R. Plinninger & U.

Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis?

- A Commented Overview
of Abrasivity Testing Methods

Ralf J. Plinninger & Uwe Restner

Kurzfassung: Der stetig zunehmende wirtschaftliche Druck auf Tunnelbau und Rohstoffgewinnung fhrt zu einer steigenden Bedeutung von Untersuchungsverfahren zur Bewertung der Abrasivitt von Fest- und Lockergesteinen. Derartige Untersuchungen knnen mit einer Vielzahl
von Verfahren durchgefhrt werden, die von vor-Ort-1:1-Untersuchungen ber Modellversuche
mit vereinfachten Werkzeugen bis hin zu mikroskopischen oder chemischen Untersuchungen
eine weite Bandbreite an Untersuchungsmastben einschlieen. Der vorliegende Beitrag gibt
einen berblick ber die derzeit wesentlichsten Untersuchungsverfahren, versuchstechnische
Aspekte ihrer Anwendung, angewandte Klassifizierungsschlssel sowie Einsatzerfahrungen.
Abstract: The growing economic pressure on tunnelling and mining operations worldwide has
lead to an increasing importance of investigation methods for assessing the abrasivity of rock
and soil. Such investigations can be based on a wide variety of testing procedures and standards covering a wide span of scale, ranging from on-site real-scale drilling tests to model tests
with simplified tools and microscopic and chemical analysis of rocks and minerals. This paper
gives an overview over some of the most important procedures, technical aspects of their use,
classification of testing results and the current state of experience.
Keywords: Wear Prediction, Rock Abrasivity, Testing Methods, Laboratory Investigations, CAI,
ABR, LCPC, RAI.
1

Introduction

The growing economic pressure on tunnelling and mining operations worldwide has in the past
decades lead to a increasing importance of prediction models for tool wear and investigation
methods for assessing the abrasivity of rock and soil. In the preliminary phase of an underground project such values are of crucial importance for the choice of an economic excavation
method and wear-related cost estimations. During operation these are basic input parameters
for adjusting tools and machinery as well as for judging contractual aspects of the works.
This paper is intended to give an overview of some of the most important recent procedures,
technical aspects of their use, classification of testing results and the current state of experience.
2

Scales of Abrasivity Investigation

The term abrasivity describes the potential of a rock or soil to cause wear on a tool. As this
potential depends significantly on the specific circumstances of the observed system (e.g. involved tools, mechanisms of excavation, temperature, applied loads, etc.) it should be kept in
mind that rock abrasivity can never be an intrinsic physical parameter.

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

The investigation of abrasivity can be based on a wide variety of testing procedures and standards [6]. For the estimation and discussion of investigation methods it is important to understand
that procedures cover a wide span of scale, ranging from on-site real-scale drilling tests to model tests with simplified tools and microscopic and chemical analysis of rocks and minerals (Figure 1). Depending on its individual scale and testing setup, each method is able to take different
factors into account while disregarding others.

Figure 1: Scales of abrasivity investigation, shown for the example of roadheader operation.

Real-scale Abrasivity Investigations

Real-scale abrasivity investigations feature the original tool and machinery layout of the chosen
excavation method. Such investigations can by subdivided into in-situ testing (for example in
pre-cuts or exploratory galleries) and large-scale testing (on large samples). Depending on the
size and how representative the testing area or sample is, such testing represents a simple
method to obtain reliable data for tool wear and excavation performance since all influencing
factors are taken into account.

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

3.1

Technical Aspects of Real-scale Investigations

In order to achieve a high level of accuracy, wear and performance documentation as well as
rock mechanical testing and geotechnical documentation should follow a scheduled procedure
from the beginning of the works and should be performed regularly. Reporting of results should
give a detailed description of employed tools and machinery and encountered geological circumstances, including relevant rock and rock mass parameters. The report should then conclude on the calculation and classification of encountered gross tool wear rates and description
as well as statistical analysis of tool wear forms.
Examples and suggestions on this topics are presented in [23] as well as in Plinningers paper
on abrasivity assessment for drilling tools in this magazines issue.
3.2

Classification of Testing Results

A descriptive classification of rock abrasivity based on the encountered tool wear rates of drill
bits, point attack picks and TBM cutter discs based on the typically used terms is available in
Table 1.
Table 1: Classification of Rock Abrasivity and Tool lifetime for Drill Bits, Point Attack Picks and TBM cutter
discs (according to [23])

Abrasivity
very low
low
moderate
high
very high
extremely high
3.3

Drill Bits
(ref: 45 mm)
Drill bit lifetime
[drilled m/bit]
> 2000
1500 - 2000
1000 - 1500
500 - 1000
200 - 500
< 200

Point Attack Picks

Specific pick consumption [picks/m]
< 0,01
0.01 - 0.05
0.05 - 0.15
0.15 - 0.30
0.3 - 0.5
> 0.5

TBM cutter discs

(ref: 17)
cutter disc lifetime
[km/disc]
> 2000
1500 - 2000
1000 - 1500
500 - 1000
200 - 500
< 200

Correlations and Experiences

Test excavations performed solely for investigational reasons are rather expensive with respect
to personnel and material costs and so such cutting or drilling tests are carried out very rarely.
In contrast to this, preliminary works like exploratory galleries or pre-cuts are available quite
often and these measures should be used as a valuable source of information for performance
and tool wear of the methods used. There are some recent papers giving examples for the
presentation and interpretation of case studies for TBM [22] and roadheader excavation [17],
[19].
4

Model Tests Using Original Tools

Model tests using original tools (drill bits, picks or cutter discs) represent testing layouts that
have in the past provided basic knowledge about the rock fragmentation process and the interaction between rock and tool. Such testing devices are well suited to investigate the influence of
single tool and machinery parameters or rock parameters since nearly all influencing factors can
be accurately defined under laboratory conditions (Figure 2).

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

Figure 2: Overview (left) and detail (right) from SMCs cutting frame using original point attack picks.

4.1

Technical Aspects of Model Tests Using Original Tools

At present, each testing device in this category is unique and construction as well as operation
of these devices is rather expensive. Currently only a few research institutes and machine manufacturers are able to use such model tests for abrasivity and performance assessment. Since
such tests represent no standard procedures, suggestions on technical aspects cannot be
made here.
4.2

Classification of Testing Results

Unlike in-situ testing, laboratory tests with limited rock volume allow and require measurements
of material loss in terms of dimension or weight. Such net wear rates (expressed e.g. as loss in
weight per excavated volume of rock e.g. [g/m]) may then be used as input data for estimations
on gross tool wear (normally expressed as tool lifetime per excavated length or volume of rock,
e.g. [picks/m]. Consequently the same classifications apply as given for in-situ and large-scale
investigations as given in Table 1.
5

The CERCHAR Abrasiveness Index (CAI; Model Test)

The CERCHAR scratch test represents a model test with a simplified tool. The testing principle
was invented in France in the 1980s and is based on a steel pin with defined geometry and
quality that is scratched over 10 mm of a rough rock sample under a static load of 70 N (Figure
3). The CAI is then calculated from a number of single tests and with regard to the measured
diameter of the resulting wear flat on the testing needle.

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

Figure 3: Testing layouts for the Cerchar Test: Original CERCHAR apparatus (left) and modified West
apparatus (right).

The extended use of this test by various manufacturers, research institutes and consultants in
the field of rock excavation has led to the CAI being one the few standard parameters for assessing hardrock abrasivity. The CAI is for this purpose also referred to as the 2001 GG recommendations for the geomechanical design of underground structures with conventional
methods [13].
5.1

Technical Aspects of CERCHAR Testing

An internal 1986 CERCHAR testing recommendation [4] and a French AFNOR standard from
the year 2000 [1] are available for testing. Nevertheless a number of investigations on technical
and geotechnical influences on the testing result [10], [15] have shown that some varying technical features (mainly pin quality / steel hardness, testing frame stiffness, testing velocity and
number of tests) play an important role for the testing result. The current state of knowledge is
summarised in this magazines issue by Ksling & Thuro.
The German DGGT working group on rock mechanical investigations (AK 3.3) is currently preparing a national testing recommendation for the CERCHAR test in order to improve CERCHAR
testing and to assure comparable testing results.
5.2

Classification of the CERCHAR Abrasiveness Index

Two classifications for the CERCHAR Abrasiveness Index (CAI) are used widely: The original
classification by CERCHAR, 1986 [4] and an improved scheme developed at Sandvic Mining
and Construction [18]. Both classifications are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 2: CERCHARs Classification of Rock Abrasivity from CAI [4].

CAI [ ]

Classification

0.3 - 0.5

not very abrasive

0.5 - 1.0

slightly abrasive

1.0 - 2.0

medium abrasiveness

2.0 - 4.0

very abrasive

4.0 - 6.0

extremely abrasive

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

Table 3: SMCs Classification of Rock Abrasivity from CAI [18].

5.3

CAI [ ]

Classification

< 0.5

not abrasive

0.5 - 1.0

little abrasive

1.0 - 1.3

moderately abrasive

1.3 - 1.8

considerably abrasive

1.8 - 2.3

abrasive

2.3 - 3.0

very abrasive

3.0 - 4.5

highly abrasive

> 4.5

extremely abrasive

Correlations and Experiences

The simplicity of the testing principle and its ability to use relatively small rock specimens (some
cm in diameter) are the main reasons why the CERCHAR Test is used worldwide use in the
field of tunnelling and rock engineering. Given that even on-site testing is possible, the CAI is an
index which is relatively cheap and quickly available in hardrock conditions. Figure 4 shows typical CAI values for different rock types.

Figure 4: Typical CAI values for different rock types (compiled from [3], [14] and own data).

To date there are some problems in correlating CAI values gained from different laboratories
with different testing equipment, which is primarily related to the mentioned technical aspects
influencing CERCHAR testing. With more precise testing standards these problems should be
overcome in the next few years.
With a long history of application there are many experiences and correlations available to
compare the testing results of the CERCHAR test with other wear-relevant indices and parameters. Figure 5 and 6 show the empirical correlations of CAI with the RAI wear index and the ABR
index value derived from the LCPC model test.

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

Figure 5: Empirical correlation between CAI

and RAI (acc to. [16]).

Figure 6: Empirical correlation between CAI and ABR

(acc. to [3]).

Additionally, empirical correlations exist for estimations on tool wear rates from a given CAI
e.g. for drill bits (see paper by Plinninger in this issue), point attack picks (see Figure 7) and
cutter discs (e.g. [9]). The CAI is also referred to by more sophisticated formulas for performance and wear prediction such as for example Gehrings system for TBM wear and penetration system [8].

Figure 7: Example for a detailed correlation between CAI, UCS and specific point attack pick wear for
22mm picks based on empirical data sets.

Nevertheless one should keep in mind that the scale of CERCHAR testing allows only the investigation of basic rock and mineral influences and neglects any influences on tool wear coming
from larger scale rock mass parameters (e.g. jointing, stress conditions, etc.). It is in this context
an interesting recent finding that the CAI increases significantly with an increasing confining
pressure applied on the rock sample [20] which is mostly similar to stress effects stated for
real scale tool wear [14].
6

LCPC Abroy Test (ABR; Model Test)

The LCPC Abroy test was developed in France in the 1970s in order to investigate and classify abrasivity related to rock crusher application. In this model mill test, the weight loss of a
steel plate with defined geometry and hardness is measured which rotates at 4500 rpm for 5
minutes in a rock sample of 500 g (Figure 8). The ABR value is than calculated from the weight

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

loss of the plate. Since the sample consists of particles of a defined (relatively small) grain size
(4 6.3 mm) it is applicable to any hardrock and soil where such fine gravel may be produced
by crushing and/or separating (sieving).

Figure 8: Testing layout for LCPC Abroy test (acc. to MLPC brochure)

6.1

Technical Aspects of LCPC Testing

Since 1990 a French AFNOR standard [2] is available for testing. If the test is carried out in accordance to this standard, comparable testing results should be achieved.
6.2

Classification of Testing Results

Two classifications for the LCPC Abrasiveness Index (ABR) are available at present. The original classification presented also in AFNOR P18-579 ([2], [3]) and an improved scheme developed at TU Munich and published in 2006 [24]. Both classifications are presented in Table 4
and 5.
Table 4: LCPCs Classification of Rock Abrasivity from ABR [2].

ABR [g/t]

Classification

< 500

very low abrasiveness

500 - 1000

low abrasiveness

1000 - 1500

medium abrasiveness

1500 - 2000

high abrasiveness

> 2000

very high abrasiveness

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

Table 5: TUMs Classification of Rock Abrasivity from ABR [24].

6.3

ABR [g/t]

Classification

0 - 50

not abrasive

50 - 100

slightly abrasive

100 - 250

low abrasiveness

250 - 500

abrasive

500 - 1250

very abrasive

1250 - 2000

extremely abrasive

Correlations and Experiences

For application in hardrock some authors [7], [14] criticise the testing principle as not useful at
all for assign tool wear in excavation, mainly because some of the most important rock features
are destroyed during sample preparation and therefore neglected in the determination of the
ABR abrasivity index. Currently, for hardrock drilling or cutting no correlations for tool wear rate
estimation are available.
For application in soils and very weak rock, the testing principle has in the last decade seen
increased use. Nevertheless it should be kept in mind that in the course of sample preparation
some of the most relevant soil parameters are changed significantly or even discarded completely (Table 6).
Table 6: Relevant soil parameters influencing tool wear and excavation performance and their impact on
the ABR.

Relevant soil parameters

hardness and abrasiveness of grains and
absolute grain sizes and
grain size distribution

Parameter
impact

description

considered
mostly neglected

grain shape / rounding

mostly neglected

soil cohesion & friction

angle

mostly neglected

binder materials (e.g.

ferritic, carbonatic binder)

neglected

natural soil density

neglected

stickiness (adhesion potential)

neglected

natural water content

mostly neglected

material < 4 mm is discarded, material > 6.3

mm is crushed to 4-6.3 mm
only fine gravel particles (4-6.3 mm) are testes
in their original grain shape, courser material is
crushed and is tested in angular shape
changed significantly since fines are discarded
and original grain shape and grain size distribution is destroyed during sampling preparation
if abundant, most of binding is destroyed during sampling and sample preparation
changed significantly during sampling and
sample preparation
adhesion potential cannot be identified, since
any fines are discarded
changed significantly during sampling and
sample preparation

As another major geological influence on the ABR value one has to remind that in natural sediments petrographical and grain shape features may vary with grain sizes. This fact is suggested
to be the main reason for the effect that samples prepared from different grain size spectrums
often show significantly differing ABR values (e.g. [24]).

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

7

The NTNU System: AV, AVS and SAT Model Tests

NTNU Trondheims AV (Abrasion Value), AVS (Abrasion Value Steel) and SAT (Soil Abrasion)
tests are part an investigation approach, based on more sophisticated simplified model tests for
performance and wear estimation of several rock excavation methods, including drilling, hardrock TBM and shield excavation. The tests are used in combination with two more model tests
(Brittleness Test and Sievers-J miniature drilling test). AV, AVS and SAT tests are very similar testing layouts, based on a rotating steel disc carrying the sample material that is either
crushed or sieved to particles < 1 mm (Figure 9) and abrading a model tool from tungsten carbide (AV) or steel (AVS, SAT) under defined circumstances like applied load, duration and rotational speed ([11], [12]).

Figure 9: Testing layout for the AV, AVS and SAT tests (according to [11])

7.1

Technical Aspects of Testing

These tests are mainly used by SINTEF, Norway and problems with comparability of testing
results have not been reported.
7.2

Correlations and Experiences

Since introduction in the 1960s there are a number of experiences on testing results and correlations to actual excavation performance and tool wear available and NTNU has published a
series of books on this data and estimation procedures including a catalogue of drillability indices and a number of project reports on estimations e.g. for tunnelling, bench drilling, etc. (see
[11], [12] for further references).
7.3

Other Model Tests

An overview of all model tests with simplified tools invented and used in the field of geomechanics and tunnelling would by far exceed this paper. Testing layouts like the Los Angeles Test,
Ball Mill Test, Dorry Abrasion Test and Miller Slurry Test are just a few more approaches used
in this field. Nevertheless recent papers show that the development of new testing layouts has
not ever come to an end. It will be one task of the near future to prove the reliability and correlation of these tests in field investigations and case studies.

10

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

8

Geotechnical Indices

In contrast to model tests, geotechnical indices use a different approach for abrasivity assessment. Instead of testing specific (simplified) wear systems, they relate to standard intrinsic rock
(and soil) parameters. The difference in these indices is the choice of different input parameters
and their different weight in the calculation formulas. Some of the geotechnical wear indices
most often applied are:

Geochemical parameters like SiO2 and Al2O3 content

Abrasive Mineral Content (AMC), Vickers Hardness Number of the Rock (VHNR) and
Equivalent Quartz Content (EQC)

Schimazeks wear index [21] and the modified Schimazek index presented by Ewendt
[7]

the Rock Abrasivity Index (RAI), presented in detail in the following chapters

Some of these factors are not only used as a stand-alone parameter for correlation of tool wear
but included in more sophisticated prediction formulas such as for example Dekeths Specific
Wear Equation (SPW; [5]).
8.1

The Rock Abrasivity Index (RAI)

The Rock Abrasivity Index, RAI is a geotechnical wear index applicable to hardrock. The RAI
tool wear assessment procedure suggests an investigation program taking into account the hole
range of scale from rock mass to mineral scale. It is based on easy-to-obtain, conventional rock
and rock mass parameters which in most cases are already available from standard stability
assessment of the underground opening [14].
Based on the "mineral scale" and "rock scale" investigations, the RAI is calculated for relevant
rock types by multiplying the rocks Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) and Equivalent
Quartz Content (EQC).
8.2

Technical Aspects of Determining the RAI

The use of UCS and EQC as the very basic input parameter is one of the main reasons, why
the RAI has found a relatively fast and broad application since its introduction in 2002. Since
these standard geotechnical parameters are the subject of various testing standards and recommendations as well as technical influences on both parameters are well known, this also assures a worldwide reliability for the index.

11

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

8.3

RAI Classification

A classification for rock abrasivity is available from [14] and presented in Table 7.
Table 7: Classification of Rock Abrasivity from RAI [14].

8.4

RAI [ ]

Classification

< 10

not abrasive

10 - 30

slightly abrasive

30 - 60

abrasive

60 - 120

very abrasive

> 120

extremely abrasive

Correlations and Experiences

The RAI has to date shown good results for the estimation of button bit wear, which is presented in this magazines issue in the paper by Plinninger. A correlation between RAI and CAI is
given in Figure 5 and typically achieved RAI values for different rock types are presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Typical RAI values for different rock types.

Conclusions

The presented overview shows that there is a vast amount of testing approaches available for
the investigation of rock and soil abrasivity. Judging from the total number of tests available,
model tests with simplified tools prevail and there are even new testing principles being developed in order to allow abrasivity assessment from a - possibly fast and cheap to obtain - index
value. Nevertheless quite a number of researchers who have undertaken case studies on tool
wear (e.g. [5], [7], [14]) have found that it is not as easy as hoped to transfer the abrasivity values determined in a model system to real rock excavation.
Geotechnical wear parameters, based on simple rock and soil parameters represent a very
common approach of engineering geologist to geotechnical questions. Some of the presented
wear indices are in use for at least 50 years or more and their reliability is based upon the fact

12

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

that the testing procedures required for their determination are standard tests available
throughout the world in a mostly similar form. As standard parameters they also allow what a
special test does not allow: The use of empirical estimations where no measurements are available and empirical judgement on how representative a chosen value is.
This papers title begins with a somewhat provocative question: Abrasivity testing quo vadis?
From the authors point of view, abrasivity testing has since the 1970s focused merely on sometimes sophisticated model testing setups. In order to understand the abrasiveness of a rock,
rock mass or soil in its complete geological complexity, going forward the focus should be on
representative real-scale investigations and case studies on the one hand and the acquisition of
relevant standard rock, rock mass and soil parameters on the other.
10 References
[1]

AFNOR: NF P 94-430-1: Roches Dtermination du pouvoir abrasive d'une roche Partie 1:

Essai de rayure avec une pointe, October 2000.

[2]

AFNOR: P18-579: Granulats - Essai dabrasivit et de broyabilit, Dcembre 1990.

[3]

Bchi, E., Mathier, J.-F. & Wyss, Ch.: Gesteinsabrasivitt - ein bedeutender Kostenfaktor
beim mechanischen Abbau von Fest- und Lockergestein. Tunnel: p. 38-43, 1995.

[4]

CERCHAR - Centre d Etudes et Recherches de Charbonnages de France: The CERCHAR Abrasiveness Index, Verneuil: 1986.

[5]

Deketh, H.J.R.: Wear of rock cutting tools - Laboratory experiments on the abrasivity of
rock, Rotterdam, Brookfield: Balkema, 1995.

[6]

DIN (Deutsches Institut fr Normung e.V.): DIN 50320 - Verschlei. Begriffe, Systemanalyse von Verschleivorgngen, Gliederung des Verschleigebietes, Berlin: Beuth, 1979.

[7]

Ewendt, G.: Erfassung der Gesteinsabrasivitt und Prognose des Werkzeugverschleies

beim maschinellen Tunnelvortrieb mit Diskenmeieln, Bochumer geol. u. geot. Arbeiten,
33, Bochum, 1989.

[8]

Gehring, K.: Leistungs- und Verschleiprognosen im maschinellen Tunnelbau; Felsbau

13, 6: p. 439-448, Essen: Glckauf, 1995.

[9]

Maidl, B., Schmid, L., Ritz, W. & Herrenknecht, M.: Tunnelbohrmaschinen im Hartgestein,
Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 2001.

[10] Michalakopoulos, T.N., Anagnostou, V.G., Bassanou, M.E. & Panagiotou, G.N.: Technical
note: The influence of steel styli hardness on the Cerchar abrasiveness index value, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 43: p. 321-327, 2006.
[11] Nilsen, B., Dahl, F., Holzhuser, J. & Raleigh, P.: Abrasivity testing for rock and soils,
Tunnels and Tunnelling International Magazine, 38, 4: p. 47-49, 2006.
[12] Nilsen, B., Dahl, F., Holzhuser, J. & Raleigh, P.: SAT - NTNUs new soil abrasion test,
Tunnels and Tunnelling International Magazine, 38, 5: p. 43-45, 2006.
[13] GG sterreichische Gesellschaft fr Geomechanik: Richtlinie fr die Geomechanische
Planung von Untertagebauarbeiten mit zyklischem Vortrieb, 2001.

13

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

[14] Plinninger, R.J.: Klassifizierung und Prognose von Werkzeugverschlei bei konventionellen Gebirgslsungsverfahren im Festgestein, Mnchner Geologische Hefte, Reihe B, 17 Angewandte Geologie, Mnchen: Hieronymus, 2002.
[15] Plinninger, R., Ksling, H., Thuro, K. & Spaun, G.: Testing conditions and geomechanical
properties influencing the CERCHAR abrasiveness index (CAI) value, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 40: p. 259-263, 2003.
[16] Plinninger, R.J., Ksling, H. & Thuro, K.: Wear Prediction in Hardrock Excavation Using
the CERCHAR Abrasiveness Index (CAI), in: Schubert, W.: Rock engineering - theory and
practise, Proceedings of the ISRM regional Symposium EUROCK 2004 & 53rd Geomechanics Colloquy: p. 599-604, Essen: Glckauf, 2004.
[17] Plinninger, R.J. & Thuro, K.: Erfahrungen bei Frsvortrieben im Nrnberger U-Bahn-Bau,
Felsbau, 19: p. 1-8, Essen: Glckauf, 2001.
[18] Restner, U.: Sandvik Mining and Constructions Rock Testing Standards 2007, Sandvik
Mining and Construction G.m.b.H., Department of Geotechnical Consulting & Engineering,
Zeltweg, 2007.
[19] Restner, U. & Reumueller, B.: Metro Monreal Successful operation of a state-of-theart- rodheader ATM 105-ICUTROC competing with drill & blast operation in urban tunnelling, in: Schubert, W.: Rock engineering - theory and practise, Proceedings of the
ISRM regional Symposium EUROCK 2004 & 53rd Geomechanics Colloquy: p. 589-594,
Essen: Glckauf, 2004.:
[20] Rhl, S. & Alber, M.: Die Spannungsabhngigkeit des Cerchar Abrasivittsindex fr unterschiedliche Gesteinstypen Confining pressure dependence of the Cerchar abrasiveness
index for different rock types, in: Otto, F.: Verffentlichungen von der 16. Tagung fr Ingenieurgeologie, Bochum, 07.-10. Mrz 2007: P. 209-213, 2007.
[21] Schimazek, J. & Knatz, H.: Der Einfluss des Gesteinsaufbaus auf die Schnittgeschwindigkeit und den Meielverschlei von Streckenvortriebsmaschinen.- Glckauf,
106: p. 274-278, Essen: Glckauf, 1970.
[22] Thuro, K. & Brodbeck, F.: Auswertung von TBM-Vortriebsdaten - Erfahrungen aus dem
Erkundungsstollen Schwarzach, Felsbau, 16: p. 8-17, Essen: Glckauf, 1998.
[23] Thuro, K. & Plinninger, R.: Geologisch-geotechnische Grundlagen der Gebirgslsung im
Fels, in: Eichler, K. et. al.: Fels- und Tunnelbau II: p. 112-160, Kontakt und Studium, Band
684, Renningen-Malmsheim: Expert, 2007.
[24] Thuro, K., Singer, J. Ksling, H. Bauer, M.: Soil abrasivity assessment using the LCPC
testing device, Felsbau, 24: p. 37-45, Essen: Glckauf, 2006.
[25] Verhoef, P.N.W.: Wear of rock cutting tools, Rotterdam, Brookfield: Balkema, 1997.

14

R. Plinninger & U. Restner: Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis

Authors:
Dipl.-Geol. (Univ.) Dr.rer.nat Ralf J. Plinninger, Dr. Plinninger Geotechnik, Kirchweg 16, D94505 Bernried/Germany, Tel. +49 9905/7070-360, Fax: +49 9905/7070-361, email: geotechnik@plinninger.de

Mag. Uwe Restner, Head of Geotechnical Consulting & Engineering, Sandvik Mining and Construction G.m.b.H., Supply Unit Zeltweg, Alpinestrasse 1, A - 8740 Zeltweg/Austria, Tel. +43
3577/755234, Fax: +43 3577/7559234, email: uwe.restner@sandvik.com

Pre-Publication Layout Version, issued 2013/11/29

15