1 INTRODUCTION

Drilling parameters or measurements while drilling

(MWD) allow for continuous and automatic record-
ing of all drilling operations while advancing a
borehole for geotechnical site investigations or char-
acterization of geostructures such as dams, levees
and retaining walls (Cailleux 1986, Duchamps 1988,
Diehl 1978, Fortunati & Pellegrino 1998, Girard et
al. 1986, Gui et al. 1999,Hamelin et al. 1983). Pa-
rameters that are typically monitored and recorded
include advance rate (V
A
), downthrust (P
O
) and
holdback (P
R
) pressures, torque (C
R
), rotation rate
(V
R
), percussion energy and, drilling fluid injection
pressure (P
I
) and flow (Q
I
). To date, measurements
while drilling have been mostly used qualitatively to
help delineate geological profiles. In an effort to
develop more quantitative methods, a field study
was designed to investigate the influence of in place
materials, drilling techniques and drilling tools on
the recorded drilling parameters and compare those
results to those from conventional geotechnical test
methods.
2 COMPOUND PARAMETERS
For each recorded parameter a qualitative meaning
can be allocated in terms of drilled soil characteris-
tics. During drilling, each transitions between soil
layers usually results in a change in one or more pa-
rameters (Cailleux 1986, Christie 2002, Girard et al.
1986). However, to limit the influence of the modi-
fication of one of the parameters over the other and
facilitate interpretation, it is necessary to use combi-
nations of measured parameters known as compound
parameters. These are almost independent of the
drilling procedures.
The most commonly used compound parameters are
listed in Table 1 (Benot et al. 2002, Bourget & Rat
1995). They come from different practices in Eu-
rope, Japan, England and Scandinavia and are the
result of years of practice and research on their na-
tional territory. They are based on combinations of 2
to 6 drilling parameters and seek to represent a phys-
ical reality of the ground. In the development of the-
se combinations, these authors selected two main
approaches:
develop empirical parameters similar to those
derived from laboratory tests and field me-
chanical tests such as the pressuremeter and
the cone penetrometer. This is the case of the
first two combinations;
constructing theoretical combinations based
on the energy to disaggregate the ground
with the tool (normalized energy) or the er-
ratic nature of signal (entropy).
These relationships tend to smooth the profiles and
increase their physical meaning thus improving in-
terpretation by practitioners.
For example, determining the time to drill a 20
cm length in the ground gives a parameter that can
Experimental study of drilling parameters using a test embankment
G. Laudanski
Universit Paris Est, IFSTTAR-Laboratoire des Ponts et Chausses, Universit Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris
6, France
Ph. Reiffsteck, J.-L. Tacita & G. Desanneaux
Universit Paris Est, IFSTTAR-Laboratoire des Ponts et Chausses, Paris, France
J. Benot
University of New Hampshire, Department of Civil Engineering, Durham, NH, USA

ABSTRACT: This paper will present the results from a detailed experimental study of drilling parameters us-
ing a specially constructed test embankment. The drilling measurements were evaluated individually as well
as combined into compound parameters to further enhance the ability of MWD to identify material types, me-
chanical properties and stratigraphy as well as detect anomalies such as cavities. Results from this study
demonstrated that MWD as single measurements or as compound parameters can clearly provide qualitative
evaluation of soil types, density and permeability using both rotary and percussion drilling methods. Statisti-
cal analyses of the results allowed for the development of empirical relationships using the test results from
standard penetration testing (SPT), cone penetration testing (CPT) and pressuremeter testing. The current
state of this method suggests that specific test protocols need to be developed such that MWD can be consid-
ered as a test on its own. When appropriately adapted to the purpose of a site investigation, MWD can be
highly cost effective considering that costs of destructive drilling are often less than one third of coring or
sampling methods.
be easily compared to the more conventional pene-
tration resistance given by the cone penetrometer.
Using these compound parameters allowed engi-
neers in Scandinavia to detect depth to bedrock
which was previously done by examining the con-
trast of penetrating resistance using dynamic prob-
ing.

Tableau 1. : Compound parameters
Name Formula Units Ref.
Penetration
resistance
m dz P
t R
2 . 0
) (
=
=

s/0.2m
Mller et
al. 2004
Somerton in-
dex
S
d
~ P
E
.
V
R
V
A
|
\

|
.
|
1
2
~
P
O
V
A

kPa
Somerton
1959
Drilling spe-
cific energy
SDE=
P
O
S
0
+
2.t
S
0
.
(V
R
C
R
)
V
A

kJ/m
3
Teale 1965
Specific ener-
gy
A
R R
S
V
V C
E
.
=

N.m/m
Pfister 1985,
Teale 1965
Normalized
energy
E
N
=
o.P
O
.V
A
+ |.C
R
.2.t.V
R
+.P
M
. f
V
A

N.m/m
Nishi et al.
1998
Alteration in-
dex
I
A
=1+k
0
.
P
O
P
max
k
1
.
V
A
V
max
|
\

|
.
| none Pfister 1985
Entropy of S
( ) ( )
+ =
z
z
z S dz z S z L
0
) (
none
Duchamp
1988

However, it is important to identify the influence
of certain parameters that are not necessarily record-
ed. For example, we currently have no way to relia-
bly measure the energy of the hydraulic hammer
(P
M
) which is required to calculate the normalized
energy. The normalized energy parameter includes
the drilling specific energy as shown in Table 1.
Similarly, the type of tool and their wear are not rec-
orded. To help address some of these issues, an ex-
perimental test embankment with multiple zones and
layers was constructed and used in the evaluation of
measurements while drilling (Laudansky 2010).
3 TEST EMBANKMENT
3.1 Objectives of the study
To study the correlations between drilling param-
eters and the intrinsic soil characteristics, two test
campaigns were conducted on a specially construct-
ed embankment designed to study various in situ test
methods. For each zone within this embankment, ro-
tary drilling and percussion drilling were used to ad-
vance the boreholes. For each method, various drill-
ing bits were also used including bicone, button,
cross and bladed bits. Boreholes were drilled while
keeping constant some of the drilling parameters
such as advance rate and drilling flow while observ-
ing how other parameters vary for each material
type, drilling method and drilling tool. The program
allowed for a better understanding of drilling param-
eters interdependency.
Changes in drilling parameters were observed as
a function of soil types and in response to variations
in operating characteristics and procedures of the
drilling machine (penetration speed, tools, thrust
pressure, use of hammer, etc.).
For practical reasons, the research was limited to
studying the variation in soil type, the tool type and
the use of hydraulic hammers to advance a borehole.
In addition to the boreholes drilled with the
MWD system, dynamic penetrometer (PDG1000)
and pressuremeter tests were performed. The con-
nection between the test methods and conventional
analysis of drilling parameters is presented in this
paper.
3.2 Equipment used
The drill rig used for this project has been de-
signed specifically for the study of drilling parame-
ters. It is equipped with a drilling parameter record-
ing system manufactured by JEAN LUTZ S.A. and
includes a rotating encoder, a proximity sensor, 4
pressure transducers and a flow meter. The system
can record penetration depth, rotation speed, down-
thrust, holdback, torque, fluid medium pressure, and
injection rate.
The drill rig is also equipped with a hydraulic
hammer which allows working either in rotary or ro-
tary-percussive modes. The boreholes were ad-
vanced using several different types of tools, all 63
mm in diameter (Figure 1.).
These tools were selected because they represent
the panel of tools used by standard drilling rigs and
are particularly well-suited for rotation and percus-
sive drilling. All boreholes were drilled with water
as the flushing medium, the addition of mud or pol-
ymer was not necessary for the type of soils encoun-
tered.

Fig. 1: Drilling bits used: 1: button bit, 2: cross type bit, 3: drag
bit, 4: bicone roller bit 5: continuous flight auger
3.3 Description of study areas
The test fill built by the Rouen experimental station,
is divided into eight different zones. The test zones
were constructed within a 3 meters high embank-
3
2
1
4
5
ment; each zone consisting of materials of different
type, drilling resistance, and permeability.
Six of these areas are composed of a single layer
of soil, different for each zone. Materials included
clay, sandy clay, silt, sand, chalk and gravel. Two of
the zones have multiple layers of varying thickness-
es. In one of the zones, two special layers were in-
troduced: a 30 cm layer of concrete to increase the
contrast between some of the soil layers and, a 40
cm layer of hollow polymer blocks to simulate void
space.
Figure 2 shows the arrangement of this embank-
ment:
- GEO No. 1 (divided into two zones),
- GEO No. 2,
- silt,
- sand B2 (Origin: Stref quarry - screened alluvi-
um from the Seine river),
- sand B5,
- gravel (Origin: Criqueboeuf sur Seine),
- chalk (Origin: Normandy).
These areas have a height of 3 m and are covered
with a 20 cm thick wearing course. All soil layers
were compacted at their optimum standard Proctor.

Fig. 2: Schematic plan of the embankment built by Rouen
Experimental Station
3.4 Test program
This paper presents the results of tests made on
the single layer zones. During the test campaigns,
the primary objective was to observe the influence
of specific changes or variations. In this case for
those particular zones:
- tool type,
- drilling method; rotary or rotary-percussive for
its impact on energy.
- soil texture to see if calibration of parameters
based on the type of soil is possible,
3.5 Variations due to drilling tools
Figure 3 illustrates the influence of the tool
change on the drilling parameters for silt and for
chalk. There are significant differences, all things
being equal, between a drilling tool with buttons, a
cross bit and continuous flight auger (CFA). Note
that Figure 3 compares three boreholes advanced
with rotation drilling.
a) b)
Fig. 3: Comparison of drilling parameters with different tools
(a) zone 1 silt, (b) zone 2 chalk

In both cases, it appears that the energy supplied
during the drilling with a cross bit is greater than
that for the button bit. This is attributed to the mode
of disintegration of the soil for each tool. Both de-
structive tools punch and shear the soil. However,
the shearing performed by the buttons requires less
torque than the blades of the cross bit due to the
smaller area solicited.
Figures 4 and 5 compare the parameters obtained
for five different drill bits in the different materials.
The general trend is that the roller bit and the drag
bit give the highest values while the button bit gives
the lowest. The profile obtained with the continuous
flight auger gives high values for the penetration re-
sistance and low values for the Somerton index, as it
is screwed in the soil mass by the helicoids.



G
E
O
1



s
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
A

G
E
O
2

B B
section BB
Gravel Clay GEO1
GEO2
Silt
Chalk Sand B5 Sand Stref
GEO2
Sand Stref Sand B5 Chalk
A
A
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
0 20 40 60 80
z

(
m
)
Somerton index
cross bit CFA
button bit
0 20 40 60 80
Somerton index
cross bit CFA
button bit

Fig. 4: Comparison of the penetration resistance Rp drilling pa-
rameter with different drill bits

Fig. 5: Equivalent of Somerton index Sd drilling parameter
with different drill bits

The observed trends depend on the type of soil en-
countered. It appears that in the softer ground the
difference is less evident. The signal obtained with
the auger is smoother which can be explained by the
friction generated on the outside of the auger flight
rather than just at the tip. Those results seem to in-
dicate that measurements from the continuous flight
auger are not usable in the interpretation of MWD.
The type of drilling tool is obviously important
and plays an important role in the study of drilling
parameters but at present a relationship that would
standardized the energies as a function of the type of
tool is not available (Figure 6). Such relationship
will require further studies at numerous sites under
varying soil and rock conditions.


Fig. 6: Comparison of normalized energy En with different
tools
3.6 Hammer influence
To evaluate the hydraulic hammer influence on
the drilling energy, separate profiles for each soils
were performed in both rotation and rotary percus-
sion.
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 50 100 150 200
Rp (s/20 cm) silt
bicone
drag bit
cross bit
button bit 1
button bit 2
CFA
0 50 100 150 200
Rp (s/20 cm) clay
bicone
drag bit
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 50 100 150 200
Rp (s/20 cm) gravel
bicone
drag bit
cross bit
button bit
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 50 100 150 200
d
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
Rp (s/20 cm) chalk
cross bit
button bit
CFA
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 100 200
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
Rp (s/20 cm) sand
bicone
drag bit
cross bit
button bit
CFA
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Somerton index silt
bicone
drag bit
CFA
button bit 1
button bit 2
cross bit
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
0 10000 20000
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
Somerton index sand
bicone
drag bit
button bit
cross bit
CFA
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 10000 20000
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
Somerton index chalk
button bit
cross bit
CFA
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Somerton index gravel
bicone
drag bit
button bit
cross bit
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Somerton index clay
bicone
drag bit
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
En silt
roller bit
drag bit
cross bit
button bit 1
button bit 2
CFA
0 5000
En clay
roller bit
drag bit
0 5000
En gravel
roller bit
drag bit
cross bit
button bit
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
En chalk
cross bit
button bit
CFA
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
D
e
p
t
h
(
m
)
En sand
roller bit
drag bit
cross bit
button bit
CFA

Fig. 7: Comparison of the parameters for rotation and percus-
sive drilling

Figure 7 shows a comparison of the compound
parameters derived from two of these profiles. For
the normalized energy, the energy computed for
drilling using the hydraulic hammer is less than for
the case of rotation only. The difference is often
more significant through harder layers because the
hammer requires additional energy to pulverize the
rock. In addition, the percussion drilling profiles are
overall smoother indicating less sensitivity to slight
variations in materials. This is also explained by the
fact that less energy in rotation and thrust is required
when using the percussion hammer. Unfortunately,
the actual hammer energy was not recorded during
this drilling campaign. Recording of the hammer en-
ergy is difficult but has been previously accom-
plished by Nishi et al. (1998). They fitted accel-
erometers on the drill rods to quantify the energy, a
technology difficult to apply in practice. It is howev-
er possible to measure the hydraulic pressure in the
hammer and calibrate the energy for a specific sys-
tem.
3.7 Influence of soil resistance
Comparison of tests performed in different soils
using the same tool and with rotation drilling as the
advance method can help evaluate the sensitivity of
drilling parameters to grain size, soil structure or
clay content. Figure 8 shows that the resulting Som-
erton index is sensitive to the type of drill bit for one
particular drilling method. The button bit gives
higher values while the continuous flight auger gives
essentially the same index for all three soils drilled
with little fluctuations. Clearly, the results for each
tool type are dependent on the density and the type
of soil.
The profile obtained in gravel is more scattered
with most of the tools. The sand and silt seem to
have been somewhat eroded by the flushing medium
allowing a higher penetration rate for the button bit
resulting in a lower Somerton index.

Fig. 8: Comparison of drilling parameters as a function of drill-
ing tool and soil type

Fig. 9: Comparison of dynamic penetrometers obtained for the
different materials with penetration resistance from borehole
advanced with roller bit

0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
0 2000 4000 6000
RP (s/0,2m)
z (m) Rotation
Rotopercussion
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
0 200000 400000
EN (N.m/m)
z (m) Rotation
Rotopercussion
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 10000 20000
d
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Somerton index roller bit
Sand
Gravel
Silt
Clay
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Somerton index drag bit
Sand
Gravel
Silt
Clay
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Somerton index button bit
Sand
Gravel
Silt
Chalk
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Somerton index CFA
Sand
Silt
Chalk
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 10000 20000
D
e
p
t
h

(
m
)
Somerton index cross bit
Sand
Gravel
Silt
Chalk
Figure 9 shows results from the dynamic pene-
trometer alongside those using the penetration re-
sistance from the drilling parameters. The graphs il-
lustrate similar results and appropriate soil
classifications. Silt and clay have similar profiles in
both cases while sand and gravel have higher re-
sistances but similar profiles.
3.8 Reliability of compound parameters to
represent mechanical resistance of soils
Figures 3 to 6 present the evolution of the three
main compound parameters: Somerton index, pene-
tration resistance, and normalized energy. From the-
se figures it can be observed that they all give simi-
lar trends. More precisely, we can conclude that the
parameters most likely to represent variations in li-
thology are the penetration resistance and the Som-
erton index.
4 CONCLUSION
This paper has shown the potential of drilling pa-
rameters in helping practitioners improve their ge-
otechnical models by locating transition layers and
material types to be used in combination with con-
ventional site investigation and sampling. This study
highlights the need for standardization and guidance
suitable for MWD. An important job has been done
recently under the auspice of TC341 (Reiffsteck
2010, Svenska Geotekniska Freningen 1999) that
lead to a proposed European standard (TC341WG1
2010) for MWD answering the need expressed by
Eurocode 7 part 2.
Preliminary results seem to indicate that the in-
fluence of tool type and the use of a hydraulic ham-
mer is not negligible although it appears that nor-
malization procedures can help in the interpretation.
Although a small sampling of the test program
was presented in this paper, it should be noted that
correlations between the MWD and field tests such
as SPT, CPT and PMT undoubtedly suggest that
compound parameters have a physical significance
and that it is possible to obtain reliable quantitative
results to be used in soil studies (Reiffsteck 2011).
5 AKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank the French Ministry of sustain-
able development (MEDTL) for funding of this re-
search and their colleagues, O. Malassingne and E.
Haza-Rozier for their help in carrying out this pro-
gram.
6 REFERENCES
Benot, J. Bothner, W. A. Escamilla-Casas, J. 2002. Character-
ization of Fractured-Rock Aquifers Using Drilling Parame-
ters, Proceedings of the Fractured-Rocks Aquifers 2002
Conference, Denver
Bourget, M. Rat, M. 1995. Interprtation semi-automatique des
enregistrements Des paramtres de forage (sondeuses hy-
drauliques en rotation), Revue Franaise de Gotechnique
73 3 -14.
Cailleux, J.-B. 1986. tude des diagraphies instantanes en fo-
rage, Rapport des laboratoires, GT12
Christie, K. 2002. Introducing new technologies to in situ ge-
otechnical testing, Heriot-Watt University 5th Year MEng
Personal Study Project
Diehl, G.W. 1978. Automation and optimisation of rock drill
parameters in hydraulic drilling, Mining magazine, 38-43
Duchamp, J.M. 1988. Apport des techniques statistiques pour
l'exploitation des diagraphies instantanes en gnie civil.
Doctorat Universit Bordeaux I - n d'ordre : 273.,
Fortunati, F. Pellegrino, G. 1998. The use of electronics in the
management of site investigation and soil improvement
works: Principles and applications, Proceedings First Inter-
national Conference on Site Characterization, Atlanta, Rob-
ertson et Mayne Eds, 1 359-364.
Girard, H. Morlier, P. Puvilland, O. Garzon, M. 1986. The
digital enpasol method Exploitation of drilling parameters
in civil engineering, Proceeding 39th Canadian Geotech-
nical Conference, Ottawa, 59-68
Gui, M.W. Bolton, M.D. Soga, K. Hamelin, J.P Hass, G. Bur-
gess, N. Butler, A.P. 1999. Instrumented borehole drilling
using ENPASOL system. 5th International Symposium on
Field Measurements in Geomechanics, Singapore, () 577-
581.
Gui, M.W. Soga, K. Bolton, M.D. Hamelin, J.P. 2002. Instru-
mented borehole drilling for subsurface investigation, Jour-
nal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering.
ASCE, 128(4) 283-291.
Hamelin J.P., Levallois, J, Pfister, P., 1983. Enregistrement des
paramtres de forage : nouveaux dveloppements, Interna-
tional symposium on soil and rock investigations by in-situ
testing, cole Nationale des Ponts et Chausses, Paris, 1
83-88.
Laudansky G. 2010. Les diagraphies instantanes sont-elles la
solution pour un modle gotechnique plus fiable ?, Master
2 de luniversit Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VI
Mller B. Bergdahl U. Elmgren K. 2004. Soil-rock sounding
with MWD a modern technique to investigate hard soils
and rocks, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference
on Site Characterization (ISC-2), Porto, 1 773-740.
Nishi, K. Suzuki, Y. Sasao, H. 1998. Estimation of soil re-
sistance using rotary percussion drill, Proceedings First In-
ternational Conference on Site Characterization, Atlanta,
Robertson et Mayne Eds, 1 393-398.
Pfister, P. 1985. Drilling Parameter Recording in Soil Engi-
neering. Journal Ground Engineering, 18(3) 16-21.
Reiffsteck, P. & coauthors, 2010. Paramtres de Forage en
Gotechnique, Mthode d'essai LCPC, ME79
Reiffsteck, P. 2011. Influence factors of measuring while drill-
ing method, XVth ECSMGE, Athens,1, () 67-72
Somerton, 1959. A laboratory study of rock breakage by rotary
drilling, Petroleum transaction, AIME, 216 92-97.
Svenska Geotekniska Freningen 1999. Metodbeskrivning fr
jord-bergsondering, SGF Rapport 2.99, 30 p.
Teale, R., 1965. The concept of specific energy in rock drilling,
International Journal Rock Mechanics and Mining Science,
2 57-73.
TC341WG1. 2010. Geotechnical investigation and testing
Field testing Part X: Measuring while drilling, Draft,
22476-X, CEN