BHM Berg- und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte

, Volume 162, Issue 2, pp 58–66 | Cite as

The Importance of Research on Alternative and Hybrid Rock Extraction Methods

  • Nikolaus August SifferlingerEmail author
  • Philipp Hartlieb
  • Peter Moser
Open Access


Current methods of mechanical excavation of rock are limited in regard to the material which can be extracted economically. The use of roadheaders with pick tools has the advantage of high flexibility in form of turn off radii down to 1 m but is limited by rock strength to figures below 150 MPa UCS.

While mechanical rock excavation machines with disc cutters can handle rock strengths above 150 MPa, they are limited to turn off radii >12 m. This issue is discussed in detail and shown in this paper.

Therefore there is presently a significant “Gap” for a method (other than drill & blast) of rock extraction for turn off radii below 12 m and rock strengths above 150 MPa UCS.

This gives the motivation of R&D into alternative extraction methods which could lead to new combined methods covering this “Gap”.


Mechanical rock extraction Continuous mining Hard rock Alternative extraction methods Roadheader 

Die Notwendigkeit, auch im Bereich der alternativen und hybriden Gesteinslöseverfahren zu forschen


Für die derzeit verfügbaren Methoden des mechanischen Lösens von Gestein gibt es in Bezug auf den ökonomischen Einsatz erhebliche Einschränkungen. Teilschnittmaschinen mit einem Schneidkopf mit Meißelbestückung sind sehr flexibel in Bezug auf den Abzweigradius, allerdings ist nach derzeitiger Entwicklung bei einer Gesteinsfestigkeit von rund 150 MPa UCS die Grenze des wirtschaftlich sinnvollen Einsatzes erreicht.

Maschinen mit Schneiddisken können zwar viel höhere Gesteinsfestigkeiten lösen, die Flexibilität in Bezug auf den Abzweigradius ist jedoch auch bei den neuesten Entwicklungen auf >12 m beschränkt. Der Stand der Technik wird ausführlich dargestellt und diskutiert.

Daher besteht derzeit eine „Lücke“ für eine Methode des kontinuierlichen Gesteinslösens (zusätzlich zum Sprengbetrieb) für Abzweigradien kleiner 12 m und in Gesteinsfestigkeiten über 150 MPa UCS.


Mechanisches Gesteinslösen Kontinuierlicher Vortrieb Hartgestein Alternative Lösemethoden Teilschnittmaschine 

1 Introduction/Problem Statement

Current methods of mechanical excavation are limited by the rock strength and abrasivity on the one hand and by the machine size and capability of the tools on the other side.

Although blasting operation is the most economic for mass mining in the cyclic entry development in increasing depths in underground mines, it has severe disadvantages. Some of these are safety during blasting, need for time to ventilate the blast fumes, safety of storage, transport and handling of explosives, possible damage to entry profile; over-break and profile.

Beside research into improved drill & blast equipment and operation (e.g. mechanization and automation of the process [1]) there is a trend to search for continuous rock extraction methods like mechanical cutting.

There is a need for
  • Fast excavation of hard rock (UCS range from 150 to 300 MPa)

  • Flexible excavation

  • Low energy consumption

  • Little environmental impact

  • Increased safety

  • Economic rock extraction.

When it comes to flexible advance also regarding the radius of the entry development for mechanical cutting, only the roadheader concept is flexible enough to cut turnoffs etc.

But the cutting tools of the roadheader have their limits concerning rock strength and abrasivity.

Despite in-depth research by several companies, like Element 6, Kennametal or Sandvik, in the last two decades the limit of usage has only been shifted higher very slightly. Presently it cannot be predicted if and when new materials like diamond composites will lead to a break-through with this type of tools.

Figure 1 gives a rough, simplified overview of the situation in 2016, comparing mechanical cutting systems in regard to the rock strength and the flexibility in proportion to turn off radii. It must be kept in mind that not all that is presently being developed by the OEMs of mining equipment is public and one can only hope for good results in R&D.
Figure 1

Mechanical cutting – need to close the present Gap in the area of high rock strength and high flexibility in regard to small radius (Moser/Hartlieb/Sifferlinger)

As there is a significant “Gap” for rock extraction in rock strength UCS higher than 150 MPa and flexibility in turn off radius <12 m, this is an important area for R&D at Montanuniversitaet Leoben and its partners.

The various existing methods shown in Fig. 1 are discussed in the following parts.

2 Roadheader

A roadheader is an excavation machine, mounted on tracks for mobility, with a boom mounted cutter head, a loading device which feeds into a conveyor. Today the cutter head for rock applications is fitted with pick tools. The lifetime of the present pick tools in higher rock strength and abrasivity is the major limiting factor for roadheader use in hard rock [2] – see Fig. 2.
Figure 2

Range of UCS and CAI of natural rocks and the areas of economic cuttability with pick tools of a roadheader as with tools available in the year 2016

But also the geometric configuration and the machine weight are of important influence [3] as shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 3

Relation of roadheader weight against maximum operation area in regard to rock UCS as stated by the manufacturers in 2015 (Sifferlinger)

It is also essential to know that the cutting performance in m³/h is sinking with increasing UCS and abrasivity.

A roadheader can cut a 90° turnoff in entry development as long as the entry width is broad enough to allow the roadheader to manoeuvre (typically 6 to 8 m). For this reason the roadheader can swivel its cutter boom and rear conveyor in order to get around the corner.

3 Tool Development for Roadheaders

Cemented tungsten carbide pick tools have reached a certain limit regarding the rock properties they can cut economically as shown in Fig. 2. In the last 15 years R&D in this type of tools has only yielded improvements in the range of a few percents.

Figure 4 shows the present classification for cemented carbide tools by Sandvik, who is one of the leading companies for this type of tools.
Figure 4

Hardness and abrasivity classification of rock for tool by Sandvik [4] (Source: Sandvik) [4]

Therefore research into cutting tools using synthetic diamond based materials has been intensified in the last decade. Element 6 is leading the research in this area and offers long lasting tools with polycrystalline diamond tips (PCD) for use in coal mining (cf. Fig. 5).
Figure 5

Application area of cutting pick tools for rock in mining and tunnelling according to Element 6 [5] (Source: Element 6) [5]

During cutting tests PCD tools have performed well under stable cutting conditions for UCS up to 220 MPa, but as soon as there occurred irregularities in the guidance of the PCD tool they tended to disintegrate abruptly. It seems that they are not stable against pull or impact forces.

As on the other side PCD tools produce less dust and do not generate sparks in the UCS range <120 MPa, they fit perfectly for coal mining with touching the side stones sometimes for short periods.

But for hard rock with UCS >160 MPa the PCD pick tools need more R&D and it cannot be predicted if a breakthrough can be achieved in the near future.

Consequently, the performance of roadheaders in hard rock is limited by the available tools.

4 Tunnel Boring Machines (TBM)

Tunnel boring machines with a circular full-cut cutter head equipped with disc cutters can cut rock up to 300 MPa [6].

In order to achieve the necessary advance in the rock, disc cutters of tunnel boring machines need a force of up to 32 t per cutting tool [7, 8].

Therefore tunnel boring machines need to be able to apply high thrusting forces which they do with grippers against the rock walls. Levant Ozdemir et al. [9] looked into the application of tunnel boring machines in underground mine development. Looking at Figure 6, which gives the data of the TBMs used at San Manuel Mine of Magma Copper Company in Arizona and at Stillwater Mine in Montana show that flexibility is not the strong side of these machines.
Figure 6

TBM Examples in mining use (Source: L. Ozdemir et al)

5 New Types of Hardrock Mining Machines

5.1 Aker Wirth

Aker Wirth developed the Mobile Tunnel Miner with disc undercutting technology and first did a short test operation in Canadian copper/nickel mining in 1993. Revived with new technology, a new Mobile Tunnel Miner was constructed for Rio Tinto and commenced underground trials at Northparkes copper/gold mine in Australia in April 2013. The tests were stopped when the mine was sold and no test results have been available so far [10], (Fig. 78).
Figure 7

Aker Wirth MTM4 (Source: Aker Wirth)

Figure 8

Aker Wirth MTM4 and MTM6 main data (Source: Aker Wirth)

The Mobile Tunnel Miner is designed for rock UCS from 50 to 260 MPa and the MTM 4 model has a 12 m turning radius. The planned advance rate in development is up to 12 m per day.

In February 2013 it was announced that a Mobile Tunnel Miner was intended for a test operation in 2014 at Chuquicamata mine in Chile [11]. This test operation was never accomplished due to the changes at Aker Wirth.

5.2 Atlas Copco

Atlas Copco developed the Mobile Miner, based on the concept of the Robbins Mobile Miner, tested at Broken Hill Mine in the 1990s. The new prototype was constructed for Rio Tinto in USA, but the test operation was cancelled because of the global crisis in commodity prices. Now it is scheduled to go to Anglo America as Rapid Mine Development System in the Twickenham Platinum Mine in South Africa [12]. The tests commenced at the end of 2016, yielding promising results (Fig. 910).
Figure 9

The Atlas Copco Mobile Miner as built for Rio Tinto (Source: Atlas Copco)

Figure 10

Technical Data of Atlas Copco Mobile Miner in 2015 (Source: Atlas Copco)

So the Atlas Copco Mobile Miner as built today has a turning radius of 65 m, and practical operation will show the upper economical limit in regard to cuttable rock strength. A big advantage is that the results of the Robins Mobile Miner operation in Broken Hill in the 1990s were taken into consideration.

5.3 Caterpillar

Caterpillar developed the Caterpillar Rock Straight System, which is a longwall mining system for reef mining [13], (Fig. 11). It is also understood that a similar cutting system for use on a roadheader is under development, but no official data available so far.
Figure 11

Caterpillar Rock Straight System (Source: Caterpillar)

The Rock Straight System is designed for reef mining in abrasive material and is therefore not suitable for the development of roadways. From the cutter head design it will be interesting to see the size of the cut material and the tear and wear for rock with UCS >150 MPa.

5.4 Joy Mining

Joy Mining and CRC Mining have been working together since 2006 with the oscillating disc cutter called DynaCut™ and have also done tests with 80 MPa waterjets to support the cutting process [14], (Fig. 12). The Joy Global DynaCut machine is scheduled to go for a test site in 2016 [15].
Figure 12

Joy Global DynaCut machine with 80 MPa water jet assisted oscillating cutter disc (Source: CRC Mining)

The roadheader concept gives this system a high flexibility. But the application of a single oscillating cutting disc raises questions regarding the amount of extracted material per hour. In road development the question how to achieve the undercut free space to start is not solved. It will be interesting to see the results of the planned tests in this regard.

5.5 Sandvik

The Cutting Technology for rock at the location Zeltweg in Austria looks back on a long history. In the late 1950s the Wohlmeyer undercutting machine was developed and brought into operation there [16], (Fig. 1314).
Figure 13

Excerpt from US Patent US 2,758,825 from 14 August 1956 showing the undercutting principle by Dipl.-Ing. Josef Wohlmeyer. The machine was built by Alpine Montan in Zeltweg

Figure 14

Alpine Wohlmeyer undercutting machine for road development at Karlschacht Coal Mine in Koeflach/Austria in 1958 (Source: MUL/Fettweis)

Around 2004, Sandvik Mining and Construction developed the Reef Miner ARM 1100, which was operationally tested in the abrasive platinum reef in South Africa and in copper mining in Poland. In the beginning, the lifetime of the cutter discs was a limiting factor. ARM1100 is designed for following the reef, so the flexibility is low and the cutting discs are built to withstand a high abrasivity and rock strength >200 MPa.

For Rapid Mine Development the Sandvik MX650 with roller disc undercutting technology is built and scheduled to be tested at the tungsten mine in Mittersill in 2017. The machine seems to be stabilized by grippers to handle the cutting reaction forces. The minimum turn off radius for this system is expected to be 12 m and rock strength up to 250 MPa is in the focus (Fig. 15).
Figure 15

Sandvik MX650 Rapid Mine Development System as published in 2016 (Source: Sandvik Mining)

6 Alternative Methods of Rock Extraction

So closing this present “Gap” above 150 MPa rock strength and entry development radii <12 m is not possible with a “simple” improvement of the tools in operation.

There is research necessary in alternative and hybrid methods which will be able to (pre-) damage the rock in a way that makes classical mechanical excavation more feasible in the problem fields described above.
Figure 16

Rock extraction methods with major alternative methods (MUL)

Beside R&D aiming at “mechanizing and automation” of drill&blast to make it more flexible and “micro blasting” methods using LOX (liquid oxygen), new combined methods as listed in Fig. 16 are under development.

The rock mass rating (RMR) is a tool for quantifying the properties of the rock mass like uniaxial compressive strength, number of joints, condition of joint faces and some more. Figure 17 shows how a reduction of RMR will lead to an increase of performance parameters indicated by higher net cutting rate (NCR) and lower specific pick consumption (SPC).
Figure 17

Influence of rock mass characteristics (defined by RMR) on net cutting rate (NCR) and specific pick consumption (SPC), (Source: Restner and Gehring 2002)

The goal of alternative and hybrid combinations of alternative and classical rock extraction methods is therefore to artificially alter the RMR in a favourable way. This can be done by introducing artificial crack networks, generating slots/free surfaces or applying additional stresses on the rock surface by means of microwave irradiation, microblasting with LOX, activated cutting tools, high pressure water jets or Lasers.


Open access funding provided by Montanuniversität Leoben.


  1. 1.
    Nordic Rock Tech Centre Project: Safer Charging of Bulk Explosives in Entry development, 2015, (3.9.2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Restner, U.; Plinninger, R. J.: Rock Mechanical Aspects of Roadheader Excavation, EUROCK 15, 64th Geomechanical Colloquium, Salzburg 2015Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Girmscheid, G.: Baubetrieb und Bauverfahren im Tunnelbau, Table 7.9-1, Klassifizierung der TSM, 3. Auflage, Ernst & Sohn, 2013Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Maid, l. B.; Schmid, L.; Ritz, W.; Herrenknecht, M.: Hardrock Tunnel Boring Machines, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bilgin, N.; Copur, H.; Balci, C.: Mechanical Excavation in Mining and Civil Industries, Boca Raton, Florida: Taylor&Francis, 2014Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Cigla, M.; Yagiz, S.; Ozdemir L.: Application of Tunnel Boring Machines in Underground Mine Development, (25.12.2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Williams, L.: Aker Wirth’s MTM under way at Rio’s Northparkes copper/gold mine, under-way-at-rios-northparkes-coppergold-mine/ (2.9. 2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aker Wirth Designing Mobile Tunnel Miner for Chilean Copper Mine, mine (2.9.2016)
  12. 12.
    Ramström, M.: A Mining industry game changer, Atlas Copco News, 25 May 2016, (25.12.2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Leonida, C.: Making hard-rock history, Mining Magazine July/August 2016, p. 52-61Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wohlmeyer, J.: Machine for Boring Galleries, Tunnels, Channels and the Like by Cutting Action, US Patent US 2,758,825, Aug.14, 1956Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolaus August Sifferlinger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philipp Hartlieb
    • 1
  • Peter Moser
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Mining Engineering and Mineral EconomicsMontanuniversitaet LeobenLeobenAustria

Personalised recommendations