INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

Determination Of Longevity Of Teeth In Buckets

Of Loading Equipment In Coal Mines - A Case
Study
Aarif Jamal, Ramesh Kumar, R.P. Singh, Nilesh Pratap Singh, Anup Kumar Digarse

Abstract: The life of bucket teeth in shovel and dragline deployed in handling of overburden rock is an important contributor to the stores cost and is
also responsible for the loss of valuable availability and utilisation time of these critical equipment. To ascertain the effect of rock type on longevity of
bucket teeth, a study has been conducted in two large opencast mines of Singrauli Coalfields. The results of this study is presented in this paper. There
was a significant variation as compared to the actual figures of the mine, it establish useful relationship between the type of mineral present in the
overburden and the life of bucket teeth of shovel and dragline.

Index Terms: abrasivity, bucket teeth, dragline, longevity, shovel, Singrauli Coalfield

INTRODUCTION The abrasivity of rock which is a main contributory

The increasing demand of coal for meeting the requirement
of the country paved to exploit the coal by opencast
mechanized mining at ever increasing stripping ratio. While
shovel has been the most widely used equipment,
increasing use of dragline is being made in view of high
capacity and lower operating cost of a dragline. The
replacement of the teeth in shovel and dragline has been a
matter of serious concern for the mine operators due to its
associated cost and the idling of these equipment. Every
Ground Engaging Tool (GET) manufacturing company
claims good life of teeth, but such data relates to ideal
condition and generally far from the actual condition of the
mine. In actual conditions the life of a tooth is much less
than what the manufacturing companies claim. Bucket teeth
require replacement under the following two conditions:-
i) Breakage of tooth
ii) Wearing out of tooth
The later is the major cause for most of the tooth
replacement and varies from project to project. To evaluate
this effect, the relationship between the rock type and the
bucket tooth life has been studied. Abrasiveness of rock
affects the wear of the ground engaging tool, besides the
speed and the force employed on it. On the one hand wear
depends on the force and its direction as employed by the
excavating machine, on the other it also depends on the
rock and the geological conditions prevailing in the mine.
_________________________
geological condition can be described by the petrographic
composition, in particular the contribution of hard minerals
like quartz. Determination of quartz or equivalent quartz
content can be done by microscopic examination of a thin
section. Alternatively by laboratory tests where some kind
of model or index test is used. In the present paper the
Cerchar abrasivity test as well as the Laboratoire des Ponts
et Chausses (LCPC) abrasivity test is employed and its
comparison with other methods has also been made.
Abrasion is the wearing or tearing away of particles from
the surface. More abrasive the rocks are, the higher the
operation costs. The mechanization of the excavation
methods associated with increased advancement rate or
increased production rates in mining require a greater
knowledge of rock abrasivity. Abrasiveness of rock cannot
be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. In recent
years, the studies on determining the abrasiveness of rocks
have been carried out intensively. There are several
methods for estimating the abrasiveness of rocks and
minerals, used with various degree of success and
relevance. They can be broadly divided into three
categories:
Indirect methods abrasivity assessment through a
combination of hardness, compressive strength and
other fundamental rock properties such as, grain size
and size distributions, grain shape and orientation,
porosity, micro cracking.
Direct methods abrasivity assessment from test
methods where there is a relative movement of rock
sample and a wear tool in contact under standard
controlled test conditions.
Holistic approaches abrasivity assessment via a
combination of fundamental rock properties and many
varied process parameters and environmental
conditions.

Aarif Jamal, Ramesh Kumar, R.P. Singh, Nilesh
Pratap Singh, Anup Kumar Digarse
Department of mining engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology (Banaras Hindu University) Varanasi
221005, India
Professor (Department of Mining Engineering, IIT-
BHU) & corresponding author ajamal.min@itbhu.ac.in
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org
As an example of indirect measurements, Atkinson (1986)
and Atkinson and Cassapi (1989) assessed rock
abrasiveness through standard mechanical property tests
such as Schmidt hammer, shore scleroscope and the cone
Indenter tests. The test results were complemented with the
values of fundamental properties of rocks including
unconfined compressive strength, indirect tensile strength,
rock hardness and toughness. As an example of a holistic
25
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

approach, wear of the rolls in a high pressure grinding commercial exploitation by opencast mining. There are a
device was studied. The study took into account the effects number of dirt bands in Turrea A seam, some more than
of machine scale, wear surface structure of the rolls, 1m thick. The strike of coal seam is from east to west and
grinding pressures and rolls speed, gap settings, feed size the dip varies from 10 to 40 in northern direction.
distribution and moisture content for a range of ores. The
authors proposed a prevailing wear mechanism and a Table 1: Project parameters of Jayant Project
methodology for minimising wear of the grinding rolls,
specific to the high pressure grinding device only. An As per
As per mine
example of a direct method, Bond (1964) and Buchi (1995) sanctioned
Particulars plan
PR
developed testing apparatus that determine rock (10 MTY)
(15 MTY)
abrasiveness in a low abrasion/medium impact mode of Mineable coal
wear where rock abrasiveness is measured as the amount reserves(Mt) on 135.54 155.56
of material lost by a standard steel paddle which rotates on 11.03.2012
a shaft in a sample of loose rock particles of a certain Balance life (yrs) as on
12 13
specified size range. As can be seen from the above 12.03.2012
Total lease area (Ha) 2464 2704
examples, the indirect methods of rock abrasivity
i) Forest land 1162 1162
assessment have the advantage of using data which is ii) Govt. land 467 467
either readily available or relatively straightforward to iii) Tenancy land 835 1075
obtain. However, they do not take into account process Stripping ratio (m3/t) 2.38 2.38
variables for specific modes of wear. Hence, they are Ultimate working depth 185 185
normally not used in isolation, but rather in combination with
direct methods, or holistic approaches, to supplement or Table 2: Project parameters of Jayant Project
confirm other more relevant direct measures. However,
there is no universally accepted one standard test to Particulars Value
determine the rock abrasivity although a large number of Thickness Reserve
Coal seam details (m) (m) (Mt)
different tests are in use. All the studies about rock
i) Purewa top 5-9 40.06
abrasiveness are concentrated on the amount of quartz, ii) Purewa bottom
grain size and cementation degree of quartz, the geometry iii) Turra 9-12 91.06
of the abrasive mineral and mechanical strength of rock. 13-19 217.50
Total reserve 348.93
FIELD STUDY Gradient (dip) 20 - 50
Average grade C,E,F
Field studies were carried out, to collect the required data
and samples were drawn from Northern Coalfields Limited
(NCL). Details regarding life of teeth of dragline and shovel For exacavation of coal, various type of equipment has
were obtained and different type of rock samples were been used in NCL. The study was carried out for Dragline
collected for the purpose of laboratory study. Brief and Shovel. There are three dragline and 14 shovels
description of area Northern Coalfields Limited (NCL) is a working in jayant project.
subsidiary of Coal India Limited (CIL) located in the
Sonbhadra district in Uttar Pradesh, and the singrauli region Amlohri project: a brief description
of Sidhi district of Madhya Pradessh. The coal reserve in The full thickness of Purewa merged seam including all dirt
the north-eastern part of Singrauli coalfield, covering an bands varies from 19.50m to 26.15m. The immediate roof
area of around 220km2 is 9,121 million tonnes, out of which of Purewa merged seam is represented by coarse grained
2,724 million tonnes are proved reserves and the rest is sandstone, grey shale, carbonaceous shale and
inferred or indicated. Important coal seams in this part of carbonaceous sandy shale in order of abundance. The floor
Singrauli coalfield are: Jhingurda (130-162 m thick), Purewa is generally represented by sandy shale, carbonaceous
(8-25 m thick) and turra (12-22 m thick). Coal of these sandy shale, fine to medium grained sandstone, alternate
seams are generally high moisture (6-9 %) and high ash bands of shale and sandstone, carbonaceous shale and
(17-40 %) coals. The volatile matter ranges from 25-30 %. grey shale. The Purewa merged seam is a highly inter-
The volatile matter ranges from 25-30 %. The calorific value banded seam making it a much inferior quality coal. The dirt
of the coal varies from 4,200-5,900 kcal/kg. bands are represented by carbonaceous shale,
carbonaceous sandy shale and grey shale.
Jayant Project: a brief description
The rocks of Jayant block are of Barakar formation and Table 3: Project parameters of Amlohri mine
exposed in the form of a plateau. There are five coal seams
Coal seams Net proved coal reserves (Mt.)
as follows
1. Kota
Moher-
2. Turra Moher Amlohri
3. Purewa bottom Total
Turra block extension
4. Purewa top Purewa merged block
5. Turrea A Total 186.56 107.90 294.46
130.10 150.44 280.54
The thickness varies from 0.2m to 1.9m for Turrea A and 316.66 258.34 575.00
available only in some part and thus not viable for
26
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

Table 4: Project parameters of Amlohri mine Rotary blast hole

4 160 mm 4 8
drill
Net geological Volume of total
Blocks Rear dumper coal
reserves (Mt) overburden(Mm3) 5 240 T 13
body
Moher block 316.66 1123.41
Moher-Amlohri Rear dumper coal
258.34 1220.35 6 100 T 16
extension block body

Total 575.00 2343.76 7 Dozer with ripper 850 HP 2 2

The thickness of overburden overlying Purewa seam varies 8 Dozer 560 HP 2 2

from 84.70 m to 198.47 m. the parting between Turra and
C. Common
Purewa seams varies from 51.97 m to 68.70 m. The initial
depth of occurance of Turra seam is 12.40 m. 1 Grader 280 HP 4 7

Table 5: Project parameters of Amlohri mine 2 Crane 200 T 1 1

3 Crane 90 T 1 1
Particulars 12 MTPA 20 MTPA
3
4 Front end loader 10-11 m 1
Net geological
575.00 575.00
reserves(MT) 5 Wheel dozer 450 HP 2 2
Extractable coal
446.91 470.43 6 Hyd. Shovel (BH) 2-4 m 3
2 1
reserves (MT)
Percentage of 7 Dozer 240 HP 2 2
77.72 81.80
extraction (%)
8 Lowboy 275 T 2
Estimated volume
1893.73 1893.73
of OB (Mm3) D. Reclamation
Stripping ratio 1 Dozer 560 HP 2 2
4.24 4.03
(m3/t)
2 Grader 280 HP 2 2

According to field data, the replacement time interval for 3 Water sprinkler 60-70 Kl 3 6
shovel tooth in Jayant mine is 30 days. The type of shovel
tooth used is J250 of CATERPILLAR. Weight of the
tooth = 6100 gm Dimensions = 167 x 65 x 86 mm It has FACTORS AFFECTING LIFE OF TEETH
been observed that the availability of the shovel is 70% and The abrasivity of rock and soil is a factor with considerable
the tooth is replaced when there is a 60% of loss of material influence on the wear of tools. The abrasivity of rocks can
by abrasion. be described by the petrographic composition, in particular
the contribution of hard minerals like quartz. In addition to
Table 6: Project parameters of Amlohri mine mineral composition and other textural features influence on
life of teeth of excavating machine such as: grain size,
No. for No. for shape and elongation, grain orientation, degree of
S.No. HEMM Size/capacity
12MTPA 20MTPA anisotropy, grain suturing, interlocking, micro fractures and
A. OB removal pores. The use of Mohrs hardness is restricted mainly to
preliminary estimates of cutter wear. A number of studies
1 Dragline 55-65m3/90R 2 have been therefore carried out to determine important
factors that influence tool wear due to rock cutting. Many
2 Dragline 46m3/116R 2
factors which influence wear due to rock cutting are function
3 Rope shovel 35-38m 3
4 6 of properties of intact rock and rock mass, machinery and
machine settings. Rock abrasiveness is a function of
4 RBH drill 311mm 2 4 amount of quartz and other abrasive minerals in the rock,
average quartz grain size, cement type and cementation.
5 RBH drill 250 mm 6 10
The quartz content, which is the most dominant parameter,
6 Rear dumper 240 t 24 42 provides a convenient measurement of rock abrasivity for a
wide range of rock types. However, it is found that the effect
7 Dozer 850 HP 3 6 of rock strength on rock abrasivity is less significant, this is
because those rocks with high strength have low content of
8 Dozer 560 HP 4 6
quartz. Microscopic studies show that the different
B. Coal production abrasions are due to various quartz grain size and to the
cement type which is silica, carbonate, and mineral
1 Rope shovel 35-38 m3 1 admixtures. Therefore, it is important to investigate various
3 type of mineral presence in rocks, their content, and
2 Rope shovel 10 m 4
influence on tool consumption rates. Tool wear can be
3 Front end loader 28-30 m3 2 defined as the microscopic removal or fracture of material

27
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

from the working surface of a tool by mechanical means. were drawn for all experimental readings. Similarly samples
The wear resistance property is an important characteristics of sandstone, shale and coal were prepared.
of intrinsic quality of mining tools; however, it is influenced
by rock mineral composition, hardness and grain size, rock iii) Weighing of specimen:
strength and hardness, cutting depth and speed of bit, bit After preparing the specimen into circular section, weight of
attack angle, bit geometry, impact load of tool, cutting type each sample is shown below in tabular form.
or acting shape of bit (impact, rotary and grinding), cooling
fluid applied to the rock surface and tool, effective cutting Table 7: Project parameters
and crushing, and resistance to strength and abrasiveness.
Specimen no. Weight (gms)
LAB INVESTIGATION
D1 90.7741
Abrasive testing method
The well established method for determining abrasiveness D2 85.5649
has been adopted with a variation that instead of ball mill
used for steel cube test for abrasiveness we used well S1 101.526
arranged abrasion tester. Process involved in this method
included:- S2 95.5672

i) Specimen preparation:
Specimen was prepared from broken teeth of bucket of
dragline and shovel into a rectangular shape. Since it is
made of tungsten carbide, it was not easy to make
rectangular shape from broken teeth of a dragline. By the
great effort of IIT-bhu workshop, it could be possible to
make rectangular shape.
ii) Preparation of sample:
Sample has prepared by crushing the quartz up to a size
+30 to +50. After crushing 1000 gms of quartz samples
iv) Abrasion between specimen and rock samples:
The specimen with rock sample was put in to the special
arranged apparatus for testing of abrasiveness. Initially
weight of each specimen was noted after starting of
machine and again difference in weight after 1hour, 2hours
and 3hours was noted and process was repeated for
several times.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 8: Average percentage weight loss of Dragline teeth specimen (D1) with quartzite for 1 hr in abrasion tester.

Size of Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after % Avg. Wt.

S. No. Wt. loss % Wt. loss
Sample chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss

1. +30 to +50 90.7741 90.7730 0.0011 12.11

2. +30 to +50 90.7730 90.7717 0.0013 14.32

3. +30 to +50 90.7717 90.7697 0.0020 22.03

4. +30 to +50 90.7697 90.7673 0.0024 26.07

5. +30 to +50 90.7673 90.7654 0.0019 21.22 20.44

6. +30 to +50 90.7654 90.7637 0.0017 18.23

7. +30 to +50 90.7637 90.7615 0.0022 24.52

8. +30 to +50 90.7615 90.7590 0.0025 27.05

9. +30 to +50 90.7590 90.7574 0.0016 18.55

10. +30 to +50 90.7574 90.7559 0.0015 17.26

28
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

Table 9: Average percentage weight loss of Dragline teeth specimen (D1) with quartzite for 2hr in abrasion tester.

Size of Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after

S. No. Wt. loss % Wt. loss % Avg. Wt. loss
Sample chip (gms) abrasion (gms)

1. +30 to +50 90.7559 90.7543 0.0016 17.66

2. +30 to +50 90.7543 90.7521 0.0022 24.25

3. +30 to +50 90.7521 90.7492 0.0029 31.96

4. +30 to +50 90.7492 90.7466 0.0026 27.66

5. +30 to +50 90.7466 90.7436 0.0030 32.24 27.54

6. +30 to +50 90.7436 90.7411 0.0025 26.57

7. +30 to +50 90.7411 90.7387 0.0024 25.89

8. +30 to +50 90.7387 90.7359 0.0028 30.11

9. +30 to +50 90.7359 90.7328 0.0031 34.55

10. +30 to +50 90.7328 90.7302 0.0026 27.50

Table 10: Average percentage weight loss of Dragline teeth specimen (D1) with quartzite for 3hr in abrasion tester.

Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after % Avg. Wt.

S. No. Size of Sample Wt. loss % Wt. loss
chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss

1. +30 to +50 90.7302 90.7265 0.0037 40.78

2. +30 to +50 90.7265 90.7230 0.0035 38.54

3. +30 to +50 90.7230 90.7202 0.0028 32.56

4. +30 to +50 90.7202 90.7163 0.0039 42.59

5. +30 to +50 90.7163 90.7130 0.0033 36.56 39.85

6. +30 to +50 90.7130 90.7075 0.0055 60.36

7. +30 to +50 90.7075 90.7041 0.0034 37.21

8. +30 to +50 90.7041 90.7008 0.0033 36.66

9. +30 to +50 90.7008 90.6979 0.0029 32.86

10. +30 to +50 90.6979 90.6941 0.0038 42.11

Table 11: Average percentage weight loss of Shovel teeth specimen (S1) with quartzite for 1hr in abrasion tester.

Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after Wt. % Wt. % Avg. Wt.
S. No. Size of Sample
chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss loss loss

1. +30 to +50 101.526 101.524 0.002 19.69

2. +30 to +50 101.524 101.521 0.003 29.58
3. +30 to +50 101.521 101.519 0.002 19.71
4. +30 to +50 101.519 101.518 0.001 09.83
5. +30 to +50 101.518 101.514 0.004 39.40 22.56
6. +30 to +50 101.514 101.511 0.003 29.76
7. +30 to +50 101.511 101.509 0.002 19.82
8. +30 to +50 101.509 101.506 0.003 29.76
9. +30 to +50 101.506 101.504 0.002 19.85
10. +30 to +50 101.504 101.503 0.001 09.91

29
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

Table 12: Average percentage weight loss of Shovel teeth specimen (S1) with quartzite for 2hr in abrasion tester.

Size of Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after Wt. % Wt. % Avg. Wt.
S. No.
Sample chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss loss loss

1. +30 to +50 101.503 101.501 0.002 19.91

2. +30 to +50 101.501 101.497 0.004 39.40

3. +30 to +50 101.497 101.492 0.005 49.26

4. +30 to +50 101.492 101.488 0.004 39.41

5. +30 to +50 101.488 101.485 0.003 29.59 36.72

6. +30 to +50 101.485 101.481 0.004 39.42

7. +30 to +50 101.481 101.476 0.005 49.28

8. +30 to +50 101.476 101.472 0.004 39.51

9. +30 to +50 101.472 101.470 0.002 19.94

10. +30 to +50 101.470 101.466 0.004 39.52

Table 13: Average percentage weight loss of Shovel teeth specimen (S1) with quartzite for 3hr in abrasion tester.

Size of Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after Wt. % Avg.

S. No. % Wt. loss
Sample chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss Wt. loss

1. +30 to +50 101.466 101.461 0.005 49.28

2. +30 to +50 101.461 101.455 0.006 59.13

3. +30 to +50 101.455 101.451 0.004 39.43

4. +30 to +50 101.451 101.445 0.006 59.15

5. +30 to +50 101.445 101.441 0.004 39.44 51.59

6. +30 to +50 101.441 101.435 0.006 59.16

7. +30 to +50 101.435 101.430 0.005 49.29

8. +30 to +50 101.430 101.424 0.006 59.17
9. +30 to +50 101.424 101.420 0.004 39.45

10. +30 to +50 101.420 101.414 0.006 59.19

Table 14: Average percentage weight loss of Dragline teeth specimen (D2) with coal and associated rocks for 1hr in abrasion
tester.

Size of Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after Wt. % Wt. % Avg. Wt.
S. No.
Sample chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss loss loss
Sandstone1. +30 to +50 85.5649 85.5641 0.0008 09.35
Sandstone2. +30 to +50 85.5641 85.5631 0.0010 12.65 18.94
Sandstone3. +30 to +50 85.5631 85.5610 0.0021 24.54
Sandstone4. +30 to +50 85.5610 85.5585 0.0025 29.21
Shale5. +30 to +50 85.5585 85.5581 0.0004 04.71
Shale6. +30 to +50 85.5581 85.5575 0.0006 07.08 06.64
Shale7. +30 to +50 85.5575 85.5570 0.0005 05.59
Shale8. +30 to +50 85.5570 85.5561 0.0009 09.38
Coal9. +30 to +50 85.5561 85.5559 0.0002 02.33
Coal10. +30 to +50 85.5559 85.5558 0.0001 01.17 02.06
Coal11. +30 to +50 85.5558 85.5555 0.0003 03.56
Coal12. +30 to +50 85.5555 85.5554 0.0001 01.18

30
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

Table 15: Average percentage weight loss of Dragline teeth specimen (D2) with coal and associated rocks for 2hr in abrasion
tester.

Size of Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after Wt. % Wt. % Avg.
S. No.
Sample chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss loss Wt. loss
Sandstone1. +30 to +50 85.5554 85.5542 0.0012 14.08
Sandstone2. +30 to +50 85.5542 85.5527 0.0015 17.64 24.92
Sandstone3. +30 to +50 85.5527 85.5495 0.0032 37.64
Sandstone4. +30 to +50 85.5495 85.5459 0.0036 42.35
Shale5. +30 to +50 85.5459 85.5453 0.0006 07.05
Shale6. +30 to +50 85.5453 85.5445 0.0008 09.42 09.20
Shale7. +30 to +50 85.5445 85.5435 0.0010 10.94
Shale8. +30 to +50 85.5435 85.5426 0.0009 09.39
Coal9. +30 to +50 85.5426 85.5424 0.0002 02.45
Coal10. +30 to +50 85.5424 85.5420 0.0004 04.71 03.28
Coal11. +30 to +50 85.5420 85.5417 0.0003 03.53
Coal12. +30 to +50 85.5417 85.5415 0.0002 02.46

Table 16: Average percentage weight loss of Dragline teeth specimen (D2) with coal and associated rocks for 3hr in abrasion
tester.

Size of Initial wt. of Wt. of chip after Wt. % Avg. Wt.

S. No. % Wt. loss
Sample metal chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss loss
Sandstone1. +30 to +50 85.5415 85.5394 0.0021 24.71
Sandstone2. +30 to +50 85.5394 85.5375 0.0019 22.36 32.04
Sandstone3. +30 to +50 85.5375 85.5336 0.0039 45.88
Sandstone4. +30 to +50 85.5336 85.5306 0.0030 35.20
Shale5. +30 to +50 85.5306 85.5298 0.0008 09.42
Shale6. +30 to +50 85.5298 85.5291 0.0007 08.24 10.30
Shale7. +30 to +50 85.5291 85.5280 0.0011 12.94
Shale8. +30 to +50 85.5280 85.5271 0.0009 09.42
Coal9. +30 to +50 85.5271 85.5267 0.0004 04.73
Coal10. +30 to +50 85.5267 85.5262 0.0005 05.88 05.31
Coal11. +30 to +50 85.5262 85.5256 0.0006 07.08
Coal12. +30 to +50 85.5256 85.5253 0.0003 03.56

Table 17: Average percentage weight loss of Shovel teeth specimen (S2) with coal and associated rocks for 1hr in abrasion
tester.

Size of Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after Wt. % Avg. Wt.
S. No. % Wt. loss
Sample chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss loss
Sandstone1. +30 to +50 95.5672 95.5661 0.0011 11.51
Sandstone2. +30 to +50 95.5661 95.5641 0.0020 20.93 20.89
Sandstone3. +30 to +50 95.5641 95.5623 0.0028 29.30
Sandstone4. +30 to +50 95.5623 95.5601 0.0022 21.85
Shale5. +30 to +50 95.5601 95.5554 0.0007 07.33
Shale6. +30 to +50 95.5554 95.5540 0.0010 10.95 09.14
Shale7. +30 to +50 95.5540 95.5531 0.0009 09.85
Shale8. +30 to +50 95.5531 95.5523 0.0008 08.42
Coal9. +30 to +50 95.5523 95.5519 0.0004 04.27
Coal10. +30 to +50 95.5519 95.5514 0.0005 05.57 03.83
Coal11. +30 to +50 95.5514 95.5511 0.0003 03.19
Coal12. +30 to +50 95.5511 95.5509 0.0002 02.58

31
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

Table 18: Average percentage weight loss of Shovel teeth specimen (S2) with coal and associated rocks for 2hr in abrasion
tester.

Size of Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after Wt. % Wt. % Avg. Wt.
S. No.
Sample chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss loss loss

Sandstone1. +30 to +50 95.5509 95.5494 0.0015 15.66

Sandstone2. +30 to +50 95.5494 95.5467 0.0027 26.82 29.36
Sandstone3. +30 to +50 95.5467 95.5428 0.0039 40.12
Sandstone4. +30 to +50 95.5428 95.5394 0.0034 34.85
Shale5. +30 to +50 95.5394 95.5384 0.0010 11.26
Shale6. +30 to +50 95.5384 95.5373 0.0011 12.50 11.78
Shale7. +30 to +50 95.5373 95.5361 0.0012 14.01
Shale8. +30 to +50 95.5361 95.5352 0.0009 09.36
Coal9. +30 to +50 95.5352 95.5346 0.0006 06.15
Coal10. +30 to +50 95.5346 95.5339 0.0007 07.72 05.96
Coal11. +30 to +50 95.5339 95.5335 0.0004 04.33
Coal12. +30 to +50 95.5335 95.5330 0.0005 05.67

Table 19: Average percentage weight loss of Shovel teeth specimen (S2) with coal and associated rocks for 3hr in abrasion
tester.

Size of Initial wt. of metal Wt. of chip after Wt. % Wt. % Avg. Wt.
S. No.
Sample chip (gms) abrasion (gms) loss loss loss
Sandstone1. +30 to +50 95.5330 95.5298 0.0032 33.45
Sandstone2. +30 to +50 95.5298 95.5272 0.0026 27.58 35.40
Sandstone3. +30 to +50 95.5272 95.5234 0.0038 37.92
Sandstone4. +30 to +50 95.5234 95.5193 0.0041 42.65
Shale5. +30 to +50 95.5193 95.5178 0.0015 15.48
Shale6. +30 to +50 95.5178 95.5166 0.0012 13.06 12.28
Shale7. +30 to +50 95.5166 95.5156 0.0010 11.25
Shale8. +30 to +50 95.5156 95.5147 0.0009 09.33
Coal9. +30 to +50 95.5147 95.5140 0.0007 07.45
Coal10. +30 to +50 95.5140 95.5134 0.0006 06.25 07.35
Coal11. +30 to +50 95.5134 95.5128 0.0006 06.26
Coal12. +30 to +50 95.5128 95.5120 0.0008 08.89

Table 20: Schmidt Hammer method for determination of compressive strength of rocks

S. Name of the Rebound no. (R) (Average Correspondence Compressive

No. specimen of 20 readings) strength in MPa
1. JyS.st1 22 16
2. JyS.st2 32 28
3. JyS.st3 42 48
4. JyS.sh1 21 15
5. JyS.sh2 24 19
6. JyS.sh3 29 26
7. Alm.st1 23 18
8. Alm.st2 28 24
9. Alm.st3 32 32
10. Alm.sh1 22 16
11. Alm.sh2 25 21
12. Alm.sh3 29 26

32
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

Table 21: Density measurements of given rock sample

Name of the Volume of the Density

S. No. Mass (gm) Length (cm) Radius (cm)
specimen core (cm3) (M/V)
1. JyS.st1 160 4 2.5 66.44 2.41
2. JyS.st2 865 20 2.5 382.03 2.27
3. JyS.st3 700 15 2.5 265.73 2.63
4. JyS.sh1 250 9 2.5 149.50 1.74
5. JyS.sh2 195 10 2.5 166.10 1.41
6. JyS.sh3 280 10 2.5 166.50 2.48
7. Alm.st1 330 8 2.5 132.90 2.51
8. Alm.st2 250 6 2.5 99.76 2.51
9. Alm.st3 145 4 2.5 66.44 2.18
10. Alm.sh1 115 3 2.5 49.83 1.31
11. Alm.sh2 220 11 2.5 155.56 1.66
12. Alm.sh3 260 13 2.5 168.52 1.75

Table 22: Determination of F-abrasivity factor

Correspondence
Name of the Rebound no. (R) F-abrasive factor
S. No. Compressive strength in
specimen (Average of 20 readings) (Q x size x strength)
MPa
1. JyS.st1 22 16 1.14
2. JyS.st2 32 28 0.77
3. JyS.st3 42 48 2.11
4. JyS.sh1 21 15 0.35
5. JyS.sh2 24 19 0.29
6. JyS.sh3 29 26 0.43
7. Alm.st1 23 18 0.88
8. Alm.st2 28 24 1.59
9. Alm.st3 32 32 1.29
10. Alm.sh1 22 16 0.37
11. Alm.sh2 25 21 0.64
12. Alm.sh3 29 26 0.49

Table 23: Petro graphical model analysis of different rock

(A)

Name of the specimen Quartz grain Feldspar grain Mica grain Others Total
JyS.st1 75 3 6 32 116
JyS.st2 96 12 11 NP 119
JyS.st3 461 23 87 2 573
Average 210.67 12.67 34.67 11.33 269.33
JyS.sh1 25 7 4 30 66
JyS.sh2 32 5 3 42 82
JyS.sh3 55 2 3 54 114
Average 37.33 4.67 3.33 42 87.33
Alm.st1 90 10 1 1 102
Alm.st2 106 12 2 NP 120
Alm.st3 95 12 NP 2 109
Average 97 11.33 1 1 110.33
Alm.sh1 35 5 8 41 89
Alm.sh2 44 2 NP 46 92
Alm.sh3 55 4 NP 52 111
Average 44.67 3.67 2.67 46.33 97.33

33
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

(B)

Name of the
% of Quartz % of Feldspar % of Mica Cement
specimen
JyS.st1 59.45 2.14 4.56 Ferruginous
JyS.st2 78.22 11.56 10.38 Ferruginous
JyS.st3 82.56 3.15 14.56 Ferruginous
Average 73.41 5.62 9.83
JyS.sh1 40.28 5.42 3.05 Carbonaceous
JyS.sh2 37.76 4.23 2.64 Carbonaceous
JyS.sh3 38.52 4.56 1.15 Carbonaceous
Average 38.85 4.74 2.28
Alm.st1 86.58 12.50 0.5 Siliceous
Alm.st2 89.46 10.64 0 Siliceous
Alm.st3 79.54 9.84 2.25 Siliceous
Average 85.19 10.99 0.92
Alm.sh1 45.59 6.26 1.86 Carbonaceous
Alm.sh2 48.66 9.86 0.0 Carbonaceous
Alm.sh3 50.25 10.11 0.0 Carbonaceous
Average 48.17 8.74 0.62

Table 24: Mineralogical composition of samples supplied

Aggregate Cement Others

Sample no. Project Quartz (%) Feldspar (%) Mica (%) Abrasiveness
colour Matrix (%) (%)
56.2 6.2 4.4 32.2 0.5
Sandstone Amlohri Dark brown 60.4 4.4 1.5 34.7 0.3 Considerable
62.5 5.4 1.8 31.3 2.7
Average 59.7 5.33 2.57 32.73 1.17
32.6 4.2 1.2 33.2 30.4
Dark
Shale Amlohri 34.8 4.8 0.5 34.6 27.5 Considerable
brownish-blue
35.6 5.2 0.3 32.8 28.4
Average 34.33 4.73 0.67 33.53 28.77
44.2 4.6 2.4 33.6 12.5
Considerably
Sandstone Jayant Brown 54.4 6.2 3.2 36.4 2.6
low
56.4 4.1 2.8 34.6 3.2
Average 51.67 4.97 2.8 34.87 6.1

27.6 4.4 4.2 32.5 33.2

Considerably
Shale Jayant Dark blue 25.4 4.1 3.2 34.2 31.8
low
26.2 3.4 1.2 38.5 31.4

Average 26.4 3.97 2.87 35.07 32.13

CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FIELD

From above lab experiment we conclude that
abrasiveness increases with increase in quartz
percentage.
The above result can be used to predict relative
wearing rate of different equipment that can be
used in a given mining condition.
Life of teeth of dragline and shovel depends on
various factors and mineral composition is the most
important factor.
From above experiment it is suggested that when
manufacturers launch any heavy mining equipment
in market apart from other properties mineral
composition also be kept in to considerations.
APPLICATION
From above experimental data it may be concluded that
waste rock of Amlohri show considerable abrasiveness
whereas Jayant doesnt show high degree of abrasiveness.
The reason lies in the amount of quartz or silica content of
the sample i.e. more is the quartz content more is the
abrasiveness of the rock sample. The rock type while
effecting the tooth life and consequently the stores cost of
the mine, it results into the long down times of production
equipment for change of shovel and dragline tooth. It is,
therefore, important that similar to Jayant and Amlohri,
investigations be carried out to determine the rock
abrasivity and norms for tooth life be fixed for each mine. It
will also be important to undertake studies for the design of

34
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2016 ISSN 2277-8616

shovel and dragline teeth keeping in view the abrasivity and [11] Matern, N. von, Hjelmer, A., 1943. Frsk med
hardness of coal and associated rocks in mines. pgrus (Tests with Chippings), Medelande nr. 65,
Statens vginstitut, Stockholm, 65pp. (English
REFERENCES summary, pp. 56-60)
[1] Bchi, E., Mathier, J.-F., &Wyss, ch.1995. Rock
Abrasivity a significant cost factor for mechanical [12] NTH, 1983. Hard Rock Tunnel Boring, Project
tunnelling in loose and hard rock. Tunnel, 5, 38-43 Report 1-83. Norwegian Institute of Technology,
. Div. of Construction Engineering, Trondheim, p. 94

[2] Hoek, E & Franklin J.A. 1968. A simple triaxial cell
for field and laboratory testing. Trans. Inst. Min.
Metal, 22-26. Plinninger, R.J., Ksling, H., Thuro,
K., Spaun, G.2003. Testing conditions and
geomechanical properties influencing the
CERCHAR abrasiveness index (CAI) value.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 40, 2: 259-263.
[3] West, G. 1989.Rock abrasiveness testing for
tunnelling. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 151-160.
[4] Al-Ameen and Waller, 1994 S.I. Al-Ameen and
M.D. Waller, The influence of rock strength and
abrasive mineral content on the Crechar Abrasive
Index, Eng. Geol. 36 (1994), pp. 293-301
[5] West G., (1989), Technical Note Rock
Abrasiveness Testing for Tunnelling, International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science,
Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 151-160.
[13] Rostami, J., Ozdemir, L., Bruland, A., Dahl, F.,
2005. Review of issues related to Cerchar
abrasivity testing and their implications on
geotechnical investigations and cutter cost
estimates. Proceedings of the RETC, 738-751
[14] Selmer-Olsen, R., Blindheim, O.T., 1970. On the
drillability of rock by percussive drilling. Proc. 2nd
Congress of ISRM, Belgrade.
[15] West, G., 1989. Rock abrasiveness testing for
tunnelling. International journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
26 (2), 151-160
[16] Yarali, O., Kahraman, S., 2011. The drillability
assessment of rocks using the different brittleness
values. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 26, 406-420.

[6] T.Atkinson, V.B. Cassapy and I. Singh,

Assessment of abrasive wear resistance potential
in rock excavation machinery, Int. J. Min. Geol.
Eng. 3 (1986), pp. 151-163

[7] H.J.R. Deketh, Wear of Rock Cutting Tools

laboratory Experiments on the Abrasivity of Rock,
AA Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands (1995) pp.
143-145

[8] R. Plinninger, H. Kasling, K. Thuro and G. Spaun,

Testing conditions and geomechanical properties
influencing the Crechar abrasiveness index (CAI)
value. Technical note, Int. Journal of Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 40 (2003), pp.259-263.

[9] Al-Ameen & Waller 1993. The influence of rock

strength and abrasive mineral content on the
Cerchar Abrasive Index. Engineering Geology 36:
293-301

[10] Michalakopoulos, T. N., Anagnostou, V.G.,

Bassanou, M. E. &Panagiotou, G. N. 2005 The
influence of steel styli hardness on the Crechar
abrasiveness index value. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min
Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 43: 321-327

35
IJSTR2016
www.ijstr.org