Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-lcgwf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T22:21:30.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Practicality of Tricone Bit Wear Condition Assessment

Subject: Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2020

Ferri Hassani
Affiliation:
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 2A7, Canada

Abstract

A practical bit condition monitoring system is a necessary component of autonomous drilling. Tricone bits are widely used in blasthole drilling in mining. Bits experience a variety of wear mechanisms during the operation and rolling element failure is the dominant catastrophic failure mode of tricone bits. Bit lifetime and performance significantly vary based on the working condition and the critical components of the bit i.e. rolling elements, are invisible to the direct condition monitoring systems. At McGill University, extensive research work is conducted to develop an indirect bit condition monitoring and failure prediction approach relying on the vibration signals and the technology is currently patent pending. This article presents real-world experimental evidence to show the unreliability of conservative bit changing strategy based on the bit operation life or drop in the rate of penetration (ROP) and ineffectiveness of direct wear monitoring techniques to cover the dominant failure mode.

Objective

To demonstrate the unreliability of tricone bit replacement relying on bit operation life or ROP measurement and ineffectiveness of vision-based monitoring techniques for autonomous drilling.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Tricone bit installed on the rig.

Figure 1

Table 1. Operation life of four tricone bits in one mine site

Figure 2

Figure 2. The rate of penetration (ROP) trend during the complete lifecycle of a bit.

Reviewing editor:  Guney Guven Yapici Ozyegin University, Mechanical Engineering, Nisantepe Mh. Orman Sk. No:34-36, Istanbul, Turkey, 34794
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and has been sent for additional statistical evaluation and met required revisions.

Review 1: Practicality of Tricone Bit Wear Condition Assessment

Conflict of interest statement

This paper does not provide clear guidelines on how the research will proceed. The author did not give detailed instructions on how to implement (or has implemented) a tool condition monitoring system. The author introduced the term “rate of penetration (ROP)”, which corresponds with feed rate (m/min) in cutting theory. I didn’t see which type of signal (in the tool wear monitoring system) will be compared to feed rate to get information about tool wear. What about the mechanical properties of the rocks which is used in experimental? Does it affect to the wear rate on the cutting edge of the tools…?

Comments

Comments to the Author: This paper does not provide clear guidelines on how the research will proceed.

The author did not give detailed instructions on how to implement (or has implemented) a tool condition monitoring system.

The author introduced the term “rate of penetration (ROP)”, which corresponds with feed rate (m/min) in cutting theory. I didn’t see which type of signal (in the tool wear monitoring system) will be compared to feed rate to get information about tool wear.

What about the mechanical properties of the rocks which is used in experimental? Does it affect to the wear rate on the cutting edge of the tools…?

Presentation

Overall score 2.9 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
2 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
2 out of 5

Context

Overall score 3.3 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
3 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
2 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 2 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
2 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
2 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
2 out of 5

Review 2: Practicality of Tricone Bit Wear Condition Assessment

Conflict of interest statement

Hereby it is declared that I have no conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript. Dr. Seyed Rahman Torabi

Comments

Comments to the Author: Dear Author,

Outlining the deficiencies and shortcomings of the existing tricone bit wear monitoring methods including operation life procedures, ROP based techniques, and image processing technologies in this article is useful and provides initiatives for more research in finding new methods such as the one, mentioned in the article. However, in my opinion, as it appears that the main aim of this research is to provide a background to introduce your new effort underway at your university in the area of vibration signals analysis method, presumably, it could be a good idea to very concisely list the main features of this new method. Particularly, since this new approach is highlighted in the abstract, the reader is quite eager to receive minimum information about it somewhere in this article.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5