usually quoted; first, to
improve our ability to predict drilling performance; and secondly, to
increaseour understandingof the failure processes.We believe the first
of theseobjectivesmay at times be achieved. Even in suchcases,however,
we do not usually have the courageto apply the modelswithout comparing
their results with experimental data. When favorable correlations are
obtained it is still difficult to determine whether these were due to practically appropriate featuresof the modeling,or to a seriesof happy (or
well-contrived) accidents--perhaps this distinction may not even be
important.
So far as an improved knowledge of the actual mechanismsof rock

failure in drilling is concerned,

we seriouslydoubtwhethermuchprogress
is achievedin this way, sincethe actualmechanisms
seemto be soslightly
represented.
Numerousexperimentalinvestigationshave been made which attempt
to correlate drilling performancewith measuredrock properties. Never-

theless,we have still not advancedbeyondthe idea that the strongerthe

rock is, the harder it is to drill! The unconfinedcompressivestrength
seemsto be as good a property to consideras any other; indeed, rather
better than most. And, althoughwe can describethe strengthof brittle

rocksoverquitea widerangeof stressconditions

by two parameters
only
(for example, the unconfined compresslyestrength and the so-called
"angle of internal friction"), we cannot satisfactorily correlate drilling
resultson the basisof thesetwo parametersalone. In the circumstances,
then, we can hardly expect.any modelwhich dependsupononly thesetwo
factorsto give goodgeneralcorrelations.
We do not wishto suggestthat. it is not possibleto achieveany detailed
knowledgeof the actualmechanisms
involved. The difficultiesare unques-

ROCK MECHANICS AND IMPROVED ROCK CUTTING METHODS

399

tionably very great, but there do seemto be certain avenuesof investigation whichmight be followedin orderto try to overcomethem. Fikst, we
need to know much more about crack propagation--not only the orientation in which cracks are initiated, but also what controlstheir courseas
they proceed. A number of investigatorsare apparently working on the
problemsof crack propagation;hopefullywe shall seesomegoodprogress
here.

Secondly,there is the very seriousproblemof the stressdistribution

nearthe pointof contactwith the cuttingtool. We knowthat in most

practical processes
a certain amount of crushingtakes place in the immediate area of contact. However, relatively little is known about the
detailed way in whichthis crushingoccurs,or aboutthe actual mechanical
propertiesof the cornminutethat results. Progressin this area too would
help us apply the scienceof rock failure to the mechanismsof practical
rock breakage.
To sum up, virtually all of the models that have been postulated to
describepracticalrock breakage mechanismsin drilling have at best a
very tenuous connectionwith scientific knowledge of rock failure. In
general,rather than being applicationsof basic knowledgeto the practical
problem, they seemmore to resemble an elaborate form of dimensional
analysis of the problem. Nevertheless,they may be useful in helping us

to predictactualperformance.
They may equallybe hepful
in pointing
out what needs to be learned about the detailed processesinvolved in
order to put together more meaningful models of the breakage process
in practice.
ENERGY

CONSIDERATIONS

IN

DRILLING

Although our knowledgeof the detailed processes

of failure in rock
drilling is extremely sketchy, we are neverthelessable to describe the
over-all picture fairly well in terms of certain grossparameters. As far
as immediatepractical gainsare concerned,thesegrossparametersare at
the present time much more useful than detailed theoretical models.

As Dr. Maurer has pointed out, the commonmechanicalprocessesof

drilling tend to take placewith a fairly predictableconsumptionof energy.
A given processoperatingon a given rock formation will proceedat relatively constant'effectiveness'--thatis, with a relatively constantvolume
of rock removedper unit of energyinput.
It is frequently convenientto think in terms of a parameter which is
the reciprocalof the effectiveness,
a parameterwhoseunits are compatible
with thoseof strength. Various nameshave beengiven to this parameter,
including "specificenergy," "specific disintegration," "drillability," and
"drilling strength." It is perhaps unfortunate to think of it as a strength,

400

FAILURE

AND BREAKAGE OF ROCKS

since it is not a property of the rock alone. The term specificenergy is

used below.

While the significanceof the effectiveness

of drilling processes
has been
realized for a long time, we are principally indebtedto Simon/, 2 for his
emphasisin the literature of its importance. It is not a parameter that
is frequently found quoted in the literature, but it is one that can often
be derived. Numerical values can, for example,be obtained from papers
by Garnier and van Lingenf Hartman,4 Paone and Brucef Rowley, Howe
and Deily, 6Teale,7Zelenin,s and many others. Indeed,mostorganizations
interestedin the drilling field doubtlessalready have quantities of effectiveness data in their files.

Roughlyspeaking,for brittle rock failure, it is foundthat the specific

energy, Es, of reasonably efficiently applied conventionalmechanical
drilling techniquesis of the sameorder of magnitudeas the unconfined
compresslye
strength,ac,of the rock beingdrilled
E.3c

to 3c.

This relationshiphas beenrealized for many years, and it has had its
effect on drilling research. Efforts to producepracticable bit designsof
greater effectivenesshave beengenerally unsuccessful.As a result, faster
drilling speedshave beenachievedessentiallyonly by the applicationof
greaterpowerto the hole bottom. And indeed,so long as the effectiveness
of the processis limited (as all indications hitherto seem to have suggested)the only way to achievefaster drilling is by the use of greater
power. Up to the presentthere has beenlittle evidenceto the contrary;
this fact has largely controlledthe direction of rock drill development.
New exoticmethodsrepresentanotherpossibleand often enticingavenue
for improvement,but so far they have shown little promise for wide
application.
The only alternative to the application of greater power, in order to
achievegreaterdrilling speeds,is the developmentof methodsof greater
effectiveness(lower specificenergy). We shall considerthis possibility
next.

'INTEIJJGENT'

ROCK

REMOVAL

Let us start by describingsome work that was done in Greenland a

number of years ago. During the summersof 1955 to 1957, a tunnel was

driven in ice near Camp Tuto in Greenland. One of the important objects in driving this tunnel was to find the most favorable methods of
operation. A descriptionof the work has beengiven by Rausch.9
In work for the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Laboratory, which is shortly to be published,Dean o re-examinedthe

data presentedby Rauschandothers.He examinedin particularthe effec-

ROCK MECHANICS

AND IMPROVED ROCK CUTTING METHODS

401

riveness(or, equivalently,the specificenergies)achievedby the various

different processes
tried out in the tunnel.
Table I showsa listing of various processesthat were used in driving
the tunnel, and the specific energies achieved. The calculation of the
specific energies is based on estimates of the power delivered by the
machinesto the ice. While the actual magnitudesof thesecalculated specific energiesare certainly not very precise,there can be no doubt that
the variations shownare significant.
The specificenergy of the 'exotic' processof melting the ice is among
thoseshown.Generally the so-called'exotic' disengagementmethodsshow
very high specificenergy. This caseis no exception. The specificenergy
of the melting process is roughly ten times those of the mechanical
methods.

Our interest

here is in these mechanical

methods.

Although the results quoted above were achieved in ice, it seemsreasonably certain that they neverthelesscarry an important messagein
consideringthe failure of rock. The processesused all involved high
strain rates, and the ice behavedin a brittle manner.
The unconfinedcompresslyestrength of the ice in questionwas of the
order of 500 psi. This value has beenassumedin the calculationof Es/ae
in Table I. It can be seen immediately that the general magnitude of
this parameterEs/ae is indeedof the order of 1, as was suggestedabove.
We suggestedthat values for this parameter in rock drilling fall in the
generalrange of .3 to 3. Most of the values in Table I fall between.8 and
3.5--a very satisfactory agreement.

Table I. SpecificEnergiesfor Various Processesfor the

Disengagementof Ice
(e- 500 psi, Assumed)
Method

In. Lb/In. a

Coal cutter
Coal cutter,
augerdrilling
& blasting
Auger drilling

1740
410

3160

Drill & blast

1740

EB/ac

Remarks

3.5
0.82

Joy 10 RV machine
Cut four sidesof
tunnel+ cutter power
& explosivepower
2 in. holes

3.5

Drill power +

0.046

Manpower, assumed
1/10 hp steady

explosiveenergy

Manual picking

Melting
* Adapted from Dean.x

23

42,000

84

Fusion power only

402

FAILURE AND BREAKAGE OF ROCKS

However, in Table I there is one standoutvalue of Es/*e, .0itS. This

extraordinarily low energy consumptionwas achievedby manual picking
at the tunnel face. It is, of course,hard to know what the actual work
input to the tunnel face was in this ease. In the calculation above it has
been assumedthat each man performs with a steady work output of
1/10 hp, a high value for sustainedwork. It seemsclear therefore that
the quotedvalue of Es/*c is conservative.
Now the attack by the human workers on the tunnel face was still
essentially mechanical. Let us consider how such low specific energy
was achievedby t.he pickers, comparedwith those achieved by other
mechanical

methods.

There is no doubt that the very great effectivenessof the manual picking is due to the particular way in which the operator applies his effort.
First he choosesthe point of applicationof his every blow, as well as
the force with which he will deliver it. Beyond this he operates in a
remarkably versatile manner, not only is he able to indent the ice with
his pick, but he is also able to pry with it. He undoubtedly seeksto
developa favorable geometryat the face and then to work in sucha way
as to maintain it. He works around hard inclusionsand takes advantage
of favorablefailure patterns.
In general terms we must ascribe his very high effectivenessto the
choiceshe makes in striking his blows. We have describedthis factor (for
want of a better term) as 'intelligence.' Intuitively one can see the force
of this argument by imagining what would happen to the effectiveness
of the man if he had to operatein the dark!
Now it is all very well to observethat a human operator is enormously
effectivein the disengagementof a brittle material. He is also quite slow,
sincehe is very limited in his power output. The basic reasonman uses
machines is because of their very high power outputs. What are the
chancesof devisingan 'intelligent'machinefor the disengagement
of rock?
We can probably never expect a practical machineto proceedwith the
same'intelligence'as is displayedby the operatorsquotedabove. This is
becausethe human operator is easily able to deliver each successiveblow
in whatever mannerhe seesfit. Virtually all machines,in order to achieve
the very high power outputsfor which they are prized, must strike blows
with great rapidity. This seemsto make the samefreedomof action as that
of the men, and the samefree choicefrom blow to blow an impossibility.
Nevertheless,the human operatorsabove demonstrateda superiority
in effectivenessof nearly two orders of magnitude over most machines.
If even a part of this couldbe achievedby a machinea substantialgain
would have been obtained.

First we must note here that the word 'intelligence'in the sensethat it
has been used above doesnot necessarilyimply any (great) exerciseof

ROCK MECHANICS

AND IMPROVED ROCK CUTTING METHODS

403

intellectual power. Indeed within the meaning of our term, a machine

that works in a well-chosenrote manner, and so performs effectively,
couldbe consideredas more 'intelligent' than anothermachinethat works
in a relatively ineffective (but still rote) manner. For example, a device
that worked with optimum indexing between blows would show in our
terms greater 'intelligence'than an otherwisesimilar machine that did
not index optimally.
In orderto confirmour generalthesisin the laboratory,and to try to
achieve someidea of the possibilitiesof synthesizingthis feature of 'intelligence,'we have performedcertain laboratory tests, again for the U.S.
Army Cold RegionsResearchand EngineeringLaboratory. In thesetests
an operator worked on blocks of icehouseice using a specially designed
tool. This tool had a striking mechanism,which could be triggered to
deliver a blow of known constantenergyto the ice throughthe meansof
a chisel edge. By placing various restrictions upon the nature of the
attack which the operator was permitted to make on the ice block, his
permissibledegreeof 'intelligence'was also restricted.
In the seriesof testsrun, severaldistinct stylesof workingwere used.
We shall considerthree here. In the first set of tests,singleisolatedblows
were struck on the surfaceof the ice block. Next, seriesof linearly indexed
blows were made. The indexing distanceswere varied and optimized. In
the third set of tests,the operatorwas given completefreedomas to both
the position and the orientation of the chisel when the blow was struck.
The freedom of action of the operator in this series of tests does not
at all approachthat of the operatorsin the Camp Tuto tunnel. He had
no choiceover the energy of his blow, nor had he any method of attack
other than by striking direct chisel blows--he was not permitted to pry
upon the damaged ice surface. At the same time he had at least one real
advantage over an operator working on rock. In the clear icehouseice
on which he worked it is quite easy to see fractures that have proceeded
into the main body of the ice. In choosinghis blows he has, then, more
information available to him than would be the case if he were working
on an opaque material.

When these tests were first undertaken,we supposedthat different

operatorswould immediatelyshowdifferent levelsof 'intelligence;'that
is to say, that someoperatorswouldbe naturally moreskilledthan others.
In fact this was not found to be the case. After allowing a number of
different operatorseach to run small numbersof tests, variations in the
specificenergiesachievedwere within the general range of about two or
three to one. It was found that a given operator running several tests
would also show variations of the same sort of magnitude from test to
test. Furthermore, we were surprisedto find that these inexperienced
operators were not particularly effective when compared with linear
indexing.

4O4

FAILURE AND BREAKAGE OF ROCKS

As a result,oneoperatorwassetto runninga longerseriesof tests,and

he worked on them for a period of severalweeks. He was encouragedto
try different strategiesof attack on the ice, and in the courseof this time
he showedmarked improvementover his first efforts. Indeed the specific
energieswhich he achieved improved by about an order of magnitude.
Fig. I showsthe results of a set of sixteen successivetests run with a
30 degreewedge. Apparently in the courseof the testing he devisedtwo
significantimprovementsin his technique. The tests are shownon the
figure as falling within phasesA, B, and C, divided by these apparent
improvementsin technique.

It is oneof the problemsthat facesthe operator,and indeedthe interpreter of suchtests also, that one strategy of attack on the rock cannot
be consideredas a perturbationupon someother strategy. For example,
the operator might elect to start by forming a small pit, and then work
around its edgesto increaseits size. Or, he might decide first to form
two parallel channels,and then remove the center sectionbetweenthem.
There are innumerable

variations

that could be tried.

It can be seen in

Fig. I that our operator showedconsiderablevariation from test to test,

sometimeswith improving and sometimeswith deteriorating performance.
This is no reflection on the operator. It showsthat he was indeed trying
new techniques. The element of luck also enters into the results. Some-

times a large fragment of ice will be detached,while in other tests a

similar fragment might just not quite becomedetached. The physical
difference between these two occurrencesis very slight in practice, but
the effecton the specificenergymay be significant.
One result of the nature of these tests is that it is impossibleto tell
whether any ultimately effectivestrategy has beenreached,or even approached. In the courseof several weeks our operator showed an improvement in effectivenessof nearly an order of magnitude. If he had
continuedto work on the same problem for several months, he might
conceivably have shown a further substantial improvement. We doubt
whetherthis is so,but we cannotbe certain about it.

Fig. 2 showsa comparisonof various types of attack upon the ice,

representingefforts with different degrees of 'intelligence.' The least
intelligent methodof attack representedis the striking of single blows;
whichgavea specificenergyof about730in.lb/in?
The most obviousimprovementof a strictly rote variety is by linearly
indexing successiveblows. This was done with various index distances.
For optimally indexedblowsa specificenergyof about 350 in.lb/in? was
achieved,showingan improvementof about2 to I over the singleblows,
usingthe samewedgeangle,length of edge,and energy/blow.
The initial efforts of our operator,when he was first allowed to choose
freely both the positionand the orientationof his chisel,showedrelatively

ROCK MECHANICS

AND IMPROVED ROCK CUTTING METHODS

405

&oo

. 400
i

a 300

I eoo

phase

LLII00
(7') BO
0

40

CHRONOLOGICAl

TEST

NUMBER

Fig. 1--Specific energy versus chronological test number (by one operator). Icehouse ice, --10 C, 30 degree wedge. 'Intelligence' experiment, free style.

406

FAILURE AND BREAKAGEOr ROCKS

iooo

oo

SINGLE

BLOWS

oo

- .ovF.
0.03

- .B
o

4oo
I

(j

[] OPTIMUM INDEXED BLOWS

.-

SO0

>
L soo

FR"FREE STY'LE
' BLOWS,A

E "FREE STYLE"BLOWS

- .

o
u

z
--

I1

oo

u
(j

I1

so

!1

.I {3.

EB"FIEE
BLOWS STY'LE
, C e
40

8o

.CAANMUA
LPICKING
P TUTO

TUNNEL

Fig. --Specific energies/or variousprocesses

/or the disengagement
o/ice. (All
points [] are /tom laboratoryexperimentsusinga 30 degreewedgeon ice-houseice
at--10 C.)

ROCK MECHANICS AND IMPROVED ROCK CUTTING METHODS

407

little improvementover the optimally indexedblows. Indeed someof his

early testsgaveworseresults. This was apparentlynot an unusualresult
for the effortsof severalother operatorsshowedapproximatelythe same
thing. Later he improved,and pointsare shownin Fig. 2 for his efforts
corresponding
to the phasesA, B, and C shownin Fig. 1. The bestspecific
energyhe ever achievedwas 35 in.lb/in.s, a reductionof 20 times over
striking singleisolated blows!
As a matter of curiositythe resultsfrom Camp Tuto are also shownin
Fig. 2. They are not strictly comparable,sincethe ice in the tunnel was
not identical to that used in the tests, but they have been normalized on
the basis of the unconfinedcompressivestrengthsof the two materials.

It can be seenthat our operator at least approachedthe same order of

specific energy as was observedin the tunnel. And again we must rememberherethat he was distinctly more limited in his methodsof attack
on the ice face.

Next let us considerthe implication of thesetest results. The outstanding singleresult here is that specificenergiesone or two ordersof magnitude lower than are normally achievedby machineshave been observed
in the field, and they have then been at least reproducedin principle in
the laboratory. It has been demonstrated,then, that although present
mechanicaldisengagement
methodsseemto be limited in the effectiveness
that can be achieved,there is no absolutebarrier involved. Furthermore
the magnitude of improvement that is demonstrably possible leads us

to supposethat at least a substantialpart of this improvementcan be

achievedby machinesthat do not exerciseany intellectual effort.
We can also see in very rough terms at least what the important elements of 'intelligent' drilling must be. We already know that for maximum effectivenessrock should be removed in pieces as large as can
conveniently be handled. Human operators achieve this result in at
least two important ways. Their attack on the rock is very versatile;
and they operatewith what is (in mechanicalterms at least) an extremely
sophisticatedfeed-back mechanism.In simple terms, they watch what
they are doing. Nevertheless,it seemslikely that even without any such

feed-back,considerablegains can be made, and in fact somefeed-back

certainly can be achievedif necessary,by the direct interventionof human
controllers.

It is unlikely that maior advanceswill be achievedquickly in drilling

by the applicationof more 'intelligent' devicessincethe freedomof action
at the hole bottom is inherently very limited. However, we believe that
significantimprovementscan and will be achievedfirst in the disengagement of rock in relatively unconfinedplaces (let us say, at tunnel faces).
Later on the lessonslearned there may well be applied in the drilling of
holes.

408

We do not wish to suggestthat presentmachinesare altogether'unintelligent.' For example, the Robbins Miner is a machine that shows a
considerabledegreeof 'intelligence.' It proceedsby cutting a number of
kerfs and then breaking out the material between them in relatively
large fragments.
Rather it is our purposeto present this conceptof 'intelligence,' and
to emphasizeits important elements. We believe that the Camp Tuto
results, which are supportedby our first elementary tests in the laboratory, have demonstratedquantitatively what we can reasonablyhopeto
achievewith a new generationof 'intelligent' machines.
If we are to make substantialnew advancesin drilling and other disengagementprocesses,we must do at least one of two things. We must

eithersubstantiallyincreasethe rates of powerinput, or we mustincrease

the effectivenessof the processesused. Preferably we should do both
these things. At the present time conventionaltechnologyseemsto be
fairly well hedgedin on both the scoreof power and effectiveness.
Work on exotic methodsis in progress.Indeed it has been for many
years. There the major effort is usually directed toward vastly increased
power input.
The tests that we have describedhere are perhapscrude, as might be
expectedfrom a preliminary investigation of this sort. But they seem
clearly to suggestnew directionsof endeavorand new hopefor the future
in designof superiormachinesfor the disengagement
of rock, throughthe
further developmentof the conceptof 'intelligent' rock removal.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Certain results presented here were developed under Contract No.

DA 27-021-AMC-21(X) for the U.S. Army Cold RegionsResearchand

Engineering Laboratory. We acknowledge with appreciation their
permissionto publish these results.
REFERENCES

1. Simon, R.: Discussionof Paper by Somerton, W. H., A Laboratory Study of

Rock Breakageby Rotary Drilling, AIME Transactions,1959,vol. 216, p. 92.
2. Simon, R.: Energy Balancein Rock Drilling, SPE Transactions,1963,vol. 228,
p. II-298.

3. Garnier, A. J., and van Lingen, N.H.: PhenomenaAffecting Drilling Rates at

Depth, AIME Transactions,1959, vol. 216, p. 232.
4. Hartman, H. L.: Basic Studies of PercussionDrilling, Mining Engineering,
January 1959, p. 68.
5. Paone, J., and Bruce, W. E.: Drillability Studies,Diamond Drilling, U.S. Bureau
of Mines Report of Investigation # 6324, 1963.
6. RowIcy, D.C., Howe, R. J., and Deily, F. H.: Laboratory Drilling Performance
of the Full ScaleRock Bit, Journal of Petroleum Technology,January 1961,p. 71.

ROCK MECHANICS AND IMPROVED ROCK CUTTING METHODS

409

7. Teale, R.: The Concept of Specific Energy in Rock Drilling, Int. Journal oJ
Rock Mechanicsand Mining Science,March 1965,vol. 2, p. 57.
8. Zelenin, A. N.: Rezanie Gruntov, Moscow,Izdat. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, 1959; U.S.
Army CRREL Translation-No. 68, in preparation.
9. Rausch, D. 0.: Studies of Ice Excavation, Quarterly oJ the Colorado School o
Mines, April 1959,vol. 54, No. 2, 90 pp.
10. Dean, R. C., Jr.: Drilling and Excavating in Ice and Frozen Soil, U.S. Army
CRREL Technical Report No. 129, in preparation.