UPTEC K 18022

Examensarbete 30 hp
Juni 2018

Study of the wear mechanisms

for drill bits used in core drilling

Emy Guttenkunst
 Abstract
Study of the wear mechanisms for drill bits used in
core drilling
Emy Guttenkunst

Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet

UTH-enheten The thesis work was made in cooperation with the I-EDDA project who
evaluates the drill equipment used in core drilling. The aim of this
Besöksadress: work was to determine how and why the drill bits are worn. The work
Ångströmlaboratoriet
Lägerhyddsvägen 1 consisted of two parts; investigate drill bits used in field tests
Hus 4, Plan 0 and develop a lab scale method to be able to change one drill
parameter at a time and see how it affects the wear. During the field
Postadress: tests the rotational speed and the pressure on the drill bits were
Box 536
751 21 Uppsala changed between the three boreholes drilled. In the lab test one
parameter at a time was changed; the rotational speed, the water flow
Telefon: and the load. The lab test was developed to attempt to replicate the
018 – 471 30 03 core drilling and was performed by pressing a piece of a drill bit
Telefax: against a rotating stone cylinder. The drill bits from the field
018 – 471 30 00 tests and lab test were analysed with the same methods on both macro-
and microscale for easier comparison. The results indicate that the
Hemsida: lab scale test can be used to evaluate the wear of drill bits. The
http://www.teknat.uu.se/student
analyses show rock present on the matrix of all the drill bits, in
various amounts. The load has the largest impact on the wear of the
drill bits and cause a change in mechanism. A high pressure leads to
a higher amount of damaged diamonds and three body abrasive wear on
the matrix. Lower pressure leads to polished diamonds and erosive
wear on the matrix.

Handledare: Urban Wiklund

Ämnesgranskare: Erik Lewin
Examinator: Peter Broqvist
ISSN: 1650-8297, UPTEC K18 022
Populärvetenskaplig sammanfattning

Nötning av borrkronor som används i kärnborrning

Examensarbetet utfördes i samarbete med I-EDDA, ett projekt där effektivisering och för-
bättring av kärnborrningsprocessen är målet. Syftet med examensarbetet var att ta reda
på hur och varför själva borrkronorna nöts under borrningen. Det för att kunna minska
nötningen på borrkronorna i framtiden. Själva borrprocessen går till så att en borrkrona
roteras ner i berget och slipar på stenen. Själva borrkronan är ihålig för att kunna få
ut en borrkärna från berget som senare undersöks för att se vilka mineraler som finns i
berget. Metoden utnyttjas i gruvor för att kunna följa malmkroppar. Borrkronan består av
en metallkropp med många små diamanter inblandat i metallen. När en borrkrona blivit
nernött under borrningen behöver hela borrstången tas upp för att kunna byta borrkronan
i änden av den, det är ett tidskrävande arbete och kostnaderna för borrningen ökar. Inför
examensarbetet borrades tre hål i en berggrund i Skåne, med olika inställningar i varje bor-
rhål. Det för att kunna se om parametrarna spelade roll för nötningen av borrkronorna. I
ett av hålen användes rekommenderade parametrar från tillverkan, i ett annat användes en
lägre rotationshastighet och ett ökat tryck på borrkronan och i det sista borrhålet användes
en högre rotationshastighet och ett högre tryck än rekommenderat. För det första hålet
krävdes endast en borrkrona för att komma ner till ungefär 130 meter, medan för en lägre
hastighet krävdes tre borrkronor för samma djup och för en högre hastighet krävdes två
borrkronor, varav den sista fastnade i berget och kunde inte tas upp.
Borrkronorna analyserades i mikroskop, både med liten och stor förstoring, för att kunna
förstå vad som hände under borrningen. Arbetet bestod även av en annan del, att utveckla
en metod för att härma bergborrningen i ett laboratorium. Bitar från en en borrkrona
sågades ut och trycktes sedan, med en bestämd kraft, mot en roterande stencylinder. Sten-
cylindern hade en specifik rotationshastighet och vatten spolades mot stenen och borrbiten.
De tre inställningarna varierades för att kunna se hur de påverkade nötningen av borrkro-
norna. Bitarna analyserades på samma sätt som borrkronorna från bergborrningen för att
kunna jämföra resultaten.
Resultaten tyder på att laborationstestet fungerar för att utvärdera nötningen under kärn-
borrning. Rotationshastigheten, vattenflödet och lasten hade alla en påverkan på nötningen,
men i olika stor grad. Lasten hade den största påverkan då en för hög last krossar diaman-
ter och nöter på matrisen snabbare. En för låg last polerar diamanterna, vilket försämrar
slipningen på stenen då diamanten inte längre har några vassa kanter. Även metallen runt
diamanterna nöttes olika beroende på lasten. En hög last ledde till att den sten som blivit
avverkad slipade på matrisen och gav långa repor på ytan och ett mer polerat utseende. En
lägre last gjorde att stenbitarna slungades mot ytan i hög fart, genom vattenflödet mellan
berget och borren, vilket gav matrisen en mer prickig och matt yta. På alla borrkronor och
testbitar fanns det sten ovanpå eller intryckt i metallen, i olika mängder.

2
Contents
1 Introduction 5
1.1 Aim and objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Key questions on drill bit wear during core drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Setting of the work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 Theory 7
2.1 Core drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Bedrock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Wear of the diamonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Wear of the matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3 Method 15
3.1 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Replicating lab scale test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Separation of a single diamond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4 Results - Field tests 20

4.1 Rock material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 Wear rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3 Diamonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4 Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4.1 Low ROP and high rotational speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.4.2 Recommended parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4.3 High ROP and low rotational speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.5 Cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.5.1 Low ROP and high rotational speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.5.2 Recommended rotational speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.5.3 High ROP and low rotational speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.6 Transmission Electron Microscope studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.6.1 Position one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.6.2 Position two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5 Results - Replicating lab test 36

5.1 Wear rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.2 Diamonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.3 Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6 Model 39

7 Discussion 40

3
 7.1 Wear of the diamonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7.2 Wear of the matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7.3 Influence of load or ROP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.4 Influence of the rotational speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.5 Water amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.6 Rock on the surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

8 Conclusions 47

9 Future work 48

10 Acknowledgements 49

References 50

Appendix A Setup replicating lab test 52

Appendix B Sample holder 53

Appendix C Cross sections 54

C.1 Low ROP and high rotational speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
C.2 Recommended parameters, small amount of rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
C.3 High ROP and low rotational speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Appendix D EDS analysis of TEM samples 60

D.1 Rock at position 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
D.2 Recrystallised matrix at position 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
D.3 Rock at position 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Appendix E Wear rate Replicating lab tests 63

E.1 Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
E.2 Rotational speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
E.3 Water flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Appendix F Images of diamond characterisation 66

Appendix G Surface roughness of the replicating lab test pieces 67

G.1 Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
G.2 Rotational speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
G.3 Water flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

4
1 Introduction

The work is a part of the Innovative Exploration Drilling and Data Acquisition project,
I-EDDA. A cooperation between Uppsala University, Lund University, Technical Univer-
sity Bergakademie Freiberg, Luleå University of Technology, Atlas Copco (now Epiroc),
Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum, RISE Research Institutes
of Sweden and The Geological Survey of Finland. The project aims to develop new tech-
nology and methods in exploration rock drilling in order to get as much information as
possible from each drilled meter due to the high costs of the drilling. The project is now
in the second work phase which consists of evaluation of the drill equipment. This master
thesis focused on the investigation and understanding of the wear of the drill bits, which
is important to lower the cost of exploration rock drilling. The actual drill bit is not the
high cost during the rock drilling, but the replacement of the drill bit takes a lot of time.
A better understanding of the wear of the drill bits and how it is influenced by different
parameters have the potential to extend the lifetime of the drill bit and therefore lower the
costs of the exploration rock drilling.

1.1 Aim and objectives

The aim of the master thesis was to provide fundamental knowledge of the wear of the core
drilling bits in exploration rock drilling. The wear of used drill bits were examined in order
to understand what mechanisms causes the wear. If the mechanisms are understood the
lifetime of the drill bits may be improved, either by changing the settings during drilling or
change the manufacturing of the drill bits. An increase in lifetime of the drill bits results
in a large decrease in drilling cost. The following objectives were set up:
• Get an understanding of the wear of diamond tools by reading published work.
• Determine the wear mechanisms on both macro and micro scale. Both in drilling and
in lab scale tests.
• Determine the wear rate of the drill bits and correlate this to the wear mechanisms.
• Develop a test method in a laboratory in an attempt to replicate the rock drilling.
The work consisted of two parts, both including literature studies. Part one was about
analysing a number of drill bits used in exploration drilling, with a variety of parameters
used. This to get an understanding of how the drill bits were worn during the drilling, but
also to see how different parameters impact the wear of the drill bits. The second part was
about trying to recreate the the wear of the drill bits during rock drilling in a laboratory,
in order to be able to study the impact of individual parameters and to execute simpler
and cheaper drill tests in the future.

5
1.2 Key questions on drill bit wear during core drilling

During the literature study there were obvious that a number of questions are very im-
portant to answer in order to explain the wear of the drill bits and a few of these needed
further investigation. Some of the most obvious questions are:
• How are the diamonds worn?
• How is the matrix worn?
• How does the load affect the wear?
• How does the rotational speed affect the wear?
• How does the water amount affect the wear?
• Is there any rock on the surface of the drill bits?
• How does the wear effect the profiles of the drill bit?

1.3 Setting of the work

The drilling took place in Hörröd, Sweden, and was executed by Lund University. There
were three boreholes drilled between August 28th and October 12th, 2017. Figure 1 illus-
trates the depths of the boreholes and how deep each of the drill bits were used.

Figure 1: An illustrating picture over the three boreholes. To the left of each hole the
different bits are indicated and to the right the corresponding depths are written.

6
The parameters used during drilling is shown in table 1. The parameters were kept constant
in the same borehole, while only the rotational speed and the rate of penetration, ROP,
differed between the boreholes. Note that in order to control the penetration rate the
weight on bit (load) is the parameter changed in reality. A higher penetration rate is
achieved with a higher weight on bit. In borehole 1 the recommended parameters from
the manufacturer were used. The recommended parameters should give the drill bit a long
lifetime. A higher penetration rate which the driller by experience combines with a lower
rotational speed, as used in borehole 2, is considered a tougher setting for the drill bit while
the lower penetration rate which the driler combines with higher rotational speed, as used
in borehole 3, is more gentle. For borehole 1 the drilling was cancelled due to instability
in the borehole at a depth of 129,1 m. In borehole two, three drill bits had to be used,
as seen in figure 1. The first two drill bits in borehole 2 were changed due to undersize
cutting. The drilling in borehole 2 was cancelled while drilling with the third bit due to
instability in the borehole, and therefore the last drill bit in borehole 2 was not changed
due to undersize cutting. Borehole 3 used two drill bits. The first drill bit was changed
because of undersize cutting and the second drill bit got wedged in the borehole and it was
not possible to retrieve the drill bit. The drill bits are named after the penetration rate and
the order of the drill bits during drilling. For recommended parameters in borehole 1 the
drill bit is called R.1, for the lower penetration rate in borehole 3 the drill bits are called
L.1 and L.2. For the higher penetration rate in borehole 2 the drill bits are called H.1, H.2
and H.3.
Table 1: The four main parameters used during drilling. The penetration rate and the
rotational speed were varied, while the water flow rate was kept constant.

L.1 L.2 R.1 H.1 H.2 H.3

Penetration rate [cm/min] 12 12 18 25 25 25
Rotational speed [rpm] 1200 1200 1000 700 700 700
Water flow rate [l/min] 40 40 40 40 40 40

2 Theory

2.1 Core drilling

The purpose of core drilling is to collect a rock sample in order to examine minerals present
or to investigate the quality of the rock and soil. There are different kinds of core drilling,
used for different reasons. Definition drilling, or infill drilling, is used in mines in order
to follow the ore bodies and to calculate the concentrations of minerals for production
planning. Site investigation is another example of core drilling which can be divided into

7
two categories; rock mechanics and soil mechanics. Site investigation is used in order to
investigate the rock or soil before constructing for example a tunnel or a building. The
last type of core drilling is exploration drilling. It is used to examine what minerals are
present in the borehole and if its content is sufficient for economic extraction in a mine.
From exploration drilling it is also possible to investigate the planet’s development during
millions of years and to identify bacterias down to 2.5 km depth [1].
The core drilling process consists of three parts, the drilling, the retrieving of the core
sample and the resuming of the drilling. During the drilling a drill stem, with a drill bit
attached at the bottom, is rotated clockwise with an applied load. The applied load (also
called weight on bit, WOB) controls the pressure on the drill bit which determines the rate
of penetration, ROP. The drill stem consists of a number of drill pipes; each normally with
a length of 3 meters, so after 3 meters of drilling another drill pipe is attached to the top
of the drill stem to be able to drill deeper into the borehole. Therefore, dissembling and
reassembling of the drill stem, which is necessary if the drill bit at the bottom of the stem
needs to be changed, takes a lot of time and is not desirable.
The bottom of the drill stem is illustrated in figure 2 and shows the principle of double
tube core drilling. The drill stem consist of an outer tube and an inner tube. Between
the tubes there is a water flow used to cool the drill bits and to wash out the cuttings
from the drilling. A small amount of the water could act as a lubricant when transported
between the drill bit and the rock. The water and rock cuttings are then transported to
the surface outside the outer tube. Inside the inner tube the core sample is collected. At
regular intervals he drilling is paused and roughly meter long core samples are brought up
to the surface.

Figure 2: A sketch of the core drilling. The stone sample is collected inside the inner tube.
The water feed is between the inner and the outer tube and is transported to the surface
outside the outer tube.

8
The diameter of the inner tube is similar to the inner diameter of the drill bit. When the
drill bit is worn, however, the diameter of the core sample increases and the pressure in
the inner tube increases. This is called undersize cutting. Undersize cutting could also
depend on the wear of the outer part of the drill bit. When there is undersize cutting the
drilling process has to be stopped and the drill bit replaced. The entire drill stem has to
be dissembled and reassembled in order to change the drill bit, which is not cost efficient.
Therefore it is important to chose the most suitable drill bit.
To choose the right drill bit the drillability of the rock needs to be known. The drillability is
affected by grain size, rock hardness, weathering and fracturing. A larger grain size makes
the rock more abrasive to the bit, as does a larger fracturing. A fine grained, hard rock
is less abrasive. Rock strength is reduced by weathering and such rock wears less on the
drill bit [2]. A picture of the kind of drill bit used in this work can be seen in figure 3a.
The drill bit consists of eight teeth with waterways between the teeth, where most of the
water flushed during drilling goes through rather than in the contact between stone and
drill bit. In each tooth there is a hole pointing inwards or outwards, see figure 3b, to further
increase the possibility for cuttings to escape from the cutting zone. Figure 3c illustrates
one tooth from the drill bit. The upper part of the drill bit, above the dashed line, consists
of synthetic diamonds with a size of about 200 µm in a matrix of copper, molybdenum,
silver and tungsten. The hardness of the matrix is about 220 HV. Below the dashed line
in figure 3c there are no diamonds present and the matrix consists of Ag, Cu and W. The
dark grey areas are reamers that grind and smoothens the core samples. There are reamers
also on the outside of the drill bit that grind the borehole, in order to broaden the borehole
and get a smoother surface for an easier movement of the stem. The reamers are made of
cemented carbide consisting of WC-grains in a Co matrix.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3: a) An image of the drill bit used [2]. During drilling the upper part is facing
downwards and cut the rock. b) An illustrative picture of the drill bit from above. c) An
illustrative picture of one tooth from the drill bit. The dashed line indicates a change in
material.

9
Diamond is the hardest material known to man and as such it ideally should not suffer
damage in contact with any kind of rock, which all are much softer. As will be discussed
below, this is unfortunately not true. The hardness of the matrix matters when choosing
drill bit for the drilling. Softer matrices are used for harder rock material and vice versa
[2]. This might seem illogical but the purpose of the matrix is merely to give support to
the diamonds which are the ones that should do the actual work with the rock. However,
as diamonds wear during drilling, fresh diamonds have to be exposed continuously in order
to obtain a sufficient number of cutting points [3]. This is accomplished by wearing off the
matrix around the diamonds. A too soft matrix will cause the diamonds to release from
the matrix before the end of working life, while a too hard matrix causes the diamonds to
wear faster than the matrix and the penetration rate drops due to sliding over the surface
[4, 5, 6]. When drilling in hard rock diamonds wear quicker and a softer matrix is used to
match the wear rates of the diamonds and the matrix.

2.2 Bedrock

The drilling took place in Hörröd, Sweden. About 30 km south of Kristianstad. An

area dominated by igneous rock types, mostly granodioritic granite gneiss composed by the
minerals quartz and feldspar, brown area in figure 4 from Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning
[7]. The figure shows a surface mapping of the area around Hörröd. The purple are diabase,
light blue are quartz arenite, pink are granite and green are amphibolite. The drill site, in
the blue circle in the figure, is a brown area indicating there should be granodioritic granite
gneiss at the surface, that should dominate during the first part of the drilling. There is
also a dark purple line pointing towards the drill site. This means that diorite could be
found during drilling deeper into the borehole, because the veins may continue below the
surface.
Something that could be expected to be found in the borehole is clay minerals due to
chemical weathering of rock. Chemical weathering is described as a slow chemical decom-
position of rock and often occurs when water is present in the rock [8]. The probability
for weathering is greater at places where the rock is crushed or is cracked. The increased
surface area means chemical reactions can more easily occur. The most common reaction
for silicates, all the minerals mentioned above are silicates, is by hydrolysis. The water
dissociate to H+ and OH – where the hydrogen ion reacts and replaces positive ions in the
crystal lattice. That leads to a decomposition of the mineral. Another common substance
in the water is CO2 , which forms H2 CO3 in water. This leads to even faster decomposition
of the mineral due to the contribution of more hydrogen ions. An example on a reaction
between potassium feldspar, one of the consistuents in granite, water and H2 CO3 can be
seen below. Potassium is replaced with hydrogen, which forms the clay mineral kaolinite
and itself ends up in a solution with bicarbonate ions and silica [8].

10
Figure 4: Map over the bedrock around the drilling site, indicated by a blue circle. Brown
is granodioritic granite gneiss, pink is grainte, green is amphibolite and the blue are quartz
arenite. Purple is diabase. Image from Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning [7].

2KAlSi3 O8 + 2(H + + HCO3 ) + H2 O !

potassium feldspar carbonic acid water

Al2 Si2 O5 (OH)4 + 2K + + 2HCO3 + 4SiO2

kaolinite potassium ion bicarbonate ion silica

From plagioclase the clay mineral illite is formed in a similar way and from pyroxene the
clay mineral montmorillonite is formed. The plagioclase and pyroxene in diabase are more
sensitive to chemical weathering than the quartz and feldspar in granite and therefore the
diabase is more prone to decompose into clay mineralsthan granite is [9].

2.3 Wear of the diamonds

The diamonds used in drill bits are often synthetic diamonds grown to have a octahedral
mixed with a cubic shape, which is an advantageous shape when exposed to mechanical
stress, see figure 5a. The cubic plane, on the top in the picture, is a {100} plane and the
octahedral planes, at the sides of the diamond, are {111} planes. The diamonds can vary
in appearance, the different planes can differ in size leading to an almost cubic diamond,
or an almost octahedral diamond. During drilling, the diamonds are in contact with the
rock and are exposed to large pressures and shocks which lead to wear of the diamonds.
Depending on the size of the pressure the mechanisms of diamond wear are different. These
mechanisms are important for the drillability of the drill bit, sharper cutting edges leads to

11
a better drill bit [5]. According to Luo [10] the most desirable diamond is a diamond which
is undamaged and has a high protrusion height. The wear of the diamond can be divided
into two mechanisms according to Tönshoff [6]; friction wear and fracture of grains. The
friction wear occurs att lower loads when very hard rock particles or other released diamonds
contact and scratch the diamond surface. Fracture of diamonds occurs predominantly at
high loads and is caused by fatigue, or mechanical load or thermal shock. From these
mechanisms Luo [10] divides diamonds in used diamond tools into five categories; whole,
wear flat, microfractured, macrofractured and pull-outs. Explanations of the categories can
be seen below and figure 5 shows images of the different diamond categories.
• Whole: Undamaged diamond, figure 5b.
• Wear flat: A polished diamond. The polishing is due to friction wear, i.e. heat
assisted chemical wear, at low pressures [3, 11], figure 5c.
• Microfractured: A diamond with microcracks, damages and fragments [10], figure 5d.
Due to fracture of grains at higher pressures [10].
• Macrofractured: Further fracture of the microfractured diamonds [10], figure 5e.
• Pull-out: Not really a diamond but a diamond having been pulled out of the matrix,
leaving a hole in the matrix [10], figure 5f.
The ROP has to be large to get a pressure big enough to get microcracks instead of wear
flats on the drill bit. Wear flats decreases the number of cutting points, sharp edges, and
makes the surface polished, which leads to a decreased ROP [5]. Microfractures leads to
new cutting points [12], but also to a decrease in the protrusion height [13]. The protrusion
height impacts the wear of the matrix and will be discussed in the next section.
The diamonds can sometimes be cleaved easily, according to Telling [14] the cleavage occurs
easiest in the {111} plane due to the lower amount of bonds compared to the other planes.
The lower amount of bonds leads to a low cleavage energy and an impact in the right
direction on the diamond leads to a cleavage of the diamond. The cleavage is facilitated by
defects along the plane [14] which matches Xuefengs [5] statement, that the microcracks are
often initiated at the defects in the diamonds. Therefore it is important to have diamonds
with few defects and have a high strength and toughness during core drilling due to the
larger resistance to cleavage [4]. In figure 5d cleavage of the {111} plane can be seen. The
cubic {100} plane can be seen at the top, and the octahedral {111} planes on the siden of
the diamond. The cracks seen at the top of the diamond are parallel to the {111} planes
and visualises what Telling [14] talks about.
Almost all of the friction in the borehole is converted to heat. At the very cutting zone,
at the diamond/rock interface, the low thermal conductivity in rock the heat go into the
drill bits through the diamonds [5]. This heat is soon transported away from the tool,
mostly by the water flow, but temporarily high temperatures may be generated. Xuefeng

12
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 5: a) Ideal form of diamonds used in drill bits. Different wear and fractures of the
diamonds. b) A whole diamond without any damages. c) Wear flat. d) Microfractured. e)
Macrofractured. f) Pull-out.

13
[5] calculated in one exemplifying situation the maximum temperature in the diamond/rock
interface should be 357°C and would not affect the mechanical properties of the diamonds.
When rock cuttings are gathered around the diamonds a thermal insulator barrier is formed
and the temperature could rise to 1477°C. Such high temperatures would cause microburn
of the drill bit. Xu [15] calculated the temperature for such a diamond could reach above
900°C. Temperatures above 1000°C leads to wear flats according to Wang [12]. This is due to
oxidation of diamonds starting already at 700-800°C and graphitization, which forms a softer
material that can be plastic deformed by the rock. Another effect of a high temperature is
an increase likelihood of pull-outs. Xu [15] talks about the difference in the coefficients of
thermal expansion as a reason to this. Large stresses is induced between the diamond and
the matrix when the temperature increases, which detaches the matrix from the diamonds
when cooled down. The diamonds can be pulled from the matrix more easily. A diamond
pulled out of the matrix before the working life of the diamond has ended will lead to a
faster wear of the matrix and decreased working time of the drill bit [10].

2.4 Wear of the matrix

The relation between the diamonds and the matrix is very important during the drilling.
The wear rate of the matrix has to match the wear rate of the diamonds to get a good
drillability and long working life. A good drillability is achieved when the height between
matrix and diamond tip, protrusion height, is high. To get a high protrusion height the
matrix around the diamonds has to be worn off in order to uncover the diamonds [10]. At
this height it is important that the adhesion between matrix and diamond is high [10] in
order to avoid pull-outs before the diamond is superannuated. For the same reason the wear
rate of the matrix has to be low when the protrusion height is reached. If the matrix is worn
too slow the gap between rock and matrix will decrease and the flow of the rock cuttings
will be hindered [6]. The slow wear rate would also lead to polishing of the diamonds before
reaching protrusion height decreasing the drillability of the drill bit [13].
According to Tönshoff [6] the typical appearance of the matrix wear is a pit in front of the
diamond, in the sliding direction, and a ridge behind the diamond. The diamond protects
the matrix behind it and therefore the wear rate is lower [6]. The ridge acts like a support
for the diamond and prevents it from being pulled out. The wear mechanism leading to
that appearance is erosion, the wear when particles bombards a surface [16].
Xuefeng [5] talks about another wear mechanism for the matrix is delamination wear. At
higher temperature rock melts onto the matrix, due to the high adhesion between rock
and matrix matrix is worn off when the rock is worn off. Delamination wear occurs when
repeated contact leads to plastic deformation of the matrix where the shear stress is greatest,
a bit below the surface of the matrix. Microcracks starts to form in that area which grows
together parallel to the surface. The cracks eventually goes up to the surface and a patch

14
loosens from the surface [16].
Xuefeng [5] examined diamond drill bits with a matrix made of WC grains and a softer
binder phase. At a low ROP the softer binder phase eroded from the matrix, leading to a
loss of WC grains. At a higher ROP the dominant wear mechanism was three body abrasion
due to the high amount of rock cuttings in the contact between rock and matrix. The rock
cuttings was the third body in the system. The large frictional forces led to abrasion and
deattachment of large patches of the matrix [5].
The diamonds play an important role for the wear of the matrix and vice versa. With larger
diamonds the protrusion height can be magnified and the rock cuttings can flow more easily
between the surfaces, reducing the wear of the matrix. The concentration of diamonds on
the surface affects the wear of the matrix, a higher concentration of diamonds on the surface
protects the matrix more and leads to a longer working life for the drill bit [10].

3 Method

3.1 Analysis

Drill bits wear was examined on both at macro- and microscale. The overall amount of
wear was measured with a caliper. The volume was then divided by the drill depth, to get
a measure of wear from a drillers point of view, or by the effective sliding length of the bit,
to get a measure of wear from a tribological point of view.
One strategy for understanding the wear mechanisms of the core drills is to examine the
behaviour of the diamonds on the worn surface. The diamonds were categorised in three
different groups, similar to what Luo proposed [10]; whole, fractured and pull-out. Two
teeth from each drill were studied in a stereo microscope and with the help of pictures of the
surfaces taken with a Light Optical Microscope, LOM, each diamond could be color coded.
No sample preparation was needed when taking the pictures in the LOM. The pictures were
taken on the half of a tooth, see blue box in figure 6, giving a total of four pictures per drill
bit. From the color coding on the pictures, the distribution between the three diamond
categories could be determined.

Figure 6: The pictures in LOM was taken inside the blue area on the drill bit.

The matrix was examined by a number of different methods. The pictures from the LOM
was used to study the surfaces on a macroscale. To measure the surface roughness an optical

15
profiler with Vertical Scanning Interferometry, VSI, was used. The instrument used was a
WYKO NT1100. The VSI was used also to measure the ridges present behind diamonds
to determining the maximum support the matrix could provide. It is assumed that once a
diamond is crushed or pulled out, the corresponding ridge will rapidly be worn away. Also
wear of test bits in replicating lab tests and surface finish were measured with VSI.
To study the diamonds and the matrixes at a higher magnification a Scanning Electron
Microscope, SEM, was used. The models used were Zeiss Merlin, Leo 1550 and Leo 1530.
Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, EDS, was used together with the SEM in order to
make element analysis. The EDS detector used was Oxford instruments X-Max. The
characteristic X-ray lines of Si and W have an overlap and therefore the EDS system
reports Si and W in the matrix when it actually is only W.
The cross sections were made with a Focused Ion Beam, FIB, model FEI Strata DB235 for
both SEM and Transmission Electron Microscopy, TEM, samples. The specific area was
coated with Pt before making the cross section in order to protect it from the ion beam.
The way of coating with the Pt leads to a difference in contrast between the layers. Some
of the Ga sputtered onto the surface becomes implanted into the matrix, which could be
detected during EDS analysis. The FIB is used to make cross sections but also for sample
preparation for the TEM analysis. With the TEM it was possible to look at the samples at
extremely high magnification, with a resolution of a few nanometers. The instrument was
FEI Titan Themis 200 XFEG. A SuperX EDS detector was used to visualise the plastic
deformation of the surface layer of the matrix and if there was rock at the surface.
Table 2 compares the methods used for the field tests and the replicating lab test bits. The
same analyses have been made, except for the cross section and the TEM studies that has
not been made on the replicating lab test bits.
Table 2: Analyses made on the field tests and on the replicating tests.

Wear rate Diamonds VSI SEM Cross section TEM

Field tests x x x x x x
Replicating tests x x x x

3.2 Replicating lab scale test

The purpose was to attempt to replicate the wear mechanisms in core drilling in a lab-
oratory, in order to decrease the costs when investigating the behaviour of drill bits and
allow for studies of influence of specific parameters. Figure 7 compares core drilling with
the setup in the laboratory. The principle for core drilling can be seen in figure 7a. A force
is applied from above while the drill is rotated against the rock. The water flow is per-
pendicular to the rotational direction of the drill bit. In the lab test, a stone cylinder was

16
rotated instead of the drill bit. The test bit was pressed horizontally with a specific load
against the stone cylinder and water was applied from the top, making the flow parallell
to the rotational direction of the stone cylinder. During the replicating tests the samples
were moved along the stone cylinder in order to wear on new rock and avoid making a deep
track at one specific position in the rock, which could lead to undesired wear on the edges
of the drill bit. The method used was developed from methods in previous work [17, 18, 19]
performed with cemented carbide drill bit inserts used in rotary drilling.

(a) (b)

Figure 7: Sketch of the a) core drilling and b) the setup from the replicating test. Instead
of rotating the drill as in core drilling a stone cylinder was rotated in the replicating test.

The stone cylinder was made out of granite from eastern Skåne and was placed in a lathe.
The setup consisted of; a lathe with a stone cylinder mounted in it, a water pump to obtain
a constant water flow and a sample holder where the samples were placed and then pressed
against the stone cylinder. The setup can be seen in appendix A and an image of the sample
holder in appendix B. The sample holder was attached to a strain gauge arrangement for
load measurement which measured and collected the applied load.
The samples were prepared by cutting pieces from an unused drill bit with a hacksaw.
A tooth was cut from the drill bit, and then split in half to get two parallel sides. The
bottom was removed to not include the reamers or the softer material without diamonds.
To imitate the core drilling, the flat outer surface of the piece was used, rather than the
grooved top surface. The flat surface at the outside of the drill bit is more similar to the flat
surfaces of the drill bits after the core drilling, compared to the grooved top of the unused
drill bit. Therefore, the outside was pressed against the stone cylinder. Figure 8 illustrates
where on the drill bit the samples were cut out from, the arrow indicates which side was
worn against the stone cylinder.
Three parameters were changed during the tests to see how these affected the drill bits.
The parameters were the load, the rotational speed and the water flow. There are more
variations in lab scale due to the simplicity in changing parameters, which can be seen in

17
Figure 8: Illustrative picture over the size and geometry of the samples. The arrow indicates
the surface facing the stone cylinder during the test.

table 3. Moreover, this facilitates tests where only one parameter is changed. In drilling
several parameters often change, here both the ROP and rotational speed. The samples
are named after the parameter which has been changed, except for the initial set, called
median, which is included in all the comparative tests.

Table 3: The eight parameter sets used in the lab tests. The first row is the initial set, for
the following six one parameter has been changed. For the last set two parameters have
been changed.

Load [N] Rotational speed [rpm] Flow rate [l/min] Time [s]
Median 200 395 0.33 45
LL 100 395 0.33 40
HL 400 395 0.33 40
LS 200 270 0.33 65
HS 200 470 0.33 35
LF 200 395 0.025 40
HF 200 395 2 40
HLHF 600 395 9 35

To calculate the load to be used inte the replicating test the parameters from the core
drilling were used together with the geometry of the drill bit. The nominal contact area, A,
was calculated for the drill bit, as four teeth with the hole outwards and four teeth with the
hole inwards. The grooves were assumed to be flat. This gave a contact area of 1610 mm2 .
With the load, F, used in the core drilling a contact pressure, p, could be calculated with
equation 1. The pressure should be the same in the replicating test as in the core drilling
to obtain similar conditions. By calculating an approximate contact area for the samples a
suitable load could be determined by using the same equation. The pressure calculated for
the core drilling, with a WOB 40 kN, was 25 MPa corresponding to a load of 2.5 kN in the
replicating test with a contact area of 100 mm2 of the sample. This was however too high
for the equipment used so three much lower loads had to be used.

18
 F
p= (1)
A
The stone rotational speeds to be used were calculated from the parameters used in the
core drilling and from the diameters of the drill bit and the stone cylinder. To calculate
the sliding velocity between the drill bit and the rock, equation 2 was used. Odrill is the
circumference of the drill bit, 194 mm, taken as the average between that of from the outer
and inner diameter, 76 mm and 48 mm respectively. !drill is the rotational speed of the
drill bit. Aiming for the same sliding velocity using the stone cylinder, equation 3 could
be used to calculate the rotational speed for the stone cylinder, !cylinder , where Ocylinder
is the circumference of the stone cylinder, 455 mm. For the recommended parameters,
1000 rpm in the core drilling, a stone rotational speed of 420 rpm should be used in the
replicating test. The slower drilling, 700 rpm, were calculated to correspond to 300 rpm in
the replicating test and the faster drilling, 1200 rpm, to a stone rotational speed of 510 rpm.
The lathe had limitations in the rotational speed, the calculated rotational speeds could
not be used. Instead, the available rotational speeds closest to the calculated rotational
speeds were used.

v = Odrill ⇤ !drill (2)

v
!cylinder = (3)
Ocylinder

A fix lateral feed of 0.42 m/m was applied to ensure that no wear would occur on the
sides of the sample. The run time differed between the different rotational speeds; higher
rotational speed gave a shorter run time due to the faster lateral movement. It was not
possible to calculate the water flow corresponding to the water flow used in the drilling
process due to the waterways in the drill bit where most of the water flows. Four arbitrary
water flows were chosen. The length of the tests were limited by the length of the stone
cylinder.
Before the test started the test bit was weighed and the length, width and thickness was
measured with a calipers. The sample was then placed in the sample holder. The water
flow was put on an the data collection started. The sample was pressed against the stone
cylinder until the desired load was applied and then the lathe was turned on. After the test
finished the lathe, the water flow and the data collection were stopped. The sample was
taken out of the sample holder, cleaned in running water and dried with a Kimtech wipe
tissue. The area of the wear was measured with a calipers and the sample was weighed.
The worn surface was studied in a stereo microscope in order to get a perception of how the
surface had changed. The sample was then mounted back into the sample holder and the

19
test was repeated to a total of five runs per parameter set. When remounting the sample it
was important to mount it the same way as for the previous runs, so the wear would occur
at the same place.

3.3 Separation of a single diamond

To understand the wear of the diamonds it is necessary to know how the diamonds looked
before the drilling. Ideally they should have a morphology like in figure 5a. However,
damages from manufacturing are not easily observed as the diamonds are embedded in the
matrix. The damages on the diamonds could be both from the manufacturing and the core
drilling. However, damages from manufacturing are not easily observed as the diamonds are
embedded in the matrix. Therefore, a single diamond from a unused drill bit was carefully,
mechanically and chemically separated from the matrix. The metals in the matrix around
the diamonds were Ag, Cu, Mo and W. Tungsten is hard to dissolve, one way to do it is by
using a mixture of 20 ml HF, 10 ml H2 O and 5 ml HNO3 [20]. Copper and silver can be
dissolved in HNO3 and small amounts of molybdenum can be dissolved in HNO3 [20].
A small piece of an unused drill bit was placed in a beaker and 20 ml of concentrated HNO3
was poured into the beaker. After a while the solution was heated to 60°C in order to
increase the reaction rate. The solution was stirred periodically. After a hour of heating
the experiment was cancelled, even though not all of the matrix had been dissolved. The
solution was filtered through a Büchner funnel and rinsed with water. The filter paper
was examined in a stereo microscope in search for diamonds. Also, the matrix had become
porous and diamonds could be pulled from the matrix and put on a carbon tab for further
examination in SEM.

4 Results - Field tests

4.1 Rock material

The other thesis worker in the I-EDDA project [21] made a mapping of the rock samples
during the final stage of this master thesis. The main rock material found in the boreholes
are granite and diabase. Clay were found in the boreholes, which indicates chemical weath-
ering of the rock. There were also veins of quartz. The short distance between the three
holes makes it reasonable that all three holes have approximately the same layers, albeit
at slightly different depths. For a more complete picture of exactly which rock is present
in the three holes the reader is referred to the other master thesis which is to be finalised
later this year. The rock material that each drill bit drilled in right before being changed
can be seen in table 4, and also what condition that rock material was in.

20
 Table 4: The rock material the different drill bits drilled in right before being changed.

Drill bit Rock material Condition Reason for change

L.1 Granite Crushed Undersize cutting
R.1 Diabase Crushed Instability of the borehole
H.1 Granite Crushed Undersize cutting
H.2 Diabase Whole Undersize cutting
H.3 Diabase and Granite Crushed Instability of the borehole

4.2 Wear rate

The wear of the drill bits depends on the rock material drilled through. The minerals in
the rock affects the wear rate, but also the amount of crushed rock in the bore hole. The
depths drilled varies between all the drill bits, figure 1, as do the wear. The profiles of the
drill bits can be seen in figure 9 and gives a perception of the amount of material lost. Drill
bit L.1 has the most material left after the drilling while drill bit H.1 has the least amount
of material left. Drill bits R.1, H.1 and H.2 has a similar geometry after drilling, for drill
bit H.1 the amount of materials lost is higher.

(a) L.1 (b) L.1 (c) R.1 (d) H.1 (e) H.2 (f) H.3

Figure 9: The profiles of the teeth on the different drill bits, the side the arrow points at
in figure a). The wavy profiles from before the drilling is indicated in grey and after the
drilling in black.

Taking into account the different depths drilled (for the moment neglecting the different
rock types) and a varying rotational speed, a wear rate was calculated. Figure 10a shows
the wear rate per meter sinking depth of the borehole and figure 10b the wear rate per
sliding distance of the drill bit. From the figures it can be seen that drill bits H.1 and H.3
has a much higher wear rate than the other drills, both per sinking depth and per sliding
distance. Drill bit H.2 has a lower wear rate than the other drills in the same borehole,
but a larger wear rate than the drill bits L.1 and R.1. Although the difference is small, R.1
has a smaller wear rate than L.1 per sinking depth, while it is greater per sliding distance.
This shift is because of the different rotational speeds for the two drills. L.1 has a higher
rotational speed and will, therefore, have a higher sliding distance at the same depth for

21
the two drills. R.1 has had a larger wear than L.1 and that leads to a larger wear rate per
sliding distance. On the other hand R.1 had a greater sinking depth than L.1 and due to
this difference in depth R.1 has a smaller wear rate per sinking depth than L.1.

(a) (b)

Figure 10: Wear rate for the different drill bits per a) sinking depth [mm2 /m] and b) sliding
distance [µm2 /m]. The different rotational speeds impacts the wear rate and explains why
the ratio between the different boreholes varies depending on wether it is calculated per
sinking depth or sliding distance.

4.3 Diamonds

Diamonds from a unused drill bit were examined to see if defects were present before the
drilling started. There are defects present in the diamonds before drilling, see figure 11.
Figure 11a shows a diamond which seems to be defect free, figure 11b shows a hole in another
diamond, about 70 µm wide. A crack is present in one diamond, see figure 11c.
Examining the diamonds after drilling and dividing them into three groups; whole, fractured
and pull-out, gives the results in figure 12. It can be seen that R.1 differs from the other
three drills. Drill bits L.1 and H.1-H.3 have very similar distributions, around one third of
each category. Drill bit R.1 has a higher proportion of whole diamonds and almost half the
amount of fractured diamonds compared to the other drills.
During the studies in a stereo microscope and SEM further observations were made on
the wear of the diamonds. Drill bit L.1 had a higher amount of wear flats, while R.1 had
more microfractured diamonds. Drill bits H.1, H.2 and H.3 had a lot of macrofractured
diamonds.

22
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 11: Diamonds from an unused drill bit. a) A diamond with visually no defects, b)
a diamond with a hole, about 70 µm wide, c) a crack in a third diamond.

Figure 12: Distribution of diamond wear for the drill bits. R.1 differs from the other drills
with a higher amount of whole diamonds and a lower amount of fractured diamonds.

23
4.4 Matrix

In the previous section the diamonds on the surface were investigated in order to try to
explain the wear mechanisms. In this section the matrix is examined to be able to see
if there is any differences. By a visual inspection of the drill bits surfaces, figure 14, one
difference can be seen. The surface of R.1, figure 14b, is rough with some distinct ridges that
has formed behind the diamonds, in the sliding direction. The white spots on the drill is
rock attached to the surface. The surface of L.1, figure 14a, looks smooth, disregarding the
ridges and he ridges are very distinct and are present behind most of the diamonds, which
is different from the other drill bits. During SEM studies the pull-outs in L.1 appeared to
be deeper than the pull-outs at the other drill bits. For drill bit H.1, figure 14c, the surface
visually looks even smoother and in the bottom of the picture the surface looks polished.
H.1 has ridges, but not as distinct as for drill bit R.1. By visually inspection of drill bit
H.2, figure 14d, the drill bit seems to have a rougher surface than H.1, but smoother than
R.1 and not as distinct ridges as drill bit R.1.
The ridges were measured in an optical profilometer using VSI, in order to see if the height
of the ridges differs between the drill bits. Based on the images in figure 14, the five
seemingly largest ridges were chosen from one tooth on each drill bit. The smallest large
ridges were located on drill bits H.1 and H.2, while the largest ridges were measured on
H.3. The ridges of R.1 were larger than the ridges on L.1.

Figure 13: The height of the ridges behind the diamonds for the drill bits.

4.4.1 Low ROP and high rotational speed

The matrix for L.1 differed between the outer, middle and inner part of the drill bit, figure
15. A magnification of the matrix is located below the overview for easier comparison, e.g.
figure 15d is a magnification of figure 15a. At the outer part of the drill bit, figure 15a and
15d, the matrix has scratches and a low amount of impregnated rock. At the middle of the

24
 (a) L.1 (b) R.1

(c) H.1 (d) H.2 (e) H.3

Figure 14: The surface of the drill bits. The sliding direction for the drills is from left to
right. The difference in color is due to different light when taking the pictures.

25
drill bit, figure 15b and 15e, there is a lot of impregnated rock into the matrix. The rock
appears to be smooth, which could indicate that it has been melted. At the inner part of
the drill bit, figure 15c and 15f, there is also a lot of rock on the surface, but instead of
being impregnated into the matrix the rock visually looks to had adhered to the surface of
the matrix. The rock has a smooth surface, as in the middle, and could be melted.

(a) Outer part (b) Middle part (c) Inner part

(d) Outer part (e) Middle part (f) Inner part

Figure 15: The matrix on drill bit L.1. The matrix differed between a) outer part, b) middle
part and c) inner part.

4.4.2 Recommended parameters

For the drill bit R.1 the matrix differed between the outer part and the inner part of the
drill bit. In figure 16 the matrix at the outer part of the drill bit can be seen. Figure 16a
shows an overview of the matrix. There is a lot of rock impregnated to the surface, which
can be seen clearer in figure 16b. It shows a close up of the ridge behind the diamond
to the bottom right in figure 16a. Figure 16c is a close up och figure 16b and shows the
impregnated rock. The rock at the top, which is darker, visually looks to be smoother than
the rock on the sides, which could indicate melted rock at the top.
At the inner part of the drill bit the amount of impregnated rock is lower than at the outer
part. In figure 17a a lot of rock is placed in clusters above the matrix. When increasing the
magnification, figure 17b, the matrix looks smoother compared to the matrix at the outer

26
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 16: The surface for the outer part of drill bit R.1. a) An overview of the surface,
there is a lot of impregnated rock. b) Magnification of the matrix at the ridge behind
the diamond at the bottom right in a). c) Further magnification of the ridge, showing
impregnated rock.

part of the drill bit and not as much impregnated rock. Increasing the magnification further,
figure 17c, scratches can be seen in the matrix and rock cuttings above the matrix.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 17: The surface of the inner part of drill bit R.1. a) A lot of rock on the surface, b)
magnification of the matrix, c) further magnification of the matrix. There are scratches on
the matrix, and the rock is not impregnated as at the outer part of the drill bit.

4.4.3 High ROP and low rotational speed

The appearance of the matrix for drill bits H.1-H.3 is similar between the three drill bits.
The matrix had two distinct appearances, polished, figure 18a, and with some rock impreg-
nated into the surface, figure 18b. On some places, mainly on drill bit H.3, there was a lot
of rock cuttings above a polished surface, figure 18c. The polished surfaces arises at the
outer parts of the drill bit, while the areas with impregnated rock is more common on the
inside of the drill bit.

27
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 18: Drill bits H.1-H.3. Matrix a) which appears to be polished, b) with rock im-
pregnated and c) which looks polished with rock on top.

Figure 19 shows magnifications of the matrix. Figure 19a shows a polished surface. The
grains of the matrix can be distinguished on the surface for drill bits H.1-H.3. Figure 19b
shows matrix about to flake off and figure 19c shows a loosened flake from the matrix.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 19: a) Polished surface at H.1, b) matrix about to flake off at H.1, c) matrix has
flaked off at H.2.

4.5 Cross section

Two cross sections were made by Martina Grandin, Uppsala university, on one drill bit from
each borehole. All the images in this section is taken by her. The cross section were taken
at a place with little rock and one with a lot of rock. The surface of the drill bit for all
the figures is at the top, the grey lines at the top are Pt from the sample preparation. The
darker areas in the images are rock and the lighter areas are matrix.

28
4.5.1 Low ROP and high rotational speed

The cross section at the place with a small amount of rock at the surface for L.1 can be
seen in figure 20. Rock impregnated in the matrix can be seen in figure 20a, at a depth
of about 1 µm. The matrix has not been deformed at a great depth, as can be seen at
the round grains. In figure 20b a deformation of the matrix of about 700 nm can be seen.
Magnification of the figures can be seen in appendix C.1.1.

(a) (b)

Figure 20: a) An overview of the cross section from drill bit L.1 at the place with a lower
amount of rock at the surface. b) A close up of the matrix and the rock to the right in a).

For the cross section at the place with a higher amount of rock it is obvious in figure 21
that rock has been melted and fused into the matrix and then been deformed with the
matrix. An overview of the cross section can be seen in figure 21a. The rock is present
below the matrix and is deformed with it. The black holes in figure 21b visually looks like
gas bubbles, that indicates that the rock has been melted and could have been injected or
mixed into the matrix. The matrix has been deformed at a depth of almost 3 µm. Larger
images of the figures can be seen in appendix C.1.2

(a) (b)

Figure 21: a) An overview of the cross section from drill bit L.1 at the place with a higher
amount of rock at the surface. b) A close up of the rock to the right in a).

29
4.5.2 Recommended rotational speed

For the recommended rotational speed the cross section with a small amount of rock, see
figure 22, it was not possible to observe any rock at a low magnification, figure 22a. With
increased magnification, figure 22b, small fragments of rock could be seen at the surface.
The matrix has been heavily deformed to a depth of about 3 µm, visible as elongated and
smaller grains.

(a) (b)

Figure 22: The cross section for R.1 at the place with a low amount of rock at the surface.
a) An overview of the cross section, b) a close up of the rock to the right in a).

The cross section at the place with a higher amount of rock can be seen in figure 23. Figure
23a is an overview of the cross section. A lot of rock can be seen. To the left a solid piece
has been pressed into the matrix. To the right, magnification in figure 23b, the rock looks
solid to the left and porous to the right. This could be an indication that the rock has been
pressed into the matrix and then been melted at the surface. Figures with increased size
for both cross sections can be seen in appendix C.2.

(a) (b)

Figure 23: The cross section for R.1 at the place with a lot of rock at the surface. a) An
overview of the cross section, b) a close up of the rock to the right in a).

30
4.5.3 High ROP and low rotational speed

The cross section with a small amount of rock was similar to the one for L.1, figure 24.
The overview of the cross section, figure 24a shows round grains, with a small deformation.
When using a high magnification, figure 24b a few nanometers of rock could be seen at the
surface. The deformation of the matrix was about 400 µm deep,

(a) (b)

Figure 24: The cross section for H.1 where there was no to little rock on the surface. a)
Overview of the cross section. b) At higher magnification, a black line at the surface appears
which could be rock. The matrix is deformed to about 400 nm depth.

The cross section at the place with more rock at the surface can be seen in figure 25. In the
overview of the cross section, figure 25a, it can be seen that rock is present further down in
the matrix, at a depth of 5 µm at some places. Figure 25b is a close up of figure 25a. The
larger rock piece in figure 25a visually seems to have been cracked and would therefore have
been pressed down into the matrix while the rock in figure 25b could have been cracked or
melted into the matrix. Larger sizes of the figures in this section can be seen in appendix
C.3.

(a) (b)

Figure 25: The cross section for H.1 at the place with a lot of rock at the surface. a)
Overview of the cross section. b) A close up of a piece of rock in the matrix.

31
4.6 Transmission Electron Microscope studies

Transmission Electron Microscopy, TEM, studies were made on drill bit R.1 by Lisa Toller,
Uppsala University. All the images in this section are taken by Lisa Toller. She examined
the cross sections on two different places at the R.1 drill bit. The two positions were chosen
by the amount of rock on the drill bit surface, in order to see how rock affects the matrix.
By visual inspection position 1 seemed to have little to no rock on the surface while position
two had more rock on the surface, see figure 26.

Figure 26: The two positions that were examined in the TEM. Position one had little to
no rock on the matrix while position two visually had more rock on the matrix. The two
bottom images are taken with an imaging angle of 52°to increase the topographic features.

Figure 27 shows the samples for the TEM studies, taken with High-Angle Annular Dark-
Field imaging (HAADF). In both samples deformation of the matrix can be seen, as elon-
gation of the grains. Especially the heavy Mo and W grains are visually striking in these
images. The elongation in these images should be compared with figure 24 where the orig-
inal spherical shape of these grains is evident. For position 1, figure 27a, the depth of
he deformation is about 3 µm. For position 2, figure 27b, the depth of the deformation
is about 8 µm. In the following subsections the samples have been examined at higher
magnifications, in order to see if there were any rock fragments present and how the matrix
had been deformed.

4.6.1 Position one

Figure 28a shows a higher magnification of the sample from position 1. The surface of
the drill bit is at the same level as the blue arrow. The dark grey and light grey lines on
the surface is platinum from the sample preparation. At this scale it is evident that the
matrix has been heavily sheared and deformed and the grains are flat and thin and almost
parallell to the surface, which can be seen clearer in figure 28b taken with bright-field TEM
(BF TEM). The different contrasts indicates different elements and the contrast within the

32
 (a) (b)

Figure 27: An overview of the TEM samples for a) position 1 and b) position 2. The
deformation depth for position 1 is about 3 µm while the deformation depth at position 2 is
approximately 8 µm. The surfaces are just below the blue lines and above is the protective
platinum.

grains are mainly due to dislocations. In none of the pictures in figure 28, rock can be
seen.

(a) (b)

Figure 28: a) A closer picture of the matrix. b) The matrix has been deformed and the
grains are almost parallell to the surface. The surface is at the same level as the blue arrow
and the dark grey and light grey layers at the top are platina from the sample preparation.

Another position on the same cross section is imaged in figure 29. An overview can be seen in
figure 29a. The light grey and dark grey layers are platinum from the sample preparation.
Close to the surface deformed matrix can be seen that again is almost parallell to the
surface. The white line inside the blue box, between the surface and the platina, could
be rock. Figure 29b is a close up of figure 29a where the white area is unusually thick.
An Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis was made on the area inside the
blue square in figure 29b. That area can be seen in figure 29c. The black-ish region in the
bottom is the matrix of the drill bit and the grainy area at the top is the platina. The EDS

33
analysis showed that the white area in between contained Si, O, Ca and some Al and Fe
which indicate that there is rock on the surface. The two darker circles contained Ag and
Cu. The maps from the EDS analysis can be seen in Appendix D.1. The thickness of the
rock layer is approximately 50 nm.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 29: a) Overview of another place in position 1. The white area inside the blue square
could be rock and is examined at a higher magnification in b). Figure c) is a close up of
figure b). An EDS analysis was made on the area in figure c) indicating that the bright
area is rock.

4.6.2 Position two

For position 2 an overview can be seen in figure 30a taken with bright-field scanning trans-
mission electron microscope, BF STEM. The white and grey areas at the top of the picture
are background and platinum, respectively. The matrix is deformed to a larger depth than
the matrix at position 1. Figure 30b is a close up of figure 30a. The matrix very close to
the surface does not have the elongation of the grains as at position 1. Instead the matrix
seems to have been recrystallised, which can be seen clearer in figure 30c. An EDS analysis
was made on the matrix in order to see if it had been recrystallised. Instead of clear grains
as for position 1 Ag and Cu are spread even over the grey area. The dark grains are mostly
W, and the brighter grains are Mo. Mo is also distributed over the grey area, which could
indicate a recrystallisation of the matrix. The maps from the EDS analysis can be seen in
appendix D.2. Observe that Si and W have overlaps in the characteristic X-ray lines, so
the amount of Si is difficult to determine.
Position 2 had visually more rock on the surface than position 1 when choosing the position.
In figure 31, focusing on a different area in the same cross section, it is possible to see rock
on the surface as a light grey area between the dark matrix at the bottom and the dark
grey platinum above. The picture is taken with BF STEM. The thickness of the rock is
approximately 100-200 nm, depending on the measuring points. Figure 31b is taken with

34
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 30: a) An overview of position 2. b) A magnification of the blue square in a). The
matrix does not have the same elongation of the grains as as position 1. A closer look of
the blue square in b) is shown in c). An EDS analysis was made on the area in c) indicating
that a recrystallisation of the matrix could have happened.

Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy (STEM) which invert some of the contrasts,
and shows rock on the surface of the drill bit. An EDS analysis was made which verified
it was rock. The maps of the EDS analysis can be seen in appendix D.3. The grey area at
the top is platinum, the matrix is the white area at the bottom where there is Mo, W, Ag
and Cu. The dark grey areas are mainly Si, Al, O and Ca, indicating that there is rock on
the surface. The central part of the image, which contain rock-element even proved to be
crystalline, indicating it is a fragment pressed into the surface. The light grey area between
the rock and the matrix could be Cu from the matrix.

(a) (b)

Figure 31: Rock on the surface of the drill bit at position 2. a) Rock with a thickness of
100-200 nm. b) Rock with a thickness of 200 nm. An EDS analysis was made at figure b)
and showed that the dark grey area was rock.

35
5 Results - Replicating lab test

5.1 Wear rate

The wear rates of the drill bits differs between the five runs of a specific test bit. During
the first run the covering top of most matrix on the surface is rapidly worn off, exposing the
diamonds, which leads to a large material loss of the sample during that run and a large
wear rate, see figure 32. Orange dots are the size of the worn area and the blue dots are
the material losses after each run. In the first five runs, figure 32a, the material losses and
areas differs a bit, but when increasing to 20 runs, figure 32b, the wear rate stabilises and
the drill bit reaches a steady state. The large increase in worn area after about 115 kNm
occurs due to remounting and wear at a new area on the test bit. The wear rates for all
the replicating lab tests can be seen in Appendix E.

(a) (b)

Figure 32: The wear rates for the Median during a) five runs and b) 20 runs. The blue dots
shows the change in weight and the orange dots the worn area after each run.

5.2 Diamonds

The diamonds on the surface of the experimental bits was investigated and divided into four
groups; whole, microfractured, macrofractured and pull-out. The diamonds on the surface
were color coded according to the different wear mechanisms. The figures in appendix F
shows how these images could look like.
In figure 33 the amount of whole, microfractured, macrofractured and pull-out diamonds
of the experimental samples have been illustrated. In figure 33a it is possible to see a trend
in the behaviour of the diamonds for LL, median and HL. A lower load leads to a higher
amount of whole diamonds. When increasing the load, the amount of whole diamonds de-
creases while the amount of fractured diamonds increases. The proportion of microfractured

36
diamonds is similar between the loads, while the proportion of macrofractured diamods in-
creases with higher load. When increasing both the load and the water flow, the amount of
whole diamonds increases and the amount of microfractured decreases compared to the sit-
uation when only the load was increased. The amount of macrofractured diamonds is about
the same as for HL. Comparing this to the sets with a variation in water flow indicates that
the amount of water is important for the behaviour of the diamonds.
Figure 33b shows the amount of whole, fractured and pull-out diamonds for different rota-
tional speeds. The difference in behaviour of the diamonds is small. The amount of whole,
microfractured and pull-out diamonds is similar for the three speeds, while the amount of
macrofractured diamonds at 395 rpm is more than 2 times that at 270 and 470 rpm. For the
different water flows in figure 33c the amount of whole diamonds is similar for a low water
flow and an average water flow while it increases with a high water flow. The proportion
of microfractured diamonds decreases with increasing water flow, while the proportion of
macrofractured diamonds is the highest at an average water flow. In total, the amount of
fractured diamonds is the same between a low water flow and an average water flow, while
for a high water flow the total amount of fractured diamonds decreases.
Figure 33d shows the development of the diamonds when increasing the test length form
5 runs to 20 runs. A longer sliding distance decreases the amount of whole diamonds and
increases the amount of micro- and macrofractured diamonds. The length of the test was
still too short in order to get a change in the amount of pull-outs.

5.3 Matrix

To compare if the same mechanisms are dominant in the replicating lab tests as for the field
tests the height of the ridges were measured. Five ridges on each sample were measured one
time in the optical profilometer. The ridge sizes for the samples can be seen in figure 34.
The ridge sizes in figure 34a increases with an increase of the applied load. LL gave a ridge
size of 77 µm and HL a ridge size of 116 µm. When increasing the load further and applying
a higher water flow the increasing trend of the ridge sizes decreases, which corresponds to
a lower ridge size for a increased water flow, figure 34c. For the different rotational speeds,
see figure 34b, there is a slightly decreasing ridge size with increasing rotational speed. The
ridge sizes decreases from 100 µm to 89 µm from a low to a high rotational speed. For
an increase in water flow the size of the ridges decreases, figure 34c. For a low water flow
the average ridge size is 100 µm, while for a high water flow the average ridge size is 85
µm.
Comparing the change in ridge size for the longer run of the median after 5, 10, 15 and 20
runs, see figure 34d, shows that there is only a small difference. The ridge sizes increases
with about 5 µm between 5 and 10 runs, and then decreases with about 1 µm between
every five runs.

37
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 33: Statistics of the diamonds wear of the experimental bits. The diagrams compares
the a) load, b) rotational speed, c) flow rate and d) median with the longer run.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 34: The size of ridges for different a) loads b) rotational speeds and c) water flows.
d) Ridge sizes for the median after 5, 10, 15 and 20 runs.

38
During the measurement of ridges in the optical profilometer two surfaces were studies, one
dull and one smooth appearing surface. When doing the measurements there were areas
that were not detected, which could be an indication of different wear mechanisms. When
increasing the load the areas of undetected surface is greater and cohesive, while for a lower
load leads to a lot of small areas that are undetected. For a higher rotational speed there
is a greater degree of small areas that could not be detected, while for a slower rotational
speed the undetected areas were coherent and contained a lower degree of small areas. An
increase in water flow leads to a lot of small areas of undetected surface, while a low water
flow obtains larger areas. The images for the load can be seen in appendix G.1 and shows
the smooth surfaces. The images for the rotational speeds is taken from the dull surface
and can be seen in appendix G.2. For the water flow the smooth surfaces are compared,
images in appendix G.3.
When studying the surfaces in the SEM most of them visually looked similar. The surface
of the median can be seen in figure 35a and is representative for most of the samples. On
all the samples it was possible to see the grains on the surfaces, figure 35b, this is from the
surface of LL. When decreasing the water flow the amount of rock on the surfaces increased,
as can be seen in figure 35c.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 35: Surface of the a) median b) LL and c) LF.

6 Model

A model for the behaviour in the boreholes can be based on the penetration rate and how
the water flow is affected by this. By using a low penetration rate the diamonds in the drill
bit are not pressed very deep into the rock which lead to a larger gap between the drill
bit and the rock and the grinding occurs on the very top of the rock surface. Figure 36a
illustrates the diamond contact with the rock. The large gap also leads to a lower wear of
the matrix when the rock is not in contact with the matrix. A large gap leads to higher
ridges due to the larger space between rock and drill bit where the matrix is not worn.

39
With a large gap the water flows easier between the rock and the drill bit, this leads to a
better transportation of the rock cuttings. The water flow could be turbulent, and with the
rock cuttings in the water, cause erosion on the drill bit matrix.
When using higher rate of penetration the diamonds are pressed deeper into the rock and
the gap height decreases, see figure 36b. With a decreased gap height leads to a small space
between the matrix and the rock, the water flow is hindered and wear debris has to deform
the surface of the drill bit leading to abrasive wear of the matrix from the rock cuttings
in the water. If WOB is constant and only the rotational speed is increased a lifting force
may arise. This could have an affect similar to that of only reducing WOB, i.e. a longer
gap.

(a) (b)

Figure 36: Illustrative picture over the model. The top grey area is the drill bit and the
bottom line is the rock. a) A low ROP leads to a large gap and the diamonds are not
pressed into the rock. b) At a higher ROP the diamonds are pressed down into the rock.

7 Discussion

7.1 Wear of the diamonds

The wear of the diamonds on the drill bits from the field tests differed between the different
parameters. Due to the similar diamond wear distribution between L.1 and H.1-H.3, where
H.3 was the only drill bit not changed due to undersize cutting, it can be concluded that
the wear of the diamonds are the same during the entire drilling process. The wear does
not change when the drill bit is worn out and has to be changed. Therefore, it can also be
concluded that the recommended parameters were the most advantageous for the diamond
wear. The rock drilled in right before changing the drill bit was of little importance for
the wear mechanisms of the diamonds. R.1 stopped drilling in diabase, but the rock was
crushed, compared to H.2 which drilled in whole diabase in the end. If the rock had had a
greater impact on the diamond wear, than the drilling parameters, drill bit H.2 would likely
have had the more advantageous diamond wear, as its situation was more steady, and the
distribution of the wear mechanisms of the diamonds for the different drill bits would have
differed more.
Comparing the field tests with the replicating lab tests shows a big difference. Even though
the mechanisms of wear of the diamonds are similar for the two tests the distribution of the

40
diamond wears differs. The replicating tests have a higher amount of whole diamonds and
almost no pull-outs compared to the field tests that have about the same amount of whole,
fractured and pull-out diamonds. The amount of fractured diamonds are about the same
for the field tests and the replicating lab tests, around 35%. The low amount of pull-outs in
the replicating lab tests could depend on the lower load used or the shorter distances run
for the samples. The lower load gives a lower impact on the diamonds which could be too
low for pull out of diamonds from the matrix. The low load could also contribute to a too
big gap between the matrix and the rock, leading to a low wear of the matrix. A low wear
of the matrix does not expose the diamonds enough to facilitate pull-out. The pressure
was high enough to cause fractures on the diamonds, the amount of fractured diamonds
increased from 34% to 47% after 15 more runs, but not enough to cause pull-outs. Although
this differs from the drilling situation this actually indicates a desirable performance of a
drill bit. The drill bit is slowly worn due to enough diamonds at the surface which prevent
too big pressure on a few diamonds, leading to too early pull-outs. The low pressure on the
diamonds prevents pull-outs while the pressure is still high enough to wear on the rock. To
replicate the field tests better, a further increase in the length of the replicating lab tests
would be needed in order to make the wear of the matrix greater, eventually leading to
pull-outs.

7.2 Wear of the matrix

By a visual inspection of the matrixes in a LOM, figure 14, it could be seen that L.1 visually
looks more dull than the others and has long distinct ridges behind the diamonds. The drill
bits drilled with a higher ROP had a more polished appearance, with clear scratches on the
surface. The ridges behind the diamonds in these drill bits are not distinct. The surface of
R.1 looks more chaotic than the other drill bits. There is more rock on this surface, and it
has a dull appearance but not the same distinct ridges as L.1. The wear mechanisms should
differ between drill bits L.1 and H.1-H.3. For a drill bit, with a rotational speed in between
the others, the wear mechanisms could be a mixture between the mechanisms for L.1 and
the mechanisms for H.1-H.3, which could be the reason for the chaotic appearance. When
looking closer at the matrix it is possible to distinguish the grains in drill bits H.1-H.3, but
not for drill bits R.1 and L.1. A reason for no visible grains could be the recrystallisation,
which was seen in the TEM images on R.1, figure 30. For a higher rotational speed, e.g. R.1
compared to H.1-H.3, a higher temperature is achieved, this increase in temperature could
cause the recrystallisation of the matrix and the reason for not being able to distinguish
the grains at the surface. The temperature on drill bits H.1-H.3 was too low to get re-
crystallisation of the matrix. But drill bit L.1 had even higher rotational speed and should
experience recrystallisation. However, the wear mechanisms could also be a reason for not
being able to see the grains at the surface. If the matrix is flaked off the grains would not
remain on the surface and become recrystallised. Flaking of the matrix happens when the

41
frictional forces are high and give rise to three body abrasion [5]. The images from the SEM
shows that matrix has flaked off from the surface for drill bits H.1-H.3, figure 19,but the
same mechanism was not visible for drill bits L.1 and R.1. The different wear mechanisms
of the drill bits are also likely the reason for a deeper deformation of the matrix for R.1, 3
µm compared to 700 nm and 400 nm for L.1 and H.1, respectively. The frictional forces are
too high for H.1 and the matrix is worn off rather than becoming deformed. For R.1 there
are frictional forces from three body abrasion, but not large enough to produce flakes of the
matrix, instead the matrix is deformed. The smaller deformation depth for L.1 comes from
erosion, where the matrix is deformed, but the forces are too small to deform the matrix
to a large depth.
From the profiles, figure 9, it can be seen that all the drill bits are worn more on the
inner part compared to the outer part. An explanation to that behaviour is the amount
of diamonds per sliding distance. If the diamond density is the same for all places in the
drill, the amount of diamonds per sliding distance will be lower on the inner part of the
drill compared to the outer part. The amount of rock worn per diamond will be greater on
the inner part, which makes the lifetime of diamonds shorter on the inner part, than on the
outer part. Moreover, the rock will not be worn equally in the inner and the outer part. At
the outer part, with more diamonds per radial distance, the diamond tracks will overlap,
leading to a smooth stone as counter surface. On the inside, where the overlap is smaller,
the rock will be grinded more uneven. This uneavenly worn rock in the inner region makes
it more likely that unworn rock can come in contact with the drill bit matrix , causing two
body abrasion, which is a more rapid and effective wear mechanism than the three body
abrasion that may prevail in outer regions. The drill bit is, however, not worn out due to
this, after a while enough diamonds are exposed to overlap everywhere and the wear on the
matrix decreases and a steady state shape is achieved.
The ridges of H.1 and H.2 were low, while L.1, R.1 and H.3 follows a trend, see figure 13,
ridge size increases with increased ROP and decreased rotational speed. Measuring the
ridge sizes for the drill bits was hard due to low reflection of the surface and steep slopes
of the drill bits. When comparing the ridge sizes for the field tests with those from the
replicating lab tests; the lab tests gave an increase in ridge size for an increase in ROP and
for a decrease in rotational speed. The trend for L.1, R.1 and H.3 is then assumed to be
correct. Why the ridge sizes changes are discussed in the sections below. Comparing the
ridge size between field test, figure 13, and replicating lab test, figure 34, shows that the
sizes are in the same range, between 80 µm and 120 µm. In this sense the lab tests are
truly replicating the field tests.
The matrix surfaces of the lab tests are visually most similar to the polished surfaces of the
drill bits H.1-H.3. It is possible to distinguish the grains in the matrix for all the samples,
and there is just a small amount of rock pressed into the matrix. Why there is a small
amount of rock in the matrix is discussed in section 7.6 Rock on the surface.

42
7.3 Influence of load or ROP

When looking at the profiles of the drill bits in the field test and the sliding distance and
depth drilled, a big difference in wear and wear rate could be seen between the boreholes.
The diamond wear differed with a high amount of wear flats on L.1, a high amount of
microfractured diamonds on drill bit R.1 and a high amount of macrofractured on drill bits
H.1-H.3. According to the literature a lower pressure on the diamonds leads to a higher
amount of wear flats, which corresponds to the higher amount of wear flats on L.1. Higher
pressure on the diamonds would lead to a higher amount of fractured diamonds, which
corresponds to the results from drill bits H.1-H.3.
A higher ROP needs a higher WOB. Therefore, the load is lowest for L.1 and highest for
H.1-H.3. A lower load leads to a larger gap between the rock and the matrix and the flow
rate increases, while a higher load decreases the gap height and the flow rate. In reality, the
WOB was changed during the drilling to keep the ROP constant, but this is neglected in this
work. The ridge sizes do not increase in height with decreased load, as the model implies.
The observed decrease in ridge size for a decrease in load could however be explained by a
changed behaviour of the water flow. With an increased water flow the flow may be less
directional and thus it wear more on the ridges behind the diamonds which would decrease
their height.
The rate of forming rock cuttings for the boreholes differs due to the different ROP. The
lowest ROP is for drill bit L.1, which means the least rock cuttings per time unit is produced
with those parameters. Moreover, this comparably small amount of cuttings formed will
flow with the water and wear the matrix by erosion. For drill bits H.1-H.3 the ROP is
highest and it has the highest rate of residue formation. The amount of rock cuttings in the
water affects the viscosity of the fluid. A more viscous fluid will flow slower and the particles
inside the fluid will not be as mobile as in a fluid with lower viscosity. The particles will
therefore not erode the matrix but wear it by three body abrasion. This corresponds to the
images of the surfaces. Drill bit L.1 has a rougher surface, corresponding to erosion wear
while drill bits H.1-H.3 has a surface with scratches corresponding to three body abrasion.
Unfortunately no sampling of rock cuttings was made during drilling which would have
enabled e.g. analysis of size distribution and total amount.
In the replicating lab tests the load affects the wear of both the diamonds and the matrix.
The diamonds become more fractured for a higher load, indicating a higher pressure on the
diamonds. The ridges get larger with an increase in load. Theories about this has been
discussed earlier in this section. The replicating lab tests follows the same trend in ridge
size as that in the field test, while the diamond wear is hard to compare with the field tests.
Compared to literature the diamond wear is as expected.
Neglecting the shape, caused by the ridges, the fine scale surface roughness differs between
low load and high load, see appendix G. Undetected areas are surface areas with inclined

43
edges not giving a reflecting signal in the microscope. For a lower load the areas of unde-
tected surface were very small, which further suggest a mild wear mechanism like erosive
wear. For a lower load the gap height increases and the water has more space to move. This
gives the particles room to follow the fluid and hit and erode the surface. When increasing
the load the gap height decreases and the fluid has less space to move. This leads to the
particles getting pressed and rolled against the surface instead of hitting it, which means
the matrix gets worn by three body abrasion instead of erosion.

7.4 Influence of the rotational speed

During the replicating lab tests the change in rotational speed had little affect on the wear.
No trend could be seen for the wear of the diamonds. For the height of the ridges a small
decreasing trend with increasing rotational speed can be seen. According to the model an
increase in rotational speed should give a increase in gap and therefore higher ridges, but
this does not correspond with the results. Either the lifting force does not exist or its effect
is over shadowed by other effects. For example, when increasing the rotational speed the
flow rate increases, causing a more turbulent flow between the rock and the drill bit which
leads to increased wear of the ridges when the diamonds are unable to protect the ridges.
With a decreased rotational speed the water flow becomes more laminar and the diamonds
are able to protect the ridges, leading to a higher ridge height.
Comparing the images of the surfaces from the optical profilometer, see appendix G, where
there are larger areas of undetected surface with a lower rotational speed and more smaller
areas of undetected surface for a higher rotational speed. Again, a difference in wear
mechanisms could be the reason. Erosion could explain the appearance at the higher
rotational speed, a lot of small undetected areas. The lower rotational speed has some
small areas that could be explained by erosion, but the larger part area could be an effect
of three body abrasion, where rock has been pressed and rolled against the surface. For
the higher rotational speed, with erosive wear, the gap height increases and the amount of
water in the contact increases. The viscosity of the fluid decreases and the rock cuttings in
the fluid has more space to move, increasing the mobility for the cuttings, and they end up
bombarding the surface instead of being pressed and rolled against the surface, as could be
the case with a decrease in gap height and increase in viscosity of the fluid.

7.5 Water amount

The amount of water was kept constant during the field tests and therefore a comparison
made on just the effects of the water flow is not possible. Instead the change of the rotational
speed and ROP will be discussed to see its impact on the water flow. With increased
rotational speed the water flow will become more turbulent and cause more erosion on the

44
matrix. If the gap height is increased the water flow will become more directional. Looking
at the images from the LOM the flow seems to have been directional at higher speeds,
evidenced by the long, straight ridges on L.1, while the water flow seems less directional for
H.1-H.3, evidenced by the shorter ridges. However, the fine scale surface roughness of the
drill bits indicates there is a change in mechanism taking place. Drill bit L.1 has a rougher
surface, indicating the matrix wear is dominated by erosion which is strengthened by the
amount of impregnated rock in the matrix for the drill bit. L.1 had more impregnated
rock on the surface, while H.1-H.3 had smoother surfaces with scratches. These scratches
indicates abrasive wear, in this case three body abrasion, instead of erosion which would
be expected with a turbulent flow.
With an increase in ROP the gap height would decrease and a more turbulent flow would
be obtained. As described above, a decreased rotational speed would also have the effect
of decreasing the gap. The difference between a change in ROP compared to a change in
rotational speed is that a change in ROP also influences the amount of rock cuttings per
time unit. More rock cuttings gives a higher viscosity of the fluid between the rock and
drill bit and more abrasive particles. This could explain the polished surfaces around the
diamonds at drill bits H.1-H.3. Together, a high ROP and low rotational speed gives a
small gap between the rock and the drill bit with a lot of rock cuttings generated. This
makes it hard for the fluid to flow between the rock and drill bit, and it has to wear on the
matrix on the sides of the diamonds on order to pass the diamonds. More rock cuttings
in the fluid will wear more on the matrix, therefore it is important to have a large enough
water flow. The greatest generation rate of rock cuttings is in borehole 2, due to the high
ROP. The water flow is apparently high enough as evidenced by the low amount of wear
flats on H.1-H.3. A wear mechanism favoured by increased temperature. The water both
lowers the temperature of the drill bits and transports rock cuttings from the surface which
otherwise could lead to a increase in temperature.
For the replicating lab tests a more favourable mechanism distribution was achieved for a
higher water flow. When increasing the load and at the same time increasing the water
flow, the trend of decreasing amount of whole diamonds when just increasing the load was
broken, and the amount of whole diamonds instead increased. The wear of the diamonds
are therefore dependent on the amount of water in the system. A hypothesis is that the
water increases the gap between the rock and the drill bit, leading to a decrease in pressure
on the diamonds and a decrease in fractures. For the ridge sizes the height decreases with
an increase in flow. The same reasoning as for the field test applies here. With an increasing
gap the water flow becomes more turbulent and the fluid can wear more on the matrix as
the diamonds cannot protect the ridges. The wear mechanisms discussed above, three body
abrasion and erosion, can be connected also to the water flow with the help of pictures of
the surface roughness. With a low water flow the areas of undetected surface were bigger
than with high water flow, where the areas were small but many. The many small areas
indicate erosion wear while the few larger areas indicate abrasive wear.

45
7.6 Rock on the surface

All the drill bits have rock on the surface, in different amounts and appearances. Drill
bit L.1 have more wear flats and melted rock than the other drill bits, which indicate
temperatures of over 700°C were prevailing during drilling. The high velocity is the main
cause of these temperatures. Depending on which minerals that have melted, the local
temperatures may have been even higher. The fact that the outer part of the drill looks
scratched rather than eroded does not correspond to previous theories. What causes this
is unknown. On drill bit R.1 there is more rock pressed into the matrix if one studies the
SEM-pictures of the outer part of the drill bit. It may be a mixture of three body abrasion
and erosion that causes the amount of rock in the matrix to increase. On the inner part of
the drill bit there is similar wear as on the drill bits with a lower rotational speed. This is
reasonable as the inner part has a lower sliding velocity than the outer part. This slower
velocity causes the wear to resemble that of the H.1-H.3, more abrasive wear than erosion.
The drill bits with a higher ROP and a lower rotational speed have a small amount of rock
on the surface. Where rock is present, it often appears to have penetrated the matrix. The
fact that not much rock is present could, as discussed above, be due to effective material
removal by three body abrasion. The rock is pressed and rolled against the surface, rather
than being thrusted to it. On some areas there is much rock laying on the surface. That
may be due to a larger volume of rock cuttings being formed during drilling due to the
higher ROP and not being sufficiently rinsed away.
How the rock mixed into the matrix affects the wear is not known. The stone could protect
the matrix from being worn due to its higher hardness, decreasing the wear rate of the
matrix. This could affect the ratio of wear rate between matrix and diamond and the
diamonds are not fully exposed. The rock in the matrix could also increase the wear rate
of the matrix. If the rock adheres to the matrix, and when the rock is worn off matrix is
worn with it. These are two theories on how the rock on the surface affects the wear of
the drill bits. Further studies have to be made in order to be certain about which one is
dominant.
For the cross sections the amount of rock on different places on the same drill bit differs
greatly. This difference may be due to different mechanisms when the rock has contacted
the matrix. On drill L.1 the rock may have melted and been mixed in since the matrix
and the rock seems to have been fused together and the rock follows the deformation of the
grains. The pores in the rock may be from gas or bubbles, which indicate that the rock has
been melted. On the other drill bits the rock appears to have been pressed in, the rock is
more solid, lacks any pores and does not have any matrix above it. On drill bit R.1 there is
a large area of rock appearing melted due to high concentration of pores, but right beside it
there is a rock that has been pressed in. On drill H.1 most of the rocks seems to have been
pressed into the matrix. The rocks look solid, with a few cracks, but lacks the pores that
are present in the cross sections for the other drill bits. Wether the cross sections taken

46
for the drill bits are representative for the whole drill bit is unknown. The only certainty
is that there may be rock several micrometers deep into the matrix and that the rock may
have been melted.
For the replicating lab tests there were visually not the same amount of rock pressed into
the matrix. LF had a lot of rock present at the surface, similar to some places on R.1 and
H.1-H.3. For the rest of the samples the amount of rock in the contact seemed to be small.
In the borehole the rock cuttings has to be pumped upwards in order to leave the contact
between drill bit and rock. In the replicating lab test the rock cuttings could be flushed
downwards, falling out from the contact, leading to a shorter amount of time for the rock
cuttings in the contact. This leads to a lower amount of rock cuttings in the lab test contact
and a lower amount of rock that can be pressed into the matrix.

8 Conclusions

This work presents new results for the wear of drill bits used in core drilling. There are
significant differences between the wear mechanisms at different drilling parameters which
affect the working life for the drill bits. A descriptive model for the different mechanisms
was presented. The model is based on the gap height, how parameters affect it and how it
affects the wear mechanisms. The following conclusions could be made:
• The recommended drilling parameters give a more advantageous diamond wear for
the drill bits, and give the lowest wear per sinking depth.
• The difference in parameters used in the field test are large enough to get a change
in wear mechanisms.
• Erosive wear is the wear mechanism on the matrix during lower pressure/higher ro-
tational speed.
• Three body abrasion is the wear mechanism on the matrix during higher pressure/lower
rotational speed.
• The wear mechanisms of the diamonds are the same during the entire drilling process.
• The drilling parameters seem to have a greater impact on the wear of the diamonds
than the rock drilled in has.
• The water flow impacts the main wear mechanism. A low flow leads to three body
abrasion while a larger and more turbulent flow leads to erosion.
• A higher rotational speed leads to lower ridges due to more turbulent flows.
• A higher rotational speed leads to an increase in temperature.

47
 • The wear is greater on the inside of the drill bits due to lower diamond density per
sliding distance.
• The wear mechanisms and the trends for the replicating lab tests are similar to the
trends and wear mechanisms in drilling.
• The replicating lab test can be used in order to examine the effect of changing different
parameters.
• Longer runs are needed for the replicating test to obtain a more realistic amount of
pull-out.

9 Future work

The work has given more knowledge about how the drill bits wear during drilling and
how the parameters affects the wear. There is still a lot to study to get an even better
understanding of the wear. Here are a few ideas of future works that would help increase
the knowledge:
• Study the wear of the reamers. The reamers on the drill bits had different appearances.
Why and how could help prevent undersize cutting due to wear of the reamers in the
future.
• Longer runs in the replicating lab test to get more pull-outs in order to replicate the
real drilling process better.
• During the replicating lab test the test bits drilled in only one kind of rock. How does
the wear change when changing rock type?
• How do the parameters have to be changed for different rock types?
• In the manufacturing, change the gradient in diamond density in the drill bit in order
to get a higher amount of diamonds on the inside and a more even wear of the inner
and outer part of the drill bit.
• In the manufacturing, increase the width of the water way further out on the drill
bit, or decrease the width of the water way at the inner part of the drill bit. To get
a more even wear of the inner and outer part of the drill bit.

48
10 Acknowledgements

I want to thank the people in the I-EDDA project who made this master thesis work possible
and answering all my questions. Thank you Urban Wiklund, Uppsala University, for all the
help and discussions during the work. Thank you Martina Grandin, Uppsala University,
for the cross sections and SEM images from these, for the pre-work and figuring out how
to cut through the drill bits. Thank you Lisa Toller for the TEM images and big thanks
to the rest of the Tribomaterials group at Ångström, Uppsala University, for all the help
and support. Finally I would like to thank my family and friends for the support during
the work.

49
References

[1] Epiroc. Borrar efter kunskap, 2015. URL https://www.epiroc.com/sv-se/

customer-stories/2015/drilling-for-knowledge.
[2] Atlas Copco. Professional Diamond Driller’s Handbook - Practical guide. Fagersta,
Sweden, 2015.
[3] D. Miller and A. Ball. Rock drilling with impregnated diamond microbits - An ex-
perimental study. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts, 27(5):363–371, oct 1990.
[4] S.Y. Luo and Y.S. Liao. Study of the behaviour of diamond saw-blades in stone
processing. Journal of Materials Processing Tech., 51(1-4):296–308, 1995.
[5] Tian Xuefeng and Tian Shifeng. The wear mechanisms of impregnated diamond bits.
Wear, 177(1):81–91, sep 1994.
[6] H.K. Tönshoff, H. Hillmann-Apmann, and J Asche. Diamond tools in stone and civil
engineering industry: cutting priciples, wear and applications. Diamond and related
materials, 11:736–741, 2002.
[7] Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning. Geokartan. URL https://apps.sgu.se/
geokartan/.
[8] Edward J. Tarbuck, Frederick K. Lutgens, and Dennis Tasa. Earth - An Introduction
to Physical Geology. Pearson, 11 edition, 2014.
[9] Roland Pusch. Vittring och Mineralomvandling i berg. Technical report, Jacobson &
Widmark AB, Stockholm, 1970.
[10] S.Y. Luo. Investigation of the worn surfaces of diamond sawblades in sawing granite.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 70:1–8, 1997.
[11] Duncan Miller and Anthony Ball. The wear of diamonds in impregnated diamond bit
drilling. Wear, 141(2):311–320, 1991.
[12] Dianjiang Wang. The wear modes and mechanisms of diamonds in Sawing hard stone.
Journal of Central South University of Technology, 3(1):96–98, apr 1996.
[13] Jani Kenda and Janez Kopač. Diamond tools for machining of granite and their wear.
Strojniski Vestnik/Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 55(12):775–780, 2009.
[14] R. H. Telling, C. J. Pickard, M. C. Payne, and J. E. Field. Theoretical strength and
cleavage of diamond. Physical Review Letters, 84(22):5160–5163, 2000. ISSN 10797114.

50
[15] X.P Xu, Y Li, W.Y Zeng, and L.B Li. Quantitative analysis of the loads acting on
the abrasive grits in the diamond sawing of granites. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 129(1-3):50–55, oct 2002.
[16] Staffan Jacobson and Sture Hogmark. Tribologi - Friktion, smörjning, nötning. Upp-
sala, Sweden, 2017.
[17] Jacob Oskarsson. Tribological testing of drill bit inserts. Master thesis, 2012. URL
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:451521/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
[18] Anna From. A wear test mimicking the tribological situation in rock drilling. Master
thesis, 2012.
[19] Johan Wallin. Tribological testing of rotary drill bit inserts. Master thesis, 2012. URL
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:451521/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
[20] Thomas Dulski. A Manual for the Chemical Analysis of Metals. ASTM, West Con-
shohocken, PA, 1996.
[21] Mandana Farvardini. No Title. Unpublished, University of Gothenburg, 2018.

51
Appendix A Setup replicating lab test

Water pump to the left, the stone cylinder in the middle and to the right the loading spring
and strain gauges for measuring normal forces and friction force. Inside the blue box is a
close up of the sample holder, and the sample pressed against the stone cylinder.

52
Appendix B Sample holder

53
Appendix C Cross sections

C.1 Low ROP and high rotational speed

C.1.1 Small amount of rock on the surface

54
C.1.2 Large amount of rock on the surface

55
C.2 Recommended parameters, small amount of rock

C.2.1 Small amount of rock at the surface

56
C.2.2 Large amount of rock at the surface

57
C.3 High ROP and low rotational speed

C.3.1 Small amount of rock at the surface

58
C.3.2 Large amount of rock at the surface

59
Appendix D EDS analysis of TEM samples

D.1 Rock at position 1

60
D.2 Recrystallised matrix at position 2

61
D.3 Rock at position 2

62
Appendix E Wear rate Replicating lab tests

E.1 Load

63
E.2 Rotational speed

64
E.3 Water flow

65
Appendix F Images of diamond characterisation

The blue rings corresponds to whole diamonds, yellow rings to microfractured diamonds,
green rings to macrofractured and red rings to pull-outs.

100 N 200 N 400 N

66
Appendix G Surface roughness of the replicating lab test pieces

G.1 Load

67
G.2 Rotational speed

68
G.3 Water flow

69