Delft University of Technology

The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model. Family Edition.

Miedema, SA

Publication date
2015
Document Version
Final published version
Citation (APA)
Miedema, SA. (2015). The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model. Family Edition. (3 ed.) IOS Press.

Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable).
Please check the document version above.

Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent
of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights.
We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.

For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10.
The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock
Cutting Model
3rd Edition

By

Sape A. Miedema
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The cover shows a father and a son (or a teacher and a student) cutting sand on the beach,
making a soil structure, with the city of Delft in the background and a historic dredge in the
water. The cover has been designed by Riëlle van der Meijden of About Colors
(www.aboutcolors.nl) and is inspired by:

The comic book Oscar & Isidoor was made

by Frederic Antonin Breysse (1907-2001) in
the period 1945-1955. The comics were first
published in the French magazine “Coeurs
Vaillants” and later in the Dutch magazine
“Taptoe”.

This comic book was the first comic book

read by the author around 1960.

The painting “View on Delft” is an oil

painting by Johannes Vermeer (1632-1675)
painted in 1660-1661.

The painting shows the city of Delft, which

is the residence of the author since 1974 and
the location of Delft University of
Technology, established in 1842.

In 1761 a dredging machine was invented by

F.X. dÁrles de Liniere for the maintenance
of rivers and canals in Holland. To explain
the patent, he added a color drawing. The
patent was accepted by the “Staten van
Holland”.

This drawing is used in the lectures of the

author to show how dredging started.

i
The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

ii
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock

Cutting Model
Family 3rd Edition

By

Sape A. Miedema

Delft University Press

iii
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

© 2014-2015 Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema and IOS Press. All rights reserved.

Preliminary edition:
ISBN Book: 978-94-6186-249-5
ISBN EBook: 978-94-6186-252-5

1st edition, 2014:

ISBN Book: 978-1-61499-453-4
ISBN EBook: 978-1-61499-454-1
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-454-1-i

2nd edition, 2015, version: Wednesday, January 27, 2016:

ISBN Book: 978-94-6186-537-3
ISBN EBook: 978-94-6186-539-7

Published by IOS Press under the imprint of Delft University Press. Published online with Open Access by IOS
Press and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License.

Publisher
IOS Press BV
Nieuwe Hemweg 6b
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-20-688 3355
Fax: +31-20-687 0019
Email: order@iospress.nl
www.iospress.nl

Distributor in the USA & Canada

IOS Press, Inc.
4502 Rachael Manor Drive
Fairfax, VA 22032
USA
Fax: +1 703 323 3668
Email: iosbooks@iospress.com

LEGAL NOTICE
The publisher is not responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

iv
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Preface
In dredging, trenching, (deep sea) mining, drilling, tunnel boring and many other applications, sand, clay or rock
has to be excavated. The productions (and thus the dimensions) of the excavating equipment range from mm 3/sec
- cm3/sec to m3/sec. In oil drilling layers with a thickness of a magnitude of 0.2 mm are cut, while in dredging this
can be of a magnitude of 0.1 m with cutter suction dredges and meters for clamshells and backhoe’s. Some
equipment is designed for dry soil, while others operate under water saturated conditions. Installed cutting powers
may range up to 10 MW. For both the design, the operation and production estimation of the excavating equipment
it is important to be able to predict the cutting forces and powers. After the soil has been excavated it is usually
transported hydraulically as a slurry over a short (TSHD’s) or a long distance (CSD’s) or mechanically. Estimating
the pressure losses and determining whether or not a bed will occur in the pipeline is of great importance.
Fundamental processes of sedimentation, initiation of motion and erosion of the soil particles determine the
transport process and the flow regimes. In TSHD’s the soil has to settle during the loading process, where also
sedimentation and erosion will be in equilibrium. In all cases we have to deal with soil and high density soil water
mixtures and its fundamental behavior.

This book gives an overview of cutting theories. It starts with a generic model, which is valid for all types of soil
(sand, clay and rock) after which the specifics of dry sand, water saturated sand, clay, atmospheric rock and
hyperbaric rock are covered. For each soil type small blade angles and large blade angles, resulting in a wedge in
front of the blade, are discussed. The failure mechanism of sand, dry and water saturated, is the so called Shear
Type. The failure mechanism of clay is the so called Flow Type, but under certain circumstances also the Curling
Type and the Tear Type are possible. Rock will usually fail in a brittle way. This can be brittle tensile failure, the
Tear Type for small blade angles, but it can also be brittle shear failure, which is of the Shear Type of failure
mechanism for larger blade angles. For practical cutting angles in dredging a combination may occur, the Chip
Type. Under hyperbaric conditions rock may also fail in a more apparent ductile way according to the Flow Type
or Crushed Type of failure mechanism. This is also called cataclastic failure.

For each case considered, the equations/model for the cutting forces, power and specific energy are given. The
models are verified with laboratory research, mainly at the Delft University of Technology, but also with data from
literature.

The model is named The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model. Up to date information (modifications and
additions) and high resolution graphs and drawings can be found on the website www.dscrcm.com.

v
The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

vi
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

About the Author.

Dr.ir. Sape A. Miedema (November 8th 1955) obtained his
M.Sc. degree in Mechanical Engineering with honours at the
Delft University of Technology (DUT) in 1983. He obtained
his Ph.D. degree on research into the basics of soil cutting in
relation with ship motions, in 1987. From 1987 to 1992 he was
Assistant Professor at the chair of Dredging Technology. In
1992 and 1993 he was a member of the management board of
Mechanical Engineering & Marine Technology of the DUT. In
1992 he became Associate Professor at the DUT with the chair
of Dredging Technology. From 1996 to 2001 he was appointed
Head of Studies of Mechanical Engineering and Marine
Technology at the DUT, but still remaining Associate Professor of Dredging Engineering. In
2005 he was appointed Head of Studies of the MSc program of Offshore & Dredging
Engineering and he is also still Associate Professor of Dredging Engineering. In 2013 he was
also appointed as Head of Studies of the MSc program Marine Technology of the DUT.

Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema teaches (or has taught) courses on soil mechanics and soil cutting, pumps
and slurry transport, hopper sedimentation and erosion, mechatronics, applied thermodynamics
related to energy, drive system design principles, mooring systems, hydromechanics and
mathematics. He is (or has been) also teaching at Hohai University, Changzhou, China, at
Cantho University, Cantho Vietnam, at Petrovietnam University, Baria, Vietnam and different
dredging companies in the Netherlands and the USA.
His research focuses on the mathematical modeling of dredging systems like, cutter suction
dredges, hopper dredges, clamshell dredges, backhoe dredges and trenchers. The fundamental
part of the research focuses on the cutting processes of sand, clay and rock, sedimentation
processes in Trailing Suction Hopper Dredges and the associated erosion processes. Lately the
research focuses on hyperbaric rock cutting in relation with deep sea mining and on hydraulic
transport of solids/liquid settling slurries.

vii
The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

viii
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

This book is dedicated to my father

Jacob Miedema
April 7th 1928 – July 18th 2015

ix
The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

x
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table of Contents
Preface. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………v
Chapter 1: Introduction. ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Approach. ..................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 2: Basic Soil Mechanics. .................................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Introduction. ..............................................................................................................................5
2.2. Soil Mechanics. .........................................................................................................................5
2.2.1. Definition. ......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2. Soil Creation. ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.3. Soil Classification. ............................................................................................................................ 8
2.3. Soils. ........................................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.1. Sand. .................................................................................................................................................11
2.3.2. Clay. .................................................................................................................................................13
2.3.3. Rock. ................................................................................................................................................15
2.4. Soil Mechanical Parameters. ................................................................................................... 21
2.4.1. Grain Size Distribution/Particle Size Distribution. ..........................................................................21
2.4.2. Atterberg Limits. ..............................................................................................................................21
2.4.3. Mass Volume Relations. ..................................................................................................................23
2.4.4. Permeability. ....................................................................................................................................28
2.4.5. The Angle of Internal Friction..........................................................................................................30
2.4.6. The Angle of External Friction. .......................................................................................................31
2.4.7. Shear Strength. .................................................................................................................................32
2.4.8. UCS or Unconfined Compressive Strength. .....................................................................................34
2.4.9. Unconfined Tensile Strength. ...........................................................................................................35
2.4.10. BTS or Brazilian Tensile Strength. ..............................................................................................35
2.4.11. Hardness. .....................................................................................................................................35
2.5. Criteria & Concepts. ................................................................................................................ 37
2.5.1. Failure Criteria. ................................................................................................................................37
2.5.2. The Phi=0 Concept. ..........................................................................................................................37
2.5.3. Factors Controlling Shear Strength of Soils. ....................................................................................37
2.5.4. Friction, Interlocking & Dilation. .....................................................................................................38
2.5.5. Effective Stress. ................................................................................................................................38
2.5.6. Pore Water Pressure: Hydrostatic Conditions. .................................................................................39
2.5.7. Pore Water Pressure: Capillary Action. ............................................................................................39
2.5.8. Darcy’s Law. ....................................................................................................................................39
2.5.9. Brittle versus Ductile Failure. ..........................................................................................................41
2.6. Soil Mechanical Tests. ............................................................................................................. 43
2.6.1. Sieve Analysis. .................................................................................................................................43
2.6.2. Hydrometer Analysis. .......................................................................................................................43
2.6.3. Standard Penetration Test. ................................................................................................................44
2.6.4. Cone Penetration Test. .....................................................................................................................45

xi
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2.6.5. Triaxial Test. ....................................................................................................................................47

2.6.6. Shear Test. ........................................................................................................................................49
2.6.7. Point Load Test. ...............................................................................................................................50
2.7. Nomenclature. ......................................................................................................................... 53
2.8. The Mohr Circle. ..................................................................................................................... 55
2.9. Active Soil Failure. .................................................................................................................. 61
2.10. Passive Soil Failure. ................................................................................................................ 65
2.11. Summary. ................................................................................................................................ 69
2.12. Shear Strength versus Friction. ................................................................................................ 71
2.13. Nomenclature. ......................................................................................................................... 73
Chapter 3: The General Cutting Process. ...................................................................................................75
3.1. Cutting Mechanisms. ............................................................................................................... 75
3.2. Definitions. .............................................................................................................................. 76
3.3. The Flow/ Shear/Crushed Type. .............................................................................................. 77
3.3.1. The Equilibrium of Forces. ..............................................................................................................77
3.3.2. The Individual Forces. ......................................................................................................................79
3.4. The Curling Type. ................................................................................................................... 80
3.5. The Tear Type and Chip Type. ................................................................................................ 82
3.6. The Snow Plough Effect. ......................................................................................................... 87
3.6.1. The Normal and Friction Forces on the Shear Surface and Blade. ...................................................87
3.6.2. The 3D Cutting Theory. ...................................................................................................................87
3.6.3. Velocity Conditions..........................................................................................................................87
3.6.4. The Deviation Force. ........................................................................................................................90
3.6.5. The Resulting Cutting Forces. ..........................................................................................................91
3.7. Example Program in Visual Basic 6. ....................................................................................... 91
3.8. Finding the Shear Angle. ......................................................................................................... 92
3.9. Specific Cutting Energy Esp. .................................................................................................... 92
3.10. Nomenclature. ......................................................................................................................... 93
Chapter 4: Which Cutting Mechanism for Which Kind of Soil? ..............................................................95
4.1. Cutting Dry Sand. .................................................................................................................... 95
4.2. Cutting Water Saturated Sand. ................................................................................................ 96
4.3. Cutting Clay. ........................................................................................................................... 97
4.4. Cutting Rock Atmospheric. ..................................................................................................... 99
4.5. Cutting Rock Hyperbaric. ...................................................................................................... 101
4.6. Summary. .............................................................................................................................. 103
4.7. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 104
Chapter 5: Dry Sand Cutting. ....................................................................................................................105
5.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 105
5.2. Definitions. ............................................................................................................................ 105
5.3. The Equilibrium of Forces. .................................................................................................... 106
5.4. An Alternative Shape of the Layer Cut. ................................................................................ 110
5.5. The Influence of Inertial Forces. ........................................................................................... 111

xii
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

5.6. Specific Energy. .................................................................................................................... 117

5.7. Usage of the Model for Dry Sand. ......................................................................................... 117
5.8. Experiments in Dry Sand. ...................................................................................................... 119
5.8.1. Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B). ......................................................................................................119
5.8.2. Wismer & Luth (1972B). ...............................................................................................................121
5.9. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 122
Chapter 6: Saturated Sand Cutting. ..........................................................................................................123
6.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 123
6.2. Definitions. ............................................................................................................................ 123
6.3. Cutting Theory Literature. ..................................................................................................... 124
6.4. The Equilibrium of Forces. .................................................................................................... 127
6.5. Determination of the Pore Pressures...................................................................................... 129
6.6. Numerical Water Pore Pressure Calculations. ....................................................................... 131
6.7. The Blade Tip Problem.......................................................................................................... 137
6.8. Analytical/Numerical Water Pore Pressure Calculations. ..................................................... 138
6.9. Determination of the Shear Angle  ..................................................................................... 145
6.10. The Coefficients a1 and a2. .................................................................................................... 148
6.11. Determination of the Coefficients c1, c2, d1 and d2. ............................................................... 149
6.11.1. Approximations. ........................................................................................................................150
6.12. Specific Cutting Energy......................................................................................................... 152
6.12.1. Specific Energy and Production in Sand. ...................................................................................153
6.12.2. The Transition Cavitating/Non-Cavitating. ...............................................................................157
6.12.3. Conclusions Specific Energy .....................................................................................................157
6.12.4. Wear and Side Effects. ...............................................................................................................158
6.13. Experiments. .......................................................................................................................... 161
6.13.1. Description of the Test Facility. .................................................................................................161
6.13.2. Test Program. .............................................................................................................................169
6.13.3. Water Resistance. .......................................................................................................................170
6.13.4. The Influence of the Width of the Blade. ...................................................................................170
6.13.5. Side Effects. ...............................................................................................................................170
6.13.6. Scale Effects. .............................................................................................................................172
6.13.7. Comparison of Measurements versus Theory. ...........................................................................173
6.13.8. Location of the Resulting Cutting Force. ...................................................................................173
6.13.9. Verification of the Theory in 200 m Sand. ..............................................................................174
6.13.10. Verification of the Theory in 105 m Sand. ..............................................................................176
6.13.11. Determination of  and  from Measurements. .........................................................................179
6.14. General Conclusions. ............................................................................................................. 182
6.15. The Snow Plough Effect. ....................................................................................................... 182
6.16. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 188
Chapter 7: Clay Cutting. ............................................................................................................................191
7.1. Definitions. ............................................................................................................................ 191
7.2. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 191

xiii
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

7.3. The Influence of Strain Rate on the Cutting Process. ............................................................ 193
7.3.1. Introduction. ...................................................................................................................................193
7.3.2. The Rate Process Theory. ...............................................................................................................193
7.3.3. Proposed Rate Process Theory. ......................................................................................................195
7.3.4. The Proposed Theory versus some other Theories. ........................................................................199
7.3.5. Verification of the Theory Developed. ...........................................................................................200
7.3.6. Abelev & Valent (2010). ................................................................................................................203
7.3.7. Resulting Equations for the Cutting Process. .................................................................................204
7.4. The Flow Type. ..................................................................................................................... 207
7.4.1. The Forces. .....................................................................................................................................207
7.4.2. Finding the Shear Angle. ................................................................................................................209
7.4.3. Specific Energy. .............................................................................................................................211
7.5. The Tear Type. ...................................................................................................................... 215
7.5.1. Introduction. ...................................................................................................................................215
7.5.2. The Normal Force on the Shear Plane. ...........................................................................................215
7.5.3. The Mobilized Shear Strength. .......................................................................................................217
7.5.4. The Resulting Cutting Forces. ........................................................................................................219
7.6. The Curling Type. ................................................................................................................. 222
7.6.1. Introduction. ...................................................................................................................................222
7.6.2. The Normal Force on the Blade. ....................................................................................................222
7.6.3. The Equilibrium of Moments. ........................................................................................................224
7.7. Resulting Forces. ................................................................................................................... 230
7.8. Experiments in Clay. ............................................................................................................. 234
7.8.1. Experiments of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B)..............................................................................234
7.8.2. Wismer & Luth (1972B). ...............................................................................................................238
7.9. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 239
Chapter 8: Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions. ................................................................................241
8.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 241
8.2. Cutting Process & Failure Criteria. ....................................................................................... 242
8.2.1. Some Relations. ..............................................................................................................................246
8.2.2. Brittle versus Ductile. .....................................................................................................................247
8.2.3. Based on UTS and UCS. ................................................................................................................249
8.2.4. Based on BTS and UCS. ................................................................................................................250
8.2.5. Hoek & Brown (1988)....................................................................................................................251
8.2.6. Parabolic Envelope UTS and UCS. ................................................................................................255
8.2.7. Ellipsoid Envelope UTS and UCS. ................................................................................................256
8.2.8. Linear Failure Criterion. .................................................................................................................258
8.2.9. The Griffith (Fairhurst, 1964) Criterion. ........................................................................................258
8.2.10. Conclusions & Discussion. ........................................................................................................259
8.3. Cutting Models. ..................................................................................................................... 261
8.3.1. The Model of Evans. ......................................................................................................................262
8.3.2. The Model of Evans under an Angle ε. ..........................................................................................264

xiv
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

8.3.3. The Model of Evans used for a Pick point. ....................................................................................266

8.3.4. Summary of the Evans Theory. ......................................................................................................267
8.3.5. The Nishimatsu Model. ..................................................................................................................269
8.4. The Flow Type (Based on the Merchant Model). .................................................................. 273
8.5. Determining the Angle β. ...................................................................................................... 276
8.6. The Shear Type, Tear Type and the Chip Type. .................................................................... 279
8.7. Correction on the Tear Type and the Chip Type. .................................................................. 287
8.8. Specific Energy. .................................................................................................................... 289
8.9. Resulting Forces & Mohr Circles. ......................................................................................... 291
8.10. Example. ................................................................................................................................ 294
8.10.1. Step 1: Brittle Shear. ..................................................................................................................294
8.10.2. Step 2: The Transition Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile. ..................................................................294
8.10.3. Step 3: Applying Tensile Strengths of -5 MPa, -10 MPa and -25 MPa. ....................................295
8.11. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 295
Chapter 9: Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions. ..................................................................................297
9.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 297
9.2. The Flow Type and the Crushed Type. ................................................................................. 299
9.3. The Tear Type and the Chip Type. ........................................................................................ 305
9.4. The Curling Type. ................................................................................................................. 305
9.5. Experiments of Zijsling (1987). ............................................................................................. 312
9.6. Specific Energy. .................................................................................................................... 317
9.7. Example. ................................................................................................................................ 318
9.8. Specific Energy Graphs. ........................................................................................................ 319
9.9. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 322
Chapter 10: The Occurrence of a Wedge. ...................................................................................................325
10.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 325
10.2. The Force Equilibrium. ......................................................................................................... 326
10.3. The Equilibrium of Moments. ............................................................................................... 331
10.4. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 332
Chapter 11: A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting. ...............................................................................................333
11.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 333
11.2. The Force Equilibrium. ......................................................................................................... 334
11.3. The Equilibrium of Moments. ............................................................................................... 337
11.4. Results of some Calculations. ................................................................................................ 339
11.5. Experiments of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B). .................................................................... 341
11.6. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 343
Chapter 12: A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting. .....................................................................................345
12.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 345
12.2. The Equilibrium of Forces. .................................................................................................... 347
12.3. Pore Pressures. ....................................................................................................................... 349
12.4. The Equilibrium of Moments. ............................................................................................... 357
12.5. The Non-Cavitating Wedge. .................................................................................................. 360

xv
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

12.6. The Cavitating Wedge ........................................................................................................... 362

12.7. Limits..................................................................................................................................... 362
12.8. Experiments. .......................................................................................................................... 367
12.9. The Dynamic Wedge. ............................................................................................................ 374
12.10. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 375
Chapter 13: A Wedge in Clay Cutting. .......................................................................................................377
13.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 377
13.2. The Equilibrium of Forces. .................................................................................................... 378
13.3. The Equilibrium of Moments. ............................................................................................... 381
13.4. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 384
Chapter 14: A Wedge in Atmospheric Rock Cutting. ................................................................................385
14.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 385
14.2. The Equilibrium of Forces. .................................................................................................... 385
14.3. The Equilibrium of Moments. ............................................................................................... 389
14.4. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 391
Chapter 15: A Wedge in Hyperbaric Rock Cutting. ..................................................................................393
15.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 393
15.2. The Equilibrium of Forces. .................................................................................................... 393
15.3. The Equilibrium of Moments. ............................................................................................... 397
15.4. Nomenclature. ....................................................................................................................... 399
Chapter 16: Exercises. ..................................................................................................................................401
16.1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................... 401
16.2. Chapter 2: Basic Soil Mechanics. .......................................................................................... 401
16.2.1. MC: Mohr Circles. .....................................................................................................................401
16.2.2. MC: Active/Passive Soil Failure. ...............................................................................................401
16.2.3. MC: Active/Passive Mode. ........................................................................................................401
16.2.4. MC: Active/Passive Soil Failure. ...............................................................................................402
16.2.5. MC: Mohr Circles. .....................................................................................................................402
16.2.6. Calc.: Bulldozer 1. .....................................................................................................................403
16.2.7. Calc.: Bulldozer 2. .....................................................................................................................404
16.3. Chapter 3: The General Cutting Process.. ............................................................................. 405
16.3.1. MC: Cutting Mechanism. ...........................................................................................................405
16.3.2. MC: The Snow Plough...............................................................................................................405
16.4. Chapter 4: Which Cutting Mechanism for Which Kind of Soil. ........................................... 406
16.4.1. MC: Dry Sand Cutting. ..............................................................................................................406
16.4.2. MC: Water Saturated Sand Cutting. ..........................................................................................406
16.4.3. MC: Clay Cutting. ......................................................................................................................406
16.4.4. MC: Atmospheric Rock Cutting. ...............................................................................................406
16.4.5. MC: Hyperbaric Rock Cutting. ..................................................................................................407
16.5. Chapter 5: Dry Sand Cutting. ................................................................................................ 407
16.5.1. MC: Soil Mechanical Parameters. .............................................................................................407
16.5.2. MC: The Shear Angle. ...............................................................................................................407

xvi
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

16.5.3. Calc.: The Shear Angle. .............................................................................................................408

16.6. Chapter 6: Water Saturated Sand Cutting. ............................................................................. 409
16.6.1. MC: Soil Mechanical Parameters. .............................................................................................409
16.6.2. MC: Dilatation. ..........................................................................................................................409
16.6.3. MC: Cavitation. .........................................................................................................................409
16.6.4. Calc.: Porosity. ...........................................................................................................................409
16.6.5. Calc. : Density. ...........................................................................................................................409
16.6.6. Calc.: Permeability. ....................................................................................................................410
16.6.7. Calc.: Dilatancy. ........................................................................................................................410
16.6.8. Calc.: Transition Velocity. .........................................................................................................410
16.6.9. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Specific Energy. ..................................................................................410
16.6.10. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Specific Energy. ..................................................................................414
16.7. Chapter 7: Clay Cutting. ........................................................................................................ 418
16.7.1. Calc.: Cutting Forces. ................................................................................................................418
16.7.2. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms. .......................................................................................418
16.8. Chapter 8: Atmospheric Rock Cutting. ................................................................................. 420
16.8.1. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms. .......................................................................................420
16.8.2. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms. .......................................................................................422
16.8.3. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms. .......................................................................................423
16.8.4. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms. .......................................................................................425
16.8.5. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms. .......................................................................................427
16.9. Chapter 9: Hyperbaric Rock Cutting. .................................................................................... 429
16.9.1. MC: Soil Mechanical Parameters. .............................................................................................429
1.1.1 Exercise 2. ......................................................................................................................................429
Chapter 17: Bibliography. ............................................................................................................................431
Chapter 18: Figures & Tables. .....................................................................................................................435
18.1. List of Figures. ...................................................................................................................... 435
18.2. List of Figures in Appendices. ............................................................................................... 443
18.3. List of Tables. ........................................................................................................................ 449
18.4. List of Tables in Appendices. ................................................................................................ 451
Chapter 19: Appendices. ...............................................................................................................................453
Appendix A: Active & Passive Soil Failure Coefficients. ........................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients. ...............................................................................................B-3
B.1 Standard Configuration.......................................................................................................... B-3
B.1.1 Standard hb/hi=1. ............................................................................................................................B-3
B.1.2 Standard hb/hi=2. ............................................................................................................................B-5
B.1.3 Standard hb/hi=3. ............................................................................................................................B-7
B.2 Alternative Configuration. ..................................................................................................... B-9
B.2.1 Alternative hb/hi=1. ........................................................................................................................B-9
B.2.2 Alternative hb/hi=2. ......................................................................................................................B-11
B.2.3 Alternative hb/hi=3. ......................................................................................................................B-13
B.3 Percentage of Inertial Forces. .............................................................................................. B-15

xvii
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Appendix C: Dimensionless Pore Pressures p1m & p2m. ........................................................................... C-19

Appendix D: The Shear Angle β Non-Cavitating...................................................................................... D-21
Appendix E: The Coefficient c1. ..................................................................................................................E-25
Appendix F: The Coefficient c2. .................................................................................................................. F-29
Appendix G: The Coefficient a1. ............................................................................................................ G-33
Appendix H: The Shear Angle β Cavitating. ........................................................................................ H-37
Appendix I: The Coefficient d1. ...................................................................................................................I-41
Appendix J: The Coefficient d2. .................................................................................................................. J-45
Appendix K: The Properties of the 200 μm Sand. ................................................................................ K-49
Appendix L: The Properties of the 105 μm Sand. .....................................................................................L-53
Appendix M: Experiments in Water Saturated Sand. ......................................................................... M-57
M.1 Pore pressures and cutting forces in 105 μm Sand ............................................................. M-57
M.2 Pore Pressures in 200 μm Sand. ......................................................................................... M-63
M.3 Cutting Forces in 200 μm Sand. ......................................................................................... M-69
Appendix N: The Snow Plough Effect. ...................................................................................................... N-79
Appendix O: Specific Energy in Sand. .................................................................................................. O-91
Appendix P: Occurrence of a Wedge, Non-Cavitating. ............................................................................ P-95
Appendix Q: Occurrence of a Wedge, Cavitating. ............................................................................... Q-99
Appendix R: Pore Pressures with Wedge. ............................................................................................... R-103
Appendix S: FEM Calculations with Wedge. .......................................................................................... S-109
S.1 The Boundaries of the FEM Model. .................................................................................. S-109
S.2 The 60 Degree Blade. ........................................................................................................ S-110
S.3 The 75 Degree Blade. ........................................................................................................ S-113
S.4 The 90 Degree Blade. ........................................................................................................ S-116
Appendix T: Force Triangles. ...................................................................................................................T-119
Appendix U: Specific Energy in Clay. ..................................................................................................... U-125
Appendix V: Clay Cutting Charts. ........................................................................................................... V-129
V.1 The Flow Type. ................................................................................................................ V-129
V.2 The Tear Type. ................................................................................................................. V-132
V.3 The Curling Type. ............................................................................................................ V-135
Appendix W: Rock Cutting Charts. .................................................................................................... W-137
W.1 Brittle Shear. .....................................................................................................................W-137
W.2 The Transition Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile A. ................................................................ W-139
W.3 The Transition Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile B. .................................................................W-140
W.4 Transition Ranges Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile. ............................................................... W-142
W.5 Brittle Tensile Failure based on Brittle Shear Shear Angle. .............................................W-153
W.6 Brittle Tensile Failure based on Brittle Tensile Shear Angle. ..........................................W-155
Appendix X: Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts. ..................................................................................... X-157
X.1 The Curling Type of the 30 Degree Blade. ....................................................................... X-157
X.2 The Curling Type of the 45 Degree Blade. ....................................................................... X-161
X.3 The Curling Type of the 60 Degree Blade. ....................................................................... X-165
X.4 The Curling Type of the 75 Degree Blade. ....................................................................... X-169

xviii
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

X.5 The Curling Type of the 90 Degree Blade. ....................................................................... X-173

X.6 The Curling Type of the 105 Degree Blade. ..................................................................... X-177
X.7 The Curling Type of the 120 Degree Blade. ..................................................................... X-181
Appendix Y: Applications & Equipment. ................................................................................................ Y-185
Y.1 Historic Dredges. .............................................................................................................. Y-185
Y.2 Bucket Ladder Dredges. ................................................................................................... Y-187
Y.3 Cutter Suction Dredges. .................................................................................................... Y-189
Y.4 Trailing Suction Hopper Dredges. .................................................................................... Y-193
Y.5 Backhoe Dredges. ............................................................................................................. Y-197
Y.6 Clamshell Dredges. ........................................................................................................... Y-199
Y.7 Bucket Wheel Dredges. .................................................................................................... Y-203
Y.8 Braun Kohle Bergbau. ...................................................................................................... Y-205
Y.9 Deep Sea Mining. ............................................................................................................. Y-207
Y.10 Cable Trenching. .............................................................................................................. Y-211
Y.11 Offshore Pipeline Trenching. ........................................................................................... Y-213
Y.12 Dry Trenching. ................................................................................................................. Y-215
Y.13 PDC Cutters (Oil & Gas Drilling). ................................................................................... Y-217
Y.14 Bulldozers, Graders & Scrapers. ...................................................................................... Y-219
Y.15 Dry Mining. ...................................................................................................................... Y-221
Y.16 Tunnel Boring Machines. ................................................................................................. Y-223
Appendix Z: Publications. .........................................................................................................................Z-225

xix
The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

xx
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Chapter 1: Introduction.

1.1. Approach.
This book gives an overview of cutting theories for the cutting of sand, clay and rock as applied in dredging
engineering. In dredging engineering in general sand, clay and rock are excavated with buckets of bucket ladder
dredges, cutter heads of cutter suction dredges, dredging wheels of wheel dredges, drag heads of trailing suction
hopper dredges, clamshells, backhoes and other devices. Usually the blades have a width much larger than the
layer thickness of the cut (2D process) and the blade angles of these devices are not too large in the range of 30°-
60°. Although clamshells and backhoes may have blade angles around 90° when they start cutting. Other devices
like drill bits of oil drilling devices, blades of tunnel boring machines, ice berg scour and the bull dozer effect in
front of a drag head may have cutting angles larger than 90°. In such a case a different cutting mechanism is
encountered, the so called wedge mechanism.

The book starts with some basic soil mechanics, the Mohr circle and active and passive soil failure in Chapter 2:
Basic Soil Mechanics. These topics can also be found in any good soil mechanics book, but covering this makes
the reader familiar with the use of the many trigonometrically equations and derivations as applied in the cutting
theories.

A generic cutting theory for small blade angles is derived in Chapter 3: The General Cutting Process. This generic
cutting theory assumes a 2D plane strain cutting process, where the failure lines are considered to be straight lines.
The generic cutting theory takes all the possible forces into account. One can distinguish normal and friction forces,
cohesive and adhesive forces, gravitational and inertial forces and pore vacuum pressure forces.
Six types of cutting mechanisms are distinguished; the Shear Type, the Flow Type, the Curling Type, the Tear
Type, the Crushed Type and the Chip Type.
The Shear Type, the Flow Type and the Crushed Type are mathematically equivalent.
The Chip Type is a mix of the Shear Type and the Tear Type.
The generic theory also contains a chapter on the so called snow plough effect, a blade not perpendicular to the
direction of the cutting velocity like a snow plough. Finally the methods for determining the shear plane angle and
the specific energy are discussed.

In Chapter 4: Which Cutting Mechanism for Which Kind of Soil? it is discussed which terms in the generic equation
are valid in which type of soil. A matrix is given to enable the reader to determine the terms and soil properties of
influence.

The following chapters give the 2D theory of soil cutting with small blade angles that will enable the reader to
determine the cutting forces, powers and production in different types of soil.

Dry sand cutting is dominated by gravitational and inertial forces and by the internal and external friction angles.
The cutting mechanism is the Shear Type. This is covered in Chapter 5: Dry Sand Cutting.

Saturated sand cutting is dominated by pore vacuum pressure forces and by the internal and external friction angles.
The cutting mechanism is the Shear Type. This is covered in Chapter 6: Saturated Sand Cutting.

Clay cutting is dominated by cohesive (internal shear strength) and adhesive (external shear strength) forces. The
basic cutting mechanism is the Flow Type. Cutting a thin layer, combined with a high adhesive force may result
in the Curling Type mechanism. Cutting a thick layer combined with a small adhesive force and a low tensile
strength may result in the Tear Type mechanism. This is covered in Chapter 7: Clay Cutting.

Rock cutting under atmospheric conditions (normal dredging) is dominated by the internal shear strength and by
the internal and external friction angles. The main cutting mechanism is the Chip Type a mix of the Shear Type
and the Tear Type, brittle cutting. At small blade angles the pure Tear Type may occur, at large blade angle the
pure Shear Type. Cutting a very thin layer or using large blade angles may result in the Crushed Type. This is
covered in Chapter 8: Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

Rock cutting under hyperbaric conditions (deep sea mining) is dominated by the internal shear strength, the pore
vacuum pressure forces and by the internal and external friction angles. The main cutting mechanism is the
Crushed Type, cataclastic semi-ductile cutting. This is covered in Chapter 9: Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric
Conditions.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 1 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 1-1: Different types of dredging equipment.

At large blade angles, the theory of the 2D cutting process at small blade angles can no longer be valid. This theory
would give very large and even negative cutting forces which is physically impossible. The reason for this is a sine
in the denominator of the generic cutting force equation containing the sum of the blade angle, the shear angle, the
internal friction angle and the external friction angle. If the sum of these 4 angles approaches 180 degrees, the sine
will become very small resulting in very high cutting forces. If the sum of these 4 angles exceeds 180 degrees, the
sine is negative resulting in negative cutting forces. Nature will find another mechanism which is identified as the
wedge mechanism. In front of the blade a wedge will occur, with an almost fixed wedge angle, reducing the cutting
forces. Chapter 10: The Occurrence of a Wedge describes the generic theory for the occurrence of a wedge in front
of the blade.

The following chapters give the theory of soil cutting at large blade angles that will enable the reader to determine
the cutting forces, powers and production in different types of soil.

Page 2 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Introduction.

In dry sand cutting the blade angle, the shear angle, the internal friction angle and the external friction angle play
a role. The issue of the sum of these 4 angles approaching or exceeding 180 degrees may occur for large blade
angles. This is covered in Chapter 11: A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting.

In saturated sand cutting the blade angle, the shear angle, the internal friction angle and the external friction angle
play a role. The issue of the sum of these 4 angles approaching or exceeding 180 degrees may occur for large blade
angles. This is covered in Chapter 12: A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

In clay cutting the blade angle and the shear angle play a role. The issue of the sum of these 4 angles approaching
or exceeding 180 degrees may occur for very large blade angles, for example ice berg scour. This is covered in
Chapter 13: A Wedge in Clay Cutting.

In atmospheric rock cutting the blade angle, the shear angle, the internal friction angle and the external friction
angle play a role. The issue of the sum of these 4 angles approaching or exceeding 180 degrees may occur for large
blade angles. This is covered in Chapter 14: A Wedge in Atmospheric Rock Cutting.

In hyperbaric rock cutting the blade angle, the shear angle, the internal friction angle and the external friction angle
play a role. The issue of the sum of these 4 angles approaching or exceeding 180 degrees may occur for large blade
angles. This is covered in Chapter 15: A Wedge in Hyperbaric Rock Cutting.

Appendix Y shows all the different equipment the theory can be applied to and Appendix Z gives a list of the
publications this book is based on. It is the choice of the author to make each chapter self-containing, meaning
that figures and basic equations may be repeated at the start of each chapter.
In the appendices many graphs, charts and tables are shown, much more than in the corresponding chapters, in
order to give the reader all the information necessary to apply the theory in this book in a proper way.
Empty space and pages are filled with figures and photos illustrating different equipment for soil cutting.

The book is used for the MSc program of Offshore & Dredging Engineering at the Delft University of Technology.

Figure 1-2: A rock cutter head with pick points.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 3 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 1-3: The author on the clamshell dredge “Chicago” of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock.

Figure 1-4: The author on the backhoe dredge “New York” of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock.

Page 4 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Chapter 2: Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.1. Introduction.
Cutting processes of soil distinguish from the classical soil mechanics in civil engineering in the fact that:

Classical soil mechanics assume:

1. Small to very small strain rates.
2. Small to very small strains.
3. A very long time span, years to hundreds of years.
4. Structures are designed to last forever.
Cutting processes assume:
1. High to very high strain rates.
2. High to very high strains and deformations in general.
3. A very short time span, following from very high cutting velocities.
4. The soil is supposed to be excavated, the coherence has to be broken.

For the determination of cutting forces, power and specific energy the criterion for failure has to be known. In this
book the failure criterion of Mohr-Coulomb will be applied in the mathematical models for the cutting of sand,
clay and rock. The Mohr–Coulomb theory is named in honor of Charles-Augustin de Coulomb and Christian Otto
Mohr. Coulomb's contribution was a 1773 essay entitled "Essai sur une application des règles des maximis et
minimis à quelques problèmes de statique relatifs à l'architecture". Mohr developed a generalized form of the
theory around the end of the 19th century. To understand and work with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion it is
also necessary to understand the so called Mohr circle. The Mohr circle is a two dimensional graphical
representation of the state of stress at a point. The abscissa, σ, and ordinate, τ, of each point on the circle are the
normal stress and shear stress components, respectively, acting on a particular cut plane under an angle α with the
horizontal. In other words, the circumference of the circle is the locus of points that represent the state of stress on
individual planes at all their orientations. In this book a plane strain situation is considered, meaning a two-
dimensional cutting process. The width of the blades considered w is always much bigger than the layer thickness
hi considered. In geomechanics (soil mechanics and rock mechanics) compressive stresses are considered positive
and tensile stresses are considered to be negative, while in other engineering mechanics the tensile stresses are
considered to be positive and the compressive stresses are considered to be negative. Here the geomechanics
approach will be applied. There are two special stresses to be mentioned, the so called principal stresses. Principal
stresses occur at the planes where the shear stress is zero. In the plane strain situation there are two principal
stresses, which are always under an angle of 90º with each other.

In order to understand the cutting processes in sand, clay and rock, it is required to have knowledge of basic soil
and rock mechanics. The next chapters 2.2-2.7 cover this knowledge and have been composed almost entirely from
information from the public domain, especially internet. Most information comes from Wikipedia and
Answers.com.

2.2. Soil Mechanics.

2.2.1. Definition.
McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Encyclopedia gives the following description of Soil Mechanics:
The study of the response of masses composed of soil, water, and air to imposed loads. Because both water and
air are able to move through the soil pores, the discipline also involves the prediction of these transport processes.
Soil mechanics provides the analytical tools required for foundation engineering, retaining wall design, highway
and railway sub base design, tunneling, earth dam design, mine excavation design, and so on. Because the
discipline relates to rock as well as soils, it is also known as geotechnical engineering. Soil consists of a multiphase
aggregation of solid particles, water, and air.

This fundamental composition gives rise to unique engineering properties, and the description of the mechanical
behavior of soils requires some of the most sophisticated principles of engineering mechanics. The terms
multiphase and aggregation both imply unique properties. As a multiphase material, soil exhibits mechanical
properties that show the combined attributes of solids, liquids, and gases. Individual soil particles behave as solids,
and show relatively little deformation when subjected to either normal or shearing stresses. Water behaves as a
liquid, exhibiting little deformation under normal stresses, but deforming greatly when subjected to shear. Being

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 5 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

a viscous liquid, however, water exhibits a shear strain rate that is proportional to the shearing stress. Air in the
soil behaves as a gas, showing appreciable deformation under both normal and shear stresses. When the three
phases are combined to form a soil mass, characteristics that are an outgrowth of the interaction of the phases are
manifest. Moreover, the particulate nature of the solid particles contributes other unique attributes.

Figure 2-1: Earthwork in Germany (source Wikimedia).

When dry soil is subjected to a compressive normal stress, the volume decreases nonlinearly; that is, the more the
soil is compressed, the less compressible the mass becomes. Thus, the more tightly packed the particulate mass
becomes, the more it resists compression. The process, however, is only partially reversible, and when the
compressive stress is removed the soil does not expand back to its initial state.
When this dry particulate mass is subjected to shear stress, an especially interesting behavior owing to the
particulate nature of the soil solids results. If the soil is initially dense (tightly packed), the mass will expand
because the particles must roll up and over each other in order for shear deformation to occur. Conversely, if the
mass is initially loose, it will compress when subjected to a shear stress. Clearly, there must also exist a specific
initial density (the critical density) at which the material will display zero volume change when subjected to shear
stress. The term dilatancy has been applied to the relationship between shear stress and volume change in
particulate materials. Soil is capable of resisting shear stress up to a certain maximum value. Beyond this value,
however, the material undergoes large, uncontrolled shear deformation.
The other limiting case is saturated soil, that is, a soil whose voids are entirely filled with water. When such a mass
is initially loose and is subjected to compressive normal stress, it tends to decrease in volume; however, in order
for this volume decrease to occur, water must be squeezed from the soil pores. Because water exhibits a viscous
resistance to flow in the microscopic pores of fine-grained soils, this process can require considerable time, during
which the pore water is under increased pressure. This excess pore pressure is at a minimum near the drainage face
of the soil mass and at a maximum near the center of the soil sample. It is this gradient (or change in pore water
pressure with change in position within the soil mass) that causes the outflow of water and the corresponding
decrease in volume of the soil mass. Conversely, if an initially dense soil mass is subjected to shear stress, it tends
to expand. The expansion, however, may be time-dependent because of the viscous resistance to water being drawn
into the soil pores. During this time the pore water will be under decreased pressure. Thus, in saturated soil masses,
changes in pore water pressure and time-dependent volume change can be induced by either changes in normal
stress or by changes in shear stress.

Page 6 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.2.2. Soil Creation.

The primary mechanism of soil creation is the weathering of rock. All rock types (igneous rock, metamorphic rock
and sedimentary rock) may be broken down into small particles to create soil. Weathering mechanisms are physical
weathering, chemical weathering, and biological weathering. Human activities such as excavation, blasting, and
waste disposal, may also create soil. Over geologic time, deeply buried soils may be altered by pressure and
temperature to become metamorphic or sedimentary rock, and if melted and solidified again, they would complete
the geologic cycle by becoming igneous rock.
Physical weathering includes temperature effects, freeze and thaw of water in cracks, rain, wind, impact and other
mechanisms. Chemical weathering includes dissolution of matter composing a rock and composition of soils.
Physical weathering includes temperature effects, freeze and thaw of water in cracks, rain, wind, impact and other
mechanisms. Chemical weathering includes dissolution of matter composing a rock and precipitation in the form
of another mineral. Clay minerals, for example can be formed by weathering of feldspar, which is the most
common mineral present in igneous rock. The most common mineral constituent of silt and sand is quartz, also
called silica, which has the chemical name silicon dioxide. The reason that feldspar is most common in rocks but
silicon is more prevalent in soils is that feldspar is much more soluble than silica. Silt, Sand, and Gravel are
basically little pieces of broken rocks. According to the Unified Soil Classification System, silt particle sizes are
in the range of 0.002 mm to 0.075 mm and sand particles have sizes in the range of 0.075 mm to 4.75 mm. Gravel
particles are broken pieces of rock in the size range 4.75 mm to 100 mm. Particles larger than gravel are called
cobbles and boulders.

Figure 2-2: Fox glacier, New Zealand (source Wikimedia).

Soil deposits are affected by the mechanism of transport and deposition to their location. Soils that are not
transported are called residual soils -- they exist at the same location as the rock from which they were generated.
Decomposed granite is a common example of a residual soil. The common mechanisms of transport are the actions
of gravity, ice, water, and wind. Wind-blown soils include dune sands and loess. Water carries particles of different
size depending on the speed of the water, thus soils transported by water are graded according to their size. Silt
and clay may settle out in a lake, and gravel and sand collect at the bottom of a river bed. Wind-blown soil deposits
(aeolian soils) also tend to be sorted according to their grain size. Erosion at the base of glaciers is powerful enough

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 7 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

to pick up large rocks and boulders as well as soil; soils dropped by melting ice can be a well graded mixture of
widely varying particle sizes. Gravity on its own may also carry particles down from the top of a mountain to make
a pile of soil and boulders at the base; soil deposits transported by gravity are called colluvium.
The mechanism of transport also has a major effect on the particle shape. For example, low velocity grinding in a
river bed will produce rounded particles. Freshly fractured colluvium particles often have a very angular shape.

2.2.3. Soil Classification.

Soil classification deals with the systematic categorization of soils based on distinguishing characteristics as well
as criteria that dictate choices in use.

Figure 2-3: Soil naming according to USDA.

Soil texture is a qualitative classification tool used in both the field and laboratory to determine classes for
agricultural soils based on their physical texture. The classes are distinguished in the field by the 'textural feel'
which can be further clarified by separating the relative proportions of sand, silt and clay using grading sieves:
The Particle Size Distribution (PSD). The class is then used to determine crop suitability and to approximate the
soils responses to environmental and management conditions such as drought or calcium (lime) requirements. A
qualitative rather than a quantitative tool it is a fast, simple and effective means to assess the soils physical
characteristics. Although the U.S.D.A. system uses 12 classes whilst the U.K.-ADAS uses just 11 the systems are
mutually compatible as shown in the combined soil textural triangle below.

Page 8 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Hand analysis, whilst an arbitrary technique, is an extremely simple and effective means to rapidly assess and
classify a soils physical condition. Correctly executed the procedure allows for rapid and frequent assessment of
soil characteristics with little or no equipment. It is thus an extremely useful tool for identifying spatial variation
both within and between plots (fields) as well as identifying progressive changes and boundaries between soil
classes and orders.
The method involves taking a small sample of soil, sufficient to roll into a ball of approximately 2.5 cm diameter,
from just below the surface. Using a small drop of water or 'spit' the sample is then moisten to the sticky point (the
point at which it begins to adhere to the finger). The ball is then molded to determine its workability and its class
according to the steps in the chart opposite.
Soil separates are specific ranges of particle sizes. In the United States, the smallest particles are clay particles and
are classified by the USDA as having diameters of less than 0.002 mm. The next smallest particles are silt particles
and have diameters between 0.002 mm and 0.05 mm. The largest particles are sand particles and are larger than
0.05 mm in diameter. Furthermore, large sand particles can be described as coarse, intermediate as medium, and
the smaller as fine. Other countries have their own particle size classifications.

Table 2-1: Soil Classification.

Name of Soil Diameter Limits (mm)

Clay <0.002
Fine silt 0.002–0.006
Medium silt 0.006-0.020
Coarse silt 0.020-0.060
Very fine sand 0.060–0.100
Fine sand 0.100–0.200
Medium sand 0.200–0.600
Coarse sand 0.600–1.000
Very coarse sand 1.000–2.000
Fine gravel 2-6
Medium gravel 6-20
Coarse gravel 20-60
Cobbles 60-200
Boulders >200

Figure 2-4: Soil failure (www.4isfge.org).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 9 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-5: The Wenjiagou landslide (blogs.agu.org).

Figure 2-6: Karl von Terzaghi, one of the founders of modern soil mechanics.

Page 10 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.3. Soils.
2.3.1. Sand.
Sand is any material composed of loose, stony grains between 1/16 mm and 2 mm in diameter. Larger particles
are categorized as gravel; smaller particles are categorized as silt or clay. Sands are usually created by the
breakdown of rocks, and are transported by wind and water, before depositing to form soils, beaches, dunes, and
underwater fans or deltas. Deposits of sand are often cemented together over time to form sandstones.
The most common sand-forming process is weathering, especially of granite. Granite consists of distinct crystals
of quartz, feldspar, and other minerals. When exposed to water, some of these minerals (e.g., feldspar) decay
chemically faster than others (especially quartz), allowing the granite to crumble into fragments. Sand formed by
weathering is termed epiclastic.

Figure 2-7: Sand from the Gobi desert, Mongolia (source Wikimedia).

Where fragmentation is rapid, granite crumbles before its feldspar has fully decayed and the resulting sand contains
more feldspar. If fragmentation is slow, the resulting sand contains less feldspar. Fragmentation of rock is enhanced
by exposure to fast-running water, so steep mountains are often source areas for feldspar-rich sands and gentler
terrains are often source areas for feldspar-poor sands. Epiclastic sands and the sandstones formed from them thus
record information about the environments that produce them. A sedimentologist can deduce the existence of
whole mountain ranges long ago eroded, and of mountain-building episodes that occurred millions of years ago
from sandstones rich in relatively unstable minerals like feldspar.
The behavior of sand carried by flowing water can inscribe even more detailed information about the environment
in sand deposits. When water is flowing rapidly over a horizontal surface, any sudden vertical drop in that surface
splits the current into two layers, (1) an upper layer that continues to flow downstream and (2) a slower backflow
that curls under in the lee of the drop-off. Suspended sand tends to settle out in the backflow zone, building a slope
called a "slip face" that tilts downhill from the drop-off. The backflow zone adds continually to the slip face,
growing it downstream, and as the slip face grows downstream its top edge continues to create a backflow zone.
The result is the deposition of a lengthening bed of sand. Typically, periodic avalanches of large grains down the
slip face (or other processes) coat it with thin layers of distinctive material. These closely-spaced laminations are
called "cross bedding" because they angle across the main bed. Cross-bedding in sandstone records the direction
of the current that deposited the bed, enabling geologists to map currents that flowed millions of years ago
(paleocurrents).
Evidence of grain size, bed thickness, and cross-bedding angle, allows geologists to determine how deep and fast
a paleocurrent was, and thus how steep the land was over which it flowed.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 11 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-8: Sand in the Sahara desert (source Luca Galuzzi – www.galuzzi.it)

Ripples and dunes—probably the most familiar forms created by wind- or waterborne sand—involve similar
processes. However, ripples and dunes are more typical of flow systems to which little or no sand is being added.
The downstream slip faces of ripples and dunes are built from grains plucked from their upstream sides, so these
structures can migrate without growing. When water or wind entering the system (e.g., water descending rapidly
from a mountainous region) imports large quantities of sand, the result is net deposition rather than the mere
migration of sand forms.
Grain shape, too, records history. All epiclastic grains of sand start out angular and become more rounded as they
are polished by abrasion during transport by wind or water. Quartz grains, however, resist wear. One trip down a
river is not enough to thoroughly round an angular grain of quartz; even a long sojourn on a beach, where grains
are repeatedly tumbled by waves, does not suffice. The well-rounded state of many quartz sands can be accounted
for only by crustal recycling. Quartz grains can survive many cycles of erosion, burial and cementation into
sandstone, uplift, and re-erosion. Recycling time is on the order of 200 million years, so a quartz grain first
weathered from granite 2.4 billion years ago may have gone through 10 or 12 cycles of burial and re-erosion to
reach its present day state. An individual quartz grain's degree of roundness is thus an index of its antiquity.
Feldspar grains can also survive recycling, but not as well, so sand that has been recycled a few times consists
mostly of quartz.
Sand can be formed not only by weathering but by explosive volcanism, the breaking up of shells by waves, the
cementing into pellets of finer-grained materials (pelletization), and the precipitation of dissolved chemicals (e.g.,
calcium carbonate) from solution.
Pure quartz sands are mined to make glass and the extremely pure silicon employed in microchips and other
electronic components.

Page 12 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.3.2. Clay.
Clay is a fine-grained (small particle size) sedimentary rock. Clay is so fine-grained it is rarely possible to see the
individual mineral particles with the naked eye. The definition of clays describes rocks with particle sizes of less
than 4 μm in diameter. Most sedimentary rocks are described using both mineral content and particle size. While
this is also true for clays, the particle size description is most reliable and most often used.

Figure 2-9: Quaternary clay in Estonia (source Wikimedia)

The majority of common types of minerals found in clays are kaolinite (a soapy-feeling and lightweight mineral),
talc, pyrophyllite, all types of micas, minerals from the chlorite group, feldspars, and a lesser amount of
tectosilicates (including quartz).
The mineral content of clays is less variable than other types of sedimentary rock. This is a direct result of the way
clays are formed. Water carries the bulk of sediments to their resting place where they are cemented together. The
transport of sediments is directly related to the force or velocity of water carrying them. The stronger the velocity
of water, the larger and heavier the particle it can move. Conversely, the weaker the flow, the smaller the particle
that is carried by the water. As a result, water acts as a winnowing filter for certain types of minerals. The heavier
minerals are not carried as far by water currents as are the lighter ones. When water finally comes to rest, it deposits
its load of minerals. The last to be released are the lighter and smaller particles, the clay minerals.
Where rivers meet oceans, the clay minerals are so light they are usually carried far out to sea where they fall
gently to the bottom forming a fine-grained sediment. These deposits cover organic materials and trap them at the
edges of deltas and continental slopes. Over millions of years, the organic materials convert to petroleum and
remain trapped by the clays. This relationship makes the study of clays extremely important for petroleum
geologists. In addition to this important economic consideration, clays provide important economic resources for
a wide variety of other industries.

Depending on the academic source, there are three or four main groups of clays: kaolinite, montmorillonite,
smectite, illite, and chlorite. Chlorites are not always considered a clay, sometimes being classified as a separate
group within the phyllosilicates. There are approximately 30 different types of "pure" clays in these categories,
but most "natural" clays are mixtures of these different types, along with other weathered minerals.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 13 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Varve (or varved clay) is clay with visible annual layers, formed by seasonal differences in erosion and organic
content. This type of deposit is common in former glacial lakes. When glacial lakes are formed there is very little
movement of the water that makes the lake, and these eroded soils settle on the lake bed. This allows such an even
distribution on the different layers of clay.

Figure 2-10: Varved clay, Little River State Park, Waterbury, Vermont
(source www.anr.state.vt.us).

Quick clay is a unique type of marine clay indigenous to the glaciated terrains of Norway, Canada, Northern
Ireland, and Sweden. It is highly sensitive clay, prone to liquefaction, which has been involved in several deadly
landslides.
Clays exhibit plasticity when mixed with water in certain proportions. When dry, clay becomes firm and when
fired in a kiln, permanent physical and chemical changes occur. These reactions, among other changes, cause the
clay to be converted into a ceramic material. Because of these properties, clay is used for making pottery items,
both utilitarian and decorative. Different types of clay, when used with different minerals and firing conditions,
are used to produce earthenware, stoneware, and porcelain. Prehistoric humans discovered the useful properties of
clay, and one of the earliest artifacts ever uncovered is a drinking vessel made of sun-dried clay. Depending on the
content of the soil, clay can appear in various colors, from a dull gray to a deep orange-red.
Clay tablets were used as the first known writing medium, inscribed with cuneiform script through the use of a
blunt reed called a stylus.
Clays sintered in fire were the first form of ceramic. Bricks, cooking pots, art objects, dishware, and even musical
instruments such as the ocarina can all be shaped from clay before being fired. Clay is also used in many industrial
processes, such as paper making, cement production, and chemical filtering. Clay is also often used in the
manufacture of pipes for smoking tobacco. Until the late 20th century bentonite clay was widely used as a mold
binder in the manufacture of sand castings.
Clay, being relatively impermeable to water, is also used where natural seals are needed, such as in the cores of
dams, or as a barrier in landfills against toxic seepage (lining the landfill, preferably in combination with
geotextiles).
Recent studies have investigated clay's absorption capacities in various applications, such as the removal of heavy
metals from waste water and air purification.

Page 14 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.3.3. Rock.
To the geologist, the term rock means a naturally occurring aggregate of minerals that may include some organic
solids (e.g., fossils) and/or glass. Rocks are generally subdivided into three large classes: igneous, sedimentary,
and metamorphic. These classes relate to common origin, or genesis. Igneous rocks form from cooling liquid rock
or related volcanic eruptive processes. Sedimentary rocks form from compaction and cementation of sediments.
Metamorphic rocks develop due to solid-state, chemical and physical changes in pre-existing rock because of
elevated temperature, pressure, or chemically active fluids.
With igneous rocks, the aggregate of minerals comprising these rocks forms upon cooling and crystallization of
liquid rock. As crystals form in the liquid rock, they become interconnected to one another like jigsaw puzzle
pieces. After total crystallization of the liquid, a hard, dense igneous rock is the result. Also, some volcanic lavas,
when extruded on the surface and cooled instantaneously, will form a natural glass.

Figure 2-11: Sample of igneous gabbro, Rock Creek Canyon, California (source Wikimedia).

Glass is a mass of disordered atoms, which are frozen in place due to sudden cooling, and is not a crystalline
material like a mineral. Glass composes part of many extrusive igneous rocks (e.g., lava flows) and pyroclastic
igneous rocks. Alternatively, some igneous rocks are formed from volcanic processes, such as violent volcanic
eruption. Violent eruptions eject molten, partially molten, and non-molten igneous rock, which then falls in the
vicinity of the eruption. The fallen material may solidify into a hard mass, called pyroclastic igneous rock. The
texture of igneous rocks (defined as the size of crystals in the rock) is strongly related to cooling rate of the original
liquid. Rapid cooling of liquid rock promotes formation of small crystals, usually too small to see with the unaided
eye. Rocks with this cooling history are called fine-textured igneous rocks. Slow cooling (which usually occurs
deep underground) promotes formation of large crystals. Rocks with this cooling history are referred to as coarse-
textured igneous rocks.
The mineral composition of igneous rocks falls roughly into four groups: silicic, intermediate, mafic, and
ultramafic. These groups are distinguished by the amount of silica (SiO 4), iron (Fe), and magnesium (Mg) in the
constituent minerals. Mineral composition of liquid rock is related to place of origin within the body of the earth.
Generally speaking, liquids from greater depths within the earth contain more Fe and Mg and less SiO4 than those
from shallow depths.
In sedimentary rocks, the type of sediment that is compacted and cemented together determines the rock's main
characteristics. Sedimentary rocks composed of sediment that has been broken into pieces (i.e., clastic sediment),

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 15 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

such as gravel, sand, silt, and clay, are clastic sedimentary rocks (e.g., conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and
shale, respectively). Sedimentary rocks composed of sediment that is chemically derived (i.e., chemical sediment),
such as dissolved elements like calcium (Ca), sodium (Na), iron (Fe), and silicon (Si), are chemical sedimentary
rocks. Examples of chemical sedimentary rocks are limestone (composed of calcium carbonate), rock salt
(composed of sodium chloride), rock gypsum (composed of calcium sulfate), ironstones (composed of iron oxides),
and chert (composed of hydrated silica). Biochemical sedimentary rocks are a special kind of chemical sedimentary
rock wherein the constituent particles were formed by organisms (typically as organic hard parts, such as shells),
which then became sedimentary particles. Examples of this special kind of sedimentary rock include chalk,
fossiliferous limestone, and coquina. Sedimentary rocks are formed from sediment in two stages: compaction and
cementation. Compaction occurs when sediments pile up to sufficient thickness that overlying mass squeezes out
water and closes much open space. Cementation occurs when water flowing through the compacted sediment
deposits mineral crystals upon particles thus binding them together. The main cement minerals are calcite (CaCO 3),
hematite (Fe2O3), and quartz (SiO2).
With metamorphic rocks, the nature of the pre-existing rock (protolith) determines in large part the characteristics
of the ultimate metamorphic rock. Regardless of protolith, however, almost all metamorphic rocks are harder and
more dense than their protoliths. A protolith with flat or elongate mineral crystals (e.g., micas or amphiboles) will
yield a metamorphic rock with preferentially aligned minerals (due to directed pressure). Such metamorphic rocks
are called foliated metamorphic rocks (e.g., slate and schist). Non-foliated metamorphic rocks (e.g., marble and
quartzite) come from protoliths that have mainly equidimensional mineral crystals (e.g., calcite and quartz,
respectively). For example, a protolith shale will yield a foliated metamorphic rock, and a protolith limestone will
yield marble, a non-foliated metamorphic rock. Metamorphic rocks possess distinctive grades or levels of
metamorphic change from minimal to a maximum near total melting. Low-grade metamorphic rocks generally
have fine-textured crystals and low-temperature indicator minerals like the mica chlorite. High-grade metamorphic
rocks generally have coarse-textured crystals and very distinctive foliation, plus high-temperature indicator
minerals like the silicate mineral staurolite.
Rock is a brittle natural solid found mainly in the outer reaches of Earth's crust and upper mantle. Material that
would be brittle rock at such shallow depths becomes to one degree or another rather plastic within the body of the
earth. The term "rock" is not generally applied to such non-brittle internal Earth materials. Therefore, rock is a
concept related to the outer shell of the earth. The term rock may also be properly applied to brittle natural solids
found on the surfaces of other planets and satellites in our solar system. Meteorites are rock. Naturally occurring
ice (e.g., brittle water ice in a glacier, H2O) is also a rock, although we do not normally think of ice this way.
Rock has been an important natural resource for people from early in human evolution. Rocks' properties are the
key to their specific usefulness, now as in the past. Hard, dense rocks that could be chipped into implements and
weapons were among the first useful possessions of people. Fine-textured and glassy rocks were particularly handy
for these applications. Later on, rock as building stone and pavement material became very important, and this
continues today in our modern world. All of Earth's natural mineral wealth, fossil energy resources, and most
groundwater are contained within rocks of the earth's crust.

Rock is a natural occurrence mass of cohesive organic or inorganic material, which forms a part earth crest of
which most rocks are composed of one or more minerals. Rocks can be classified in different ways. The most used
classification is based on their origin, in which the following classes can be distinguished.
Igneous rock; a rock that has solidified from molten rock material (magma), which was generated within the Earth.
Well known are granite and basalt
Sedimentary rock; a rock formed by the consolidation of sediment settle out in water, ice of air and accumulated
on the Earth’s surface, either on dry land or under water. Examples are sandstone, lime stone and clay stone
Metamorphic rock; any class of rocks that are the result of partial or complete recrystallization in the solid state of
pre-existing rocks under conditions of temperature and pressure that are significantly different from those
obtaining at the surface of the Earth.
When deterring the dredge-ability of rock, distinction has to be made between the properties of intact rock and that
of a rock mass. Depending on the fracture density of the rock the cutter will cut intact rock or break out rock
blocks.
In the first case the strength (tensile- and compressive strength), deformation properties (E-value) and the
petrography (mineralogical proposition) of the intact rock determines the production completely. The second case
the fracture frequency and the weathering of the rock is more important than the strength of the intact rock. It is
known that the absence of water in rock is important for the rock strength. When saturated with water the rock
strength can be 30 to 90 % of the strength of dry rock. Therefore rock samples have to be sealed immediately after
drilling in such a way that evaporation of or intake of water is avoided. It has to be mentioned that this does not
mean that cutting forces in saturated rock are always lower than in dry rock. The petrography is important for the
weir of rock cutting tools.

Page 16 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Figure 2-12: Sandstone formations, Vermillion Cliffs, Arizona (source www.reddit.com).

Figure 2-13: Columns of Basalt of the Scottish Island of Staffa (National Geographic).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 17 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-14 A: Aid to identification of rock for engineering purposes

(After BS 5930:1981).

Page 18 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Figure 2-15 B: Aid to identification of rock for engineering purposes

(After BS 5930:1981).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 19 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-16: Utica Shale, Fort Plain, New York (Wikipedia).

Figure 2-17: The rock formation cycle (galleryhip.com).

Page 20 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.4. Soil Mechanical Parameters.

2.4.1. Grain Size Distribution/Particle Size Distribution.
Soils consist of a mixture of particles of different size, shape and mineralogy. Because the size of the particles
obviously has a significant effect on the soil behavior, the grain size and grain size distribution are used to classify
soils. The grain size distribution describes the relative proportions of particles of various sizes. The grain size is
often visualized in a cumulative distribution graph which, for example, plots the percentage of particles finer than
a given size as a function of size. The median grain size, d50, is the size for which 50% of the particle mass consists
of finer particles. Soil behavior, especially the hydraulic conductivity, tends to be dominated by the smaller
particles; hence, the term "effective size", denoted by d10, is defined as the size for which 10% of the particle mass
consists of finer particles.
Sands and gravels that possess a wide range of particle sizes with a smooth distribution of particle sizes are called
well graded soils. If the soil particles in a sample are predominantly in a relatively narrow range of sizes, the soil
is called uniformly graded soils. If there are distinct gaps in the gradation curve, e.g., a mixture of gravel and fine
sand, with no coarse sand, the soils may be called gap graded. Uniformly graded and gap graded soils are both
considered to be poorly graded. There are many methods for measuring particle size distribution. The two
traditional methods used in geotechnical engineering are sieve analysis and hydrometer analysis .

Cumulative Grain Size Distribution, Data Roberts et al. (1998)

100
90
80
% Finer by Weight

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101
Grain Size in mm
d50=0.0057 mm d50=0.0148 mm d50=0.0183 mm d50=0.0480 mm d50=0.0750 mm

d50=0.0125 mm d50=0.2220 mm d50=0.4320 mm d50=1.0200 mm d50=1.3500 mm

d50=0.0057 mm d50=0.0148 mm d50=0.0183 mm d50=0.0480 mm d50=0.0750 mm

d50=0.125 mm d50=0.2220 mm d50=0.4320 mm d50=1.0200 mm d50=1.3500 mm

Figure 2-18: The particle size distributions of the sands used by

Roberts et al. (1998).

2.4.2. Atterberg Limits.

The Atterberg limits are a basic measure of the nature of a fine-grained soil. Depending on the water content of
the soil, it may appear in four states: solid, semi-solid, plastic and liquid. In each state the consistency and behavior
of a soil is different and thus so are its engineering properties. Thus, the boundary between each state can be
defined based on a change in the soil's behavior. The Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish between silt and
clay, and it can distinguish between different types of silts and clays. These limits were created by Albert Atterberg,
a Swedish chemist. They were later refined by Arthur Casagrande. These distinctions in soil are used in picking
the soils to build structures on top of. These tests are mainly used on clayey or silty soils since these are the soils
that expand and shrink due to moisture content. Clays and silts react with the water and thus change sizes and have
varying shear strengths. Thus these tests are used widely in the preliminary stages of building any structure to

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 21 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

insure that the soil will have the correct amount of shear strength and not too much change in volume as it expands
and shrinks with different moisture contents.

Figure 2-19: Liquid limit device. Figure 2-20: Liquid limit device.

2.4.2.1. Shrinkage Limit.

The shrinkage limit (SL) is the water content where further loss of moisture will not result in any more volume
reduction. The test to determine the shrinkage limit is ASTM International D4943. The shrinkage limit is much
less commonly used than the liquid and plastic limits.

2.4.2.2. Plastic Limit.

The plastic limit (PL) is the water content where soil transitions between brittle and plastic behavior. A thread of
soil is at its plastic limit when it begins to crumble when rolled to a diameter of 3 mm. To improve test result
consistency, a 3 mm diameter rod is often used to gauge the thickness of the thread when conducting the test. The
Plastic Limit test is defined by ASTM standard test method D 4318.

2.4.2.3. Liquid Limit.

The liquid limit (LL) is the water content at which a soil changes from plastic to liquid behavior. The original
liquid limit test of Atterberg's involved mixing a pat of clay in a round-bottomed porcelain bowl of 10-12cm
diameter. A groove was cut through the pat of clay with a spatula, and the bowl was then struck many times against
the palm of one hand. Casagrande subsequently standardized the apparatus and the procedures to make the
measurement more repeatable. Soil is placed into the metal cup portion of the device and a groove is made down
its center with a standardized tool of 13.5 millimeters (0.53 in) width. The cup is repeatedly dropped 10mm onto
a hard rubber base during which the groove closes up gradually as a result of the impact. The number of blows for
the groove to close is recorded. The moisture content at which it takes 25 drops of the cup to cause the groove to
close over a distance of 13.5 millimeters (0.53 in) is defined as the liquid limit. The test is normally run at several
moisture contents, and the moisture content which requires 25 blows to close the groove is interpolated from the
test results. The Liquid Limit test is defined by ASTM standard test method D 4318. The test method also allows
running the test at one moisture content where 20 to 30 blows are required to close the groove; then a correction
factor is applied to obtain the liquid limit from the moisture content.
The following is when you should record the N in number of blows needed to close this 1/2-inch gap:
The materials needed to do a Liquid limit test are as follows
 Casagrande cup ( liquid limit device)
 Grooving tool
 Soil pat before test
 Soil pat after test
Another method for measuring the liquid limit is the fall cone test. It is based on the measurement of penetration
into the soil of a standardized cone of specific mass. Despite the universal prevalence of the Casagrande method,
the fall cone test is often considered to be a more consistent alternative because it minimizes the possibility of
human variations when carrying out the test.

Page 22 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.4.2.4. Importance of Liquid Limit Test.

The importance of the liquid limit test is to classify soils. Different soils have varying liquid limits. Also to find
the plasticity index of a soil you need to know the liquid limit and the plastic limit.

2.4.2.5. Derived Limits.

The values of these limits are used in a number of ways. There is also a close relationship between the limits and
properties of a soil such as compressibility, permeability, and strength. This is thought to be very useful because
as limit determination is relatively simple, it is more difficult to determine these other properties. Thus the
Atterberg limits are not only used to identify the soil's classification, but it allows for the use of empirical
correlations for some other engineering properties.

2.4.2.6. Plasticity Index.

The plasticity index (PI) is a measure of the plasticity of a soil. The plasticity index is the size of the range of water
contents where the soil exhibits plastic properties. The PI is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic
limit (PI = LL-PL). Soils with a high PI tend to be clay, those with a lower PI tend to be silt, and those with a PI
of 0 (non-plastic) tend to have little or no silt or clay.
PI and their meanings
 0 – Non-plastic
 (1-5)- Slightly Plastic
 (5-10) - Low plasticity
 (10-20)- Medium plasticity
 (20-40)- High plasticity
 >40 Very high plasticity

2.4.2.7. Liquidity Index.

The liquidity index (LI) is used for scaling the natural water content of a soil sample to the limits. It can be
calculated as a ratio of difference between natural water content, plastic limit, and plasticity index:
LI=(W-PL)/(LL-PL) where W is the natural water content.

2.4.2.8. Activity.
The activity (A) of a soil is the PI divided by the percent of clay-sized particles (less than 2 μm) present. Different
types of clays have different specific surface areas which controls how much wetting is required to move a soil
from one phase to another such as across the liquid limit or the plastic limit. From the activity one can predict the
dominant clay type present in a soil sample. High activity signifies large volume change when wetted and large
shrinkage when dried. Soils with high activity are very reactive chemically. Normally the activity of clay is
between 0.75 and 1.25, and in this range clay is called normal. It is assumed that the plasticity index is
approximately equal to the clay fraction (A = 1). When A is less than 0.75, it is considered inactive. When it is
greater than 1.25, it is considered active.

Figure 2-21: The relation between SL, PL, LL and PI.

2.4.3. Mass Volume Relations.

There are a variety of parameters used to describe the relative proportions of air (gas), water (liquid) and solids in
a soil. This section defines these parameters and some of their interrelationships. The basic notation is as follows:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 23 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Vg, Vl, and Vs represent the volumes of gas, liquid and solids in a soil mixture;
Wg, Wl, and Ws represent the weights of gas, liquid and solids in a soil mixture;
Mg, Ml, and Ms represent the masses of gas, liquid and solids in a soil mixture;
ρg, ρl, and ρs represent the densities of the constituents (gas, liquid and solids) in a soil mixture;
Note that the weights, W, can be obtained by multiplying the mass, M, by the acceleration due to gravity, g; e.g.,
Ws = Ms·g

2.4.3.1. Specific Gravity.

Specific Gravity is the ratio of the density of one material compared to the density of pure water (ρl = 1000 kg/m3).

s
G s  (2-1)
l

2.4.3.2. Density.
The terms density and unit weight are used interchangeably in soil mechanics. Though not critical, it is important
that we know it. Density, Bulk Density, or Wet Density, ρt, are different names for the density of the mixture, i.e.,
the total mass of air, water, solids divided by the total volume of air, water and solids (the mass of air is assumed
to be zero for practical purposes. To find the formula for density, divide the mass of the soil by the volume of the
soil, the basic formula for density is:

M M s  Ml  M g
t
t   (2-2)
Vt Vs  Vl  Vg

Unit weight of a soil mass is the ratio of the total weight of soil to the total volume of soil. Unit Weight, t, is
usually determined in the laboratory by measuring the weight and volume of a relatively undisturbed soil sample
obtained from a brass ring. Measuring unit weight of soil in the field may consist of a sand cone test, rubber balloon
or nuclear densitometer, the basic formula for unit weight is:

M t g
t  (2-3)
Vt

Dry Density, ρd, is the mass of solids divided by the total volume of air, water and solids:

M s M s
d   (2-4)
Vt Vs  Vl  Vg

Submerged Density, ρst, defined as the density of the mixture minus the density of water is useful if the soil is
submerged under water:

 sd   t   l (2-5)

Table 2-2: Empirical values for ρt, of granular soils based on the standard penetration number, (from
Bowels, Foundation Analysis).

SPT Penetration, N-Value ρt (kg/m3)

(blows/ foot)
0-4 1120 - 1520
4 - 10 1520 - 1800
10 - 30 1800 - 2080
30 - 50 2080 - 2240
>50 2240 - 2400

Page 24 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Table 2-3: Empirical values for ρs, of cohesive soils based on the standard penetration number, (From
Bowels, Foundation Analysis).

SPT Penetration, N-Value (blows/ foot) ρs, sat (kg/m3)

0-4 1600 - 1840
4-8 1840 - 2000
8 - 32 2000 - 2240

Table 2-4: Typical Soil Characteristics (From Lindeburg, Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE
Exam, 8th edition).

Soil Type ρs (kg/m3) ρs, sat (kg/m3)

Sand, loose and uniform 1440 1888
Sand, dense and uniform 1744 2080
Sand, loose and well graded 1584 1984
Sand, dense and well graded 1856 2160
Glacial clay, soft 1216 1760
Glacial clay, stiff 1696 2000

Table 2-5: Typical Values of Soil Index Properties

(From NAVFAC 7.01).

Soil Type ρs (kg/m3)

Sand; clean, uniform, fine or medium 1344 - 2176
Silt; uniform, inorganic 1296 - 2176
Silty Sand 1408 - 2272
Sand; Well-graded 1376 - 2368
Silty Sand and Gravel 1440 - 2480
Sandy or Silty Clay 1600 - 2352
Silty Clay with Gravel; uniform 1840 - 2416
Well-graded Gravel, Sand, Silt and Clay 2000 - 2496
Clay 1504 - 2128
Colloidal Clay 1136 - 2048
Organic Silt 1392 - 2096
Organic Clay 1296 - 2000

2.4.3.3. Relative Density.

Relative density is an index that quantifies the state of compactness between the loosest and densest possible state
of coarse-grained soils. The relative density is written in the following formulas:

em ax  e n m ax  n
Dr   (2-6)
e m a x  e m in n m a x  n m in

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 25 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table 2-6: Designation of Granular Soil Based on Relative Density.

Dr (%) Description
0 - 20 Very loose
20 - 40 Loose
40 - 70 Medium dense
70 - 85 Dense
85 - 100 Very dense

SPT values versus relative density.

100.0

90.0

80.0
SPT value in blows/305 mm

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Relative density in %
0 kPa 69 kPa 138 kPa 276 kPa

z = 0m z = 10 m z = 20 m z = 30 m

Figure 2-22: SPT values versus relative density (Miedema (1995).

Lambe & Whitman (1979), page 78 (Figure 2-22) give the relation between the SPT value, the relative density and
the hydrostatic pressure in two graphs. With some curve-fitting these graphs can be summarized with the following
equation (Miedema (1995)):

S P T   1 .8 2  0 .2 2 1   z  1 0    1 0
4 2 .5 2
 RD (2-7)

Page 26 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.4.3.4. Porosity.
Porosity is the ratio of the volume of openings (voids) to the total volume of material. Porosity represents the
storage capacity of the geologic material. The primary porosity of a sediment or rock consists of the spaces between
the grains that make up that material. The more tightly packed the grains are, the lower the porosity. Using a box
of marbles as an example, the internal dimensions of the box would represent the volume of the sample. The space
surrounding each of the spherical marbles represents the void space. The porosity of the box of marbles would be
determined by dividing the total void space by the total volume of the sample and expressed as a percentage.
The primary porosity of unconsolidated sediments is determined by the shape of the grains and the range of grain
sizes present. In poorly sorted sediments, those with a larger range of grain sizes, the finer grains tend to fill the
spaces between the larger grains, resulting in lower porosity. Primary porosity can range from less than one percent
in crystalline rocks like granite to over 55% in some soils. The porosity of some rock is increased through fractures
or solution of the material itself. This is known as secondary porosity.

Vv Vv e
n    (2-8)
Vt Vs  V v 1 e

2.4.3.5. Void ratio.

The ratio of the volume of void space to the volume of solid substance in any material consisting of void space
and solid material, such as a soil sample, a sediment, or a powder.

Vv Vv n
e    (2-9)
Vs Vt  Vv 1 n

The relations between void ratio e and porosity n are:

n e
e  and n= (2-10)
1n 1e

2.4.3.6. Dilatation.
Dilation (or dilatation) refers to an enlargement or expansion in bulk or extent, the opposite of contraction. It
derives from the Latin dilatare, "to spread wide". It is the increase in volume of a granular substance when its shape
is changed, because of greater distance between its component particles. Suppose we have a volume V before the
enlargement and a volume V+dV after the enlargement. Before the enlargement we name the porosity ni (i from
initial) and after the enlargement ncv (the constant volume situation after large deformations). For the volume
before the deformation we can write:

V  1  ni V  ni  V (2-11)

The first term on the right hand side is the sand volume, the second term the pore volume. After the enlargement
we get:

V  dV  1  n cv V  dV  n cv   V  d V  (2-12)

Again the first term on the right hand side is the sand volume. Since the sand volume did not change during the
enlargement (we assume the quarts grains are incompressible), the volume of sand in both equations should be the
same, thus:

1  ni V  1  n cv V  dV  (2-13)

From this we can deduce that the dilatation ε is:

dV n cv  n i dn
    (2-14)
V 1  n cv 1  n cv

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 27 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2.4.4. Permeability.
Permeability is a measure of the ease with which fluids will flow though a porous rock, sediment, or soil. Just as
with porosity, the packing, shape, and sorting of granular materials control their permeability. Although a rock
may be highly porous, if the voids are not interconnected, then fluids within the closed, isolated pores cannot
move. The degree to which pores within the material are interconnected is known as effective porosity. Rocks such
as pumice and shale can have high porosity, yet can be nearly impermeable due to the poorly interconnected voids.
In contrast, well-sorted sandstone closely replicates the example of a box of marbles cited above. The rounded
sand grains provide ample, unrestricted void spaces that are free from smaller grains and are very well linked.
Consequently, sandstones of this type have both high porosity and high permeability.
The range of values for permeability in geologic materials is extremely large. The most conductive materials have
permeability values that are millions of times greater than the least permeable. Permeability is often directional in
nature. The characteristics of the interstices of certain materials may cause the permeability to be significantly
greater in one direction. Secondary porosity features, like fractures, frequently have significant impact on the
permeability of the material. In addition to the characteristics of the host material, the viscosity and pressure of the
fluid also affect the rate at which the fluid will flow.

Hydraulic conductivity or permeability k can be estimated by particle size analysis of the sediment of interest,
using empirical equations relating either k to some size property of the sediment. Vukovic and Soro (1992)
summarized several empirical methods from former studies and presented a general formula:

g
f n  de
2
k  C (2-15)
l
The kinematic viscosity vl is related to dynamic viscosity µl and the fluid (water) density ρl as follows:

l
l  (2-16)
l

The values of C, f(n) and de are dependent on the different methods used in the grain-size analysis. According to
Vukovic and Soro (1992), porosity n may be derived from the empirical relationship with the coefficient of grain
uniformity U as follows:


n  0 .2 5 5  1  0 .8 3
U
 (2-17)

Where U is the coefficient of grain uniformity and is given by:

 d 60 
U    (2-18)
 d 10 

Here, d60 and d10 in the formula represent the grain diameter in (mm) for which, 60% and 10% of the sample
respectively, are finer than. Former studies have presented the following formulae which take the general form
presented in equation (2-15) above but with varying C, f(n) and de values and their domains of applicability.

Hazen’s formula (1982) was originally developed for determination of hydraulic conductivity of uniformly graded
sand but is also useful for fine sand to gravel range, provided the sediment has a uniformity coefficient less than 5
and effective grain size between 0.1 and 3mm.

g
  1  1 0   n  0 .2 6    d 1 0
4 2
k  6  10  (2-19)
l

The Kozeny-Carman equation is one of the most widely accepted and used derivations of permeability as a function
of the characteristics of the soil medium. The Kozeny-Carman equation (or Carman-Kozeny equation) is a relation
used in the field of fluid dynamics to calculate the pressure drop of a fluid flowing through a packed bed of solids.
It is named after Josef Kozeny and Philip C. Carman. This equation was originally proposed by Kozeny (1927)
and was then modified by Carman (1937) and (1956) to become the Kozeny-Carman equation. It is not appropriate

Page 28 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

for either soil with effective size above 3 mm or for clayey soils. The equation is only valid for laminar flow. The
equation is given as:

3 3
2 l e 3 g n 2
k  de   C or k = 8 .3  1 0    d 10
l 1 e l 1  n 
2

(2-20)
l
W it h : l  and  l   l  g
l

This equation holds for flow through packed beds with particle Reynolds numbers up to approximately 1.0, after
which point frequent shifting of flow channels in the bed causes considerable kinetic energy losses. This equation
can be expressed as "flow is proportional to the pressure drop and inversely proportional to the fluid viscosity",
which is known as Darcy's law.

The Breyer method does not consider porosity and therefore, porosity function takes on value 1. Breyer formula
is often considered most useful for materials with heterogeneous distributions and poorly sorted grains with
uniformity coefficient between 1 and 20, and effective grain size between 0.06mm and 0.6mm.

4 g  500  2
k  6  10   lo g    d 10 (2-21)
l  U 

The Slitcher formula is most applicable for grain-sizes between 0.01 mm and 5 mm.

2 g 3 .2 8 7 2
k  1 10  n  d 10 (2-22)
l

The Terzaghi (1964) formula is most applicable for coarse sand. The Terzaghi equation:

2
g  n  0 .1 3  2
k  Ct     d 10 (2-23)
l  3 1  n 

3 3
Where the Ct = sorting coefficient and 6 .1  1 0  C t  1 0 .7  1 0 .

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 29 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2.4.5. The Angle of Internal Friction.

Angle of internal friction for a given soil is the angle on the graph (Mohr's Circle) of the shear stress and normal
effective stresses at which shear failure occurs. Angle of Internal Friction, φ, can be determined in the laboratory
by the Direct Shear Test or the Triaxial Stress Test. Typical relationships for estimating the angle of internal
friction, φ, are as follows:

Table 2-7: Empirical values for φ, of granular soils based on the standard penetration number, (From
Bowels, Foundation Analysis).

SPT Penetration, N-Value (blows/ foot) φ (degrees)

0 25 - 30
4 27 - 32
10 30 - 35
30 35 - 40
50 38 - 43

Table 2-8: Relationship between φ, and standard penetration number for sands,
(From Peck 1974, Foundation Engineering Handbook).

SPT Penetration, N-Value (blows/ foot) Density of Sand φ (degrees)

<4 Very loose <29
4 - 10 Loose 29 - 30
10 - 30 Medium 30 - 36
30 - 50 Dense 36 - 41
>50 Very dense >41

Table 2-9: Relationship between φ, and standard penetration number for sands,
(From Meyerhof 1956, Foundation Engineering Handbook).

SPT Penetration, N-Value (blows/ foot) Density of Sand φ (degrees)

<4 Very loose <30
4 - 10 Loose 30 - 35
10 - 30 Medium 35 - 40
30 - 50 Dense 40 - 45
>50 Very dense >45

Lambe & Whitman (1979), page 148 (Figure 2-23) give the relation between the SPT value and the angle of
internal friction, also in a graph. This graph is valid up to 12 m in dry soil. With respect to the internal friction, the
relation given in the graph has an accuracy of 3 degrees. A load of 12 m dry soil with a density of 1.67 ton/m 3
equals a hydrostatic pressure of 20 m.w.c. An absolute hydrostatic pressure of 20 m.w.c. equals 10 m of water
depth if cavitation is considered. Measured SPT values at any depth will have to be reduced to the value that would
occur at 10 m water depth. This can be accomplished with the following equation:

1
S P T1 0   S P Tz (2-24)
 0 .6 4 6  0 .0 3 5 4  z 

Page 30 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Friction angle versus SPT value.

46

44
Angle of internal friction in degrees

42

40

38

36

34

32

30

28

26
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT value in blows/305 mm
Original Fitting Fitting+3 Fitting-3

Figure 2-23: Friction angle versus SPT value (Miedema (1995).

With the aim of curve-fitting, the relation between the SPT value reduced to 10 m water depth and the angle of
internal friction can be summarized to:

 0 .0 1 7 5 3  S P T 1 0
  5 1 .5  2 5 .9  e (2-25)

2.4.6. The Angle of External Friction.

The external friction angle, , or friction between a soil medium and a material such as the composition from a
retaining wall or pile may be expressed in degrees as the following:

Table 2-10: External friction angle φ values.

20º steel piles (NAVFAC)

0.67·φ-0.83·φ USACE
20º steel (Broms)
3/4·φ concrete (Broms)
2/3·φ timber (Broms)
2/3·φ Lindeburg
2/3·φ for concrete walls (Coulomb)

The external friction angle can be estimated as 1/3·φ for smooth retaining walls like sheet piles or concrete surfaces
against timber formwork, or as 1/2·φ to 2/3·φ for rough surfaces. In the absence of detailed information the
assumption of 2/3·φ is commonly made.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 31 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2.4.7. Shear Strength.

2.4.7.1. Introduction.
Shear strength is a term used in soil mechanics to describe the magnitude of the shear stress that a soil can sustain.
The shear resistance of soil is a result of friction and interlocking of particles, and possibly cementation or bonding
at particle contacts. Due to interlocking, particulate material may expand or contract in volume as it is subject to
shear strains. If soil expands its volume, the density of particles will decrease and the strength will decrease; in
this case, the peak strength would be followed by a reduction of shear stress. The stress-strain relationship levels
off when the material stops expanding or contracting, and when inter-particle bonds are broken. The theoretical
state at which the shear stress and density remain constant while the shear strain increases may be called the critical
state, steady state, or residual strength.
The volume change behavior and inter-particle friction depend on the density of the particles, the inter-granular
contact forces, and to a somewhat lesser extent, other factors such as the rate of shearing and the direction of the
shear stress. The average normal inter-granular contact force per unit area is called the effective stress.
If water is not allowed to flow in or out of the soil, the stress path is called an undrained stress path. During
undrained shear, if the particles are surrounded by a nearly incompressible fluid such as water, then the density of
the particles cannot change without drainage, but the water pressure and effective stress will change. On the other
hand, if the fluids are allowed to freely drain out of the pores, then the pore pressures will remain constant and the
test path is called a drained stress path. The soil is free to dilate or contract during shear if the soil is drained. In
reality, soil is partially drained, somewhere between the perfectly undrained and drained idealized conditions. The
shear strength of soil depends on the effective stress, the drainage conditions, the density of the particles, the rate
of strain, and the direction of the strain.
For undrained, constant volume shearing, the Tresca theory may be used to predict the shear strength, but for
drained conditions, the Mohr–Coulomb theory may be used.
Two important theories of soil shear are the critical state theory and the steady state theory. There are key
differences between the steady state condition and the steady state condition and the resulting theory corresponding
to each of these conditions.

2.4.7.2. Undrained Shear Strength.

This term describes a type of shear strength in soil mechanics as distinct from drained strength. Conceptually, there
is no such thing as the undrained strength of a soil. It depends on a number of factors, the main ones being:
 Orientation of stresses
 Stress path
 Rate of shearing
 Volume of material (like for fissured clays or rock mass)
Undrained strength is typically defined by Tresca theory, based on Mohr's circle as:

 1   3  2  S u  U .C .S . (2-26)

It is commonly adopted in limit equilibrium analyses where the rate of loading is very much greater than the rate
at which pore water pressures that are generated due to the action of shearing the soil may dissipate. An example
of this is rapid loading of sands during an earthquake, or the failure of a clay slope during heavy rain, and applies
to most failures that occur during construction. As an implication of undrained condition, no elastic volumetric
strains occur, and thus Poisson's ratio is assumed to remain 0.5 throughout shearing. The Tresca soil model also
assumes no plastic volumetric strains occur. This is of significance in more advanced analyses such as in finite
element analysis. In these advanced analysis methods, soil models other than Tresca may be used to model the
undrained condition including Mohr-Coulomb and critical state soil models such as the modified Cam-clay model,
provided Poisson's ratio is maintained at 0.5.

2.4.7.3. Drained Shear Strength.

The drained shear strength is the shear strength of the soil when pore fluid pressures, generated during the course
of shearing the soil, are able to dissipate during shearing. It also applies where no pore water exists in the soil (the
soil is dry) and hence pore fluid pressures are negligible. It is commonly approximated using the Mohr-Coulomb
equation. (It was called "Coulomb's equation" by Karl von Terzaghi in 1942.) combined it with the principle of
effective stress. In terms of effective stresses, the shear strength is often approximated by:

Page 32 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

  c    ta n   (2-27)

The coefficient of friction μ is equal to tan(φ). Different values of friction angle can be defined, including the peak
friction angle, φ'p, the critical state friction angle, φ'cv, or residual friction angle, φ'r.
c’ is called cohesion, however, it usually arises as a consequence of forcing a straight line to fit through measured
values of (τ,σ')even though the data actually falls on a curve. The intercept of the straight line on the shear stress
axis is called the cohesion. It is well known that the resulting intercept depends on the range of stresses considered:
it is not a fundamental soil property. The curvature (nonlinearity) of the failure envelope occurs because the
dilatancy of closely packed soil particles depends on confining pressure.

2.4.7.4. Cohesion (Internal Shear Strength).

Cohesion (in Latin cohaerere "stick or stay together") or cohesive attraction or cohesive force is the action or
property of like molecules sticking together, being mutually attractive. This is an intrinsic property of a substance
that is caused by the shape and structure of its molecules which makes the distribution of orbiting electrons
irregular when molecules get close to one another, creating electrical attraction that can maintain a macroscopic
structure such as a water drop. Cohesive soils are clay type soils. Cohesion is the force that holds together
molecules or like particles within a soil. Cohesion, c, is usually determined in the laboratory from the Direct Shear
Test. Unconfined Compressive Strength, UCS, can be determined in the laboratory using the Triaxial Test or the
Unconfined Compressive Strength Test. There are also correlations for UCS with shear strength as estimated from
the field using Vane Shear Tests. With a conversion of 1 kips/ft2=47.88 kN/m2.

U .C .S .
c  (2-28)
2

Table 2-11: Guide for Consistency of Fine-Grained Soil, NAVFAC 7.02

SPT Penetration (blows/ foot) Estimated Consistency UCS(kPa)
<2 Very Soft <24
2-4 Soft 24 - 48
4-8 Medium 48 - 96
8 - 15 Stiff 96 – 192
15 - 30 Very Stiff 192 – 388
>30 Hard >388

Table 2-12: Empirical Values for Consistency of Cohesive Soil, (from Foundation Analysis, Bowels)
SPT Penetration (blows/ foot) Estimated Consistency UCS (kips/ft2)
0-2 Very Soft 0 - 0.5
2-4 Soft 0.5 - 1.0
4-8 Medium 1.0 - 2.0
8 - 16 Stiff 2.0 - 4.0
16 - 32 Very Stiff 4.0 - 8.0
>32 Hard >8

2.4.7.5. Adhesion (External Shear Strength).

Adhesion is any attraction process between dissimilar molecular species that can potentially bring them in close
contact. By contrast, cohesion takes place between similar molecules.
Adhesion is the tendency of dissimilar particles and/or surfaces to cling to one another (cohesion refers to the
tendency of similar or identical particles/surfaces to cling to one another). The forces that cause adhesion and
cohesion can be divided into several types. The intermolecular forces responsible for the function of various kinds
of stickers and sticky tape fall into the categories of chemical adhesion, dispersive adhesion, and diffusive
adhesion.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 33 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2.4.8. UCS or Unconfined Compressive Strength.

UCS is one of the most basic parameters of rock strength, and the most common determination performed for bore
ability predictions. It is measured in accordance with the procedures given in ASTM D2938, with the length to
diameter ratio of 2 by using NX-size core samples. 3 to 5 UCS determinations are recommended to achieve
statistical significance of the results. If the sample length to diameter ratio was greater or less than 2, ASTM
recommends a correction factor that is applied to the UCS value determined from testing. UCS measurements are
made using an electronic-servo controlled MTS stiff testing machine with a capacity of 220 kips. Loading data
and other test parameters are recorded with a computer based data acquisition system, and the data is subsequently
reduced and analyzed with a customized spreadsheet program.

The most important test for rock in the field of dredging is the uniaxial unconfined compressive strength (UCS).
In the test a cylindrical rock sample is axial loaded till failure. Except the force needed, the deformation is measured
too. So the complete stress-strain curve is measured from which the deformation modulus and the specific work
of failure can be calculated. The unconfined compressive strength of the specimen is calculated by dividing the
maximum load at failure by the sample cross-sectional area:

F
c  (2-29)
A

Figure 2-24: A UCS test facility (Timely Engineering Soil Tests, LLC).

Figure 2-25: Bending (Vlasblom (2003-2007)).

Page 34 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.4.9. Unconfined Tensile Strength.

The uniaxial unconfined tensile strength is defined in the same way as the compressive strength. Sample
preparation and testing procedure require much effort and not commonly done. Another method to determine the
tensile strength, also commonly not used, is by bending a sample.

2.4.10. BTS or Brazilian Tensile Strength.

Indirect, or Brazilian, tensile strength is measured using NX-size core samples cut to an approximate 0.5 length-
to-diameter ratio, and following the procedures of ASTM D3967. BTS measurements are made using an
electronic-servo controlled MTS stiff testing machine with a capacity of 220 kips. Loading data and other test
parameters are recorded with a computer based data acquisition system, and the data is subsequently reduced and
analyzed with a customized spreadsheet program. BTS provides a measure of rock toughness, as well as strength.
The indirect tensile strength is calculated as follows (Fairhurst (1964)):

2F
T  (2-30)
 L D

In bedded/foliated rocks, particular attention needs to be given to loading direction with respect to
bedding/foliation. The rock should be loaded so that breakage occurs in approximately the same direction as
fracture propagation between adjacent cuts on the tunnel face. This is very important assessment in mechanical
excavation by tunnel boring machines. The most common used test to estimate, in an indirect way, the tensile
strength is the Brazilian split test. Here the cylindrical sample is tested radial.

The validity of BTS to determine de UTS is discussed by many researchers. In general it can be stated that the
BTS over estimates the UTS. According to Pells (1993) this discussion is in most applications in practice largely
academic.

Figure 2-26: The Brazilian split test (Vlasblom (2003-2007)).

2.4.11. Hardness.
Hardness is a loosely defined term, referring the resistance to rock or minerals against an attacking tool. Hardness
is determined using rebound tests (f.i. Schmidt hammer), indentation tests, (Brinell, Rockwell) or scratch tests
(Mohs). The last test is based on the fact that a mineral higher in the scale can scratch a mineral lower in the scale.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 35 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Although this scale was established in the early of the 19th century it appeared that the increment of Mohs scale
corresponded with a 60% increase in indentation hardness.

Table 2-13: The Mohs scale (source Wikipedia).

Mohs hardness Mineral Chemical formula Absolute hardness. Image

1 Talc Mg3Si4O10(OH)2 1

2 Gypsum CaSO4·2H2O 3

3 Calcite CaCO3 9

4 Fluorite CaF2 21

5 Apatite Ca5(PO4)3(OH−,Cl−,F−) 48

6 Orthoclase KAlSi3O8 72

7 Quartz SiO2 100

8 Topaz Al2SiO4(OH−,F−)2 200

9 Corundum Al2O3 400

10 Diamond C 1600

Page 36 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.5. Criteria & Concepts.

2.5.1. Failure Criteria.
After a soil reaches the critical state, it is no longer contracting or dilating and the shear stress on the failure plane
τcrit is determined by the effective normal stress on the failure plane σn' and critical state friction angle, φcv, :

 c r it   n ' ta n   c v  (2-31)

The peak strength of the soil may be greater, however, due to the interlocking (dilatancy) contribution. This may
be stated:


 p e a k   n ' t a n  p e a k  (2-32)

Where φpeak > φcv. However, use of a friction angle greater than the critical state value for design requires care.
The peak strength will not be mobilized everywhere at the same time in a practical problem such as a foundation,
slope or retaining wall. The critical state friction angle is not nearly as variable as the peak friction angle and hence
it can be relied upon with confidence. Not recognizing the significance of dilatancy, Coulomb proposed that the
shear strength of soil may be expressed as a combination of adhesion and friction components:

   ' ta n     c ' (2-33)

It is now known that the c' and φ parameters in the last equation are not fundamental soil properties. In particular,
c' and φ are different depending on the magnitude of effective stress. According to Schofield (2006), the
longstanding use of c' in practice has led many engineers to wrongly believe that c' is a fundamental parameter.
This assumption that c' and φ are constant can lead to overestimation of peak strengths.

2.5.2. The Phi=0 Concept.

When a fast triaxial test is carried out, so an unconsolidated undrained test, it is very well possible that the pore
pressures will be equal to the increase of the cell pressure. If a test at high cell pressure is carried out, the only
difference with a test with a low cell pressure is the value of the pore pressures. The grain pressures will be almost
equal in both cases and the result is, that we will find the same critical Mohr circle. So let’s consider a series of
unconsolidated undrained (UU) tests. Three specimens are selected and all are consolidated to 110 kPa. This brings
the specimens to the end of step 1 in the UU test program. Now the confining pressures are changed to say 70, 140
and 700 kPa, without allowing further consolidation and the sheared undrained. The result, within experimental
scatter, is that the shear stress or radius of the Mohr circle is about 35 kPa for each specimen.
So what happened?
When the confining pressure was changed, the pore pressure in the fully saturated specimens changed just as much
as did the confining pressure, and the effective stress remained unchanged and equal in each specimen. Thus the
effective stress remained 110 kPa and each specimen behaved during shear just as did the CU specimen. The shear
stress and thus the radius of the Mohr circle did not increase and apparently the specimens did not encounter
internal friction. This is called the phi=0 concept. In clays with a very low permeability and at a high deformation
rate, like during the cutting of clay, the clay behaves like the internal friction angle is zero. So for cutting processes
the phi=0 concept will be applied.

2.5.3. Factors Controlling Shear Strength of Soils.

The stress-strain relationship of soils, and therefore the shearing strength, is affected by:
1. Soil composition (basic soil material): mineralogy, grain size and grain size distribution, shape of
particles, pore fluid type and content, ions on grain and in pore fluid.
2. State (initial): Defined by the initial void ratio, effective normal stress and shear stress (stress history).
State can be described by terms such as: loose, dense, over consolidated, normally consolidated, stiff,
soft, contractive, dilative, etc.
3. Structure: Refers to the arrangement of particles within the soil mass; the manner the particles are packed
or distributed. Features such as layers, joints, fissures, slickensides, voids, pockets, cementation, etc., are
part of the structure. Structure of soils is described by terms such as: undisturbed, disturbed, remolded,

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 37 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

compacted, cemented; flocculent, honey-combed, single-grained; flocculated, deflocculated; stratified,

layered, laminated; isotropic and anisotropic.
4. Loading conditions: Effective stress path, i.e., drained, and undrained; and type of loading, i.e.,
magnitude, rate (static, dynamic), and time history (monotonic, cyclic).

The shear strength and stiffness of soil determines whether or not soil will be stable or how much it will deform.
Knowledge of the strength is necessary to determine if a slope will be stable, if a building or bridge might settle
too far into the ground, and the limiting pressures on a retaining wall. It is important to distinguish between failure
of a soil element and the failure of a geotechnical structure (e.g., a building foundation, slope or retaining wall);
some soil elements may reach their peak strength prior to failure of the structure. Different criteria can be used to
define the "shear strength" and the "yield point" for a soil element from a stress-strain curve. One may define the
peak shear strength as the peak of a stress strain curve, or the shear strength at critical state as the value after large
strains when the shear resistance levels off. If the stress-strain curve does not stabilize before the end of shear
strength test, the "strength" is sometimes considered to be the shear resistance at 15% to 20% strain. The shear
strength of soil depends on many factors including the effective stress and the void ratio.
The shear stiffness is important, for example, for evaluation of the magnitude of deformations of foundations and
slopes prior to failure and because it is related to the shear wave velocity. The slope of the initial, nearly linear,
portion of a plot of shear stress as a function of shear strain is called the shear modulus

2.5.4. Friction, Interlocking & Dilation.

Soil is an assemblage of particles that have little to no cementation while rock (such as sandstone) may consist of
an assembly of particles that are strongly cemented together by chemical bonds. The shear strength of soil is
primarily due to inter-particle friction and therefore, the shear resistance on a plane is approximately proportional
to the effective normal stress on that plane.[3] But soil also derives significant shear resistance from interlocking of
grains. If the grains are densely packed, the grains tend to spread apart from each other as they are subject to shear
strain. The expansion of the particle matrix due to shearing was called dilatancy by Osborne Reynolds. If one
considers the energy required to shear an assembly of particles there is energy input by the shear force, T, moving
a distance, x and there is also energy input by the normal force, N, as the sample expands a distance, y. Due to the
extra energy required for the particles to dilate against the confining pressures, dilatant soils have greater peak
strength than contractive soils. Furthermore, as dilative soil grains dilate, they become looser (their void ratio
increases), and their rate of dilation decreases until they reach a critical void ratio. Contractive soils become denser
as they shear, and their rate of contraction decreases until they reach a critical void ratio.
The tendency for a soil to dilate or contract depends primarily on the confining pressure and the void ratio of the
soil. The rate of dilation is high if the confining pressure is small and the void ratio is small. The rate of contraction
is high if the confining pressure is large and the void ratio is large. As a first approximation, the regions of
contraction and dilation are separated by the critical state line.

2.5.5. Effective Stress.

Karl von Terzaghi (1964) first proposed the relationship for effective stress in 1936. For him, the term ‘effective’
meant the calculated stress that was effective in moving soil, or causing displacements. It represents the average
stress carried by the soil skeleton. Effective stress (σ') acting on a soil is calculated from two parameters, total
stress (σ) and pore water pressure (u) according to:

'  u (2-34)

Typically, for simple examples:

   s o il  H s o il a n d u =  w  H w (2-35)

Much like the concept of stress itself, the formula is a construct, for the easier visualization of forces acting on a
soil mass, especially simple analysis models for slope stability, involving a slip plane. With these models, it is
important to know the total weight of the soil above (including water), and the pore water pressure within the slip
plane, assuming it is acting as a confined layer.
However, the formula becomes confusing when considering the true behavior of the soil particles under different
measurable conditions, since none of the parameters are actually independent actors on the particles.

Consider a grouping of round quartz sand grains, piled loosely, in a classic ‘cannonball’ arrangement. As can be
seen, there is a contact stress where the spheres actually touch. Pile on more spheres and the contact stresses

Page 38 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

increase, to the point of causing frictional instability (dynamic friction), and perhaps failure. The independent
parameter affecting the contacts (both normal and shear) is the force of the spheres above. This can be calculated
by using the overall average density of the spheres and the height of spheres above.
If we then have these spheres in a beaker and add some water, they will begin to float a little depending on their
density (buoyancy). With natural soil materials, the effect can be significant, as anyone who has lifted a large rock
out of a lake can attest. The contact stress on the spheres decreases as the beaker is filled to the top of the spheres,
but then nothing changes if more water is added. Although the water pressure between the spheres (pore water
pressure) is increasing, the effective stress remains the same, because the concept of 'total stress' includes the
weight of all the water above. This is where the equation can become confusing, and the effective stress can be
calculated using the buoyant density of the spheres (soil), and the height of the soil above.

The concept of effective stress truly becomes interesting when dealing with non-hydrostatic pore water pressure.
Under the conditions of a pore pressure gradient, the ground water flows, according to the permeability equation
(Darcy's law). Using our spheres as a model, this is the same as injecting (or withdrawing) water between the
spheres. If water is being injected, the seepage force acts to separate the spheres and reduces the effective stress.
Thus, the soil mass becomes weaker. If water is being withdrawn, the spheres are forced together and the effective
stress increases. Two extremes of this effect are quicksand, where the groundwater gradient and seepage force act
against gravity; and the 'sandcastle effect', where the water drainage and capillary action act to strengthen the sand.
As well, effective stress plays an important role in slope stability, and other geotechnical engineering and
engineering geology problems, such as groundwater-related subsidence.

2.5.6. Pore Water Pressure: Hydrostatic Conditions.

If there is no pore water flow occurring in the soil, the pore water pressures will be hydrostatic. The water table is
located at the depth where the water pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure. For hydrostatic conditions, the
water pressure increases linearly with depth below the water table:

u  w  g  zw (2-36)

2.5.7. Pore Water Pressure: Capillary Action.

Due to surface tension water will rise up in a small capillary tube above a free surface of water. Likewise, water
will rise up above the water table into the small pore spaces around the soil particles. In fact the soil may be
completely saturated for some distance above the water table. Above the height of capillary saturation, the soil
may be wet but the water content will decrease with elevation. If the water in the capillary zone is not moving, the
water pressure obeys the equation of hydrostatic equilibrium, u = ρw·g·zw, but note that zw, is negative above the
water table. Hence, hydrostatic water pressures are negative above the water table. The thickness of the zone of
capillary saturation depends on the pore size, but typically, the heights vary between a centimeter or so for coarse
sand to tens of meters for a silt or clay.
The surface tension of water explains why the water does not drain out of a wet sand castle or a moist ball of clay.
Negative water pressures make the water stick to the particles and pull the particles to each other, friction at the
particle contacts make a sand castle stable. But as soon as a wet sand castle is submerged below a free water
surface, the negative pressures are lost and the castle collapses. Considering the effective stress equation, σ' = σ −
u,, if the water pressure is negative, the effective stress may be positive, even on a free surface (a surface where
the total normal stress is zero). The negative pore pressure pulls the particles together and causes compressive
particle to particle contact forces.
Negative pore pressures in clayey soil can be much more powerful than those in sand. Negative pore pressures
explain why clay soils shrink when they dry and swell as they are wetted. The swelling and shrinkage can cause
major distress, especially to light structures and roads.

2.5.8. Darcy’s Law.

Darcy's law states that the volume of flow of the pore fluid through a porous medium per unit time is proportional
to the rate of change of excess fluid pressure with distance. The constant of proportionality includes the viscosity
of the fluid and the intrinsic permeability of the soil.

K  A ub  ua 
Q   (2-37)
l L

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 39 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The negative sign is needed because fluids flow from high pressure to low pressure. So if the change in pressure
is negative (in the x-direction) then the flow will be positive (in the x-direction). The above equation works well
for a horizontal tube, but if the tube was inclined so that point b was a different elevation than point a, the equation
would not work. The effect of elevation is accounted for by replacing the pore pressure by excess pore pressure,
ue defined as:

uc  u  w  g  z (2-38)

Where z is the depth measured from an arbitrary elevation reference (datum). Replacing u by ue we obtain a more
general equation for flow:

K A  u c ,b  u c ,a 
Q   (2-39)
l L

Figure 2-27: Diagram showing definitions and directions for Darcy’s law.

Dividing both sides of the equation by A, and expressing the rate of change of excess pore pressure as a derivative,
we obtain a more general equation for the apparent velocity in the x-direction:

K duc
qx   (2-40)
l dx

Where qx has units of velocity and is called the Darcy velocity, or discharge velocity. The seepage velocity (vsx =
average velocity of fluid molecules in the pores) is related to the Darcy velocity, and the porosity, n:

qx
v s ,x  (2-41)
n

Civil engineers predominantly work on problems that involve water and predominantly work on problems on earth
(in earth’s gravity). For this class of problems, civil engineers will often write Darcy's law in a much simpler form:

q x  k  ix (2-42)

Where k is called permeability, and is defined as:

l  g
k  K  (2-43)
l

And i is called the hydraulic gradient. The hydraulic gradient is the rate of change of total head with distance.
Values are for typical fresh groundwater conditions, using standard values of viscosity and specific gravity for
water at 20°C and 1 atm.

Page 40 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Table 2-14: Typical values of the permeability k.

Soil Permeability (m/s) Degree of permeability

Well sorted gravel 100>k>10-2 Extremely high
Gravel 10-2>k>10-3 Very high
Sandy gravel, clean sand, 10-3>k>10-5 High to Medium
fine sand
Sand, dirty sand, silty 10-5>k>10-7 Low
sand
Silt, silty clay 10-7>k>10-9 Very low
Clay <10-9 Vitually impermeable
Highly fractured rocks 10 >k>10-3
0
Very high
Oil reservoir rocks 10-4>k>10-6 Medium to Low
Fresh sandstone 10-7>k>10-8 Very low
Fresh limestone, dolomite 10-9>k>10-10 Vitually impermeable
Fresh granite <10-11 Vitually impermeable

Table 2-15: Some permeabilities according to Hazen’s equation.

Material Permeability (m/s) d10 (mm)

Uniform coarse sand 0.0036 0.6
Uniform medium sand 0.0009 0.3
Clean, well-graded sand 0.0001 0.1
Uniform fine sand 36·10-6 0.06
Well-graded fine sand 4·10-6 0.02
Silty sand 10-6 0.01
Uniform silt 36·10-8 0.006
Sandy clay 4·10-8 0.002
Silty clay 10-8 0.001
Clay 64·10-10 0.0008
Colloidal clay 9·10-11 0.00003

2.5.9. Brittle versus Ductile Failure.

The terms ductile failure and brittle failure are often used in literature for the failure of materials with shear strength
and tensile strength.

“In materials science, ductility is a solid material's ability to deform under tensile stress; this is often
characterized by the material's ability to be stretched into a wire. Malleability, a similar property, is a
material's ability to deform under compressive stress; this is often characterized by the material's ability
to form a thin sheet by hammering or rolling. Both of these mechanical properties are aspects of plasticity,
the extent to which a solid material can be plastically deformed without fracture. Ductility and
malleability are not always coextensive – for instance, while gold has high ductility and malleability, lead
has low ductility but high malleability. The word ductility is sometimes used to embrace both types of
plasticity.
A material is brittle if, when subjected to stress, it breaks without significant deformation (strain). Brittle
materials absorb relatively little energy prior to fracture, even those of high strength. Breaking is often
accompanied by a snapping sound. Brittle materials include most ceramics and glasses (which do not
deform plastically) and some polymers, such as PMMA and polystyrene. Many steels become brittle at
low temperatures (see ductile-brittle transition temperature), depending on their composition and
processing. When used in materials science, it is generally applied to materials that fail when there is
little or no evidence of plastic deformation before failure. One proof is to match the broken halves, which
should fit exactly since no plastic deformation has occurred. Generally, the brittle strength of a material
can be increased by pressure. This happens as an example in the brittle-ductile transition zone at an
approximate depth of 10 kilometers in the Earth's crust, at which rock becomes less likely to fracture,
and more likely to deform ductile.” (Source Wikipedia).

In rock failure a distinction is made between brittle, brittle ductile and ductile failure. Factors determining those
types of failure are the ductility number (ratio compressive strength over tensile strength), the confining pressure

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 41 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

and the temperature. During dredging the temperature will have hardly any influence, however when drilling deep
oil wells temperature will play an important role. The confining pressure, where the failure transit from brittle to
ductile is called bp.

Figure 2-28: Brittle failure types (Vlasblom (2003-2007)).

Brittle failure occurs at relative low confining pressures 3 < bp en deviator stress q=1-3 > ½qu. The strength
increases with the confining pressure, but decreases after the peak strength to a residual value. The presence of
pore water can play an important role.
Brittle failure types are:
 Pure tensile failure with or without a small confining pressure.
 Axial tensile failure
 Shear plane failure
Brittle ductile failure is also called semi brittle. In the transition area where 3  bp, the deformations are not
restricted to local shear planes or fractures but are divided over the whole area. The residual- strength is more or
less equal to the peak strength.
Ductile failure. A rock fails ductile when 3 >> qu and 3 > bp while the force stays constant or increases some
what with increasing deformation.

Figure 2-29: Brittle-ductile failure of marble (M.S. Patterson, Australian National University).

Page 42 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.6. Soil Mechanical Tests.

2.6.1. Sieve Analysis.

The size distribution of gravel and sand particles are typically measured using sieve analysis. The formal procedure
is described in ASTM D6913-04(2009). A stack of sieves with accurately dimensioned holes between a mesh of
wires is used to separate the particles into size bins. A known volume of dried soil, with clods broken down to
individual particles, is put into the top of a stack of sieves arranged from coarse to fine. The stack of sieves is
shaken for a standard period of time so that the particles are sorted into size bins. This method works reasonably
well for particles in the sand and gravel size range. Fine particles tend to stick to each other, and hence the sieving
process is not an effective method. If there are a lot of fines (silt and clay) present in the soil it may be necessary
to run water through the sieves to wash the coarse particles and clods through.
A variety of sieve sizes are available. The boundary between sand and silt is arbitrary. According to the Unified
Soil Classification System, a #4 sieve (4 openings per inch) having 4.75mm opening size separates sand from
gravel and a #200 sieve with an 0.075 mm opening separates sand from silt and clay. According to the British
standard, 0.063 mm is the boundary between sand and silt, and 2 mm is the boundary between sand and gravel.

Figure 2-30: A set of sieves (Essa Australia from: www.directindustry.com).

2.6.2. Hydrometer Analysis.

The classification of fine-grained soils, i.e., soils that are finer than sand, is determined primarily by their Atterberg
limits, not by their grain size. If it is important to determine the grain size distribution of fine-grained soils, the
hydrometer test may be performed. In the hydrometer tests, the soil particles are mixed with water and shaken to
produce a dilute suspension in a glass cylinder, and then the cylinder is left to sit. A hydrometer is used to measure
the density of the suspension as a function of time. Clay particles may take several hours to settle past the depth
of measurement of the hydrometer. Sand particles may take less than a second. Stoke's law provides the theoretical
basis to calculate the relationship between sedimentation velocity and particle size. ASTM provides the detailed
procedures for performing the Hydrometer test.
Clay particles can be sufficiently small that they never settle because they are kept in suspension by Brownian
motion, in which case they may be classified as colloids.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 43 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2.6.3. Standard Penetration Test.

The standard penetration test (SPT) is an in-situ dynamic penetration test designed to provide information on the
geotechnical engineering properties of soil. The test procedure is described in the British Standard BS EN ISO
22476-3, ASTM D1586 and Australian Standards AS 1289.6.3.1.

Figure 2-31: The Standard Penetration Test (www.shalviengineering.com).

The test uses a thick-walled sample tube, with an outside diameter of 50 mm and an inside diameter of 35 mm,
and a length of around 650 mm. This is driven into the ground at the bottom of a borehole by blows from a slide
hammer with a weight of 63.5 kg (140 lb) falling through a distance of 760 mm (30 in). The sample tube is driven
150 mm into the ground and then the number of blows needed for the tube to penetrate each 150 mm (6 in) up to
a depth of 450 mm (18 in) is recorded. The sum of the number of blows required for the second and third 6 in. of
penetration is termed the "standard penetration resistance" or the "N-value". In cases where 50 blows are
insufficient to advance it through a 150 mm (6 in) interval the penetration after 50 blows is recorded. The blow
count provides an indication of the density of the ground, and it is used in many empirical geotechnical engineering
formulae.

The main purpose of the test is to provide an indication of the relative density of granular deposits, such as sands
and gravels from which it is virtually impossible to obtain undisturbed samples. The great merit of the test, and
the main reason for its widespread use is that it is simple and inexpensive. The soil strength parameters which can
be inferred are approximate, but may give a useful guide in ground conditions where it may not be possible to
obtain borehole samples of adequate quality like gravels, sands, silts, clay containing sand or gravel and weak
rock. In conditions where the quality of the undisturbed sample is suspect, e.g. very silty or very sandy clays, or
hard clays, it is often advantageous to alternate the sampling with standard penetration tests to check the strength.
If the samples are found to be unacceptably disturbed, it may be necessary to use a different method for measuring
strength like the plate test. When the test is carried out in granular soils below groundwater level, the soil may
become loosened. In certain circumstances, it can be useful to continue driving the sampler beyond the distance
specified, adding further drilling rods as necessary. Although this is not a standard penetration test, and should not

Page 44 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

be regarded as such, it may at least give an indication as to whether the deposit is really as loose as the standard
test may indicate.
The usefulness of SPT results depends on the soil type, with fine-grained sands giving the most useful results, with
coarser sands and silty sands giving reasonably useful results, and clays and gravelly soils yielding results which
may be very poorly representative of the true soil conditions. Soils in arid areas, such as the Western United States,
may exhibit natural cementation. This condition will often increase the standard penetration value.
The SPT is used to provide results for empirical determination of a sand layer's susceptibility to earthquake
liquefaction, based on research performed by Harry Seed, T. Leslie Youd, and others.
Despite its many flaws, it is usual practice to correlate SPT results with soil properties relevant for geotechnical
engineering design. The reason being that SPT results are often the only test results available, therefore the use of
direct correlations has become common practice in many countries.
Different correlations are proposed for granular and cohesive soils.

2.6.4. Cone Penetration Test.

The cone penetration test (CPT) is an in situ testing method used to determine the geotechnical engineering
properties of soils and delineating soil stratigraphy. It was initially developed in the 1950s at the Dutch Laboratory
for Soil Mechanics in Delft to investigate soft soils. Based on this history it has also been called the "Dutch cone
test". Today, the CPT is one of the most used and accepted in situ test methods for soil investigation worldwide.
The test method consists of pushing an instrumented cone, with the tip facing down, into the ground at a controlled
rate (usually 2 centimeters/second). The resolution of the CPT in delineating stratigraphic layers is related to the
size of the cone tip, with typical cone tips having a cross-sectional area of either 10 or 15 cm², corresponding to
diameters of 3.6 and 4.4 cm.
The early applications of CPT mainly determined the soil geotechnical property of bearing capacity. The original
cone penetrometers involved simple mechanical measurements of the total penetration resistance to pushing a tool
with a conical tip into the soil. Different methods were employed to separate the total measured resistance into
components generated by the conical tip (the "tip friction") and friction generated by the rod string. A friction
sleeve was added to quantify this component of the friction and aid in determining soil cohesive strength in the
1960s (Begemann, 1965). Electronic measurements began in 1948 and improved further in the early 1970s (de
Reister, 1971). Most modern electronic CPT cones now also employ a pressure transducer with a filter to gather
pore water pressure data. The filter is usually located either on the cone tip (the so-called U1 position), immediately
behind the cone tip (the most common U2 position) or behind the friction sleeve (U3 position). Pore water pressure
data aids determining stratigraphy and is primarily used to correct tip friction values for those effects. CPT testing
which also gathers this piezometer data is called CPTU testing. CPT and CPTU testing equipment generally
advances the cone using hydraulic rams mounted on either a heavily ballasted vehicle or using screwed-in anchors
as a counter-force. One advantage of CPT over the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is a more continuous profile
of soil parameters, with CPTU data recorded typically at 2cm intervals.
In addition to the mechanical and electronic cones, a variety of other CPT-deployed tools have been developed
over the years to provide additional subsurface information. One common tool advanced during CPT testing is a
geophone set to gather seismic shear wave and compression wave velocities. This data helps determine the shear
modulus and Poisson's ratio at intervals through the soil column for soil liquefaction analysis and low-strain soil
strength analysis. Engineers use the shear wave velocity and shear modulus to determine the soil's behavior under
low-strain and vibratory loads. Additional tools such as laser-induced fluorescence, X-ray fluorescence[1], soil
conductivity/resistivity, membrane interface probe and cameras for capturing video imagery are also increasingly
advanced in conjunction with the CPT probe. An additional CPT deployed tool used in Britain, Netherlands,
Germany, Belgium and France is a piezocone combined with a tri-axial magnetometer. This is used to attempt to
ensure that tests, boreholes, and piles, do not encounter unexploded ordnance (UXB) or duds. The magnetometer
in the cone detects ferrous materials of 50 kg or larger within a radius of up to about 2 m distance from the probe
depending on the material, orientation and soil conditions.
CPT for geotechnical applications was standardized in 1986 by ASTM Standard D 3441 (ASTM, 2004). ISSMGE
provides international standards on CPT and CPTU. Later ASTM Standards have addressed the use of CPT for
various environmental site characterization and groundwater monitoring activities. Particularly for geotechnical
soil investigations, CPT is gaining popularity compared to standard penetration testing as a method of geotechnical
soil investigation by its increased accuracy, speed of deployment, more continuous soil profile and reduced cost
over other soil testing methods. The ability to advance additional in situ testing tools using the CPT direct push
drilling rig, including the seismic tools described above, are accelerating this process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 45 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-32: A typical CPT test setup (www.geotechdata.com).

Figure 2-33: Several configurations of cones (www.geotechdata.info).

Page 46 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Figure 2-34: Several cone configurations.

2.6.5. Triaxial Test.

A triaxial shear test is a common method to measure the mechanical properties of many deformable solids,
especially soil (e.g. sand, clay) and rock, and other granular materials or powders. There are several variations on
the test. Although the name triaxial test suggests that the stresses would be different in three directions, this is not
true in the test as is usually done. In this test with oil or water as confining medium, the confining pressures are
equal in all directions (i.e. in terms of principal stresses: for a compression test: σ1 ≠ σ2 = σ3 and for tensile: σ1 =
σ2 ≠ σ3). Only in a true triaxial test the stresses in all three directions can be different (i.e. σ1 ≠ σ2 ≠ σ3). For loose
granular materials like sand or gravel, the material is contained in a cylindrical latex sleeve with a flat, circular
metal plate or platen closing off the top and bottom ends. This cylinder is placed into a bath of water (mostly water
but may be any other fluid) to provide pressure along the sides of the cylinder. The top platen can then be
mechanically driven up or down along the axis of the cylinder to squeeze the material. The distance that the upper
platen travels is measured as a function of the force required to move it, as the pressure of the surrounding water
is carefully controlled. The net change in volume of the material is also measured by how much water moves in or
out of the surrounding bath. The test for cohesive (non-loose) materials (e.g. clay, rock) is similar to the test for
loose granular materials. For rock testing the sleeve may be a thin metal sheeting rather than latex. Triaxial testing
on rock is fairly seldom done because the high forces and pressures required to break a rock sample imply very
costly and cumbersome testing equipment available at few laboratories in the world. During the test the pore
pressures of fluids (e.g. water, oil) or gasses in the sample may be measured.

The principle behind a triaxial shear test is that the stress applied in the vertical direction (along the axis of the
cylindrical sample) can be different from the stresses applied in the horizontal directions perpendicular to the sides
of the cylinder, i.e. the confining pressure). In a homogeneous and isotropic material this produces a non-
hydrostatic stress state, with shear stress that may lead to failure of the sample in shear. In non-homogeneous and
anisotropic samples (e.g. bedded or jointed samples) failure may occur due to bending moments and, hence, failure
may be tensile. Also combinations of bending and shear failure may happen in inhomogeneous and anisotropic
material.
A solid is defined as a material that can support shear stress without moving. However, every solid has an upper
limit to how much shear stress it can support. The triaxial test is designed to measure that limit. The stress on the
platens is increased until the material in the cylinder fails and forms sliding regions within itself, known as shear
bands. A motion where a material is deformed under shear stress is known as shearing. The geometry of the
shearing in a triaxial test typically causes the sample to become shorter while bulging out along the sides. The

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 47 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

stress on the platen is then reduced and the water pressure pushes the sides back in, causing the sample to grow
taller again. This cycle is usually repeated several times while collecting stress and strain data about the sample.
During the shearing, a granular material will typically have a net gain or loss of volume. If it had originally been
in a dense state, then it typically gains volume, a characteristic known as Reynolds' dilatancy. If it had originally
been in a very loose state, then contraction may occur before the shearing begins or in conjunction with the
shearing.

Figure 2-35: The Triaxial apparatus (www.geotechdata.info).

From the triaxial test data, it is possible to extract fundamental material parameters about the sample, including its
angle of shearing resistance, apparent cohesion, and dilatancy angle. These parameters are then used in computer
models to predict how the material will behave in a larger-scale engineering application. An example would be to
predict the stability of the soil on a slope, whether the slope will collapse or whether the soil will support the shear
stresses of the slope and remain in place. Triaxial tests are used along with other tests to make such engineering
predictions.
The triaxial test can be used to determine the shear strength of a discontinuity. A homogeneous and isotropic
sample (see above) fails due to shear stresses in the sample. If a sample with a discontinuity is orientated such that
the discontinuity is about parallel to the plane in which maximum shear stress will be developed during the test,
the sample will fail due to shear displacement along the discontinuity, and hence, the shear strength of a
discontinuity can be calculated.

There are several variations of the triaxial test:

Page 48 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.6.5.1. Consolidated Drained (CD).

In a consolidated drained test the sample is consolidated and sheared in compression with drainage. The rate of
axial deformation is kept constant, i.e. is strain controlled. The idea is that the test allows the sample and the pore
pressures to fully consolidate (i.e. adjust) to the surrounding stresses. The test may take a long time to allow the
sample to adjust, in particular low permeability samples need a long time to drain and adjust stain to stress levels.

2.6.5.2. Consolidated Undrained (CU).

In a consolidated undrained test the sample is not allowed to drain. The shear characteristics are measured under
undrained conditions and the sample is assumed to be fully consolidated under the stresses applied that should be
similar to the field conditions. Test in particular used if a change in stress is to happen without time for further
consolidation.

2.6.5.3. Unconsolidated Undrained (UU).

In an unconsolidated undrained test the sample is not allowed to drain. The sample is compressed at a constant
rate (strain-controlled).

Figure 2-36: The Triaxial apparatus cross-section (civilblog.org).

2.6.6. Shear Test.

A direct shear test also known as shear box test is a laboratory or field test used by geotechnical engineers to
measure the shear strength properties of soil or rock material, or of discontinuities in soil or rock masses. For soil
the U.S. and U.K. standards defining how the test should be performed are ASTM D 3080 and BS 1377-7:1990
respectively to establish the shear strength properties of soil. It is also possible to estimate typical values of the
shear strength parameters based on the type and classification of the soils. For rock the test is generally restricted
to rock with (very) low (shear) strength. The test is, however, standard practice to establish the shear strength
properties of discontinuities in rock.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 49 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The test is performed on three or four specimens from a relatively undisturbed soil sample. A specimen is placed
in a shear box which has two stacked rings to hold the sample; the contact between the two rings is at approximately
the mid-height of the sample. A confining stress is applied vertically to the specimen, and the upper ring is pulled
laterally until the sample fails, or through a specified strain. The load applied and the strain induced is recorded at
frequent intervals to determine a stress-strain curve for the confining stress.
Direct Shear tests can be performed under several conditions. The sample is normally saturated before the test is
run, but can be run at the in-situ moisture content. The rate of strain can be varied to create a test of undrained or
drained conditions, depending whether the strain is applied slowly enough for water in the sample to prevent pore-
water pressure buildup.

Figure 2-37: The direct shear test.

Several specimens are tested at varying confining stresses to determine the shear strength parameters, the soil
cohesion (c) and the angle of internal friction (commonly friction angle) (φ). The results of the tests on each
specimen are plotted on a graph with the peak (or residual) stress on the x-axis and the confining stress on the y-
axis. The y-intercept of the curve which fits the test results is the cohesion, and the slope of the line or curve is the
friction angle.

2.6.7. Point Load Test.

The Point Load Strength test is intended as an index test for the strength classification of rock materials. It may
also be used to predict other strength parameters with which it is correlated, for example the unconfined
compressive and the tensile strength. It is measured in accordance with the procedures recommended in ASTM
D5731, usually with NX-size core samples. The testing machine consists of a loading frame, which measures the
force required to break the sample, and a system for measuring the distance between the two platen contact points.
Rock specimens in the form of either core, cut blocks, or irregular lumps are broken by application of concentrated
load through a pair of spherically truncated, conical platens. The applied force at failure of the sample and distance
between the platen tips are recorded in order to calculate the point load index as follows:

F
Is  (2-44)
2
De

Another test that is familiar with the Brazilian splitting test is the point load strength test. This test is executed
either axial, diametrical or on irregular pieces. The point load test is frequently used to determine the strength when
a large number of samples have to be tested. The tests give for brittle rocks, when tested under diametric loading,
values reasonable close to the BTS. Also it is suggested that PLS=0.8*BTS, it is suggested to establish such a
relation based on both tests.

Page 50 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Figure 2-38: The vane shear test (English.geocpt.es).

Figure 2-39: Shear vane and Torvane for soil testing (www.humboldtmfg.com).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 51 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-40: Point load test facility (inside.mines.edu).

Figure 2-41: Brazilian splitting tension test. Figure 2-42: BTS zoomed.

Page 52 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Figure 2-43: A BTS test after failure.

2.7. Nomenclature.
Gs Specific gravity -
ρs Density of the soil kg/m3
ρw Density of water kg/m3
g Gravitational constant (9.81 m/s2) m/s2
Mt Mass of the soil, total mass kg
Ms Mass of the solids kg
Mw Mass of the water kg
Ma Mass of the air kg
Vt Volume of the soil, total volume m3
Vs Volume of the solids m3
Vw Volume of the water m3
Va Volume of the air m3
ρt Density of the soil kg/m3
γt Unit weight of the soil N/ m3
g Gravitational constant (9.81 m/s2) m/s2
Dr Relative density -
e Current void ratio of the soil in-situ -
emax Void ratio of the soil at its loosest condition -
emin Void ratio of the soil at its densest condition -
n Porosity of the soil in-situ -
nmax Porosity of the soil at its loosest condition -
nmin Porosity of the soil in its densest condition -
Vv Volume of the voids/pores m3
Vs Volume of the solids/grains/particles m3
n Porosity -
e Void ratio -
Ct Sorting coefficient -
C Sorting coefficient -
K Hydraulic conductivity m2

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 53 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

k Permeability m/s
f(n) porosity function -
C sorting coefficient
de effective grain diameter mm
d10 Grain diameter where 10% is smaller mm
d60 Grain diameter where 60% is smaller mm
U Grain uniformity coefficient -
v kinematic viscosity
μ Dynamic viscosity Pa.s
ρw Water density kg/m3
γw Unit weight of water N/m3
Q units of volume per time m³/s
K intrinsic permeability m2
k permeability m/s
A cross sectional area m2
L Length m
ua Start excess pore pressure Pa
ub End excess pore pressure Pa
μ dynamic viscosity of the fluid Pa.s
c Cohesion kPa
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength kPa
V The total volume of soil m3
ni Initial porosity -
ncv Porosity at constant volume -
ε Dilatation -
c Unconfined Compressive Strength kPa
F Maximum Failure Load kN
A Cross-sectional area of the core sample m2
E Deformation modulus N/m2
W Specific work of failure J/m3
T Brazilian Tensile Strength (BTS) kPa
D Diameter of the core sample m
F Maximum Failure Load kN
L Length of the core sample m
IS Point load index kPa
F Failure load kN
De Distance between platen tips m
D e2 = D2 for diametrical test m2
D e2 = 4A/ = for axial, block and lump test m2
A = W.D = minimum cross-sectional area of a plane through the platen contact m2
points
ρw Density of water kg/m3
zw Depth below the water table m
u Hydrostatic pressure kPa
g Gravitational constant m/s2
σ1 the major principal stress kPa
σ3 the minor principal stress kPa
τ the shear strength τ = Su (or sometimes cu) kPa
Su the undrained strength kPa
σ' (σ – u) the effective stress kPa
σ Total stress applied normal to the shear plane kPa
u Pore water pressure acting on the same plane kPa
φ Effective stress friction angle or the angle of internal friction after Coulomb deg
friction
c' Cohesion kPa
τ The shear strength τ = Su (or sometimes cu) kPa

Page 54 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.8. The Mohr Circle.

In the derivation of the Mohr circle the vertical stress σv and the horizontal stress σh are assumed to be the principal
stresses, but in reality these stresses could have any orientation. It should be noted here that the Mohr circle
approach is valid for the stress situation in a point in the soil. Now consider an infinitesimal element of soil under
plane strain conditions as is shown in Figure 2-44. On the element a vertical stress σv and a horizontal stress σh are
acting. On the horizontal and vertical planes the shear stresses are assumed to be zero. Now the question is, what
would the normal stress σ and shear stress τ be on a plane with an angle α with the horizontal direction? To solve
this problem, the horizontal and vertical equilibriums of forces will be derived. Equilibriums of stresses do not
exist. One should consider that the surfaces of the triangle drawn in Figure 2-44 are not equal. If the surface (or
length) of the surface under the angle α is considered to be 1, then the surface (or length) of the horizontal side is
cos(α) and the vertical side sin(α). The stresses have to be multiplied with their surface in order to get forces and
forces are required for the equilibriums of forces, see Figure 2-45. The derivation of the Mohr circle is also an
exercise for the derivation of many equations in this book where equilibriums of forces and moments are applied.

Figure 2-44: The stresses on a soil element.

Figure 2-45: The forces on a soil element.

Since an equilibrium of stresses does not exist, only an equilibrium of forces exists, the forces on the soil element
have to be known, or the ratio of the forces has to be known.
These forces are, assuming the length of the side under an angle α is 1:

Fh   h  s i n   and Fv   v
 cos    (2-45)

And:

Fn   and Fs   (2-46)

The equilibrium of forces in the horizontal direction:

F h  F n  s in    Fs  c o s   
(2-47)
 h  s in       s in      cos   

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 55 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction:

F v  Fn  c o s    F s  s in   
(2-48)
 v
 cos       cos      s in   

Equations (2-47) and (2-48) form a system of two equations with two unknowns σ and τ. The normal stresses σh
and σv are considered to be known variables. To find a solution for the normal stress σ on the plane considered,
equation (2-47) is multiplied with sin(α) and equation (2-48) is multiplied with cos(α), this gives:

 h  s in     s in       s in     s in       cos     s in    (2-49)

 v
 cos     cos       cos     cos       s in     cos    (2-50)

Adding up equations (2-49) and (2-50) eliminates the terms with τ and preserves the terms with σ, giving:

     h  s in    
2 2
 v  cos  (2-51)

Using some basic rules from trigonometry:

1  cos  2   
 
2
cos  (2-52)
2

1  cos  2   

2
s in  (2-53)
2

Giving for the normal stress σ on the plane considered:

   h     h 
  cos  2   
v v
      (2-54)
 2   2 

To find a solution for the shear stress τ on the plane considered, equation (2-47) is multiplied with -cos(α) and
equation (2-48) is multiplied with sin(α), this gives:

  h  s in     cos        s in     cos       cos     cos    (2-55)

 v
 cos     s in       cos     s in       s in     s in    (2-56)

Adding up equations (2-55) and (2-56) eliminates the terms with σ and preserves the terms with τ, giving:

v   h   s in     c o s      (2-57)

Using the basic rules from trigonometry, equations (2-52) and (2-53), gives for τ on the plane considered:

   h 
  s in  2   
v
   (2-58)
 2 

Squaring equations (2-54) and (2-58) gives:

2 2
  v  h   v  h 
  cos  2   
2
     (2-59)
  2   2 

Page 56 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

And:

2
 v  h 
  s in  2   
2 2
   (2-60)
 2 

Adding up equations (2-59) and (2-60) gives:

2 2
  v  h   v  h 
 
2
    
2 2

  s in  2     c o s  2    (2-61)
  2   2 

This can be simplified to the following circle equation:

2 2
  v  h  2  v  h 
         (2-62)
  2   2 

If equation (2-62) is compared with the general circle equation from mathematics, equation (2-63):

 x  xC   y  yC 
2 2 2
 R (2-63)

The following is found:

x  

 v  h 
xC   
 2 
y   (2-64)
yC  0

 v  h 
R   
 2 

Figure 2-46 shows the resulting Mohr circle with the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:

  c    ta n   (2-65)

The variable c is the cohesion or internal shear strength of the soil. In Figure 2-46 it is assumed that the cohesion
c=0, which describes the behavior of a cohesion less soil, sand. Further it is assumed that the vertical stress σv
(based on the weight of the soil above the point considered) is bigger than the horizontal stress σh. So in this case
the horizontal stress at failure follows the vertical stress. The angle α of the plane considered, appears as an angle
of 2·α in the Mohr circle. Figure 2-47: shows how the internal friction angle can be determined from a number of
tri-axial tests for a cohesion less soil (sand). The 3 circles in this figure will normally not have the failure line as a
tangent exactly, but one circle will be a bit too big and another a bit too small. The failure line found will be a best
fit. Figure 2-48 and Figure 2-49 show the Mohr circles for a soil with an internal friction angle and cohesion. In
such a soil, the intersection point of the failure line with the vertical axis is considered to be the cohesion.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 57 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-46: The resulting Mohr circle for cohesion less soil.

Figure 2-47: Determining the angle of internal friction from tri-axial tests of cohesion less soil.

Page 58 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

Figure 2-48: The Mohr circle for soil with cohesion.

Figure 2-49: Determining the angle of internal friction from tri-axial tests of
soil with cohesion.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 59 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-50: An example of Mohr circles resulting in an internal friction angle and cohesion
(www.dplot.com).

Page 60 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.9. Active Soil Failure.

Active soil failure is failure of the soil where the soil takes action, normally because of gravity. The standard
example of active soil failure is illustrated by the retaining wall example. A retaining wall has to withstand the
forces exerted on it by the soil, in this case a sand with an internal friction angle φ. The retaining wall has to be
strong enough to withstand the maximum possible occurring force. The height of the retaining wall is h. The
problem has 4 unknowns; the force on the retaining wall F, the normal force on the shear plane N, the shear force
on the shear plane S and the angle of the shear plane with the horizontal β. To solve this problem, 4 conditions
(equations) have to be defined. The first equation is the relation between the normal force N and the shear force S.
The second and third equations follow from the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces on the triangular
wedge that will move downwards when the retaining wall fails to withstand the soil forces. The fourth condition
follows from the fact that we search for the maximum possible force, a maximum will occur if the derivative of
the force with respect to the angle of the shear plane is zero and the second derivative is negative. It should be
mentioned that the direction of the shear force is always opposite to the possible direction of motion of the soil.
Since the soil will move downwards because of gravity, the shear force is directed upwards.

Figure 2-51: Active soil failure.

To start solving the problem, first the weight of the triangular wedge of soil is determined according to:

1
  s  g  h  cot     w
2
G  (2-66)
2

The first relation necessary to solve the problem, the relation between the normal force and the shear force on the
shear plane is:

S  N  ta n  (2-67)

Further it is assumed that the soil consists of pure sand without cohesion and adhesion and it is assumed that the
retaining wall is smooth, so no friction between the sand and the wall.

N o c o h e s io n  c=0

N o a d h e s io n  a=0 (2-68)
S m o o t h w a ll  =0

This gives for the horizontal and vertical equilibrium equations on the triangular wedge:

H o r iz o n ta l  F  S  c o s     N  s in     0
(2-69)
V e r tic a l  G  N  c o s     S  s in     0

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 61 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Substituting equation (2-67) gives:

F  N  ta n     c o s     N  s in     0
(2-70)
G  N  c o s     N  ta n     s in     0

Writing the full tangent and multiplying with cos(φ) gives:

F  c o s     N  s in     c o s     N  s in     c o s     0
(2-71)
G  c o s     N  c o s     c o s     N  s in     s in     0

Now the terms with the normal force N can be combined to:

F  c o s     N  s in       0
(2-72)
G  cos     N  cos       0

Cross multiplying with sine and cosine to give the normal force the same terms:

F  c o s     c o s       N  s in       c o s       0
(2-73)
G  c o s     s in       N  c o s       s in       0

Adding up the two equations gives:

F  cos     cos        G  cos     s in      (2-74)

Solving the first 3 equations with the first 3 unknowns gives for the force on the retaining wall:

F   G  ta n     (2-75)

With the equation for the weight of the sand.

1
  s  g  h  cot     w
2
G  (2-76)
2

The equation for the force on the retaining wall is found.

1 2
c o s     s in     
F   s  g  h  w (2-77)
2 s in     c o s     

This equation still contains the angle of the shear plane as an unknown. Since we are looking for the maximum
possible force, a value for β has to be found where this force reaches a maximum. The derivative of the force and
the second derivative have to be determined.

dF
 0 (2-78)
d

2
d F
 0 (2-79)
2
d

Since the equation of the force on the retaining wall contains this angle both in the nominator and the denominator,
determining the derivative may be complicated. It is easier to simplify the equation with the following trick:

Page 62 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

c o s     s in      c o s     s in     
   1 1 
s in     c o s      s in     c o s     
(2-80)
c o s     s in      s in     c o s      s in   
   1  1
s in     c o s      s in     c o s      s in     c o s     

Substituting this result in the equation for the force on the retaining wall gives:

1 2
 s in    
F  s  g h  1  w (2-81)
2  s in     c o s      
 

When the denominator in the term between brackets has a maximum, also the whole equation has a maximum. So
we have to find the maximum of this denominator.

f  s in     cos       F m a xim u m if f m a xim u m (2-82)

The first derivative of this denominator with respect to the shear angle is:

df
 cos  2      (2-83)
d

The second derivative of this denominator with respect to the shear angle is:

2
d f
2
  2  s in 2     (2-84)
d

The first derivative is zero when the shear angle equals 45 degrees plus half the internal friction angle:

df  1
 0  =   (2-85)
d 4 2

Substituting this solution in the equation for the second derivative gives a negative second derivative which shows
that a maximum has been found.

2
d f  1
  2 fo r  =   (2-86)
2
d 4 2

Substituting this solution for the shear plane angle in the equation for the force on the retaining wall gives:

1  1  s in     1
2 2
F  s  g h  w  s  g h  w  K (2-87)
2  1  s in     2
a
 

The factor Ka is often referred to as the coefficient of active failure, which is smaller than 1. In the case of a 30
degrees internal friction angle, the value is 1/3.

1  s in  2
K A
  ta n ( 4 5   / 2 ) (2-88)
1  s in 

The horizontal stresses equal the vertical stresses times the factor of active failure, which means that the horizontal
stresses are smaller than the vertical stresses.

h  K A
v (2-89)

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 63 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-52: The Mohr circle for active soil failure.

Figure 2-53: An example of active soil failure, Utah copper mine landslide (photoblog.nbcnews.com).

Page 64 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.10. Passive Soil Failure.

Passive soil failure is failure of the soil where the outside world takes action, for example a bulldozer. The standard
example of passive soil failure is illustrated by the retaining wall example. A retaining wall has to push to supersede
the forces exerted on it by the soil, in this case a sand with an internal friction angle φ. The retaining wall has to
push strong enough to overcome the minimum possible occurring force. The height of the retaining wall is h. The
problem has 4 unknowns; the force on the retaining wall F, the normal force on the shear plane N, the shear force
on the shear plane S and the angle of the shear plane with the horizontal β. To solve this problem, 4 conditions
(equations) have to be defined. The first equation is the relation between the normal force N and the shear force S.
The second and third equations follow from the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces on the triangular
wedge that will move upwards when the retaining wall pushes and the soil fails. The fourth condition follows from
the fact that we search for the minimum possible force, a minimum will occur if the derivative of the force with
respect to the angle of the shear plane is zero and the second derivative is positive. It should be mentioned that the
direction of the shear force is always opposite to the possible direction of motion of the soil. Since the soil will
move upwards because of the pushing retaining wall, the shear force is directed downwards.

Figure 2-54: Passive soil failure.

To start solving the problem, first the weight of the triangular wedge of soil is determined according to:

1
  s  g  h  cot     w
2
G  (2-90)
2

The first relation necessary to solve the problem, the relation between the normal force and the shear force on the
shear plane is:

S  N  ta n  (2-91)

Further it is assumed that the soil consists of pure sand without cohesion and adhesion and it is assumed that the
retaining wall is smooth, so no friction between the sand and the wall.

N o c o h e s io n  c=0

N o a d h e s io n  a=0 (2-92)
S m o o t h w a ll  =0

This gives for the horizontal and vertical equilibrium equations on the triangular wedge:

H o r iz o n ta l  F  S  c o s     N  s in     0
(2-93)
V e r tic a l  G  N  c o s     S  s in     0

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 65 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Substituting equation (2-91) gives:

F  N  ta n     c o s     N  s in     0
(2-94)
G  N  c o s     N  ta n     s in     0

Writing the full tangent and multiplying with cos(φ) gives:

F  c o s     N  s in     c o s     N  s in     c o s     0
(2-95)
G  c o s     N  c o s     c o s     N  s in     s in     0

Now the terms with the normal force N can be combined to:

F  c o s     N  s in       0
(2-96)
G  cos     N  cos       0

Cross multiplying with sine and cosine to give the normal force the same terms:

F  c o s     c o s       N  s in       c o s       0
(2-97)
 G  c o s     s in       N  c o s       s in       0

Adding up the two equations gives:

F  cos     cos       G  cos     s in      (2-98)

Solving the first 3 equations with the first 3 unknowns gives for the force on the retaining wall:

F  G  ta n     (2-99)

With the equation for the weight of the sand.

1
  s  g  h  cot     w
2
G  (2-100)
2

The equation for the force on the retaining wall is found.

1 2
c o s     s in     
F   s  g  h  w (2-101)
2 s in     c o s     

This equation still contains the angle of the shear plane as an unknown. Since we are looking for the minimum
possible force, a value for β has to be found where this force reaches a minimum. The derivative of the force and
the second derivative have to be determined.

dF
 0 (2-102)
d

2
d F
 0 (2-103)
2
d

Since the equation of the force on the retaining wall contains this angle both in the nominator and the denominator,
determining the derivative may be complicated. It is easier to simplify the equation with the following trick:

Page 66 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

c o s     s in      c o s     s in     
 1 1
s in     c o s      s in     c o s     

c o s     s in      s in     c o s     
  1
s in     c o s      s in     c o s     

(2-104)
c o s      s in      s in      c o s     
   1
s in     c o s      s in     c o s     

s in   
 1
s in     c o s     

Substituting this result in the equation for the force on the retaining wall gives:

1 2
 s in    
F  s  g h  1  w (2-105)
2  s in     c o s      
 

When the denominator in the term between brackets has a maximum, also the whole equation has a minimum. So
we have to find the maximum of this denominator.

f  s in     cos       F m in im u m if f m a xim u m (2-106)

The first derivative of this denominator with respect to the shear angle is:

df
 cos  2      (2-107)
d

The second derivative of this denominator with respect to the shear angle is:

2
d f
2
  2  s in 2     (2-108)
d

The first derivative is zero when the shear angle equals 45 degrees minus half the internal friction angle:

df  1
 0  =   (2-109)
d 4 2

Substituting this solution in the equation for the second derivative gives a negative second derivative which shows
that a maximum has been found.

2
d f  1
  2 fo r  =   (2-110)
2
d 4 2

Substituting this solution for the shear plane angle in the equation for the force on the retaining wall gives:

1  1  s in     1
2 2
F  s  g h  w  s  g h  w  K (2-111)
2  1  s in     2
p
 

The factor Kp is often referred to as the coefficient of passive failure, which is larger than 1. In the case of a 30
degrees internal friction angle, the value is 3.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 67 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

1  s in  2
K P
  ta n ( 4 5   / 2 ) (2-112)
1  s in 

The horizontal stresses equal the vertical stresses times the factor of passive failure, which means that the
horizontal stresses are larger than the vertical stresses.

h  K p
 v (2-113)

Figure 2-55: The Mohr circle for passive soil failure.

Figure 2-56: An example of passive soil failure, the Komatsu D65PX-15 (www.youtube.com).

Page 68 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.11. Summary.
Figure 2-57 gives a summary of the Mohr circles for Active and Passive failure of a cohesion less soil.

Figure 2-57: The Mohr circles for active and passive failure for a
cohesion less soil.

Some equations for a cohesion less soil in the active state:

Failure will occur if:

1
 v  h 
s in    
2
(2-114)
1
 v  h 
2

This can also be written as:

   h     h 
  s in   
v v
    0 (2-115)
 2   2 

Using this equation the value of σh can be expressed into σv:

1  s in   
h  v  K v (2-116)
1  s in   
a

On the other hand, the value of σv can also be expressed into σh:

1  s in   
v  h  K h (2-117)
1  s in   
p

For the passive state the stresses σv and σh should be reversed.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 69 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-58 gives a summary of the Mohr circles for Active and Passive failure for a soil with cohesion.

Figure 2-58: The Mohr circles for active and passive failure for a soil
with cohesion.

Some equations for a soil with cohesion in the active state:

Failure will occur if:

1
 v
 h 
s in    2
 (2-118)
1
c  cot     v
 h 
2

This can also be written as:

   h     h 
  s in    c  cos   
v v
    0 (2-119)
 2   2 

Using this equation the value of σh can be expressed into σv:

1  s in    cos   
h  v  2c  K v  2c K (2-120)
1  s in    1  s in   
a a

On the other hand, the value of σv can also be expressed into σh:

1  s in    cos   
v  h  2c  K h  2c K (2-121)
1  s in    1  s in   
p p

For the passive state the stresses σv and σh should be reversed.

Page 70 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.12. Shear Strength versus Friction.

To avoid confusion between cohesion and adhesion on one side and internal and external friction on the other side,
internal and external friction, also named Coulomb friction, depend linearly on normal stresses, internal friction
depends on the normal stress between the sand grains and external friction on the normal stress between the sand
grains and another material, for example steel. In civil engineering internal and external friction are denoted by
the angle of internal friction and the angle of external friction, also named the soil/interface friction angle. In
mechanical engineering the internal and external friction angles are denoted by the internal and external friction
coefficient. If there is no normal stress, there is no shear stress resulting from normal stress, so the friction is zero.
Adhesion and cohesion are considered to be the sticky effect between two surfaces. Cohesion is the sticky effect
between two surfaces of the same material before any failure has occurred and adhesion is the sticky effect between
two different materials, for example adhesive tape. Adhesion and cohesion could be named the external and
internal shear strength which are independent from normal stresses. The equations for the resulting shear stresses
are:

 in   c   in  ta n (  ) or  in   c   in   in (2-122)
 e x   a   e x  ta n (  ) or  ex   a   ex   ex (2-123)

Or
 in  c   in  ta n (  ) or  in  c   in   in (2-124)
 e x  a   e x  ta n (  ) or  ex  a   ex   ex (2-125)

With:

 in  ta n (  ) (2-126)
 e x  ta n (  ) (2-127)

The values of the internal friction angle φ and the external friction angle δ not only depend on the soil properties
like the density and the shape of the particles, but may also depend on the deformation history.

Ka & Kp vs. Angle of Internal Friction φ

100.00

10.00 Ka
Ka & Kp (-)

1.00

0.10 Kp

0.01
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Angle of Internal Friction φ (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 2-59: The coefficients of active and passive soil failure K a & Kp.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 71 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-59, Figure 2-60 and Figure 2-61 show the Ka and Kp coefficients as a function of the internal friction
angle.

Ka vs. Angle of Internal Friction φ

0.5

0.4
Ka

0.3
Ka (-)

0.2

Kp
0.1

0.0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Angle of Internal Friction φ (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 2-60: The coefficient of active soil failure Ka.

Kp vs. Angle of Internal Friction φ

14

12

Ka

10
Kp (-)

Kp

2
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Angle of Internal Friction φ (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 2-61: The coefficient of passive soil failure Kp.

Page 72 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Basic Soil Mechanics.

2.13. Nomenclature.
a, τa Adhesion or external shear strength kPa
c, τc Cohesion or internal shear strength kPa
f Function -
F Horizontal force kN
Fh Horizontal force on soil element kN
Fv Verical force on soil element kN
Fn Normal force on soil element kN
Fs Shear force on soil element kN
g Gravitational constant (9.81) m/s2
G Gravitational vertical force kN
h Height of the dam/soil m
Ka Coefficient of active failure -
Kp Coefficient of passive failure -
N Force normal to the shear plane kN
S Shear force on the shear plane kN
α Orientation of shear plane (Mohr circle) rad
β Angle of the shear plane (active & passive failure) rad
δ External friction angle or soil/interface friction angle rad
φ Internal friction angle rad
σ Normal stress kPa
σh Horizontal normal stress (principal stress) kPa
σv Vertical normal stress (principal stress) kPa
σin Internal normal stress kPa
σex External normal stress or soil interface normal stress kPa
τ Shear stress kPa
τin Internal shear stress kPa
τex External shear stress or soil interface shear stress kPa
ρg Density of the soil ton/m3
µin Internal friction coefficient -
µex External friction coefficient -

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 73 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 74 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The General Cutting Process.

Chapter 3: The General Cutting Process.

3.1. Cutting Mechanisms.

Hatamura and Chijiiwa (1975), (1976A), (1976B), (1977A) and (1977B) distinguished three failure mechanisms
in soil cutting. The Shear Type, the Flow Type and the Tear Type. The Flow Type and the Tear Type occur in
materials without an angle of internal friction. The Shear Type occurs in materials with an angle of internal friction
like sand.

Figure 3-1: The Curling Type, the Flow Type, the Tear Type, the Shear Type,
the Crushed Type and the Chip Type.

A fourth failure mechanism can be distinguished (Miedema (1992)), the Curling Type, as is known in metal
cutting. Although it seems that the curling of the chip cut is part of the flow of the material, whether the Curling
Type or the Flow Type occurs depends on several conditions. The Curling Type in general will occur if the
adhesive force on the blade is large with respect to the normal force on the shear plane. Whether the Curling Type
results in pure curling or buckling of the layer cut giving obstruction of the flow depends on different parameters.
In rock or stone two additional cutting mechanisms may occur, the Crushed Type and the Chip Type. The

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 75 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Crushed Type will occur if a thin layer of rock is scraped or cut like in oil and gas drilling. The mechanism of the
Crushed Type is similar to the Shear Type, only first the rock material has to be crushed. The Chip Type will
occur when cutting thicker layers of rock or stone. This type is similar to the Tear Type.

Figure 3-1 illustrates the Curling Type, the Flow Type and the Tear Type mechanisms as they might occur when
cutting clay, the Shear Type mechanism as it might occur when cutting sand and the Crushed Type and Chip
Type as they might occur when cutting rock or stone. Of course also mixed types may occur.
To predict which type of failure mechanism will occur under given conditions with specific soil, a formulation for
the cutting forces has to be derived. The derivation is made under the assumption that the stresses on the shear
plane and the blade are constant and equal to the average stresses acting on the surfaces. Figure 3-2 gives some
definitions regarding the cutting process. The line A-B is considered to be the shear plane, while the line A-C is
the contact area between the blade and the soil. The blade angle is named α and the shear angle β. The blade is
moving from left to right with a cutting velocity vc. The thickness of the layer cut is hi and the vertical height of
the blade hb. The horizontal force on the blade Fh is positive from right to left always opposite to the direction of
the cutting velocity vc. The vertical force on the blade Fv is positive downwards.
The shear angle β is determined based on the minimum energy principle. It is assumed that failure will occur at a
shear angle where the cutting energy is at a minimum. The cutting power is the cutting energy per unit of time, so
the cutting power also has to be at the minimum level.
Since the vertical force is perpendicular to the cutting velocity, the vertical force does not contribute to the cutting
power, which is equal to the horizontal cutting force times the cutting velocity:

Pc  Fh  v c (3-1)

Whether the minimum energy principle is true and whether the approach of using straight failure planes is right
has been validated with experiments. The experimental data, usually measurements of the horizontal and vertical
cutting forces and pore pressures, shows that the approach in this book gives a good prediction of the cutting
forces.

3.2. Definitions.

Figure 3-2: The cutting process, definitions.

Definitions:
1. A: The blade tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. A-B: The shear plane.
5. A-C: The blade surface.
6. hb: The height of the blade.
7. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
8. vc: The cutting velocity.
9. α: The blade angle.

Page 76 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The General Cutting Process.

10. β: The shear angle.

11. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
12. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

3.3. The Flow/ Shear/Crushed Type.

Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 show the Flow Type and the Shear Type of cutting process. The Shear Type is modeled
as the Flow Type. The difference is that in dry soil the forces calculated for the Flow Type are constant forces
because the process is ductile. For the Shear Type the forces are the peak forces, because the process is assumed
to be brittle (shear). The average forces can be determined by multiplying the peak forces with a factor of ¼ to ½.

Figure 3-3: The Flow Type Figure 3-4: The Shear Type

Figure 3-5: The Crushed Type.

3.3.1. The Equilibrium of Forces.

Figure 3-6 illustrates the forces on the layer of soil cut. The forces shown are valid in general. The forces acting
on this layer are:
1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1 resulting from the effective grain stresses.
2. A shear force S1 as a result of internal friction N1·tan(.
3. A force W1 as a result of water under pressure in the shear zone.
4. A shear force C as a result of pure cohesion c. This force can be calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear
strength c with the area of the shear plane.
5. A gravity force G as a result of the (under water) weight of the layer cut.
6. An inertial force I, resulting from acceleration of the soil.
7. A force normal to the blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
8. A shear force S2 as a result of the external friction angle N2·tan(.
9. A shear force A as a result of pure adhesion between the soil and the blade a. This force can be calculated by
multiplying the adhesive shear strength a of the soil with the contact area between the soil and the blade.
10. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the blade

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 77 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The normal force N1 and the shear force S1 can be combined to a resulting grain force K1.

2 2
K1  N 1  S1 (3-2)

The forces acting on a straight blade when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
11. A force normal to the blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
12. A shear force S2 as a result of the external friction angle N2·tan(.
13. A shear force A as a result of pure adhesion between the soil and the blade a. This force can be calculated by
multiplying the adhesive shear strength a of the soil with the contact area between the soil and the blade.
14. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the blade.

These forces are shown in Figure 3-7. If the forces N2 and S2 are combined to a resulting force K2 and the adhesive
force A and the water under pressures forces W1 and W2 are known, then the resulting force K2 is the unknown
force on the blade. By taking the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces an expression for the force K2 on
the blade can be derived.

2 2
K 2  N2  S2 (3-3)

Figure 3-6: The forces on the layer cut. Figure 3-7: The forces on the blade.

The horizontal equilibrium of forces:

 F h  K 1  s in (    )  W 1  s in (  )  C  c o s (  )  I  c o s (  )

(3-4)
 A  c o s (  )  W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  0

The vertical equilibrium of forces:

 F v   K 1  c o s (    )  W 1  c o s (  )  C  s in (  )  I  s in (  )

(3-5)
 G  A  s in (  )  W 2  c o s (  )  K 2  cos(   )  0

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  G  s in (    )
K 1 
s in (        )

(3-6)
 I  cos(     )  C  cos(     )  A  cos( )

s in (        )

Page 78 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The General Cutting Process.

The force K2 on the blade is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  G  s in (    )
K 2 
s in (        )

(3-7)
 I  cos( )  C  cos( )  A  cos(     )

s in (        )

From equation (3-7) the forces on the blade can be derived. On the blade a force component in the direction of
cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  A  c o s (  ) (3-8)
F   W 2  c o s (  )  K 2  c o s (    )  A  s in (  ) (3-9)

The normal force on the shear plane is now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  G  s in (    )
N1   cos( )
s in (        )

(3-10)
 I  cos(     )  C  cos(     )  A  cos( )
  cos( )
s in (        )

The normal force on the blade is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  G  s in (    )
N 2   cos( )
s in (        )

(3-11)
 I  cos( )  C  cos( )  A  cos(     )
  cos( )
s in (        )

If the equations (3-10) and (3-11) give a positive result, the normal forces are compressive forces. It can be seen
from these equations that the normal forces can become negative, meaning that a tensile rupture might occur,
depending on values for the adhesion and cohesion and the angles involved. The most critical direction where this
might occur can be found from the Mohr circle.

3.3.2. The Individual Forces.

If there is no cavitation the water pressures forces W1 and W2 can be written as:

2 2
p 1m   w  g  v c    h i  w p 1m   w  g  v c    h i  w
W1   (3-12)
 a1  k i  a 2  k m a x   s in (  ) k m  s in (  )
p 2m   w  g  v c    h i  w p 2m   w  g  v c    h i  w
W2   (3-13)
 a1 k i  a 2  k m ax   s in (  ) k m  s in (  )

In case of cavitation W1 and W2 become:

 w  g  (z  10)  h i  w
W1  (3-14)
s in (  )
 w  g  (z  10)  h b  w
W2  (3-15)
s in (  )

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 79 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Wismer and Luth (1972A) and (1972B) investigated the inertia forces term I of the total cutting forces. The
following equation is derived:

2 s in (  )
I  s  vc  hi  w (3-16)
s in (    )

The cohesive and the adhesive forces C and A can be determined with soil mechanical experiments. For the
cohesive and adhesive forces the following equations are valid:

c hi  w
C  (3-17)
s in (  )
a hb  w
A  (3-18)
s in (  )

The gravitational force G (weight submerged) follows from:

s in (    )   h b  h i  s in (  )  h i  c o s (    ) 
G  s  w  g hi  w     (3-19)
s in (  ) s in (  ) 2  s in (  )
 

The gravitational force G (dry weight) follows from:

s in (    )   h b  h i  s in (  )  h i  c o s (    ) 
G  s  g  hi  w     (3-20)
s in (  ) s in (  ) 2  s in (  )
 

This is in accordance with the area that is used for the water pore pressure calculations in the case of water saturated
sand (see Figure 6-7).

3.4. The Curling Type.

In some soils it is possible that the Curling Type of cutting mechanism occurs. This will happen when the layer
cut is relatively thin and there is a force on the blade of which the magnitude depends on the blade height, like the
adhesive force or the pore pressure force in the case of a cavitating cutting process. In soils like clay and loam, but
also in rock under hyperbaric conditions this may occur. Figure 3-8 shows this Curling Type. The question now
is, what is the effective blade height hb,m where the soil is in contact with the blade. To solve this problem, an
additional equation is required. There is only one equation available and that is the equilibrium equation of
moments on the layer cut. Figure 3-9 shows the moments acting on the layer cut. In the case of clay, loam or
hyperbaric rock, the contribution of gravity can be neglected.

The equilibrium of moments when the gravity moment is neglected is:

N1  W1 R1  N2  W2 R2 (3-21)

The arms of the 2 moments are:

1 hi  2  h b ,m
R1  ,R  (3-22)
s in    s in   
2

This gives the equilibrium equation of moments on the layer cut:

Page 80 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The General Cutting Process.

 W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )   W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  ) 
  cos( )    cos( ) 
s in (        ) s in (        )
   
  C  cos(     )  A  cos      h   C  cos( )  A  cos          h
1 i 2 b ,m
  cos( )      cos( )  
 s in (        )  s in     s in (        )  s in   
   
 W1 W2
   
   
   
(3-23)

Figure 3-8: The Curling Type of cutting mechanism. Figure 3-9: The general equilibrium of moments.

When the equations for W1, W2, C and A as mentioned before are substituted, the resulting equation is a second
degree equation with hb,m as the variable.
This can be solved using the following set of equations:

2
2 B  B  4A C
A x  B x C  0 and h b ,m  x 
2A

 2  p 2 m  s in           2  p 2 m  s in         c o s   
A 
s in     s in   
 a   2  cos         cos   

s in     s in   

 1  p 2 m  s in     c o s     2  p 1 m  c o s     s in    (3-24)
B  hi
s in     s in   

 c   2  cos     cos    a   1  cos     cos   

 hi
s in     s in   

 1  p 1 m  s in         c o s     1  p 1 m  s in         
C  hi hi
s in     s in   

 c   1  cos         cos   
 hi hi
s in     s in   

The usage is now as follows:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 81 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

i f h b ,m  h b t h e n u s e h b ,m
(3-25)
if h b ,m  h b t h e n u s e h b

3.5. The Tear Type and Chip Type.

The Tear Type of cutting process has a failure mechanism based on tensile failure. For such a failure mechanism
to occur it is required that negative stresses may occur. In sand this is not the case, because in sand the failure lines
according to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion will pass through the origin as is shown in Figure 2-46 and Figure 2-47.
For the failure lines not to pass through the origin it is required that the soil has a certain cohesion or shear strength
like with clay and rock. In clay and rock, normally, the inertial forces and the gravity can be neglected and also
the water pore pressures do not play a role. Only with hyperbaric rock cutting the water pore pressures will play a
role, but there the Tear Type will not occur. This implies that for the Tear Type and Chip Type a soil with
cohesion and adhesion and internal and external friction will be considered.

Figure 3-10: The Tear Type cutting mechanism Figure 3-11: The Chip Type cutting mechanism
in clay. in rock.

If clay or rock is considered, the following condition can be derived with respect to tensile rupture:

With the relations for the cohesive force C, the adhesive force A and the adhesion/cohesion ratio r (the ac ratio r):

s c hi  w
C  (3-26)
s in   
s a hb  w
A  (3-27)
s in   
a hb
r= (3-28)
c hi

The horizontal Fh and vertical Fv cutting forces can be determined according to:

s in      s in     
 cos     r   cos   
s in    s in    (3-29)
Fh   s  c  h i  w 
s in         

cos      cos     
 cos     r   cos   
s in    s in    (3-30)
F   s  c  h i  w 
s in         

The shear angle  is determined in the case where the horizontal cutting force Fh is at a minimum, based on the
minimum energy principle.

Page 82 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The General Cutting Process.

 Fh r  c o s     s in  2       s in     s in     s in         

          s in     s in   
2 2 2
s in

 s in     s in    2          s in     s in       c o s   
 (3-31)
         s in     s in   
2 2 2
s in

 s in     s in    2          r  s in     s in       c o s    
  0
         s in     sin   
2 2 2
s in

In the special case where there is no adhesion, r  0 , the shear angle is:

 Fh  s in    2         s in       c o s   
  0 (3-32)
          s in  
2 2
s in

So:

    
s in    2         0 f o r   2         g iv in g  =  (3-33)
2 2

The cohesion c can be determined from the UCS value and the angle of internal friction φ according to (as is shown
in Figure 3-12):

U C S  1  s in    
c    (3-34)
2  cos    
 

According to the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, the following is valid for the shear stress on the shear plane, as
is shown in Figure 3-13.

 S1  c   N1  ta n  (3-35)

Figure 3-12: The Mohr circle for UCS and cohesion.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 83 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The average stress condition on the shear plane is now σN1, τS1 as is show in Figure 3-13. A Mohr circle (Mohr
circle 1) can be drawn through this point, resulting in a minimum stress σmin which is negative, so tensile. If this
minimum normal stress is smaller than the tensile strength σT tensile fracture will occur, as is the case in the figure.
Now Mohr circle 1 can never exist, but a smaller circle (Mohr circle 2) can, just touching the tensile strength σT.
The question is now, how to get from Mohr circle 1 to Mohr circle 2. To find Mohr circle 2 the following steps
have to be taken.

The radius R of the Mohr circle 1 can be found from the shear stress τS1 by:

S1
R  (3-36)
cos   

The center of the Mohr circle 1, σC, now follows from:

 C   N 1  R  s in      N 1   S 1  ta n   
(3-37)
  N 1  c  ta n     
2
 N 1  ta n

The normal force N1 on the shear plane is now:

 C  cos(     )  A  cos( )
N1   cos( )
s in (        )

(3-38)
cos(     ) cos( )
  r
s in    s in   
 s c hi  w   cos( )
s in (        )

The normal stress σN1 on the shear plane is:

N 1  s in   
 N1 
hi  w

(3-39)
s in     c o s (      ) s in     c o s (  )
  r
s in    s in   
 s c  cos( )
s in (        )

The minimum principal stress σmin equals the normal stress in the center of the Mohr circle σC minus the radius of
the Mohr circle R:

c  N 1  ta n   
 m in   C  R   N 1  c  ta n      N 1  ta n   
2
 (3-40)
cos    cos   
Rearranging this gives:

 ta n      1 
 m in   N 1   1  ta n       c   ta n    
2
 (3-41)
 cos      cos    
   

Page 84 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The General Cutting Process.

 N1  c o s 2     s in 2     s in     1  s in   
 m in     c 
cos     cos      cos    
   
(3-42)
    1  s in   
N1
   c  
 cos      cos    
   

Figure 3-13: The Mohr circles of the Tear Type.

Now ductile failure will occur if the minimum principal stress σmin is bigger than then tensile strength σT, thus:

 m in   T (3-43)

If equation (3-43) is true, ductile failure will occur. Keep in mind however, that the tensile strength σT is a negative
number. Of course if the minimum normal stress  m in is positive, brittle tensile failure can never occur.
Substituting equation (3-39) for the normal stress on the shear plane gives the following condition for the Tear
Type:

 s in     c o s    
 r  c o s         s in         
 s in      1  s in    
c    T (3-44)
 s in            cos    
   
 
 

In clay it is assumed that the internal and external friction angles are zero, while in rock it is assumed that the
adhesion is zero. This will be explained in detail in the chapters on clay and rock cutting.
The ratios between the pore pressures and the cohesive shear strength, in the case of hyperbaric rock cutting, can
be found according to:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 85 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

a hb p 1m  h i  w  g   z  10   h i
r= , r1 = o r r1  ,
c hi c hi c hi

(3-45)
p 2m  h b  w  g   z  10   hb
r2 = o r r2 
c hi c hi

Equation (3-46) can be derived for the occurrence of tensile failure under hyperbaric conditions. Under hyperbaric
conditions equation (3-46) will almost always be true, because of the terms with r1 and r2 which may become very
big (positive). So tensile failure will not be considered for hyperbaric conditions.

 s in     c o s    s in     s in    
 r  r2   r1  s in        
 s in    s in    
 s in          
   1  s in    
c    T (3-46)
 
   cos    
  c o s         s in          

 s in          
 
 
 

Analyzing equations (3-44) and (3-46) gives the following conclusions:

1. The first term of equations (3-44) and (3-46) is always positive.
2. If the sum of α+β+δ>π/2, in the second term of equation (3-44) and the fourth term of equation (3-46), these
terms are positive, which will be the case for normal cutting angles.
3. The second and third terms of equation (3-46) are always positive.
4. The last term in equations (3-44) and (3-46) is always negative.
5. Equation (3-44) may become negative and fulfill the condition for the Tear Type.
6. Equation (3-46) will never become negative under normal conditions, so under hyperbaric conditions the Tear
Type will never occur.
7. The Tear Type may occur with clay and rock under atmospheric conditions.

Figure 3-14: The forces on the layer cut.

Page 86 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The General Cutting Process.

3.6. The Snow Plough Effect.

3.6.1. The Normal and Friction Forces on the Shear Surface and Blade.
On a cutter head, the blades can be divided into small elements, at which a two dimensional cutting process is
considered. However, this is correct only when the cutting edge of this element is perpendicular to the direction of
the velocity of the element. For most elements this will not be the case. The cutting edge and the absolute velocity
of the cutting edge will not be perpendicular. This means the elements can be considered to be deviated with
respect to the direction of the cutting velocity. A component of the cutting velocity perpendicular to the cutting
edge and a component parallel to the cutting edge can be distinguished. This second component results in a
deviation force on the blade element, due to the friction between the soil and the blade. This force is also the cause
of the transverse movement of the soil, the snow plough effect.
To predict the deviation force and the direction of motion of the soil on the blade, the equilibrium equations of
force will have to be solved in three directions. Since there are four unknowns, three forces and the direction of
the velocity of the soil on the blade, one additional equation is required. This equation follows from an equilibrium
equation of velocity between the velocity of grains in the shear zone and the velocity of grains on the blade. Since
the four equations are partly non-linear and implicit, they have to be solved iteratively. The results of solving these
equations have been compared with the results of laboratory tests on sand. The correlation between the two was
very satisfactory, with respect to the magnitude of the forces and with respect to the direction of the forces and the
flow of the soil on the blade.
Although the normal and friction forces as shown in Figure 3-14 are the basis for the calculation of the horizontal
and vertical cutting forces, the approach used, requires the following equations to derive these forces by using
equations (3-8) and (3-9). The index 1 points to the shear surface, while the index 2 points to the blade.

F n 1  F h  s in    Fv  cos    (3-47)

Ff 1  Fh  c o s     F v  s in   (3-48)

Fn 2  Fh  s i n    Fv  co s   (3-49)

Ff 2  Fh  c o s    F v  s in   (3-50)

3.6.2. The 3D Cutting Theory.

The previous paragraphs summarized the two-dimensional cutting theory. However, as stated in the introduction,
in most cases the cutting process is not two-dimensional, because the drag velocity is not perpendicular to the
cutting edge of the blade. Figure 3-16 shows this phenomenon. As with snow-ploughs, the soil will flow to one
side while the blade is pushed to the opposite side. This will result in a third cutting force, the deviation force Fd.
To determine this force, the flow direction of the soil has to be known. Figure 3-17 shows a possible flow direction.

3.6.3. Velocity Conditions.

For the velocity component perpendicular to the blade vc, if the blade has a deviation angle  and a drag velocity
vd according to Figure 3-17, it yields:

v c  v d  cos    (3-51)

The velocity of grains in the shear surface perpendicular to the cutting edge vr1 is now:

s in   
v r1  v c  (3-52)
s in     

The relative velocity of grains with respect to the blade vr2, perpendicular to the cutting edge is:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 87 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

s in   
vr2  vc  (3-53)
s in     

The grains will not only have a velocity perpendicular to the cutting edge, but also parallel to the cutting edge, the
deviation velocity components vd1 on the shear surface and vd2 on the blade.

Figure 3-15: Urban winter service vehicle with snowplow (commons.wikimedia.org).

Figure 3-16: The 3D cutting process.

Page 88 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The General Cutting Process.

The velocity components of a grain in x, y and z direction can be determined by considering the absolute velocity
of grains in the shear surface, this leads to:

v r 2  v d 2  v d  v r1  v d1 (3-54)

v x1  v r1  co s     cos     v d 1  s in  (3-55)

v y 1  v r 1  c o s     s in     v d 1  c o s    (3-56)

v z 1  v r 1  s in   (3-57)

Figure 3-17: Velocity conditions.

Figure 3-18: Force directions.

The velocity components of a grain can also be determined by a summation of the drag velocity of the blade and
the relative velocity between the grains and the blade, this gives:

v x 2  v d  v r 2  cos     cos     v d 2  s in  (3-58)

v y 2   v r 2  c o s     s in     v d 2  c o s    (3-59)

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 89 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

v z 2  v r 2  s in   (3-60)

Since both approaches will have to give the same resulting velocity components, the following condition for the
transverse velocity components can be derived:

v x1  v x 2     v d 1  v d 2  v d  s in  (3-61)

v y 1  v y 2     v d 1  v d 2  v d  s in    (3-62)

v z1  v z 2 (3-63)

3.6.4. The Deviation Force.

Since a friction force always has a direction matching the direction of the relative velocity between two bodies,
the fact that a deviation velocity exists on the shear surface and on the blade, implies that also deviation forces
must exist. To match the direction of the relative velocities, the following equations can be derived for the deviation
force on the shear surface and on the blade (Figure 3-18):

v d1
Fd 1  Ff 1  (3-64)
v r1

vd2
Fd 2  Ff 2  (3-65)
vr2
Since perpendicular to the cutting edge, an equilibrium of forces exists, the two deviation forces must be equal in
magnitude and have opposite directions.

Fd 1  Fd 2 (3-66)

By substituting equations (3-64) and (3-65) in equation (3-66) and then substituting equations (3-48) and (3-50)
for the friction forces and equations (3-52) and (3-53) for the relative velocities, the following equation can be
derived, giving a second relation between the two deviation velocities:

v d1  F f 2   v r 1   F h  c o s     F v  s in      s in    
          (3-67)
  
vd2  F f 1   v r 2   F h  c o s     F v  s in      s in    

To determine Fh and Fv perpendicular to the cutting edge, the angle of internal friction φe and the external friction
angle δe mobilized perpendicular to the cutting edge, have to be determined by using the ratio of the transverse
velocity and the relative velocity, according to:

  v d1  
ta n   e  ta n     c o s  a tn    (3-68)

  v r1  

  vd2  
ta n   e   ta n     c o s  a tn    (3-69)

  vr2  

For the cohesion c and the adhesion a this gives:

  v d1  
c e  c  c o s  a tn    (3-70)

  v r1  

  vd2  
a e  a  c o s  a tn    (3-71)

  vr2  

Page 90 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The General Cutting Process.

3.6.5. The Resulting Cutting Forces.

The resulting cutting forces in x, y and z direction can be determined once the deviation velocity components are
known. However, it can be seen that the second velocity condition equation (3-67) requires the horizontal and
vertical cutting forces perpendicular to the cutting edge, while these forces can only be determined if the mobilized
internal and external friction angles and the mobilized cohesion and adhesion (equations (3-68), (3-69), (3-70) and
(3-71)) are known. This creates an implicit set of equations that will have to be solved by means of an iteration
process. For the cutting forces on the blade the following equation can be derived:

F x 2  F h  c o s     F d 2  s in  (3-72)

F y 2  F h  s in     F d 2  c o s    (3-73)

Fz 2  F v (3-74)

The problem of the model being implicit can be solved in the following way:

A new variable λ is introduced in such a way that:


v d1   v d  s in    (3-75)
1 

1
vd2   v d  s in    (3-76)
1 

This satisfies the condition from equations (3-61) and (3-62) for the sum of these 2 velocities:

v d 1  v d 2  v d  s in  (3-77)

The procedure starts with a starting value for λ=1. Based on the velocities found with equations (3-75), (3-76),
(3-52) and (3-53), the mobilized internal φe and external δe friction angles and the cohesion ce and adhesion ae can
be determined using the equations (3-68), (3-69), (3-70) and (3-71). Once these are known, the horizontal Fh and
vertical Fv cutting forces in the plane perpendicular to the cutting edge can be determined with equations (3-8) and
(3-9). With the equations (3-48), (3-50), (3-64) and (3-65) the friction and deviation forces on the blade and the
shear plane can be determined. Now with equation (3-67) the value of the variable λ can be determined and if the
starting value is correct, this value should be found. In general this will not be the case after one iteration. But
repeating this procedure 3 or 4 times should give enough accuracy.

3.7. Example Program in Visual Basic 6.

Start:
Labda = 1
'In case of deviation angle
If Iota <> 0 Then
Vr1 = Vd * cos(Iota) * sin(Alpha) / sin(Alpha + Beta) (3-52)
Vr2 = Vd * cos(Iota) * sin(Beta) / sin(Alpha + Beta) (3-53)
Vd1 = Vd * sin(Iota) * Labda / (1 + Labda) (3-75)
Vd2 = Vd * sin(Iota) / (1 + Labda) (3-76)
'So Vd1+Vd2 = Vd * sin(Iota)
Phi_e = atn(Tan(Phi) * cos(atn(Vd1 / Vr1))) (3-68)
Delta_e = atn(Tan(Delta) * cos(atn(Vd2 / Vr2))) (3-69)
Cohesion_e = Cohesion * cos(atn(Vd1 / Vr1)) (3-70)
Adhesion_e = Adhesion * cos(atn(Vd2 / Vr2)) (3-71)
End If

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 91 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Insert here the force calculation (Fh and Fv)

'In case of deviation angle (3-48)

If Iota <> 0 Then (3-50)
Ff1 = Fh * cos(Beta) + Fv * sin(Beta) (3-64)
Ff2 = Fh * cos(Alpha) - Fv * sin(Alpha) (3-65)
Fd1 = abs(Ff1 * (Vd1 / Vr1)) (3-67)
Fd2 = abs(Ff2 * (Vd2 / Vr2))
Labda2 = (Vr1 / Vr2) * (Ff2 / Ff1) (3-72)
Fd = (Fd1 + Fd2) / 2 (3-73)
Fx2 = Fh * cos(Iota) + Fd * sin(Iota) (3-74)
Fy2 = Fh * sin(Iota) - Fd * cos(Iota)
Fz2 = Fv
End If

If Abs(Labda – Labda2) > 0.001 Then Goto Start

Figure 3-19: A piece of a program showing the iteration scheme.

3.8. Finding the Shear Angle.

The unknown in all the mechanisms is the shear angle β. With the assumption that nature will choose the
mechanism configuration that requires the least energy and this energy equals the horizontal force Fh times the
cutting velocity vc times time, the shear angle β should be chosen where the horizontal force Fh is at a minimum.
In some cases an analytical solution exists by taking the derivative of the horizontal force Fh with respect to the
shear angle β and making it equal to zero. The second derivative has to be positive in this case. In other cases it is
more convenient to determine the minimum numerically. This minimum value depends strongly on the blade angle
α and the blade height – layer thickness ratio hb/hi. This minimum also depends strongly on the soil properties and
thus the type of soil. Different soils will have shear angles in a different range. Different cutting mechanisms will
also have shear angles in different ranges. For saturated sand with blade angles α from 30° to 60°, the shear angle
β will range from 30° to 20°. For clay, the shear angle depends strongly on the ratio of the adhesion to the cohesion.
For very strong clays with a low relative adhesion the shear angle can be in the range of 60° to 75° for blade angles
α from 30° to 60°. For soft clays with a high relative adhesion the shear angle is much smaller, from 30° to 40°. In
general one can say that the shear angle decreases with increasing blade angle, internal/external friction angle and
adhesion.
The criterion of least energy is arbitrary but reasonable. Other criteria may be applied to find the shear angle. Also
other mechanisms may be applied leading to slightly different shear angles. In this book it is assumed that the
shear plane is a straight line, which is questionable. First of all, the shear plane does not have to be a line without
thickness. An area with a certain thickness is also possible. Secondly, the shape of the shear plane could be curved,
like a circle segment. The advantage of the approach chosen is, that one can compare the different mechanisms
more easily and the models derived give more insight in the basic parameters.

3.9. Specific Cutting Energy Esp.

In the dredging industry, the specific cutting energy is described as:

The amount of energy, that has to be added to a volume unit of soil (e.g. sand, clay or rock) to excavate the soil.

The dimension of the specific cutting energy is: kN/m² or kPa for sand and clay, while for rock often MN/m2 or
MPa is used.

For the case as described above, cutting with a straight blade, the specific cutting energy can be written as:

Pc Fh  v c Fh
E sp    (3-78)
Qc hi  w  vc hi w

So the specific cutting energy equals the cutting power divided by the cutting volumetric production. Once the
specific cutting energy is known and the installed cutting power is known, this can be used to determine the
theoretical cutting production according to:

Page 92 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The General Cutting Process.

Pc
Qc  (3-79)
E sp

It should be noted here that there may be other factors limiting the production, like the hydraulic transport system
of a cutter suction dredge, the throughput between the blades of a cutter head or the capacity of the swing winches.

3.10. Nomenclature.
a 1, a 2 Coefficients for weighted permeability -
a, τa Adhesion or external shear strength kPa
A Adhesive force on the blade kN
c, τc Cohesion or internal shear strength kPa
C, C1 Force due to cohesion in the shear plane kN
C2 Force due to cohesion on the front of the wedge kN
C3 Force due to cohesion at the bottom of the wedge kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force kN
Ff1 Friction force on the shear surface kN
Ff2 Friction force on the blade kN
Fn1 Normal force on the shear surface kN
Fn2 Normal force on the blade kN
Fv Vertical cutting force kN
Fd1 Deviation force on the shear surface kN
Fd, d2 Deviation force on the blade kN
Fx1, 2 Cutting force in x-direction kN
Fy1, 2 Cutting force in y-direction kN
Fz1, 2 Cutting force in z-direction kN
g Gravitational constant (9.81) m/s²
G, G1 Gravitational force on the layer cut kN
G2 Gravitational force on the wedge kN
hi Initial thickness of layer cut m
hb Height of blade m
hb,m Effective height of the blade in case Curling Type m
I Inertial force on the shear plane kN
ki Initial permeability m/s
kmax Maximum permeability m/s
km Average permeability m/s
K1 Grain force on the shear plane kN
K2 Grain force on the blade or the front of the wedge kN
K3 Grain force on the bottom of the wedge kN
K4 Grain force on the blade (in case a wedge exists) kN
ni Initial porosity %
nmax Maximum porosity %
N1 Normal force on the shear plane kN
N2 Normal force on the blade or the front of the wedge kN
N3 Normal force on the bottom of the wedge kN
N4 Normal force on the blade (in case a wedge exists) kN
p1m Average pore pressure on the shear surface kPa
p2m Average pore pressure on the blade kPa
Pc Cutting power kW
R1 Acting point of resulting forces on the shear plane m
R2 Acting point of resulting forces on the blade m
R3 Acting point of resulting forces on the bottom of the wedge m
R4 Acting point of resulting forces on the blade (in case a wedge exists) m

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 93 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

S1 Shear force due to friction on the shear plane kN

S2 Shear force due to friction on the blade or the front of the wedge kN
S3 Shear force due to friction at the bottom of the wedge kN
S4 Shear force due to friction on the blade (in case a wedge exists) kN
vc Cutting velocity component perpendicular to the blade m/s
vd Cutting velocity, drag velocity m/s
vr1 Velocity of grains in the shear surface m/s
vr2 Relative velocity of grains on the blade m/s
vd1 Deviation velocity of grains in the shear surface m/s
vd2 Deviation velocity of grains on the blade m/s
vx1,2 Velocity of grains in the x-direction m/s
vy1,2 Velocity of grains in the y-direction m/s
vz1,2 Velocity of grains in the z-direction m/s
w Width of blade m
W1 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the shear plane kN
W2 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the blade/ front wedge kN
W3 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the bottom of the wedge kN
W4 Force resulting from pore under pressures on the blade, wedge kN
z Water depth m
 Cutting angle blade rad
 Shear angle rad
ε Dilatation -
 Angle of internal friction rad
e Angle of internal friction perpendicular to the cutting edge rad
λs  Strengthening factor -
λ1 Acting point factor for resulting forces on the shear plane -
λ2 Acting point factor for resulting forces on the blade or front of wedge -
λ3 Acting point factor for resulting forces on the bottom of the wedge -
λ4 Acting point factor for resulting forces on the blade -
 External friction angle rad
e External friction angle perpendicular to the cutting edge rad
 Deviation angle blade rad
ρs Density of the soil ton/m³
l Density water ton/m³
θ Wedge angle rad

Page 94 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Which Cutting Mechanism for Which Kind of Soil?

Chapter 4: Which Cutting Mechanism for Which Kind of Soil?

4.1. Cutting Dry Sand.

In dry sand the cutting processes are governed by gravity and by inertial forces. Pore pressure forces, cohesion and
adhesion are not present or can be neglected. Internal and external friction are present. The cutting process is of
the Shear Type with discrete shear planes, but this can be modeled as the Flow Type, according to Merchant
(1944). This approach will give an estimate of the maximum cutting forces. The average cutting forces may be
30%-50% of the maximum cutting forces.
Dry sand cutting is dominated by gravitational and inertial forces and by the internal and external friction angles.
The cutting mechanism is the Shear Type. This is covered in Chapter 5: Dry Sand Cutting.

Figure 4-1: The Shear Type in dry sand cutting.

The forces K1 and K2 on the blade, chisel or pick point are now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  G  s in (    )
K 1 
s in (        )
(4-1)
 I  cos(     )  C  cos(     )  A  cos( )

s in (        )

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  G  s in (    )
K 2 
s in (        )
(4-2)
 I  cos( )  C  cos( )  A  cos(     )

s in (        )

The normal forces N1 on the shear plane and N2 on the blade are:

N1  K 1  cos  and N 2  K 2  cos  (4-3)

The horizontal and vertical forces on the blade, chisel or pick point are:

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  A  c o s (  ) (4-4)
Fv   W 2  co s(  )  K 2  c o s (    )  A  s in (  ) (4-5)

The equilibrium of moments around the blade tip is:

N1  W1 R1  G R 3  N2  W2 R2 (4-6)

Analyzing these equations results in the following conclusions:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 95 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

 Since the argument in the cosine of the inertial term in the force K1 is always greater than 90 degrees, the
cosine is negative and the term as a whole is positive. This results in positive forces on the blade, chisel or
pick point and also positive normal forces.
 There are no forces directly proportional to the (mobilized) blade height or the length of the shear plane, so
the equilibrium of moments does not play a role. The Curling Type and the Tear Type will not occur. The
acting points of the forces R1 and R2 will be adjusted by nature to form an equilibrium of moments.
 When the argument of the sine in the denominator gets close to 180 degrees, the forces become very large. If
the argument is greater than 180 degrees, the forces would become negative. Since both conditions will not
happen in nature, nature will find another cutting mechanism, the wedge mechanism.

4.2. Cutting Water Saturated Sand.

From literature it is known that, during the cutting process, the sand increases in volume. This increase in volume
is accredited to dilatancy. Dilatancy is the change of the pore volume as a result of shear in the sand. This increase
of the pore volume has to be filled with water. The flowing water experiences a certain resistance, which causes
sub-pressures in the pore water in the sand. As a result the grain stresses increase and therefore the required cutting
forces. The rate of the increase of the pore volume in the dilatancy zone, the volume strain rate, is proportional to
the cutting velocity. If the volume strain rate is high, there is a chance that the pore pressure reaches the saturated
water vapor pressure and cavitation occurs. A further increasing volume strain rate will not be able to cause a
further decrease of the pore pressure. This also implies that, with a further increasing cutting velocity, the cutting
forces cannot increase as a result of the dilatancy properties of the sand. The cutting forces can, however, still
increase with an increasing cutting velocity as a result of the inertia forces and the flow resistance.

The cutting process can be subdivided in 5 areas in relation with the cutting forces:
 Very low cutting velocities, a quasi-static cutting process. The cutting forces are determined by gravitation.
 The volume strain rate is high in relation to the permeability of the sand. The volume strain rate is however
so small that inertia forces can be neglected. The cutting forces are dominated by the dilatancy properties of
the sand.
 A transition region, with local cavitation. With an increasing volume strain rate, the cavitation area will
increase so that the cutting forces increase slightly as a result of dilatancy.
 Cavitation occurs almost everywhere around and on the blade. The cutting forces do not increase anymore as
a result of the dilatancy properties of the sand.
 Very high cutting velocities. The inertia forces part in the total cutting forces can no longer be neglected but
form a substantial part.

Under normal conditions in dredging, the cutting process in sand will be governed by the effects of dilatation.
Gravity, inertia, cohesion and adhesion will not play a role. Internal and external friction are present.
Saturated sand cutting is dominated by pore vacuum pressure forces and by the internal and external friction angles.
The cutting mechanism is the Shear Type. This is covered in Chapter 6: Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 4-2: The Shear Type in saturated sand cutting.

The forces K1 and K2 on the blade, chisel or pick point are now:

Page 96 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Which Cutting Mechanism for Which Kind of Soil?

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  G  s in (    )
K 1 
s in (        )
(4-7)
 I  cos(     )  C  cos(     )  A  cos( )

s in (        )

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  G  s in (    )
K 2 
s in (        )
(4-8)
 I  cos( )  C  cos( )  A  cos(     )

s in (        )

The normal forces N1 on the shear plane and N2 on the blade are:

N1  K 1  cos    and N 2  K 2  cos    (4-9)

The horizontal and vertical forces on the blade, chisel or pick point are:

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  A  c o s (  ) (4-10)
Fv   W 2  co s(  )  K 2  c o s (    )  A  s in (  ) (4-11)

The equilibrium of moments around the blade tip is:

N1  W1 R1  G R 3  N2  W2 R2 (4-12)

Analyzing these equations results in the following conclusions:

 The pore pressure forces W1 and W2 are limited by the occurrence of cavitation.
 All the terms are positive, resulting in positive forces on the blade and also positive normal forces.
 In the non-cavitating case the pore pressure forces are related to the (mobilized) blade height or the length of
the shear plane. In the cavitating case the pore pressure forces are proportional to the (mobilized) blade height
or the length of the shear plane. Theoretically the Curling Type and the Tear Type may occur. This has
however never been observed with in dredging normal blade heights and layer thicknesses.
 When the argument of the sine in the denominator gets close to 180 degrees, the forces become very large. If
the argument is greater than 180 degrees, the forces would become negative. Since both conditions will not
happen in nature, nature will find another cutting mechanism, the wedge mechanism.

4.3. Cutting Clay.

In clay the cutting processes are dominated by cohesion and adhesion (internal and external shear strength).
Because of the φ=0 concept, the internal and external friction angles are set to 0. Gravity, inertial forces and pore
pressures are also neglected. This simplifies the cutting equations. Clay however is subject to strengthening,
meaning that the internal and external shear strength increase with an increasing strain rate.

The reverse of strengthening is creep, meaning that under a constant load the material will continue deforming
with a certain strain rate. Under normal circumstances clay will be cut with the Flow Type mechanism, but under
certain circumstances the Curling Type or the Tear Type may occur. The Curling Type will occur when the
blade height is large with respect to the layer thickness, hb/hi, the adhesion is high compared to the cohesion a/c
and the blade angle α is relatively big. The Tear Type will occur when the blade height is small with respect to
the layer thickness, hb/hi, the adhesion is small compared to the cohesion a/c and the blade angle α is relatively
small.
Clay cutting is dominated by cohesive (internal shear strength) and adhesive (external shear strength) forces. The
basic cutting mechanism is the Flow Type. Cutting a thin layer, combined with a high adhesive force may result
in the Curling Type mechanism. Cutting a thick layer combined with a small adhesive force and a low tensile
strength may result in the Tear Type mechanism. This is covered in Chapter 7: Clay Cutting.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 97 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 4-3: The Curling Type in clay and loam cutting.

Figure 4-4: The Flow Type in clay and loam cutting.

Figure 4-5: The Tear Type in clay and loam cutting.

Page 98 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Which Cutting Mechanism for Which Kind of Soil?

The forces K1 and K2 on the blade, chisel or pick point are now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  G  s in (    )
K 1 
s in (        )
(4-13)
 I  cos(     )  C  cos(     )  A  cos( )

s in (        )

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  G  s in (    )
K 2 
s in (        )
(4-14)
 I  cos( )  C  cos( )  A  cos(     )

s in (        )

The normal forces N1 on the shear plane and N2 on the blade are:

N1  K 1  cos  and N 2  K 2  cos    (4-15)

The horizontal and vertical forces on the blade, chisel or pick point are:

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  A  c o s (  ) (4-16)
Fv   W 2  co s(  )  K 2  c o s (    )  A  s in (  ) (4-17)

The equilibrium of moments around the blade tip is:

N1  W1 R1  G R 3  N2  W2 R2 (4-18)

Analyzing these equations results in the following conclusions:

 At normal cutting angles in dredging, the argument of the cosine in the cohesive term of K1 is greater than 90
degrees, resulting in a small positive term as a whole. Together with the adhesive term, this gives a positive
normal stress on the shear plane. The minimum normal stress however equals the normal stress on the shear
plane, minus the radius of the Mohr circle, which is the cohesion. The result may be a negative minimum
normal stress. If this negative minimum normal stress is smaller than the negative tensile strength, the Tear
Type will occur. This occurrence depends on the ratio between the adhesive force to the cohesive force. A
large ratio will suppress the Tear Type.
 The adhesive force on the blade is proportional to the (mobilized) length of the blade, so the Curling Type
may occur. The cohesive force on the shear plane is proportional to the (mobilized) cohesion, so the Tear
Type may occur. The occurrence of the Curling Type or Tear Type depends on the ratio of the adhesive
force to the cohesive force. A large ratio results in the Curling Type, a small ratio in the Tear Type.
 When the argument of the sine in the denominator gets close to 180 degrees, the forces become very large. If
the argument is greater than 180 degrees, the forces would become negative. Since both conditions will not
happen in nature, nature will find another cutting mechanism, the wedge mechanism. In clay this is not likely
to occur, since there are only two angles in the argument of the sine in the denominator. It would require very
large blade angles to occur.

4.4. Cutting Rock Atmospheric.

Rock is the collection of materials where the grains are bonded chemically from very stiff clay, sandstone to very
hard basalt. It is difficult to give one definition of rock or stone and also the composition of the material can differ
strongly. Still it is interesting to see if the model used for sand and clay, which is based on the Coulomb model,
can be used for rock as well. Typical parameters for rock are the compressive strength UCS and the tensile strength
BTS and specifically the ratio between those two, which is a measure for how fractured the rock is. Rock also has
shear strength and because it consists of bonded grains it will have an internal friction angle and an external friction
angle. It can be assumed that the permeability of the rock is very low, so initially the pore pressures do no play a
role under atmospheric conditions. Since the absolute hydrostatic pressure, which would result in a cavitation
under pressure of the same magnitude can be neglected with respect to the compressive strength of the rock; the
pore pressures are usually neglected. This results in a material where gravity, inertia, pore pressures and adhesion
can be neglected.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 99 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Rock cutting under atmospheric conditions (normal dredging) is dominated by the internal shear strength and by
the internal and external friction angles. The main cutting mechanism is the Chip Type, brittle cutting. Cutting a
very thin layer or using large blade angles may result in the Crushed Type. This is covered in Chapter 8: Rock
Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

Figure 4-6: The Crushed Type in atmospheric rock cutting.

Figure 4-7: The Chip Type in atmospheric rock cutting.

The forces K1 and K2 on the blade, chisel or pick point are now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  G  s in (    )
K 1 
s in (        )
(4-19)
 I  cos(     )  C  cos(     )  A  cos( )

s in (        )

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  G  s in (    )
K 2 
s in (        )
(4-20)
 I  cos( )  C  cos( )  A  cos(     )

s in (        )

The normal forces N1 on the shear plane and N2 on the blade are:

N1  K 1  cos  and N 2  K 2  cos  (4-21)

Page 100 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Which Cutting Mechanism for Which Kind of Soil?

The horizontal and vertical forces on the blade, chisel or pick point are:

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  A  c o s (  ) (4-22)
Fv   W 2  co s(  )  K 2  c o s (    )  A  s in (  ) (4-23)

The equilibrium of moments around the blade tip is:

N1  W1 R1  G R 3  N2  W2 R2 (4-24)

Analyzing these equations results in the following conclusions:

 Since the argument in the cosine of the cohesive term in the force K1 is always greater than 90 degrees, the
cosine is negative and the term as a whole is positive. This results in positive forces on the blade, chisel or
pick point and also positive normal forces. The minimum normal stress however equals the normal stress on
the shear plane, minus about the radius of the Mohr circle. The result may be a negative minimum normal
stress. If this negative minimum normal stress is smaller than the negative tensile strength, brittle tensile failure
will occur. Otherwise brittle shear failure will occur. In both cases the forces calculated are peak forces. The
average forces are somewhere between 50% and 100% of the peak forces.
 On the blade the normal stresses are always high enough to avoid the occurrence of the Curling Type. In fact
the forces on the blade do not depend on the length of the blade. The cohesive force on the shear plane however
depends on the (mobilized) cohesion or shear strength, so the Tear Type, here named the Chip Type may
occur.
 When the argument of the sine in the denominator gets close to 180 degrees, the forces become very large. If
the argument is greater than 180 degrees, the forces would become negative. Since both conditions will not
happen in nature, nature will find another cutting mechanism, the wedge mechanism.

4.5. Cutting Rock Hyperbaric.

In the case of hyperbaric rock cutting, the pore pressures cannot be neglected anymore. Gravity and inertial forces
can still be neglected. Usually rock has no adhesion. When the hydrostatic pressure is larger than or approaching
the UCS value of the rock, the rock tends to fail in a semi-ductile manner, named cataclastic failure. It is almost
like the hydrostatic pressure can be added to the tensile strength of the rock.

Rock cutting under hyperbaric conditions (deep sea mining) is dominated by the internal shear strength, the pore
vacuum pressure forces and by the internal and external friction angles. The main cutting mechanism is the
Crushed Type, cataclastic semi-ductile cutting. This is covered in Chapter 9: Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric
Conditions.

Figure 4-8: The Crushed Type in hyperbaric rock cutting.

The forces K1 and K2 on the blade, chisel or pick point are now:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 101 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  G  s in (    )
K 1 
s in (        )
(4-25)
 I  cos(     )  C  cos(     )  A  cos( )

s in (        )

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  G  s in (    )
K 2 
s in (        )
(4-26)
 I  cos( )  C  cos( )  A  cos(     )

s in (        )

The normal forces N1 on the shear plane and N2 on the blade are:

N1  K 1  cos    and N 2  K 2  cos    (4-27)

The horizontal and vertical forces on the blade, chisel or pick point are:

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  A  c o s (  ) (4-28)
Fv   W 2  co s(  )  K 2  c o s (    )  A  s in (  ) (4-29)

The equilibrium of moments around the blade tip is:

N1  W1 R1  G R 3  N2  W2 R2 (4-30)

Analyzing these equations results in the following conclusions:

 Since the argument in the cosine of the cohesive term in the force K1 is always greater than 90 degrees, the
cosine is negative and the term as a whole is positive. This results in positive forces on the blade, chisel or
pick point and also positive normal forces. The minimum normal stress however equals the normal stress on
the shear plane, minus about the radius of the Mohr circle. The result will always be a positive minimum
normal stress because of the influence of the large pore under pressure forces.
 On the blade the Curling Type may occur based on the equilibrium of moments, because the pore pressure
force depends on the length of the blade. When cutting a very thin layer of rock, compared to the height of the
blade, as in oil drilling, this will occur. On the shear plane, both the pore pressure force and the cohesive force
depend on the length of the shear plane, which may result in brittle tensile failure, the Tear Type, here named
the Chip Type. Usually this is suppressed by the very large pore under pressures in relation to the strength of
the rock.
 When the argument of the sine in the denominator gets close to 180 degrees, the forces become very large. If
the argument is greater than 180 degrees, the forces would become negative. Since both conditions will not
happen in nature, nature will find another cutting mechanism, the wedge mechanism.

Page 102 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Which Cutting Mechanism for Which Kind of Soil?

4.6. Summary.
The cutting forces for sand, clay and rock can be described by a generic equation, where a number of terms
dominate for each individual type of soil. Here dry sand, water saturated sand, clay, atmospheric rock and
hyperbaric rock are distinguished. The influences of the different forces for each type of soil are summarized in
Table 4-1. The general cutting mechanism is the Flow Type, which is mathematically the same as the Shear Type
and the Crushed Type. If the forces on the blade depend on the length of the blade, such as the adhesive force A
or the pore under pressure force W2, the Curling Type may occur if the layer thickness is very small compared to
the blade length. A mobilized blade length (height) is introduced. If the forces on the shear plane depend on the
length of the shear plane, such as the cohesive force C and the pore under pressure force W1, the Tear Type (or
Chip Type) may occur if the layer thickness is large compared to the blade length. A mobilized shear strength is
introduced.

However there may also be mixed soils like clay mixed with sand, resulting in a clay with internal friction. Or
sand mixed with clay, resulting in a very low permeability. For clay the ratio of the adhesion to the cohesion is
very important and little is known about this. Very weak clays may have an adhesion almost equal to the cohesion,
but when the cohesion increases the ratio between adhesion and cohesion decreases. A 100 kPa clay may have an
adhesion of just 5-10 kPa. For even harder clays the adhesion may drop to zero. The harder clays however seem
to have some internal and external friction, increasing with the strength of the clay. A new topic is the cutting of
permafrost, frozen clay. From preliminary research it appears that permafrost behaves more like rock, but how
exactly is still a question. Future research will give an answer to these questions and hopefully the generic
equations will also be applicable for these soils.

Table 4-1: The influences for each type of soil.

Gravity Inertia Pore Cohesion Adhesion Friction

Pressure
Dry sand

Saturated
sand
Clay

Atmospheric
rock
Hyperbaric
rock

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 103 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

4.7. Nomenclature.
a, τa Adhesion or external shear strength kPa
A Adhesive force on the blade kN
c, τc Cohesion or internal shear strength kPa
cm Mobilized cohesion in case of Tear Type or Chip Type m
C Force due to cohesion in the shear plane kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force kN
Fv Vertical cutting force kN
g Gravitational constant (9.81) m/s²
G Gravitational force on the layer cut kN
hi Initial thickness of layer cut m
hb Height of blade m
hb,m Mobilized height of the blade in case Curling Type m
I Inertial force on the shear plane kN
K1 Grain force on the shear plane kN
K2 Grain force on the blade kN
N1 Normal force on the shear plane kN
N2 Normal force on the blade kN
R1 Acting point forces on the shear plane m
R2 Acting point forces on the blade m
R3 Acting point gravity force m
S1 Shear force due to friction on the shear plane kN
S2 Shear force due to friction on the blade or the front of the wedge kN
vc Cutting velocity m/s
w Width of blade m
W1 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the shear plane kN
W2 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the blade/ front wedge kN
z Water depth m
 Cutting angle blade rad
 Shear angle rad
 Angle of internal friction rad
 External friction angle rad
ρs Density of the soil ton/m³
l Density water ton/m³

Page 104 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting.

Chapter 5: Dry Sand Cutting.

5.1. Introduction.

Figure 5-1: The cutting mechanism in dry sand, the Figure 5-2: Dry sand modeled according
Shear Type. to the Flow Type.

In literature most cutting theories are based on one time failure of the sand. Here a continuous cutting process is
considered. In dry sand the cutting processes are governed by gravity and by inertial forces. Pore pressure forces,
cohesion and adhesion are not present or can be neglected. Internal and external friction are present. The cutting
process is of the Shear Type with discrete shear planes (see Figure 5-1), but this can be modeled as the Flow Type
(see Figure 5-2), according to Merchant (1944). This approach will give an estimate of the maximum cutting
forces. The average cutting forces may be 30%-50% of the maximum cutting forces.

5.2. Definitions.

Figure 5-3: The cutting process, definitions.

Definitions:
1. A: The blade tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. A-B: The shear plane.
5. A-C: The blade surface.
6. hb: The height of the blade.
7. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
8. vc: The cutting velocity.
9. α: The blade angle.
10. β: The shear angle.
11. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
12. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 105 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

5.3. The Equilibrium of Forces.

Figure 5-4: The forces on the layer cut in dry sand. Figure 5-5: The forces on the blade in dry sand.

Figure 5-4 illustrates the forces on the layer of soil cut. The forces shown are valid in general. The forces acting
on this layer are:
1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
2. A shear force S1 as a result of internal friction, N1·tan(.
3. A gravity force G as a result of the weight of the layer cut.
4. An inertial force I, resulting from acceleration of the soil.
5. A force normal to the blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
6. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/steel friction N2·tan(.

The normal force N1 and the shear force S1 can be combined to a resulting grain force K1.

2 2
K1  N 1  S1 (5-1)

The forces acting on a straight blade when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
7. A force normal to the blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
8. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/steel friction N2·tan(.

These forces are shown in Figure 5-5. If the forces N2 and S2 are combined to a resulting force K2 and the adhesive
force and the water under pressures are known, then the resulting force K2 is the unknown force on the blade. By
taking the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces an expression for the force K2 on the blade can be derived.

2 2
K 2  N2  S2 (5-2)

Pure sand is supposed to be cohesion less, meaning it does not have shear strength or the shear strength is zero and
the adhesion is also zero. The shear stresses, internal and external, depend completely on the normal stresses. In
dry sand the pores between the sand grains are filled with air and although dilatation will occur due to shearing,
Miedema (1987 September), there will be hardly any generation of pore under pressures because the permeability
for air flowing through the pores is high. This means that the cutting forces do not depend on pore pressure forces,
nor on adhesion and cohesion, but only on gravity and inertia, resulting in the following set of equations:

The horizontal equilibrium of forces:

 Fh  K 1  s in (   )  I  c o s ( )  K 2  s in (    )  0 (5-3)

The vertical equilibrium of forces:

 Fv   K 1  c o s (   )  I  s in ( )  G  K 2  cos(   )  0 (5-4)

Page 106 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting.

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

G  s in (    )  I  c o s (      )
K1  (5-5)
s in (        )

The force K2 on the blade is now:

G  s in (    )  I  c o s (  )
K 2  (5-6)
s in (        )

Wismer and Luth (1972A) and (1972B) researched the inertia forces part of the total cutting forces. The following
equation is derived:

2 s in (  )
I  s  vc  hi  w (5-7)
s in (    )

The gravitational force (weight dry) follows, based on Figure 5-2, from:

s in (    )   h b  h i  s in (  )  h i  c o s (    ) 
G  s  g  hi  w     (5-8)
s in (  ) s in (  ) 2  s in (  )
 

In reality the shape of the layer cut may be different since there is no force to keep the sand together and the
maximum slope of the sand will be dependent on the angle of natural repose. For the calculations the above
equation is applied, since this equation is used for all soil types. Other formulations for the weight of the soil may
be used. From equation (5-6) the forces on the blade can be derived. On the blade a force component in the direction
of cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

Fh  K 2  s in (    ) (5-9)
F  K 2  cos(   ) (5-10)

The normal force on the shear plane is now:

G  s in (    )  I  c o s (      )
N1   cos( ) (5-11)
s in (        )

The normal force on the blade is now:

G  s in (    )  I  c o s (  )
N2   cos( ) (5-12)
s in (        )

Equations (5-11) and (5-12) show that the normal force on the shear plane N1 can become negative at very high
velocities, which are physically impossible, while the normal force on the blade N2 will always be positive. Under
normal conditions the sum of α+β+δ will be greater than 90 degrees in which case the cosine of this sum is
negative, resulting in a normal force on the shear plane that is always positive. Only in the case of a small blade
angle α, shear angle β and angle of external friction δ, the sum of these angles could be smaller than 90°, but still
close to 90° degrees. For example a blade angle of 30° would result in a shear angle of about 30°. Loose sand
could have an external friction angle of 20°, so the sum would be 80°. But this is a lower limit for α+β+δ. A more
realistic example is a blade with an angle of 60°, resulting in a shear angle of about 20° and a medium to hard sand
with an external friction angle of 30°, resulting in α+β+δ=110°. So for realistic cases the normal force on the shear
plane N1 will always be positive. In dry sand, always the shear type of cutting mechanism will occur.
Based on the weight only of the soil, the forces can also be expressed as:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 107 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2
Fh   s  g  h i  w   HD

W ith : (5-13)
  h b / h i  s in (  ) 
s in (    )  cos(   )   s in (   )  s in (    )
 HD    
s in ( ) 
 s i n (  ) 2  s i n (  ) 
 s in (        )

2
F   s  g  h i  w   VD

(5-14)
W it h :

  h b / h i  s in (  ) 
s in (    )  cos(   )   s in (    )  c o s (    )
 VD    
s in (  ) 
 s in (  ) 2  s in (  ) 
 s in (        )

Figure 5-6, Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8 show the shear angle β, the horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD and the
vertical cutting force coefficient λVD. It should be mentioned here that choosing another shape of the layer cut will
result in different values for the shear angle and the cutting force coefficients.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55 φ=25

50

45 φ=30
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 φ=35

30

25 φ=40

20

15 φ=45

10

5 φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-6: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

Page 108 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD vs. Blade Angle α

40
38
36 φ=25
34
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD (-)

32
30 φ=30
28
26
24
φ=35
22
20
18
16
φ=40
14
12
10 φ=45
8
6
4
φ=50
2
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-7: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD vs. Blade Angle α

15.0

12.5 φ=25

10.0
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD (-)

7.5 φ=30

5.0

2.5 φ=35

0.0

-2.5 φ=40

-5.0

-7.5 φ=45

-10.0

-12.5 φ=50

-15.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-8: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

For blade angles up to 60°, there is not much influence of the angle of internal friction on the vertical force. The
horizontal force and the shear angle however depend strongly on the angle of internal friction. At large blade
angles, the horizontal force becomes very large, while the vertical force changes sign and becomes very large
negative (upwards directed). The shear angle decreases with increasing blade angle and angle of internal friction.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 109 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

At large blade angles nature will look for an alternative mechanism, the wedge mechanism, which is discussed in
later chapters.

5.4. An Alternative Shape of the Layer Cut.

The shape of the layer cut will most probably be different with dry sand cutting compared to saturated sand cutting
or clay and rock cutting. First of all with dry sand cutting the cutting forces are determined by the weight of the
layer cut while with the other types of soil the weight can be neglected. Secondly in dry sand there are no forces
to keep the layer cut together, so the sand will move down if possible and the maximum slopes will be under the
angle of natural repose φnr (usually about 30°). Figure 5-9 shows this alternative shape of the layer cut. The line
D-E-F is the top of the sand, where the two marked areas have the same cross section.

Figure 5-9: The alternative shape of the layer cut.

The gravitational force (weight dry) follows, based on Figure 5-9, from:

s in (    )
G  s  g  hi  w 
s in (  )

(5-15)
 h
b h i  cos(   ) h i  s in (    ) c o s     n r  
    
s in (  ) 2  s in (  ) 2  s in (  ) s in     n r 
 

Based on the weight only of the soil, the forces can now be expressed as:

2
Fh   s  g  h i  w   H D

s in (    ) s in (    )  s in (    )
W it h :  HD  
s in (  ) s in (        ) (5-16)

 h b / h i c o s (    ) s in (    ) c o s     n r  
    
 s in (  ) 2  s in (  ) 2  s in (  ) s in     n r  

Page 110 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting.

2
Fv   s  g  h i  w   V D

s in (    ) s in (    )  c o s (    )
W it h :  VD  
s in (  ) s in (        ) (5-17)

 h / h
b i c o s (    ) s in (    ) c o s     n r  
    
 s in (  ) 2  s in (  ) 2  s in (  ) s in     n r  

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55 φ=25

50

45 φ=30
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 φ=35

30

25 φ=40

20

15 φ=45

10

5 φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-10: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

Figure 5-10, Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-12 show the shear angle and the cutting force coefficients for the alternative
shape of the layer cut. The difference with the standard configuration is small. Other configurations may exist, but
no big differences are expected. The model for dry sand or gravel can also be used for saturated sand, if the cutting
process is completely drained and there are no pore vacuum pressures. This only occurs if the permeability is very
high, which could be the case in gravel. Of course the dry density of the sand or gravel has to be replaced by the
submerged density of the sand or gravel, which is usually close to unity.

The shapes of the curves between the standard configuration and the alternative configuration are very similar.
The shear angle first increases with an increasing blade angle up to a maximum after which the shear angle
decreases with a further increasing shear angle. The shear angle also decreases with an increasing angle of internal
friction. It should be noted here that the external friction angle is assumed to be 2/3 of the internal friction angle.

The cutting forces become very high at large blade angles (close to 90°). Nature will find an alternative cutting
mechanism in this case which has been identified as the wedge mechanism. At which blade angle the wedge
mechanism will start to occur depends on the internal and external friction angles, but up to a blade angle of 60°
the model as described here can be applied. See Chapter 11: A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting. for detailed information
on the wedge mechanism.

5.5. The Influence of Inertial Forces.

In the previous chapter the shear angle and the cutting forces are given for the influence of the weight only. This
will be appropriate for very small cutting velocities, but the question is of course; what is a very low cutting speed.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 111 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Analyzing the equations for the influence of the weight (gravity) and the influence of the inertial forces shows a
significant difference. The gravitational forces are proportional to the density of the soil ρs, the gravitational
constant g, the thickness of the layer cut hi squared and the width of the blade w. The inertial forces are proportional
to the density of the soil ρs, the cutting velocity vc squared, the thickness of the layer cut hi and the width of the
blade w. This implies that the ratio between these two forces does not only depends on the geometry, but even
stronger on the layer thickness hi and the cutting velocity vc. The thicker the layer cut, the higher the influence of
gravity and the higher the cutting velocity, the higher the influence of inertia. One cannot say simply the higher
the cutting velocity the higher the influence of inertia.

2
G r a v it a t io n : F   s  g  h i  w (5-18)
2
I n e r t ia : F  s  v c hi w (5-19)

The contribution of the inertial forces is determined by the following dimensionless parameter:

2
vc
i  (5-20)
g hi

In dredging a layer thickness of the magnitude of centimeters is common, while for a bulldozer a layer thickness
of a magnitude of a meter is not strange. At the same cutting velocity, the relative influence of inertial forces will
differ between dredging applications and the operation of bulldozers. If inertial forces dominate the cutting process,
the cutting forces can be expressed as:

2
Fh   s  v c  h i  w   H I

(5-21)
s in (  ) cos( )
W ith :  HI    s in (    )
s in (    ) s in (        )

2
F   s  v c  h i  w   V I

(5-22)
s in (  ) cos( )
W ith :  VI    cos(   )
s in (    ) s in (        )

These equations are derived from equations (5-6), (5-7), (5-9) and (5-10). The shear angle β can be derived
analytically for the inertial forces, giving:

 2    
   (5-23)
2 2

Figure 5-13 shows the percentage of the contribution of the inertial forces to the horizontal cutting force for a layer
thickness hi of 1.0 m at a cutting velocity of 0.5 m/sec, giving λi=0.025. Figure 5-14 shows the percentage of the
contribution of the inertial forces to the horizontal cutting force for a layer thickness hi of 0.1 m at a cutting
velocity of 15.7 m/sec, giving λi=250.

Table 5-1 shows the inertial effect for the dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi ranging from 0.025 to 250.
The percentage contribution of the inertial effect on the horizontal force is given as well as the shear angle, both
horizontal and vertical cutting force coefficients based on equations (5-21) and (5-22) and both horizontal and
vertical cutting force coefficients based on equations (5-13) and (5-14) for the case where the blade height hb
equals the layer thickness hi. The table shows that the inertial effect can be neglected at very small values of the
dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi, while at large values the gravitational effect can be neglected. The shear
angle β decreases with an increasing dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi. Since the inertial forces are not
influenced by the blade height hb, the cutting forces are not dependent on the blade height at high cutting velocities.
At low cutting velocities there will be an effect of the blade height.

Page 112 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD vs. Blade Angle α

40
38
36 φ=25
34
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD (-)

32
30 φ=30
28
26
24
φ=35
22
20
18
16
φ=40
14
12
10 φ=45
8
6
4
φ=50
2
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-11: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD vs. Blade Angle α

15.0

12.5 φ=25

10.0
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD (-)

7.5 φ=30

5.0

2.5 φ=35

0.0

-2.5 φ=40

-5.0

-7.5 φ=45

-10.0

-12.5 φ=50

-15.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-12: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

The contribution of the inertial effect only depends on the dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi and not on the
cutting velocity or layer thickness individually. The dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi in fact is a Froude
number of the cutting process. Figure 5-15, Figure 5-16 and Figure 5-17 show the shear angle and both horizontal
and vertical cutting force coefficients at very high values of the dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi (λi=250).
The shear angles are considerably smaller than in the case where inertial forces can be neglected. Also in the case

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 113 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

where the inertial forces dominate, the cutting forces become very high at large blade angles (close to 90°). Nature
will find an alternative cutting mechanism in this case which has been identified as the wedge mechanism. At
which blade angle the wedge mechanism will start to occur depends on the internal and external friction angles,
but up to a blade angle of 60° the model as described here can be applied. See Chapter 11: A Wedge in Dry
SandCutting for detailed information on the wedge mechanism.

Percentage Inertial Force vs. Blade Angle α

100

φ=25
90

80
φ=30
Percentage Inertial Force (%)

70

60
φ=35

50

40
φ=40

30
φ=45
20

10
φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-13: The percentage inertial force for a layer thickness hi=1.0 m,
blade height hb=1.0 m and a cutting velocity vc=0.5 m/sec.

Percentage Inertial Force vs. Blade Angle α

100

φ=25
90

80
φ=30
Percentage Inertial Force (%)

70

60
φ=35

50

40
φ=40

30
φ=45
20

10
φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-14: The percentage inertial force for a layer thickness hi=1.0 m,
blade height hb=1.0 m and a cutting velocity vc=15.7 m/sec.

Page 114 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55 φ=25

50

45 φ=30
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 φ=35

30

25 φ=40

20

15 φ=45

10

5 φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-15: The shear angle β, including the effect of inertial forces.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHI vs. Blade Angle α

5.0

4.5 φ=25
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHI (-)

4.0
φ=30
3.5

3.0
φ=35

2.5

2.0 φ=40

1.5
φ=45
1.0

0.5
φ=50

0.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-16: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHI.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 115 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVI vs. Blade Angle α

1.0

0.8 φ=25
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVI (-)

0.6
φ=30
0.4

0.2
φ=35

0.0

-0.2 φ=40

-0.4
φ=45
-0.6

-0.8
φ=50

-1.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-17: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVI.

Table 5-1: The inertial effect.

λi % β λHI λVI λHD λHV

0.025 0.74 31.6 187.68 27.49 4.78 0.70
0.250 6.65 30.8 20.26 2.97 5.09 0.75
2.500 37.69 26.0 3.12 0.46 7.95 1.16
25.00 78.98 16.9 1.25 0.18 31.40 4.60
250.0 94.98 9.6 0.96 0.14 245.36 35.94

Page 116 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting.

5.6. Specific Energy.

In the dredging industry, the specific cutting energy is described as: The amount of energy, that has to be added to
a volume unit of soil (e.g. sand, clay or rock) to excavate the soil. The dimension of the specific cutting energy is:
kN/m² or kPa for sand and clay, while for rock often MN/m2 or MPa is used.

For the case as described above, cutting with a straight blade, the specific cutting energy can be written as:

Pc Fh  v c Fh
E sp    (5-24)
Qc hi  w  vc hi w

At low cutting velocities this gives for the specific cutting energy:

2
Pc Fh  v c s  g  hi  w   HD
E sp     s  g  hi   HD (5-25)
Qc hi  w  vc hi  w

At high cutting velocities this gives for the specific cutting energy:

2
Pc Fh  v c s  vc  hi  w   HI 2
E sp     s  vc   HI (5-26)
Qc hi  w  vc hi w

At medium cutting velocities a weighted average of both has to be used.

5.7. Usage of the Model for Dry Sand.

To use the model for dry sand, first the dry density ρs of the sand and the internal friction angle φ have to be
known. The external friction angle δ is assumed to be 2/3 of the internal friction angle φ. Secondly the geometry
of the blade, the cutting angle α, the blade height hb and the blade width w have to be chosen. Thirdly the
operational parameters, the layer thickness hi and the cutting velocity vc have to be chosen. Based on the
dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi the fraction of the contribution of the inertial force to the total horizontal
force can be determined with:

1
fi  (5-27)
 2  lo g   i / 5 
1 e

This equation is empirically derived for a 60° blade and a 40° internal friction angle and may differ for other values
of the blade angle and the internal friction angle.

Fh   1  f i    s  g  h i  w   H D  f i   s  v c  h i  w   H I
2 2

(5-28)
 w   1  fi    H D  fi   i   H I 
2
 s  g  hi

1   s
2 2
Fv  fi g hi w  VD  fi   s  v c  h i  w   VI
(5-29)

  s  g  h i  w   1  fi    VD 
2
 fi   i   VI

The specific energy is now:

E sp   s  g  h i    1  f i    H D  f i   i   H I  (5-30)

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 117 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

In the case of saturated sand or gravel with a very high permeability (in general coarse gravel), the equations
change slightly, since the weight of the soil cut is determined by the submerged weight, while the mass of the soil
cut also includes the mass of the pore water. The wet density of saturated sand or gravel is usually close to ρs=2
ton/m3, while the submerged weight is close to (ρs-ρw)·g=10 kN/m3 (a porosity of 40% and a quarts density of
ρq=2.65 ton/m3 are assumed). This will double the contribution of the inertial forces as determined by the
following dimensionless parameter:

vc
2
s  w  2
2  vc
i    (5-31)
g hi s g hi

Using this dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi, the cutting forces can be determined by:

Fh    s   w   g  h i  w    1  f i    H D  f i   i   H I 
2
(5-32)

(5-33)
s  g hi  w   1  fi    VD  fi   i   VI 
2
Fv   w

The specific energy is now:

E sp    s   w   g  h i    1  f i    H D  f i   i   H I  (5-34)

Under water at high cutting velocities there may also be a drag force which has not been taken into account here.

The horizontal cutting force coefficients λHD and λHI can be found in Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-16. The vertical
cutting force coefficients λVD and λVI can be found in Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-17.

The cutting forces calculated are for a plane strain 2D cutting process, so 3D side effects are not included.

Figure 5-18: A dredging wheel used in the German braunkohl mines (www.wikiwand.com).

Page 118 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting.

5.8. Experiments in Dry Sand.

5.8.1. Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B).
Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) carried out very good and extensive research into the cutting of sand, clay and loam.
They did not only measure the cutting forces, but also the stresses on the blade, the shear angles and velocity
distributions in the sand cut. For their experiments they used a blade with a width of w=0.33 m, a length of L=0.2
m, blade angles of α=30°, 45°, 60°, 75° and 90°, layer thicknesses of hi=0.05 m, 0.10 m and 0.15 m and cutting
velocities of vc=0.05 m/sec, 0.10 m/sec and 0.14 m/sec. The sand they used had an internal friction angle φ=38°
and an external friction angle δ=26.6° (almost 2/3·φ). The dry density of the sand was ρs=1.46 ton/m3.

Figure 5-19 shows the shear angles measured versus the shear angles calculated with the current model based on
the minimum cutting energy criterion. In general there is a good match, especially for the experiments with a layer
thickness of 0.1 m. For the experiments with a layer thickness of 0.05 m the theory overestimates the experimental
value while for the layer thickness of 0.15 m, the theory underestimates the experimental value. Now the number
of experiments is very limited and more experiments are required to get a better validation.
Figure 5-20 shows the total cutting force measured versus the total cutting force calculated. The total cutting force
is the vectorial sum of the horizontal and the vertical cutting force. Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) did not give the
horizontal and vertical cutting forces, but the total cutting force and the direction of this force. For blade angles up
to 60° there is a good match between experiments and theory. However at larger blade angles the theory
overestimates the total cutting force strongly. This is most probably caused by the occurrence of a wedge in front
of the blade at large blade angles. The occurrence of a wedge will strongly reduce the cutting forces in that case.
See also Chapter 11: A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting.

Figure 5-21 shows the direction of the total cutting force, measured versus calculated. There is an almost perfect
match, also for the large blade angles where the forces are overestimated.

The conclusion is that the model developed here matches the experiments well for small blade angles, both in
magnitude and direction, for large blade angles the wedge theory has to be applied. Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B)
also carried out some tests with different cutting velocities, but the velocities were so small that there was hardly
any inertial effect.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55
hi=0.05 m

50

45 hi=0.10 m
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 hi=0.15 m

30

25 Experiments
hi=0.05 m
20

15 Experiments
hi=0.10 m
10

5 Experiments
hi=0.15 m
0
30 45 60 75 90

Blade Angle α (Degrees)

© S.A.M.

Figure 5-19: The shear angle versus the blade angle.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 119 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Total Cutting Force Ft vs. Blade Angle α

2000

hi=0.05 m
1800

1600
hi=0.10 m
1400
Total Cutting Force Ft (N)

1200 hi=0.15 m

1000

Experiments
800 hi=0.05 m

600
Experiments
hi=0.10 m
400

200 Experiments
hi=0.15 m
0
30 45 60 75 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-20: The total cutting force versus the blade angle.

Force Direction Angle ψ vs. Blade Angle α

40

35 hi=0.05 m
30

25

20
hi=0.10 m
Force Direction Angle ψ (Degrees)

15

10
hi=0.15 m
5

-5 Experiments
hi=0.05 m
-10

-15
Experiments
-20
hi=0.10 m
-25

-30
Experiments
-35 hi=0.15 m
-40
30 45 60 75 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-21: The direction of the total cutting force versus the blade angle.

Page 120 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting.

5.8.2. Wismer & Luth (1972B).

Wismer & Luth (1972B) investigated rate effects in soil cutting in dry sand, clay and loam. They found that in dry
quarts sand the cutting forces consist of two components, a static component and a dynamic component. The static
component depends on the cutting geometry, like the blade angle and the blade height. The static component also
depends on the layer thickness and the soil mechanical parameters, in this case the dry soil density, the internal
friction angle and the external friction angle. The dynamic component also depends on the cutting geometry and
the soil mechanical properties, but also on the cutting velocity squared. In fact their findings match equations (5-6),
(5-7), (5-9) and (5-10), but they use a different formulation for equation (5-8) or (5-15), the cross section of the
layer cut. One of the reasons for the latter is that they use a fixed shear angle of β=45-φ/2 resulting in a different
weight of the soil cut compared with the theory described here. In the current theory the shear angle depends on
the geometry, the operational parameters and the soil mechanical parameters. The test carried out by Wismer &
Luth (1972B) were with an α=30° blade with a blade height hb=0.0969 m and a width of w=0.1262 m. The layer
thickness was hi=0.098 m. In order to validate the rate effect, first they calibrated the soil mechanical properties,
so the cutting forces at zero cutting velocity would match the experiments. This requires an internal friction angle
φ=41° and an external friction angle δ=27.3° (δ=2/3·φ), to have the correct ratio between the horizontal and the
vertical force. Further, the theoretical cutting forces have to be multiplied by a factor 1.23 in order to match
quantitatively. This may be the result of 3D side effects, since the blade used was not very wide compared to the
layer thickness and/or the cross section of the layer cut was larger than the here assumed cross section. Both
explanations seem to be reasonable. After applying these corrections and calibrations, the cutting forces are
determined and plotted in Figure 5-22. The correlation between the theoretical lines and the measured data points
is remarkable, resulting in the conclusion that the approach of Wismer & Luth (1972B) to quantify the rate effects
for dry sand is a good approach.

Wismer & Luth (1972B) used a fixed shear angle of β=45-φ/2 resulting in β=24.5°. The values found here, based
on the minimum energy principle range from β=38.8° at zero cutting velocity to β=32.2° at a cutting velocity vc=3
m/sec, taking into account the effect of the inertial forces on the shear angle.

Cutting Forces Fh & Fv vs. Cutting Velocity vc

200

180 Horizontal
Force
160
Cutting Forces Fh & Fv (N)

140

Vertical Force
120

100

80 Experiments
Fh
60

40

Experiments
20 Fv

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Cutting Velocity vc (m/sec)
© S.A.M.

Figure 5-22: Cutting forces versus cutting velocity.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 121 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

5.9. Nomenclature.
Fh Horizontal cutting force kN
Fv Vertical cutting force kN
g Gravitational constant (9.81) m/s²
G Gravitational force on the layer cut kN
hi Initial thickness of layer cut m
hb Height of blade m
I Inertial force on the shear plane kN
K1 Grain force on the shear plane kN
K2 Grain force on the blade or the front of the wedge kN
N1 Normal force on the shear plane kN
N2 Normal force on the blade or the front of the wedge kN
Pc Cutting power kW
S1 Shear force due to friction on the shear plane kN
S2 Shear force due to friction on the blade or the front of the wedge kN
vc Cutting velocity component perpendicular to the blade m/s
w Width of blade m
W1 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the shear plane kN
W2 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the blade or on the front of the wedge kN
 Cutting angle blade rad
 Shear angle rad
 Angle of internal friction rad
 External friction angle rad
ρs Density of the soil ton/m³
w Density water ton/m³

Figure 5-23: A bulldozer pushing sand (commons.wikimedia.org).

Page 122 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Chapter 6: Saturated Sand Cutting.

6.1. Introduction.
Although calculation models for the determination of the cutting forces for dry soil, based on agriculture, were
available for a long time (Hettiaratchi & Reece (1965), (1966), (1967A), (1967B), (1974), (1975) and Hatamura
& Chijiiwa (1975), (1976A), (1976B), (1977A) and (1977B) ) it is only since the seventies and the eighties that
the cutting process in saturated sand is extensively researched at the Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, at the Delft
University of Technology and at the Mineraal Technologisch Instituut (MTI, IHC).

First the process is described, for a good understanding of the terminology used in the literature discussion.

From literature it is known that, during the cutting process, the sand increases in volume (see Figure 6-7). This
increase in volume is accredited to dilatancy. Dilatancy is the change of the pore volume as a result of shear in the
sand package. This increase of the pore volume has to be filled with water. The flowing water experiences a certain
resistance, which causes sub-pressures in the pore water in the sand package. As a result the grain stresses increase
and therefore the required cutting forces. The rate of the increase of the pore volume in the dilatancy zone, the
volume strain rate, is proportional to the cutting velocity. If the volume strain rate is high, there is a chance that
the pore pressure reaches the saturated water vapor pressure and cavitation occurs. A further increasing volume
strain rate will not be able to cause a further decrease of the pore pressure. This also implies that, with a further
increasing cutting velocity, the cutting forces cannot increase as a result of the dilatancy properties of the sand.
The cutting forces can, however, still increase with an increasing cutting velocity as a result of the inertia forces
and the flow resistance.
The cutting process can be subdivided in 5 areas in relation with the cutting forces:

 Very low cutting velocities, a quasi-static cutting process. The cutting forces are determined by the gravitation,
cohesion and adhesion.
 The volume strain rate is high in relation to the permeability of the sand. The volume strain rate is however
so small that inertia forces can be neglected. The cutting forces are dominated by the dilatancy properties of
the sand.
 A transition region, with local cavitation. With an increasing volume strain rate, the cavitation area will
increase so that the cutting forces increase slightly as a result of dilatancy.
 Cavitation occurs almost everywhere around and on the blade. The cutting forces do not increase anymore as
a result of the dilatancy properties of the sand.
 Very high cutting velocities. The inertia forces part in the total cutting forces can no longer be neglected but
form a substantial part.

Under normal conditions in dredging, the cutting process in sand will be governed by the effects of dilatation.
Gravity, inertia, cohesion and adhesion will not play a role.

6.2. Definitions.

Figure 6-1: The cutting process definitions.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 123 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Definitions:
1. A: The blade tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. A-B: The shear plane.
5. A-C: The blade surface.
6. hb: The height of the blade.
7. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
8. vc: The cutting velocity.
9. α: The blade angle.
10. β: The shear angle.
11. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
12. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

6.3. Cutting Theory Literature.

In the seventies extensive research is carried out on the forces that occur while cutting sand under water. A
conclusive cutting theory has however not been published in this period. However qualitative relations have been
derived by several researchers, with which the dependability of the cutting forces with the soil properties and the
blade geometry are described (Joanknecht (1974), van Os (1977A), (1976) and (1977B)).

A process that has a lot of similarities with the cutting of sand as far as water pressure development is concerned,
is the, with uniform velocity, forward moving breach. Meijer and van Os (1976) and Meijer (1981) and (1985)
have transformed the storage equation for the, with the breach, forward moving coordinate system.

2 2
 p  p w  g  vc e w g e
     (6-1)
x
2
y
2
k x k t

In the case of a stationary process, the second term on the right is zero, resulting:

2 2
 p  p w  g  vc e
   (6-2)
x
2
y
2
k x

Van Os (1977A), (1976) and (1977B) describes the basic principles of the cutting process, with special attention
for the determination of the water sub-pressures and the cavitation. Van Os uses the non-transformed storage
equation for the determination of the water sub-pressures.

2 2
 p  p w g e
   (6-3)
x
2
y
2
k t

The average volume strain rate has to be substituted in the term e/t on the right. The average volume strain rate
is the product of the average volume strain of the sand package and the cutting velocity and arises from the volume
balance over the shear zone. Van Os gives a qualitative relation between the water sub-pressures and the average
volume strain rate:

vc  hi  
p :: (6-4)
k

The problem of the solution of the storage equation for the cutting of sand under water is a mixed boundary value
problem, for which the water sub-pressures along the boundaries are known (hydrostatic).

Joanknecht (1973) and (1974) assumes that the cutting forces are determined by the sub-pressure in the sand
package. A distinction is made between the parts of the cutting force caused by the inertia forces, the sub-pressure
behind the blade and the soil mechanical properties of the sand. The influence of the geometrical parameters gives
the following qualitative relation:

Page 124 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

2
F c i :: v c  h i  w (6-5)

The cutting force is proportional to the cutting velocity, the blade width and the square of the initial layer-thickness.
A relation with the pore percentage and the permeability is also mentioned. A relation between the cutting force
and these soil mechanical properties is however not given. It is observed that the cutting forces increase with an
increasing blade angle.

In the eighties research has led to more quantitative relations. Van Leussen and Nieuwenhuis (1984) discuss the
soil mechanical aspects of the cutting process. The forces models of Miedema (1984B), (1985B), (1985A),
(1986B) and (1987 September), Steeghs (1985A) and (1985B) and the CSB (Combinatie Speurwerk
Baggertechniek) model (van Leussen and van Os (1987 December)) are published in the eighties.

Brakel (1981) derives a relation for the determination of the water sub-pressures based upon, over each other
rolling, round grains in the shear zone. The force part resulting from this is added to the model of Hettiaratchi and
Reece (1974).

Miedema (1984B) has combined the qualitative relations of Joanknecht (1973) and (1974) and van Os (1976),
(1977A) and (1977B) to the following relation:

2
w  g  vc hi  w  
F c i :: (6-6)
km

With this basic equation calculation models are developed for a cutter head and for the periodical moving cutter
head in the breach. The proportionality constants are determined empirically.
Van Leussen and Nieuwenhuis (1984) discuss the soil mechanical aspects of the cutting process. Important in the
cutting process is the way shear takes place and the shape or angle of the shear plane, respectively shear zone. In
literature no unambiguous image could be found. Cutting tests along a windowpane gave an image in which the
shape of the shear plane was more in accordance with the so-called "stress characteristics" than with the so-called
"zero-extension lines". Therefore, for the calculation of the cutting forces, the "stress characteristics method" is
used (Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion). For the calculation of the water sub-pressures, however, the "zero-
extension lines" are used, which are lines with a zero linear strain. A closer description has not been given for both
calculations.

Although the cutting process is considered as being two-dimensional, Van Leussen and Nieuwenhuis found, that
the angle of internal friction, measured at low deformation rates in a tri-axial apparatus, proved to be sufficient for
dredging processes. Although the cutting process can be considered as a two-dimensional process and therefore it
should be expected that the angle of internal friction has to be determined with a "plane deformation test". A
sufficient explanation has not been found.

Little is known about the value of the angle of friction between sand and steel. Van Leussen and Nieuwenhuis
don't give an unambiguous method to determine this soil mechanical parameter. It is, however, remarked that at
low cutting velocities (0.05 mm/s), the soil/steel angle of friction can have a statistical value which is 1.5 to 2 times
larger than the dynamic soil/steel angle of friction. The influence of the initial density on the resulting angle of
friction is not clearly present, because loosely packed sand moves over the blade. The angles of friction measured
on the blades are much larger than the angles of friction measured with an adhesion cell, while also a dependency
with the blade angle is observed.

With regard to the permeability of the sand, Van Leussen and Nieuwenhuis found that no large deviations of
Darcy's law occur with the water flow through the pores. The found deviations are in general smaller than the
accuracy with which the permeability can be determined in situ.

The size of the area where e/t from equation (6-1) is zero can be clarified by the figures published by van Leussen
and Nieuwenhuis. The basis is formed by a cutting process where the density of the sand is increased in a shear
band with a certain width. The undisturbed sand has the initial density while the sand after passage of the shear
band possesses a critical density. This critical density appeared to be in good accordance with the wet critical
density of the used types of sand. This implies that outside the shear band the following equation (Biot (1941)) is
valid:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 125 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2 2
 p  p
  0 (6-7)
2 2
x y

Values for the various densities are given for three types of sand. Differentiation of the residual density as a
function of the blade angle is not given. A verification of the water pressures calculations is given for a 60 blade
with a blade-height/layer-thickness ratio of 1.

Miedema (1984A) and (1984B) gives a formulation for the determination of the water sub-pressures. The
deformation rate is determined by taking the volume balance over the shear zone, as van Os (1977A), (1976) and
(1977B) did. The deformation rate is modeled as a boundary condition in the shear zone , while the shear zone is
modeled as a straight line instead of a shear band as with van Os (1976), (1977A), (1977B), van Leussen and
Nieuwenhuis (1984) and Hansen (1958). The influence of the water depth on the cutting forces is clarified. Steeghs
(1985A) and (1985B) developed a theory for the determination of the volume strain rate, based upon a cyclic
deformation of the sand in a shear band. This implies that not an average value is taken for the volume strain rate
but a cyclic, with time varying, value, based upon the dilatancy angle theory.

Miedema (1985A) and (1985B) derives equations for the determination of the water sub-pressures and the cutting
forces, based upon Miedema (1982), (1984A) and (1984B). The water sub-pressures are determined with a finite
element method. Explained are the influences of the permeability of the disturbed and undisturbed sand and the
determination of the shear angle. The derived theory is verified with model tests. On basis of this research nmax is
chosen for the residual pore percentage instead of the wet critical density.

Steeghs (1985A) and (1985B) derives equations for the determination of the water sub-pressures according to an
analytical approximation method. With this approximation method the water sub-pressures are determined with a
modification of equation (6-4) derived by van Os (1976), (1977A), (1977B) and the storage equation (6-7).
Explained is how cutting forces can be determined with the force equilibrium on the cut layer. Also included are
the gravity force, the inertia forces and the sub-pressure behind the blade. For the last influence factor no
formulation is given. Discussed is the determination of the shear angle. Some examples of the cutting forces are
given as a function of the cutting velocity, the water depth and the sub-pressure behind the blade. A verification
of this theory is not given.

Miedema (1986A) develops a calculation model for the determination of the cutting forces on a cutter-wheel based
upon (1985A) and (1985B). This will be discussed in the appropriate section. Also nomograms are published with
which the cutting forces and the shear angle can be determined in a simple way. Explained is the determination of
the weighted average permeability from the permeability of the disturbed and undisturbed sand. Based upon the
calculations it is concluded that the average permeability forms a good estimation.

Figure 6-2: The cutting mechanism in water Figure 6-3: Water saturated sand modeled according
saturated sand, the Shear Type. to the Flow Type.

Miedema (1986B) extends the theory with adhesion, cohesion, inertia forces, gravity, and sub-pressure behind the
blade. The method for the calculation of the coefficients for the determination of a weighted average permeability
are discussed. It is concluded that the additions to the theory lead to a better correlation with the tests results.

Page 126 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Van Os and van Leussen (1987 December) summarize the publications of van Os (1976), (1977A), (1977B) and
of Van Leussen and Nieuwenhuis (1984) and give a formulation of the theory developed in the early seventies at
the Waterloopkundig Laboratorium. Discussed are the water pressures calculation, cavitation, the weighted
average permeability, the angle of internal friction, the soil/steel angle of friction, the permeability, the volume
strain and the cutting forces. Verification is given of a water pressures calculation and the cutting forces. The water
sub-pressures are determined with equation (6-4) derived by van Os (1976), (1977A) and (1977B). The water
pressures calculation is performed with the finite difference method, in which the height of the shear band is equal
to the mesh width of the grid. The size of this mesh width is considered to be arbitrary. From an example, however,
it can be seen that the shear band has a width of 13% of the layer-thickness. Discussed is the determination of a
weighted average permeability. The forces are determined with Coulomb's method.

6.4. The Equilibrium of Forces.

Figure 6-4: The forces on the layer cut in water Figure 6-5: The forces on the blade in water
saturated sand. saturated sand.

Figure 6-4 illustrates the forces on the layer of soil cut. The forces shown are valid in general. The forces acting
on this layer are:
1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1.
2. A shear force S1 as a result of internal friction N1·tan(.
3. A force W1 as a result of water under pressure in the shear zone.
4. A force normal to the blade N2.
5. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/steel friction N2·tan(.
6. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the blade.

The normal force N1 and the shear force S1 can be combined to a resulting grain force K1.

2 2
K1  N 1  S1 (6-8)

The forces acting on a straight blade when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
7. A force normal to the blade N2.
8. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/steel friction N2·tan(.
9. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the blade.

These forces are shown in Figure 6-5. If the forces N2 and S2 are combined to a resulting force K2 and the adhesive
force and the water under pressures are known, then the resulting force K2 is the unknown force on the blade. By
taking the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces an expression for the force K2 on the blade can be derived.

2 2
K 2  N2  S2 (6-9)

Water saturated sand is also cohesionless, although in literature the phenomenon of water under pressures is
sometimes referred to as apparent cohesion. It should be stated however that the water under pressures have nothing

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 127 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

to do with cohesion or shear strength. The shear stresses still follow the rules of Coulomb friction. Due to dilatation,
a volume increase of the pore volume caused by shear stresses, under pressures develop around the shear plane as
described by Miedema (1987 September), resulting in a strong increase of the grain stresses. Because the
permeability of the flow of water through the pores is very low, the stresses and thus the forces are dominated by
the phenomenon of dilatancy and gravitation, inertia, adhesion and cohesion can be neglected.

The horizontal equilibrium of forces is:

 Fh  K 1  s in (    )  W 1  s in (  )  W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  0 (6-10)

The vertical equilibrium of forces is:

 Fv   K 1  co s(   )  W 1  co s( )  W 2  co s(  )  K 2  cos(   )  0 (6-11)

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )
K1  (6-12)
s in (        )

The force K2 on the blade is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )
K 2  (6-13)
s in (        )

Figure 6-6: The forces on the blade when cutting water saturated sand.

From equation (6-13) the forces on the blade can be derived. On the blade a force component in the direction of
cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    ) (6-14)
F   W 2  c o s (  )  K 2  cos(   ) (6-15)

The normal force on the shear plane is now:

Page 128 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )
N1   cos( ) (6-16)
s in (        )
The normal force on the blade is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )
N2   cos( ) (6-17)
s in (        )

Equations (6-16) and (6-17) show, that the normal forces on the shear plane and the blade are always positive.
Positive means compressive stresses. In water saturated sand, always the shear type of cutting mechanism will
occur. Figure 6-6 shows these forces on the layer cut.

6.5. Determination of the Pore Pressures.

The cutting process can be modeled as a two-dimensional process, in which a straight blade cuts a small layer of
sand (Figure 6-7). The sand is deformed in the shear zone, also called deformation zone or dilatancy zone. During
this deformation the volume of the sand changes as a result of the shear stresses in the shear zone. In soil mechanics
this phenomenon is called dilatancy. In hard packed sand the pore volume is increased as a result of the shear
stresses in the deformation zone. This increase in the pore volume is thought to be concentrated in the deformation
zone, with the deformation zone modeled as a straight line. Water has to flow to the deformation zone to fill up
the increase of the pore volume in this zone. As a result of this water flow the grain stresses increase and the water
pressures decrease. Therefore there are water under-pressures.

This implies that the forces necessary for cutting hard packed sand under water will be determined for an important
part by the dilatancy properties of the sand. At low cutting velocities these cutting forces are also determined by
the gravity, the cohesion and the adhesion for as far as these last two soil mechanical parameters are present in the
sand. Is the cutting at high velocities, then the inertia forces will have an important part in the total cutting forces
especially in dry sand.

If the cutting process is assumed to be stationary, the water flow through the pores of the sand can be described in
a blade motions related coordinate system. The determination of the water under-pressures in the sand around the
blade is then limited to a mixed boundary conditions problem. The potential theory can be used to solve this
problem. For the determination of the water under-pressures it is necessary to have a proper formulation of the
boundary condition in the shear zone. Miedema (1984B) derived the basic equation for this boundary condition.

Figure 6-7: The cutting process modeled as a continuous process.

In (1985A) and (1985B) a more extensive derivation is published by Miedema. If it is assumed that no
deformations take place outside the deformation zone, then the following equation applies for the sand package
around the blade:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 129 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2 2
 p  p
  0 (6-18)
2 2
x y

The boundary condition is in fact a specific flow rate (Figure 6-8) that can be determined with the following
hypothesis. For a sand element in the deformation zone, the increase in the pore volume per unit of blade length
is:

 V     A     x   h i     x   l  s in (  ) (6-19)
n m ax  n i
  (6-20)
1  n m ax

It should be noted that in this book the symbol ε is used for the dilatation, while in previous publications the symbol
e is often used. This is to avoid confusion with the symbol e for the void ratio.
For the residual pore percentage nmax is chosen on the basis of the ability to explain the water under-pressures,
measured in laboratory tests. The volume flow rate flowing to the sand element is equal to:

V x
Q      l  s in (  )    v c   l  s in (  ) (6-21)
t t

With the aid of Darcy's law the next differential equation can be derived for the specific flow rate perpendicular
to the deformation zone:

Q ki p k m ax p
q   q1  q 2        v c  s in (  ) (6-22)
l w g n 1
w g n 2

The partial derivative p/n is the derivative of the water under-pressures perpendicular on the boundary of the
area, in which the water under-pressures are calculated (in this case the deformation zone). The boundary
conditions on the other boundaries of this area are indicated in Figure 6-8. A hydrostatic pressure distribution is
assumed on the boundaries between sand and water. This pressure distribution equals zero in the calculation of the
water under-pressures, if the height difference over the blade is neglected.

The boundaries that form the edges in the sand package are assumed to be impenetrable. Making equation (6-22)
dimensionless is similar to that of the breach equation of Meijer and van Os (1976). In the breach problem the
length dimensions are normalized by dividing them by the breach height, while in the cutting of sand they are
normalized by dividing them by the cut layer thickness.
Equation (6-22) in normalized format:

ki p p  w  g  v c    h i  s in (  ) ' n
   w it h : n  (6-23)
' '
k m ax n 1 n 2
k m ax hi

This equation is made dimensionless with:

p
'
p n
'
(6-24)

n w  g  vc   hi / k m ax

The accent indicates that a certain variable or partial derivative is dimensionless. The next dimensionless equation
is now valid as a boundary condition in the deformation zone:

' '
ki p p
   s in (  ) (6-25)
k m ax n 1
n 2

Page 130 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 6-8: The volume balance over the shear zone.

The storage equation also has to be made dimensionless, which results in the next equation:

' '
2 2
 p  p
  0 (6-26)
2 2
x y

Because this equation equals zero, it is similar to equation (6-18). The water under-pressures distribution in the
sand package can now be determined using the storage equation and the boundary conditions. Because the
calculation of the water under-pressures is dimensionless the next transformation has to be performed to determine
the real water under-pressures. The real water under-pressures can be determined by integrating the derivative of
the water under-pressures in the direction of a flow line, along a flow line, so:

'
p '
P c a lc   s
 ds (6-27)
'
s

This is illustrated in Figure 6-9. Using equation (6-30) this is written as:

'
p w  g  vc    hi p ' ' s
Pr e a l   s
 ds   k m ax

s
 ds w ith : s 
hi
(6-28)
'
s s

This gives the next relation between the real emerging water under-pressures and the calculated water under-
pressures:

w  g  vc   hi
Pr e a l   P c a lc (6-29)
k m ax

To be independent of the ratio between the initial permeability ki and the maximum permeability kmax , kmax has
to be replaced with the weighted average permeability km before making the measured water under-pressures
dimensionless.

6.6. Numerical Water Pore Pressure Calculations.

The water under-pressures in the sand package on and around the blade are numerically determined using the finite
element method. The solution of such a calculation is however not only dependent on the physical model of the
problem, but also on the next points:

1. The size of the area in which the calculation takes place.

2. The size and distribution of the elements.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 131 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

3. The boundary conditions.

Figure 6-9: Flow of the pore water to the shear zone.

The choices for these three points have to be evaluated with the problem that has to be solved in mind. These
calculations are about the values and distribution of the water under-pressures in the shear zone and on the blade.
A variation of the values for point 1 and 2 may therefore not influence this part of the solution. This is achieved
by on the one hand increasing the area in which the calculations take place in steps and on the other hand by
decreasing the element size until the variation in the solution was less than 1%. The distribution of the elements is
chosen such that a finer mesh is present around the blade tip, the shear zone and on the blade, also because of the
blade tip problem. A number of boundary conditions follow from the physical model of the cutting process, these
are:

1. The boundary condition in the shear zone. This is described by equation (6-23).
2. The boundary condition along the free sand surface. The hydrostatic pressure at which the process takes place,
can be chosen, when neglecting the dimensions of the blade and the layer in relation to the hydrostatic pressure
head. Because these calculations are meant to obtain the difference between the water under-pressures and the
hydrostatic pressure it is valid to take a zero pressure as the boundary condition.

The boundary conditions, along the boundaries of the area where the calculation takes place that are located in the
sand package are not determined by the physical process. For this boundary condition there is a choice between:

1. A hydrostatic pressure along the boundary.

2. A boundary as an impenetrable wall.
3. A combination of a known pressure and a known specific flow rate.

None of these choices complies with the real process. Water from outside the calculation area will flow through
the boundary. This also implies, however, that the pressure along this boundary is not hydrostatic. If, however, the
boundary is chosen with enough distance from the real cutting process the boundary condition may not have an
influence on the solution. The impenetrable wall is chosen although this choice is arbitrary. Figure 6-8 gives an
impression of the size of the area and the boundary conditions, while Figure 6-10 shows the element mesh. Figure
6-12 shows the two-dimensional distribution of the water under-pressures. A table with the dimensionless pore
pressures can be found in Miedema (1987 September), Miedema & Yi (2001) and in Appendix C: and Appendix
R:

The following figures give an impression of how the FEM calculations are carried out:
Figure 6-10 and Figure 6-11: Show how the mesh has been varied in order to get a 1% accuracy.
Figure 6-12: Shows both the equipotential lines and the flow lines (stream function).
Figure 6-14 and Figure 6-15: Show the equipotential lines both as lines and as a color plot. This shows clearly
where the largest under pressures occur on the shear plane.
Figure 6-13 shows the pressure distribution on both the shear plane and the blade. From these pressure distributions
the average dimensionless pressures p1m and p2m are determined.
Figure 6-16 and Figure 6-17: Show the streamlines both as lines and as a color plot. This shows the paths of the
pore water flow.

Page 132 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 6-10: The coarse mesh as applied in the pore pressure calculations.

Figure 6-11: The fine mesh as applied in the pore pressure calculations.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 133 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 6-12: The water under-pressures distribution in the sand package

around the blade.

Figure 6-13: The pore pressure distribution on the blade A-C and in
the shear zone A-B.

Page 134 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 6-14: The equipotential lines.

Figure 6-15: The equipotential lines in color.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 135 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 6-16: Flow lines or stream function.

Figure 6-17: The stream function in colors.

Page 136 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

6.7. The Blade Tip Problem.

During the physical modeling of the cutting process it has always been assumed that the blade tip is sharp. In other
words, that in the numerical calculation, from the blade tip, a hydrostatic pressure can be introduced as the
boundary condition along the free sand surface behind the blade. In practice this is never valid, because of the
following reasons:

1. The blade tip always has a certain rounding, so that the blade tip can never be considered really sharp.
2. Through wear of the blade a flat section develops behind the blade tip, which runs against the sand surface
(clearance angle  zero)
3. If there is also dilatancy in the sand underneath the blade tip it is possible that the sand runs against the flank
after the blade has passed.
4. There will be a certain under-pressure behind the blade as a result of the blade speed and the cutting process.

A combination of these factors determines the distribution of the water under-pressures, especially around the
blade tip. The first three factors can be accounted for in the numerical calculation as an extra boundary condition
behind the blade tip. Along the free sand surface behind the blade tip an impenetrable line element is put in, in the
calculation. The length of this line element is varied with 0.0·hi , 0.1·hi and 0.2·hi. It showed from these
calculations that especially the water under-pressures on the blade are strongly determined by the choice of this
boundary condition as indicated in Figure 6-18 and Figure 6-19.

Figure 6-18: The water pore pressures on the blade Figure 6-19: The water pore pressure in the shear
as function of the length of the wear section w. zone as function of the length of the wear section w.

It is hard to estimate to what degree the influence of the under-pressure behind the blade on the water under-
pressures around the blade tip can be taken into account with this extra boundary condition. Since there is no clear
formulation for the under-pressure behind the blade available, it will be assumed that the extra boundary condition
at the blade tip describes this influence. If there is no cavitation the water pressures forces W1 and W2 can be
written as:

2
p 1m   w  g  v c    h i  w
W1  (6-30)
k m a x  s in (  )
And

p 2m   w  g  v c    h i  h b  w
W2  (6-31)
k m ax  s in (  )

In case of cavitation W1 and W2 become:

 w  g  (z  10)  h i  w
W1  (6-32)
s in (  )

And

 w  g  (z  10)  h b  w
W2  (6-33)
s in (  )

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 137 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

6.8. Analytical/Numerical Water Pore Pressure Calculations.

As is shown in Figure 6-9, the water can flow from 4 directions to the shear zone where the dilatancy takes place.
Two of those directions go through the sand which has not yet been deformed and thus have a permeability of ki,
while the other two directions go through the deformed sand and thus have a permeability of kmax. Figure 6-12
shows that the flow lines in 3 of the 4 directions have a more or less circular shape, while the flow lines coming
from above the blade have the character of a straight line. If a point on the shear zone is considered, then the water
will flow to that point along the 4 flow lines as mentioned above. Along each flow line, the water will encounter
a certain resistance. One can reason that this resistance is proportional to the length of the flow line and reversibly
proportional to the permeability of the sand. Figure 6-20 shows a point on the shear zone and it shows the 4 flow
lines. The length of the flow lines can be determined with the equations (6-36), (6-37), (6-38) and (6-39). The
variable Lmax in these equations is the length of the shear zone, which is equal to hi/sin(), while the variable L
starts at the free surface with a value zero and ends at the blade tip with a value Lmax.

According to the law of Darcy, the specific flow q is related to the pressure difference Δp according to:

p
q  k i  k  (6-34)
w g s

The total specific flow coming through the 4 flow lines equals the total flow caused by the dilatation, so:

q    v c  s in   

(6-35)
p p p p
 k m ax   k m ax   ki   ki 
 w  g  s1 w  g  s2 w  g  s3  w  g  s4

Figure 6-20: The flow lines used in the analytical method.

For the lengths of the 4 flow lines, where s2 and s3 have a correction factor of 0.8 based on calibration with the
experiments:

   hb
s1   L m ax  L  1  
 2  s in   
(6-36)

W it h : 1      
2

Page 138 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

s 2  0 .8  L   2

(6-37)
W ith :  2    

s 3  0 .8  L   3

(6-38)
W ith :  3    

0 .5 0 .4
 hi   ki 
 L m ax  L    4  0 .9  h i  
2
s4     1 .8 5     
 hb   k m ax 
(6-39)

W it h : 4    

The equation for the length s4 has been determined by calibrating this equation with the experiments and with the
FEM calculations. This length should not be interpreted as a length, but as the influence of the flow of water around
the tip of the blade. The total specific flow can also be written as:

 w  g  q   w  g    v c  s in   

p p p p p p p p p (6-40)
        
 s1   s2   s3   s4  R1 R 2
R 3
R4 Rt
       
 k m ax   k m ax   ki   ki 

The total resistance on the flow lines can be determined by dividing the length of a flow line by the permeability
of the flow line. The equations (6-41), (6-42), (6-43) and (6-44) give the resistance of each flow line.

s1
R1  (6-41)
k m ax

s2
R2  (6-42)
k m ax

s3
R3  (6-43)
ki

s4
R4  (6-44)
ki

Since the 4 flow lines can be considered as 4 parallel resistors, the total resulting resistance can be determined
according to the rule for parallel resistors. Equation (6-45) shows this rule.

1 1 1 1 1
    (6-45)
Rt R1 R2 R3 R4

The resistance Rt in fact replaces the hi/kmax part of the equations (6-23), (6-24), (6-28) and (6-29), resulting in
equation (6-46) for the determination of the pore vacuum pressure of the point on the shear zone.

 p   w  g  v c    s in   Rt (6-46)

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 139 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The average pore vacuum pressure on the shear zone can be determined by summation or integration of the pore
vacuum pressure of each point on the shear zone. Equation (6-47) gives the average pore vacuum pressure by
summation.

n
1
p 1m 
n
  pi (6-47)
i 0

The determination of the pore pressures on the blade requires a different approach, since there is no dilatation on
the blade. However, from the determination of the pore pressures on the shear plane, the pore pressure at the tip of
the blade is known. This pore pressure can also be determined directly from:

For the lengths of the 4 flow lines the following is valid at the tip of the blade:

hb
s1  (6-48)
s in   

s 2  0 .8  L m a x   2 w ith : 2     (6-49)

s 3  0 .8  L m a x   3 w ith : 3     (6-50)

0 .5 0 .4
 hi  2  ki 
s 4  0 .9  h i      1 .8 5      (6-51)
 hb   k m ax 

The resistances can be determined with equations (6-41), (6-42), (6-43) and (6-44) and the pore pressure with
equation (6-46). Now a linear distribution of the pore pressure on the blade could be assumed, resulting in an
average pressure of half the pore pressure at the tip of the blade, but it is not that simple. If the surface of the blade
is considered to be a flow line, water will flow from the top of the blade to the tip of the blade. However there will
also be some entrainment from the pore water in the sand above the blade, due to the pressure gradient, although
the pressure gradient on the blade is considered zero (an impermeable wall). This entrainment flow of water will
depend on the ratio of the length of the shear plane to the length of the blade in some way. A high entrainment will
result in smaller pore vacuum pressures. When the blade is divided into N intervals, the entrainment per interval
will be 1/N times the total entrainment. The two required resistances are now, using i as the counter:


s 1 ,i i 
R 1 ,i  1   (6-52)
k m ax  N 

s2
R2  (6-53)
k m ax

The number of intervals for entrainment and the geometry are taken into account in the constant assumed resistance
R2 according to:

'
 h
i
s in    
R 2  N  1 .7 5    R2 (6-54)
 s in    hb 
 

The total resistance is now:

1 1 1
  (6-55)
R t ,i R 1 ,i '
R2

Now starting from the tip of the blade, the initial flows over the blade are determined.

Page 140 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

 p tip  p tip  p tip

q0  , q 1 ,0  , q 2 ,0  (6-56)
 w  g  R t ,0  w  g  R 1 ,0 w g  R 2
'

However Figure 6-13 (left graph) shows that the pore vacuum pressure distribution is not linear. Going from the
tip (edge) of the blade to the top of the blade, first the pore vacuum pressure increases until it reaches a maximum
and then it decreases (non-linear) until it reaches zero at the top of the blade. In this graph, the top of the blade is
left and the tip of the blade is right. The graph on the right side of Figure 6-13 shows the pore vacuum pressure on
the shear zone. In this graph, the tip of the blade is on the left side, while the right side is the point where the shear
zone reaches the free water surface. Thus the pore vacuum pressure equals zero at the free water surface (most
right point of the graph). Because the distribution of the pore vacuum pressure is non-linear, entrainment used.
From the FEM calculations of Miedema (1987 September) and Yi (2000) it is known, that the shape of the pore
vacuum pressure distribution on the blade depends strongly on the ratio of the length of the shear zone and the
length of the blade, and on the length of the flat wear zone (as shown in Figure 6-18 and Figure 6-19).

The tip effect is taken into account by letting the total flow over the blade increase the first few iteration steps
(Int(0.05·N·α)) and then decrease the total flow, so first:

R t ,i
R t ,i
q i  q i  1  q 2 ,i  1 , q 1 ,i  q i  , q 2 ,i  q i  ,
'
R 1 ,i R 2
(6-57)

pi =w  g  qi  R t ,i

In each subsequent iteration step the flow over the blade and the pore vacuum pressure on the blade are determined
according to:

R t ,i
R t ,i
q i  q i  1  q 2 ,i  1 , q 1 ,i  q i  , q 2 ,i  q i  ,
'
R 1 ,i R 2
(6-58)

pi =w  g  qi  R t ,i

The average pore vacuum pressure on the blade can be determined by integration or summation.

n
1
p 2m 
n
  pi (6-59)
i 0

In the past decades many research has been carried out into the different cutting processes. The more fundamental
the research, the less the theories can be applied in practice. The analytical method as described here, gives a
method to use the basics of the sand cutting theory in a very practical and pragmatic way.
One has to consider that usually the accuracy of the output of a complex calculation is determined by the accuracy
of the input of the calculation, in this case the soil mechanical parameters. Usually the accuracy of these parameters
is not very accurate and in many cases not available at all. The accuracy of less than 10% of the analytical method
described here is small with regard to the accuracy of the input. This does not mean however that the accuracy is
not important, but this method can be applied for a quick first estimate.
By introducing some shape factors to the shape of the streamlines, the accuracy of the analytical model has been
improved.

Table 6-1: A comparison between the numerical and analytical dimensionless pore vacuum pressures.

ki/kmax=0.25 p1m p2m p1m (analytical) p2m (analytical)

=30, =30, hb/hi=2 0.294 0.085 0.333 0.072
=45, =25, hb/hi=2 0.322 0.148 0.339 0.140
=60, =20, hb/hi=2 0.339 0.196 0.338 0.196

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 141 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table 6-1 was determined by Miedema & Yi (2001). Since then the algorithm has been improved, resulting in the
program listing of Figure 6-21. With this new program listing also the pore vacuum pressure distribution on the
blade can be determined.

‘Determine the pore vacuum pressure on the shear plane

Teta1 = Pi/2 - Alpha - Beta
Teta2 = Alpha + Beta
Teta3 = Pi - Beta
Teta4 = Pi + Beta

Lmax = Hi / Sin(Beta)
L1 = Hb / Sin(Alpha)
L4 = 0.9 * Hi *(Hi/Hb)^0.5*(1.85*Alpha)^2*(Ki/Kmax)^0.4

N = 100
StepL = Lmax / N
P=0
DPMax = RhoW * G * (Z + 10)

For I = 0 To N
L = I * StepL + 0.0000000001
‘Determine the 4 lengths
S1 = (Lmax - L) * (Pi/2+Teta1) + L1
S2 = 0.8*L * Teta2
S3 = 0.8*L * Teta3
S4 = (Lmax - L) * Teta4 + L4
‘Determine the 4 resistances
R1 = S1 / Kmax
R2 = S2 / Kmax
R3 = S3 / Ki
R4 = S4 / Ki
‘Determine the total resistance
Rt = 1 / (1 / R1 + 1 / R2 + 1 / R3 + 1 / R4)
‘Determine the pore vacuum pressure in point I
DP = RhoW * G * Vc * E * Sin(Beta) * Rt
‘Integrate the pore vacuum pressure
P = P + DP
‘Store the pore vacuum pressure in point I
P1(I)=DP
Next I
‘Store the pore vacuum pressure at the tip of the blade
Ptip=DP
‘Determine the average pore vacuum pressure with correction for integration
P1m = (P - Ptip / 2) / N
‘Determine the pore vacuum pressure on the blade
‘Determine the 2 lengths
S1=L1
S2=0.8*Lmax*Teta2
‘Determine the 2 resistances
R1=S1/Kmax
R2=S2/Kmax
‘Compensate R2 for the number of intervals and the geometry
R2=R2*N*1.75*(Hi*Sin(Alpha)/(Hb*Sin(Beta))
‘Determine the effective resistance
Rt=1/(1/R1+1/R2)
‘Determine the total flow over the blade at the tip of the blade
Q=Ptip/(RhoW*G*Rt)
‘Determine the two flows, Q1 over the blade and Q2 from entrainment
Q1=Ptip/(Rhow*G*R1)
Q2=Ptip/(Rhow*G*R2)

Page 142 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

‘Determine the pressure effect near the tip of the blade

TipEffect=Int(0.05*N*Alpha)
‘Now determine the pore vacuum pressure distribution on the blade
P=0
For I = 1 To N
‘Determine the length of the top of the blade to point I
S1=L1*(1-I/N)
‘Determine the resistance of the top of the blade to point I
R1=S1/Kmax
‘Determine the effective resistance in point I
Rt=1/(1/R1+1/R2)
‘Determine the flow at the tip of the blade
IF I>TipEffect THEN
Q=Q-Q2
ELSE
Q=Q+Q2
END IF
‘Determine the 2 flows
Q1=Q*Rt/R1
Q2=Q*Rt/R2
‘Determine the pore vacuum pressure in point I
DP=Rhow*G*Q*Rt
‘Integrate the pore vacuum pressure
P = P + DP
‘Store the pore vacuum pressure in point I
P2(I)=DP
Next I
‘Determine the average pore vacuum pressure with correction for integration
P2m = (P - Ptip / 2) / N

Figure 6-21: A small program to determine the pore pressures.

Pore Pressures on the Blade (α=30º) & the Shear Plane (β=30º) - kmax/ki=4 & hb/hi=3
0.500
0.475
0.450
0.425
Dimensionless Pore Pressure p1 & p2 (-)

0.400
0.375
0.350
0.325
0.300
0.275
0.250
0.225 p1
0.200 p2
0.175
0.150
0.125
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.025
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
B-C A
Percentage of Blade & Shear Plane (%)

© S.A.M.

Figure 6-22: The dimensionless pressures on the blade and the shear plane,
α=30°, β=30°, ki/kmax=0.25, hi/hb=1/3.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 143 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 6-21 shows a program listing to determine the pore pressures with the analytical/numerical method. Figure
6-22, Figure 6-23 and Figure 6-24 show the resulting pore vacuum pressure curves on the shear plane and on the
blade for 30, 45 and 60 degree blades with a hi/hb ratio of 1/3 and a ki/kmax ratio of 1/4. The curves match both the
FEM calculations and the experiments very well.

Pore Pressures on the Blade (α=45º) & the Shear Plane (β=25º) - kmax/ki=4 & hb/hi=3
0.500
0.475
0.450
0.425
Dimensionless Pore Pressure p1 & p2 (-)

0.400
0.375
0.350
0.325
0.300
0.275
0.250
0.225 p1
0.200 p2
0.175
0.150
0.125
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.025
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
B-C A
Percentage of Blade & Shear Plane (%)

© S.A.M.

Figure 6-23: The dimensionless pressures on the blade and the shear plane,
α=45°, β=25°, ki/kmax=0.25, hi/hb=1/2.

Pore Pressures on the Blade (α=60º) & the Shear Plane (β=20º) - kmax/ki=4 & hb/hi=3
0.500
0.475
0.450
0.425
Dimensionless Pore Pressure p1 & p2 (-)

0.400
0.375
0.350
0.325
0.300
0.275
0.250
0.225 p1
0.200 p2
0.175
0.150
0.125
0.100
0.075
0.050
0.025
0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
B-C A
Percentage of Blade & Shear Plane (%)

© S.A.M.

Figure 6-24: The dimensionless pressures on the blade and the shear plane,
α=60°, β=20°, ki/kmax=0.25, hi/hb=1/1.

Page 144 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

6.9. Determination of the Shear Angle 

The equations are derived with which the forces on a straight blade can be determined according to the method of
Coulomb (see Verruyt (1983)). Unknown in these equations is the shear angle . In literature several methods are
used to determine this shear angle.
The oldest is perhaps the method of Coulomb (see Verruyt (1983)). This method is widely used in sheet pile wall
calculations. Since passive earth pressure is the cause for failure here, it is necessary to find the shear angle at
which the total, on the earth, exerted force by the sheet pile wall is at a minimum.

When the water pressures are not taken into account, an analytical solution for this problem can be found.
Another failure criterion is used by Hettiaratchi and Reece (1966), (1967A), (1967B), (1974) and (1975). This
principle is based upon the cutting of dry sand. The shear plane is not assumed to be straight as in the method of
Coulomb, but the shear plane is composed of a logarithmic spiral from the blade tip that changes into a straight
shear plane under an angle of 45º -  with the horizontal to the sand surface. The straight part of the shear plane
is part of the so-called passive Rankine zone. The origin of the logarithmic spiral is chosen such that the total force
on the blade is minimal.

There are perhaps other failure criterions for sheet pile wall calculations known in literature, but these mechanisms
are only suited for a one-time failure of the earth. In the cutting of soil the process of building up stresses and next
the collapse of the earth is a continuous process.

Another criterion for the collapse of earth is the determination of those failure conditions for which the total
required strain energy is minimal. Rowe (1962) and Josselin de Jong (1976) use this principle for the determination
of the angle under which local shear takes place. From this point of view it seems plausible to assume that those
failure criterions for the cutting of sand have to be chosen, for which the cutting work is minimal. This implies
that the shear angle β has to be chosen for which the cutting work and therefore the horizontal force, exerted by
the blade on the soil, is minimal. Miedema (1985B) and (1986B) and Steeghs (1985A) and (1985B) have chosen
this method.
Assuming that the water pressures are dominant in the cutting of packed water saturated sand, and thus neglecting
adhesion, cohesion, gravity, inertia forces, flow resistance and under-pressure behind the blade, the force Fh
(equation (6-14)) becomes for the non-cavitating situation:

 s in    
  p 2m  h b  
 s in    
 
 
 s in         s in        g  v  h w
w c i
Fh    p 2m  h b   . (6-60)
 s in           s in      1
a  k i  a 2  k m ax 
 
 
 s in     s in      
  p 1m  h i  
 s in           s in    
 

With the following simplification:

' Fh
Fh 
w  g  vc   hi  w (6-61)
 a1 k i  a 2  k m ax 

Since the value of the shear angle , for which the horizontal force is minimal, has to be found, equations (6-62)
and (6-65) are set equal to zero. It is clear that this problem has to be solved iterative, because an analytical solution
is impossible.

The Newton-Rhapson method works very well for this problem. In Miedema (1987 September) and 0 and 0 the
resulting shear angles β, calculated with this method, can be found for several values of , , , several ratios of
hb/hi and for the non-cavitating and cavitating cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 145 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 6-25: The forces Fh and Ft as function of the shear angle β and
the blade angle .

Interesting are now the results if another method is used. To check this, the shear angles have also been determined
according Coulomb’s criterion: there is failure at the shear angle for which the total force, exerted by the blade on
the soil, is minimal. The maximum deviation of these shear angles with the shear angles according Miedema (1987
September) has a value of only 3 at a blade angle of 15. The average deviation is approximately 1.5 for blade
angles up to 60.

The forces have a maximum deviation of less than 1%. It can therefore be concluded that it does not matter if the
total force, exerted by the soil on the blade, is minimized, or the horizontal force. Next these calculations showed
that the cutting forces, as a function of the shear angle, vary only slightly with the shear angles, found using the
above equation. This sensitivity increases with an increasing blade angle. Figure 6-25 shows this for the following
conditions:
The forces are determined by minimizing the specific cutting energy and minimizing the total cutting force Ft. (
= 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°,  = 24°,  = 42°, hb/hi = 1 and a non-cavitating cutting process).

The derivative of the force F’h to the shear angle  becomes:

Page 146 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

 Fh
'
s in     s in    2         s in     
  p 1m  h i 
 s in
2
    s in         
2

s in     s in     
 p 2m  h b 
2
s in     s in         
(6-62)
 p 1m s in     s in     
 hi 
 s in     s in         

p 2m  s in (      )  s in      
 hb    1  0
  s in (  )  s in          

For the cavitating situation this gives for the force Fh:

 s in    s in         s in      
 hb   hb  
 s in    s in           s in    
 
Fh    w  g   z  10   w (6-63)
 
 s in     s in      
 hi  
 s in           s in    
 

With the following simplification:

' Fh
Fh  (6-64)
 w  g   z  10   w

The derivative of the force F'h to the shear angle  becomes:

 Fh
'
s in     s in    2         s in     
 hi 
 s in
2
    s in         
2

(6-65)
s in     s in     
hb   0
2
s in     s in         

For the cavitating cutting process equation (6-65) can be simplified to:

h b  s in     s in    h i  s in     s in     s in    2       
2
(6-66)

The iterative results can be approximated by:

hb
  6 1 .2 9  0 .3 4 5   0 .3 0 6 8    0 .4 7 3 6    0 .2 4 8   (6-67)
hi

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 147 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

6.10. The Coefficients a1 and a2.

In the derivation of the calculation of the water under-pressures around the blade for the non-cavitating cutting
process, resulting in equations (6-30) and (6-31), it already showed that the water under-pressures are determined
by the permeability of the undisturbed sand ki and the permeability of the disturbed sand kmax. Equation (6-25)
shows this dependence. The water under-pressures are determined for several ratios of the initial permeability of
the undisturbed sand to the maximum permeability of the disturbed sand:

ki/kmax = 1

ki/kmax = 0.5

ki/kmax = 0.25

The average water under-pressures p1m and p2m can be put against the ratio ki/kmax, for a certain shear angle . A
hyperbolic relation emerges between the average water under-pressures and the ratio of the permeabilities. If the
reciprocal values of the average water under-pressures are put against the ratio of the permeabilities a linear relation
emerges.

The derivatives of p1m and p2m to the ratio ki/kmax are, however, not equal to each other. This implies that a relation
for the forces as a function of the ratio of permeabilities cannot be directly derived from the found average water
under-pressures.

This is in contrast with the method used by Van Leussen and Van Os (1987 December). They assume that the
average pore pressure on the blade has the same dependability on the ratio of permeabilities as the average pore
pressure in the shear zone. No mathematical background is given for this assumption.

For the several ratios of the permeabilities it is possible with the shear angles determined, to determine the
dimensionless forces Fh and Fv. If these dimensionless forces are put against the ratio of the permeabilities, also a
hyperbolic relation is found (Miedema (1987 September)), shown in Figure 6-26 and Figure 6-27.
A linear relation can therefore also be found if the reciprocal values of the dimensionless forces are taken. This
relation can be represented by:

1 k i
 a  b  (6-68)
Fh k m ax

With the next transformations an equation can be derived for a weighted average permeability km:

b a
a1  & a2  (6-69)
ab ab

So:

k m  a1  k i  a 2  k m ax with: a1  a 2  1 (6-70)

Since the sum of the coefficients a1 and a2 is equal to 1 only coefficient a1 is given in Miedema (1987) and 0. It
also has to be remarked that this coefficient is determined on the basis of the linear relation of Fh (dimensionless
c1), because the horizontal force gives more or less the same relation as the vertical force, but has besides a much
higher value. Only for the 60 blade, where the vertical force is very small and can change direction, differences
occur between the linear relations of the horizontal and the vertical force as function of the ratio of the
permeabilities.
The influence of the undisturbed soil increases when the blade-height/layer-thickness ratio increases. This can be
explained by the fact that the water that flows to the shear zone over the blade has to cover a larger distance with
an increasing blade height and therefore has to overcome a higher resistance. Relatively more water will have to
flow through the undisturbed sand to the shear zone with an increasing blade height.

Page 148 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 6-26: The force Fh as function Figure 6-27: The reciprocal of the force Fh as
of the ratio between ki and kmax. function of the ratio between
ki and kmax.

6.11. Determination of the Coefficients c1, c2, d1 and d2.

If only the influence of the water under-pressures on the forces that occur with the cutting of saturated packed sand
under water is taken in to account, equations (6-14) and (6-15) can be applied. It will be assumed that the non-
cavitating process switches to the cavitating process for that cutting velocity vc, for which the force in the direction
of the cutting velocity Fh is equal for both processes. In reality, however, there is a transition region between both
processes, where locally cavitation starts in the shear zone. Although this transition region starts at about 65% of
the cutting velocity at which, theoretically, full cavitation takes place, it shows from the results of the cutting tests
that for the determination of the cutting forces the existence of a transition region can be neglected. In the simplified
equations the coefficients c1 and d1 represent the dimensionless horizontal force (or the force in the direction of
the cutting velocity) in the non-cavitating and the cavitating cutting process. The coefficients c2 and d2 represent
the dimensionless vertical force or the force perpendicular to the direction of the cutting velocity in the non-
cavitating and the cavitating cutting process. For the non-cavitating cutting process:

2
ci   w  g  vc  h i    w
Fc i  (6-71)
km

In which:

  s in (  ) h b s in (      )  
  p 1m   p 2m     s in (    ) 
  s in (  ) hi s in (  )  
 s in (        ) 
   a1  k i  a 2  k m ax 
c1    (6-72)
  k m ax
h b s in (  )
  p 2m   
 h i s in (  ) 
 
 
 
And:

  s in (  ) h b s in (      )  
  p 1m   p 2m     cos(   ) 
  s in (  ) hi s in (  )  
 s in (        ) 
   a1  k i  a 2  k m ax 
c2    (6-73)
  k m ax
h b cos( )
  p 2m   
 h i s in (  ) 
 
 
 

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 149 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

And for the cavitating cutting process:

Fc i  d i   w  g  ( z  1 0 )  h i  w (6-74)

In which:

 s in (  ) h b s in (      ) 
     s in (    )
 s in (  ) hi s in (  )  hb s in (  ) (6-75)
d1   
s in (        ) hi s in (  )

And:

 s in (  ) h b s in (      ) 
     cos(   )
 s in (  ) hi s in (  )  hb cos( ) (6-76)
d2   
s in (        ) hi s in (  )

The values of the 4 coefficients are determined by minimizing the cutting work that is at that shear angle  where
the derivative of the horizontal force to the shear angle is zero. The coefficients c1, c2, d1 and d2 are given in
Miedema (1987 September) and in 0 and 0 for the non-cavitating cutting process and 0 and 0 for the cavitating
cutting process as functions of , ,  and the ratio hb/hi.

6.11.1. Approximations.
Assuming δ=2/3·φ the coefficients can be approximated by:

α=30° and hb/hi=1:

0 .0 5 0 9   0 .0 3 4 1  
c 1  0 .0 4 2 7  e and c 2  0 .0 3 4 3  e

(6-77)
0 .0 5 1 6  
d 1  0 .3 0 2 7  e and d 2   0 .3 7 3 2  0 .0 2 1 9  

α=30° and hb/hi=2:

0 .0 5 1 1   0 .0 3 5 6  
c 1  0 .0 4 5 5  e and c 2  0 .0 3 0 4  e

(6-78)
0 .0 4 9 0  
d 1  0 .4 7 9 5  e and d 2   0 .5 3 8 0  0 .0 1 5 9  

α=30° and hb/hi=3:

0 .0 5 1 2   0 .0 3 4 8  
c 1  0 .0 4 5 7  e and c 2  0 .0 3 1 2  e

(6-79)
0 .0 4 7 8  
d 1  0 .6 4 1 8  e and d 2   0 .7 3 3 2  0 .0 0 9 4  

α=45° and hb/hi=1:

0 .0 5 7 7   0 .0 2 5 5  
c 1  0 .0 4 8 5  e and c 2  0 .0 3 4 1  e

(6-80)
0 .0 6 0 3  
d 1  0 .2 6 1 8  e and d 2   0 .0 2 8 7  0 .0 0 8 1  

Page 150 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

α=45° and hb/hi=2:

0 .0 5 8 0   0 .0 2 3 8  
c 1  0 .0 5 4 5  e and c 2  0 .0 2 8 1  e

(6-81)
0 .0 5 7 7  
d 1  0 .3 7 6 4  e and d 2   0 .0 1 9 2  0 .0 0 1 7  

α=45° and hb/hi=3:

0 .0 5 8 9   0 .0 1 9 9  
c 1  0 .0 5 5 1  e and c 2  0 .0 2 8 6  e

(6-82)
0 .0 5 6 3  
d 1  0 .4 8 1 4  e and d 2   0 .0 2 9 5  0 .0 1 1 6  

α=60° and hb/hi=1:

0 .0 6 8 8   2
c 1  0 .0 4 7 4  e and c 2   0 .2 9 0 2  0 .0 2 0 3    0 .0 0 0 3 3 4  

(6-83)
0 .0 7 2 2  
d 1  0 .2 3 4 2  e and d 2   1 .0 5 4 8  0 .0 3 4 3  

α=60° and hb/hi=2:

0 .0 6 8 6   2
c 1  0 .0 5 6 2  e and c 2   0 .3 5 5 0  0 .0 2 3 5    0 .0 0 0 4 0 3  

(6-84)
0 .0 6 9 5  
d 1  0 .3 1 4 8  e and d 2   1 .2 7 3 7  0 .0 5 1 6  

α=60° and hb/hi=3:

0 .0 6 9 2   2
c 1  0 .0 5 9 3  e and c 2   0 .3 7 8 5  0 .0 2 5 0    0 .0 0 0 4 4 5  

(6-85)
0 .0 6 8 0  
d 1  0 .3 8 8 9  e and d 2   1 .4 7 0 8  0 .0 6 8 5  

The shear angle β can be approximated by, for the non-cavitating case:

       hb
   0 .0 0 3 7  (6-86)
3 hi

The shear angle β can be approximated by, for the cavitating case:

1 2 hb
  1       0 .0 5 7  (6-87)
6 7 hi

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 151 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

6.12. Specific Cutting Energy.

In the dredging industry, the specific cutting energy is described as:

The amount of energy, that has to be added to a volume unit of soil (e.g. sand) to excavate the soil.

The dimension of the specific cutting energy is: kN/m² or kPa for sand and clay, while for rock often MN/m2 or
MPa is used.

Adhesion, cohesion, gravity and the inertia forces will be neglected in the determination of the specific cutting
energy. For the case as described above, cutting with a straight blade with the direction of the cutting velocity
perpendicular to the blade (edge of the blade) and the specific cutting energy can be written:

Fh  v c Fh
E sp   (6-88)
hi  w  vc hi  w

The method, with which the shear angle  is determined, is therefore equivalent with minimizing the specific
cutting energy, for certain blade geometry and certain soil mechanical parameters. For the specific energy, for the
non-cavitating cutting process, it can now be derived from equations (6-71) and (6-88), that:


E nc  c1   w  g  v c  h i  (6-89)
k m

For the specific energy, for the fully cavitating cutting process, can be written from equations (6-74) and (6-88):

E ca  d 1   w  g  z  10  (6-90)

From these equations can be derived that the specific cutting energy, for the non-cavitating cutting process is
proportional to the cutting velocity, the layer-thickness and the volume strain and inversely proportional to the
permeability. For the fully cavitating process the specific cutting energy is only dependent on the water depth.

Therefore it can be posed, that the specific cutting energy, for the fully cavitating cutting process is an upper limit,
provided that the inertia forces, etc., can be neglected. At very high cutting velocities, however, the specific cutting
energy, also for the cavitating process will increase as a result of the inertia forces and the water resistance.

Page 152 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

6.12.1. Specific Energy and Production in Sand.

As discussed previously, the cutting process in sand can be distinguished in a non-cavitating and a cavitating
process, in which the cavitating process can be considered to be an upper limit to the cutting forces. Assuming that
during an SPT test in water-saturated sand, the cavitating process will occur, because of the shock wise behavior
during the SPT test, the SPT test will give information about the cavitating cutting process. Whether in practice,
the cavitating cutting process will occur, depends on the soil mechanical parameters, the geometry of the cutting
process and the operational parameters. The cavitating process gives an upper limit to the forces, power and thus
the specific energy and a lower limit to the production and will therefore be used as a starting point for the
calculations. For the specific energy of the cavitating cutting process, the following equation can be derived
according to Miedema (1987 September):

E sp   w  g   z  1 0   d 1 (6-91)

The production, for an available power Pa, can be determined by:

Pa Pa
Q   (6-92)
E sp  w  g   z  10   d1

F ric tio n a n g le v e rs u s S P T v a lu e .
46

V e ry D e n s e
44
A n g le o f in te rn a l fric tio n in d e g re e s

42

40

D e n s e
38

36

M e d iu m
34

32

30
L o o s e

28

26
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
S P T v a lu e i n b lo w s /3 0 5 m m

O rig in a l F itt in g F itt in g +3 F itt in g -3

Figure 6-28: Friction Sangle

P T vversus
a lu e sSPT
v e rvalue (Lambe
s u s re la tiv e&d Whitman
e n s ity . (1979),
page 148) and Miedema (1995)).
1 0 0 .0
The coefficient d1 is the only unknown in the above equation. A relation between d1 and the SPT value of the sand
9 0 .0the SPT value and the water depth has to be found. The dependence of d1 on the parameters α, hi and
and between
hb can be estimated accurately. For normal sands there will be a relation between the angle of internal friction and
e in b lo w s /3 0 5 m m

the soil interface

8 0 .0 friction. Assume blade angles of 30, 45 and 60 degrees, a ratio of 3 for hb /hi and a soil/interface
friction angle of 2/3 times the internal friction angle. For the coefficient d1 the following equations are found by
regression:
7 0 .0

Copyright6 0©.0Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 153 of 454

5 0 .0

4 0 .0
 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

d 1  ( 0 .6 4  0 .5 6  h b / h i )  ( 0 .0 1 6 4  0 .0 0 8 5  h b / h i )  S P T1 0 (α = 30 degrees) (6-93)

d 1  ( 0 .8 3  0 .4 5  h b / h i )  ( 0 .0 2 6 8  0 .0 0 8 5  h b / h i )  S P T1 0 (α = 45 degrees) (6-94)

d 1  ( 0 .9 9  0 .3 9  h b / h i )  ( 0 .0 5 0 3  0 .0 0 9 9  h b / h i )  S P T1 0 (α = 60 degrees) (6-95)

With: SPT10 = the SPT value normalized to 10 m water depth.

Lambe & Whitman (1979), page 78) and Miedema (1995) give the relation between the SPT value, the relative
density RD (0-1) and the hydrostatic pressure in two graphs, see Figure 6-29. With some curve-fitting these graphs
can be summarized with the following equation:

S P T  0 .2 4 3   8 2 .5   l  g   z  1 0    R D
2 .5 2
(6-96)

And:

0 .3 9 7
 4 .1 2  S P T 
RD    (6-97)
  8 2 .5    g   z  1 0   
 l 

Lambe & Whitman (1979), (page 148) and Miedema (1995) give the relation between the SPT value and the angle
of internal friction, also in a graph, see Figure 6-28. This graph is valid up to 12 m in dry soil. With respect to the
internal friction, the relation given in the graph has an accuracy of 3 degrees. A load of 12 m dry soil with a density
of 1.67 ton/m3 equals a hydrostatic pressure of 20 m.w.c. An absolute hydrostatic pressure of 20 m.w.c. equals 10
m of water depth if cavitation is considered. Measured SPT values at any depth will have to be reduced to the
value that would occur at 10 m water depth. This can be accomplished with the following equation (see Figure
6-30):

2 8 2 .5
S P T1 0   S P Tz (6-98)
 8 2 .5   l  g   z  1 0  

With the aim of curve-fitting, the relation between the SPT value reduced to 10 m water depth and the angle of
internal friction can be summarized to:

 0 .0 1 7 5 3  S P T 1 0
  5 1 .5  2 5 .9  e (+/- 3 degrees) (6-99)

For water depths of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 m and an available power of 100 kW the production is shown
graphically for SPT values in the range of 0 to 100 SPT. Figure 6-31 shows the specific energy and Figure 6-32
the production for a 45 degree blade angle.

Page 154 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

S P T v a lu e s v e r s u s re la tiv e d e n sity .
1 0 0 .0

9 0 .0
S P T v a lu e in b lo w s /3 0 5 m m

8 0 .0

7 0 .0

6 0 .0

5 0 .0

4 0 .0

3 0 .0

2 0 .0

1 0 .0

0 .0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
R e la tiv e d e n s i ty in %

0 kP a 6 9 kP a 1 38 kP a 2 76 kP a

z = 0 m z = 10 m z = 20 m z = 30 m

Figure 6-29: SPT values versus relative density

(Lambe & Whitman (1979), page 78) and Miedema (1995)).

SPT values reduced to 10 mwaterdepth.

200

160

120
SPT10

80

40

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT
z = 0m z = 5m z = 10m z = 15m z = 20m z = 25 m z = 30m

Figure 6-30: SPT values reduced to 10m water depth.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 155 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Specific energy versus SPT value (45 deg. blade).

2500

2000

1500
kPa

1000

500

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT
z = 0m z = 5m z = 10 m z = 15 m z = 20 m z = 25 m z = 30 m

Figure 6-31: Specific energy versus SPT value (45 deg. blade).

Production per 100 kWversus SPT value (45 deg. blade).

1000
m 3 /hour

100
10 100
SPT
z = 0m z = 5m z = 10 m z = 15 m z = 20 m z = 25 m z = 30 m

Figure 6-32: Production per 100kW versus SPT value (45 deg. blade).

Page 156 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

6.12.2. The Transition Cavitating/Non-Cavitating.

Although the SPT value only applies to the cavitating cutting process, it is necessary to have a good understanding
of the transition between the non-cavitating and the cavitating cutting process. Based on the theory in Miedema
(1987 September), an equation has been derived for this transition. If this equation is valid, the cavitating cutting
process will occur.

d1   z  10   k m
vc  (6-100)
c1  h i  

The ratio d1/c1 appears to have an almost constant value for a given blade angle, independent of the soil mechanical
properties. For a blade angle of 30 degrees this ratio equals 11.9. For a blade angle of 45 degrees this ratio equals
7.72 and for a blade angle of 60 degrees this ratio equals 6.14. The ratio ε/km has a value in the range of 1000 to
10000 for medium to hard packed sands. At a given layer thickness and water depth, the transition cutting velocity
can be determined using the above equation. At a given cutting velocity and water depth, the transition layer
thickness can be determined.

6.12.3. Conclusions Specific Energy

To check the validity of the above derived theory, research has been carried out in the laboratory of the chair of
Dredging Technology of the Delft University of Technology. The tests are carried out in hard packed water
saturated sand, with a blade of 0.3 m by 0.2 m. The blade had cutting angles of 30, 45 and 60 degrees and deviation
angles of 0, 15, 30 and 45 degrees. The layer thicknesses were 2.5, 5 and 10 cm and the drag velocities 0.25, 0.5
and 1 m/s. Figure 6-57 shows the results with a deviation angle of 0 degrees, while Figure 6-58 shows the results
with a deviation angle of 45 degrees. The lines in this figure show the theoretical forces. As can be seen, the
measured forces match the theoretical forces well.

Based on two graphs from Lambe & Whitman (1979) and an equation for the specific energy from Miedema (1987
September) and (1995), relations are derived for the SPT value as a function of the hydrostatic pressure and of the
angle of internal friction as a function of the SPT value. With these equations also the influence of water depth on
the production can be determined. The specific energies as measured from the tests are shown in Figure 6-57 and
Figure 6-58. It can be seen that the deviated blade results in a lower specific energy. These figures also show the
upper limit for the cavitating cutting process. For small velocities and/or layer thicknesses, the specific energy
ranges from 0 to the cavitating value. The tests are carried out in sand with an angle of internal friction of 40
degrees. According to Figure 6-28 this should give an SPT value of 33. An SPT value of 33 at a water depth of
about 0 m, gives according to Figure 6-31, a specific energy of about 450-500 kPa. This matches the specific
energy as shown in Figure 6-57.

All derivations are based on a cavitating cutting process. For small SPT values it is however not sure whether
cavitation will occur. A non-cavitating cutting process will give smaller forces and power and thus a higher
production. At small SPT values however the production will be limited by the bull-dozer effect or by the possible
range of the operational parameters such as the cutting velocity.
The calculation method used remains a lower limit approach with respect to the production and can thus be
considered conservative. For an exact prediction of the production all of the required soil mechanical properties
will have to be known. As stated, limitations following from the hydraulic system are not taken into consideration.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 157 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

6.12.4. Wear and Side Effects.

In the previous chapters the blades are assumed to have a reasonable sharp blade tip and a positive clearance angle.
A two dimensional cutting process has also been assumed. In dredging practice these circumstances are hardly
encountered. It is however difficult to introduce a concept like wear in the theoretical model, because for every
wear stage the water pressures have to be determined numerically again.

Also not clear is, if the assumption that the sand shears along a straight line will also lead to a good correlation
with the model tests with worn blades. Only for the case with a sharp blade and a clearance angle of -1 a model
test is performed.

It is however possible to introduce the wear effects and the side effects simply in the theory with empirical
parameters. To do this the theoretical model is slightly modified. No longer are the horizontal and the vertical
forces used, but the total cutting force and its angle with the direction of the velocity component perpendicular to
the blade edge are used. Figure 6-33 shows the dimensionless forces c1, c2, and ct for the non-cavitating cutting
process and the dimensionless forces d1, d2 and dt for the cavitating process.
For the total dimensionless cutting forces it can be written:

non-cavitating cavitating

ct   c1  c1  c2  c2  dt  d1  d1  d2 d2  (6-101)

For the angle the force makes with the direction of the velocity component perpendicular to the blade edge:

 c2   d2 
 t  a tn    t  a tn   (6-102)
 c1   d1 

It is proposed to introduce the wear and side effects, introducing a wear factor cs (ds) and a wear angle θs (Θs),
according to:

c ts  c t  c s d ts  d t  d s (6-103)
And

 ts   t   s  ts   t   s (6-104)

For the side effects, introducing a factor cr (dr) and an angle θr (Θr), we can now write:

c tr  c t  c r d tr  d t  d r (6-105)

And

 tr   t   r  tr   t   r (6-106)

Page 158 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 6-33: The total dimensionless cutting force ct, dt.

Figure 6-34: The influence of wear.

In particular the angle of rotation of the total cutting force as a result of wear, has a large influence on the force
needed for the haul motion of cutter-suction and cutter-wheel dredgers. Figure 6-34 and Figure 6-35 give an
impression of the expected effects of the wear and the side effects.

The angle the forces make with the velocity direction t, Θt, where this angle is positive when directed downward.

The influence of wear on the magnitude and the direction of the dimensionless cutting forces ct or dt for the non-
cavitating cutting process.

Figure 6-35: The influence of side effects.

The influence of side effects on the magnitude and the direction of the dimensionless cutting forces ct or dt for the
non-cavitating cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 159 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 160 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

6.13. Experiments.
6.13.1. Description of the Test Facility.
The tests with the straight blades are performed on two locations:

1. The old laboratory of Dredging Engineering, which will be called the old laboratory DE.

2. The new laboratory of Dredging Engineering, which will be called the new laboratory DE.

The test stand in the old laboratory DE consists of a concrete tank, 30 m long, 2.5 m wide and 1.35 m high, filled
with a layer of 0.5 m sand with a d50 of 200 m and above the sand 0.6 m water. The test stand in the new laboratory
DE consists of a concrete tank, 33 m long, 3 m wide and internally 1.5 m high, with a layer of 0.7 m sand with a
d50 of 105 m and above the sand 0.6 m water. In both laboratories a main carriage can ride over the full length of
the tank, pulled by two steel cables. These steel cables are winded on the drums of a hydraulic winch, placed in
the basement and driven by a squirrel-cage motor of 35 kW in the old laboratory DE and 45 kW in the new
laboratory DE.

In the old laboratory DE the velocity of the carriage could be infinitely variable controlled from 0.05 m/s to 2.50
m/s, with a pulling force of 6 kN. In the new laboratory DE the drive is equipped with a hydraulic two-way valve,
which allows for the following speed ranges:

1. A range from 0.05 m/s to 1.40 m/s, with a maximum pulling force of 15 kN.

2. A range from 0.05 m/s to 2.50 m/s, with a maximum pulling force of 7.5 kN.

Figure 6-36: Side view of the old laboratory.

An auxiliary carriage, on which the blades are mounted, can be moved transverse of the longitudinal direction on
the main carriage. Hydraulic cylinders are used to adjust the cutting depth and to position the blades in the
transverse direction of the tank. Figure 6-36 shows a side view of the concrete tank with the winch drive in the
basement and Figure 6-37 shows a cross section with the mounting of cutter heads or the blades underneath the
auxiliary carriage (in the new laboratory DE). The main difference between the two laboratories is the side tank,
which was added to dump the material excavated. This way the water stays clean and under water video recordings
are much brighter. After a test the material excavated is sucked up by a dustpan dredge and put back in the main
tank. The old laboratory DE was removed in 1986, when the new laboratory was opened for research.
Unfortunately, the new laboratory stopped existing in 2005. Right now there are two such laboratories in the world,
one at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, USA and one at Hohai University, Changzhou, China.
Both laboratories were established around 2005.
Figure 6-38 and Figure 6-39 give an overview of both the old and the new laboratories DE, while Figure 6-40
shows a side view of the carriage, underneath which the blades are mounted.
Removing the spoil tank (3) from this figure gives a good impression of the cutting tank in the old laboratory DE.
Instead of a cutter head, blades are mounted under the frame (6) during the cutting tests.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 161 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 6-37: The cross section of the new laboratory DE.

Figure 6-38: An overview of the old laboratory DE.

Page 162 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

The tests are carried out using a middle blade, flanked on both sides by a side blade, in order to establish a two-
dimensional cutting process on the middle blade. The middle blade (center blade) is mounted on a dynamometer,
with which the following loads can be measured:

1. The horizontal force

2. The vertical force
3. The transverse force
4. The bending moment

The side blades are mounted in a fork-like construction, attached to some dynamometers, with which the following
loads can be measured:

1. The horizontal force

2. The vertical force

Figure 6-41 and Figure 6-42 show the mounting construction of the blades.

Figure 6-39: An overview of the new laboratory DE.

In the middle blade, four pore pressure transducers are mounted, with which the pore pressure distribution on the
blade can be measured. However no tests are performed in which the forces on the side blades and the pore
pressures are measured at the same time. The measuring signals of the dynamometers and the pressure transducers
are transmitted to a measurement compartment through pre-amplifiers on the main carriage. In this measurement
compartment the measuring signals are suited by 12 bit, 400 Hz A/D converters for processing on a P.C. (personal
computer), after which the signals are stored on a flexible disk. Next to the blades, under water, an underwater
video camera is mounted to record the cutting process. This also gives a good impression of the shear angles
occurring.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 163 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 6-40: A side view of the carriage.

Figure 6-41: The construction in which the blades are mounted.

Figure 6-44 shows how a blade is mounted under the carriage in the new laboratory DE, in this case for so called
snow-plough research. Figure shows the center blade and the two side blades mounted under the carriage in the

Page 164 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

old laboratory DE. In the center blade the 4 pore pressure transducers can be identified (the white circles) with
which the pore pressures are measured.
Figure 6-47 shows the signal processing unit on the carriage, including pre-amplifiers and filters. The pre-
amplifiers are used to reduce the noise on the signals that would occur transporting the signals over long distance
to the measurement cabin.
Figure 6-46 shows the device used to measure the cone resistance of the sand before every experiment. The cone
resistance can be related to the porosity of the sand, where the porosity relates to both the internal and external
friction angle and to the permeability.
Figure 6-48 shows the measurement cabin with a PC for data processing and also showing the video screen and
the tape recorder to store the video images of all the experiments.
Figure 6-45 shows a side view of the center blades. These blades could also be equipped with a wear flat to measure
the influence of worn blades.

Figure 6-42: The blades are mounted in a frame with force and torque transducers.

Figure 6-43: The center blade and the side blades, with the pore pressure transducers in the center blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 165 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 6-44: A blade mounted under the carriage in the new laboratory DE.

Page 166 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 6-45: The center blade of 30º, 45º and 60º, with and without wear flat.

Figure 6-46: Measuring the cone resistance of the sand.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 167 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 6-47: The pre-amplifiers and filters on the carriage.

Page 168 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 6-48: A view of the measurement cabin.

6.13.2. Test Program.

The theory for the determination of the forces that occur during the cutting of fully water saturated sand with
straight blades is verified in two types of sand, sand with a d50 of 200 m and sand with a d50 of 105 m. The soil
mechanical parameters of these two types of sand can be found in 0 and 0

The research can be subdivided in a number of studies:

1. Research of the water resistance of the blades

2. Research of the accuracy of the assumed two-dimensional character of the cutting process on the middle blade
by changing the width of the middle blade with a total width of the middle blade and the side blades of 520
mm. This research is performed in the 200 m sand.
3. Research of the quantitative character of the side effects in relation to the size and the direction of the cutting
forces. This research is performed in the 200 m sand.
4. Research of the in the theory present scale rules. This research is performed in the 200 m sand.
5. Research of the accuracy of the theory of the cutting forces and the water sub-pressures in the non-cavitating
cutting process. This research is performed in the 200 m sand.
6. Research of the accuracy of the theory of the forces and the water sub-pressures in the non-cavitating and the
partly cavitating cutting process. This research is performed in the 105 m sand.

From points 4 and 5 it has also been established that the maximum pore percentage of the sand can be chosen for
the residual pore percentage. In the 200 m the dry critical density, the wet critical density and the minimal density
are determined, while in the 105 m sand the wet critical density and the minimal density are determined. These
pore values can be found in Appendix K and Appendix L

For both type of sand only the minimal density (maximum pore percentage n max) gives a large enough increase in
volume to explain the measured water sub-pressures. This is in contrast to Van Leussen and Nieuwenhuis (1984)
and Van Leussen and Van Os (1987 December), where for the residual density the wet critical density is chosen.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 169 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

6.13.3. Water Resistance.

The water resistance is investigated under circumstances comparable with the cutting tests as far as scale; blade
width and cutting velocity are concerned. Since the water resistance during all these tests could be neglected in
comparison with the cutting forces, performed under the same conditions (maximum 2%), the water resistance
terms are neglected in the further verification. The water resistance could however be more significant at higher
cutting velocities above 2 m/s. It should be noted that at higher cutting velocities also the cutting forces will be
higher, especially for the non-cavitating cutting process. Further, the inertial force, which is neglected in this
research, may also play a role at very high cutting velocities.

6.13.4. The Influence of the Width of the Blade.

The blade on which the cutting forces are measured is embedded between two side blades. These side blades have
to take care of the three-dimensional side effects, so that on the middle blade a two-dimensional cutting process
takes place. The question now is how wide the side blades need to be, at a certain cutting depth, to avoid a
significant presence of the side effects on the middle blade. Essential is, that at the deepest cutting depth the side
effects on the middle blade are negligible. For this research the following blade configurations are used:

1. A middle blade of 150 mm and two side blades of 185 mm each.

2. A middle blade of 200 mm and two side blades of 160 mm each.
3. A middle blade of 250 mm and two side blades of 135 mm each.

The total blade width in each configuration is therefore 520 mm. The results of this research are, scaled to a middle
blade of 200 mm wide, shown in Table 6-2, in which every value is the average of a number of tests. In this table
the forces on the 0.20 m and the 0.25 m wide blade are listed in proportion to the 0.15 m wide blade. The change
of the direction of the forces in relation to the 0.15 m wide blade is also mentioned. From this table the following
conclusions can be drawn:

1. There is no clear tendency to assume that the side effects influence the cutting forces in magnitude.
2. The widening of the middle blade and thus narrowing the side blades, gives slightly more downward aimed
forces on the middle blade at a blade angle of 30. At a blade angle of 45 this tendency can be seen at a blade-
height/layer-thickness ratio of 1 and 2, while at a blade-height/ layer-thickness ratio of 3 the forces are just
slightly aimed upward. The 60 blade angle gives the same image as the 45 blade angle, however with smaller
differences in proportion to the 0.15 m wide blade.

Table 6-2: The influence of the width ratio between the center blade and the side blades.

w=0.20 m (2) w=0.25 m (3)

 hb/hi ct2/ct1 t2-t1 ct3/ct1 t3-t1
30° 1 0.95 +1.0° 1.02 +1.0°
30° 2 1.10 +2.0° 0.93 +4.0°
30° 3 0.96 +5.0° 1.05 +7.0°
45° 1 1.08 +3.0° 1.01 +5.0°
45° 2 0.93 +3.0° 0.93 +5.0°
45° 3 0.93 -8.0° 1.07 -5.0°
60° 1 1.09 +0.0° 1.00 +1.0°
60° 2 0.90 +1.0° 0.92 +2.0°
60° 3 1.04 -5.0° 0.99 -4.0°

The total measured cutting force ct and the force direction t, at a blade width of 0.20 m (ct2, t2) (2) and a blade
width of 0.25 m (ct3, t3) (3) in proportion to the total cutting force and direction at a blade width of 0.15 m (ct1,
t1) (1), according the blade configurations mentioned here.

6.13.5. Side Effects.

On the outside of the side blades a three-dimensional cutting process acts, in a sense that the shear zone here is
three-dimensional, but on top of that the water flows three-dimensional to the shear zone. This makes the cutting
forces differ, in magnitude and direction, from the two-dimensional cutting process. Additionally it is imaginable
that also forces will act on the blade in the transversal direction (internal forces in the blade). The influence of the

Page 170 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

side effects is researched by measuring the forces on both the middle blade as on the side blades. Possible present
transversal forces are researched by omitting one side blade in order to be able to research the transversal forces
due to the three-dimensional side effects. For this research the following blade configurations are used:

1. A middle blade of 150 mm and two side blades of 185 mm each.

2. A middle blade of 200 mm and two side blades of 160 mm each.
3. A middle blade of 250 mm and two side blades of 135 mm each.
4. A middle blade of 200 mm and one side blade of 160 mm

The results of this research can be found in Table 6-3, where every value represents the average of a number of
tests. The cutting forces in this table are scaled to the 200 mm blade to simulate a middle blade without side blades.

Table 6-3: The cutting forces on the side blades.

w=.15 m (1) w=.20 m (2) w=.25 m (3) w=.20 m (4)

 hb/hi cr r cr r cr r cr r
30° 1 1.06 +26° 1.23 +14° 1.17 +11° 1.01 +13°
30° 2 0.78 +18° 0.87 +16° 0.83 +10° 1.14 +10°
30° 3 0.74 +22° 0.56 +22° 0.53 +11° 1.45 + 6°
45° 1 1.13 +23° 1.10 +14° 1.26 + 9° 1.04 + 5°
45° 2 0.94 +19° 0.94 +11° 0.93 + 7° 0.92 + 7°
45° 3 0.79 +14° 1.10 +17° 0.98 +11° 0.85 + 6°
60° 1 1.10 + 8° 1.10 + 6° 1.10 + 5° 1.04 + 2°
60° 2 0.94 +12° 1.10 + 8° 1.06 + 6° 0.91 + 2°
60° 3 0.77 + 8° 0.99 +15° 1.02 +11° 0.86 + 3°

The cutting force on the side blades in ratio to the cutting force on the middle blade cr, assuming that the cutting
process on the middle blade is two-dimensional. Also shown is the change of direction of the total cutting force
r. The cutting forces are scaled to the width of the middle blade for the blade widths 0.15 m (1), 0.20 m (2) and
0.25 m (3). The second column for w=.20 m (4) contains the results of the tests with only one side blade to measure
the side effects on the middle blade. The measured cutting forces are compared to the similar tests where two side
blades are used. The blade configurations are according to chapter 6.13.4. From this research the following
conclusions can be drawn:

1. For all blade angles the cutting force on the edge is larger than follows from the two-dimensional process, for
a blade-height / layer-thickness ratio of 1.
2. A blade-height / layer-thickness ratio of 2 or 3 shows a somewhat smaller cutting force with a tendency to
smaller forces with a higher blade-height / layer-thickness ratio.
3. The direction of the cutting force is, for all four blade configurations, aimed more downwards on the sides
than in the middle, where the differences with the middle blade decrease with a wider middle blade and
therefore less wide side blades. This implies that, with the widening of the middle blade, the influence of the
three-dimensional cutting process on the middle blade increases with a constant total blade width. This could
be expected. It also explains that the cutting force in the middle blade is directed more downwards with an
increasing middle blade width.
4. Blade configuration 4 differs slightly, as far as the magnitude of the forces is concerned, from the tendency
seen in the other three configurations with the 30 blade. The direction of the cutting forces match with the
other configurations. It has to be remarked that in this blade configuration the side effects occur only on one
side of the blade, which explains the small change of the cutting forces.
5. The measured transverse forces for blade configuration 4 are in the magnitude of 1% of the vector sum of the
horizontal and the vertical cutting forces and therefore it can be concluded that the transverse forces are
negligible for the used sand.

The conclusions found are in principle only valid for the sand used. The influence of the side effects on the
magnitude and the direction of the expected cutting forces will depend on the ratio between the internal friction of
the sand and the soil/steel friction. This is because the two-dimensional cutting process is dominated by both angles
of friction, while the forces that occur on the sides of the blade, as a result of the three-dimensional shear plane,
are dominated more by the internal friction of the sand.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 171 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

6.13.6. Scale Effects.

The soil mechanical research showed that the density of the sand increases slightly with the depth. Since both the
permeability and the volume strain, and less significant the other soil mechanical parameters, are influenced by
the density, it is important to know the size of this influence on the cutting forces (assuming that the two-
dimensional cutting theory is a valid description of the process). If the two-dimensional cutting theory is a valid
description of the process, the dimensionless cutting forces will have to give the same results for similar geometric
ratios, independent of the dimensions and the layer-thickness, according to the equations for the non-cavitating
cutting process and the cavitating cutting process. The following blade configurations are used to research the
scaling influence:

1. A blade with a width of 150 mm wide and a height of 100 mm.

2. A blade with a width of 150 mm wide and a height of 150 mm.
3. A blade with a width of 150 mm wide and a height of 200 mm.
4. A blade with a width of 150 mm wide and a height of 300 mm.

The results of this research can be found in Table 6-4, where every value represents the average value of a number
of tests.

Table 6-4: Influence of the scale factor.

Configuration 1 2 3 4
 hb/hi h = 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30
30° 1 0.93 1.00 0.94 1.18
30° 2 1.23 1.00 1.06 1.13
30° 3 ---- 1.00 0.89 0.90
45° 1 0.95 1.00 1.13 ----
45° 2 0.89 1.00 1.05 1.30
45° 3 ---- 1.00 1.02 1.13
60° 1 0.91 1.00 ---- ----
60° 2 0.90 1.00 1.19 1.04
60° 3 1.02 1.00 1.13 1.21

The total cutting force ct with blade heights of 0.10 m (1), 0.15 m (2), 0.20 m (3) and 0.30 m (4) in proportion to
the cutting force at a blade height 0.15 m (2). The blade configurations are according chapter 6.13.4. Because the
influences of the gravity and inertia forces can disturb the character of the dimensionless forces compared to 0 to
0, the measured forces are first corrected for these influences. The forces in the table are in proportion to the forces
that occurred with blade configuration 2. The following conclusions can be drawn from the table:

1. There is a slight tendency to larger dimensionless forces with increasing dimensions of the blades and the
layer-thickness, which could be expected with the slightly increasing density.
2. For a blade angle of 30 and a blade-height / layer-thickness ratio of 2, large dimensionless forces are measured
for blade configuration 1. These are the tests with the thinnest layer-thickness of 25 mm. A probable cause
can be that the rounding of the blade tip in proportion with the layer-thickness is relatively large, leading to a
relatively large influence of this rounding on the cutting forces. This also explains the development of the
dimensionless forces at a blade angle of 30 and a blade-height / layer-thickness ratio of 3.

Page 172 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

6.13.7. Comparison of Measurements versus Theory.

The results of the preceding three investigations are collected in Table 6-5, compared with the theory. Every value
is the average of a number of tests. In the table it can be found:

1. The dimensionless forces, the average from the several scales and blade widths.
2. As 1, but corrected for the gravity and inertia forces.
3. The theoretical dimensionless forces according to Appendix D to Appendix J.

Table 6-5: The total cutting force measured.

measured calculated
not-corrected corrected theoretical
 hb/hi ct t ct t ct t
30° 1 0.52 +13.3° 0.48 +17.1° 0.39 +28.3°
30° 2 0.56 +17.0° 0.53 +20.1° 0.43 +27.4°
30° 3 0.56 +24.8° 0.53 +28.2° 0.43 +27.3°
45° 1 0.71 + 4.9° 0.63 + 7.5° 0.49 +12.9°
45° 2 0.75 + 6.0° 0.66 + 8.0° 0.57 +10.7°
45° 3 0.76 + 5.1° 0.70 + 6.9° 0.61 + 9.9°
60° 1 1.06 + 1.2° 0.88 + 1.9° 0.69 - 0.7°
60° 2 1.00 - 2.4° 0.84 - 3.4° 0.83 - 3.2°
60° 3 0.99 - 3.4° 0.85 - 4.2° 0.91 - 4.6°

The total cutting force measured (not-corrected and corrected for the gravity and inertia forces) and the theoretical
total cutting forces (all dimensionless). The theoretical values for ct and t are based on an angle of internal friction
of 38, a soil/steel angle of friction of 30 and a weighted average permeability of approximately 0.000242 m/s
dependent on the weigh factor a1. The total cutting force ct and the force direction t are determined according
chapter 6.12.4. The following conclusions can be drawn from this table:

1. The measured and corrected cutting forces are larger than the, according to the theory, calculated cutting
forces, at blade angles of 30 and 45. The differences become smaller with an increase in the blade angle and
when the blade-height / layer-thickness ratio increases.
2. For a blade angle of 60 the corrected measure forces agree well with the calculated forces.
3. The tendency towards larger forces with a larger blade-height / layer-thickness ratio (theory) is clearly present
with blade angles 30 and 45.
4. At a blade angle of 60 the forces seem to be less dependent of the blade-height / layer-thickness ratio.
5. The direction of the measured cutting forces agrees well with the theoretical determined direction. Only at the
blade angle of 30 the forces are slightly aimed more upward for the blade-height / layer-thickness ratios 1
and 2.
6. Neglecting the inertia forces, gravity, etc. introduces an error of at least 15% within the used velocity range.
This error occurs with the 60 blade, where the cutting velocity is the lowest of all cutting tests and is mainly
due to the gravity.

Considering that the sand, in the course of the execution of the tests, as a result of segregation, has obtained a
slightly coarser grain distribution and that the tests are performed with an increasing blade angle, can be concluded
that the test results show a good correlation with the theory. It has to be remarked, however, that the scale and side
effects can slightly disturb the good correlation between the theory and the measurements.

6.13.8. Location of the Resulting Cutting Force.

A quantity that is measured but has not been integrated in the theory is the location of the resulting cutting force.
This quantity can be of importance for the determination of the equilibrium of a drag head. The locations, of the
in this chapter performed tests, are listed in Table 6-6. Table 6-7 lists the dimensionless locations of the resulting
cutting force, in relation with the layer-thickness.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 173 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table 6-6: The location of the resulting cutting force.

Configuration 1 2 3 4
 hb/hi h = 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30
30° 1 51.25 63.1 96.7 157.2
30° 2 76.00 55.7 61.3 84.8
30° 3 ---- 50.5 54.3 71.5
45° 1 66.38 87.5 128.0 ----
45° 2 55.13 56.9 73.4 128.6
45° 3 ---- 62.0 56.0 82.1
60° 1 69.88 99.5 ---- ----
60° 2 50.00 68.4 86.1 123.9
60° 3 46.25 55.0 66.3 95.1

The location of the resulting cutting force in mm from the blade tip, for the blade configurations of chapter 6.13.4.

Table 6-7: The location of the resulting cutting force.

Configuration 1 2 3 4
 hb/hi h = 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30
30° 1 0.51 0.42 0.48 0.59
30° 2 1.52 0.75 0.61 0.56
30° 3 ---- 1.01 0.82 0.71
45° 1 0.67 0.58 0.64 ----
45° 2 1.11 0.76 0.63 0.73
45° 3 ---- 1.25 0.84 0.83
60° 1 0.70 0.66 ---- ----
60° 2 1.01 0.91 0.86 0.83
60° 3 1.38 1.11 0.99 0.95

The location of the resulting cutting force from the blade tip, along the blade, made dimensionless by dividing
with the layer-thickness, for the blade configurations of chapter 6.13.4. From these tables the following conclusions
can be drawn:

1. The location of the resulting cutting force is closer to the blade tip with larger blade dimensions.
2. The location of the resulting cutting force is closer to the blade tip with a smaller blade-height / layer-thickness
ratio.

The first conclusion can be based upon the fact that a possible present adhesion, on a larger scale (and therefore
layer-thickness) causes, in proportion, a smaller part of the cutting force. For the second conclusion this can also
be a cause, although the blade-height / layer-thickness ratio must be seen as the main cause.

6.13.9. Verification of the Theory in 200 m Sand.

The linear cutting theory is researched on three points:

1. The distribution of the water sub-pressures on the blade for a blade with a radius of rounding of 1 mm.
2. The distribution of the water sub-pressures on the blade for a blade with a flat wear face of approximately 10
mm and a clearance angle of 1.
3. The correlation between the measured cutting forces and the theoretical cutting forces.

The dimensions of the blades and the wear faces can be found in Figure 6-45. In Table 6-10 the ratios of the wear
face length and the layer-thickness are listed. In the preceding paragraph already a few conclusions are drawn upon
the correlation between the measured and the calculated cutting forces. In this research both the forces and the
water pressures are measured to increase the knowledge of the accuracy of the theory. Also it has to be mentioned
that the soil mechanical parameters are determined during this research.
In Figure 6-56 the results of a test are shown. The results of the whole research of the forces are listed in Table 6-8
for the blade with the radius of rounding of 1 mm and in Table 6-9 for the blade with the wear flat. The
dimensionless measured water sub-pressures are shown in Appendix M: Experiments in Water Saturated Sand, in

Page 174 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

which the theoretical distribution is represented by the solid line. The water sub-pressures are made dimensionless,
although the weighted average permeability km is used instead of the permeability kmax used in the equations. From
this research the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The measured forces and water sub-pressures show, in general, a good correlation with the theory.
2. The tendency towards increasing and more upward aimed forces with increasing blade angles can be observed
clearly in the Table 6-8 and Table 6-9.
3. The ratio between the measured and calculated forces becomes smaller when the blade angle and the blade-
height / layer-thickness ratio increase.
4. The cutting forces on the blade with the wear face are almost equal to the cutting forces on the blade with the
radius of rounding, but are slightly aimed more upward.
5. The ratio between the measured and calculated water sub-pressures is, in general, smaller than the ratio
between the measured and calculated cutting forces.
6. The measured water sub-pressures on the blade with the wear face and the blade with the radius of rounding
differ slightly (Table 6-10) from the water sub-pressures on the blade with the radius of rounding. On the 30
and the 45 blade, the water sub-pressures tends to smaller values for the blade with the wear face, although
the differences are very small. On the 60 blade these water sub-pressures are slightly higher. Therefore it can
be concluded that, for water pressures calculations, the wear-section-length / layer-thickness ratio w/hi has to
be chosen dependent of the blade angle. Which was already clear during the tests because the clearance angle
increased with a larger blade angle. For the determination of Appendix H to Appendix J, however, the ratio
used was w/hi=0.2, which is a good average value.

Table 6-8: Measured dimensionless forces.

measured calculated
not-corrected corrected theoretical
 hb/hi ct t ct t ct t
30° 1 0.54 +29.3° 0.49 +29.0° 0.39 +28.3°
30° 2 0.48 +27.5° 0.46 +27.2° 0.43 +27.4°
30° 3 0.49 +27.6° 0.46 +27.3° 0.43 +27.3°
45° 1 0.78 +15.1° 0.58 +13.9° 0.49 +12.9°
45° 2 0.64 +12.3° 0.59 +11.6° 0.57 +10.7°
45° 3 0.60 +11.0° 0.55 +10.5° 0.61 + 9.9°
60° 1 1.16 + 0.7° 0.77 - 0.6° 0.69 + 0.7°
60° 2 0.95 - 1.4° 0.79 - 2.2° 0.83 - 3.2°
60° 3 0.93 - 3.4° 0.82 - 4.0° 0.91 - 4.6°
60° 6 0.70 - 4.8° 0.64 - 5.7° 1.14 - 7.4°

Measured dimensionless forces, not-corrected and corrected for gravity and inertia forces and theoretical values
according to Appendix H to Appendix J for the blade with the radius of rounding and the sub-pressure behind the
blade. The theoretical values for ct and t are determined based on values for the angle of internal friction of 38,
a soil/steel angle of friction of 30 and a weighted average permeability of 0.000242 m/s, dependent on the weigh
factor a1.

Table 6-9: Measured dimensionless forces.

measured calculated
not-corrected corrected theoretical
 hb/hi ct t ct t ct t
30° 1 0.53 +26.2° 0.48 +25.9° 0.39 +28.3°
30° 2 0.48 +24.0° 0.46 +23.7° 0.43 +27.4°
30° 3 0.49 +24.7° 0.46 +24.3° 0.43 +27.3°
45° 1 0.72 +11.9° 0.57 +11.0° 0.49 +12.9°
45° 2 0.66 + 8.8° 0.60 + 8.3° 0.57 +10.7°
45° 3 0.63 + 7.8° 0.60 + 7.3° 0.61 + 9.9°
60° 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
60° 2 0.90 - 5.6° 0.80 - 6.2° 0.83 - 3.2°
60° 3 0.95 - 7.3° 0.87 - 8.0° 0.91 - 4.6°
60° 6 0.70 - 9.2° 0.64 -10.1° 1.14 - 7.4°

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 175 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Measured dimensionless forces, not-corrected and corrected for gravity and inertia forces and theoretical values
according to Appendix H to Appendix J for the blade with the flat wear face and the sub-pressure behind the blade.
The theoretical values for ct and t are determined according chapter 6.12.4. They are based on values for the angle
of internal friction of 38, a soil/steel angle of friction of 30 and a weighted average permeability of 0.000242
m/s, dependent on the weigh factor a1.

Table 6-10: Average dimensionless pore pressures on the blade.

p2ms/
 hb/hi w hi w/hi p2ma p2ms p2m
p2ma
30° 1 10.2 100 0.102 0.076 0.073 0.076 0.96
30° 2 10.2 50 0.204 0.051 0.050 0.049 0.98
30° 3 10.2 33 0.308 0.034 0.030 0.034 0.88
45° 1 11.1 141 0.079 0.090 0.080 0.097 0.89
45° 2 11.1 70 0.159 0.069 0.068 0.082 0.99
45° 3 11.1 47 0.236 0.052 0.051 0.065 0.98
60° 1 13.3 173 0.077 0.107 ----- 0.091 ----
60° 2 13.3 87 0.153 0.083 0.090 0.100 1.08
60° 3 13.3 58 0.229 0.075 0.081 0.094 1.08
60° 6 13.3 30 0.443 0.035 0.038 0.061 1.09

The average dimensionless pore pressures on the blade, on the blade with the radius of rounding p2ma and the blade
with the wear face p2ms , the theoretical values p2m and the ratio between the sub-pressures p2ms and p2ma, as a
function of the length of the wear face w (mm), the layer-thickness hi (mm) and the wear-section-length / layer-
thickness ratio.

6.13.10. Verification of the Theory in 105 m Sand.

The linear cutting theory for the 105 m is investigated on three points:

1. The distribution of the water sub-pressures on the blade in a non-cavitating cutting process.
2. The distribution of the water sub-pressures on the blade in the transition region between the non-cavitating
and the cavitating cutting process.
3. The correlation between the measured cutting forces and the theoretical calculated cutting forces.

The dimensions of the blades can be found in Figure 6-45. In this research only a 30 blade with a layer-thickness
of 100 mm, a 45 blade with a layer-thickness of 70 mm and a 60 with a layer-thickness of 58 mm, are used, at a
blade height h of 200 mm. The soil mechanical parameters of the used sand are listed in Appendix L. The results
of the research regarding the cutting forces can be found in Table 6-11.

Table 6-11: Measured dimensionless forces.

measured calculated
 hb/hi ct t ct t ct t
no cavitation not-corrected corrected theoretical
30° 1 .45 +16.5° .45 +25.6° .41 +25.1°
45° 2 .50 - 3.5° .47 + 7.2° .62 + 7.6°
60° 3 .60 - 8.8° .58 - 6.3° 1.02 - 7.5°
cavitation not-corrected corrected theoretical
30° 1 3.4 +13.1° 3.4 +24.2° 3.3 +21.6°
45° 2 4.7 -10.3° 4.2 + 5.7° 4.6 + 2.6°
60° 3 4.9 - 9.0° 4.8 - 7.8° 6.8 -12.1°

Measured dimensionless forces, not-corrected and corrected for gravity and inertia forces and the theoretical values
according to Appendix C to Appendix G for the non-cavitating cutting process and according to Appendix H to
Appendix J for the cavitating cutting process, calculated with a sub-pressure behind the blade. The values of ct and
t are calculated according chapter 6.12.4. They are based on values for the angle of internal friction of 38, a
soil/steel angle of friction of 30 and a weighted average permeability between 0.00011 m/s and 0.00012 m/s,
dependent on the weigh factor a1 and the initial pore percentage of the sand bed.

Page 176 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

The dimensionless measured water sub-pressures of the non-cavitating cutting process are presented in Appendix
M, in which the solid line represents the theoretical distribution. The dimensionless measured water sub-pressures
in the transition region are also presented in Appendix M. The figures in Appendix M show the measured
horizontal forces Fh, in which the solid line represents the theoretical distribution. Other figures show the measured
vertical forces Fv, in which the solid line represents the theoretical distribution. Also shown in is the distribution
of the forces, for several water depths, during a fully cavitating cutting process (the almost horizontal lines). From
this research the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The tests with the 30 blade give a good correlation with the theory, both for the forces as for the water sub-
pressures. For the 45 blade both the forces and the water sub-pressures are lower than the theoretical
calculated values with even larger deviations for the 60 blade. For the 60 blade the forces and the water sub-
pressures values are approximately 60% of the calculated values.
2. The direction of the cutting forces agrees reasonably well with the theory for all blade angles, after correction
for the gravity and the inertia forces.
3. The figures in Appendix M show that the profile of the water sub-pressures on the blade, clearly changes
shape when the peak stress close to the blade tip (sub-pressure) has a value of approximately 65% of the
absolute pressure. An increase of the cutting velocity results in a more flattening profile, with a translation of
the peak to the middle of the blade. No cavitation is observed but rather an asymptotic approach of the
cavitation pressure with an increasing cutting velocity. For the 60 blade the flattening only appears near the
blade tip. This can be explained with the large blade-height / layer-thickness ratio. This also explains the low
cutting forces in the range where cavitation is expected. There is some cavitation but only locally in the shear
zone; the process is not yet fully cavitated.
4. Since, according to the theory, the highest sub-pressures will appear in the shear zone, cavitation will appear
there first. The theoretical ratio between the highest sub-pressure in the shear zone and the highest sub-pressure
on the blade is approximately 1.6, which is in accordance with conclusion 3. Obviously there is cavitation in
the shear zone in these tests, during which the cavitation spot expands to above the blade and higher above
the blade with higher cutting velocities.

In Appendix M the pore pressure graphs show this relation between the cavitation spot and the water pressures
profile on the blade. The water sub-pressures will become smaller where the cavitation spot ends. This also implies
that the measurements give an impression of the size of the cavitation spot.

As soon as cavitation occurs locally in the sand package, it becomes difficult to determine the dimensionless
coefficients c1 and c2 or d1 and d2. This is difficult because the cutting process in the transition region varies
between a cavitating and a non-cavitating cutting process. The ratio between the average water pressure in the
shear zone and the average water pressure on the blade surface changes continuously with an increasing cutting
velocity. On top of that the shape and the size of the area where cavitation occurs are unknown. However, to get
an impression of the cutting process in the transition region, a number of simplifications regarding the water flow
through the pores are carried out.
1. The flow from the free sand surface to the shear zone takes place along circular flow lines (see equations
(6-37) and (6-38)), both through the packed sand as through the cut sand. With this assumption the distance
from the free sand surface to the cavitation area can be determined, according:

 z  10   k m ax ki 
0      s in      (6-107)
v c    s in         

2. The flow in the cut sand is perpendicular to the free sand surface, from the breakpoint where the shear plane
reaches the free sand surface. This flow fills the water vapor bubbles with water. The distance from the free
sand surface to the cavitating area can now be determined, under the assumption that the volume flow rate of
the vapor bubbles equals the volume flow rate of the dilatancy, according:

k m ax   z  10  s in    (6-108)
 d  vc     d
 s in     

3. In which the right term represents the volume flow rate of the vapor bubbles from the dilatancy zone, while
the left term represents the supply of water from the free sand surface. This is shown in Appendix M the pore
pressure graphs. With the initial value from equation (6-107) the following solution can be found:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 177 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2
k m ax   z  10 
  0  2  
 s in     (6-109)
 v c  

 s in      

The distance from the blade to the cavitation spot is considered to be constant over the blade. The magnitude of
this distance is however unknown.

Figure 6-49: The development of cavitation over the blade.

The relation between the dimensions of the cavitation spot, and the water pressure profile on the blade.
The progressive character of the cavitation spot development results from equation (6-109). If, at a certain cutting
velocity, cavitation occurs locally in the cavitation zone, then the resulting cavitation spot will always expand
immediately over a certain distance above the blade as a result of the fact that a certain time is needed to fill the
volume flow rate of the vapor bubbles. The development of the water sub-pressures will, in general, be influenced
by the ever in the pore water present dissolved air. As soon as water sub-pressures are developing as a result of the
increase in volume in the shear zone, part of the dissolved air will form air bubbles. Since these air bubbles are
compressible, a large part of the volume strain will be taken in by the expansion of the air bubbles, which results
in a less fast increase of the water sub-pressures with an increasing cutting velocity. The maxima of the water sub-
pressures will also be influenced by the present air bubbles. This can be illustrated with the following example:
Assume the sand contains 3 volume percent air, which takes up the full volume strain in the dilatancy zone. With
a volume strain of 16%, this implies that after expansion, the volume percentage air is 19%. Since it is a quick
process, it may be assumed that the expansion is adiabatic, which amounts to maximum water sub-pressures of
0.925 times the present hydrostatic pressure. In an isothermal process the maximum water sub-pressures are 0.842
times the present hydrostatic pressure. From this simple example it can be concluded that the, in the pore water
present (either dissolved or not) air, has to be taken into account. In the verification of the water sub-pressures,
measured during the cutting tests in the 105 m sand, the possibility of a presence of dissolved air is recognized
but it appeared to be impossible to quantify this influence. It is however possible that the maximum water sub-
pressures reached (Appendix M the pore pressure graphs) are limited by the in the pore water present dissolved
air.

Page 178 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

10

9
P o r e P re s s u re (m .w .c .)

v c = 0 .4 m /s v c = 0 .5 m /s v c = 0 .6 m /s v c = 0 .8 m /s

v c = 0 .9 m /s v c = 1 .1 m /s v c = 1 .2 m /s v c = 1 .3 m /s

Figure 6-50: Partial cavitation limited by dissolved air, α=45º, hi=7cm.

6.13.11. Determination of  and  from Measurements.

The soil/steel friction angle δ and the angle of internal friction φ can be determined from cutting tests. Sand without
cohesion or adhesion is assumed in the next derivations, while the mass of the cut layer has no influence on the
determination of the soil/steel friction angle. In Figure 6-51 it is indicated which forces, acting on the blade, have
to be measured to determine the soil/steel friction angle δ.

The forces Fh and Fv can be measured directly. Force W2 results from the integration of the measured water
pressures on the blade. From this figure the normal force on the blade, resulting from the grain stresses on the
blade, becomes:

F n  W 2  W 3  Fh  s in (  )  F v  c o s (  ) (6-110)

The friction force, resulting from the grain stresses on the blade, becomes:

F w  F h  c o s (  )  F v  s in (  ) (6-111)

The soil/steel angle of friction now becomes:

 Fw 
  a r c ta n   (6-112)
 Fn 

Determination of the angle of internal friction from the cutting tests is slightly more complicated. In Figure 6-52
it is indicated which forces, acting on the cut layer, have to be measured to determine this angle. Directly known
are the measured forces Fh and Fv. The force W1 is unknown and impossible to measure. However from the
numerical water pressures calculations the ratio between W1 and W2 is known. By multiplying the measured force
W2 with this ratio an estimation of the value of the force W1 can be obtained, so:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 179 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

 W1 
W1     W 2m ean (6-113)
 W 2  c a lc

For the horizontal and the vertical force equilibrium of the cut layer can now be written:

F h  W 3  s in (  )  K 1  s in (    )  W 1  s in (  )  I  c o s (  ) (6-114)
F v  W 3  c o s (  )   K 1  c o s (    )  W 1  c o s (  )  I  s in (  )  G (6-115)

The angle of internal friction:

 F h  W 3  s in (  )  W 1  s in (  )  I  c o s (  ) 
  a r c ta n   (6-116)
  F v  W 3  c o s (  )  W 1  c o s (  )  I  s in (  )  G 

Figure 6-51: The forces from which the soil/steel friction angle δ can be determined.

Page 180 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 6-52: The forces from which the angle of internal friction φ of the sand
can be determined.
The equations derived (6-112) and (6-116) are used to determine the values of  and  from the cutting tests carried
out. The soil/steel friction angle can quite easily be determined, with the remark that the side and wear effects can
influence the results from this equation slightly. The soil/steel friction angle, determined with this method, is
therefore a gross value. This value, however, is of great practical importance, because the side and wear effects
that occur in practice are included in this value.
The soil/steel friction angle δ, determined with this method, varied between 24 and 35, with an average of
approximately 30. For both types of sand almost the same results were found for the soil/steel friction angle. A
clear tendency towards stress or blade angle dependency of the soil/steel angle of friction is not observed. This in
contrast to Van Leussen and Nieuwenhuis (1984), who found a blade angle dependency according Hettiaratchi
and Reece (1974).

Figure 6-53: The location of the pressure transducer behind the blade.

Harder to determine is the angle of internal friction. The following average values for the angle of internal friction
are found, for the 200 m sand:

  = 30° »  = 46.7°
  = 45° »  = 45.9°
  = 60° »  = 41.0°

These values are high above the angle of internal friction that is determined with soil mechanical research
according to Appendix K, for a pore percentage of 38.5%. From equation (6-116) it can be derived that the presence
of sub-pressure behind the blade makes the angle of internal friction smaller and also that this reduction is larger
when the blade angle is smaller. Within the test program space is created to perform experiments where the sub-
pressure is measured both on and behind the blade (Figure 6-53). Pressure transducer p1 is removed from the blade
and mounted behind the blade tip. Although the number of measurements was too limited to base a theoretical or
empirical model on, these measurements have slightly increased the understanding of the sub-pressure behind the
blade. Behind the blade tip sub-pressures are measured, with a value of 30% to 60% of the peak pressure on the
blade. The highest sub-pressure behind the blade was measured with the 30 blade. This can be explained by the
wedge shaped space behind the blade. The following empirical equation gives an estimate of the force W3 based
on these measurements:

W 3  0 .3  c o t(  )  W 2 (6-117)

The determination of the angle of internal friction corrected for under pressure behind the blade W3 led to the
following values:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 181 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

  = 30° »  = 36.6°
  = 45° »  = 39.7°
  = 60° »  = 36.8°

For the verification of the cutting tests an average value of 38 for the internal angle of friction is assumed. These
values are also more in accordance with the values of internal friction mentioned in Appendix K, where a value of
approximate 35 can be found with a pore percentage of 38.5%.

The same phenomena are observed in the determination of the angle of internal friction of the 105 m sand. The
assumption of a hydrostatic pressure behind the blade resulted also in too large values for the angle of internal
friction, analogously to the calculations of the 200 m sand. Here the following values are determined:

  = 30° »  = 46.2°
  = 45° »  = 38.7°
  = 60° »  = 40.3°

The determination of the angle of internal friction corrected for under pressure behind the blade W3 led to the
following values:

  = 30° »  = 38.7°
  = 45° »  = 34.0°
  = 60° »  = 38.4°

The low value of the angle of internal friction for the 45 blade can be explained by the fact that these tests are
performed for the first time in the new laboratory DE in a situation where the sand was not homogenous from top
to bottom. For the verification of the cutting forces and the water pressures is, for both sand types, chosen for a
soil/steel friction angle of 30 and an angle of internal friction of 38, as average values.

6.14. General Conclusions.

From the performed research the following general conclusions can be drawn:
1. Both the measured cutting forces as the measured water sub-pressures agree reasonably with the theory. For
both sand types is observed that the cutting forces and the water sub-pressures become smaller in comparison
with the theory, when the blade angle becomes larger. For the 30 blade the cutting forces and the water sub-
pressures are larger or equal to theoretical derived values, while for the 60 blade the theory can overestimate
the measurements with a factor 1.6. This can be explained by assuming that with an increasing blade angle
the cutting process becomes more discontinuous and therefore decreases the average volume strain rate. Slices
of sand shear off with dilatancy around the shear planes, while the dilatancy is less in the sand between the
shear planes. The theory can still be pretty useful since in dredging practice the used blade angles are between
30 and 45.
2. Side effects can considerably influence the direction of the cutting forces, although the magnitude of the
cutting forces is less disturbed. As a result of the side effects the cutting forces are aimed more downward.
3. Wear effects can also influence the direction of the cutting forces considerably, while also the magnitude of
the cutting forces is less disturbed. As a result of the wear the cutting forces are, however, aimed more
upwards.

6.15. The Snow Plough Effect.

To check the validity of the above derived theory, research has been carried out in the new laboratory DE. The
tests are carried out in hard packed water saturated sand, with a blade of 0.3 m by 0.2 m. The blade had a cutting
angle of 45 degrees and inclination angles of 0, 15, 30 and 45 degrees. The layer thicknesses were 2.5, 5 and 10
cm and the drag velocities 0.25, 0.5 and 1 m/s. Figure 6-57 and Figure 6-58 show the results with and without an
inclination angle of 45 degrees. The lines in this figure show the theoretical forces. As can be seen, the measured
forces match the theoretical forces well. Since the research is still in progress, further publications on this subject
will follow.

More results of measurements can be found in Appendix M and Appendix N

Page 182 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e N o C a v ita tio n
0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t - W e a r M e a s u re m e n t - N o W e a r

Figure 6-54: An example of pore pressure measurements versus the theory.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 183 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

No
N o C
Caa vv ita
ita tio
tio nn
5 .0 0
5 .0 0

4 .5 0
4 .5 0

4 .0 0
4 .0 0

3 .5 0
3 .5 0
FFhh ( (kkNN ) )

3 .0 0
3 .0 0

2 .5 0
2 .5 0

2 .0 0
2 .0 0

1 .5 0
1 .5 0

1 .0 0
1 .0 0

0 .5 0
0 .5 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

vv cc (( m
m /s
/s ))
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

No
N o C
Caa vv ita
ita tio
tio nn
1 .5 0
1 .5 0

1 .3 0
1 .3 0

1 .1 0
1 .1 0

0 .9 0
0 .9 0
FFvv ( (kkNN ) )

0 .7 0
0 .7 0

0 .5 0
0 .5 0

0 .3 0
0 .3 0

0 .1 0
0 .1 0

-0 .1 0
- 0 .1 0

-0 .3 0
- 0 .3 0

-0 .5 0
- 0 .5 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

vv cc (( m
m /s
/s ))
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

Figure 6-55: An example of the forces measured versus the theory.

Page 184 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

4 .0
F h (k N )
3 .2
2 .4
1 .6
0 .8
0 .0
0 .0 0 .3 0 .6 0 .9 1 .2 1 .5 1 .8 2 .1 2 .4 2 .7 3 .0

T im e ( s e c )
4 .0
F v (k N )

3 .2
2 .4
1 .6
0 .8
0 .0
0 .0 0 .3 0 .6 0 .9 1 .2 1 .5 1 .8 2 .1 2 .4 2 .7 3 .0

T im e ( s e c )
0 .5 0
P 1 (b a r)

0 .4 0
0 .3 0
0 .2 0
0 .1 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .3 0 .6 0 .9 1 .2 1 .5 1 .8 2 .1 2 .4 2 .7 3 .0

T im e ( s e c )
0 .5 0
P 2 (b a r)

0 .4 0
0 .3 0
0 .2 0
0 .1 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .3 0 .6 0 .9 1 .2 1 .5 1 .8 2 .1 2 .4 2 .7 3 .0

T im e ( s e c )
0 .5 0
P 3 (b a r)

0 .4 0
0 .3 0
0 .2 0
0 .1 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .3 0 .6 0 .9 1 .2 1 .5 1 .8 2 .1 2 .4 2 .7 3 .0

T im e ( s e c )
0 .5 0
P 4 (b a r)

0 .4 0
0 .3 0
0 .2 0
0 .1 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .3 0 .6 0 .9 1 .2 1 .5 1 .8 2 .1 2 .4 2 .7 3 .0

T im e ( s e c )
Figure 6-56: An example of the measured signals (forces and pore pressures).

The result of a cutting test graphically. In this figure the horizontal force Fh, the vertical force Fv and the water
pore-pressures on the blade P1, P2, P3 and P4 are shown. The test is performed with a blade angle  of 45, a
layer thickness hi of 70 mm and a cutting velocity vc of 0.68 m/s in the 200 m sand.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 185 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

1 5 .0

1 2 .0
F h in k N

9 .0

6 .0

3 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 .0

4 .0
F d in k N

3 .0

2 .0

1 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

2 .5

1 .5
F v in k N

0 .5

- 0 .5

- 1 .5

- 2 .5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

500

400
E s p in k P a

300

200

100

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 4 5 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 0 d e g r e e s .

Figure 6-57: Fh, Fv, Fd and Esp as a function of the cutting velocity and
the layer thickness, without deviation.

Page 186 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

1 0 .0

8 .0
F h in k N

6 .0

4 .0

2 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 .0

4 .0
F d in k N

3 .0

2 .0

1 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

2 .5

1 .5
F v in k N

0 .5

- 0 .5

- 1 .5

- 2 .5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

500

400
E s p in k P a

300

200

100

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 4 5 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 4 5 d e g r e e s .

Figure 6-58: Fh, Fv, Fd and Esp as a function of the cutting velocity and
the layer thickness, with deviation.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 187 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

6.16. Nomenclature.

a1,a2 Weight factors k-value (permeability) -

A Surface m²
bpr Projected width of the blade perpendicular to the velocity direction m
ci ,c1 ,c2 Coefficients (non-cavitating cutting process) -
cr Coefficient side effects -
cs Wear coefficient -
ct Coefficient total cutting force (non-cavitating cutting process) -
cts Coefficient total cutting force including wear effects -
ctr Coefficient total cutting force including side effects -
di ,d1 ,d2 Coefficients (cavitating cutting process) -
dr Coefficient side effects -
ds Wear coefficient -
dt Coefficient total cutting force (cavitating cutting process) -
dts Coefficient total cutting force including wear -
dtr Coefficient total cutting force including side effects -
Esp Specific cutting energy kN/m²
Egc Specific cutting energy (no cavitation) kN/m²
Eca Specific cutting energy (full cavitation) kN/m²
Fci Cutting force (general) kN
Fcit Total cutting force (general) kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force (parallel to the cutting speed) kN
Fl Cutting force parallel to the edge of the blade kN
Fn Normal force kN
Fv Vertical cutting force (perpendicular to the cutting velocity) kN
Fw Friction force kN
Fx Cutting force in x-direction (longitudinal) kN
Fxt Total cutting force in x-direction (longitudinal) kN
Fy Cutting force in y-direction (transversal) kN
Fyt Total cutting force in y-direction (transversal) kN
Fz Cutting force in z-direction (vertical) kN
g Gravitational acceleration m/s²
hi Initial layer thickness m
hb Blade height m
k Permeability m/s
ki Initial permeability m/s
kmax Maximum permeability m/s
km Effective permeability m/s
K1 Grain force on the shear zone kN
K2 Grain force on the blade kN
l Length of the shear zone m
n Normal on an edge m
n Porosity -
ni Initial pore percentage %
nmax Maximum pore percentage %
N1 Normal force on the shear zone kN
N2 Normal force on the blade kN
p Number of blades excavating element -
p Pressure (water pressure) kPa
patm Atmospheric pressure kPa
Pcalc Calculated dimensionless pressure (water pore pressure) -
pdamp Saturated water pore pressure (12 cm.w.c.) kPa

Page 188 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Saturated Sand Cutting.

Preal Real pore pressure (water pore pressure) kPa

p1m Average pore pressure in the shear zone -
p2m Average pore pressure on the blade -
Pc Drive power excavating element kW
q, q1 ,q2 Specific flow m/s
Q Flow per unit of blade width m²/s
s Length of a stream line m
s Measure for the layer thickness m
S1 Shear force on the shear zone kN
S2 Shear force on the blade kN
vc Cutting velocity perpendicular to the edge of the blade m/s
V Volume strain per unit of blade width m²
w Width of blade of blade element m
W1 Pore pressure force on the shear zone kN
W2 Pore pressure force on the blade kN
x Coordinate m
y Coordinate m
z Coordinate m
z Water depth m
 Blade angle rad
 Shear angle rad
ε Volume strain -
 Angle of internal friction rad
 Soil/steel interface friction angle rad
g Wet density of the sand ton/m³
s Dry density of the sand ton/m³
w Density of water ton/m³
r Angular displacement force vector as a result of side effects rad
s Angular displacement force vector as a result of wear rad
t Angle force vector angle in relation to cutting velocity vector rad
ts Angle force vector angle in relation to velocity vector including wear rad
tr Angle force vector angle in relation to velocity vector including side effects rad
Θr Angular displacement force vector as a result of side effects rad
Θs Angular displacement force vector as a result of wear rad
Θt Angle force vector angle in relation to cutting velocity vector rad
Θts Angle force vector angle in relation to velocity vector including wear rad
Θtr Angle force vector angle in relation to velocity vector including side effects rad

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 189 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 190 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

Chapter 7: Clay Cutting.

7.1. Definitions.

Figure 7-1: The cutting process, definitions.

Definitions:
1. A: The blade tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. A-B: The shear plane.
5. A-C: The blade surface.
6. hb: The height of the blade.
7. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
8. vc: The cutting velocity.
9. α: The blade angle.
10. β: The shear angle.
11. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
12. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

7.2. Introduction.
Hatamura and Chijiiwa (1975), (1976A), (1976B), (1977A) and (1977B) distinguished three failure mechanisms
in soil cutting. The Shear Type, the Flow Type and the Tear Type. The Flow Type and the Tear Type occur in
materials without an angle of internal friction. The Shear Type occurs in materials with an angle of internal friction
like sand. A fourth failure mechanism can be distinguished (Miedema (1992)), the Curling Type, as is known in
metal cutting. Although it seems that the curling of the chip cut is part of the flow of the material, whether the
Curling Type or the Flow Type occurs depends on several conditions. The Curling Type in general will occur if
the adhesive force on the blade is large with respect to the normal force on the shear plane. Whether the Curling
Type results in pure curling or buckling of the layer cut giving obstruction of the flow depends on different
parameters.

Figure 7-2 illustrates the Curling Type mechanism, Figure 7-3 the Flow Type mechanism and Figure 7-4 the
Tear Type mechanism as they occur when cutting clay or loam. To predict which type of failure mechanism will
occur under given conditions with specific soil, a formulation for the cutting forces has to be derived. The
derivation is made under the assumption that the stresses on the shear plane and the blade are constant and equal
to the average stresses acting on the surfaces. Figure 7-1 gives some definitions regarding the cutting process. The
line A-B is considered to be the shear plane, while the line A-C is the contact area between the blade and the soil.
The blade angle is named α and the shear angle β. The blade is moving from left to right with a cutting velocity
vc. The thickness of the layer cut is hi and the vertical height of the blade hb. The horizontal force on the blade Fh
is positive from right to left always opposite to the direction of the cutting velocity vc. The vertical force on the
blade Fv is positive downwards.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 191 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 7-2: The Curling Type in clay. Figure 7-3: The Flow Type in clay.

Figure 7-4: The Tear Type in clay.

Since the vertical force is perpendicular to the cutting velocity, the vertical force does not contribute to the cutting
power, which is equal to:

Pc  Fh  v c (7-1)

In clay the cutting processes are dominated by cohesion and adhesion (internal and external shear strength).
Because of the φ=0 concept, the internal and external friction angles are set to 0. Gravity, inertial forces and pore
pressures are also neglected. This simplifies the cutting equations. Clay however is subject to strengthening,
meaning that the internal and external shear strength increase with an increasing strain rate. The reverse of
strengthening is creep, meaning that under a constant load the material will continue deforming with a certain
strain rate.
Under normal circumstances clay will be cut with the flow mechanism, but under certain circumstances the
Curling Type or the Tear Type may occur.
The Curling Type will occur when the blade height is big with respect to the layer thickness, hb/hi, the adhesion
is high compared to the cohesion a/c and the blade angle α is relatively big.
The Tear Type will occur when the blade height is small with respect to the layer thickness, hb/hi, the adhesion is
small compared to the cohesion a/c and the blade angle α is relatively small.

This chapter is based on Miedema (1992), (2009) and (2010).

Page 192 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

7.3. The Influence of Strain Rate on the Cutting Process.

7.3.1. Introduction.
Previous researchers, especially Mitchell (1976), have derived equations for the strain rate dependency of the
cohesion based on the "rate process theory". However the resulting equations did not allow pure cohesion and
adhesion. In many cases the equations derived resulted in a yield stress of zero or minus infinity for a material at
rest. Also empirical equations have been derived giving the same problems.
Based on the "rate process theory" with an adapted Boltzman probability distribution, the Mohr-Coulomb failure
criteria will be derived in a form containing the influence of the deformation rate on the parameters involved. The
equation derived allows a yield stress for a material at rest and does not contradict the existing equations, but
confirms measurements of previous researchers. The equation derived can be used for silt and for clay, giving both
materials the same physical background. Based on the equilibrium of forces on the chip of soil cut, as derived by
Miedema (1987 September) for soil in general, criteria are formulated to predict the failure mechanism when
cutting clay. A third failure mechanism can be distinguished, the "curling type". Combining the equation for the
deformation rate dependency of cohesion and adhesion with the derived cutting equations, allows the prediction
of the failure mechanism and the cutting forces involved. The theory developed has been verified by using data
obtained by Hatamura and Chijiiwa (1975), (1976A), (1976B), (1977A) and (1977B) with respect to the adapted
rate process theory and data obtained by Stam (1983) with respect to the cutting forces. However since the theory
developed confirms the work carried out by previous researchers its validity has been proven in advance. In this
chapter simplifications have been applied to allow a clear description of the phenomena involved.
The theory in this chapter has been published by Miedema (1992) and later by Miedema (2009) and (2010).

Figure 7-5: The Boltzman probability distribution.

Figure 7-6: The probability of exceeding an energy level Ea.

7.3.2. The Rate Process Theory.

It has been noticed by many researchers that the cohesion and adhesion of clay increase with an increasing
deformation rate. It has also been noticed that the failure mechanism of clay can be of the "flow type" or the "tear
type", similar to the mechanisms that occur in steel cutting. The rate process theory can be used to describe the
phenomena occurring in the processes involved. This theory, developed by Glasstone, Laidler and Eyring (1941)
for the modeling of absolute reaction rates, has been made applicable to soil mechanics by Mitchell (1976).
Although there is no physical evidence of the validity of this theory it has proved valuable for the modeling of

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 193 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

many processes such as chemical reactions. The rate process theory, however, does not allow strain rate
independent stresses such as real cohesion and adhesion. This connects with the starting point of the rate process
theory that the probability of atoms, molecules or particles, termed flow units having a certain thermal vibration
energy is in accordance with the Boltzman distribution (Figure 7-5):

1  E 
p (E )   exp   (7-2)
R T  R T 

Figure 7-7: The probability of net activation in direction of force.

The movement of flow units participating in a time dependent flow is constrained by energy barriers separating
adjacent equilibrium positions. To cross such an energy barrier, a flow unit should have an energy level exceeding
certain activation energy Ea. The probability of a flow unit having an energy level greater than a certain energy
level Ea can be calculated by integrating the Boltzman distribution from the energy level Ea to infinity, as depicted
in Figure 7-6, this gives:

 Ea 
pEE  exp   (7-3)
 R T 
a

The value of the activation energy Ea depends on the type of material and the process involved. Since thermal
vibrations occur at a frequency given by kT/h, the frequency of activation of crossing energy barriers is:

k .T  Ea 
   exp   (7-4)
h  R T 

In a material at rest the barriers are crossed with equal frequency in all directions. If however a material is subjected
to an external force resulting in directional potentials on the flow units, the barrier height in the direction of the
force is reduced by (f•λ/2) and raised by the same amount in the opposite direction. Where f represents the force
acting on a flow unit and λ represents the distance between two successive equilibrium positions. From this it can
be derived that the net frequency of activation in the direction of the force f is as illustrated in Figure 7-7:

k T  Ea    f    f   
   exp     exp    exp   (7-5)
h  R  T    2  k  T   2 k T 

If a shear stress  is distributed uniformly along S bonds between flow units per unit area then f=/S and if the
strain rate is a function X of the proportion of successful barrier crossings and the displacement per crossing
according to d/dt=X· then:

k T  Ea    N 
  2X   exp    s in h   w ith : R  N  k (7-6)
h  R T   2S R T 

Page 194 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

From this equation, simplified equations can be derived to obtain dashpot coefficients for theological models, to
obtain functional forms for the influences of different factors on strength and deformation rate, and to study
deformation mechanisms in soils. For example:

  N    N    N 

if    1 th e n s in h      (7-7)
 2S R T   2 S R T   2 S R T 

Resulting in the mathematical description of a Newtonian fluid flow, and:

  N    N  1   N 

if    1 th e n s in h     exp   (7-8)
 2S R T   2 S R T  2  2 S R T 

Resulting in a description of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion for soils as proposed by Mitchell et al. (1968).
Zeng and Yao (1988) and (1991) used the first simplification (7-7) to derive a relation between soil shear strength
and shear rate and the second simplification (7-8) to derive a relation between soil-metal friction and sliding speed.

7.3.3. Proposed Rate Process Theory.

The rate process theory does not allow shear strength if the deformation rate is zero. This implies that creep will
always occur since any material is always exposed to its own weight. This results from the starting point of the
rate process theory, the Boltzman distribution of the probability of a flow unit exceeding a certain energy level of
thermal vibration. According to the Boltzman distribution there is always a probability that a flow unit exceeds an
energy level, between an energy level of zero and infinity, this is illustrated in Figure 7-6.
Since the probability of a flow unit having an infinite energy level is infinitely small, the time-span between the
occurrences of flow units having an infinite energy level is also infinite, if a finite number of flow units is
considered. From this it can be deduced that the probability that the energy level of a finite number of flow units
does not exceed a certain limiting energy level in a finite time-span is close to 1. This validates the assumption
that for a finite number of flow units in a finite time-span the energy level of a flow unit cannot exceed a certain
limiting energy level El. The resulting adapted Boltzman distribution is illustrated in Figure 7-8. The Boltzman
distribution might be a good approximation for atoms and molecules but for particles consisting of many atoms
and/or molecules the distribution according to Figure 7-8 seems more reasonable, since it has never been noticed
that sand grains in a layer of sand at rest, start moving because of their internal energy. In clay some movement of
the clay particles seems probable since the clay particles are much smaller than the sand particles. Since particles
consist of many atoms, the net vibration energy in any direction will be small, because the atoms vibrate thermally
with equal frequency in all directions.

Figure 7-8: The adapted Boltzman probability distribution.

If a probability distribution according to Figure 7-8 is considered, the probability of a particle exceeding a certain
activation energy Ea becomes:

 Ea   E 
exp    exp  
 R T   R T 
pEE  if E a  E and p  0 if E a  E (7-9)
a
 E  EEa
1  exp  
 R T 

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 195 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

If the material is now subjected to an external shear stress, four cases can be distinguished with respect to the strain
rate.

Figure 7-9: The probability of net activation in case 1.

The energy level Ea +N/2S is smaller than the limiting energy level El (Figure 7-9). The strain
rate equation is now:

k T  Ea    N 
  2X   exp    s in h  
h i  R T   2S R T 
Case 1: (7-10)
 E 
with: i  1  exp  
 R T 

Except for the coefficient i, necessary to ensure that the total probability remains 1, equation (7-10)
is identical to equation (7-6).

The activation energy Ea is less than the limiting energy El, but the energy level E+N/2S is
greater than the limiting energy level El (Figure 7-10).

The strain rate equation is now:

Case 2:

k  T    Ea  N   E  
  X   exp      exp   (7-11)
h  i    R T 2S R T   R T  

The activation energy Ea is greater than the limiting energy El, but the energy level Ea -N/2S is
less than the limiting energy level El (Figure 7-11). The strain rate equation is now:

Case 3: k  T    Ea  N   E  
  X   exp        exp   (7-12)
h  i    R T 2S R T   R T  

Equation (7-12) appears to be identical to equation (7-11), but the boundary conditions differ.

The activation energy Ea is greater than the limiting energy El and the energy level Ea -N/2S is
Case 4: greater than the limiting energy level El (Figure 7-12). The strain rate will be equal to zero in this
case.

The cases 1 and 2 are similar to the case considered by Mitchell (1976) and still do not permit true cohesion and
adhesion. Case 4 considers particles at rest without changing position within the particle matrix. Case 3 considers

Page 196 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

a material on which an external shear stress of certain magnitude must be applied to allow the particles to cross
energy barriers, resulting in a yield stress (true cohesion or adhesion).

Figure 7-10: The probability of net activation in case 2.

Figure 7-11: The probability of net activation in case 3.

Figure 7-12: The probability of net activation in case 4.

From equation (7-12) the following equation for the shear stress can be derived:

2S 2S   
  (E a  E )   R T   ln  1  
 N  N  0 
(7-13)
X k T  E 
with: 0   exp  
hi  R T 

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 197 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

According to Mitchell (1976), if no shattering of particles occurs, the relation between the number of bonds S and
the effective stress e can be described by the following equation:

S  a  b . e (7-14)

Lobanov and Joanknecht (1980) confirmed this relation implicitly for pressures up to 10 bars for clay and paraffin
wax. At very high pressures they found an exponential relation that might be caused by internal failure of the
particles. For the friction between soil and metal Zeng and Yao (1988) also used equation (7-14), but for the
internal friction Zeng and Yao (1991) used a logarithmic relationship, which contradicts Lobanov and Joanknecht
and Mitchell, although it can be shown by Taylor series approximation that a logarithmic relation can be
transformed into a linear relation for values of the argument of the logarithm close to 1. Since equation (7-14)
contains the effective stress it is necessary that the clay used, is fully consolidated. Substituting equation (7-14) in
equation (7-13) gives:

 2 2    
  a   (E a  E )   R T  ln  1  
  N  N   0  

(7-15)
 2 2    
 b  Ea  E   R T   ln  1    e
  N  N   0  

Equation (7-15) is of the same form as the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion:

   c   e . ta n (  ) (7-16)

Equation (7-15), however, allows the strain rate to become zero, which is not possible in the equation derived by
Mitchell (1976). The Mitchell equation and also the equations derived by Zeng and Yao (1988) and (1991) will
result in a negative shear strength at small strain rates.

Page 198 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

7.3.4. The Proposed Theory versus some other Theories.

The proposed new theory is in essence similar to the theory developed by Mitchell (1976) which was based on the
"rate process theory" as proposed by Eyring (1941). It was, however, necessary to use simplifications to obtain the
equation in a useful form. The following formulation for the shear stress as a function of the strain rate has been
derived by Mitchell by simplification of equation (7-6):

 2 2   
  a  Ea   R T   ln  
  N  N  B 

 2 2   
 b  Ea   R T   ln    e
(7-17)
  N  N  B 

X .k .T
with: B 
h

This equation is not valid for very small strain rates, because this would result in a negative shear stress. It should
be noted that for very high strain rates the equations (7-15) and (7-17) will have exactly the same form. Zeng and
Yao (1991) derived the following equation by simplification of equation (7-6) and by adding some empirical
elements:

ln   C 1  C 2  ln   C 3  ln  1  C 4   e  (7-18)

Rewriting equation (7-18) in a more explicit form gives:

C3
 1  C 4   e 
C2
  e xp  C 1      (7-19)

Equation (7-19) is valid for strain rates down to zero, but not for a yield stress. With respect to the strain rate,
equation (7-19) is the equation of a fluid behaving according to the power law named "power law fluids". It should
be noted however that equation (7-19) cannot be derived from equation (7-6) directly and thus should be considered
as an empirical equation. If the coefficient C3 equals 1, the relation between shear stress and effective stress is
similar to the relation found by Mitchell (1976). For the friction between the soil (clay and loam) and metal Zeng
and Yao (1988) derived the following equation by simplification of equation (7-6):

 b   y a  C 5  ln      e  ta n      a   e  ta n    (7-20)

Equation (7-20) allows a yield stress, but does not allow the sliding velocity to become zero. An important
conclusion of Yao and Zeng is that pasting soil on the metal surface slightly increases the friction meaning that
the friction between soil and metal almost equals the shear strength of the soil.
The above-mentioned researchers based their theories on the rate process theory, other researchers derived
empirical equations. Turnage and Freitag (1970) observed that for saturated clays the cone resistance varied with
the penetration rate according to:

F  a .v
b
(7-21)

With values for the exponent ranging from 0.091 to 0.109 Wismer and Luth (1972B) and (1972A) confirmed this
relation and found a value of 0.100 for the exponent, not only for cone penetration tests but also for the relation
between the cutting forces and the cutting velocity when cutting clay with straight blades. Hatamura and Chijiiwa
(1975), (1976A), (1976B), (1977A) and (1977B) also confirmed this relation for clay and loam cutting and found
an exponent of 0.089.
Soydemir (1977) derived an equation similar to the Mitchell equation. From the data measured by Soydemir a
relation according to equation (7-21) with an exponent of 0.101 can be derived. This confirms both the Mitchell
approach and the power law approach.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 199 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

7.3.5. Verification of the Theory Developed.

The theory developed differs from the other theories mentioned in the previous paragraph, because the resulting
equation (7-15) allows a yield strength (cohesion or adhesion). At a certain consolidation pressure level equation
(7-15) can be simplified to:

  
   y   0  ln  1   (7-22)
 0 

If (d/dt)/(d0/dt) << 1, equation (7-22) can be approximated by:


  y  0  (7-23)
0

This approximation gives the formulation of a Bingham fluid. If the yield strength y is zero, equation (7-23)
represents a Newtonian fluid. If (d/dt)/(d0/dt) >> 1, equation (7-22) can be approximated by:

  
   y   0  ln   (7-24)
 0 

This approximation is similar to equation (7-17) as derived by Mitchell.

If (d/dt)/(d0/dt) >> 1 and  - y << y, equation (7-22) can be approximated by:
0
y
  
  y   (7-25)
 0 

This approximation is similar to equation (7-21) as found empirically by Wismer and Luth (1972B) and many
other researchers. The equation (7-15) derived in this paper, the equation (7-17) derived by Mitchell and the
empirical equation (7-21) as used by many researchers have been fitted to data obtained by Hatamura and Chijiiwa
(1975), (1976A), (1976B), (1977A) and (1977B). This is illustrated in Figure 7-13 with a logarithmic horizontal
axis. Figure 7-14 gives an illustration with both axis logarithmic. These figures show that the data obtained by
Hatamura and Chijiiwa fit well and that the above described approximations are valid.

The values used are y = 28 kPa, 0 = 4 kPa and 0 = 0.03 /s.

It is assumed that adhesion and cohesion can both be modeled according to equation (7-22). The research carried
out by Zeng and Yao (1991) validates the assumption that this is true for adhesion. In more recent research
Kelessidis et al. (2007) and (2008) utilize two rheological models, the Herschel-Bulkley model and the Casson
model. The Herschel Bulkley model can be described by the following equation:

n
 .
   y ,H B  K     (7-26)
 

The Casson model can be described with the following equation:

   y ,C a   Ca   (7-27)

Figure 7-15 compares these models with the model as derived in this paper. It is clear that for the high strain rates
the 3 models give similar results. These high strain rates are relevant for cutting processes in dredging and offshore
applications.

Page 200 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

100

90
S h e a r S tre n g th (k P a )

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10
0 .0 0 0 0 1 0 .0 0 0 1 0 .0 0 1 0 .0 1 0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000

S tr a in R a t e ( 1 /s e c )
H a ta m u ra & C h i jii w a M itc h e l l, e tc .

W is m e r/L u th , Y a o /Z e n g , H a ta m u ra /C h i jii w a M ie d e m a

Figure 7-13: Shear stress as a function of strain rate with the horizontal axis logarithmic.

100
S h e a r S tre n g th ( k P a )

10
0 .0 0 0 0 1 0 .0 0 0 1 0 .0 0 1 0 .0 1 0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000

S t r a in R a te ( 1 /s e c )
H a ta m u ra & C h i jii w a M itc h e l l, e tc .

W is m e r/L u th , Y a o /Z e n g , H a ta m u ra /C h i jii w a M ie d e m a

Figure 7-14: Shear stress as a function of strain rate with logarithmic axis.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 201 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Comparison of three rheological models

100

90

80
Shear strength (kPa)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Strain rate (1/s)
Miedema Herschel-Bulkley Casson

Figure 7-15: Comparison of 3 rheological models.

Page 202 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

7.3.6. Abelev & Valent (2010).

Abelev & Valent (2010) investigated the strain rate dependency of the strength of soft marine deposits of the Gulf
of Mexico. They used a precision rheometer with rotational rates from 0.25 up to 1000 1/min and water contents
of 55% to 95%. They describe several models like an inverse hyperbolic sine:

  
   y   0  a r c s in   (7-28)
 0 

A logarithmic law and a power law:


     
   y   0  lo g 1 0   and   y   (7-29)
 0   0 

Strengthening Factor λc vs. Relative Strain Rate

3.0

2.8 55%

2.6

2.4 65%
2.2
Strengthening Factor λc (-)

2.0 75%
1.8

1.6
85%
1.4

1.2
95%
1.0

0.8
Theory
0.6 Lower Limit
0.4
Theory
0.2
Upper Limit
0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 10000.0
Relative strain rate (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-16: Abelev & Valent (2010) data.

The data of Abelev & Valent (2010) are shown in Figure 7-16, together with a lower limit and an upper limit based
on the equation derived in this chapter. Based on their experiments they suggest a modified power law:

  
  y  0    (7-30)
 0 

The use of the equation derived in this chapter however gives even better results.

  
   y   0  ln  1  
  0 
(7-31)

One can see some dependency of the strengthening effect on the water content. It seems that the higher the water
content, the larger the strengthening effect.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 203 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

7.3.7. Resulting Equations for the Cutting Process.

The strain rate is the rate of change of the strain with respect to time and can be defined as a velocity divided by a
characteristic length. For the cutting process it is important to relate the strain rate to the cutting (deformation)
velocity vc and the layer thickness hi. Since the deformation velocity is different for the cohesion in the shear plane
and the adhesion on the blade, two different equations are found for the strain rate as a function of the cutting
velocity.

vc s in   
 c  1 .4   (7-32)
hi s in     

vc s in   
 a  1 .4   (7-33)
hi s in     

This results in the following two equations for the multiplication factor for cohesion (internal shear strength) and
adhesion (external shear strength). With τy the cohesion at zero strain rate.

 vc s in    
 1 .4   
0  h i s in      
c  1   ln 1  (7-34)
y  0 
 
 
 

 vc s in    
 1 .4   
0  h i s in      
a  1  ln 1  (7-35)
y  0 
 
 
 

With:

 0 /  y  0 .1 4 2 8 ,  0  0 .0 3 (7-36)

Van der Schrieck (1996) published a graph showing the effect of the deformation rate on the specific energy when
cutting clay. Although the shape of the curves found are a bit different from the shape of the curves found with
equations (7-34) and (7-35), the multiplication factor for, in dredging common deformation rates, is about 2. This
factor matches the factor found with the above equations.

Page 204 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

T h e S tr a in R a t e E ff e c t o n th e S p e c ific E n e r g y ( v / d S c h r ie c k )
2500

2250

2000

1750
E s p (k P a )

1500

1250

1000

750

500

250

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

v c /h i ( 1 /s e c )
c= 75 kP a c= 150 kP a c= 225 kP a c= 300 kP a

T h e S tr a in R a t e E ff e c t o n th e S p e c ific E n e r g y ( M ie d e m a )
2500

2250

2000

1750
E s p (k P a )

1500

1250

1000

750

500

250

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

v c /h i ( 1 /s e c )
c= 75 kP a c= 150 kP a c= 225 kP a c= 300 kP a

Figure 7-17: Comparison of the model developed with the v/d Schrieck (1996) model.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 205 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 206 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

7.4. The Flow Type.

7.4.1. The Forces.
The most common failure mechanism in clay is the Flow Type as is shown in Figure 7-18, which will be
considered first. The Curling Type and the Tear Type may occur under special circumstances and will be derived
from the equations of the Flow Type.

Figure 7-18: The Flow Type cutting mechanism when cutting clay.

Figure 7-19: The forces on the layer cut in clay. Figure 7-20: The forces on the blade in clay.

Figure 7-19 illustrates the forces on the layer of soil cut. The forces shown are valid in general. The forces acting
on this layer are:
1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1 resulting from the effective grain stresses.
2. A shear force C as a result of pure cohesion c. This force can be calculated by multiplying the cohesion
c/cohesive shear strength c with the area of the shear plane.
3. A force normal to the blade N2 resulting from the effective grain stresses.
4. A shear force A as a result of pure adhesion between the soil and the blade a. This force can be calculated by
multiplying the adhesion a (adhesive shear strength a) of the soil with the contact area between the soil and
the blade.

The forces acting on a straight blade when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
5. A force normal to the blade N2 resulting from the effective grain stresses.
6. A shear force A as a result of pure adhesion between the soil and the blade a. This force can be calculated by
multiplying the adhesive shear strength a of the soil with the contact area between the soil and the blade.

These forces are shown in Figure 7-20.

Pure clay under undrained conditions follows the φ=0 concept, meaning that effectively there is no internal friction
and thus there is also no external friction. Under drained conditions clay will have some internal friction, although

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 207 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

smaller than sand. The reason for this is the very low permeability of the clay. If the clay is compressed with a
high strain rate, the water in the pores cannot flow away resulting in the pore water carrying the extra pressure, the
grain stresses do not change. If the grain stresses do not change, the shear stresses according to Coulomb friction
do not change and effectively there is no relation between the extra normal stresses and the shear stresses, so
apparently φ=0. At very low strain rates the pore water can flow out and the grains have to carry the extra normal
stresses, resulting in extra shear stresses. During the cutting of clay, the strain rates, deformation rates, are so big
that the internal and external friction angles can be considered to be zero. The adhesive and cohesive forces play
a dominant role, so that gravity and inertia can be neglected.

The horizontal equilibrium of forces:

 F h  N 1  s in (  )  C  c o s (  )  A  c o s (  )  N 2  s in (  )  0 (7-37)

The vertical equilibrium of forces:

 Fv   N 1  c o s ( )  C  s in ( )  A  s in (  )  N 2  cos( )  0 (7-38)

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

 C  cos(   )  A
N1  (7-39)
s in (    )

The force K2 on the blade is now:

C  A  cos(   )
N2  (7-40)
s in (    )
From equation (7-40) the forces on the blade can be derived. On the blade a force component in the direction of
cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

F h  N 2  s in (  )  A  c o s (  ) (7-41)
F   N 2  c o s (  )  A  s in (  ) (7-42)

Since λc and λa are almost identical, an average value λs is used in the following equations. With the relations for
the cohesive force C, the adhesive force A and the adhesion/cohesion ratio r (the ac ratio r):

s c hi  w
C  (7-43)
s in   
s a hb  w
A  (7-44)
s in   
a hb
r= (7-45)
c hi

The horizontal Fh and vertical Fv cutting forces can be determined according to:

s c hi w s a hb  w
 s in     s in   
C  s in    A  s in    s in    s in   
Fh  
s in (    ) s in (    )

(7-46)
s in    s in   
 r
s in    s in   
 s c hi w 
s in     

Page 208 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

s c hi  w s a hb  w
 cos     cos   
C  cos     A  cos    s in    s in   
F  
s in      s in (    )

(7-47)
cos    cos   
 r
s in    s in   
 s c hi  w 
s in     

The normal force on the shear plane is now equal to the force K1 as is used in sand cutting, because the internal
friction angle φ is zero:

 C  cos(   )  A
N1  (7-48)
s in (    )

The normal force on the blade is now equal to the force K2 as is used in sand cutting, because the external friction
angle δ is zero:

C  A  cos(   )
N2  (7-49)
s in (    )

Equations (7-48) and (7-49) show that both the normal force on the shear plane N1 and the normal force on the
blade N2 may become negative. This depends on the ac ratio between the adhesive and the cohesive forces r and
on the blade angle α and shear angle β. A negative normal force on the blade will result in the Curling Type of
cutting mechanism, while a negative normal force on the shear plane will result in the Tear Type of cutting
mechanism. If both normal forces are positive, the Flow Type of cutting mechanism will occur.

7.4.2. Finding the Shear Angle.

There is one unknown in the equations and that is the shear angle β. This angle has to be known to determine
cutting forces, specific energy and power.

 s in (  ) s in (  ) 
  r 
s in (  ) s in (  ) a hb
Fh  s c hi  w   w it h : r = (7-50)
 s in (    )  c hi
 
 

Equation (7-50) for the horizontal cutting force Fh can be rewritten as:

 2 2
s in (  )  r  s in (  ) 
Fh   s  c  h i  w      s  c  hi  w   HF (7-51)
 s in (    )  s in (  )  s in (  ) 
 

Equation (7-47) for the vertical cutting force Fv can be rewritten as:

 s in (  )  c o s     r  s in (  )  c o s    
Fv   s  c  h i  w      s  c  h i  w   V F (7-52)
 s in (    )  s in (  )  s in (  )
 

The strengthening factor λs, which is not very sensitive for β in the range of cutting velocities vc as applied in
dredging, can be determined by:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 209 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

  vc s in (  ) 
  1 .4   
0 h i s in (    )
s  1  ln 1 
   
y
  0  (7-53)
  

W it h :  0 /  y  0 .1 4 2 8 a n d  0  0 .0 3

The shear angle β is determined by the case where the horizontal cutting force Fh is at a minimum, based on the
minimum energy principle (omitting the strengthening factor λs).

    c o s     s in       s in   
2
 Fh 2  r  s in

      s in     s in   
2 2 2
s in

(7-54)
 s in     s in    2     s in  2
   r  s in
2
 
  0
     s in     s in   
2 2 2
s in

In the special case where there is no adhesion a=0, r=0, the shear angle β is:

 
s in    2     0 f o r   2     g iv in g  =  (7-55)
2 2

An approximation equation for β based on curve fitting on equation (7-54) for the range 0.5<r<2 gives:

  0 .1 7 4   0 .3 1 4 8  r 
  1 .2 6  e in radians or
(7-56)
  0 .0 0 3   0 .3 1 4 8  r 
  7 2 .2  e in degrees

For a clay, with shear strength c=1 kPa, a layer thickness of hi=0.1 m and a blade width of w=1 m Figure 7-21,
Figure 7-23 and Figure 7-24 give the values of the shear angle β, the horizontal cutting force Fh and the vertical
cutting force Fv for different values of the adhesion/cohesion (ac) ratio r and as a function of the blade angle α.
The use of the ac ratio r makes the graphs independent of individual values of hb and a. In these calculations the
strain rate factor λs is set to 1. For different values of the strain rate factor λ, the cohesion c, the blade with w and
the layer thickness hi, the values found in Figure 7-23 and Figure 7-24 can be multiplied by the corresponding
factors.

The horizontal cutting force Fh is at an absolute minimum when:


   (7-57)
2

This is however only useful if the blade angle α can be chosen freely. For a worst case scenario with an ac ratio
r=2, meaning a high adhesion, a blade angle α of about 55º is found (see Figure 7-23), which matches blade angles
as used in dredging. The fact that this does not give an optimum for weaker clays (clays with less adhesion) is not
so relevant.

Figure 7-21, Figure 7-23 and Figure 7-24 show that the shear angle β is decreasing with an increasing blade angle
α and an increasing ac ratio r. For practical blade angles between 45 and 60 degrees, the shear angle may vary
between 35 and 60-70 degrees, depending on the ac ratio r. The horizontal force first decreases to a minimum with
an increasing blade angle, after which it increases. At very large blade angles the horizontal force increases strongly
to values that are not reasonable anymore. Nature will find another mechanism with smaller forces, the wedge
mechanism, which will be described in Chapter 13: A Wedge in Clay Cutting. The vertical force (positive is

Page 210 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

downwards directed) is first increasing with an increasing blade angle to a maximum value, after which it is
decreasing to very large negative (upwards directed) values at very large blade angles.

Figure 7-22 shows the sum of the blade angle and the shear angle. When this sum is 90 degrees, the minimum of
the horizontal force is found. The graph shows clearly that this is the case for a 55 degree blade and an ac ratio
r=2.

See Appendix V: Clay Cutting Charts for more and higher resolution charts.

7.4.3. Specific Energy.

In the dredging industry, the specific cutting energy Esp is described as:

The amount of energy, that has to be added to a volume unit of soil (e.g. clay) to excavate the soil.

The dimension of the specific cutting energy is: kN/m² or kPa for sand and clay, while for rock often MN/m 2 or
MPa is used. For the case as described above, cutting with a straight blade with the direction of the cutting velocity
vc perpendicular to the blade (edge of the blade), the specific cutting energy Esp is:

Fh  v c Fh
E sp   (7-58)
hi  w  vc hi  w

With the following equation for the horizontal cutting force Fh:

 2 2
s in (  )  r  s in (  ) 
Fh   s  c  h i  w      s  c  hi  w   HF (7-59)
 s in (    )  s in (  )  s in (  ) 
 

This gives for the specific cutting energy Esp:

Fh  v c  2 2
s in (  )  r  s in (  ) 
E sp   s c    s  c   HF (7-60)
hi  w  vc  s in (    )  s in (  )  s in (  ) 
 

The cohesion c is half the UCS value, which can be related to the SPT value of the clay by a factor 12, so the
cohesion is related by a factor 6 to the SPT value (see Table 7-1), further, the strengthening λ factor will have a
value of about 2 at normal cutting velocities of meters per second, this gives:

 s  c  2  6  SP T  12  SP T (7-61)

Now a simplified equation for the specific energy Esp is found by:

 2 2
s in (  )  r  s in (  ) 
E sp  1 2  S P T     12  SP T   HF (7-62)
 s in (    )  s in (  )  s in (  ) 
 

Figure 7-25 shows the specific energy Esp and the production Pc per 100 kW installed cutting power as a function
of the SPT value.

Table 7-1: Guide for Consistency of Fine-Grained Soil

(Lambe & Whitman (1979)).

SPT Penetration Estimated UCS (kPa)

(blows/ foot) Consistency
<2 Very Soft Clay <24
2-4 Soft Clay 24 - 48
4-8 Medium Clay 48 - 96
8 - 16 Stiff Clay 96 – 192

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 211 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

16 - 32 Very Stiff Clay 192 – 384

>32 Hard Clay >384

See Appendix U: Specific Energy in Clay for more graphs on the specific energy in clay.

The Shear Angle β vs. The Blade Angle α

90

80

70
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

60
r=2.00

50
r=1.00
r=0.50

40
r=0.25
r=0.10

30
r=0.00

20

10

0
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-21: The shear angle as a function of the blade angle and the ac ratio r.

The Blade Angle α + The Shear Angle β vs. The Blade Angle α
180
170
160
150
Blade Angle α + Shear Angle β (Degrees)

140
130
120
110 r=2.00

100
r=1.00

90
r=0.50

80
r=0.25

70
r=0.10

60
r=0.00

50
40
30
20
10
0
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-22: The blade angle α + the shear angle β.

Page 212 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

The Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHF vs. The Blade Angle α
10

9
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHF (-)

r=2.00
6
r=1.00

5
r=0.50
r=0.25
4 r=0.10
r=0.00
3

0
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Blade angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-23: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHF as a function of

the blade angle and the ac ratio r.

The Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVF vs. The Blade Angle α
2.0

1.0

0.0
Vertical cutting force Coefficient λVF (-)

-1.0

-2.0
r=2.00
-3.0
r=1.00
-4.0 r=0.50
r=0.25
-5.0
r=0.10
-6.0 r=0.00

-7.0

-8.0

-9.0

-10.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-24: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVF as a function of the blade angle and the ac ratio r.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 213 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Specific energy
6000

5400

4800

4200

3600
kPa

3000

2400

1800

1200

600

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT
r = 0.25 r = 0.50 r =1 r =2 r =4

Production per 100 kW

100000

10000
m3 /hour

1000

100

10
1 10 100
SPT
r = 0.25 r = 0.50 r =1 r =2 r =4

Specific energy and production for a 60 degree blade in clay.

Figure 7-25: Specific energy and production in clay for a 60 degree blade.

Page 214 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

7.5. The Tear Type.

7.5.1. Introduction.
In the previous chapter, the equations for the cutting forces of the Flow Type cutting mechanism have been
derived. These equation however do not take into consideration that normal forces and thus stresses may become
negative and may exceed the tensile strength of the clay. If the tensile stresses exceed the tensile strength, tensile
failure will occur and the clay will not fail by plastic shear failure, but by tensile failure. The failure mechanism in
this case is named the Tear Type mechanism. Based on the Mohr circle, tensile cracks will occur under and angle
of 45 degrees downwards with respect of the shear angle as is shown in Figure 7-26. When the blade is progressing
with the cutting velocity, after a short while a so called secondary crack will occur under 90 degrees with the first
(primary) crack. The model as derived in this chapter, does not assume that the tensile strength is exceeded at the
moment of tensile crack forming over the full length of the tensile crack. The model assumes that the tensile
strength is exceeded at the start of the tensile crack only. In order to determine whether the tensile strength is
exceeded, the average shear stress in the shear plane is used. Of course there may be a stress distribution in the
shear plane, leading to locally higher and lower shear stresses and thus normal stresses, but these cannot be
determined with the methodology used. Only average stresses can be determined. The methodology applied
however gives reasonable and practical tools to determine whether the Tear Type cutting mechanism will occur
or not.

Figure 7-26: The Tear Type cutting mechanism in clay.

7.5.2. The Normal Force on the Shear Plane.

In order to determine the normal (possibly tensile) stresses on the shear plane, first the normal force on the shear
plane has to be determined.

 C  cos(   )  A
N1  (7-63)
s in (    )

Substituting the equations for the cohesive force C and the adhesive force A gives:

s c hi  w s a hb  w
  cos(   ) 
s in    s in    (7-64)
N1 
s in (    )

The average normal stress on the shear plane equals the normal force on the shear plane N1, divided by the cross
sectional area of the shear plane, giving:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 215 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

N 1  s in   
 N1  (7-65)
hi  w

Substituting equation (7-64) in equation (7-65) gives for the normal stress on the shear plane:

s c hi  w s a hb  w
  cos(   ) 
s in    s in    s in   
 N1  
hi w s in (    )

(7-66)
s in   
 cos(   )  r 
s in   
 s c
s in (    )

Assuming a fixed strain rate factor λs for cohesion and tensile strength, the normal stress minus the shear strength
(cohesion) has to be bigger than the tensile strength, where the tensile strength is negative (compressive stresses
are positive).

 N1   s  c   s   T (7-67)

Substituting equation (7-66) into equation (7-67) gives the condition for ductile failure:

s in   
 cos(   )  r 
s in    (7-68)
s c  s c  s T
s in (    )

The transition from the Flow Type mechanism to the Tear Type mechanism is at the moment where the equal
sign is used in the above equation, resulting in a critical ratio between the tensile strength and the shear strength,
still also depending on the ac ratio r according to:

 s in    
 r  c o s (    )  s in (    ) 
T  s in    
 (7-69)
c  s in (    ) 
 
 
 

Figure 7-27 shows the critical ratio curves of the ratio of the tensile strength to the shear strength (cohesion) of the
transition of the Flow Type mechanism to the Tear Type mechanism. Since the tensile strength is considered to
be negative, the more negative this ratio, the higher the relative tensile strength. Below a curve the Flow Type
may be expected, above a curve the Tear Type. Only negative ratios should be considered, since the tensile
strength cannot be positive. The figure shows that for r=1 (high adhesive forces) the curve just touches a ratio of
zero, but never becomes negative, meaning the Tear Type will never occur. For smaller r values the curves are
more negative for a decreasing r value. The minimum for r is zero (no adhesion). The figure also shows that all
curves (except the r=0 curve) start with a positive value, then decrease with an increasing blade angle to a minimum
value and with a further increasing blade angle increase again to positive values. For blade angles larger than 90
degrees tensile failure will never occur. Because of the choice of the parameter hb, the blade height, at constant
blade height the length of the blade is increasing with a decreasing blade angle. This means that the adhesive force
on the blade increases with a decreasing blade angle, resulting in increasing normal stresses on the shear plane.
Higher normal stresses suppress tensile failure. On the other hand, an increasing blade angle will increase the
normal stress on the shear plane because of the force equilibrium. So we have two effects, the normal stresses on
the shear plane will decrease with an increasing blade angle because of the decrease of the adhesive force and the
normal stresses will increase with an increases blade angle because of the force equilibrium. The result is a curve
with a minimum.

Page 216 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

7.5.3. The Mobilized Shear Strength.

Assuming a mobilized shear stress cm in the shear plane at the moment of tensile failure, gives:

 s in    
 rm   c o s (    )  s in (    ) 
 s in    
cm   T (7-70)
 s in (    ) 
 
 
 

Or:

 
 
 s in (    ) 
cm   T  (7-71)
 s in    
 rm   c o s (    )  s in (    ) 
 s in    
 

Since the mobilized shear stress cm is smaller than the shear strength c, also the ac ratio rm will be different from
the ac ratio r when the shear stress is fully mobilized up to the shear strength. This gives for the mobilized ac ratio
rm:

 s in    
 rm   c o s (    )  s in (    ) 
a hb a hb  s in    
rm    (7-72)
cm  h i T hi  s in (    ) 
 
 
 

The mobilized ac ratio rm is present on both sides of the equal sign. This gives for the mobilized ac ratio rm:

 cos      
rT   1  
 s in     
 
rm 
 s in    
 r T   1

 s in     s in       (7-73)

a hb
W it h : rT 
T hi

The normal stress on the shear plane is now:

s in   
 c o s (    )  rm 
s in    (7-74)
 N 1 ,m   s  c m 
s in (    )

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 217 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Tensile Strength/Shear Strength Ratio at Transition of

Flow Type/Tear Type
1.0
0.9 r=1.0
0.8
0.7 r=0.9
0.6
r=0.8
0.5
0.4
r=0.7
0.3
0.2 r=0.6
0.1
σT/c (-)

0.0 r=0.5
-0.1
-0.2 r=0.4
-0.3
-0.4 r=0.3
-0.5
r=0.2
-0.6
-0.7
r=0.1
-0.8
-0.9 r=0.0
-1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-27: The transition Flow Type vs. Tear Type.

Figure 7-28: The Mohr circles when cutting clay.

Page 218 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

7.5.4. The Resulting Cutting Forces.

Substituting the mobilized shear strength cm and the mobilized ac ratio rm gives the horizontal and vertical forces
in the case of brittle failure, the Tear Type cutting mechanism:

s in    s in   
 rm 
s in    s in   
Fh   s   T  h i  w 
s in   
rm   c o s (    )  s in (    )
s in    (7-75)

 HT
  s   T  h i  w  rT 
rT

cos    cos   
 rm 
s in    s in   
Fv   s   T  h i  w 
s in   
rm   c o s (    )  s in (    )
s in    (7-76)

 VT
  s   T  h i  w  rT 
rT

The cutting forces are not dependent on the shear strength anymore, but completely dependent on the tensile
strength and the adhesion.
Figure 7-29, Figure 7-30, Figure 7-31 and Figure 7-32 show the shear angle β, the horizontal cutting force
coefficient λHT/rT, the vertical cutting force coefficient λVT/rT and the last one zoomed for the Tear Type of cutting
mechanism. The figures show that for large values of rT, the shear angle and the cutting force coefficients hardly
depend on the factor rT. It should be mentioned that the graphs show λHT/rT and λVT/rT and not λHT and λVT. A
large or very large value of rT means a very small tensile strength compared to the adhesion. Equations (8-112)
and (8-113) can be rewritten for the case of a very small relative tensile strength according to:

 HT a hb  HT
F h   s   T  h i  w  rT   s T hi  w  
rT T hi rT

(7-77)
 HT
 s a hb  w 
rT

 VT a hb  VT
F v   s   T  h i  w  rT   s T hi  w  
rT T hi rT

(7-78)
 VT
 s a hb  w 
rT

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 219 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

90
rt=0.0100
80
rt=0.0316

70
rt=0.100
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

60
rt=0.316

50 rt=1.00

40 rt=3.16

30
rt=10

rt=100
20

rt=1000
10

rt=10000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-29: The shear angle β vs. the blade angle α for the Tear Type.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHT/rT vs. Blade Angle α

1000.0
rt=0.0100

rt=0.0316
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHT/rT (-)

100.0 rt=0.100

rt=0.316

rt=1.00
10.0
rt=3.16

rt=10

1.0 rt=100

rt=1000

rt=10000
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-30: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHT/rT.

Page 220 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVT/rT vs. Blade Angle α

100
rt=0.0100
90

rt=0.0316
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVT/rT (-)

80

rt=0.100
70

60 rt=0.316

50 rt=1.00

40 rt=3.16

30
rt=10

20
rt=100
10
rt=1000
0
rt=10000
-10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-31: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVT/rT.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVT/rT vs. Blade Angle α

2.0
1.8 rt=0.0100
1.6
1.4 rt=0.0316
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVT/rT (-)

1.2
1.0 rt=0.100
0.8
0.6 rt=0.316
0.4
0.2 rt=1.00
0.0
-0.2 rt=3.16
-0.4
-0.6 rt=10
-0.8
-1.0 rt=100
-1.2
-1.4 rt=1000
-1.6
-1.8 rt=10000
-2.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-32: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVT/rT zoomed.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 221 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

7.6. The Curling Type.

7.6.1. Introduction.
When the layer thickness becomes very small, two things can happen. The normal force on the blade may become
negative or there is no equilibrium of moments. In both cases the contact length between the clay and the blade
has to be reduced. There can be different mechanisms for this. In steel cutting the curling of the chip cut is well
known, but there could also be buckling or breaking of the layer cut. The result is the same, the clay will have a
reduced contact length with the blade. This type of cutting mechanism is named the Curling Type. Both the normal
force not becoming negative and the equilibrium of moments will be investigated. The mechanism with the
smallest cutting forces is assumed to be the correct mechanism.

Figure 7-33: The Curling Type cutting mechanism when cutting clay.

7.6.2. The Normal Force on the Blade.

From the Flow Type of cutting mechanism the following equation is derived for the normal force on the blade:

C  A  cos(   )
N 2  (7-79)
s in (    )

Substituting the equations (7-43) and (7-44) gives:

s c hi  w s a hb  w
  cos(   )
s in    s in   
N 2 
s in (    )

(7-80)
1 r
  cos(   )
s in    s in   
 s c hi  w 
s in (    )

Dividing the normal force by the surface of the blade gives the average normal stress on the blade:

N 2  s in   
N2  (7-81)
hb  w

Page 222 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

This gives for the normal stress on the blade:

s c hi  w s a hb  w
  cos(   )
s in    s in    s in   
N2  
hb  w s in (    )

(7-82)
1 s in   
  cos(   )
r s in   
 s a
s in (    )

As stated before this normal stress should have a value greater than zero, since it is assumed that there is no tensile
strength between the clay and the blade.

N2  0 (7-83)

In details this gives for the condition of no negative normal stress on the blade:

1 s in   
  cos(   )
r s in    (7-84)
s a   0
s in (    )

At the critical condition where the normal stress equals zero this gives:

1 s in   
  c os(   ) (7-85)
r s in   

In the case of the Curling Type, the ac ratio r is not fully mobilized giving:

s in    1
rm   (7-86)
s in    c o s (    )

Substituting this mobilized ac ratio rm in equations (7-46) and (7-47) gives for the cutting forces:

s in    s in    s in    1
 rm  
s in    s in    s in    cos     
Fh   s  c  h i  w   s c hi  w 
s in      s in     

(7-87)
cos   
s in   
 s c hi  w 
cos     

cos    cos    cos    cos    1

 rm   
s in    s in    s in    s in    cos(   )
F   s  c  h i  w   s c hi  w 
s in      s in     
(7-88)
s in   
s in   
 s c hi  w 
cos     

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 223 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

This method is simple and straightforward, but does not take a normal stress distribution on the blade into account.
It does however give a prediction of the cutting forces and the reduced contact length on the blade. The unknown
in the equations is the shear angle β. Assuming that the mechanism will choose a shear angle where the cutting
energy is at a minimum, a shear angle β is found according to:

 
   (7-89)
4 2

If we substitute this solution in the cutting force equations we find:

cos   
Fh  2   s  c  h i  w  (7-90)
1  s in   

s in   
F   2   s  c  h i  w  (7-91)
1  s in   

The horizontal force will increase with an increasing blade angle, the vertical force also, but upwards directed. In
the case of the Curling Type, the ac ratio r is not fully mobilized giving:

s in   
rm  2  (7-92)
1  s in   

The condition of having a normal force of zero on the blade can never fulfill the condition of having an equilibrium
of moments on the layer cut, since the normal force on the blade is zero and is therefore rejected. Still this condition
gives insight in the behavior of the equations of clay cutting and is therefore mentioned here.

7.6.3. The Equilibrium of Moments.

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the equilibrium of moments on the layer cut has to be fulfilled. If we take
the equilibrium of moments around the tip of the blade, there are only two forces participating in the equilibrium
of moments, the normal force on the shear plane N1 and the normal force on the blade N2. These forces have acting
points R1 and R2 on the shear plane and on the blade. If the normal stresses are uniformly distributed, both acting
points will be at the center (half way) the corresponding planes. The acting point of the normal force on the shear
plane will be at half the length of the shear plane and the acting point of the normal force on the blade will be at
half the (mobilized) length of the blade. Two factors are introduced to give the exact location of these acting points,
λ1 on the shear plane and λ2 on the blade. When the moment N2·R2 on the blade is greater than the moment N1·R1
on the blade curling will occur in such a way that both moments are equal. The contact length between the clay
and the blade will be reduced to a mobilized contact length hb,m.

The normal force on the shear plane is now equal to the force N1, because the internal friction angle is zero:

 C  cos(   )  A
N1  (7-93)
s in (    )

The normal force on the blade is now equal to the force N2, because the external friction angle is zero:

C  A  cos(   )
N2  (7-94)
s in (    )

This gives for the equilibrium of moments:

N1  R1  N 2  R 2 (7-95)

For both acting points we can write:

Page 224 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

1 hi  2  h b ,m
R1  ,R  (7-96)
s in    s in   
2

Substituting equations (7-93), (7-94) and (7-96) in equation (7-95) gives:

 A  C  cos(   )   1  h i  C  A  c o s (    )   2  h b ,m
     (7-97)
 s in (    )  s in     s in (    )  s in   

Substituting equations (7-45) and (7-46) for the cohesive and adhesive forces gives:

 a h c hi   h
 cos       
b ,m
 
1 i
 s in    s in     s in   
 
(7-98)
 ch a  h b ,m   h
 cos       
2 b ,m
 
i

 s in    s in     s in   
 

Rewriting this term by term gives:

a  h b ,m 1 hi c hi 1 hi

    cos     
s in    s in    s in    s in   

(7-99)
c hi  2  h b ,m a  h b ,m  2  h b ,m
     cos     
s in    s in    s in    s in   

Moving the terms with adhesion to the left side and the terms with cohesion to the right side gives:

a  h b ,m 1 hi a  h b ,m  2  h b ,m
    cos     
s in    s in    s in    s in   
(7-100)
c hi  2  h b ,m c hi 1 hi
     cos     
s in    s in    s in    s in   

This gives a second degree function of the mobilized blade height according to:

 2  a  cos      1 a  2 c
 h b ,m  h b ,m   h i  h b ,m
s in     s in    s in     s in   
(7-101)
 1  c  cos     
 hi hi  0
s in     s in   

This second degree function can be solved with the A, B, C formula and has two solutions.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 225 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2
A x  B x C  0

B  B
2
 4A C a  h b ,m
h b ,m  x  w it h : r m 
2A c hi

 2  a  cos     
A 
s in     s in    (7-102)

1 a  2 c
B  hi
s in     s in   

 1  c  cos     
C   hi hi
s in     s in   

The following criteria are valid for the use of this method.

if h b ,m  h b t h e n u s e h b ,m
(7-103)
if h b ,m  h b t h e n u s e h b ,m

To see which solution is valid, the terms of the equation have to be analyzed. For α+β<π/2 the term A>0 and C<0
because of the minus sign. The term B is always positive. This will only result in a positive solution if the + sign
is applied. For α+β>π/2 the term A<0 and C>0 because of the minus sign. This will only result in a positive
solution if the – sign is applied. So at small blade angles the plus sign gives the correct solution, while large blade
angles require the minus sign solution.
Figure 7-35, Figure 7-36 and Figure 7-37 show the shear angle and the horizontal cutting force coefficient and the
vertical cutting force coefficient for the Curling Type. At large blade angles, both the horizontal and vertical
forces become very large. In cases of large blade angles the Curling Type will hardly occur because the Flow
Type results in smaller forces.

s in    s in   
 rm 
s in    s in    (7-104)
Fh   s  c  h i  w    s  c  hi  w   HC
s in     

cos    cos   
 rm 
s in    s in    (7-105)
F   s  c  h i  w    s  c  h i  w   VC
s in     

Page 226 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

Figure 7-34: The equilibrium of moments on the layer cut in clay.

Figure 7-35, Figure 7-36 and Figure 7-37 clearly show the transition from the plus root solution to the minus root
solution. This transition results in a discontinuity. How exactly this transition will take place in nature is still
subject for further research. Confidential tests in clay with blade angles of 20, 30 and 40 degrees have shown that
the plus root solution is valid at small blade angles, tests in hyperbaric rock cutting with a blade angle of 110
degrees have shown that the minus root solution is valid at large blade angles (see Chapter 9:). One should consider
that the Curling Type only occurs with thin layers. Once the required mobilized blade height exceeds the actual
blade height, the Flow Type will occur. So for example, if blade height and layer thickness are equal, the ratio
cannot exceed 1 and depending on the a/c ratio, the Flow Type will occur above a certain blade angle.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 227 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

100
95 a/c=1.0
90
85 a/c=0.9
80
75 a/c=0.8
70
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

65
a/c=0.7
60
a/c=0.6
55
50
a/c=0.5
45
40 a/c=0.4
35
30 a/c=0.3
25
20 a/c=0.2
15
10 a/c=0.1
5
a/c=0.0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-35: The shear angle β for the Curling Type.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs. Blade Angle α

10
a/c=1.0
9
a/c=0.9
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

8
a/c=0.8

7 a/c=0.7

a/c=0.6
6

a/c=0.5
5
a/c=0.4
4
a/c=0.3

3
a/c=0.2

2 a/c=0.1

a/c=0.0
1

N2>0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-36: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC.

Page 228 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs. Blade Angle α

10
a/c=1.0

5 a/c=0.9
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

a/c=0.8
0
a/c=0.7

-5 a/c=0.6

a/c=0.5
-10
a/c=0.4

-15 a/c=0.3

a/c=0.2
-20
a/c=0.1

-25 a/c=0.0

N2>0
-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-37: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC.

Ratio hb/hi vs. Blade Angle α

at Transition of Flow Type/Curling Type
8 a/c=1.0

a/c=0.9
7

a/c=0.8
6
a/c=0.7

5 a/c=0.6
Ratio hb/hi (-)

4
a/c=0.5

a/c=0.4
3
a/c=0.3

2
a/c=0.2

1 a/c=0.1

a/c=0.0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-38: The ratio hb/hi at the transition Flow Type/Curling Type.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 229 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

7.7. Resulting Forces.

Now the question is, when do we have a Flow Type, Curling Type or Tear Type and how does this depend on
the different parameters. This is explained by a number of examples.

Example 1: Cohesion c=1 kPa, adhesion a=1 kPa, tensile strength σT=-0.3 kPa, blade height hb=0.1 m, blade
angle α=55°, forces per unit width of the blade.

Horizontal Cutting Force Fh vs. Layer Thickness hi

0.75

0.70
Fh Flow
0.65

0.60
Horizontal Cutting Force Fh (kN)

0.55
Fh Tear - Beta Flow
0.50

0.45

0.40
Fh Tear - Beta Tear
0.35

0.30

0.25
Fh Curling
0.20

0.15

0.10
Fh Resulting
0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Layer Thickness hi (m)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-39: Horizontal force; cohesion c=1 kPa, adhesion a=1 kPa, tensile strength σT=-0.3 kPa, blade
height hb=0.1 m, blade angle α=55°

According to Figure 7-27 (see also Figure 7-40) there will be a transition from the Flow Type to the Tear Type
at r=0.3, so a layer thickness hi=0.32 m. But will this really happen? Suppose we investigate the undercutting
process of a cutter head, where the layer thickness increases from zero to a maximum during the rotation of a
blade. When the blade starts cutting the layer thickness is zero and increases in time. First the cutting process is of
the Curling Type up to a layer thickness of about hi=0. 65 m. At this layer thickness the mobilized blade height
equals the actual blade height and there is a transition from the Curling Type to the Flow Type. When the layer
thickness is increased further, at a layer thickness of about hi=0.32 m the normal stresses on the shear plane result
in normal stresses more negative than the tensile strength under an angle of 45° downwards with respect to the
direction of the shear plane, so there is a transition from the Flow Type to the Tear Type. However, once the Tear
Type of cutting mechanism occurs, this mechanism will search for a shear angle, resulting in a minimum cutting
force. This shear angle tends not to be equal to the optimum shear angle of the Flow Type. Figure 7-21 shows the
optimum shear angle of the Flow Type, while Figure 7-29 shows the optimum shear angle of the Tear Type. The
result is a discontinuity in the cutting force, the cutting force is reduced (the beta real curve) at the moment the
Tear Type is the cutting mechanism. Another reduction may occur, because the force calculated is the force at the
start of a tensile crack. When the blade continues moving forward, the horizontal force will probably be smaller
than the force at the initiation of the tensile crack, resulting in a lower average force.
Now suppose we are overcutting with our cutter head. This means we start with some maximum layer thickness
thick enough to cause the Tear Type to occur. When the blade progresses, the layer thickness decreases. But since
the curve of the real beta is followed, the Tear Type will continue until a layer thickness of about hi=0.065 m is
reached. In fact, each time a block of clay breaks out of the clay and the cutting process starts again. At the layer
thickness of about hi=0.065 m there is a transition directly from the Tear Type to the Flow Type.

Page 230 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

Vertical Cutting Force Fh vs. Layer Thickness hi

0.30

0.25
Fv Flow
0.20
Vertical Cutting Force Fv (kN)

0.15
Fv Tear - Beta Flow
0.10

0.05

0.00 Fv Tear - Beta Tear

-0.05

-0.10
Fv Curling
-0.15

-0.20

-0.25
Fv Resulting

-0.30
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Layer Thickness hi (m)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-40: Vertical force; Cohesion c=1 kPa, adhesion a=1 kPa, tensile strength σT=-0.3 kPa, blade
height hb=0.1 m, blade angle α=55°

Figure 7-41 shows the Mohr circles for the Flow Type and the Tear Type for a layer thickness of hi=0.1 m. Both
mechanisms are possible. Which one occurs depends on the history, since both only touch one failure criterion.
Figure 7-42 shows the Mohr circles for the Flow Type and the Tear Type for a layer thickness of hi=0.5 m. The
Mohr circle for shear failure (Flow Type) crosses the tensile failure criterion and thus cannot exist. Only one
mechanism is possible, the Tear Type.

Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress

1.5

Sigma Axis

1.0

Tau Axis

0.5
Shear Stress (kPa)

Tensile Failure
Criterion
0.0

Shear Failure
Criterion
-0.5

Mohr Circle
Shear Failure
-1.0

Mohr Circle
Tensile Failure 2
-1.5
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Normal Stress (kPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-41: The Mohr circles for hi=0.1 m, two possibilities.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 231 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress

1.5

Sigma Axis

1.0

Tau Axis

0.5
Shear Stress (kPa)

Tensile Failure
Criterion
0.0

Shear Failure
Criterion
-0.5

Mohr Circle
Shear Failure
-1.0

Mohr Circle
Tensile Failure 2
-1.5
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Normal Stress (kPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-42: The Mohr circles for hi=0.5 m, only tensile failure possible.

Page 232 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

C la y C u ttin g
1000
E s p in k P a

100

T h in

T h ic k

10
10 100 1000

C o m p r e s s iv e s tr e n g th ( U C S ) in k P a
V la s b lo m r= 2 r= 1 r = 0 .5

T h e s p e c ific e n e r g y E s p a s a fu n c tio n o f th e c o m p re s s iv e s tr e n g th o f c la y ,
fo r d iffe re n t la y e r th ic k n e s s e s a t v c = 1 m /s fo r a 6 0 d e g r e e b la d e .

Figure 7-43: The specific energy Esp in clay as a function of the compressive strength (UCS).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 233 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

7.8. Experiments in Clay.

7.8.1. Experiments of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B).
Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) carried out experiments in sand, clay and loam. The experiments were carried out
with blade angles α of 30°, 45°, 60°, 75° and 90°, layer thicknesses hi of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.15 m and cutting velocities
vc of 0.05, 0.10 and 0.14 m/sec. The blade had a fixed length L4 of 0.2 m and a fixed width w of 0.33 m. The
clay/loam had a dynamic cohesion c of 27.9 kPa and a dynamic adhesion a of 13.95 kPa. Hatamura & Chijiiwa
(1977B) only give the dynamic cohesion and adhesion, not the static ones. Based on equation (7-53) an average
strengthening factor of about 1.5 can be determined. This factor may however vary with the blade angle and layer
thickness. Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) measured the shear angle β, the total cutting force and the direction of
the total cutting force. The also determined the location of the acting points of the different forces. In the model
they derived they used the horizontal and vertical force equilibrium equations and the equilibrium of moments
equation combined with their measured acting points. By solving the 3 equilibrium equations, they solved the
horizontal cutting force, the vertical cutting force and the shear angle, based on 3 equations with 3 unknowns. The
theory as derived here assumes a shear angle where there is a minimum horizontal force, based on the minimum
cutting energy principle. So the two approaches are different. Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) found that cutting
tests with cutting angles of 30° and 45° were according to the Tear Type, while the larger cutting angles followed
the Flow Type of cutting mechanism. This tells something about the tensile strength of the material. Based on the
above an ac ratio r of 0.5-0.7 can be derived. Figure 7-27 shows that a tensile strength to cohesion σT/c ratio of
about 0.2 may explain this. So it is assumed that the tensile strength is 20% of the cohesion.
Figure 7-44, Figure 7-45 and Figure 7-46 show the results of the experiments and the calcultations. The
calculations are carried out for both the Flow Type and the Tear Type. The shear angles predicted are 5°-10°
larger than the ones measured, however the tendency is the same.
The measured total cutting forces match the predicted cutting forces very well for the Tear Type for blade angles
of 30° and 45° and for the Flow Type for blade angles of 60°, 75° and 90°. The theory does predict the Tear Type
and the Flow Type for the corresponding blade angles. The directions measured of the total cutting force also
match the theory very well if the correct cutting mechanism is considered. So apparently the total cutting forces
and the direction of these forces can be predicted well, but the shear angle gives differences. We should consider
that the shear angle as used in the theory here is a straight line, a simplification. In reality the shear plane may be
curved, leading to different values of the shear angle measured. For the Tear Type it is not clear what definition
Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) used to determine the shear angle. Is it the point where the secondary tensile crack
reaches the surface? This explains some of the differences between the measured and calculated shear angles.
Overall, the theory as developed here predicts the cutting forces and the direction of these forces very well.

The force for a 60° blade and 0.05 m layer thickness is smaller than expected based on the Flow Type of cutting
process. This is caused by the Curling Type as shown below.

Figure 7-45 shows that the experiment with a layer thickness of 0.05 m with a blade angle of 60° gives a smaller
cutting force than estimated. Analyzing the 60° experiments as a function of the layer thickness gives Figure 7-47.
This figure shows that up to a layer thickness of about 0.08 m there will be a Curling Type of cutting process.
Above 0.08 m there will be a Flow Type of cutting process, while above about 0.20 m there will be a Tear Type
of cutting process. Once the Tear Type is present, the force will drop to the lower Tear Type curve as is visible
in the 30° and 45° experiments. Since all 3 cutting mechanisms were present in the experiments of Hatamura &
Chijiiwa (1977B), it is not possible to find just one equation for the cutting forces. Each of the 3 cutting
mechanisms has its own model or equation. Figure 7-48 shows the 30° experiment. It is clear from the figure that
at 0.10 m layer thickness the cutting mechanism of of the Tear Type.

Page 234 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

hi=0.05 m Flow Type

55

50 hi=0.10 m Flow Type

45
hi=0.15 m Flow Type
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

Experiments hi=0.05 m
35

30 Experiments hi=0.10 m

25
Experiments hi=0.15 m
20

hi=0.05 m Tear Type

15

10 hi=0.10 m Tear Type

5
hi=0.15 m Tear Type
0
30 45 60 75 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-44: The shear angles measured and calculated.

Total Cutting Force Ft vs. Blade Angle α

3000

2800 hi=0.05 m Flow Type

2600
hi=0.10 m Flow Type
2400

2200
hi=0.15 m Flow Type
Total Cutting Force Ft (N)

2000

1800 Experiments hi=0.05 m

1600
Experiments hi=0.10 m
1400

1200 Experiments hi=0.15 m

1000

800 hi=0.05 m Tear Type

600
hi=0.10 m Tear Type
400

200 hi=0.15 m Tear Type

0
30 45 60 75 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-45: The total cutting force measured and calculated.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 235 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Force Direction Angle ψ vs. Blade Angle α

40

35 hi=0.05 m Flow Type

30

25
hi=0.10 m Flow Type
Force Direction Angle ψ (Degrees)

20
hi=0.15 m Flow Type
15

10
Experiments hi=0.05 m
5

0 Experiments hi=0.10 m
-5

-10 Experiments hi=0.15 m

-15
hi=0.05 m Tear Type
-20

-25
hi=0.10 m Tear Type
-30

-35 hi=0.15 m Tear Type

-40
30 45 60 75 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-46: The direction of the total cutting force measured and calculated.

Horizontal Cutting Force Fh vs. Layer Thickness hi

3.00
2.90
2.80
2.70 Fh Flow
2.60
2.50
2.40
2.30
Horizontal Cutting Force Fh (kN)

2.20
2.10 Fh Tear - Beta Flow
2.00
1.90
1.80
1.70
1.60
1.50 Fh Tear - Beta Real
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90 Fh Curling
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30 Hatamura & Chijiiwa
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Layer Thickness hi (m)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-47: The 60 degree experiments.

Page 236 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

Horizontal Cutting Force Fh vs. Layer Thickness hi

3.00
2.90
2.80
2.70 Fh Flow
2.60
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.20
Horizontal Cutting Force Fh (kN)

2.10 Fh Tear - Beta Flow

2.00
1.90
1.80
1.70
1.60
1.50 Fh Tear - Beta Real
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90 Fh Curling
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30 Hatamura & Chijiiwa
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Layer Thickness hi (m)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-48: The 30 degree experiment.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 237 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

7.8.2. Wismer & Luth (1972B).

Wismer & Luth (1972B) investigated rate effects in soil cutting in dry sand, clay and loam. For clay and loam they
distinguished two rate effects, the inertial forces and the strengthening effect. For cutting velocities as known in
dredging (up to 5-6 m/sec), the inertial forces can be neglected compared to the static cutting forces (low cutting
velocities) and compared to the strengthening effect. Wismer & Luth (1972B) carried out experiments with blade
angles of 30°, 60° and 90°, blades of 0.19·0.29 m, 0.127·0.193 m and 0.0762·0.117 m (7.5·11.45 inch, 5.0·7.6
inch and 3.0·4.59 inch) and layer thicknesses from 0.0225-0.0762 m (0.9-3.0 inch). They did the experiments in
two types of clay. Unfortunately they did not mention the cohesion and adhesion, but the mentioned a cone
resistance. However, based on their graphs the cohesion could be deducted. The cone index 27 clay should have
had a cohesion of about 22.5 kPa and an adhesion of 11.25 kPa, the cone index 42 clay a cohesion of 34 kPa and
an adhesion of 17 kPa. The strengthening factor of Wismer & Luth (1972B) can be rewritten in SI Units, using the
reference strain rate of 0.03/sec, giving the following equation for the strengthening factor.

0 .1
 vc 
 
hi
  y s w ith : s    (7-106)
 0 .0 3 
 
 

Figure 7-49 shows the theoretical strengthening factors based on the average of equations (7-34) and (7-35) and
for the above equation for the minimum and maximum layer thickness, giving a range for the strengthening factor
and comparing the Miedema (1992) equation with the Wismer & Luth (1972B) equation. The figure also shows
the results of 5 series of tests as carried out by Wismer & Luth (1972B) with a 30° blade. The two equations match
well up to cutting velocities of 1.5 m/sec, but this may differ for other configurations. At high cutting velocities
the Wismer & Luth (1972B) equation gives larger strengthening factors. Both equations give a good correlation
with the experiments, but of course the number of experiments is limited. A realistic strengthening factor for
practical cutting velocities in dredging is a factor 2. In other words, a factor of about 2 should be used to multiply
the static measured cohesion, adhesion and tensile strength.
It should be mentioned that the above equation is modified compared with the original Wismer & Luth (1972B)
equation. They used the ratio cutting velocity to blade width to get the correct dimension for strain rate, here the
ratio cutting velocity to layer thickness is used, which seems to be more appropriate. The constant of 0.03 is the
constant found from the experiments of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B).

Strengthening Factor λ vs. Cutting Velocity vc

3.0
Labda Miedema 1
2.8

2.6
Labda Miedema 2
2.4

2.2 Labda Wismer &

Luth 1
Strengthening Factor λ (-)

2.0
Labda Wismer &
1.8 Luth 2
1.6
W&L Series 1
1.4

1.2 W&L Series 2

1.0
W&L Series 3
0.8

0.6
W&L Series 4
0.4

0.2 W&L Series 5

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Cutting Velocity vc (m/sec)
© S.A.M.

Figure 7-49: The strengthening factor.

Page 238 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting.

7.9. Nomenclature.
a Adhesion kPa
A Adhesive force on the blade kN
B Frequency (material property) 1/s
c Cohesion kPa
cm Mobilized shear strength kPa
C Cohesive force on shear plane kN
E Energy level J/kmol
Ea Activation energy level J/kmol
El Limiting (maximum) energy level J/kmol
Esp Specific cutting energy kPa
f Shear force on flow unit N
F Cutting force kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force kN
Fv Vertical cutting force kN
G Gravitational force kN
h Planck constant (6.626·10-34 J·s) J·s
hb Blade height m
hb,m Mobilized blade height m
hi Layer thickness m
k Boltzman constant (1.3807·10-23 J/K) J/K
K Constant Herschel Bulkley equation -
K1 Grain force on the shear plane kN
K2 Grain force on the blade kN
i Coefficient -
I Inertial force on the shear plane kN
n Power of strain rate equation -
N Avogadro constant (6.02·1026 1/kmol) -
N1 Normal force on shear plane kN
N2 Normal force on blade kN
p Probability -
Pc Cutting power kW
r Ratio adhesive force to cohesive force -
rm Mobilized ratio adhesive force to cohesive force -
rT Ratio adhesive force to tensile force -
R Universal gas constant (8314 J/kmol/K) J/kmol/K
R1 Acting point on shear plane m
R2 Acting point on blade m
S Number of bonds per unit area 1/m²
S1 Shear force due to internal friction on the shear surface kN
S2 Shear force due to soil/steel friction on the blade kN
SPT Standard Penetration Test Blows/foot
T Absolute temperature K
T Tensile force kN
vc Cutting velocity m/s
w Blade width m
W1 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the shear plane kN
W2 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the blade kN
X Function -
 Blade angle rad
 Angle of the shear plane with the direction of cutting velocity rad
 a  Strain rate adhesion 1/s
c  Strain rate cohesion 1/s
0  Strain rate from triaxial test 1/s
 frequency of activation 1/s
 Distance between equilibrium positions m

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 239 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

λa Strain rate factor adhesive force -

λ c Strain rate factor cohesive force -
λs Strain rate factor average adhesion and cohesion (usually 2) -
λ1 Acting point factor on shear plane -
λ2 Acting point factor on blade -
λHF Horizontal cutting force coefficient Flow Type -
λVF Vertical cutting force coefficient Flow Type -
λHT Horizontal cutting force coefficient Tear Type -
λVT Vertical cutting force coefficient Tear Type -
λHC Horizontal cutting force coefficient Curling Type -
λVC Vertical cutting force coefficient Curling Type -
d/dt Strain rate 1/s
d0/dt Frequency (material property) 1/s
 Shear stress kPa
a, a Adhesive shear strength (strain rate dependent) kPa
c, c Cohesive shear strength (strain rate dependent) kPa
y Shear strength (yield stress, material property) kPa
ya Adhesive shear strength (material property) kPa
yc Cohesive shear strength (material property) kPa
0 Dynamical shearing resistance factor (material property) kPa
e Effective stress kPa
n Normal stress kPa
N1 Normal stress on shear plane kPa
N2 Normal stress on blade kPa
t Tensile strength kPa
 Angle of internal friction rad
 Soil/steel friction angle rad

Page 240 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

Chapter 8: Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

8.1. Introduction.
As mentioned in chapter 2, rock is a natural occurrence of cohesive organic or inorganic material, which forms a
part of the earth crest. Most rocks are composed of one or more minerals.

Rocks can be classified in different ways. The most used classification is based on their origin, distinguishing the
following 3 main classes:
Igneous rock. A rock that consists of solidified molten rock material (magma), which has been generated within
the earth. Well known are granite and basalt.
Sedimentary rock. Rock formed by the consolidation of sediment as settled in water, ice or air and accumulated
on the earth’s surface, either on dry land or under water. Examples are sandstone, limestone and claystone.
Metamorphic rock. Any class of rocks that are the result of partial or complete recrystallization in the solid state
of pre-existing rocks under conditions of temperature and pressure that are significantly different from thos
obtaining at the surface of the earth.

For the atmospheric cutting of rock models, the unconfined compressive strength (UCS), the unconfined tensile
strength (UTS), the Brazilian tensile strength (BTS), the angle of internal friction and the angle of external friction
are the dominant material properties.

When cutting rock different types of failure may occur. A distinction is made between brittle, brittle ductile and
ductile failure, where brittle can be brittle shear failure, brittle tensile failure or a combination of both. The type of
failure is mainly determined by the so called ductility number being the ratio of the compressive strength over the
tensile strength (UCS/BTS).

Figure 8-1: Ductile and brittle cutting Verhoef (1997).

The confining pressure and the temperature may also play a role. Figure 8-1 shows a recording of the cutting forces
during brittle and ductile failure, where brittle failure shows strongly fluctuating cutting forces, while ductile
failure shows a more constant force. In fact in brittle failure there is a force build up, where failure occurs if the
force and thus the stresses exceed a certain limit, after which the rock instantly collapses and the force decreases
rapidly. Brittle failure is always destructive, meaning that the structure of the rock changes during failure in an
irreversible way. Ductile failure in its pure form is plastic deformation and is reversible. In rock ductile failure is
usually cataclastic failure, meaning that the microstructure is destroyed, which is also irreversible. Figure 8-2
shows corresponding stress-strain curves.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 241 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 8-2: The stress-strain curves for ductile and brittle failure.

8.2. Cutting Process & Failure Criteria.

In granular materials a number of failure mechanisms can be distinguished. For clarity of definitions, the following
definitions are used:
 Flow Type. Failure is based on plastic shear failure. Non-destructive, continues. Both the stress-strain curve
according to Figure 8-2 and the non-destructive plastic deformation show ductile behavior. This type of failure
will only occur at very high pressures and/or temperatures. The flow of magma is an example of this.
 Tear Type: UCS/BTS=large. Failure based on 100% tensile failure. This type of failure will occur when the
UTS-BTS absolute value is small compared to the UCS value. This is a discontinues mechanism.
 Chip Type: UCS/BTS=medium. Failure based on a combination of shear failure and tensile failure, with a
crushed zone near the tool tip. The fractions of shear failure and tensile failure depend on the UCS/BTS ratio.
A large ratio results in more tensile failure, a small ratio in more shear failure. This is a discontinues
mechanism.
 Shear Type: UCS/BTS=small. Failure based on 100% shear failure. This type of failure occurs when the
UTS-BTS value is larger and the normal stresses in the shear plane are high, usually at larger blade angles.
This is a discontinues mechanism.
 Crushed Type: Cataclastic failure based on shear, similar to the Flow Type and the Shear Type like in sand.
The Crushed Type is based on cataclastic failure, disintegration of the grain matrix. This mechanism will be
identified as pseudo-ductile since it shows ductile behavior in the stress-strain curve of Figure 8-2, but it is
destructive and not plastic.

When cutting in dredging practice, blade or pick point angles of about 60 degrees are used. With these blade angles
often the Chip Type of cutting mechanism occurs. Smaller blade angles may show the Tear Type cutting
mechanisms, while larger blade angles often show the Shear Type of cutting mechanism. The higher the normal
stresses in the rock cut, the less likely the occurrence of tensile failure.
When the pick point starts penetrating the rock, usually very high normal stresses occur in front and below the tip
of the pick point, resulting in crushing of the rock. Destroying the grain matrix. In a stress-strain diagram this
behavior is ductile, but since its also destructive its named pseudo-ductile. Now if the layer thickness is very small,
like in oil drilling, the crushed zone may reach the surface and the whole process is of the Crushed Type. If the
layer cut is thicker, like in dredging, the Chip Type cutting mechanism may occur, a combination of mechanisms.
In the crushed zone and the intact rock a shear plane can be identified based on the minimum deformation work
principle. When the pick point progresses, the shear stress on this shear plane increases. When the shear stress
exceeds the shear strength (cohesion) a brittle shear crack will occur. It is not necessary that the shear stress exceeds
the shear strength over the full length of the shear plane, it only has to exceed the shear strength at the beginning
of the shear crack as in the Nishimatsu (1972) approach. When the pick point progresses, the normal and shear
stresses increase, resulting in a Mohr circle with increasing radius. Now if the radius increases faster than the
normal stress at the center of the Mohr circle, the minimum principal stress decreases and may even become
negative. When it becomes negative it may become smaller than the negative tensile strength, resulting in tensile
failure.

Page 242 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

Figure 8-3: The Chip Type.

So in time it starts with a crushed zone, then a shear plane with possibly shear failure and than possibly tensile
failure. If the tensile strength is large, it is possible that only shear failure occurs. If the tensile strength is small, it
is possible that only tensile failure occurs. Crushing will start if locally a certain criterion is exceeded. Often the
Mogi (1966) criterion is applied, giving a certain ratio between the maximum principal stress and the minimum
principal stress. Ratio’s used are 3.4 for sandstone and 4.2 for limestone, while Verhoef (1997) found 6 for
limestone. Of course crushing does not start instantly, but gradually, based on the structure of the rock, especially
the distribution of the microcracks and the skeleton. With the hypothesis that crushing starts where the rock is the
weakest, one may assume that crushing starts at the scale of the microcracks, giving relatively large particles still
consisting of many grains. With increasing normal stress these particles will also be fragmented into smaller
particles. This process will go on until the smallest possible particles, the rock grains, result. Up to the Mogi (1966)
criterion intact rock is assumed, however some fracturing or crushing may already have taken place.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140

120
Sigma Axis

100

80
Tau Axis

60

Mohr Circle UCS

Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40
Test
20

0 Mohr Circle UTS

Test
-20

-40 Mohr Circle BTS

Test
-60

-80 Ellipse

-100

-120 Mogi Criterion

Brittle Ductile
-140
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-4: Failure envelopre according to Verhoef (1997) (Figure 9.4) of intact rock.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 243 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

From the perspective of the angle of internal friction, one may assume that the angle of internal friction is based
on the internal structure of the rock, and as long as the rock is intact, the angle of internal friction may change
slightly based on the stress situation, but not to much. However, when fracturing and crushing starts, the internal
structure of the rock is changing and this will result in a decreasing angle of internal friction. Decreasing until the
angle of internal friction of the smallest particles, the rock grains is reached at high confining pressures.

Verhoef (1997) shows a complete failure envelope of intact rock, including Mogi’s brittle-ductile transition.
Vlasblom (2003-2007) refers to this failure envelope. Figure 8-4 shows this failure envelope, where the maximum
normal stress is based on a hydrostatic compression test. So based on hydrostatic pressure, the material is crushed,
without the presence of shear. This hydrostatic compressive strength (HCS) is a few times the UCS value of the
rock. In the figure HCS+UTS=3.5·UCS. Not all rocks show this kind of behavior however. It is important to know
that this envelope is based on tri-axial tests on intact rock.
Verhoef (1997) also shows in figure D3 a different failure envelope beyond the brittle-ductile transition point,
which is more related to the cutting process. Beyond this transition point the crushed rock still has a certain internal
friction angle, which will be discussed later and is shown in Figure 8-14 and Figure 8-15.
It is thus very important to determine the failure criterion envelope based on tests where shear failure occurs.

Sigma Axis
Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ
140 Tau Axis

120 Envelope Mohr

Circles
100 Failure Envelope

80 Mohr Circle UTS

60 Mohr Circle BTS

Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40 Mohr Circle UCS

20 Mogi Criterion
Brittle Ductile
0 Failure Criterion
Pseudo-Ductile
-20 Mohr Circle Mogi
Criterion
-40 Mohr Circle Center
-60 Failure Criterion
Center
-80 Failure Criterion A
-100
Mohr Circle A
-120
Failure Criterion B
-140
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350 Mohr Circle B
Normal Stress σ (MPa) Hydrostatic
© S.A.M. Compression
Figure 8-5: Constructing the failure envelope.

Figure 8-5 shows how a failure envelope can be constructed by connecting failure points of different stress
situations. The figure shows the UTS, BTS and UCS Mohr circles, the Mohr circle at the Mogi criterion, the Mohr
circle of a hydrostatic compression test and three additional Mohr circles. Connecting the failure points gives the
failure curve. Surrounding the Mohr circles gives the envelope where Mohr circles have to stay inside to prevent
failure. At confining stresses exceeding the Mogi point the two envelopes are slightly different.
As mentioned, the apparent shear strength and the internal friction angle of the intact and the crushed rock may
differ. In the case where the Mogi criterion describes the shear strength and the angle of internal friction of the
crushed rock, the failure curve for higher normal stresses may be a straight line tangent to the Mogi criterion point.
Figure 8-6 shows this type of behavior. The Zijsling (1987) experiments at very high confining pressures show
this type of behavior for cutting loads in Mancos Shale. The experiments of Zijsling (1987) will be discussed in
chapter 9.

It is however also possible that the shear strength and the internal friction angle of the crushed rock decrease to a
certain minimum with increasing normal stresses larger than the Mogi point to a point A or B in Figure 8-7. For
higher normal stresses the failure curve will follow a straight line as is shown in the figure. The Zijsling (1987)
experiments at very high confining pressures show this type of behavior for cutting loads in Pierre Shale.

Page 244 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140
Sigma Axis
120

100 Tau Axis

80
Mohr Circle
60
UCS Test
Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40
Mohr Circle
20
UTS Test

0 Mohr Circle
BTS Test
-20
Ellipse
-40

-60 Mogi Criterion

Brittle Ductile
-80
Failure Criterion
-100 Pseudo-Ductile

-120 Mohr Circle

Mogi Criterion
-140
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-6: Resulting failure curve for Mancos Shale like rocks.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

200
Sigma Axis

160 Tau Axis

120 Mohr Circle

UCS Test
Mohr Circle
80
UTS Test
Shear Stress τ (MPa)

Mohr Circle
40 BTS Test
Ellipse
0
Mogi Criterion
Brittle Ductile
-40 Mohr Circle
Mogi Criterion
-80 Failure Criterion
A
Mohr Circle A
-120

Failure Criterion
-160 B
Mohr Circle B
-200
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-7: Resulting failure curves for Pierre Shale like rocks.

When increasing the bottomhole pressure (confining pressure) from 0 MPa to 50 MPa, first the cutting forces and
thus the normal stresses and shear stresses increase up to a maximum, after which the cutting forces decrease, but
at a certain bottomhole pressure this decrease stops and the cutting forces increase slightly with further increasing
bottomhole pressure. So there was still an internal friction angle, but very small. The bottomhole pressure is a
good indication of the confining pressure. The Zijsling (1987) experiments did show that the material was crushed.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 245 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

It should be mentioned that the layer thickness was very small in these experiments, resulting in a crushed zone
reaching to the surface. In other words, the rock was crushed completely.

8.2.1. Some Relations.

The relation between shear strength (cohesion) c, internal friction angle φ and the minimum and maximum
principal stresses can be derived according to, using the basic Mohr-Coulomb relations:

  c    ta n   (8-1)

And:

 m a x   m in  m a x   m in  m a x   m in
   cos        s in    (8-2)
2 2 2

This gives:

 m a x   m in   m a x   m in  m a x   m in 
 cos     c     s in      t a n    (8-3)
2  2 2 

Multiplying with cos(φ) and reorganizing gives:

 m a x   m in  m a x   m in
  
2 2
 s in  cos
2 2

 m a x   m in
 c  cos     s in   
2

 m a x   m in  m a x   m in
 c  cos     s in    (8-4)
2 2

 m a x   1  s in     2  c  cos     m in   1  s in   

2  c  cos     m in   1  s in   
 m ax 
 1  s in    
This equation can also be written as:

2        
 m a x   m in  t a n     2  c  ta n    (8-5)
 4 2   4 2 

This relation is valid for all linear failure criteria with a cohesion c and an internal friction angle φ. Now if two
Mohr circles are found with index 1 and 2. Index 1 for the smallest circle and index 2 for the largest circle, the
following relation is valid in relation to the failure curve and internal friction angle:

1  s in     m a x , 2   m a x ,1
  r (8-6)
1  s in     m in , 2   m in ,1

This gives:

r 1 2 r r 1
s in     and cos     and ta n     (8-7)
r  1 r  1 2 r

Once the internal friction angle is found, the cohesion can be determined as:

Page 246 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

U C S  1  s in     UCS
c     (8-8)
 cos    
2   2 r

So the Mohr-Coulomb relation is:

UCS r 1 UCS    r  1
      (8-9)
2 r 2 r 2 r

8.2.2. Brittle versus Ductile.

The terms ductile failure and brittle failure are often used in literature for the failure of materials with shear strength
and tensile strength, but what do the words ductile and brittle mean?

In materials science, ductility is a solid material's ability to deform under tensile stress; this is often
characterized by the material's ability to be stretched into a wire. Malleability, a similar property, is a
material's ability to deform under compressive stress; this is often characterized by the material's ability
to form a thin sheet by hammering or rolling. Both of these mechanical properties are aspects of plasticity,
the extent to which a solid material can be plastically deformed without fracture. Ductility and
malleability are not always coextensive – for instance, while gold has high ductility and malleability, lead
has low ductility but high malleability. The word ductility is sometimes used to embrace both types of
plasticity.
A material is brittle if, when subjected to stress, it breaks without significant deformation (strain). Brittle
materials absorb relatively little energy prior to fracture, even those of high strength. Breaking is often
accompanied by a snapping sound. Brittle materials include most ceramics and glasses (which do not
deform plastically) and some polymers, such as PMMA and polystyrene. Many steels become brittle at
low temperatures (see ductile-brittle transition temperature), depending on their composition and
processing. When used in materials science, it is generally applied to materials that fail when there is
little or no evidence of plastic deformation before failure. One proof is to match the broken halves, which
should fit exactly since no plastic deformation has occurred. Generally, the brittle strength of a material
can be increased by pressure. This happens as an example in the brittle-ductile transition zone at an
approximate depth of 10 kilometers in the Earth's crust, at which rock becomes less likely to fracture,
and more likely to deform ductile.” (Source Wikipedia).

Rock has both shear strength and tensile strength and normally behaves brittle. If the tensile strength is high the
failure is based on brittle shear, but if the tensile strength is low the failure is brittle tensile. In both cases chips
break out giving it the name Chip Type. So rock has true brittle behavior. Under hyperbaric conditions however,
the pore under pressures will be significant, helping the tensile strength to keep cracks closed. The result is a much
thicker crushed zone that may even reach the surface. Crushing the rock is called cataclastic behavior. Since the
whole cutting process is dominated by the crushed zone, this is named the Crushed Type. Due to the high pore
under pressures the crushed material sticks together and visually looks like a ductile material. That’s the reason
why people talk about ductile behavior of hyperbaric rock. In reality it is cataclastic behavior, which could also be
named pseudo-ductile behavior.
Now whether the high confining pressure result from a high hyperbaric pressure or from the cutting process itself
is not important, in both cases the pseudo-ductile behavior may occur. Figure 8-2 shows the stress-strain behavior
typical for brittle and ductile behavior. Based on this stress-strain behavior the term ductile is often used for rock,
but as mentioned before this is the result of cataclastic failure.

Gehking (1987) stated that pseudo-ductile behavior will occur when the ratio UCS/BTS<9. Brittle behavior will
occur when the ratio UCS/BTS>15. For 9<UCS/BTS<15 there is a transition between brittle and pseudo-ductile.
The geometry of the cutting equipment and the operational conditions are not mentioned by Gehking (1987).

Mogi (1966) found a linear relation between the minimum and maximum principal stress at the transition brittle
to pseudo-ductile failure. For sandstone he found σmax=3.4·σmin, and for limestone σmax=4.2·σmin. Those values
give an indication, since other researchers found σmax>6·σmin (Verhoef, 1997). Now assuming σmax=α·σmin and
combining this with Hoek & Brown (1988), gives:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 247 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2
 4    1
2
m  m
 m in  U C S 
2
2    1

(8-10)
2
 4    1
2
m  m
 m ax    U C S 
2
2    1

This gives for the center of the Mohr circle:

2
 4    1
2
UCS m  m
 c e n te r    1  
2
2 2    1

(8-11)
2
 4    1
2
UCS m  m
 m ax    1  
2
2 2    1

Figure 8-8: Brittle, semi brittle and ductile failure.

Figure 8-17 shows the Mogi criterion both for the top of the Mohr circle curve and the failure curve. Left of the
Mogi criterion point there will be brittle failure, on the right there will be pseudo-ductile failure. When the
coefficient α increases, the Mogi points move to the left.

In the case of a straight failure plane this gives for the normal and shear stress:

c  1 
  s in    
cos       1 
  and   c    ta n    (8-12)
ta n       1 
1   s in    
cos       1 

Which is also shown in Figure 8-17. If the angle of internal friction is to high, the brittle-ductile transition will
never be reached. The criterion for this is:

 1
 s in    (8-13)
 1

Page 248 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

8.2.3. Based on UTS and UCS.

Here a linear envelope tangent to the UTS and the UCS Mohr circles is assumed, based on the assumption that the
failure curve always has to be tangent to at least two Mohr Coulomb circles. This gives for the principal stresses:

 m i n ,1   U T S

 m a x ,1  0

 m in , 2  0
(8-14)

 m a x,2  U C S

UCS  0 UCS
r    m
0  UTS UTS

This method results in a rather high value for the internal friction angle and consequently a rather low value for
the shear strength (cohesion). To find a good estimate for the internal friction angle, there should be two Mohr
circles based on shear failure. In this case one circle is based on shear failure, but the other circle is based on tensile
failure. So this method is rejected.
Figure 8-9 shows the Mohr circles for UTS, BTS and UCS for UCS=100 MPa, UTS=BTS=15 MPa. The resulting
angle of internal friction φ=47.7º. The transition brittle-ductile according to Mogi (1966) does not exist, the angle
of internal friction is too high.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140
Sigma Axis
120

100
Tau Axis
80

60 Tensile Failure
Criterion
Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40

20 Shear Failure
Criterion
0
Mogi Criterion
-20
Brittle Ductile
-40
Mohr Circle
-60 UCS Test

-80 Mohr Circle

UTS Test
-100

-120 Mohr Circle

BTS Test
-140
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-9: Construction of the angle of internal friction UTS-UCS based.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 249 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

8.2.4. Based on BTS and UCS.

Here a linear envelope tangent to the BTS and the UCS Mohr circles is assumed, based on the assumption that the
failure curve always has to be tangent to at least two Mohr Coulomb circles. This gives for the principal stresses:

 m in ,1   B T S

 m a x ,1  3  B T S

 m in , 2  0
(8-15)

 m a x,2  U C S

UCS  3 BTS UCS  3 BTS UCS

r     3  m  3
0  BTS BTS BTS

This method results in a rather high value for the internal friction angle and consequently a rather low value for
the shear strength (cohesion), although the internal friction angle will be lower than from the first method. To find
a good estimate for the internal friction angle, there should be two Mohr circles based on shear failure. In this case
one circle is based on shear failure, but the other circle is based on tensile failure. So this method is rejected.
Figure 8-10 shows the Mohr circles for UTS, BTS and UCS for UCS=100 MPa, UTS=BTS=15 MPa. The
resulting angle of internal friction φ=34.8º. The transition brittle-ductile according to Mogi (1966) is at a normal
stress of 316 MPa.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140
Sigma Axis
120

100
Tau Axis
80

60 Tensile Failure
Criterion
Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40

20 Shear Failure
Criterion
0
Mogi Criterion
-20
Brittle Ductile
-40
Mohr Circle
-60 UCS Test

-80 Mohr Circle

UTS Test
-100

-120 Mohr Circle

BTS Test
-140
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-10: Construction of the angle of internal friction BTS-UCS based.

Page 250 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

8.2.5. Hoek & Brown (1988).

Over the years Hoek & Brown (1988) developed a failure criterion for rock, based on the UCS and BTS values of
the specific rock. The generalised criterion is empirical and yields:

a
  m in  a = 0 .5
 m a x   m in  U C S   m   s w ith f o r in ta c t r o c k (8-16)
 UCS  s = 1 .0

The parameters m and s are material properties. The parameter m is related to the ratio of the UCS value to the
BTS value according to:

2 2
UCS  BTS BTS UCS
m  fo r 1 m= (8-17)
UCS BTS UCS BTS

The parameter s is a measure for the amount of fractures in the rock and equals 1 for intact rock. The stresses σmin
and σmax are the minimum and maximum principal stresses of the Mohr circle considered. The BTS value can also
be represented as a function of m and s according to:

 
UCS 2
BTS   m  m  4s (8-18)
2

Based on:

 m a x   m in  m a x   m in
 c e n te r  and  m ax  (8-19)
2 2

An equation can be derived relating the maximum shear stress τmax (the top of the Mohr circle) to the normal stress
at the center of the Mohr circle σcenter.

1  
  
2
m  UCS 
2
 m ax   m  UCS   1 6  m  U C S   c e n te r  U C S (8-20)
8 

This equation results in a curve through the tops of the Mohr circles and is not yet a failure criterion. For the failure
criterion Hoek & Brown (1988) give the following method; First determine a variable h according to:

16  m    s  U C S 
h  1 (8-21)
2
3m UCS

Now an angle θ can be determined:

1    1  
    a ta n    (8-22)
3  2  3  
  h  1  

Based on the angle θ the instantaneous internal friction angle can be determined, which is also the tangent to the
failure criterion:

 
1
  a ta n  
(8-23)
 
4  h  cos     1 
2
 

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 251 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140

120
Sigma Axis

100

80
Tau Axis

60

Mohr Circle UCS

Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40
Test
20

0
Mohr Circle UTS
Test
-20

-40
Mohr Circle BTS
Test
-60

-80
Hoek & Brown
TauMax Curve
-100

-120
Mogi Criterion
Brittle-Ductile
-140
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-11: Construction Hoek & Brown failure criterion Mohr circles.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140

120
Sigma Axis

100

80
Tau Axis

60

Mohr Circle UCS

Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40
Test
20

0
Mohr Circle UTS
Test
-20

-40
Mohr Circle BTS
Test
-60

-80
Hoek & Brown
Failure Criterion
-100

-120
Mogi Criterion
Brittle Ductile
-140
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-12: Construction Hoek & Brown failure criterion.

Page 252 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

Table 8-1: Some m values of Hoek & Brown.

Texture
Rock Type Class Group
Coarse Medium Fine Very Fine
Clay-
Conglo- Silt-Stones Stones
merates (7±2) (4±2)
Sand-Stones
Clastic (21±3) Grey- Shales
(17±4)
Breccias wackes (6±2)
(19±5) (18±3) Marls
Sedimen- (7±2)
tary Crystalline Sparitic Micritic Dolo-
Carbo-
Limestone Limestone Limestone mites
nates
(12±3) (10±2) (9±2) (9±3)
Non-
Gypsum Anhy-drite
clastic Evapo-rites
(8±2) (12±2)
Chalk
Organic
(7±2)
Hornfels
(19±4)
Marble Quartzite
Non Foliated Meta
(9±3) (20±3)
Sandstone
Meta- (19±3)
morphic Amphi-
Migmatites
Slightly Foliated bolites
(29±3)
(26±6)
Gneiss Schists Phyllites Slates
Foliated
(28±5) (12±3) (7±3) (7±4)
Granite
(32±3) Diorite
Light
Grano-diorite (25±5)
(29±3)
Pluto-nic
Gabbro
(27±3) Dolerite
Dark
Norite (16±5)
(20±5)
Igneous
Porphyries Diabase Peri-dotite
Hypabyssal
(20±5) (15±5) (25±5)
Rhyolite Dacite
(25±5) (25±3) Obsidian
Lava
Volca- Andesite Basalt (19±3)
nic (25±5) (25±5)
Pyro- Agglo-merate Breccia Tuff
clastic (19±3) (19±5) (13±5)

Last but not least, the shear stress τ, matching the normal stress σ can be determined:

m  UCS
   cot     cos      (8-24)
8

A second way of determining the failure criterion curve is with the following two equations, based on the minimum
principal stress:

 
 
UCS  m in m
   m in   m   s 1  (8-25)
2 UCS   m in 
 m  4 m   s 
 UCS 

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 253 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

  
2 
   
UCS  m in  m 
   m   s 1    (8-26)
   
2 UCS  m in
 m  4 m   s  
  UCS  
 

Figure 8-11 and Figure 8-12 show the Hoek & Brown failure criterion for the top of the Mohr circles (A) and for
the real failure condition (B). Although still based on UTS or BTS and UCS and not on two tests with shear failure,
the resulting failure curve seems more realistic, which seems logic since it is based on many experiments. The
Mohr circles for UTS, BTS and UCS are determined for UCS=100 MPa, UTS=BTS=15 MPa. The transition
brittle-ductile according to Mogi (1966) is at a normal stress of 150 MPa.
Taking an average internal friction angle from a normal stress of zero to a normal stress of 240 MPa gives φ=27.1º.

Page 254 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

8.2.6. Parabolic Envelope UTS and UCS.

Based on the UTS or BTS and the UCS a parabole can be constructed of the normal stress as a function of the
shear stress, with boundary conditions that the parabole goes through the UTS or BTS point (shear stress equals
zero, normal stress equals -UTS or -BTS and derivative dσ/dτ equals zero) and touches the UCS Mohr circle as a
tangent. With m=UCS/UTS or m=UCS/BTS the equation of this parabole is:

1 2
    UTS
2 (8-27)
UTS   m  1  1 

It is more convenient to write this equation in the form where the shear stress is a function of the normal stress,
giving:

2

2
 UTS   m  1 1    UTS  (8-28)

Figure 8-13 shows the resulting parabole. Although still based on UTS or BTS and UCS and not on two tests with
shear failure, the resulting failure curve seems more realistic. The Mohr circles for UTS, BTS and UCS are
determined for UCS=100 MPa, UTS=BTS=15 MPa. The transition brittle-ductile according to Mogi (1966) is at
a normal stress of 104 MPa. Taking an average internal friction angle from a normal stress of zero to a normal
stress of 240 MPa gives φ=18.6º.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140

120
Sigma Axis

100

80
Tau Axis

60

Mohr Circle UCS

Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40
Test
20

0
Mohr Circle UTS
Test
-20

-40
Mohr Circle BTS
Test
-60

-80
Parabole

-100

-120
Mogi Criterion
Brittle Ductile
-140
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-13: The parabolic failure criterion.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 255 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

8.2.7. Ellipsoid Envelope UTS and UCS.

Instead of a parabole, also an ellipse can be used. The advantage of an ellipse is that it gives more flexibility for
the shape of the failure envelope. The general equation for an ellipse is:

  a  UTS 
2
2

  1 (8-29)
2 2
a b

In order to find an estimate for the radii a and b, it is assumed that the ellipse also touches the UCS Mohr circle in
the same point as the parabole. With:

1
f 
2 (8-30)
UTS   m  1 1 

This gives for the normal stress of the parabole to Mohr circle tangent point:

2
 1  f  U C S   1  f UCS  4 f  UTS
p 
(8-31)
2f

And for the shear stress at the tangent point:

2
p  UTS 
2
 m 1 1  p  UTS  (8-32)

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140
Sigma Axis
120
Tau Axis
100

80 Mohr Circle
UCS Test
60
Mohr Circle
UTS Test
Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40
Mohr Circle
20 BTS Test
0 Parabole

-20 Mogi Criterion

Brittle Ductile
-40
Failure Criterion
-60 Pseudo-Ductile
Ellipse
-80

-100 Mogi Criterion

Brittle Ductile
-120 Failure Criterion
Pseudo-Ductile
-140
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-14: The Parabolic and Ellipsoid failure envelopes, with a=1.75·UCS.

Comment: For sandstone a residual internal friction angle of 15 degrees and for limestone 25 degrees have been
found at the brittle-ductile transition points.

Page 256 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140
Sigma Axis
120
Tau Axis
100

80 Mohr Circle
UCS Test
60
Mohr Circle
UTS Test
Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40
Mohr Circle
20 BTS Test
0 Parabole

-20 Mogi Criterion

Brittle Ductile
-40
Failure Criterion
-60 Pseudo-Ductile
Ellipse
-80

-100 Mogi Criterion

Brittle Ductile
-120 Failure Criterion
Pseudo-Ductile
-140
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210 230 250 270 290 310 330 350
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-15 The Parabolic and Ellipsoid failure envelopes, with a=100·UCS.

For a given radius a this gives:

2
p
2
b 
 
p 
2
 a  UTS  (8-33)
 
1
 2 
 a 
 

Figure 8-14 shows both the parabolic and the ellipsoid failure envelopes. The ellipsoid failure envelope is
determined for a=1.75·UCS. The Mohr circles for UTS, BTS and UCS are determined for UCS=100 MPa,
UTS=BTS=15 MPa. At low normal stresses the parabolic and ellipsoid failure envelopes behave almost identical.
Also the Mogi brittle-ductile transition points are very close. Chosing a>10·UCS gives about identical envelopes
in the normal stress range considered.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 257 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

8.2.8. Linear Failure Criterion.

The best way to determine the angle of internal friction is to execute at least two tests with different confining
pressures in the range of normal stresses the cutting process is expected to operate. Figure 8-16 shows this for a
φ=20º internal friction angle. The Mohr circles for UTS, BTS and UCS are determined for UCS=100 MPa,
UTS=BTS=15 MPa. The transition brittle-ductile according to Mogi (1966) is at a normal stress of 95 MPa.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140
Sigma Axis
120

100
Tau Axis
80

60 Tensile Failure
Criterion
Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40

20 Shear Failure
Criterion
0
Mogi Criterion
-20
Brittle Ductile
-40
Mohr Circle
-60 UCS Test

-80 Mohr Circle

UTS Test
-100

-120 Mohr Circle

BTS Test
-140
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-16: The linear failure criterion.

8.2.9. The Griffith (Fairhurst, 1964) Criterion.

Griffith (Fairhurst, 1964) has derived a criterion for brittle failure. His hypothesis aasumes that fracture occurs by
rapid extension of sub-microscopic. Pre-existing flaws, randomly distributed throughout the material. He defined
two criteria. The first criterion is:

3   m in   m a x  0

 3  U T S   m ax  0 or  m ax  3  U T S (8-34)

 3  B T S   m ax  0 or  m ax  3  B T S

Failure will occur when σmin=-UTS or σmin=-BTS, which is satisfied in the Brazilian split test. However when:

3   m in   m a x  0 (8-35)

Failure will occur when:

2
  m ax   m in   8  U T S    m a x   m in  0 (8-36)

With:

Page 258 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

2
  m a x   m in    m a x   m in 
   4  UTS   (8-37)
 2   2 

This can be written as a parabole for the center of the Mohr circles:

2
 m a x  4  U T S   c e n te r (8-38)

For a UCS test this gives:

2
 UCS  UCS UCS
   4  UTS  or  8 (8-39)
 2  2 UTS

If the UCS/UTS or UCS/BTS ratio is larger than 8, brittle failure will occur.

The Griffith criterion as mentioned here is not the failure curve, but the curve connecting the tops of the Mohr
circles.
In the original articles tensile is positive and compression negative, resulting in a sign change compared with the
equations mentioned here. Als the minimum and maximum principal stresses were reversed.

8.2.10. Conclusions & Discussion.

6 concepts for the angle of internal friction and the failure criteria have been discussed. Figure 8-14 and Figure
8-17 show these criteria. To find the best failure criterion curve, many tests should be carried out at different
confining pressures, resulting in shear failure and a set of Mohr circles. Since this information is not always
available, The Hoek & Brown, Parabole or Ellipse approximations can be used. The preference of the author is the
Ellipse Envelope method or the Linear Failure Criterion method, where the internal friction angle is based on the
average of the Parabole Envelope method or measured by experiments.

Above the brittle-ductile transition normal stress, the failure curve will decrease according to Verhoef (1997),
based on research of van Kesteren (1995). As mentioned before, at higher stress situations there will be fracturing
and crushing. This results in a decrease of the angle of internal friction. The higher the normal stresses, the stronger
the fracturing and crushing, the smaller the angle of internal friction. When this starts there is a decrease of the
angle of internal friction, while the failure curve is still increasing. However at a certain stress situation the failure
curve may be at a maximum, since the angle of internal friction decreases to much. This maximum is often close
to the Mogi (1966) criterion. Since intact rock and crushed rock are two different materials with different
properties, one has to be very carefull with the interpretation of the resulting failure curve. In fact the material has
continuously changing properties from the moment is starts fracturing and crushing. First larger particles are
formed, consisting of many rock grains. When the stresses increase, these particles will also be fractured or
crushed, resulting in smaller particles, until the rock grains are left.

When the angle of internal friction decreases faster than the increase of normal stresses, the failure curve decreases.
This does however not mean that there is negative internal friction, normally the tangent to the failure curve. Just
that the angle of internal friction decreases faster than the increase of normal stresses and most probably that the
shear strength of the crushed rock decreases to zero. Verhoef (1997) and Vlasblom (2003-2007) show a failure
curve reducing to zero for very high normal stresses. This seems to be unlikely to happen. It would imply that at
very high normal stresses the shear stress equals zero, so no friction at al, which sounds like liquid behavior. It is
more likely that the crushed rock, once completely crushed, will have a residual internal friction angle and possibly
a residual shear strength. The latter is possible, for example when the particles are so small that van der Waals
forces start playing a role. But this will depend completely on the type and composition of the rock.
Figure 8-14 shows a residual internal friction angle for both the ellipse and the parabole, tangent to the failure
envelopes at the Mogi brittle-criterion.

For the models derived in this chapter, a constant internal friction angle is assumed, where this constant
internal friction angle should match the stress state of the cutting process considered.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 259 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

140
Sigma Axis
120
Tau Axis
100
Tensile Failure
80 Criterion
Shear Failure
60 Criterion
Mogi Criterion
Brittle Ductile
Shear Stress τ (MPa)

40
Mohr Circle
20 UCS Test
Mohr Circle
0 UTS Test
Mohr Circle
-20 BTS Test
Hoek & Brown
-40 TauMax Curve
Mogi Criterion
-60 Brittle-Ductile
Hoek & Brown
-80 Failure Criterion
Mogi Criterion
-100 Brittle Ductile
Parabole
-120
Mogi Criterion
-140 Brittle Ductile
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-17: The failure criteria.

Page 260 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

8.3. Cutting Models.

Figure 8-18: The Crushed Type. Figure 8-19: The Chip Type.

When cutting rock with a pick point, usually a crushed zone will occur in front of and under the tip of the pick
point. If the cutting depth is small, this crushed zone may reach the surface and a sand like cutting process may
occur. If the cutting depth is larger, the crushed material cannot escape and the stresses in the crushed zone increase
strongly. According to Fairhurst (1964) the cutting forces are transmitted through particle-particle contacts. The
stresses are transmitted to the intact rock as discrete point loads this way, causing micro shear cracks and finally a
tensile crack. Figure 8-18 and Figure 8-19 sho this cutting mechanism.
As mentioned the type of failure depends on the UCS/BTS ratio. Geking (1987) stated that below a ratio of 9
ductile failure will occur, while above a ratio of 15 brittle failure will occur. In between these limits there is a
transition between ductile and brittle failure, which is also in accordance with the findings of Fairhurst (1964).
The mechanism as described above is difficult to model. Still a method is desired to predict the cutting forces in
rock cutting in order to estimate forces, power and production. In literature some models exist, like the Evans
(1964) model based on tensile failure and the Nishimatsu (1972) model based on shear failure. From steel cutting
also the Merchant (1944) model is known, based on plastic shear failure. The Evans (1964) model assumes a
maximum tensile stress on the entire failure plane, which could match the peak forces, but overestimates the
average forces. Nishimatsu (1972) build in a factor for the shear stress distribution on the failure plane, enabling
the model to take into account that failure may start when the shear stress is not at a maximum everywhere in the
shear plane. Both models are discussed in this chapter.

Based on the Merchant (1944) model for steel cutting and the Miedema (1987 September) model for sand cutting,
a new model is developed, both for ductile cutting, ductile cataclastic cutting, brittle shear cutting and brittle tensile
cutting. First a model is derived for the Flow Type, which is either ductile shear failure or brittle shear failure. In
the case of brittle shear failure, the maximum cutting forces are calculated. For the average cutting forces the
maximum cutting forces have to be reduced by 30% to 50%. Based on the Flow Type and the Mohr circle, the
shear stress in the shear plane is determined where, on another plane (direction), tensile stresses occur equal to the
tensile strength. An equivalent or mobilized shear strength is determined giving this tensile stress, leading to the
Tear Type of failure. This approach does not require the tensile stress to be equal to the tensile strength on the
whole failure plane, instead it predicts the cutting forces at the start of tensile failure.
This method can also be used for predicting the cutting forces in frozen clay, permafrost.

Roxborough (1987) derived a simple expression for the specific energy based on many experiments in different
types of rock. The dimension of this equation is MPa. The two constants in the equation may vary a bit depending
on the type of rock. The 0.11 is important at small UCS values, the 0.25 at large values.

E s p  0 .2 5  U .C .S .  0 .1 1 (8-40)

The fact that cutting rock is irreversible, compared to the cutting of sand and clay, also means that the 4 standard
cutting mechanisms cannot be applied on cutting rock. In fact the Flow Type looks like cataclastic ductile failure
from a macroscopic point of view, but the Flow Type (also the Curling Type) are supposed to be real plastic
deformation after which the material (clay) is still in tact, while cataclastic ductile failure is much more the crushing
of the rock with shear falure in the crushed rock. We will name this the Crushed Type. When the layer cut is
thicker, a crushed zone exists but not to the free surface. From the crushed zone first a shear plane is formed from
which a tensile crack goes to the free surface. We will name this the Chip Type.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 261 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

8.3.1. The Model of Evans.

For brittle rock the cutting theory of Evans (1964) and (1966) can be used to calculate cutting forces (Figure
8-21). The forces are derived from the geometry of the chisel (width, cutting angle and cutting depth) and the
tensile strength (BTS) of the rock. Evans suggested a model on basis of observations on coal breakage by wedges.
In this theory it is assumed that:
1. A force R is acting under an angle δ (external friction angle) with the normal to the surface A-C of the wedge.
2. A resultant force T of the tensile stresses acting at the center of the arc C-D, the line C-D is under an angle β
(the shear angle) with the horizontal.
3. A third force S is required to maintain equilibrium in the buttock, but does not play a role in the derivation.
4. The penetration of the wedge is small compared to the layer thickness hi.
The action of the wedge tends to split the rock and does rotate it about point D. It is therefore assumed that the
force S acts through point D. Along the fracture line, it is assumed that a state of plain strain is working and the
equilibrium is considered per unit of width w of the wedge.

The force due to the tensile strength σT of the rock is:

T  T r   c o s     d   w  2   T  r  s in     w (8-41)


Where r·d is an element of the arc C-D making an angle  with the symmetry axis of the arc. Let hi be the depth
of the cut and assume that the penetration of the edge may be neglected in comparison with hi. This means that the
force R is acting near point C. Taking moments on the chip cut about point D gives:

hi
R  cos          T  r  s in     2   T  r  s in     w  r  s in    (8-42)
s in   

From the geometric relation it follows:

hi
r  s in     (8-43)
2  s in   

Hence:

T hi  w
R  (8-44)
2  s in     c o s       

The horizontal component of R is R·sin(α+δ) and due to the symmetry of the forces acting on the wedge the total
cutting force is:

s in     
F c  2  R  s in        T  h i  w  (8-45)
s in     c o s       

The normal force ( on cutting force) is per side:

cos     
Fn  R  c o s        T  h i  w  (8-46)
2  s in     c o s       

The angle β can be determined by using the principle of minimum energy:

d Fc
 0 (8-47)
d

Page 262 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

Giving:

c o s     c o s         s in     s in         0

(8-48)
 cos  2         0

Resulting in:

1       
         (8-49)
2  2  4 2

With:
1  s in     
s in     c o s         (8-50)
2

This gives for the horizontal cutting force:

2  s in     
Fc   T  h i  w    T  hi  w   HT (8-51)
1  s in     

For each side of the wedge the normal force is now (the total normal/vertical force is zero):

cos     
Fn   T  h i  w    T  hi  w   VT (8-52)
1  s in     

Evans Brittle Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT vs. Blade Angle α

φ=00

φ=05
Brittle Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT (-)

100 φ=10

φ=15

φ=20

φ=25

10
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40

φ=45
1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-20: The brittle-tear horizontal force coefficient λHT (Evans).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 263 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 8-21: The model of Evans.

Figure 8-20 shows the brittle-tear horizontal force coefficient λHT as a function of the wedge top angle α and the
internal friction angle φ. The internal friction angle φ does not play a role directly, but it is assumed that the
external friction angle δ is 2/3 of the internal friction angle φ. Comparing Figure 8-20 with Figure 8-42 (the brittle-
tear horizontal force coefficient λHT of the Miedema model) shows that the coefficient λHT of Evans is bigger than
the λHT coefficient of Miedema. The Miedema model however is based on cutting with a blade, while Evans is
based on the penetration with a wedge or chisel, which should give a higher cutting force. The model as is derived
in chapter 8.3 assumes sharp blades however.

8.3.2. The Model of Evans under an Angle ε.

When it is assumed that the chisel enters the rock under an angle ε and the fracture starts in the same direction as
the centerline of the chisel as is shown in Figure 8-22, the following can be derived:

h  2  r  s in     s in      a n d h i = 2  r  s in  
2
(8-53)

s in   
hi  h  (8-54)
s in     

Substituting equation (8-53) in equation (8-45) for the cutting force gives:

2  s in     
Fc   T  h i  w 
1  s in     

s in    s in     
 T h w   (8-55)
s in      s in     c o s       

s in     
 T h w 
s in       c o s       

The horizontal component of the cutting force is now:

Page 264 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

s in     
Fc h   T  h  w   cos    (8-56)
s in       c o s       

The vertical component of this cutting force is now:

s in     
Fc v   T  h  w   s in    (8-57)
s in       c o s       

Note that the vertical force is not zero anymore, which makes sense since the chisel is not symmetrical with regard
to the horizontal anymore. Equation (8-58) can be applied to eliminate the shear angle β from the above equations.
When the denominator is at a maximum in these equations, the forces are at a minimum. The denominator is at a
maximum when the first derivative of the denominator is zero and the second derivative is negative.

Figure 8-22: The model of Evans under an angle ε.

The angle β can be determined by using the principle of minimum energy:

d Fc
 0 (8-58)
d

Giving for the first derivative:

c o s       c o s         s in       s in         0

(8-59)
 cos  2           0

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 265 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Resulting in:

1         
           (8-60)
2  2  4 2

With:

1  s in       
s in       c o s         (8-61)
2

Substituting equation (8-61) in equation (8-55) gives for the force Fc:

2  s in     
Fc   T  h  w  (8-62)
1  s in       

The horizontal component of the cutting force Fch is now:

2  s in     
Fc h   T  h  w   cos    (8-63)
1  s in       

The vertical component of this cutting force Fcv is now:

2  s in     
Fc v   T  h  w   s in    (8-64)
1  s in       

8.3.3. The Model of Evans used for a Pick point.

In the case where the angle ε equals the angle α, a pick point with blade angle 2·α and a wear flat can be simulated
as is shown in Figure 8-23. In this case the equations become:

2  s in     
Fc   T  h  w  (8-65)
1  s in  2     

The horizontal component of the cutting force Fch is now:

2  s in     
Fc h   T  h  w   cos    (8-66)
1  s in  2     

The vertical component of this cutting force Fcv is now:

2  s in     
Fc v   T  h  w   s in    (8-67)
1  s in  2     

For the force R (see equation (8-45)), acting on both sides of the pick point the following equation can be found:

Fc 1
R   T h w  (8-68)
2  s in      1  s in  2     

Page 266 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

In the case of wear calculations the normal and friction forces on the front side and the wear flat can be interesting.
According to Evans the normal and friction forces are the same on both sides, since this was the starting point of
the derivation, this gives for the normal force Rn:

1
R  T h w   cos    (8-69)
2 
n
1  s in  

The friction force Rf is now:

1
R  T h w   s in    (8-70)
1  s in  2     
f

Figure 8-23: The model of Evans used for a pick point.

8.3.4. Summary of the Evans Theory.

The Evans theory has been derived for 3 cases:
1. The basic case with a horizontal moving chisel and the centerline of the chisel horizontal.
2. A horizontal moving chisel with the centerline under an angle ε.
3. A pick point with the centerline angle ε equal to half the top angle α, horizontally moving.

Once again it should be noted that the angle α as used by Evans is half the top angle of the chisel and not the blade
angle as α is used for in most equations in this book. In case 1 the blade angle would be α as used by Evans, in
case 2 the blade angle is α+ε and in case 3 the blade angle is 2·α. In all cases it is assumed that the cutting velocity
vc is horizontal.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 267 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table 8-2: Summary of the Evans theory.

Case Cutting forces and specific energy

2  s in     
Fc   T  h i  w 
1  s in     

Fc h  Fc

1 (8-71)
Fc v  0

Fc h  v c 2  s in     
E sp   T 
hi  w  vc 1  s in     

2  s in     
Fc   T  h  w 
1  s in       

Fc h  Fc  c o s   

2 (8-72)
F c v  F c  s in   

Fc h  v c 2  s in     
E sp   T   cos   
hi  w  vc 1  s in       

2  s in     
Fc   T  h  w 
1  s in  2     

Fc h  Fc  c o s   
3 (8-73)
F c v  F c  s in   

Fc h  v c 2  s in     
E sp   T   cos   
hi  w  vc 1  s in  2     

Page 268 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

8.3.5. The Nishimatsu Model.

For brittle shear rock cutting we may use the equation of Nishimatsu (1972). This theory describes the cutting
force of chisels by failure through shear. Figure 8-24 gives the parameters needed to calculate the cutting forces.
Nishimatsu (1972) presented a theory similar to Merchant´s (1944), (1945A) and (1945B) only Nishimatsu’s
theory considered the normal and shear stresses acting on the failure plain (A-B) to be proportional to the nth power
of the distance λ from point A to point B. With n being the so called stress distribution factor:

n
 hi 
p  p0     (8-74)
 s in    
 

Nishumatsu made the following assumptions:

1. The rock cutting is brittle, without any accompanying plastic deformation (no ductile crushing zone).
2. The cutting process is under plain stress condition.
3. The failure is according a linear Mohr envelope.
4. The cutting speed has no effect on the processes.

Figure 8-24: Model for shear failure by Nishimatsu (1972).

As a next assumption, let us assume that the direction of the resultant stress p is constant along the line A-B. The
integration of this resultant stress p along the line A-B should be in equilibrium with the resultant cutting force F.
Thus, we have:

hi
s in    n n1
 hi   1 hi  (8-75)
p0  w   
 s in   
    d  F

 p0 w  

n  1  s in   


 F
0   

Integrating the second term of equation (8-75) allows determining the value of the constant p0.

n 1
 hi 
p0  w  n  1  
 s in   


F (8-76)
 

Substituting this in equation (8-74) gives:

n 1 n
 hi   hi 
p  w  n  1       F (8-77)
 s in      s in    
   

The maximum stress p is assumed to occur near the tip of the chisel, so λ=0, giving:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 269 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

1
 hi 
p  w  n  1    F (8-78)
 s in    
 

For the normal stress σ and the shear τ stress this gives:

1
 hi 
 0  w   p  w  cos          n  1      F  cos        (8-79)
s in   
 
1
 hi 
 0  w  p  w  s in          n  1      F  s in        (8-80)
s in   
 

Rewriting this gives:

 0  h i  w   p  h i  w  cos          n  1   s in     cos       F (8-81)

 0  h i  w  p  h i  w  s in        n  1   s in     s in       F (8-82)

With the Coulomb-Mohr failure criterion:

0  c   0  ta n  (8-83)

Substituting equations (8-81) and (8-82) in equation (8-83) gives:

F
n  1   s in     s in        
hi  w
(8-84)
F
 c n  1   s in     c o s          ta n   
hi w

This can be simplified to:

c  h i  w  cos   
 F   s in         c o s    c o s         s in   
n  1   s in   
(8-85)

 F  s in         

This gives for the force F:

1 c  h i  w  cos   
F   (8-86)
n  1 s in     s in         

For the horizontal force Fh and the vertical force Fv we find:

1 c  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    )
Fh   (8-87)
n  1 s in     s in (        )

1 c  h i  w  cos( )  cos(   )
F   (8-88)
n  1 s in     s in (        )

To determine the shear angle β where the horizontal force Fh is at the minimum, the denominator of equation
(8-86) has to be at a maximum. This will occur when the derivative of Fh with respect to β equals 0 and the second
derivative is negative.

Page 270 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

 s in           s in   
 s in    2         0 (8-89)


 
   (8-90)
2 2

Using this, gives for the force F:

1 2  c  h i  w  cos   
F   (8-91)
n  1 1  cos       

This gives for the horizontal force Fh and the vertical force Fv:

1 2  c  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    ) 1
Fh     c hi  w (8-92)
n  1 n  1
HF
1  cos(     )

(8-93)

This solution is the same as the Merchant solution (equations (8-109) and (8-110)) that will be derived in the next
chapter, if the value of the stress distribution factor n=0. In fact the stress distribution factor n is just a factor to
reduce the forces. From tests it appeared that in a type of rock the value of n depends on the rake angle. It should
be mentioned that for this particular case n is about 1 for a large cutting angle. In that case tensile failure may give
way to a process of shear failure, which is observed by other researches as well. For cutting angles smaller than
80 degrees n is more or less constant with a value of n=0.5. Figure 8-31 and Figure 8-32 show the coefficients λHF
and λVF for the horizontal and vertical forces Fh and Fv according to equations (8-109) and (8-110) as a function
of the blade angle α and the internal friction angle φ, where the external friction angle δ is assumed to be 2/3·φ. A
positive coefficient λVF for the vertical force means that the vertical force Fv is downwards directed. Based on
equation (8-97) and (8-109) the specific energy Esp can be determined according to:

Pc Fh  v c Fh 1
E sp      c (8-94)
n  1
HF
Q hi  w  vc hi w

Stress Distribution Nishimatsu

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6 n=0.00
n=0.25
p/p0

0.5 n=0.50
n=1.00
0.4 n=2.00
n=4.00
0.3 n=8.00

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Distance along the shear plane
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-25: The stress distribution along the shear plane.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 271 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The difference between the Nishimatsu and the Merchant approach is that Nishimatsu assumes brittle shear failure,
while Merchant assumes plastic deformation as can be seen in steel and clay cutting.

Nishimatsu uses the BTS-UCS method to determine the shear strength and the angle of internal friction. This
method gives a high value for the angle of internal friction and a low value for the shear strength. For the factor n
he found:

n   4 .9  0 .1 8   (8-95)

With the blade angle in degrees, for blade angles from 50 to 80 degrees. With this equation n is about 0-1 for blade
angles around 30 degrees.

Page 272 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

8.4. The Flow Type (Based on the Merchant Model).

Rock is the collection of materials where the grains are bonded chemically from very stiff clay, sandstone to very
hard basalt. It is difficult to give one definition of rock or stone and also the composition of the material can differ
strongly. Still it is interesting to see if the model used for sand and clay, which is based on the Coulomb model,
can be used for rock as well. Typical parameters for rock are the compressive strength UCS and the tensile strength
BTS and specifically the ratio between those two, which is a measure for how fractured the rock is. Rock also has
shear strength and because it consists of bonded grains it will have an internal friction angle and an external friction
angle. It can be assumed that the permeability of the rock is very low, so initially the pore pressures do no play a
role or cavitation will always occur under atmospheric conditions. But since the absolute hydrostatic pressure,
which would result in a cavitation under pressure of the same magnitude can be neglected with respect to the
compressive strength of the rock; the pore pressures are usually neglected. This results in a material where gravity,
inertia, pore pressures and adhesion can be neglected.
Merchant (1944), (1945A) and (1945B) derived a model for determining the cutting forces when machining steel.
The model was based on plastic deformation and a continuous chip formation (ductile cutting). The model included
internal and external friction and shear strength, but no adhesion, gravity, inertia and pore pressures. Later
Miedema (1987 September) extended this model with adhesion, gravity, inertial forces and pore water pressures.

Definitions:
1. A: The blade tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. A-B: The shear plane.
5. A-C: The blade surface.
6. hb: The height of the blade.
7. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
8. vc: The cutting velocity.
9. α: The blade angle.
10. β: The shear angle.
11. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
12. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

Figure 8-26 gives some definitions regarding the cutting process. The line A-B is considered to be the shear plane,
while the line A-C is the contact area between the blade and the soil. The blade angle is named α and the shear
angle β. The blade is moving from left to right with a cutting velocity vc. The thickness of the layer cut is hi and
the vertical height of the blade hb. The horizontal force on the blade Fh is positive from right to left always opposite
to the direction of the cutting velocity vc. The vertical force on the blade Fv is positive downwards. Since the
vertical force is perpendicular to the cutting velocity, the vertical force does not contribute to the cutting power Pc,
which is equal to:

Pc  Fh  v c (8-96)

Figure 8-26: The definitions of the cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 273 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 8-27: The Flow Type cutting mechanism in ductile rock cutting.

The specific energy Esp is defined as the amount of energy used/required to excavate 1 m3 of soil/rock. This can
be determined by dividing the cutting power Pc by the production Q and results in the cutting force Fh in the
direction of the cutting velocity vc, divided by the cross section cut hi·w:

Pc Fh  v c Fh
E sp    (8-97)
Q hi  w  vc hi w

The model for rock cutting under atmospheric conditions is based on the Flow Type of cutting mechanism.
Although in general rock will encounter a more brittle failure mechanism and the Flow Type considered represents
the ductile failure mechanism, the Flow Type mechanism forms the basis for all cutting processes. The definitions
of the Flow Type mechanism are shown in Figure 8-27.

Figure 8-28 illustrates the forces on the layer of rock cut. The forces shown are valid in general. The forces acting
on this layer are:
1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1 resulting from the grain stresses.
2. A shear force S1 as a result of internal friction N1·tan(.
3. A shear force C as a result of the shear strength (cohesion) c or c. This force can be calculated by multiplying
the cohesive shear strength c with the area of the shear plane.
4. A force normal to the blade N2 resulting from the grain stresses.
5. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/steel friction N2·tan( or external friction.

The normal force N1 and the shear force S1 can be combined to a resulting grain force K1.

The forces acting on a straight blade when cutting rock, can be distinguished as:
6. A force normal to the blade N2 resulting from the grain stresses.
7. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/steel friction N2·tan(or external friction.

These forces are shown in Figure 8-29. If the forces N2 and S2 are combined to a resulting force K2 the resulting
force K2 is the unknown force on the blade. By taking the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces an
expression for the force K2 on the blade can be derived.

The horizontal equilibrium of forces:

 Fh  K 1  s in (   )  C  c o s ( )  K 2  s in (    )  0 (8-98)

The vertical equilibrium of forces:

 Fv   K 1  c o s (   )  C  s in ( )  K 2  cos(   )  0 (8-99)

Page 274 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

 C  cos(     )
K1  (8-100)
s in (        )

The force K2 on the blade is now:

C  cos( )
K 2  (8-101)
s in (        )

Figure 8-28: The forces on the layer cut in rock Figure 8-29: The forces on the blade in rock
(atmospheric). (atmospheric).

The force C due to the cohesive shear strength c is equal to:

s c hi  w
C  (8-102)
s in   

The factor λs in equation (8-102) is the velocity strengthening factor, which causes an increase of the cohesive
shear strength. In clay (Miedema (1992) and (2010)) this factor has a value of about 2 under normal cutting
conditions. In rock the strengthening effect is not reported, so a value of 1 should be used. From equation (8-101)
the forces on the blade can be derived. On the blade a force component in the direction of cutting velocity Fh and
a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

Fh  K 2  s in (    ) (8-103)
F  K 2  cos(   ) (8-104)

Substituting equations (8-102) and (8-101) gives the following equations for the horizontal Fh and vertical Fv
cutting forces. It should be remarked that the strengthening factor λs in rock is usually 1.

 s  c  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    )
Fh  (8-105)
s in     s in (        )

 s  c  h i  w  cos( )  cos(   )
F  (8-106)
s in     s in (        )

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 275 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

8.5. Determining the Angle β.

To determine the shear angle β where the horizontal force Fh is at the minimum, the denominator of equation
(8-105) has to be at a maximum. This will occur when the derivative of Fh with respect to β equals 0 and the
second derivative is negative.

 s in           s in   
 s in    2         0 (8-107)


 
   (8-108)
2 2

This gives for the cutting forces:

2  c  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    )
Fh    HF  c  hi  w (8-109)
1  cos(     )
2  c  h i  w  cos( )  cos(   )
F    VF  c  h i  w (8-110)
1  cos(     )

Equations (8-109) and (8-110) are basically the same as the equations found by Merchant (1944), (1945A) and
(1945B). The normal force N1 and the normal stress σN1 on the shear plane are now (with λs=1):

 C  cos(     )
N1   cos( )
s in (        )

(8-111)
 c  cos(     )
 N1   cos( )
s in (        )

The normal force N2 and the normal stress σN2 on the blade are now:

C  cos( )
N2   cos( )
s in (        )

(8-112)
h i  s in    cos( )
N2  c   cos( )
h b  s in    s in (        )

Equations (8-111) and (8-112) show that the normal force on the shear plane tends to be negative, unless the sum
of the angles α+β+δ is greater than 90°. With the use of equation (8-108) the following condition is found:

              
               
 2 2  2 2 2
(8-113)
    
so:  0
2

Because for normal blade angles this condition is always valid, the normal force is always positive. Figure 8-31
and Figure 8-32 show the coefficients λHF and λVF for the horizontal and vertical forces Fh and Fv according to
equations (8-109) and (8-110) as a function of the blade angle α and the internal friction angle φ, where the external
friction angle δ is assumed to be 2/3·φ. A positive coefficient λVF for the vertical force means that the vertical
force Fv is downwards directed.

Page 276 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

A: Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α, Based on Shear Failure

90
85 φ=00
80
75 φ=05
70
φ=10
65
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

60
φ=15
55
50 φ=20
45
40 φ=25
35
30 φ=30

25
φ=35
20
15
φ=40
10
5 φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-30: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α and the angle of internal friction φ.

Based on equation (8-97) and (8-109) the specific energy Esp can be determined according to:

Pc Fh  v c Fh
E sp      HF c (8-114)
Q hi  w  vc hi w

The cohesive shear strength c is a function of the Unconfined Compressive Strength UCS and the angle of internal
friction φ according to (see Figure 8-36):

U C S  1  s in    
c    (8-115)
2  cos    
 

This gives for the specific energy Esp:

U C S  1  s in    
E sp   H F  c   H F    (8-116)
2  cos    
 

Figure 8-33 shows the specific energy Esp to UCS ratio. In Figure 8-30, Figure 8-31, Figure 8-32 and Figure 8-33
an example is given for an α=60º blade and an internal friction angle of φ=20º.
It should be noted again that the forces and the specific energy are based on peak values. For the average this
should be multiplied with a factor between 0.5 and 1.0, but closer to 0.5.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 277 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

B: Brittle Tensile Hor. Force Coefficient λHT vs. Blade Angle α

20

φ=00
18
Brittle Tensile Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT (-)

φ=05
16

φ=10
14

φ=15
12

φ=20
10

φ=25
8

φ=30
6

φ=35
4
φ=40
2
φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-31: The brittle (shear failure) horizontal force coefficient λHF.

A: Brittle Shear Vertical Force Coefficient λVF vs. Blade Angle α

2

φ=00
1

φ=05
Brittle Shear Vertical Force Coefficient λVF (-)

-1 φ=10

-2
φ=15
-3
φ=20
-4
φ=25
-5

-6
φ=30

-7 φ=35

-8
φ=40

-9
φ=45
-10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-32: The brittle (shear failure) vertical force coefficient λVF.

If the forces become to high another mechanism will occur, for example the wedge mechanism.

Page 278 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

A: Brittle Shear Esp/UCS Ratio vs. Blade Angle α

10.0

φ=00

φ=05

φ=10
Brittle Shear Esp/UCS Ratio (-)

φ=15

φ=20
1.0
φ=25

φ=30

φ=35

φ=40

φ=45
0.1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-33: The specific energy Esp to UCS ratio.

8.6. The Shear Type, Tear Type and the Chip Type.
Until now only the total normal force on the shear plane N1 has been taken into consideration, but of course this
normal force is the result of integration of the normal stresses σN1 on the shear plane. One could consider that
cutting is partly bending the material and it is known that with bending a bar, at the inside (the smallest bending
radius) compressive stresses will be developed, while at the outside (the biggest bending radius), tensile stresses
are developed. So if the normal force N1 equals zero, this must mean that near the edge of the blade tensile stresses
(negative) stresses develop, while at the outside compressive (positive) stresses develop. So even when the normal
force would be slightly positive, still, tensile stresses develop in front of the edge of the blade. The normal force
on the blade however is always positive, meaning that the Curling Type of cutting process will never occur in
rock under atmospheric conditions. The previous derivations of the cutting forces are based on the Flow Type, but
in reality rock will fail brittle with either the Shear Type or the Tear Type or a combination the Chip Type. For
the Shear Type the equations (8-109) and (8-110) can still be used, considering these equations give peak forces.
The average forces and thus the average cutting power Pc and the specific energy Esp may be 30%-60% of the peak
values. The occurrence of the Tear Type depends on the tensile stress. If somewhere in the rock the tensile stress
σmin is smaller than the tensile strength σT, a tensile fracture may occur. One should note here that compressive
stresses are positive and tensile stresses are negative. So tensile fracture/rupture will occur if the absolute value of
the tensile stress σmin is larger than the tensile strength σT.

If rock is considered, the following condition can be derived with respect to tensile rupture:

The cohesion c can be determined from the UCS value and the angle of internal friction according to, as is shown
in Figure 8-36:

U C S  1  s in    
c    (8-117)
2  cos    
 

According to the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, the following is valid for the shear stress on the shear plane, as
is shown in Figure 8-37.

 S1  c   N1  ta n  (8-118)

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 279 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The average stress condition on the shear plane is now σN1, τS1 as is shown in Figure 8-37. A Mohr circle (Mohr
circle 1) can be drawn through this point, resulting in a minimum stress σmin which is negative, so tensile. If this
minimum normal stress is smaller than the tensile strength σT tensile fracture will occur, as is the case in the figure.
Now Mohr circle 1 can never exist, but a smaller circle (Mohr circle 2) can, just touching the tensile strength σT.
The question is now, how to get from Mohr circle 1 to Mohr circle 2. To find Mohr circle 2 the following steps
have to be taken.

Figure 8-34: The Tear Type cutting mechanism in Figure 8-35: The Chip Type cutting mechanism in
rock under hyperbaric conditions. rock under hyperbaric conditions.

The radius R of the Mohr circle 1 can be found from the shear stress τS1 by:

S1
R  (8-119)
cos   

The center of the Mohr circle 1, σC, now follows from:

 C   N 1  R  s in      N 1   S 1  ta n   
(8-120)
  N 1  c  ta n     
2
 N 1  ta n

The minimum principal stress σmin equals the normal stress in the center of the Mohr circle σC minus the radius of
the Mohr circle R:

 m in   C  R

c  N 1  ta n    (8-121)
  N 1  c  ta n      N 1  ta n   
2

cos    cos   
Rearranging this gives:

 ta n      1 
 m in   N 1   1  ta n       c   ta n    
2
 (8-122)
 cos      cos    
   

Substituting equation (8-111) for the normal stress on the shear plane gives:

 c  cos(     )  cos( )  ta n    
  
2
 m in    1  ta n 
s in (        )  cos    
 

(8-123)
 1 
 c   ta n      T
 cos    
 

Page 280 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

Figure 8-36: The Mohr circle for UCS and cohesion.

Now shear failure will occur if the minimum principal stress σmin is larger than the tensile strength σT, thus:

 m in   T (8-124)

If equation (8-124) is true, shear failure will occur. Keep in mind however, that the tensile strength σT is a negative
number. Of course if the minimum normal stress  m in or in the graph, Figure 8-38,  T / c is positive, tensile
failure can never occur. Equation (8-124) can be transformed to:

T cos       
    c o s     t a n     t a n     s in   
c s in         
(8-125)
1
 ta n    
cos   

Substituting equation (8-108) for the shear angle β gives:

      
s in  
T  2 
   cos    ta n    t a n     s in   
c       
cos  
 2  (8-126)

1
 ta n   
cos   

This can be transformed to:

        
 s in     1  s in 
T  2   
   1  (8-127)
c           c o s    

 cos   
  2  

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 281 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

A mobilized cohesive shear strength cm can be defined, based on the tensile strength σT, by using the equal sign in
equation (8-127). With this mobilized cohesive shear strength Mohr circle 2 can be constructed.

T
cm 
        
 s in     1  s in 
 2     (8-128)
  1 
        
  cos    
 cos   
  2  

Substituting equation (8-128) in the equations (8-109) and (8-110) gives for the cutting forces:

2  c m  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    )
Fh    HT   T  hi  w (8-129)
1  cos(     )
2  cm  h i  w  cos( )  cos(   )
F    VT   T  hi  w (8-130)
1  cos(     )

Figure 8-38 shows the pseudo cohesive shear strength coefficient  T / c from equation (8-127). Below the lines
the cutting process is ductile (the Flow Type) or brittle (the Shear Type), while above the lines it is brittle (the
Tear Type). It is clear from this figure that an increasing blade angle α and an increasing internal friction angle φ
suppresses the occurrence of the Tear Type. The coefficients λHT and λVT are shown in Figure 8-42 and Figure
8-43 for a range of blade angles α and internal friction angles φ.

Figure 8-37: The Mohr circles of the Tear Type.

Equation (8-129) gives for the specific energy Esp:

E sp   HT T (8-131)

Page 282 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

A: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure

0.0

φ=00
-0.1
Tensile Failure φ=05
-0.2

φ=10
-0.3

φ=15
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.4

φ=20
-0.5

Shear Failure φ=25

-0.6

φ=30
-0.7
φ=35
-0.8
φ=40
-0.9
φ=45
-1.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-38: Below the lines (equation (8-125)) the cutting process is brittle
(shear failure); above the lines it is brittle (tensile failure).

A: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure

φ=00
Tensile Failure
φ=05

φ=10

φ=15

10 φ=20
Ratio -UCS/BTS

φ=25

φ=30

Shear Failure φ=35

φ=40

φ=45

Ductile
limit
Brittle
1 limit
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-39: The ratio UCS/BTS, below the lines there is brittle
(shear failure), above the lines it is brittle (tensile failure).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 283 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

To determine the cutting forces in rock under atmospheric conditions the following steps have to be taken:
1. Determine whether the cutting process is based on the Flow Type or the Tear Type, using Figure 8-38.
2. If the cutting process is based on the Flow Type, use Figure 8-31 and Figure 8-32 to determine the coefficients
λHF and λVF. Use equations (8-109) and (8-110) to calculate the cutting forces. Optionally a factor 0.3-0.5 may
be applied in case of brittle shear failure, to account for average forces, power and specific energy.
3. If the cutting process is based on the Tear Type, use Figure 8-42 and Figure 8-43 to determine the coefficients
λHT and λVT. Use equations (8-129) and (8-130) to calculate the cutting forces. A factor 0.3-0.6 should be
applied to account for average forces, power and specific energy.

Figure 8-40: The moments on the layer cut.

For completeness, Figure 8-40 shows the moments on the layer cut.

Based on equation (8-127) and (8-117) the ratio UCS/BTS can also be determined. Gehking (1987) stated that
below a ratio of 9 ductile failure will occur, while above a ratio of 15 brittle failure will occur. In between these
limits there is a transition between ductile and brittle failure, which is also in accordance with the findings of
Fairhurst (1964). Figure 8-39 shows that the ductile limit of 9 is possible for blade angles α between 45º and 60º
corresponding with internal friction angles φ of 25º and 15º. For the same blade angles, the corresponding internal
friction angles φ are 35º and 25º at the brittle limit of 15. These values match the blade angles as used in dredging
and mining and also match the internal friction angle of commonly dredged rock. Figure 8-39 shows that in general
a higher internal friction angle φ and a bigger blade angle α suppress tensile failure.

UCS 2

BTS         
 s in     1  s in   2
 2    (8-132)
  1 
          c o s    
 cos   
  2  

Page 284 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

A: Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α, Based on Shear Failure

90

85 φ=00
80

75 φ=05

70
φ=10
65
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

60
φ=15
55

50 φ=20
45

40 φ=25
35

30
φ=30

25
φ=35
20

15
φ=40
10

5 φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-41: The shear angle with limitation.

Figure 8-41 shows the shear angle with limitations. The limitations occur because at a certain sum of the blade
angle, the shear angle and the angle of internal friction, a positive tensile strength would be required to get brittle
tensile failure, which is physically impossible. Compressive stresses are defined positive and tensile stresses
negative, so a positive tensile stress would in fact be a compressive stress. Beyond this limitation only brittle shear
can exist, or if the sum of the angles is to high, probably another mechanism like the wedge mechanism.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 285 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

A: Brittle Tensile Hor. Force Coefficient λHT vs. Blade Angle α

20
φ=00
18
Brittle Tensile Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT (-)

φ=05
16
φ=10
14
φ=15
12
φ=20
10
φ=25
8
φ=30
6
φ=35
4
φ=40
2
φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-42: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT.

A: Brittle Tensile Vertical Force Coefficient λVT vs. Blade Angle α

5.0

φ=00
4.5

φ=05
Brittle Tensile Vertical Force Coefficient λVT (-)

4.0
φ=10
3.5
φ=15
3.0
φ=20
2.5
φ=25
2.0
φ=30
1.5
φ=35
1.0
φ=40
0.5
φ=45
0.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-43: The brittle (tensile failure) vertical force coefficient λVT.

Page 286 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

8.7. Correction on the Tear Type and the Chip Type.

The equations for the Tear Type are derived based on the shear angle β of the Flow Type. It is however a question
whether this is correct under all circumstances. At the moment of transition of Flow Type to Tear Type this may
be the case, but far away from this transition there may be another optimum shear angle β. Combining equations
(7-68), (7-69) and (7-88) with the shear angle β as a variable and determining the minimum horizontal force, gives
a different value for the shear angle β.

B: Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α, Based on Tensile Failure

90

85 φ=00
80

75 φ=05

70
φ=10
65
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

60
φ=15
55

50 φ=20
45

40 φ=25
35

30 φ=30

25
φ=35
20

15
φ=40
10

5 φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-44: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α and
the internal friction angle φ.

A shear angle β is found, exactly 22.5° smaller than the shear angle β of the Flow Type (see Figure 8-44).

  /4    
   (8-133)
2 2

Figure 8-45 and Figure 8-46 show the horizontal and the vertical cutting force coefficients which are slightly
smaller than the horizontal and vertical cutting force coefficients in Figure 8-42 and Figure 8-43. Now there exists
a set of parameters where both shear failure and tensile failure give a possible solution. In this range of parameters
shear failure will not give tensile stresses that exceed the tensile strength while tensile failure would lead to smaller
forces. The occurrence of the Flow Type or the Tear Type will depend on the history of the cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 287 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

B: Brittle Tensile Hor. Force Coefficient λHT vs. Blade Angle α

20

φ=00
18
Brittle Tensile Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT (-)

φ=05
16

φ=10
14

φ=15
12

φ=20
10

φ=25
8

φ=30
6

φ=35
4
φ=40
2
φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-45: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT.

B: Brittle Tensile Vertical Force Coefficient λVT vs. Blade Angle α

3.0

φ=00
2.5

φ=05
Brittle Tensile Vertical Force Coefficient λVT (-)

2.0

1.5 φ=10

1.0
φ=15
0.5
φ=20
0.0

φ=25
-0.5

-1.0 φ=30

-1.5 φ=35

-2.0
φ=40
-2.5
φ=45
-3.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-46: The brittle (tensile failure) vertical force coefficient λVT.

Page 288 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

Substituting the corrected shear angle gives for the mobilized shear strength:

T
cm 
         /4  
 s in     1  s in 
 2    (8-134)
  1
         /4    c o s    

 cos   
  2  

Now the cutting forces can be determined with:

2  c m  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    )
Fh    HT   T  hi  w (8-135)
cos(  / 4 )  cos(     )
2  cm  h i  w  cos( )  cos(   )
F    VT   T  hi  w (8-136)
cos(  / 4 )  cos(     )

8.8. Specific Energy.

For the cases as described above, cutting with a straight blade with the direction of the cutting velocity vc
perpendicular to the blade (edge of the blade), the specific cutting energy Esp is:

Fh  v c Fh
E sp   (8-137)
hi  w  vc hi  w

The specific energy of the Flow Type or Crushed Type of cutting mechanism can be written as:

E sp   HF c (8-138)

The specific energy of the Tear Type or Chip Type of cutting mechanism can be written as:

E sp   HT T (8-139)

Since the specific energy equations are based on the maximum horizontal cutting forces, where the cutting process
is most probably either brittle shear or brittle tensile, the average cutting forces will be smaller. How much smaller
depends on the type of rock, but literature mentions reductions by 30% to 70%. Since the specific energy is based
on the average cutting forces, the values found with the above equations should be multiplied by a factor of 0.3-
0.7.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 289 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure

0.0

φ=00
-0.1

-0.2 Tensile Failure φ=05

-0.3
φ=10
-0.4
φ=15
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6 φ=20

-0.7
φ=25
-0.8
φ=30
-0.9

-1.0
φ=35
Shear Failure
-1.1 φ=40

-1.2
φ=45
-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-47: Below the lines (equation (8-125)) the cutting process is brittle
(shear failure); above the lines it is brittle (tensile failure).

B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure

φ=00
Tensile Failure
φ=05

φ=10

φ=15

10 φ=20
Ratio -UCS/BTS

φ=25

φ=30

φ=35

φ=40

φ=45
Shear Failure
Ductile
limit
Brittle
1 limit
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-48: The ratio UCS/BTS, below the lines there is brittle
(shear failure), above the lines it is brittle (tensile failure).

Page 290 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

8.9. Resulting Forces & Mohr Circles.

Horizontal Cutting Force Fh vs. Tensile Strength BTS-UTS

1.60

Fh Flow, Shear or
Crushed Type
1.40

Fh Tear Type -
Horizontal Cutting Force Fh (MN)

1.20
Beta Flow Type

1.00
Fh Tear Type -
Beta Tear Type
0.80

Lower Limit BTS-

UTS Chip Type
0.60

Upper Limit BTS-

0.40
UTS Chip Type

0.20
Fh Chip Type

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
-Tensile Strength BTS-UTS (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-49: Horizontal cutting force: α=60 º, UCS=100 MPa, φ=20º, hi=0.1 m & w=0.1 m.

Figure 8-50: Vertical cutting force: α=60 º, UCS=100 MPa, φ=20º, hi=0.1 m & w=0.1 m.

Figure 8-49 and Figure 8-50 show the horizontal and vertical cutting forces. The transition tensile failure/shear
failure occurs at a tensile strength of about -8.5 MPa, so 8.5% of the UCS value. From a tensile strength of -8.5
MPa (8.5% UCS) to -20 MPa (20% UCS), both tensile failure and shear failure are possible. Below a tensile
strength of -20 MPa (20% UCS) only shear failure is possible. Figure 8-51 and Figure 8-52 show the Mohr circles
for tensile strengths of -8.5 MPa (8.5% UCS) and -20 MPa (20% UCS). One can see that with a tensile strength of

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 291 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

-8.5 MPa both tensile failure and shear failure are possible, with a tensile strength of -20 MPa also both tensile
failure and shear failure are possible. It should be mentioned here that the forces shown are peak forces, so average
forces may reduce to 50%-60%. So the two limiting cases are shown.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

70

60 Sigma Axis

50

40
Tau Axis
30
Shear Stress τ (MPa)

20
Tensile Failure
10 Criterion
0

-10 Shear Failure

Criterion
-20

-30
Mohr Circle
-40 Shear Failure

-50
Mohr Circle
-60 Tensile Failure
-70
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-51: Mohr circles tensile strength -8.5 MPA.

Shear Stress τ vs. Normal Stress σ

70

60 Sigma Axis

50

40
Tau Axis
30
Shear Stress τ (MPa)

20
Tensile Failure
10 Criterion
0

-10 Shear Failure

Criterion
-20

-30
Mohr Circle
-40 Shear Failure

-50
Mohr Circle
-60 Tensile Failure
-70
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Normal Stress σ (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-52: Mohr circles tensile strength -20 MPa.

Page 292 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=20º

0.0

-0.1
Tensile Failure
Tear Type Shear Failure &
-0.2
Tensile Failure
-0.3 Upper
Chip Type
Limit
-0.4
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6 Shear Failure

Shear Type
-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1 Shear Failure

-1.2
Flow Type

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-53: The tensile vs. shear failure range

based on the BTS to cohesion ratio.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=20º

Tensile Failure Shear Failure &

Tear Type Tensile Failure Upper
Chip Type Limit

10
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Shear Failure
Shear Type

Lower
Limit

Shear Failure
Flow Type
1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 8-54 The tensile vs. shear failure range

based on the UCS to BTS ratio.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 293 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

8.10. Example.
In this chapter and in Appendix W many graphs are given with a red or green rectangle giving the value of the
different parameters for an α=60º blade and an internal friction angle φ=20º. The external friction angle is assumed
to be δ=2/3·φ. Most graphs are dimensionless, but Figure 8-49, Figure 8-50, Figure 8-51 and Figure 8-52 are based
on a compressive strength UCS=100 MPa, a blade width w=0.1 m and a layer thickness hi=0.1 m.

8.10.1. Step 1: Brittle Shear.

The the shear angle β=43.3º, horizontal force coefficient λHF=1.912, the verticle force coefficient λVF=0.572 and
the Esp/UCS ratio=0.669. This gives a horizontal force Fh=0.669 MN, a vertical force Fv=0.200 MN and a specific
energy of Esp=66.9 MPa. These values are peak values, but for comparison reasons these values will be used.

8.10.2. Step 2: The Transition Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile.

The transitions brittle shear/brittle tensile occur for UCS/BTS=4.985 and UCS/BTS=11.75. This can also be
written as BTS=0.085·UCS and BTS=0.2·UCS, so BTS=8.5 MPa and BTS=20 MPa. BTS or UTS are
considered positive numbers, while tensile strength is considered to be negative in this book.
This means that below the Lower Limit BTS=8.5 MPa brittle shear failure cannot exist, so there is always brittle
tensile failure. Above the Upper Limit BTS=20 MPa brittle tensile failure cannot exist, so there is always brittle
shear failure. In between, both can exist , even at the same time, according to Figure 8-19 the Chip Type. Figure
8-49 and Figure 8-50 show the horizontal and vertical cutting forces as a function of the tensile strength for the
case considered. Interpolation curves are shown, simulating the simultaneous occurrence of brittle shear and brittle
tensile failure according to the Chip Type. For this interpolation the following method is used:

First define a factor f according to:

B T S  L o w e r L im it B T S  f  1

B T S  U p p e r L im it B T S  f  0

(8-140)
B T S  L o w e r L im it B T S
p
 U p p e r L im it B T S  B T S 
 f   
 U p p e r L im it B T S  L o w e r L im it B T S 
B T S  U p p e r L im it B T S

Now the resulting cutting forces can be determined with:

F h  F h , T e a r T y p e  f  F h ,S h e a r T y p e   1  f 
(8-141)
F v  F v , T e a r T y p e  f  F v ,S h e a r T y p e   1  f 

The power p used in Figure 8-49 and Figure 8-50 is p=1, a linear transition from tensile failure to shear failure,
the Chip Type.

Page 294 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Atmospheric Conditions.

8.10.3. Step 3: Applying Tensile Strengths of -5 MPa, -10 MPa and -25 MPa.
From Figure 8-49 and Figure 8-50 the horizontal and vertical peak forces can be determined. They are given in the
following table. Between brackets estimated average values, based on a 60% ratio between average and peak
values.

Table 8-3: Resulting forces and specific energy.

Tensile Fh (N) Fv (MN) Esp (MPa) Esp/UCS

Strength (%)
-5 MPa 0.207 (0.124) 0.062 (0.037) 20.7 (12.4) 20.7 (12.4)
-10 MPa 0.446 (0.268) 0.134 (0.080) 44.6 (26.8) 44.6 (26.8)
-25 MPa 0.669 (0.401) 0.200 (0.120) 66.9 (40.1) 66.9 (40.1)

The UCS/BTS ratio of 10 matches the findings of Roxborough (1987) giving a specific energy of about 25% of
the UCS value.

E s p  0 .2 5  U .C .S .  0 .1 1 (8-142)

8.11. Nomenclature.
a, a Adhesive shear strength kPa
A Adhesive force on the blade kN
BTS Brazilian Tensile Strength kPa
c, c Cohesive shear strength kPa
cm Mobilized cohesive shear strength kPa
C Cohesive force on shear plane kN
Esp Specific energy kPa
F Force kN
Fc Cutting force on chisel Evans model kN
Fn Normal force on chisel Evans model kN
Fch Horizontal force component Evans model kN
Fcv Vertical force component Evans model kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force kN
Fv Vertical cutting force kN
g Gravitational constant (9.81) m/s²
G Gravitational force kN
hi Initial thickness of layer cut m
hb Height of the blade m
K1 Grain force on the shear plane kN
K2 Grain force on the blade kN
I Inertial force on the shear plane kN
n Power in Nishimatsu model -
N1 Normal grain force on shear plane kN
N2 Normal grain force on blade kN
p Stress in shear plane Nishimatsu model kPa
p0 Stress at tip of chisel Nishimatsu model kPa
Pc Cutting power kW
Q Production m3
r Radius in Evans model m
r Adhesion/cohesion ratio -
r1 Pore pressure on shear plane/cohesion ratio -
r2 Pore pressure on blade/cohesion ratio -
R Radius of Mohr circle kPa
R Force on chisel Evans model kN

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 295 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Rn Normal force on chisel surface Evans model kN

Rf Friction force on chisel surface Evans model kN
R1 Acting point on the shear plane m
R2 Acting point on the blade m
S1 Shear force due to internal friction on the shear plane kN
S2 Shear force due to external friction on the blade kN
T Tensile force kN
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength kPa
vc Cutting velocity m/s
w Width of the blade m
W1 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the shear plane kN
W2 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the blade kN
 Blade angle rad
 Angle of the shear plane with the direction of cutting velocity rad
ε Angle of chisel with horizontal Evans model rad
 Shear stress kPa
a, a Adhesive shear strength (strain rate dependent) kPa
c, c Cohesive shear strength (strain rate dependent) kPa
S1 Average shear stress on the shear plane kPa
S2 Average shear stress on the blade kPa
 Normal stress kPa
C Center of Mohr circle kPa
T Tensile strength kPa
min Minimum principal stress in Mohr circle kPa
 Average normal stress on the shear plane kPa
 Average normal stress on the blade kPa
φ Angle of internal friction rad
 Angle of external friction rad
λ Distance in Nishimatsu model m
λs  Strengthening factor -
λ1 Acting point factor on the shear plane -
λ2 Acting point factor on the blade -
λHF Flow Type/Crushed Type horizontal force coefficient -
λVF Flow Type/Crushed Type vertical force coefficient -
λHT Tear Type/Chip Type horizontal force coefficient -
λVT Tear Type/Chip Type vertical force coefficient -
ω Angle in Evans model rad

Page 296 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

Chapter 9: Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

9.1. Introduction.
For rock cutting in dredging and mining under hyperbaric conditions not much is known yet. The data available
are from drilling experiments under very high pressures (Zijsling (1987), Kaitkay and Lei (2005) and Rafatian et
al. (2009)). The main difference between dredging and mining applications on one side and drilling experiments
on the other side is that in dredging and mining the thickness of the layer cut is relatively big, like 5-10 cm, while
in drilling the process is more like scraping with a thickness less than a mm. From the drilling experiments it is
known that under high pressures there is a transition from a brittle-shear cutting process to a ductile-flow cutting
process. Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3 from Rafatian et al. (2009) show clearly that with increasing confining pressure,
first the specific energy Esp increases with a steep curve, which is the transition brittle-ductile, after which the
curve for ductile failure is reached which is less steep. The transition is completed at 690 kPa-1100 kPa, matching
a water depth of 69-110 m.

The Carthage Marble has a UCS value of about 100 MPa and the Indiana Limestone a UCS value of 48 MPa. The
cutter had a blade angle α of 110º. Figure 9-29 shows the specific energy (according to the theory as developed in
this chapter) as a function of the UCS value and the confining pressure (water depth). For the Carthage Marble a
specific energy of about 400 MPa is found under atmospheric conditions for the ductile cutting process. For the
brittle shear process 25%-50% of this value should be chosen, matching Figure 9-2 at 0 MPa. For a water depth of
65 m, matching 0.65 MPa the graph gives about 500 MPa specific energy, which is a bit lower than the
measurements. For the Indiana Limestone a specific energy of about 200 MPa is found under atmospheric
conditions for the ductile cutting process. Also here, for the brittle shear process, 25%-50% of this value should
be chosen, matching Figure 9-3 at 0 MPa confining pressure. For a water depth of 65 m, matching 0.65 MPa the
graph gives about 280 MPa specific energy, which is a bit lower than the measurements.
For deep sea mining applications this is still shallow water. Both graphs show an increase of the Esp by a factor
2-2.5 during the transition brittle-shear to ductile-flow, which matches a reduction factor of 0.25-0.5 for the average
versus the maximum cutting forces as mentioned before. Figure 9-22 and Figure 9-23 show the results of Zijsling
(1987) in Mancos Shale and Figure 9-1 shows the results of Kaitkay & Lei (2005) in Carthage Marble.
The experiments of Kaitkay & Lei (2005) also show that the transition from brittle-shear to ductile-flow takes
place in the first few hundreds of meters of water depth (from 0 to about 2.5 MPa). They also show a multiplication
factor of about 3 during this transition. The experiments of Zijsling (1987) are not really suitable for determining
the transition brittle-shear to ductile-flow because there are only measurements at 0 MPa and about 10 MPa, so
they do not show when the transition is completed, but they do show the increase in forces and Esp.

C u ttin g F o r c e s in C a r t h a g e M a r b le
5000
F h , F v (N )

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40

P re s s u re (M P a )
Fh - 105 deg. Fv - 105 deg. D u c tile Fh - 115 deg. Fv - 115 deg. D u c tile

Figure 9-1: Variations of average cutting forces with hydrostatic pressure, Kaitkay & Lei (2005).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 297 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

S p e c ific E n e r g y a s a F u n c tio n o f P r e s s u r e in C a r th a g e M a r b le
1000

900

800

700
E s p (M P a )

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

P re s s u re (M P a )
M e a s u re m e n ts B rittle D u c tile

Figure 9-2: MSE versus confining pressure for Carthage marble in light and viscous mineral oil,
Rafatian et al. (2009).

S p e c ific E n e r g y a s a F u n c tio n o f P r e s s u r e in In d ia n a L im e s t o n e
500

450

400

350
E s p (M P a )

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

P re s s u re (M P a )
M e a s u re m e n ts B rittle D u c tile

Figure 9-3: MSE versus confining pressure for Indiana limestone in light mineral oil,
Rafatian et al. (2009).

Page 298 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

The explanation for the transition from brittle-shear to ductile-flow is, according to Zijsling (1987), the dilatation
due to shear stress in the shear plane resulting in pore under pressures, similar to the cutting process in water
saturated sand as has been described by Miedema (1987 September). Zijsling however did not give any
mathematical model. Detournay & Atkinson (2000) use the same explanation and use the Merchant (1944) model
(equations (8-109) and (8-110) for the flow type cutting process) to quantify the cutting forces and specific energy
by adding the pore pressures to the basic equations:

2  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    )
Fh    c  p 1 m  ta n     (9-1)
1  cos(     )

The difference between the bottom hole pressure (or hydrostatic pressure) and the average pressure p1m in the
shear plane has to be added to the effective stress between the particles in the shear plane A-B. Multiplying this
with the tangent of the internal friction angle gives the additional shear stress in the shear plane A-B, see Figure
9-4.
So in the vision of Detournay & Atkinson (2000) the effect of pore water under pressures p1m is like an apparent
additional cohesion. Based on this they find a value of the external friction angle which is almost equal to the
internal friction angle of 23º for the experiments of Zijsling (1987). Detournay & Atkinson (2000) however forgot
that, if there is a very large pore water under pressure in the shear plane, this pore water under pressure has not
disappeared when the layer cut moves over the blade or cutter. There will also be a very large pore water under
pressures on the blade as has been explained by Miedema (1987 September) for water saturated sand in dredging
applications. In the next paragraph this will be explained.

9.2. The Flow Type and the Crushed Type.

First of all it is assumed that the hyperbaric cutting mechanism is similar to the Flow Type as is shown in Figure
9-5. There may be 3 mechanisms that might explain the influence of large hydrostatic pressures:
1. When a tensile failure occurs, water has to flow into the crack, but the formation of the crack goes so fast that
cavitation will occur.
2. A second possible mechanism that might occur is an increase of the pore volume due to the elasticity of the
rock and the pore water. If high tensile stresses exist in the rock, then the pore volume will increase due to
elasticity. Because of the very low permeability of the rock, the compressibility of the pore water will have to
deal with this. Since the pore water is not very compressible, at small volume changes this will already result
in large under pressures in the pores. Whether this will lead to full cavitation of the pore water is still a
question.
3. Due to the high effective grain stresses, the particles are removed from the matrix which normally keeps them
together and makes it a rock. This will happen near the shear plane. The loose particles will be subject to
dilatation, resulting in an increase of the pore volume. This pore volume increase results in water flow to the
shear plane, which can only occur if there is an under pressure in the pores in the shear plane. If this under
pressure reaches the water vapor pressure, cavitation will occur, which is the lower limit for the absolute
pressures and the upper limit for the pressure difference between the bottom hole or hydrostatic pressure and
the pore water pressure. The pressure difference is proportional to the cutting velocity and the dilatation,
squared proportional to the layer thickness and reversely proportional to the permeability of the rock. If the
rock is very impermeable, cavitation will always occur and the cutting forces will match the upper limit.

Now under atmospheric conditions, the compressive strength of the rock will be much bigger than the atmospheric
pressure; usually the rock will have a compressive strength of 1 MPa or more while the atmospheric pressure is
just 100 kPa. Strong rock may have compressive strengths of 10’s of MPa’s, so the atmospheric pressure and thus
the effect of cavitation in the pores or the crack can be neglected. However in oil drilling and deep sea mining at
water depths of 3000 m nowadays plus a few 1000’s m into the seafloor (in case of oil drilling), the hydrostatic
pressure could easily increase to values higher than 10 MPa up to 100 MPa causing softer rock to behave ductile,
where it would behave brittle under low hydrostatic pressures.
It should be noted that brittle-tear failure, which is tensile failure, will only occur under atmospheric conditions
and small blade angles as used in dredging and mining. With blade angles larger than 90° brittle-tear will never
occur (see Figure 8-38). Brittle-shear may occur in all cases under atmospheric conditions.
Now what is the difference between rock cutting under atmospheric conditions and under hyperbaric conditions?
The difference is the extra pore pressure forces W1 and W2 on the shear plane and on the blade as will be explained
next.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 299 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 9-4: The definitions of Figure 9-5: The Flow Type

the cutting process. cutting mechanism.

Figure 9-6: The Crushed Type cutting mechanism.

Figure 9-7 illustrates the forces on the layer of rock cut. The forces acting on this layer are:
1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1 resulting from the grain stresses.
2. A shear force S1 as a result of internal friction N1·tan(.
3. A force W1 as a result of water under pressure in the shear zone.
4. A shear force C as a result of the cohesive shear strength c or c. This force can be calculated by multiplying
the cohesive shear strength c/c with the area of the shear plane.
5. A force normal to the blade N2 resulting from the grain stresses.
6. A shear force S2 as a result of the external friction N2·tan(.
7. A shear force A as a result of pure adhesion between the rock and the blade a or a. This force can be calculated
by multiplying the adhesive shear strength a/a of the rock with the contact area between the rock and the
blade. In most rocks this force will be absent.
8. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the blade

The normal force N1 and the shear force S1 on the shear plane can be combined to a resulting grain force K1.

2 2
K1  N 1  S1 (9-2)

The forces acting on a straight blade when cutting rock, can be distinguished as:
1. A force normal to the blade N2 resulting from the grain stresses.
2. A shear force S2 as a result of the external friction N2·tan(.
3. A shear force A as a result of pure adhesion between the rock and the blade a or c. This force can be calculated
by multiplying the adhesive shear strength a/a of the rock with the contact area between the rock and the
blade. In most rocks this force will be absent.
4. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the blade

Page 300 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

Figure 9-7: The forces on the layer cut in rock Figure 9-8: The forces on the blade in rock
(hyperbaric). (hyperbaric).

These forces are shown in Figure 9-8. If the forces N2 and S2 are combined to a resulting force K2 and the adhesive
force and the water under pressures are known, then the resulting force K2 is the unknown force on the blade. By
taking the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces an expression for the force K2 on the blade can be derived.

2 2
K 2  N2  S2 (9-3)

The horizontal equilibrium of forces:

 F h  K 1  s in (    )  W 1  s in (  )  C  c o s (  )

(9-4)
 A  c o s (  )  W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  0

The vertical equilibrium of forces:

 F v   K 1  c o s (    )  W 1  c o s (  )  C  s in (  )

(9-5)
 A  s in (  )  W 2  c o s (  )  K 2  cos(   )  0

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  C  c o s (      )  A  c o s   
K 1  (9-6)
s in (        )

The force K2 on the blade is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  C  c o s (  )  A  c o s       
K 2  (9-7)
s in (        )

From equation (9-7) the forces on the blade can be derived. On the blade a force component in the direction of
cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    ) (9-8)
F   W 2  c o s (  )  K 2  cos(   ) (9-9)

The normal force on the shear plane is now:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 301 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )
N1   cos( )
s in (        )

(9-10)
 C  cos(     )  A  cos   
  cos( )
s in (        )

The normal force on the blade is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )
N 2   cos( )
s in (        )

(9-11)
 C  cos( )  A  cos       
  cos( )
s in (        )

The pore pressure forces can be determined in the case of full-cavitation or the case of no cavitation according to:

 w  g   z  10   h i  w p 1m  h i  w
W1  or W1  (9-12)
s in    s in   

 w  g   z  10   h b  w p 2m  h b  w
W2  or W 2  (9-13)
s in    s in   

The forces C and A are determined by the cohesive shear strength c and the adhesive shear strength a according
to:

c hi  w
C  (9-14)
s in   

a hb  w (9-15)
A 
s in   

The ratio’s between the adhesive shear strength and the pore pressures with the cohesive shear strength can be
found according to:

a hb p 1m  h i  w  g   z  10   h i p 2m  h b
r= , r1 = o r r1  , r2 =
c hi c hi c hi c hi

(9-16)
 w  g   z  10   hb
o r r2 
c hi

Finally the horizontal and vertical cutting forces can be written as:

Fh   H F  c  h i  w (9-17)
F   V F  c  h i  w (9-18)

Figure 9-9, Figure 9-10 and Figure 9-11 show the horizontal and vertical cutting force coefficients and the shear
angle as a function of the ratio of the hydrostatic pressure to the shear strength of the rock rz for a 60 degree blade
and full cavitation. If this ratio equals 1, it means the hydrostatic pressure equals the shear strength. At small ratios
the resulting values approach atmospheric cutting of rock. Also at small ratios the shear angle approaches the
theoretical value for atmospheric cutting. Figure 9-12 shows the Esp/UCS ratio, which is very convenient for
production estimation.

Page 302 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

The vertical cutting force coefficient λVF is positive downwards directed. From the calculations it appeared that
for a 60 degree blade, the Curling Type will already occur with an hb/hi=1. For a 110 degree blade it requires an
hb/hi=4-5, depending on the internal friction angle. The transition at small hb/hi ratios, between the Flow Type
and the Curling Type, will occur at blade angles between 60 and 90 degrees. So its important to determine the
cutting forces for both mechanisms in order to see which of the two should be applied. This is always the
mechanism resulting in the smallest horizontal cutting force.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHF vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz
100

φ=01

φ=05
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHF (-)

φ=10

φ=15

10 φ=20

φ=25

φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-9: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHF for a 60 degree blade, hb/hi=1.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVF vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz
2

φ=01

0 φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVF (-)

φ=10
-2

φ=15

-4 φ=20

φ=25
-6
φ=30

-8 φ=35

φ=40
-10
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-10: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVF for a 60 degree blade, hb/hi=1.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 303 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Shear Angle β vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz

90

φ=01
80

φ=05
70

φ=10
60

φ=15
Shear Angle β (deg)

50

φ=20
40

φ=25
30

φ=30
20

φ=35
10

φ=40
0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-11:The shear angle β, for a 60 degree blade, hb/hi=1.

Specific Energy Esp/UCS vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz
100.0

φ=01

φ=05
Specific Energy Esp/UCS (-)

φ=10
10.0

φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
1.0
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-12: The Esp/UCS ratio, for a 60 degree blade, hb/hi=1.

Page 304 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

9.3. The Tear Type and the Chip Type.

Similar to the derivation of equation (8-127) for the occurrence of tensile failure under atmospheric conditions,
equation (9-19) can be derived for the occurrence of tensile failure under hyperbaric conditions. Under hyperbaric
conditions equation (9-19) will almost always be true, because of the terms with r1 and r2 which may become very
big (positive). So tensile failure will not be considered for hyperbaric conditions.

Figure 9-13: The Tear Type cutting mechanism in Figure 9-14: The Chip Type cutting mechanism in
rock under hyperbaric conditions. rock under hyperbaric conditions.

 s in     c o s    s in     s in    
 r  r2  
 s in    s in    
 s in          
 
 
 
  r1  s in          1  s in   
c     T (9-19)
 s in            cos    
   
 
 
  c o s         s in          

 s in          
 
 
 

9.4. The Curling Type.

When cutting or scraping a very thin layer of rock, the Curling Type may occur. In dredging and mining usually
the layer thickness is such that this will not occur, but in drilling practices usually the layer thickness is very small
compared with the height of the blade. In the Zijsling (1987) experiments layer thicknesses of 0.15 mm and 0.30
mm were applied with a PDC bit with a height and width of about 10 mm. Under these conditions the Curling
Type will occur, which is also named balling. Figure 9-15 shows this type of cutting mechanism.

Now the question is, what is the effective blade height hb,m? In other words, along which distance will the rock cut
be in contact with the blade? To solve this problem an additional condition has to be found. This condition is the
equilibrium of moments around the blade tip as is shown in Figure 9-16. The only forces that contribute to the
equilibrium of moments are the normal forces N1 and N2 and the pore pressure forces W1 and W2. The acting
points of these forces are chosen as fractions of the length of the shear plane λ1 and the blade length λ2.

The equilibrium of moments around the blade tip is:

N1  W1 R1  N2  W2 R2 (9-20)

For the acting points the following can be derived:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 305 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

1 hi  2  h b ,m
R1  ,R  (9-21)
s in    s in   
2

Figure 9-15: The Curling Type or balling. Figure 9-16: The equilibrium of moments on the
layer cut in hyperbaric rock.

Substituting equations (9-10) and (9-11) into equation (9-20) gives:

 W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      ) 
  cos( ) 
s in (        )
 
 
 
  C  cos(     )  A  cos     1 hi
  cos( ) 
  s in 
s in (        )  
 
 
 
 W1
 
 
 
(9-22)
 W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  ) 
  cos( ) 
s in (        )
 
 
 
  C  cos( )  A  cos          2  h b ,m
   co s( ) 
  s in 
s in (        )  
 
 
 
W2
 
 
 

This can be written as a second degree function of the effective or mobilized blade height hb,m:

2
A x  B x  C  0

(9-23)
2
B  B  4A C
h b ,m  x 
2A

Page 306 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

With:

 2  p 2 m  s in            2  p 2 m  s in         c o s   
A 
s in     s in   
(9-24)
 a   2  cos         cos   

s in     s in   

And:
 1  p 2 m  s in     c o s     2  p 1 m  c o s     s in   
B  hi
s in     s in   

(9-25)
 c   2  cos     cos    a   1  cos     cos   
 hi
s in     s in   

And:

 1  p 1 m  s in         c o s     1  p 1 m  s in         
C  hi hi
s in     s in   

(9-26)
 c   1  cos         cos   
 hi hi
s in     s in   

If hb,m<hb then the Curling Type will occur, but if hb,m>hb the normal Flow Type will occur.

i f h b ,m  h b t h e n u s e h b ,m
(9-27)
if h b ,m  h b t h e n u s e h b

Now in the case of full cavitation, the adhesion can be neglected and both arms are at 50% of the corresponding
length. This simplifies the equations to:

p m  c o s         s in   
A 
s in     s in   

 p m  s in       c  c o s     c o s   
B  hi (9-28)
s in     s in   

 p m  c o s         s in     c  c o s         c o s   
C  hi hi
s in     s in   

Introducing the ratio rz between the absolute hydrostatic pressure and the shear strength c:

 w  g   z  10 
rz  (9-29)
c

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 307 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Gives for the A, B and C:

r z  c o s         s in   
A 
s in     s in   

 r z  s in       c o s     c o s   
B  hi (9-30)
s in     s in   

 r z  c o s         s in     c o s         c o s   
C  hi hi
s in     s in   

The B term is always negative. The term 4·A·C is also always negative. This results in a square root that will
always be bigger than |B|. Since the sum of the angles in the arguments of the cosines will always be larger than
90 degrees, the cosines will give a negative result. So A will always be negative. This implies that the negative
square root gives a positive answer, while the positive square root will give a negative answer. Since the mobilized
blade height has to be positive, the negative square root should be used here.

Finally the horizontal and vertical cutting forces can be written as:

Fh   H C  c  h i  w (9-31)
F   V C  c  h i  w (9-32)

Figure 9-17 and Figure 9-18 show the ratio of the mobilized blade height to the layer thickness hb,m/hi and the
shear angle β for a 60 degree blade. From Figure 9-17 it is clear that the Curling Type already occurs at normal
hb,m/hi ratios. Especially at small internal friction angles this will be the case. Figure 9-19 and Figure 9-20 show
the horizontal and vertical cutting force coefficients, which are not much different from the coefficients of the
Flow Type and hb,m/hi=1. . Figure 9-21 shows the Esp/UCS ratio, which is very convenient for production
estimation.

Page 308 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

Ratio hb,m/hi vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz

2.0

φ=01
1.8

φ=05
1.6

φ=10
1.4

φ=15
Ratio hb,m/hi (-)

1.2

1.0 φ=20

0.8 φ=25

0.6
φ=30

0.4
φ=35
0.2
φ=40
0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-17: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 60 degree blade.

Shear Angle β vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz

90

φ=01
80

φ=05
70

φ=10
60

φ=15
Shear Angle β (deg)

50

φ=20
40

φ=25
30

φ=30
20

φ=35
10

φ=40
0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-18:The shear angle β for a 60 degree blade

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 309 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz
100

φ=01
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

φ=05

φ=10

φ=15

10 φ=20

φ=25

φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-19: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 60 degree blade.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz
5.0
φ=01

2.5 φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

φ=10
0.0
φ=15

-2.5 φ=20

φ=25
-5.0
φ=30

-7.5 φ=35

φ=40
-10.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-20: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 60 degree blade.
Positive downwards.

Page 310 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

Specific Energy Esp/UCS vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz
100.0

φ=01

φ=05

φ=10
Specific Energy Esp/UCS (-)

10.0
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
1.0
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-21: The Esp/UCS ratio, for a 60 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 311 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

9.5. Experiments of Zijsling (1987).

The theory developed here, which basically is the theory of Miedema (1987 September) extended with the Curling
Type, has been applied on the cutting tests of Zijsling (1987). Zijsling conducted cutting tests with a PDC bit with
a width and height of 10 mm in Mancos Shale. This type of rock has a UCS value of about 65 MPa, a cohesive
shear strength c of about 25 MPa, an internal friction angle φ of 23º, according to Detournay & Atkinson (2000),
a layer thickness hi of 0.15 mm and 0.30 mm and a blade angle α of 110º. The external friction angle δ is chosen
at 2/3 of the internal friction angle φ. Based on the principle of minimum energy a shear angle β of 12º has been
derived. Zijsling already concluded that balling would occur. Using equation (9-26) an effective blade height hb,m
= 4.04·hi has been found. Figure 9-22 shows the cutting forces as measured by Zijsling compared with the theory
derived here. The force FD is the force Fh in the direction of the cutting velocity and the force FN is the force Fv
normal to the velocity direction. Figure 9-23 shows the specific energy Esp and the so called drilling strength S.
Figure 9-29 and Figure 9-30 show the specific energy Esp as a function of the UCS value of a rock for different
UCS/BTS ratio’s and different water depths. Figure 9-29 shows this for a 110º blade as in the experiments of
Zijsling (1987). The UCS value of the Mancos Shale is about 65 MPa. It is clear that in this graph the UCS/BTS
value has no influence, since there will be no tensile failure at a blade angle of 110º. There could however be brittle
shear failure under atmospheric conditions resulting in a specific energy of 30%-50% of the lowest line in the
graph. Figure 9-29 gives a good indication of the specific energy for drilling purposes.
Figure 9-30 and Figure 9-31 show this for a 45º and a 60º blade as may be used in dredging and mining. From this
figure it is clear that under atmospheric conditions tensile failure may occur. The lines for the UCS/BTS ratios
give the specific energy based on the peak forces. This specific energy should be multiplied with 30%-50% to get
the average value. Roxborough (1987) found that for all sedimentary rocks and some sandstone, the specific energy
is about 25% of the UCS value (both have the dimension kPa or MPa). In Figure 9-30 and Figure 9-31 this would
match brittle-shear failure with a factor of 30%-50% (R=2). In dredging and mining the blade angle would
normally be in a range of 45º to 60º. Vlasblom (2003-2007) uses a percentage of 40% of the UCS value for the
specific energy based on the experience of the dredging industry, which is close to the value found by Roxborough
(1987). The percentage used by Vlasblom has the purpose of production estimation and is on the safe side (a bit
too high). Both the percentages of Roxborough (1987) and Vlasblom (2003-2007) are based on the brittle shear
failure. In the case of brittle tensile failure the specific energy may be much lower.

Resuming it can be stated that the theory developed here matches the measurements of Zijsling (1987) well. It has
been proven that the approach of Detournay & Atkinson (2000) misses the pore pressure force on the blade and
thus leads to some wrong conclusions. It can further be stated that brittle tensile failure will only occur with
relatively small blade angles under atmospheric conditions. Brittle shear failure may also occur with large blade
angles under atmospheric conditions. The measurements of Zijsling show clearly that at 0 MPa bottom hole
pressure, the average cutting forces are 30%-50% of the forces that would be expected based on the trend. The
conclusions are valid for the experiments they are based on. In other types of rock or with other blade angles the
theory may have to be adjusted. This can be taken into account by the following equation, where α will have a
value of 3-7 depending on the type of material.

  
F h ,c  F h   1   (9-33)
  z  1 0  


At zero water depth the cutting forces are reduced to α/10, so to 30%-70% depending on the type of rock. At 90
m water depth the reduction is just 3%-7%, matching the Zijsling (1987) experiments, but also the Rafatian et al.
(2009) and Kaitkay & Lei (2005) experiments. The equation is empirical and a first attempt, so it needs
improvement.

Figure 9-24 and Figure 9-25 show the hb,m/hi ratio and the shear angle β. The Zijsling (1987) experiments match
the curves of an internal friction angle of 25 degrees close. Since the blade height in these experiments was about
10 mm, the actual hb,m/hi ratio were 10/.15=66.66 and 10/.3=33.33. In both cases these ratios are much larger than
the ones calculated for the Curling Type, leading to the conclusion that the Curling Type always occurs. So in
offshore drilling, the Curling Type is the dominant cutting mechanism. On the horizontal axis, a value of 1
matches the shear strength of the rock, being about 25 MPa. A value of 4 matches the maximum hydrostatic
pressure of 100 MPa as used in the experiments. The hb,m/hi ratio increases slightly with increasing hydrostatic
pressure, the shear angle decreases slightly.

Page 312 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
FD (kN)

1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Bottomhole Pressure (MPa)
hi=0.15 mm unconditioned hi=0.15 mm pc=21 MPa hi=0.15 mm pc=30 MPa hi=0.15 mm pc=35 MPa

hi=0.3 mm unconditioned hi=0.3 mm pc=21 MPa hi=0.3 mm pc=30 MPa hi=0.3 mm pc=35 MPa

3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
FN (kN)

1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Bottomhole Pressure (MPa)
hi=0.15 mm unconditioned hi=0.15 mm pc=21 MPa hi=0.15 mm pc=30 MPa hi=0.15 mm pc=35 MPa

hi=0.3 mm unconditioned hi=0.3 mm pc=21 MPa hi=0.3 mm pc=30 MPa hi=0.3 mm pc=35 MPa

Figure 9-22: The theory of hyperbaric cutting versus

the Zijsling (1987) experiments.

Blade angle α = 110º, blade width w = 10 mm, internal friction angle φ = 23.8º, external friction angle δ = 15.87º,
shear strength c = 24.82 MPa, shear angle β = 12.00º, layer thickness hi = 0.15 mm and 0.30 mm, effective blade
height hb = 4.04·hi.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 313 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

1000

900

800

700
Esp (MPa)

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Bottomhole Pressure (MPa)
hi=0.15 mm unconditioned hi=0.15 mm pc=21 MPa hi=0.15 mm pc=30 MPa hi=0.15 mm pc=35 MPa

hi=0.3 mm unconditioned hi=0.3 mm pc=21 MPa hi=0.3 mm pc=30 MPa hi=0.3 mm pc=35 MPa

1000

900

800

700

600
S (MPa)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Bottomhole Pressure (MPa)
hi=0.15 mm unconditioned hi=0.15 mm pc=21 MPa hi=0.15 mm pc=30 MPa hi=0.15 mm pc=35 MPa

hi=0.3 mm unconditioned hi=0.3 mm pc=21 MPa hi=0.3 mm pc=30 MPa hi=0.3 mm pc=35 MPa

Figure 9-23: The specific energy Esp and the drilling strength S, theory versus
the Zijsling (1987) experiments.

Blade angle α = 110º, blade width w = 10 mm, internal friction angle φ = 23.8º, external friction angle δ = 15.87º,
shear strength c = 24.82 MPa, shear angle β = 12.00º, layer thickness hi = 0.15 mm and 0.30 mm, effective blade
height hb = 4.04·hi.

Page 314 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

Ratio hb,m/hi vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz

10.0

φ=01
9.0

φ=05
8.0

φ=10
7.0

φ=15
Ratio hb,m/hi (-)

6.0

5.0 φ=20

4.0 φ=25

3.0
φ=30

2.0
φ=35
1.0
φ=40
0.0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-24: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 110 degree blade.

Shear Angle β vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz

90

φ=01
80

φ=05
70

φ=10
60

φ=15
Shear Angle β (deg)

50

φ=20
40

φ=25
30

φ=30
20

φ=35
10

φ=40
0
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-25:The shear angle β for a 110 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 315 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz
100000

φ=01
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

φ=05
10000

φ=10

1000 φ=15

φ=20

100 φ=25

φ=30

10
φ=35

φ=40
1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-26: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 110 degree blade.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz
10
φ=01
0

φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

-10

-20 φ=10

-30
φ=15
-40
φ=20
-50

φ=25
-60

-70 φ=30

-80
φ=35

-90
φ=40
-100
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-27: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 110 degree blade.
Positive upwards.

Figure 9-26 and Figure 9-27 show the horizontal and vertical cutting force coefficients. For a hydrostatic pressure
of 100 MPa and an internal friction angle of 25 degrees the graphs give a horizontal cutting force coefficient of
λHC=45 and a vertical cutting force coefficient of λVC=38 giving cutting forces of Fh=FD=3.25 kN and Fv=FN=2.74
kN, matching the experiments in Figure 9-22. Figure 9-28 shows the Esp/UCS ratio, which is very convenient for
production estimation.

Page 316 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

Specific Energy Esp/UCS vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz
10000

φ=01

φ=05

1000
φ=10
Specific Energy Esp/UCS (-)

φ=15

100 φ=20

φ=25

φ=30
10

φ=35

φ=40
1
0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
Hydrostatic Pressure/Shear Strength Ratio rz (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure 9-28: The Esp/UCS ratio, for a 110 degree blade.

9.6. Specific Energy.

For the cases as described above, cutting with a straight blade with the direction of the cutting velocity vc
perpendicular to the blade (edge of the blade), the specific cutting energy Esp is:

Fh  v c Fh
E sp   (9-34)
hi  w  vc hi  w

The specific energy of the Flow Type of cutting mechanism can be written as:

E sp   HF c (9-35)

The specific energy of the Curling Type of cutting mechanism can be written as:

E sp   HC c (9-36)

Appendix X: Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts: Contains graphs for blade angles from 30 degrees up to 120 degrees,
covering both dredging and offshore drilling applications.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 317 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

9.7. Example.
In this chapter many graphs are given for an α=60º blade and different internal friction angles. Chosing φ=20º,
like in chapter 8, gives the possibility to compare atmospheric and hyperbaric cutting of rock. The external friction
angle is assumed to be δ=2/3·φ. Assume a blade width w=0.1 m and a layer thickness hi=0.1 m, similar to chapter
8.
Also choosing UCS=100 MPa gives a specific energy to UCS ratio 0f 0.669 for very small hydrostatic pressure to
UCS ratios, which is equal to the peak values found for atmospheric cutting. The atmospheric cutting process
however is brittle shear failure in this case, resulting in lower average forces, while the hyperbaric process is
supposed to be cataclastic or pseudo ductile. At very small hydrostatic pressures the behavior will still be brittle
shear, but at larger water depths pseudo ductile.

Now suppose a rock with a UCS value of 10 MPa and water depths of 100 m, 1000 m and 3000 m. This results in
the following forces and specific energies.

Table 9-1: Forces and specific energy example.

Water Hydrostatic β (º) hb,m/hi λHC λVC Esp/UCS

Depth z Pressure/UCS (-) (-) (-) (-)
(m) Ratio
0 0 43.23 0.584 1.94 0.58 0.68
100 0.1 42.33 0.602 2.20 0.60 0.77
1000 1.0 38.51 0.707 4.62 0.81 1.62
3000 3.0 36.50 0.800 10.17 1.12 3.56

The mobilized blade height hb,m is smaller than 1, which means that under normal circumstances the mobilized
blade height is smaller than the actual blade height, resulting in the Curling Type. If the mobilized blade height
is larger than the actual blade height, the Flow Type or Crushed Type will occur and the numbers in the above
table will be different. Figure 9-17, Figure 9-18, Figure 9-19, Figure 9-20 and Figure 9-21 are used to determine
the values in the above table.

Page 318 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

9.8. Specific Energy Graphs.

Rock Cutting
1000000

100000

Ductile

10000
Esp in kPa

Brittle

1000

100

10
1000 10000 100000
Compressive strength in kPa
R=2, 0 bar R=4 R=8 R=16 R=32 R=64 R=2, 10 bar

R=2, 100 bar R=2, 200 bar R=2, 300 bar R=2, 400 bar R=2, 500 bar R=1000 bar

The specific energy Esp as a function of the compressive strength of rock,

for different ratio's between the compressive strength and the tensile strength.
For a 110 degree blade.

Figure 9-29: The specific energy Esp in rock versus the compressive strength (UCS) for a 110º blade.

Blade angle α = 110º, layer thickness hi = 0.00015 m, blade height hb = 0.01 m, angle of internal friction φ =
23.80º, angle of external friction δ = 15.87º, shear angle β = 12.00º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 319 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Rock Cutting
100000

10000

Ductile
Esp in kPa

1000 Brittle

100

10
1000 10000 100000
Compressive strength in kPa
R=2, 0 bar R=4 R=8 R=16 R=32 R=64 R=2, 10 bar

R=2, 100 bar R=2, 200 bar R=2, 300 bar R=2, 400 bar R=2, 500 bar R=1000 bar

The specific energy Esp as a function of the compressive strength of rock,

for different ratio's between the compressive strength and the tensile strength.
For a 45 degree blade.

Figure 9-30: The specific energy Esp in rock versus the compressive strength (UCS) for a 45º blade.

Blade angle α = 45º, layer thickness hi = 0.05 m, blade height hb = 0.1 m, angle of internal friction φ = 20.00º,
angle of external friction δ = 13.33º, shear angle β = 40.00º.

Page 320 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

Rock Cutting
1000000

100000

10000
Esp in kPa

Ductile
Brittle

1000

100

10
1000 10000 100000
Compressive strength in kPa
R=2, 0 bar R=4 R=8 R=16 R=32 R=64 R=2, 10 bar

R=2, 100 bar R=2, 200 bar R=2, 300 bar R=2, 400 bar R=2, 500 bar R=1000 bar

The specific energy Esp as a function of the compressive strength of rock,

for different ratio's between the compressive strength and the tensile strength.
For a 60 degree blade.

Figure 9-31: The specific energy Esp in rock versus the compressive strength (UCS) for a 60º blade.

Blade angle α = 60º, layer thickness hi = 0.05 m, blade height hb = 0.1 m, angle of internal friction φ = 20.00º,
angle of external friction δ = 13.33º, shear angle β = 40.00º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 321 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

9.9. Nomenclature.
a, a Adhesive shear strength kPa
A Adhesive force on the blade kN
c, c Cohesive shear strength kPa
c’ Pseudo cohesive shear strength kPa
C Cohesive force on shear plane kN
Esp Specific energy kPa
F Force kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force kN
FD Drag force on chisel (horizontal force) kN
Fv Vertical cutting force kN
FN Normal force on chisel (vertical force) kN
g Gravitational constant (9.81) m/s²
G Gravitational force kN
hi Initial thickness of layer cut m
hb Height of the blade m
hb,m Mobilized height of the blade in case Curling Type m
K1 Grain force on the shear plane kN
K2 Grain force on the blade kN
I Inertial force on the shear plane kN
N1 Normal grain force on shear plane kN
N2 Normal grain force on blade kN
p1m Pore pressure in the shear plane kPa
p2m Pore pressure on the blade kPa
Pc Cutting power kW
Q Production m3
r Adhesion/cohesion ratio -
r1 Pore pressure on shear plane/cohesion ratio -
r2 Pore pressure on blade/cohesion ratio -
rz Ratio hydrostatic pressure to cohesion -
R Radius of Mohr circle kPa
R1 Acting point on the shear plane m
R2 Acting point on the blade m
S1 Shear force due to internal friction on the shear plane kN
S2 Shear force due to external friction on the blade kN
T Tensile force kN
UCS Unconfined Compressive Stress kPa
vc Cutting velocity m/s
w Width of the blade m
W1 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the shear plane kN
W2 Force resulting from pore under pressure on the blade kN
 Blade angle rad
 Angle of the shear plane with the direction of cutting velocity rad
 Shear stress kPa
a, a Adhesive shear strength (strain rate dependent) kPa
c, c Cohesive shear strength (strain rate dependent) kPa
S1 Average shear stress on the shear plane kPa
S2 Average shear stress on the blade kPa
 Normal stress kPa
C Center of Mohr circle kPa
T Tensile strength kPa
min Minimum principal stress in Mohr circle kPa

Page 322 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting: Hyperbaric Conditions.

 Average normal stress on the shear plane kPa

 Average normal stress on the blade kPa
φ Angle of internal friction rad
 Angle of external friction rad
λ Strengthening factor -
λ1 Acting point factor on the shear plane -
λ2 Acting point factor on the blade -
λHF Flow Type/Crushed Type horizontal force coefficient -
λVF Flow Type/Crushed Type vertical force coefficient -
λHT Tear Type/Chip Type horizontal force coefficient -
λVT Tear Type/Chip Type vertical force coefficient -
λHC Curling Type horizontal force coefficient -
λVC Curling Type vertical force coefficient

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 323 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 324 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Occurrence of a Wedge.

Chapter 10: The Occurrence of a Wedge.

10.1. Introduction.
The cutting theories until now works well for small blade angles, however when the blade angle and the other
angles involved increase, a problem with the model may occur. The basic equations contain a denominator with
the sine of the sum of the blade angle, the shear angle, the internal friction angle and the external friction angle.
So if the sum of these angles equals 180 degrees, the denominator is zero, meaning a division by zero giving
infinity. Even worse, if the sum of these angles is greater than 180 degrees the sine gives a negative result, meaning
the cutting forces become negative. But already if the sum of these angles approach 180 degrees the sine becomes
very small and since it is in the denominator, the cutting forces would become very high. Now nature will normally
choose the road of least resistance, nature will try to find another mechanism for the cutting process and this
mechanism might be the occurrence of a wedge in front of the blade. This wedge will form a pseudo cutting blade
A-C with a blade angle much smaller than the angle of the real blade. The probability of the occurrence of a wedge
is large for sand and rock since all 4 angles mentioned play a role there. For clay the probability is much smaller,
since in clay cutting normally the internal and external friction angles do not play a role.

Figure 10-1: The occurrence of a wedge.

Now nature may choose another mechanism which will result in even smaller cutting forces, like the model of
Hettiaratchi & Reece (1975), but their model is more complicated. The philosophy here is that if a mechanism can
be found resulting in smaller cutting forces than the model used for small blade angles, this model will give a better
prediction than the model for small blade angles. The wedge mechanism is such a mechanism, with the advantage
that it is relatively simple to use and the cutting forces predicted with this model match the cutting forces from the
experiments of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) pretty close. So from a pragmatic point of view this mechanism will
be discussed for large blade angles.

Definitions:
1. A: The wedge tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. D: The blade tip.
5. A-B: The shear plane.
6. A-C: The wedge surface.
7. A-D: The wedge bottom.
8. D-C: The blade surface.
9. hb: The height of the blade.
10. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
11. vc: The cutting velocity.
12. α: The blade angle.
13. β: The shear angle.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 325 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

14. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
15. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

10.2. The Force Equilibrium.

Figure 10-2 illustrates the forces on the layer of soil cut. The forces shown are valid in general for each type of
soil.
The forces acting on the layer A-B are:
1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
2. A shear force S1 as a result of internal friction N1·tan(φ.
3. A force W1 as a result of water under pressure in the shear zone.
4. A shear force C1 as a result of pure cohesion c or shear strength. This force can be calculated by multiplying
the cohesive shear strength c with the area of the shear plane.
5. A gravity force G1 as a result of the weight of the layer cut.
6. An inertial force I, resulting from acceleration of the soil.
7. A force normal to the pseudo blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
8. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/soil friction N2·tan(λ between the layer cut and the wedge pseudo
blade. The friction angle λ does not have to be equal to the internal friction angle φ in the shear plane, since
the soil has already been deformed.
9. A shear force C2 as a result of the mobilized cohesion between the soil and the wedge c. This force can be
calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the soil and
the wedge.
10. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the wedge.

The normal force N1 and the shear force S1 can be combined to a resulting grain force K1.

2 2
K1  N 1  S1 (10-1)

The forces acting on the wedge front or pseudo blade A-C when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
11. A force normal to the blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
12. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/soil friction N2·tan(λ  between the layer cut and the wedge pseudo
blade. The friction angle λ does not have to be equal to the internal friction angle φ in the shear plane, since
the soil has already been deformed.
13. A shear force C2 as a result of the cohesion between the layer cut and the pseudo blade c. This force can be
calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the soil and
the pseudo blade.
14. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the pseudo blade A-C.

These forces are shown in Figure 10-3. If the forces N2 and S2 are combined to a resulting force K2 and the adhesive
force and the water under pressures are known, then the resulting force K2 is the unknown force on the blade. By
taking the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces an expression for the force K2 on the blade can be derived.

2 2
K 2  N2  S2 (10-2)

The forces acting on the wedge bottom A-D when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
15. A force normal to the blade N3, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
16. A shear force S3 as a result of the soil/soil friction N3·tan(φ  between the wedge bottom and the undisturbed
soil.
17. A shear force C3 as a result of the cohesion between the wedge bottom and the undisturbed soil c. This force
can be calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the
wedge bottom and the undisturbed soil.
18. A force W3 as a result of water under pressure on the wedge bottom A-D.

The normal force N3 and the shear force S3 can be combined to a resulting grain force K3.

2 2
K 3  N3  S3 (10-3)

Page 326 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Occurrence of a Wedge.

The forces acting on a straight blade C-D when cutting soil (see Figure 10-4), can be distinguished as:
19. A force normal to the blade N4, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
20. A shear force S4 as a result of the soil/steel friction N4·tan(.
21. A shear force A as a result of pure adhesion between the soil and the blade a. This force can be calculated by
multiplying the adhesive shear strength a of the soil with the contact area between the soil and the blade.
22. A force W4 as a result of water under pressure on the blade.

The normal force N4 and the shear force S4 can be combined to a resulting grain force K4.

2 2
K 4  N4  S4 (10-4)
The horizontal equilibrium of forces on the layer cut:

 F h  K 1  s in (    )  W 1  s in (  )  C 1  c o s (  )  I  c o s (  )

(10-5)
 C 2  c o s (  )  W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  0

The vertical equilibrium of forces on the layer cut:

 F v   K 1  c o s (    )  W 1  c o s (  )  C 1  s in (  )  I  s in (  )

(10-6)
 G 1  C 2  s in (  )  W 2  c o s (  )  K 2  cos(   )  0

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  G 1  s in (    )  I  c o s (      )
K 1 
s in (        )

(10-7)
 C 1  cos(     )  C 2  cos( )

s in (        )

The force K2 on the pseudo blade is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  G 1  s in (    )  I  c o s (  )
K 2 
s in (        )

(10-8)
 C 1  cos( )  C 2  cos(     )

s in (        )

From equation (10-8) the forces on the pseudo blade can be derived. On the pseudo blade a force component in
the direction of cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  C 2  c o s (  ) (10-9)
F   W 2  c o s (  )  K 2  c o s (    )  C 2  s in (  ) (10-10)

The normal force on the shear plane is now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  G 1  s in (    )
N1   cos( )
s in (        )

(10-11)
 I  cos(     )  C 1  cos(     )  C 2  cos( )
  cos( )
s in (        )

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 327 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The normal force on the pseudo blade is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  G 1  s in (    )
N 2   cos( )
s in (        )

(10-12)
 I  cos( )  C 1  cos( )  C 2  cos(     )
  cos( )
s in (        )

Now knowing the forces on the pseudo blade A-C, the equilibrium of forces on the wedge A-C-D can be derived.
The horizontal equilibrium of forces on the wedge is:

 Fh   A  c o s    W 4  s in    K 4  s in       K 3  s in   
(10-13)
 C 3  W 2  s in     C 2  c o s     K 2  s in       0

The vertical equilibrium of forces on the wedge is:

 F v  A  s in    W 4  cos    K 4  cos       W 3  K 3  cos   

(10-14)
 W 2  c o s     C 2  s in     K 2  cos      G 2  0

The unknowns in this equation are K3 and K4, since K2 has already been solved. Three other unknowns are the
adhesive force on the blade A, since the adhesion does not have to be mobilized fully if the wedge is static, the
external friction angle δ, since also the external friction does not have to be fully mobilized, and the wedge angle
θ. These 3 additional unknowns require 3 additional conditions in order to solve the problem. One additional
condition is the equilibrium of moments of the wedge, a second condition the principle of minimum required
cutting energy. A third condition is found by assuming that the external shear stress (adhesion) and the external
shear angle (external friction) are mobilized by the same amount. Depending on whether the soil pushes upwards
or downwards against the blade, the mobilization factor is between -1 and +1. Now in practice, sand and rock have
no adhesion while clay has no external friction, so in these cases the third condition is not relevant. However in
mixed soil both the external shear stress and the external friction may be present.

The force K3 on the bottom of the wedge is now:

 W 2  s in         W 3  s in       W 4  s in   
K 
s in       
3

K 2  s in          G 2  s in     
 (10-15)
s in       

A  cos     C 3  cos       C 2  cos       

+
s in       

The force K4 on the blade is now:

 W 2  s in      W 3  s in    W 4  s in      K 2  s in        G 2  s in   
K 
s in       
4

(10-16)
 A  cos      C 3  cos    C 2  cos     
+
s in       

Page 328 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Occurrence of a Wedge.

This results in a horizontal force of:

Fh   W 4  s i n    K 4  s in     A  cos    (10-17)

And in a vertical force of:

Fv   W 4  co s     K 4  cos       A  s in   (10-18)

Figure 10-2: The forces on the layer cut when a wedge is present.

Figure 10-3: The forces on the wedge.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 329 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 10-4: The forces on the blade when a wedge is present.

Figure 10-5: The moments on the wedge.

Page 330 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Occurrence of a Wedge.

10.3. The Equilibrium of Moments.

In order to solve the problem, also the equilibrium of moments is required, since the wedge is not subject to
rotational acceleration. The equilibrium of moments can be taken around each point of the wedge. Here the tip of
the blade is chosen. The advantage of this is that a number of forces do not contribute to the moments on the
wedge.

In order to derive the equilibrium of moments equation the arms of all the forces contributing to this equilibrium
have to be known. Since these arms depend on the length of all the sides in the cutting process, first these lengths
are determined. The length of the shear plane A-B is:

hi
L1  (10-19)
s in   

The length of the pseudo blade A-C is:

hb
L  (10-20)

2
s in

The length of the bottom of the wedge A-D is:

 1 1 
L 3  hb    (10-21)
 ta n    ta n    
 

The length of the blade C-D is:

hb
L4  (10-22)
s in   

The length of the line from the tip of the blade to the opposite side of the wedge and perpendicular to this side is:

L5  L 3  s in  (10-23)

The length of the line from point A to the intersection point of the previous line with side A-C is:

L6  L 3  cos  (10-24)

The distance from the acting point of the pore pressure force on side A-C to the intersection point of the previous
line with side A-C is:

L7  L6  R2 (10-25)

The values of the acting points R2, R3 and R4 follow from calculated or estimated stress distributions.

The equilibrium of moments is now:

 M  N4  W4 R4  N3  W3  G 2 R3

(10-26)
 N2  W2 L7  S2  C2 L5  0

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 331 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

10.4. Nomenclature.
a, τa Adhesion or adhesive shear strength. kPa
A Adhesive shear force on the blade. kN
c, τc Cohesion or cohesive shear strength. kPa
C1 Cohesive shear force on the shear plane. kN
C2 Cohesive shear force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
C3 Cohesive shear force on bottom of the wedge. kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force. kN
Fv Vertical cutting force. kN
G1 Weight of the layer cut. kN
G2 Weight of the wedge. kN
hb Blade height. m
hi Layer thickness. m
I Inertial force on the shear plane. kN
N1 Normal force on the shear plane. kN
N2 Normal force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
N3 Normal force on bottom of the wedge. kN
N4 Normal force on the blade. kN
K1 Sum of N1 and S1 on the shear plane. kN
K2 Sum of N2 and S2 on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
K3 Sum of N3 and S3 on bottom of the wedge. kN
K4 Sum of N4 and S4 on the blade. kN
L1 Length of the shear plane. m
L2 Length of the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). m
L3 Length of the bottom of the wedge. m
L4 Length of the blade. m
L5 Length of the line from the tip of the blade to the opposite side of the wedge and m
perpendicular to this side.
L6 Length of the line from point A to the intersection point of the previous line with side A-C. m
L7 Distance from the acting point of the pore pressure force on side m
A-C to the intersection point of the previous line L6 with side A-C.
R1 Acting point forces on the shear plane. m
R2 Acting point forces on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). m
R3 Acting point forces on the bottom of the wedge. m
R4 Acting point forces on the blade. m
S1 Shear (friction) force on the shear plane. kN
S2 Shear (friction) force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
S3 Shear (friction) force on the bottom of the wedge. kN
S4 Shear (friction) force on the blade. kN
W1 Pore pressure force on the shear plane. kN
W2 Pore pressure force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
W3 Pore pressure force on the bottom of the wedge. kN
W4 Pore pressure force on the blade. kN
vc Cutting velocity. m/sec
α Blade angle. °
β Shear angle. °
θ Wedge angle. °
φ Internal friction angle. °
δ External friction angle. °
λ Internal friction angle on pseudo blade. °

Page 332 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting.

Chapter 11: A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting.

11.1. Introduction.
The cutting theories until now works well for small blade angles, however when the blade angle and the other
angles involved increase, a problem with the model may occur. The basic equations contain a denominator with
the sine of the sum of the blade angle, the shear angle, the internal friction angle and the external friction angle.
So if the sum of these angles equals 180 degrees, the denominator is zero, meaning a division by zero giving
infinity. Even worse, if the sum of these angles is greater than 180 degrees the sine gives a negative result, meaning
the cutting forces become negative. But already if the sum of these angles approach 180 degrees the sine becomes
very small and since it is in the denominator, the cutting forces would become very high. Now nature will normally
choose the road of least resistance, nature will try to find another mechanism for the cutting process and this
mechanism might be the occurrence of a wedge in front of the blade. This wedge will form a pseudo cutting blade
A-C with a blade angle much smaller than the angle of the real blade. The probability of the occurrence of a wedge
is large for sand and rock since all 4 angles mentioned play a role there. For clay the probability is much smaller,
since in clay cutting normally the internal and external friction angles do not play a role.
Now nature may choose another mechanism which will result in even smaller cutting forces, like the model of
Hettiaratchi & Reece (1975), but their model is more complicated. The philosophy here is that if a mechanism can
be found resulting in smaller cutting forces than the model used for small blade angles, this model will give a better
prediction than the model for small blade angles. The wedge mechanism is such a mechanism, with the advantage
that it is relatively simple to use and the cutting forces predicted with this model match the cutting forces from the
experiments of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) pretty close. So from a pragmatic point of view this mechanism will
be discussed for large blade angles.

Figure 11-1: Definitions. Figure 11-2: Alternative geometry of

the layer cut.

Figure 11-3: The cutting mechanism.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 333 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Definitions:
1. A: The wedge tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. D: The blade tip.
5. A-B: The shear plane.
6. A-C: The wedge surface.
7. A-D: The wedge bottom.
8. D-C: The blade surface.
9. hb: The height of the blade.
10. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
11. vc: The cutting velocity.
12. α: The blade angle.
13. β: The shear angle.
14. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
15. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

For the weight of the layer cut G1, see chapter 5: Dry Sand Cutting.

The weight of the wedge G2 is given by:

hb 2
1 1 
G  s  g    w (11-1)
2 
2  ta n    ta n    


11.2. The Force Equilibrium.

Figure 11-4 illustrates the forces on the layer of soil cut. The forces shown are valid in general for dry sand. The
forces acting on the layer A-B are:
1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
2. A shear force S1 as a result of internal friction N1·tan(φ.
3. A gravity force G1 as a result of the weight of the layer cut.
4. An inertial force I, resulting from acceleration of the soil.
5. A force normal to the pseudo blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
6. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/soil friction N2·tan(λ between the layer cut and the wedge pseudo
blade. The friction angle λ does not have to be equal to the internal friction angle φ in the shear plane, since
the soil has already been deformed.

The normal force N1 and the shear force S1 can be combined to a resulting grain force K1.

2 2
K1  N 1  S1 (11-2)

The forces acting on the wedge front or pseudo blade A-C when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
7. A force normal to the blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
8. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/soil friction N2·tan(λ  between the layer cut and the wedge pseudo
blade. The friction angle λ does not have to be equal to the internal friction angle φ in the shear plane, since
the soil has already been deformed.

These forces are shown in Figure 11-5. If the forces N2 and S2 are combined to a resulting force K2 and the adhesive
force and the water under pressures are known, then the resulting force K2 is the unknown force on the blade. By
taking the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces an expression for the force K2 on the blade can be derived.

2 2
K 2  N2  S2 (11-3)

The forces acting on the wedge bottom A-D when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
9. A force normal to the blade N3, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
10. A shear force S3 as a result of the soil/soil friction N3·tan(φ  between the wedge bottom and the undisturbed
soil.

Page 334 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting.

The normal force N3 and the shear force S3 can be combined to a resulting grain force K3.

2 2
K 3  N3  S3 (11-4)

The forces acting on a straight blade C-D when cutting soil (see Figure 11-6), can be distinguished as:
11. A force normal to the blade N4, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
12. A shear force S4 as a result of the soil/steel friction N4·tan(.

The normal force N4 and the shear force S4 can be combined to a resulting grain force K4.

2 2
K 4  N4  S4 (11-5)

The horizontal equilibrium of forces on the layer cut:

 Fh  K 1  s in (   )  I  c o s ( )  K 2  s in (    )  0 (11-6)

The vertical equilibrium of forces on the layer cut:

 Fv   K 1  c o s (    )  I  s in (  )  G 1  K 2  cos(    )  0 (11-7)

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

G 1  s in (    )  I  c o s (      )
K1  (11-8)
s in (        )

The force K2 on the pseudo blade is now:

G 1  s in (    )  I  c o s (  )
K 2  (11-9)
s in (        )

From equation (11-9) the forces on the pseudo blade can be derived. On the pseudo blade a force component in
the direction of cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

Fh  K 2  s in (    ) (11-10)
F  K 2  cos(   ) (11-11)

The normal force on the shear plane is now:

G 1  s in (    )  I  c o s (      )
N1   cos( ) (11-12)
s in (        )

The normal force on the pseudo blade is now:

G 1  s in (    )  I  c o s (  )
N2   cos( ) (11-13)
s in (        )

Now knowing the forces on the pseudo blade A-C, the equilibrium of forces on the wedge A-C-D can be derived.
The horizontal equilibrium of forces on the wedge is:

 Fh   K 4  s in      K 3  s in    K 2  s in      0 (11-14)

The vertical equilibrium of forces on the wedge is:

 Fv   K 4  cos       K 3  cos    K 2  cos      G 2  0 (11-15)

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 335 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The unknowns in this equation are K3 and K4, since K2 has already been solved. Two other unknowns are the
external friction angle δ, since also the external friction does not have to be fully mobilized, and the wedge angle
θ. These 2 additional unknowns require 2 additional conditions in order to solve the problem. One additional
condition is the equilibrium of moments of the wedge, a second condition the principle of minimum required
cutting energy. Depending on whether the soil pushes upwards or downwards against the blade, the mobilization
factor is between -1 and +1.

The force K3 on the bottom of the wedge is now:

K 2  s in           G 2  s in     
K  (11-16)
s in       
3

The force K4 on the blade is now:

K 2  s in         G 2  s in   
K  (11-17)
s in       
4

This results in a horizontal force on the blade of:

Fh  K 4  s in     (11-18)

And in a vertical force on the blade of:

Fv  K 4  cos      (11-19)

Figure 11-4: The forces on the layer cut when a wedge is present.

Page 336 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting.

Figure 11-5: The forces on the wedge.

Figure 11-6: The forces on the blade when a wedge is present.

11.3. The Equilibrium of Moments.

In order to solve the problem, also the equilibrium of moments is required, since the wedge is not subject to
rotational acceleration. The equilibrium of moments can be taken around each point of the wedge. Here the tip of
the blade is chosen. The advantage of this is that a number of forces do not contribute to the moments on the
wedge.

In order to derive the equilibrium of moments equation the arms of all the forces contributing to this equilibrium
have to be known. Since these arms depend on the length of all the sides in the cutting process, first these lengths
are determined. The length of the shear plane A-B is:

hi
L1  (11-20)
s in   

The length of the pseudo blade A-C is:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 337 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

hb
L  (11-21)

2
s in

The length of the bottom of the wedge A-D is:

 1 1 
L 3  hb    (11-22)
 ta n    ta n    
 

The length of the blade C-D is:

hb
L4  (11-23)
s in   

The length of the line from the tip of the blade to the opposite side of the wedge and perpendicular to this side is:

L5  L 3  s in  (11-24)

Figure 11-7: The moments on the wedge.

The length of the line from point A to the intersection point of the previous line with side A-C is:

L6  L 3  cos  (11-25)

The distance from the acting point of the pore pressure force on side A-C to the intersection point of the previous
line with side A-C is:

L7  L6  R2 (11-26)

The values of the acting points R2, R3 and R4 follow from calculated or estimated stress distributions.

The equilibrium of moments is now:

 M  N 4 R 4  N3  G 2 R3  N 2 L7  S2 L5  0 (11-27)

Page 338 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting.

11.4. Results of some Calculations.

Since the wedge model depends on many parameters, some example calculations are carried out with the
parameters as used by Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B). The calculations are carried out with a blade height hb=0.2
m, a blade width w=0.33 m, an angle of internal friction φ=38°, an angle of internal friction δ=2/3·φ, an angle of
internal friction on the pseudo blade of λ=32°, a dry density of ρs=1.59 ton/m3 and a cutting velocity of vc=0.05
m/sec. The difference with the Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) experiments is that here the blade height is constant,
while in their experiments the blade length was constant. Further layer thicknesses of hi=0.066 m, 0.10 m and
0.20 m are used in the calculations. Based on these and many more calculations an empirical equation has been
found for the wedge angle θ.

 hb 
   9 0      0 .7 3  0 .0 7 8 8   (11-28)
 hi 

Figure 11-8, Figure 11-9 and Figure 11-10 show the shear angle, the mobilized external friction angle, the wedge
angle, the total cutting force and the direction of the total cutting force.

Shear Angle β, Wedge Angle θ & External Friction Angle δm vs.

Blade Angle α
60
Shear Angle β, Wedge Angle θ & External Friction Angle δm

55 Beta hb/hi=3
50
45 Beta hb/hi=2
40
35 Beta hb/hi=1
30
25 Teta hb/hi=3
20
(Degrees)

15 Teta hb/hi=2
10
5 Teta hb/hi=1
0
-5 Delta hb/hi=3
-10
-15 Delta hb/hi=2
-20
-25 Delta hb/hi=1
-30
60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 11-8: The shear angle, wedge angle and mobilized external friction angle calculated with wedge.

In the region where the mobilized external friction angle changes from plus the maximum to minus the maximum
value, an equilibrium of moments exists. In the case considered this means that a wedge may exist in this region.
When the mobilized external friction angle equals minus the maximum value there is no equilibrium of moments.
In this region the total cutting force increases rapidly with an increasing blade angle in the calculations, but most
probably another mechanism than the wedge mechanism will occur, so the values of the cutting forces in that
region are not reliable. In the region of the mobilized external friction angle between plus the maximum to minus
the maximum value the total cutting force is almost constant.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 339 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Total Cutting Force Ft vs. Blade Angle α

50

Wedge hb/hi=3
40
Total Cutting Force Ft (N)

30

Wedge hb/hi=2

20

10
Wedge hb/hi=1

0
60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 11-9: The total cutting force.

Force Direction Angle ψ vs. Blade Angle α

40

35

30

25 Wedge hb/hi=3
Force Direction Angle ψ (Degrees)

20

15

10

0 Wedge hb/hi=2
-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
Wedge hb/hi=1
-30

-35

-40
60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 11-10: The direction of the total cutting force.

Page 340 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting.

11.5. Experiments of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B).

The experiments of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) were carried out with a blade length L4=0.2 m, a blade width
w=0.33 m, an angle of internal friction φ=38°, an angle of internal friction δ=2/3·φ, an angle of internal friction
on the pseudo blade of λ=32°, a dry density of ρs=1.46 ton/m3 and a cutting velocity of vc=0.05 m/sec.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

No Wedge hi=0.05 m
55

50 No Wedge hi=0.10 m

45
No Wedge hi=0.15 m
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

Experiments hi=0.05 m
35

30 Experiments hi=0.10 m

25
Experiments hi=0.15 m
20

Wedge hi=0.05 m
15

10 Wedge hi=0.10 m

5
Wedge hi=0.15 m
0
30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 11-11: The shear angle of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) versus the calculated shear angles, with
and without wedge.

Shear Angle β, Wedge Angle θ & External Friction Angle δm vs.

Blade Angle α
60
Shear Angle β, Wedge Angle θ & External Friction Angle δe

55 Beta hi=0.05 m
50
45 Beta hi=0.10 m
40
35 Beta hi=0.15 m
30
25 Teta hi=0.05 m
(Degrees)

20
15 Teta hi=0.10 m
10
5 Teta hi=0.15 m
0
-5 Delta hi=0.05 m
-10
-15 Delta hi=0.10 m
-20
-25 Delta hi=0.15 m
-30
60 75 90 105 120 135 150
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure 11-12: The shear angle, wedge angle and mobilized external friction angle calculated with wedge.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 341 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Although the number of experiments of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) is limited, both the shear angles and the
total cutting forces tend to follow the wedge theory for blade angles of 75° and 90°. The direction of the total
cutting force measured is more upwards directed (negative angle) than predicted with the wedge theory for the 90°
blade. This could mean that the real mechanism is different from the wedge mechanism. The cutting forces
however match well.

Total Cutting Force Ft vs. Blade Angle α

2000

No Wedge hi=0.05 m
1800

No Wedge hi=0.10 m
1600

1400 No Wedge hi=0.15 m

Total Cutting Force Ft (N)

1200 Experiments hi=0.05 m

1000 Experiments hi=0.10 m

800
Experiments hi=0.15 m

600
Wedge hi=0.05 m
400
Wedge hi=0.10 m
200

Wedge hi=0.15 m
0
30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

Blade Angle α (Degrees)

© S.A.M.

Figure 11-13: The total force of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) versus the calculated total force, with and
without wedge.

Force Direction Angle ψ vs. Blade Angle α

40

35 No Wedge hi=0.05 m
30

25
No Wedge hi=0.10 m
Force Direction Angle ψ (Degrees)

20
No Wedge hi=0.15 m
15

10
Experiments hi=0.05 m
5

0 Experiments hi=0.10 m
-5

-10 Experiments hi=0.15 m

-15
Wedge hi=0.05 m
-20

-25
Wedge hi=0.10 m
-30

-35 Wedge hi=0.15 m

-40
30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

Blade Angle α (Degrees)

© S.A.M.

Figure 11-14: The direction of the cutting force of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) versus the calculated
force direction, with and without wedge.

Page 342 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Dry Sand Cutting.

11.6. Nomenclature.
a, τa Adhesion or adhesive shear strength. kPa
A Adhesive shear force on the blade. kN
c, τc Cohesion or cohesive shear strength. kPa
C1 Cohesive shear force on the shear plane. kN
C2 Cohesive shear force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
C3 Cohesive shear force on bottom of the wedge. kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force. kN
Fv Vertical cutting force. kN
G1 Weight of the layer cut. kN
G2 Weight of the wedge. kN
hb Blade height. m
hi Layer thickness. m
I Inertial force on the shear plane. kN
N1 Normal force on the shear plane. kN
N2 Normal force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
N3 Normal force on bottom of the wedge. kN
N4 Normal force on the blade. kN
K1 Sum of N1 and S1 on the shear plane. kN
K2 Sum of N2 and S2 on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
K3 Sum of N3 and S3 on bottom of the wedge. kN
K4 Sum of N4 and S4 on the blade. kN
L1 Length of the shear plane. m
L2 Length of the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). m
L3 Length of the bottom of the wedge. m
L4 Length of the blade. m
L5 Length of the line from the tip of the blade to the opposite side of the wedge and m
perpendicular to this side.
L6 Length of the line from point A to the intersection point of the previous line with side A-C. m
L7 Distance from the acting point of the pore pressure force on side m
A-C to the intersection point of the previous line L6 with side A-C.
R1 Acting point forces on the shear plane. m
R2 Acting point forces on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). m
R3 Acting point forces on the bottom of the wedge. m
R4 Acting point forces on the blade. m
S1 Shear (friction) force on the shear plane. kN
S2 Shear (friction) force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
S3 Shear (friction) force on the bottom of the wedge. kN
S4 Shear (friction) force on the blade. kN
W1 Pore pressure force on the shear plane. kN
W2 Pore pressure force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
W3 Pore pressure force on the bottom of the wedge. kN
W4 Pore pressure force on the blade. kN
vc Cutting velocity. m/sec
α Blade angle. °
β Shear angle. °
θ Wedge angle. °
φ Internal friction angle. °
δ External friction angle. °
λ Internal friction angle on pseudo blade. °

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 343 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 344 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

Chapter 12: A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

12.1. Introduction.
In the last decennia extensive research has been carried out into the cutting of water saturated sand. In the cutting
of water-saturated sand, the phenomenon of dilatation plays an important role. In fact the effects of gravity, inertia,
cohesion and adhesion can be neglected at cutting speeds in the range of 0.5 – 10 m/s. In the cutting equations, as
published by Miedema (1987 September), there is a division by the sine of the sum of the blade angle, the shear
angle, the angle of internal friction and the soil/interface friction angle. When the sum of these angle approaches
180, a division by zero is the result, resulting in infinite cutting forces. This may occur for example for =80,
=30, =40 and =30. When this sum is greater than 180 degrees, the cutting forces become negative. It is
obvious that this cannot be the case in reality and that nature will look for another cutting mechanism.
Hettiaratchi and Reece (1975) found a mechanism, which they called boundary wedges for dry soil. At large cutting
angles a triangular wedge will exist in front of the blade, not moving relative to the blade. This wedge acts as a
blade with a smaller blade angle. In fact, this reduces the sum of the 4 angles mentioned before to a value much
smaller than 180. The existence of a dead zone (wedge) in front of the blade when cutting at large cutting angles
will affect the value and distribution of vacuum water pressure on the interface. He et al. (1998) proved
experimentally that also in water saturated sand at large cutting angles a wedge will occur. A series of tests with
rake angles 90, 105 and 120 degrees under fully saturated and densely compacted sand condition was performed
by He et al. (1998) at the Dredging Technology Laboratory of Delft University of Technology. The experimental
results showed that the failure pattern with large rake angles is quite different from that with small rake angles.
For large rake angles a dead zone is formed in front of the blade, but not for small rake angles. In the tests he
carried out, both a video camera and film camera were used to capture the failure pattern. The video camera was
fixed on the frame which is mounted on the main carriage, translates with the same velocity as the testing cutting
blade. Shown in the static slide of the video record, as in Figure 12-1, the boundary wedges exist during the cutting
test. The assumption of an alternative failure mechanism is based on a small quantity of picture material, see Figure
12-1. It is described as a static wedge in front of the blade, which serves as a new virtual blade over which the sand
flows away.

Figure 12-1: Failure pattern with rake angle of 120º.

Although the number of experiments published is limited, the research is valuable as a starting point to predict the
shape of the wedge. At small cutting angles the cutting forces are determined by the horizontal and vertical force
equilibrium equations of the sand cut in front of the blade. These equations contain 3 unknowns, so a third
equation/condition had to be found. The principle of minimum energy is used as a third condition to solve the 3
unknowns. This has proved to give very satisfactory results finding the shear angle and the horizontal and vertical
cutting forces at small cutting angles. At large cutting angles, a 4 th unknown exists, the wedge angle or virtual
blade angle. This means that a 4th equation/condition must be found in order to determine the wedge angle. There
are 3 possible conditions that can be used: The principle of minimum energy, the circle of Mohr, The equilibrium

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 345 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

of moments of the wedge. In fact, there is also a 5 th unknown, the mobilized friction on the blade. New research
carried out in the Dredging Engineering Laboratory shows that a wedge exists, but not always a static wedge. The
sand inside the wedge is still moving, but with a much lower velocity then the sand outside the wedge. This results
in fully mobilized friction on the blade. The bottom boundary of the wedge, which is horizontal for a static wedge,
may have a small angle with respect to the horizontal in the new case considered.

Figure 12-2: Sand cutting with a wedge, definitions.

Definitions:
1. A: The wedge tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. D: The blade tip.
5. A-B: The shear plane.
6. A-C: The wedge surface.
7. A-D: The wedge bottom.
8. D-C: The blade surface.
9. hb: The height of the blade.
10. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
11. vc: The cutting velocity.
12. α: The blade angle.
13. β: The shear angle.
14. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
15. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

Figure 12-3: The cutting mechanism.

Page 346 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 12-2 shows the definitions of the cutting process with a static wedge. A-B is the shear plane where dilatation
occurs. A-C is the front of the static wedge and forms a pseudo cutting blade. A-C-D is the static wedge, where C-
D is the blade, A-D the bottom of the wedge and A-C the pseudo blade or the front of the wedge.
The sand wedge theory is based on publications of Hettiaratchi and Reece (1975), Miedema (1987 September),
He et al. (1998), Yi (2000), Miedema et al. (2001), Yi et al. (2001), Ma (2001), Miedema et al. (2002A), Miedema
et al. (2002B), Yi et al. (2002), Miedema (2003), Miedema et al. (2003), Miedema (2004), Miedema et al. (2004),
He et al. (2005), Ma et al. (2006A), Ma et al. (2006B), Miedema (2005), Miedema (2006A), Miedema (2006B).

12.2. The Equilibrium of Forces.

Figure 12-4, Figure 12-5 and Figure 12-6 show the forces occurring at the layer cut, the wedge and the blade, while
Figure 12-18 shows the moments occurring on the wedge. The forces are:

The forces acting on the layer A-B are:

1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
2. A shear force S1 as a result of internal friction N1·tan(φ.
3. A force W1 as a result of water under pressure in the shear zone.
4. A force normal to the pseudo blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
5. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/soil friction N2·tan(λ between the layer cut and the wedge pseudo
blade. The friction angle λ does not have to be equal to the internal friction angle φ in the shear plane, since
the soil has already been deformed.
6. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the wedge.

The forces acting on the wedge front or pseudo blade A-C when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
7. A force normal to the blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
8. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/soil friction N2·tan(λ  between the layer cut and the wedge pseudo
blade. The friction angle λ does not have to be equal to the internal friction angle φ in the shear plane, since
the soil has already been deformed.
9. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the pseudo blade A-C.

The forces acting on the wedge bottom A-D when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
10. A force normal to the blade N3, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
11. A shear force S3 as a result of the soil/soil friction N3·tan(φ  between the wedge bottom and the undisturbed
soil.
12. A force W3 as a result of water under pressure on the wedge bottom A-D.

The forces acting on a straight blade C-D when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
13. A force normal to the blade N4, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
14. A shear force S4 as a result of the soil/steel friction N4·tan( between the wedge and the blade.
15. A force W4 as a result of water under pressure on the blade.

To determine the cutting forces on the blade, first the cutting forces on the pseudo blade have to be determined by
taking the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces on the layer cut B-A-C. The shear angle β is determined
by minimizing the cutting energy.

The horizontal equilibrium of forces:

 Fh  K 1  s in (    )  W 1  s in (  )  W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  0 (12-1)

The vertical equilibrium of forces:

 Fv   K 1  co s(   )  W 1  co s( )  W 2  co s(  )  K 2  cos(   )  0 (12-2)

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )
K1  (12-3)
s in (        )
The force K2 on the pseudo blade is now:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 347 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )
K 2  (12-4)
s in (        )

Figure 12-4: The forces on the layer cut in saturated sand with a wedge.

Figure 12-5: The forces on the wedge in saturated sand.

Figure 12-6: The forces on the blade in saturated sand with a wedge.

From equation (12-4) the forces on the pseudo blade can be derived. On the pseudo blade a force component in
the direction of cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    ) (12-5)
F   W 2  c o s (  )  K 2  cos(   ) (12-6)
The normal force on the shear plane A-B is now:

Page 348 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )
N1   cos( ) (12-7)
s in (        )

The normal force on the pseudo blade A-C is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )
N2   cos( ) (12-8)
s in (        )

Now the force equilibrium on the wedge has to be solved. This is done by first taking the horizontal and vertical
force equilibrium on the wedge A-C-D.

The horizontal equilibrium of forces:

 F h   W 4  s in    K 4  s in     e  K 3  s in   
(12-9)
 W 2  s in     K 2  s in       0

The vertical equilibrium of forces:

 Fv   W 4  cos    K 4  cos     e  W3  K 3  cos   

(12-10)
 W 2  cos     K 2  cos       0

The grain force K3 on the bottom of the wedge is now:

 W 2  s in     e     K 2  s in     e     
K 
s in     e   
3

(12-11)
 W 3  s in     e  W 4  s in   e 

s in     e   

The grain force K4 on the blade is now:

 W 2  s in       K 2  s in       
K 
s in     e   
4

(12-12)
 W 3  s in     W 4  s in     

s in     e   

From equation (12-12) the forces on the pseudo blade can be derived. On the pseudo blade a force component in
the direction of cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

Fh   W 4  s i n    K 4  s in   e  (12-13)
Fv   W 4  co s    K 4  cos   e  (12-14)

12.3. Pore Pressures.

If the cutting process is assumed to be stationary, the water flow through the pores of the sand can be described in
a blade motions related coordinate system. The determination of the water vacuum pressures in the sand around
the blade is then limited to a mixed boundary conditions problem. The potential theory can be used to solve this
problem. For the determination of the water vacuum pressures it is necessary to have a proper formulation of the

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 349 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

boundary condition in the shear zone. Miedema (1985A) derived the basic equation for this boundary condition.
In later publications a more extensive derivation is published. If it is assumed that no deformations take place
outside the deformation zone, then:

2 2
 p  p
  0 (12-15)
2 2
x y

Making the boundary condition in the shear plane dimensionless is similar to that of the breach equation of Meijer
and Van Os (1976). In the breach problem the length dimensions are normalized by dividing them by the breach
height, while in the cutting of sand they are normalized by dividing them by the cut layer thickness. Equation
(12-15) is the same as the equation without a wedge. In the shear plane A-B the following equation is valid:

ki p p  w  g  v c    h i  s in (  ) n
   w it h : n' (12-16)
k m ax n ' 1
n ' 2
k m ax hi

This equation is made dimensionless with:

p
'
p n ' (12-17)

n w  g  vc   hi / k m ax

The accent indicates that a certain variable or partial derivative is dimensionless. The next dimensionless equation
is now valid as a boundary condition in the deformation zone:

' '
ki p p
   s in (  ) (12-18)
k m ax n 1
n 2

The storage equation also has to be made dimensionless, which results in the next equation:

' '
2 2
 p  p
  0 (12-19)
2 2
x y

Because this equation equals zero, it is similar to equation (12-15). The water under-pressures distribution in the
sand package can now be determined using the storage equation and the boundary conditions. Because the
calculation of the water under-pressures is dimensionless the next transformation has to be performed to determine
the real water under-pressures. The real water under-pressures can be determined by integrating the derivative of
the water under-pressures in the direction of a flow line, along a flow line, so:

'
p
P c a lc   s
 ds ' (12-20)
'
s

This is illustrated in Figure 12-7 and Figure 12-8. Using equation (12-20) this is written as:

'
p w  g  vc    hi p s
Pr e a l   s
 ds   k m ax

s
 ds ' w ith : s' 
hi
(12-21)
'
s s

This gives the next relation between the real emerging water under pressures and the calculated water under
pressures:

w  g  vc   hi
Pr e a l   P c a lc (12-22)
k m ax

Page 350 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 12-7: The volume balance over the shear zone.

Figure 12-8: Possible flow lines.

To be independent of the ratio between the initial permeability ki and the maximum permeability kmax , kmax has
to be replaced with the weighted average permeability km before making the measured water under pressures
dimensionless.
The water vacuum pressures in the sand package on and around the blade are numerically determined using the
finite element method. A standard FEM software package is used (Segal (2001)). Within this package and the use
of the available "subroutines" a program is written, with which water vacuum pressures can be calculated and be
output graphically and numerically. As shown in Figure 12-9, the SEPRAN model is made up of three parts, the
original sand layer, the cut sand layer, and the wedge. The solution of such a calculation is however not only
dependent on the physical model of the problem, but also on the next points:
1. The size of the area in which the calculation takes place.
2. The size and distribution of the elements
3. The boundary conditions
The choices for these three points have to be evaluated with the problem that has to be solved in mind. These
calculations are about the values and distribution of the water under-pressures in the shear zone and on the blade,
on the interface between wedge and cut sand, between wedge and the original sand layer. A variation of the values
for point 1 and 2 may therefore not influence this part of the solution. This is achieved by on one hand increasing
the area in which the calculations take place in steps and on the other hand by decreasing the element size until the
variation in the solution was less than 1%. The distribution of the elements is chosen such that a finer mesh is
present around the blade tip, the shear zone and on the blade, also because of the blade tip problem. A number of
boundary conditions follow from the physical model of the cutting process, these are:
 For the hydrostatic pressure it is valid to take a zero pressure as the boundary condition.
 The boundary conditions along the boundaries of the area where the calculation takes place that are located
in the sand package are not determined by the physical process.
 For this boundary condition there is a choice among:
1. A hydrostatic pressure along the boundary.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 351 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2. A boundary as an impermeable wall.

3. A combination of a known pressure and a known specific flow rate.

Figure 12-9: The boundaries of the FEM model.

None of these choices complies with the real process. Water from outside the calculation area will flow through
the boundary. This also implies, however, that the pressure along this boundary is not hydrostatic. If, however, the
boundary is chosen with enough distance from the real cutting process the boundary condition may not have an
influence on the solution. The impermeable wall is chosen although this choice is arbitrary. Figure 12-14 and
Figure 12-16 give an impression of the equipotential lines and the stream lines in the model area. Figure 12-10
show the dimensionless pore pressure distributions on the lines A-B, A-C, A-D and D-C. The average
dimensionless pore pressures on these lines are named p1m, p2m, p3m and p4m.

Figure 12-10: Pore pressure distribution on the shear plane A-B, the bottom of the wedge A-D, the blade
D-C and the front of the wedge A-C.

If there is no cavitation the water pressures forces W1, W2, W3 and W4 can be written as:

2
p 1m   w  g  v c    h i  w
W1  (12-23)
k m a x  s in (  )
And

p 2m   w  g  v c    h i  h b  w
W2  (12-24)
k m ax  s in (  )
And

Page 352 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

p 3m   w  g  v c    h i  h b  w  cos    cos    
W3     (12-25)
k m ax  s in    s in    
 
And

p 4m   w  g  v c    h i  h b  w
W4  (12-26)
k m ax  s in (  )

In case of cavitation W1, W2, W3 and W4 become:

 w  g  (z  10)  h i  w
W1  (12-27)
s in (  )

And

 w  g  (z  10)  h b  w
W2  (12-28)
s in (  )
And

 w  g  (z  10)  hb  w  cos    cos    

W3     (12-29)
1  s in    s in    
 
And

 w  g  (z  10)  h b  w
W4  (12-30)
s in (  )

Figure 12-11: The parallel resistor method.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 353 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 12-12: The coarse mesh.

Figure 12-13: The fine mesh.

Page 354 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 12-14: Equipotential lines of pore pressures.

Figure 12-15: Equipotential distribution in color.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 355 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 12-16: The flow lines or stream function.

Figure 12-17: The stream function in colors.

Page 356 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

12.4. The Equilibrium of Moments.

Based on the equilibrium of forces on the layer cut B-A-C, FEM calculations of pore water pressures and the
minimum of cutting energy the forces N2, S2 and W2 are determined; see Miedema (1987 September). To determine
the forces on the blade there are still a number of unknowns. W3 and W4 can be determined using FEM calculations
of pore water pressures, given the wedge angle θ. Assuming λ=φ as a first estimate, the forces K3 and K4 depend
on the wedge angle θ and on the effective external friction angle δe. For a static wedge, meaning that there is no
movement between the wedge and the blade, the effective external friction angle can have a value between + and
– the maximum external friction angle δ, so –δ<δe<δ. Combining this with the minimum energy principle results
in a varying δe and a force N3 being equal to zero for a static wedge. The value of δe follows from the equilibrium
of moments. For small values of the blade angle α, smaller than about 60º, the effective external friction angle
δe=δ and most probably there will not be a wedge. For intermediate values of the blade angle α around 90º, there
will be a static wedge and the effective external friction angle δe will decrease from +δ to –δ. For very large values
of α, larger than about 120º, the effective external friction angle δe=–δ and N3 will have a positive value, meaning
an upwards direction. Probably there will be a movement of soil under the blade. To find the value of the effective
external friction angle first the equilibrium of moments has to be solved. Figure 12-18 shows the moments that
occur on the wedge as a result of the forces and their acting points.

Figure 12-18: The equilibrium of moments on the wedge in water saturated sand.

To determine the moment on the wedge, first the different lengths and distances have to be determined. The length
of the shear plane A-B is:

hi
A  B  L1  (12-31)
s in   

The length of the pseudo blade or front of the wedge A-C is:
hb
A  C  L2  (12-32)
s in   

The length of the bottom of the wedge A-D is:

 1 1 
A  D  L 3  hb    (12-33)
 ta n    ta n    
 

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 357 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The length of the blade D-C is:

hb
D  C  L4  (12-34)
s in   

The distance between the blade edge and the wedge side A-C (perpendicular) is:

L5  L 3  s in  (12-35)

The distance from point A and the line L5 is:

L6  L 3  cos  (12-36)

The arm of the acting point of N2 and W2 is now:

L7  L6  R2 (12-37)

The equilibrium of moments can be determined using all those distances:

 M  N4  W4 R4  N3  W3 R3  N2  W2 L7  S2 L5  0 (12-38)

Equation (12-38) still contains the unknown arms R2, R3 and R4. Based on the FEM calculations for the pore
pressures, values of 0.35·L2, 0.55·L3 and 0.32·L4 are found, Ma (2001). Figure 12-19 shows the moments on the
wedge with respect to the cutting edge as a function of the wedge angle θ for different values of the shear angle β
and a blade angle α of 90º. The moment is zero for a wedge angle θ between 50º and 55º.

M o m e n t v e rs u s W e d g e A n g le
2 .0

1 .6

1 .2

0 .8
M o m e n t

0 .4

0 .0

- 0 .4

- 0 .8

- 1 .2

- 1 .6

- 2 .0
45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65

W e d g e A n g le ( d e g .)
B e ta = 1 5 d e g . B e ta = 2 0 d e g . B e ta = 2 5 d e g . B e ta = 3 0 d e g .

Figure 12-19: Moment versus wedge angle θ by using polynomial regression for:
α=900; β=150,200,250,300; δ=280; φ=420; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25

Page 358 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

M o m e n t v e rs u s S h e a r A n g le
2 .0

1 .6

1 .2

0 .8
M o m e n t

0 .4

0 .0

-0 .4

-0 .8

-1 .2

-1 .6

-2 .0
1 5 .0 1 6 .5 1 8 .0 1 9 .5 2 1 .0 2 2 .5 2 4 .0 2 5 .5 2 7 .0 2 8 .5 3 0 .0

B e ta ( d e g .)
T e ta = 4 0 d e g . T e ta = 5 0 d e g . T e ta = 5 5 d e g . T e ta = 6 0 d e g .

Figure 12-20: The moment versus the shear angle for 4 different wedge angles for:
α=900; δ=280; φ=420; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25

Figure 12-20 shows the moments as a function of the shear angle β for 4 values of the wedge angle θ. The moment
is zero for the wedge angle θ=55º at a shear angle β=18º. It is clear from these figures that the shear angle where
the moment is zero is not very sensitive for the shear angle and the wedge angle.

Figure 12-21 shows the force triangles on the 3 sides of the wedges for cutting angles from 60 to 120 degrees.
From the calculations it appeared that the pore pressures on interface between the soil cut and the wedge and in
the shear plane do not change significantly when the blade angle changes. These pore pressures p1m and p2m,
resulting in the forces W1 and W2, are determined by the shear angle , the wedge angle θ and other soil mechanical
properties like the permeability.
The fact that the pore pressures do not significantly change, also results in forces K2, acting on the wedge that do
not change significantly, according to equations (12-4), (12-5) and (12-6). These forces are shown in Figure 12-21
on the right side of the wedges and the figure shows that these forces are almost equal for all blade angles. These
forces are determined by the conventional theory as published by Miedema (1987 September). Figure 12-21 also
shows that for the small blade angles the friction force on the wedge is directed downwards, while for the bigger
blade angles this friction force is directed upwards.

R 2  e2  L 2 , R 3  e3  L 3 , R 4  e4  L 4 (12-39)

Now the question is, what is the solution for the cutting of water saturated sand at large cutting angles? From many
calculations and an analysis of the laboratory research is described by He (1998), Ma (2001) and Miedema (2005),
it appeared that the wedge can be considered a static wedge, although the sand inside the wedge still may have
velocity, the sand on the blade is not moving. The main problem in finding acceptable solutions was finding good
values for the acting points on the 3 sides of the wedge, e2, e3 and e4. If these values are chosen right, solutions
exist based on the equilibrium of moments, but if they are chosen wrongly, no solution will be found. So the choice
of these parameters is very critical. The statement that the sand on the blade is not moving is based on two things,
first of all if the sand is moving with respect to the blade, the soil interface friction is fully mobilized and the
bottom of the wedge requires to have a small angle with respect to the horizontal in order to make a flow of sand
possible. This results in much bigger cutting forces, while often no solution can be found or unreasonable values
for e2, e3 and e4 have to be used to find a solution.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 359 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

So the solution is, using the equilibrium equations for the horizontal force, the vertical force and the moments on
the wedge. The recipe to determine the cutting forces seems not to difficult now, but it requires a lot of calculations
and understanding of the processes, because one also has to distinguish between the theory for small cutting angles
and the wedge theory.
The following steps have to be taken to find the correct solution:
1. Determine the dimensionless pore pressures p1m, p2m, p3m and p4m using a finite element calculation or the
method described by Miedema (2006B), for a variety of shear angles  and wedge angles θ around the
expected solution.
2. Determine the shear angle  based on the equilibrium equations for the horizontal and vertical forces, a given
wedge angle θ and the principle of minimum energy, which is equivalent to the minimum horizontal force.
This also gives a value for the resulting force K2 acting on the wedge.
3. Determine values of e2, e3 and e4 based on the results from the pore pressure calculations.
4. Determine the solutions of the equilibrium equations on the wedge and find the solution which has the
minimum energy dissipation, resulting in the minimum horizontal force on the blade.
5. Determine the forces without a wedge with the theory for small cutting angles.
6. Determine which horizontal force is the smallest, with or without the wedge.

Figure 12-21: The forces on the wedges at 60, 75, 90, 105 and 120
cutting angles.

12.5. The Non-Cavitating Wedge.

To illustrate the results of the calculation method, a non-cavitating case will be discussed. Calculations are carried
out for blade angles α of 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115 and 120, while the smallest
angle is around 60 depending on the possible solutions. Also the cutting forces are determined with and without
a wedge, so it’s possible to carry out step 6.
The case concerns a sand with an internal friction angle  of 30, a soil interface friction angle  of 20 fully
mobilized, a friction angle  between the soil cut and the wedge equal to the internal friction angle, an initial
permeability ki of 6.2*10-5 m/s and a residual permeability kmax of 17*10-5 m/s. The blade dimensions are a width
of 0.25 m and a height of 0.2 m, while a layer of sand of 0.05 m is cut with a cutting velocity of 0.3 m/s at a water
depth of 0.6 m, matching the laboratory conditions. The values for the acting points of the forces, are e2=0.35,
e3=0.55 and e4=0.32, based on the finite element calculations carried out by Ma (2001).
Figure 12-22 and Figure 12-23 show the results of the calculations. Figure 12-22 shows the wedge angle θ, the
shear angle β, the mobilized internal friction angle λ and the mobilized external friction angle δe as a function of
the blade angle α. Figure 12-23 shows the horizontal and vertical cutting forces, with and without a wedge.
The wedge angles found are smaller than 90-, which would match the theory of Hettiaratchi and Reece (1975).
The shear angle β is around 20, but it is obvious that a larger internal friction angle gives a smaller shear angle .
The mobilized external friction angle varies from plus the maximum mobilized external friction angle to minus
the maximum mobilized external friction angle as is also shown in the force diagrams in Figure 12-21.
Figure 12-23 shows clearly how the cutting forces become infinite when the sum of the 4 angles involved is 180
and become negative when this sum is larger than 180. So the transition from the small cutting angle theory to
the wedge theory occurs around a cutting angle of 70º, depending on the soil mechanical parameters and the
geometry of the cutting process.

Page 360 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

φ=30º, δ=20º, No Cavitation

90

75

60

45
Angles (º)

30
Teta
15 Beta
Delta
Labda
0

-15

-30

-45
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure 12-22: No cavitation, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α
for φ=30º and δ=20º.

φ=30º, δ=20º, No Cavitation

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5
Forces (kN)

0.0 Fh (Wedge)
Fv (Wedge)
-2.5 Fh (No wedge)
Fv (No wedge)
-5.0

-7.5

-10.0

-12.5

-15.0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure 12-23: No cavitation, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 361 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

12.6. The Cavitating Wedge

Also for the cavitating process, a case will be discussed. The calculations are carried out for blade angles α of 65,
70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110, 115 and 120, while the smallest angle is around 60º depending on
the possible solutions. Also the cutting forces are determined with and without a wedge, so it’s possible to carry
out
step 6.
The case concerns a sand with an internal friction angle  of 30, a soil interface friction angle  of 20 fully
mobilized, a friction angle  between the soil cut and the wedge equal to the internal friction angle, an initial
permeability ki of 6.2*10-5 m/s and a residual permeability kmax of 17*10-5 m/s. The blade dimensions are a width
of 0.25 m and a height of 0.2 m, while a layer of sand of 0.05 m is cut with a cutting velocity of 0.3 m/s at a water
depth of 0.6 m, matching the laboratory conditions. The values for the acting points of the forces, are e2=0.35,
e3=0.55 and e4=0.32, based on the finite element calculations carried out by Ma (2001).
Figure 12-24 and Figure 12-25 show the results of the calculations. Figure 12-24 shows the wedge angle θ, the
shear angle β, the mobilized internal friction angle λ and the mobilized external friction angle δe as a function of
the blade angle α. Figure 12-25 shows the horizontal and vertical cutting forces, with and without a wedge.
With the cavitating cutting process, the wedge angle θ always results in an angle of 90-, which matches the
theory of Hettiaratchi and Reece (1975).The reason of this is that in the full cavitation situation, the pore pressures
are equal on each side of the wedge and form equilibrium in itself. So the pore pressures do not influence the ratio
between the grain stresses on the different sides of the wedge. From Figure 12-25 it can be concluded that the
transition point between the conventional cutting process and the wedge process occurs at a blade angle of about
77 degrees.
In the non-cavitating cases this angle is about 70 degrees. A smaller angle of internal friction results in a higher
transition angle, but in the cavitating case this influence is bigger. In the cavitating case, the horizontal force is a
constant as long as the external friction angle is changing from a positive maximum to the negative minimum.
Once this minimum is reached, the horizontal force increases a bit. At the transition angle where the horizontal
forces with and without the wedge are equal, the vertical forces are not equal, resulting in a jump of the vertical
force, when the wedge starts to occur.

12.7. Limits.
Instead of carrying out the calculations for each different case, the limits of the occurrence of the wedge can be
summarized in a few graphs. Figure 12-26 shows the upper and lower limit of the wedge for the non-cavitating
case as a function of the angle of internal friction φ. It can be concluded that the upper and lower limits are not
symmetrical around 90º, but a bit lower than that. An increasing angle of internal friction results in a larger
bandwidth for the occurrence of the wedge. For blade angles above the upper limit most probably subduction will
occur, although there is no scientific evidence for this. The theory developed should not be used for blade angles
above the upper limit yet. Further research is required. The lower limit is not necessarily the start of the occurrence
of the wedge. This depends on whether the cutting forces with the wedge are smaller than the cutting forces without
the wedge. Figure 12-28 shows the blade angle where the wedge will start to occur, based on the minimum of the
horizontal cutting forces with and without the wedge. It can be concluded that the blade angle where the wedge
starts to occur is larger than the minimum where the wedge can exist, which makes sense. For high angles of
internal friction, the starting blade angle is about equal to the lower limit.
For the cavitating case the upper and lower limit are shown in Figure 12-27. In this case the limits are symmetrical
around 90º and with an external friction angle of 2/3 of the internal friction angle it can be concluded that these
limits are 90º+δ and 90º-δ. The blade angle where the wedge will start to occur is again shown in Figure 12-28.

The methodology applied gives satisfactory results to determine the cutting forces at large cutting angles. The
results shown in this paper are valid for the non-cavitating and the cavitating cutting process and for the soils and
geometry as used in this paper. The wedge angles found are, in general, a bit smaller then 90- for the non-
cavitating case and exactly 90- for the cavitating case, so as a first approach this can be used.
The mobilized external friction angle δe varies from plus the maximum for small blade angles to minus the
maximum for large blade angles, depending on the blade angle.
The cutting forces with the wedge do not increase much in the non-cavitating case and not at all in the cavitating
case, when the cutting angle increases from 60 to 120.
If the ratio between the thickness of the layer cut and the blade height changes, also the values of the acting points
e2, e3 and e4 will change slightly.
It is not possible to find an explicit analytical solution for the wedge problem and it’s even difficult to automate
the calculation method, since the solution depends strongly on the values of the acting points.

Page 362 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 12-26, Figure 12-27 and Figure 12-28 are a great help determining whether or not a wedge will occur and
at which blade angle it will start to occur.
The theory developed can be applied to cutting processes of bulldozers, in front of the heel of a drag head, ice
scour, tunnel boring machines and so on.

φ=30º, δ=20º, Cavitation

90

75

60

45
Angles (º)

30
Teta
15 Beta
Delta

0 Labda

-15

-30

-45
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure 12-24: Cavitating, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º.

φ=30º, δ=20º, Cavitation

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Forces (kN)

5
0 Fh (Wedge)
-5 Fv (Wedge)
-10 Fh (No wedge)
-15 Fv (No wedge)
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure 12-25: Cavitating, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 363 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Limits of Static Wedge (º), No Cavitation

120

y = 0.74x + 82
NC Lower Limit
110

100

NC Upper Limit
Blade angle α (º)

90

80
Linear (NC Lower
Limit)
70

60 Linear (NC Upper

Limit)
y = -0.34x + 71.25
50
30 35 40 45
Angle of internal friction φ (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure 12-26: The lower and upper limit where a static wedge can exist
for the non-cavitating cutting process.

Limits of Static Wedge (º), Cavitation

120

C Lower Limit
y = 0.68x + 89.5
110

C Upper Limit
100
Blade angle α (º)

C Lower Limit
90

80 C Upper Limit

70
Linear (C Lower
Limit)
y = -0.68x + 91.5
60
Linear (C Upper
Limit)
50
30 35 40 45
Angle of internal friction φ (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure 12-27: The lower and upper limit where a static wedge can exist for the cavitating cutting process.

Page 364 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

Lower Limit of Static Wedge (º)

90

85 NC

80

y = -0.9216x + 105.14
75 C
Blade angle α (º)

70

65 Linear (NC)

y = -0.8757x + 96.973
60

55 Linear (C)

50
20 25 30 35 40 45
Angle of internal friction φ (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure 12-28: The lower limit where the wedge starts to occur.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 365 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 366 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

12.8. Experiments.
Sand cutting tests have been carried out in the Laboratory of Dredging Engineering at the Delft University.

The cutting tank is a concrete tank with a length of 35 m, a width of 3 m and a depth of 1.5 m. The bottom of the
tank is covered with a drainage system. Above the drainage system is a layer of about 0.7 m sand (0.110 mm). On
top of the sand is a layer of 0.5 m water. Other soils than the 0.110 mm sand can be used in the tank. On top of the
tank rails are mounted on which a carriage can ride with speeds of up to 1.25 m/s with a pulling force of up to 15
kN, or 2.5 m/s with a pulling force of 7.5 kN. On the carriage an auxiliary carriage is mounted that can be moved
transverse to the velocity of the main carriage. On this carriage a hydraulic swell simulating system is mounted,
thus enabling the cutting tools to be subjected to specific oscillations. Under the carriage dredging equipment such
as cutter heads and drag heads can be mounted. The dredging equipment can be instrumented with different types
of transducers such as force, speed and density transducers. The signals from these transducers will be conditioned
before they go to a computer via an A/D converter. On the carriage a hydraulic system is available, including
velocity and density transducers. A 25 kW hydraulic drive is available for cutter heads and dredging wheels. The
dredge pump is driven by a 15 kW electric drive with speed control. With the drainage system the pore water
pressures can be controlled. Dredged material is dumped in an adjacent hopper tank to keep the water clean for
under water video recordings. In the cutting tank research is carried out on cutting processes, mixture forming,
offshore dredging, but also jet-cutting, the removal of contaminated silt, etc.

Figure 12-29: Cross section of the cutting tank.

The tests carried out in the Dredging Engineering Laboratory had the objective to find the failure mechanisms of
a sand package under large cutting angles of 60˚, 75˚ and 90˚. Main goal of the tests was to visualize the total
process in a 2-dimensional view. Besides, the behaviour of sand in front of the blade was to be investigated. As
mentioned before, some wedge exists in front of the blade, but it was not clear until now whether this was a
kinematic wedge or a dynamic wedge. Visualising the cutting process and visualising the velocity of the sand on
the blade has to improve the understanding of the processes involved.

The existing testing facilities have been used to carry out the cutting tests. With these facilities cutting depths from
3 till 7 cm are tested, resulting in an (effective blade height)/(cutting depth) ratio of 2.5 to 6, for the various angles.
Cutting velocities of the tests were from 0.1 m/s to 0.4 m/s for smaller and 0.2 m/s for the larger cutting depths.
These maximum velocities are limited by the maximum electrical power of the testing facility. In the first series
of tests the 2-dimensional cutting process is made visual by doing tests near the window in the cutting tank. The

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 367 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

process is not completely 2-dimensional here, because the water pressures and sand friction are influenced by the
window, but it gives a good indication of the appearing failure mechanism of the sand package. Figure 12-29
shows a cross-section of the cutting tank and the carriage under which the cutting tools are mounted, while Figure
12-30 shows a front view and Figure 12-31 shows the blades mounted under the carriage.
To visualise the behaviour of the sand package in front of the blade a Perspex window is made in the middle one
of the 3 cutting blades. Here we expect the least side influences. The middle blade measures a height of 20 cm and
a width of 25 cm. The camera is mounted at the back of the blade, in a cover, as seen in Figure 12-33. In Figure
12-32 you can see an underwater light, which is also mounted in the cover, shining on the camera. This construction
gives a view of the process as can be seen in Figure 12-34 and Figure 12-35, at a height of 8 till 9 cm in the blade.
The camera records with a frame rate of 25/sec. In the Perspex window, Figure 12-35, a scale of 1 cm is engraved.
By tracing sand grains along the window a ratio is determined between the cutting velocity and the velocity along
the window at the recorded height, for the angles of 75˚ and 90˚. These ratios are respectively 0.3 and 0.15. At
60˚ this ratio can hardly be determined because it lies in the range of the cutting velocity and out of the range of
the recorded frame rate.

Figure 12-30: Front view of the test facility.

With a dynamometer forces on the middle blade are measured. The horizontal cutting forces for the various angles
are roughly in a ratio of 1:1.5:2, for 60˚, 75˚, 90˚ respectively. This indicates a changing failure mechanism for
the 3 tested angles, which the videos from the tests along the glass also confirm.
Figures 9, 10 and 11 show the horizontal cutting forces as obtained from the experiments.
From the above results two main conclusions can be drawn. First of all, the sand is moving relative to the blade on
the blade and secondly the cutting forces at a 90˚ blade are much smaller then would be expected from the cutting
theory, Miedema (1987 September). As shown in Figure 12-1, He et al. (1998) and also observed according to
Figure 12-39, a wedge exists in front of the blade, but apparently this is not a kinematic wedge, but a dynamic
wedge.

To determine the flow pattern of the sand in the dynamic wedge, vertical bars of colored sand grains were inserted
in the sand. These vertical bars had a length of about 10 cm. Since the maximum cutting depth was 7 cm, the full

Page 368 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

cutting process was covered by these bars. Figure 12 shows the cutting process with the vertical bars and it shows
how the bars are deformed by the cutting process.

Figure 12-31: The blade mounted Figure 12-32: The camera in front
under the carriage of the window.

Figure 12-33: Cover with camera behind the blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 369 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 12-34: The Perspex window in the blade.

Figure 12-35: View of the cutting process through the Perspex window.

Page 370 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

6 .0

5 .4

4 .8

4 .2
F h (k N )

3 .6

3 .0

2 .4

1 .8

1 .2

0 .6

0 .0
0 .0 0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 0 .1 5 0 .2 0 0 .2 5 0 .3 0 0 .3 5 0 .4 0 0 .4 5 0 .5 0

C u ttin g V e lo c ity ( m /s e c )
N W h i=3 c m N W h i=4 c m N W h i=5 c m N W h i=6 c m N W h i=7 c m

W W h i= 3 c m W W h i= 4 c m W W h i= 5 c m W W h i= 6 c m W W h i= 7 c m

h i= 3 c m h i= 4 c m h i= 5 c m h i= 6 c m h i= 7 c m

0 .0

- 0 .1

- 0 .2

- 0 .4
F v (k N )

- 0 .5

- 0 .6

- 0 .7

- 0 .8

- 1 .0

- 1 .1

- 1 .2
0 .0 0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 0 .1 5 0 .2 0 0 .2 5 0 .3 0 0 .3 5 0 .4 0 0 .4 5 0 .5 0

C u ttin g V e lo c ity ( m /s e c )
N W h i=3 c m N W h i=4 c m N W h i=5 c m N W h i=6 c m N W h i=7 c m

W W h i= 3 c m W W h i= 4 c m W W h i= 5 c m W W h i= 6 c m W W h i= 7 c m

h i= 3 c m h i= 4 c m h i= 5 c m h i= 6 c m h i= 7 c m

C u t t in g t e s t s w it h a 6 0 d eg r e e b lad e.

Figure 12-36: Cutting forces for cutting depths (hi) from 3 to 7 cm;
blade angle 60°.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 371 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

6 .0

5 .4

4 .8

4 .2
F h (k N )

3 .6

3 .0

2 .4

1 .8

1 .2

0 .6

0 .0
0 .0 0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 0 .1 5 0 .2 0 0 .2 5 0 .3 0 0 .3 5 0 .4 0 0 .4 5 0 .5 0

C u ttin g V e lo c ity ( m /s e c )
N W h i=3 c m N W h i=4 c m N W h i=5 c m N W h i=6 c m N W h i=7 c m

W W h i= 3 c m W W h i= 4 c m W W h i= 5 c m W W h i= 6 c m W W h i= 7 c m

h i= 3 c m h i= 4 c m h i= 5 c m h i= 6 c m h i= 7 c m

1 .0

0 .5

0 .0

- 0 .5
F v (k N )

- 1 .0

- 1 .5

- 2 .0

- 2 .5

- 3 .0

- 3 .5

- 4 .0
0 .0 0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 0 .1 5 0 .2 0 0 .2 5 0 .3 0 0 .3 5 0 .4 0 0 .4 5 0 .5 0

C u ttin g V e lo c ity ( m /s e c )
N W h i=3 c m N W h i=4 c m N W h i=5 c m N W h i=6 c m N W h i=7 c m

W W h i= 3 c m W W h i= 4 c m W W h i= 5 c m W W h i= 6 c m W W h i= 7 c m

h i= 3 c m h i= 4 c m h i= 5 c m h i= 6 c m h i= 7 c m

C u t t in g t e s t s w it h a 7 5 d eg r e e b lad e.

Figure 12-37: Cutting forces for cutting depths (hi) from 3 to 7 cm;
blade angle 75°.

Page 372 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

1 0 .0

9 .0

8 .0

7 .0
F h (k N )

6 .0

5 .0

4 .0

3 .0

2 .0

1 .0

0 .0
0 .0 0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 0 .1 5 0 .2 0 0 .2 5 0 .3 0 0 .3 5 0 .4 0 0 .4 5 0 .5 0

C u ttin g V e lo c ity ( m /s e c )
N W h i=3 c m N W h i=4 c m N W h i=5 c m N W h i=6 c m N W h i=7 c m

W W h i= 3 c m W W h i= 4 c m W W h i= 5 c m W W h i= 6 c m W W h i= 7 c m

h i= 3 c m h i= 4 c m h i= 5 c m h i= 6 c m h i= 7 c m

1 .0

0 .0

- 1 .0

- 2 .0
F v (k N )

- 3 .0

- 4 .0

- 5 .0

- 6 .0

- 7 .0

- 8 .0

- 9 .0
0 .0 0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 0 .1 5 0 .2 0 0 .2 5 0 .3 0 0 .3 5 0 .4 0 0 .4 5 0 .5 0

C u ttin g V e lo c ity ( m /s e c )
N W h i=3 c m N W h i=4 c m N W h i=5 c m N W h i=6 c m N W h i=7 c m

W W h i= 3 c m W W h i= 4 c m W W h i= 5 c m W W h i= 6 c m W W h i= 7 c m

h i= 3 c m h i= 4 c m h i= 5 c m h i= 6 c m h i= 7 c m

C u t t in g t e s t s w it h a 9 0 d eg r e e b lad e.

Figure 12-38: Cutting forces for cutting depths (hi) from 3 to 7 cm;
blade angle 90°.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 373 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

12.9. The Dynamic Wedge.

As discussed in the above paragraphs, the new research has led to the insight that the wedge in front of the blade
is not static but dynamic. The aim of the new research was to get a good understanding of the mechanisms involved
in the cutting at large cutting angles. To achieve this, vertical bars of about 10 cm deep with colored sand grains
were inserted in the sand as is shown in Figure 12-39. When these bars are cut they will be deformed. If the wedge
in front of the blade is a static wedge, meaning that the grains in the wedge have no velocity relative to the blade,
then the colored grains from the bars will not enter the wedge. If however the colored grains enter the wedge, this
means that the grains in the wedge move with respect to the blade. The research has shown that the colored grains
have entered the wedge according to Figure 12-39. In the layer cut, the colored grains show a straight line, which
is obvious, because of the velocity distribution in the layer cut. In fact the layer cut moves as a rigid body. In the
wedge the colored grains show a curved line. Because of the velocity distribution in the wedge, the grains near the
blade move much slower than the grains in the layer cut. Although Figure 12-39 shows a line between the layer
cut and the wedge, in reality there does not exist a clear boundary between these two surfaces. The grains on both
sides of the drawn boundary line will have (almost) the same velocity, resulting in an internal friction angle ,
which is not fully mobilized. The external friction angle on the blade however is fully mobilized. This contradicts
the findings of Miedema et al. (2002A), from previous research. The value of this internal friction angle is between
0<<. Further research will have to show the value of .

La y e r C u t

Bla d e


We d g e




Page 374 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Saturated Sand Cutting.

Figure 12-39: The dynamic wedge.

12.10. Nomenclature.
e2, e3, e4 Acting point of cutting forces -
F, Fh, Fv Cutting force (general) kN
g Gravitation acceleration m/s²
hi Initial layer thickness m
hb Blade height m
ki Initial permeability m/s
kmax Maximum permeability m/s
K1, 2, 3, 4 Grain force caused by grain stresses kN
ni Initial pore percentage %
nmax Maximum pore percentage %
N1, 2, 3, 4 Normal force caused by grain stresses kN
p1m, 2m, 3m, 4m Average pore pressure on a surface -
S1, 2, 3, 4 Force caused by shear stresses kN
vc Cutting velocity perpendicular on the blade edge m/s
w Width of the blade of blade element m
W1, 2, 3, 4 Pore pressure forces kN
z Water depth m
 Blade angle rad
 Shear angle rad
 Wedge angle rad
ε Volume strain %
φ Internal friction angle rad
δe External friction angle, mobilized effective external friction angle rad
w Water density ton/m³
 Angle of internal friction between wedge and layer cut rad

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 375 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 376 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Clay Cutting.

Chapter 13: A Wedge in Clay Cutting.

13.1. Introduction.
Clay cutting is dominated by cohesive and adhesive forces. Pore pressure forces, gravitational forces and inertial
forces do not play a role or can be neglected. Clay cutting is regarded to be an undrained process resulting in the
φ=0 concept, meaning that the internal and external friction angles can be considered to be zero. Because of the
absence of internal and external friction angles, the sine of the sum of the 4 angles in the denominator of the
equation for the cutting forces will less likely approach or exceed 180 degrees, resulting in very large or even
negative forces. In clay only the blade angle and the shear angle play a role. Now the shear angle will in general
be larger in the clay cutting process compared with the sand cutting process, still very large blade angles are
required in order to approach the 180 degrees. The shear angle may have values of 30-50 degrees for a blade angle
of 90 degrees, still not approaching the total of 180 degrees enough. Blade angles of around 150 degrees will be
required to have a sum approaching 180 degrees. In normal dredging the blade angles will be up to about 60
degrees, but the front of a drag head of a trailing suction hopper dredge has an angle larger than 90 degrees, also
in the problem of ice berg scour large angles may occur and usually tunnel boring machines have blades with large
blade angles. So the problem of having large blade angles is relevant and the transition from the no-wedge
mechanism to the wedge mechanism is of interest in engineering practice. Figure 13-1 shows the definitions of the
wedge mechanism.

Figure 13-1: The occurrence of a wedge in clay cutting.

Definitions:
1. A: The wedge tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. D: The blade tip.
5. A-B: The shear plane.
6. A-C: The wedge surface.
7. A-D: The wedge bottom.
8. D-C: The blade surface.
9. hb: The height of the blade.
10. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
11. vc: The cutting velocity.
12. α: The blade angle.
13. β: The shear angle.
14. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
15. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 377 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

13.2. The Equilibrium of Forces.

Figure 13-2 illustrates the forces on the layer of soil cut. The forces shown are valid for clay.

The forces acting on the layer A-B are:

1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
2. A shear force C1 as a result of pure cohesion c or shear strength. This force can be calculated by multiplying
the cohesive shear strength c with the area of the shear plane.
3. A force normal to the pseudo blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
4. A shear force C2 as a result of the mobilized cohesion between the soil and the wedge c. This force can be
calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the soil and
the wedge.

The forces acting on the wedge front or pseudo blade A-C when cutting clay, can be distinguished as (see Figure
13-3):
5. A force normal to the blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
6. A shear force C2 as a result of the cohesion between the layer cut and the pseudo blade c. This force can be
calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the soil and
the pseudo blade.

The forces acting on the wedge bottom A-D when cutting clay, can be distinguished as:
7. A force normal to the blade N3, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
8. A shear force C3 as a result of the cohesion between the wedge bottom and the undisturbed soil c. This force
can be calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the
wedge bottom and the undisturbed soil.

The forces acting on a straight blade C-D when cutting soil (see Figure 13-4), can be distinguished as:
9. A force normal to the blade N4, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
10. A shear force A as a result of pure adhesion between the soil and the blade a. This force can be calculated by
multiplying the adhesive shear strength a of the soil with the contact area between the soil and the blade.

The horizontal equilibrium of forces on the layer cut:

 Fh  N 1  s i n (  )  C 1  c o s (  )  C 2  c o s (  )  N 2  s in (  )  0 (13-1)

The vertical equilibrium of forces on the layer cut:

 Fv   N 1  c o s ( )  C 1  s in ( )  C 2  s in (  )  N 2  cos(  )  0 (13-2)

The force N1 on the shear plane is now:

 C 1  cos(   )  C 2
N1  (13-3)
s in (    )

The force N2 on the pseudo blade is now:

 C 1  C 2  cos(   )
N2  (13-4)
s in (    )

From equation (13-4) the forces on the pseudo blade can be derived. On the pseudo blade a force component in
the direction of cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

F h   N 2  s in (  )  C 2  c o s (  ) (13-5)
F    N 2  c o s (  )  C 2  s in (  ) (13-6)

Now knowing the forces on the pseudo blade A-C, the equilibrium of forces on the wedge A-C-D can be derived.
The adhesive force does not have to be mobilized 100%, while this force could have both directions, depending

Page 378 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Clay Cutting.

on the equilibrium of forces and the equilibrium of moments. So for now the mobilized adhesive force Am is used
in the equations.

The horizontal equilibrium of forces on the wedge:

 Fh  N 4  s in    A m  cos     C 2  cos     N 2  s in   C3  0 (13-7)

The vertical equilibrium of forces on the wedge:

 Fv  N 4  cos     A m  s in    C 2  s in   N 2  cos    N 3  0 (13-8)

To derive N4:

Multiply the horizontal equilibrium equation with sin(α).

N 4  s in     s in    A m  c o s     s in    C 2  c o s     s in   
(13-9)
 N 2  s in     s in    C 3  s in     0

Multiply the vertical equilibrium equation with cos(α).

N 4  c o s     c o s     A m  s in     c o s     C 2  s in     c o s   
(13-10)
 N 2  cos     cos     N 3  cos     0

Now add up the two resulting equations in order to get an expression for N4.

N 4  C 2  s in     N 2  c o s       C 3  s in    N 3  cos    (13-11)

The mobilized adhesive force Am can be derived according to:

First multiply the horizontal equilibrium equation with cos(α).

N 4  s in     c o s     A m  c o s     c o s     C 2  c o s     c o s   
(13-12)
 N 2  s in     c o s     C 3  c o s     0

Now multiply the vertical equilibrium equation with sin(α):

N 4  c o s     s in    A m  s in     s in    C2  s in     s in   
(13-13)
 N 2  c o s     s in     N 3  s in     0

Subtracting the two resulting equations gives the equation for the mobilized adhesive force.

A m  C 2  cos     N 2  s in      C 3  cos    N 3  s in   (13-14)

This can also be rewritten as an equation for the normal force N3 on the bottom of the wedge.

N 3  N 4  cos     A m  s in    C 2  s in   N 2  cos    (13-15)

Since both the mobilized adhesive force Am and the normal force on the bottom of the wedge N3 are unknowns,
an additional condition has to be found. The wedge angle θ however is also an unknown, requiring an additional
condition. Apparently N4 and Am are independent of each other.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 379 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 13-2: The forces on the layer cut in clay cutting with a wedge.

Figure 13-3: The forces on the wedge in clay cutting.

Page 380 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Clay Cutting.

Figure 13-4: The forces on the blade when cutting clay with a wedge.

13.3. The Equilibrium of Moments.

The first additional condition is the equilibrium of moments of the wedge. Since the wedge is not subject to
rotational accelerations in a stationary cutting process, the sum of the moments around any point on the wedge has
to be zero. Here the tip of the blade is chosen for this point. First the equilibrium of moments is solved in order to
find a relation between N3 and N4.

Figure 13-5: The equilibrium of moments on the wedge when cutting clay.

To solve the equilibrium of moments the lengths of the sides of the wedge and arms of the forces have to be
determined.

The length of the shear plane A-B is:

hi
L1  (13-16)
s in   

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 381 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The length of the front of the wedge A-C is:

hb
L  (13-17)

2
s in

The length of the bottom of the wedge A-D is:

 1 1 
L 3  hb    (13-18)
 ta n    ta n    
 

The length of the blade C-D is:

hb
L4  (13-19)
s in   

The distance of the tip of the blade perpendicular to the front of the wedge is:

L5  L 3  s in  (13-20)

The distance from point A to the intersection point of the line going from the tip of the blade perpendicular to the
front of the blade is.

L6  L 3  cos  (13-21)

The distance of the acting point of the force N2 to the intersection point of the line going from the tip of the blade
perpendicular to the front of the blade is:

L7  L6  R2 (13-22)

R2 follows from the equilibrium of moments on the layer cut, assuming the forces on the shear plane act at half
the length of the shear plane.

N1  R1  N 2  R 2 (13-23)

Now the equilibrium equation of moments can be derived according to:

N4 L4 N3 L3
 M 
2

2
 N2 L7  C2 L5  0 (13-24)

Both equation (13-11) and equation (13-24) don not contain the mobilized adhesive force Am, giving the
possibility to solve the two unknowns N3 and N4. To solve the normal force N3 first an expression for the normal
force N4 has to be derived based on the equilibrium of moments.

2N 3 L3 / 2  N 2 L7  C2 L5 

N4  (13-25)
L4

Equation (13-11) and equation (13-25) should give the same result for the normal force N4, thus:

2N3 L3 / 2  N2 L7  C2 L5 


L4 (13-26)
C 2  s in       N 2  c o s       C 3  s in     N 3  c o s   

This can be written as:

Page 382 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Clay Cutting.

 L3   L7 
N 3
  cos      N 2
  cos      
 L4   2L4 
(13-27)
 L5 
 C2    s in        C 3  s in   
 2L4 

Now N3 can be expressed in a number of known variables according to:

 L7   L5 
N 2
  cos        C 2    s in      
 2L4   2L4 
N 3

 L3 
  cos    
L
 4 
(13-28)

 C 3  s in   

 L3 
  cos    
 L4 

Substituting equation (13-28) in equation (13-11) gives a solution for the normal force N4.

N 4  C 2  s in     N 2  c o s       C 3  s in    N 3  cos    (13-29)

Substituting equation (13-28) in equation (13-14) gives a solution for the mobilized adhesion Am.

A m  C 2  cos     N 2  s in      C 3  cos    N 3  s in   (13-30)

This results in a horizontal force of:

Fh  N 4  s in    A m  cos    (13-31)

And in a vertical force of:

Fv  N 4  cos     A m  s in   (13-32)

Based on the experience with sand cutting it is assumed that the wedge angle θ can be determined by assuming
that the horizontal force should be at a minimum for the angle chosen. It is very well possible that the mobilized
adhesion is negative for large blade angles.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 383 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

13.4. Nomenclature.
a, τa Adhesion or adhesive shear strength. kPa
A Adhesive shear force on the blade. kN
c, τc Cohesion or cohesive shear strength. kPa
C1 Cohesive shear force on the shear plane. kN
C2 Cohesive shear force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
C3 Cohesive shear force on bottom of the wedge. kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force. kN
Fv Vertical cutting force. kN
G1 Weight of the layer cut. kN
G2 Weight of the wedge. kN
hb Blade height. m
hi Layer thickness. m
I Inertial force on the shear plane. kN
N1 Normal force on the shear plane. kN
N2 Normal force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
N3 Normal force on bottom of the wedge. kN
N4 Normal force on the blade. kN
K1 Sum of N1 and S1 on the shear plane. kN
K2 Sum of N2 and S2 on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
K3 Sum of N3 and S3 on bottom of the wedge. kN
K4 Sum of N4 and S4 on the blade. kN
L1 Length of the shear plane. m
L2 Length of the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). m
L3 Length of the bottom of the wedge. m
L4 Length of the blade. m
L5 Length of the line from the tip of the blade to the opposite side of the wedge and m
perpendicular to this side.
L6 Length of the line from point A to the intersection point of the previous line with side A-C. m
L7 Distance from the acting point of the pore pressure force on side m
A-C to the intersection point of the previous line L6 with side A-C.
R1 Acting point forces on the shear plane. m
R2 Acting point forces on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). m
R3 Acting point forces on the bottom of the wedge. m
R4 Acting point forces on the blade. m
S1 Shear (friction) force on the shear plane. kN
S2 Shear (friction) force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
S3 Shear (friction) force on the bottom of the wedge. kN
S4 Shear (friction) force on the blade. kN
W1 Pore pressure force on the shear plane. kN
W2 Pore pressure force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
W3 Pore pressure force on the bottom of the wedge. kN
W4 Pore pressure force on the blade. kN
vc Cutting velocity. m/sec
α Blade angle. °
β Shear angle. °
θ Wedge angle. °
φ Internal friction angle. °
δ External friction angle. °
λ Internal friction angle on pseudo blade. °

Page 384 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Atmospheric Rock Cutting.

Chapter 14: A Wedge in Atmospheric Rock Cutting.

14.1. Introduction.
For completeness of the overview the equations for the cutting of the wedge mechanism for atmospheric rock are
given here without further explanation.

Figure 14-1: Definitions.

Definitions:
1. A: The wedge tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. D: The blade tip.
5. A-B: The shear plane.
6. A-C: The wedge surface.
7. A-D: The wedge bottom.
8. D-C: The blade surface.
9. hb: The height of the blade.
10. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
11. vc: The cutting velocity.
12. α: The blade angle.
13. β: The shear angle.
14. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
15. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

14.2. The Equilibrium of Forces.

Figure 14-2 illustrates the forces on the layer of soil cut. The forces shown are valid in general for each type of
soil.

The forces acting on the layer A-B are:

1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
2. A shear force S1 as a result of internal friction N1·tan(φ.
3. A shear force C1 as a result of pure cohesion c or shear strength. This force can be calculated by multiplying
the cohesive shear strength c with the area of the shear plane.
4. A force normal to the pseudo blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
5. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/soil friction N2·tan(λ between the layer cut and the wedge pseudo
blade. The friction angle λ does not have to be equal to the internal friction angle φ in the shear plane, since
the soil has already been deformed.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 385 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

6. A shear force C2 as a result of the mobilized cohesion between the soil and the wedge c. This force can be
calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the soil and
the wedge.

The normal force N1 and the shear force S1 can be combined to a resulting grain force K1.

2 2
K1  N 1  S1 (14-1)

The forces acting on the wedge front or pseudo blade A-C when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
7. A force normal to the blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
8. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/soil friction N2·tan(λ  between the layer cut and the wedge pseudo
blade. The friction angle λ does not have to be equal to the internal friction angle φ in the shear plane, since
the soil has already been deformed.
9. A shear force C2 as a result of the cohesion between the layer cut and the pseudo blade c. This force can be
calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the soil and
the pseudo blade.

These forces are shown in Figure 14-3. If the forces N2 and S2 are combined to a resulting force K2 and the adhesive
force and the water under pressures are known, then the resulting force K2 is the unknown force on the blade. By
taking the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces an expression for the force K2 on the blade can be derived.

2 2
K 2  N2  S2 (14-2)

The forces acting on the wedge bottom A-D when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
10. A force normal to the blade N3, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
11. A shear force S3 as a result of the soil/soil friction N3·tan(φ  between the wedge bottom and the undisturbed
soil.
12. A shear force C3 as a result of the cohesion between the wedge bottom and the undisturbed soil c. This force
can be calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the
wedge bottom and the undisturbed soil.

The normal force N3 and the shear force S3 can be combined to a resulting grain force K3.

2 2
K 3  N3  S3 (14-3)

The forces acting on a straight blade C-D when cutting soil (see Figure 14-4), can be distinguished as:
16. A force normal to the blade N4, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
17. A shear force S4 as a result of the soil/steel friction N4·tan(.

The normal force N4 and the shear force S4 can be combined to a resulting grain force K4.

2 2
K 4  N4  S4 (14-4)

The horizontal equilibrium of forces on the layer cut:

 Fh  K 1  s in (    )  C 1  c o s (  )  C 2  c o s (  )  K 2  s in (    )  0 (14-5)

The vertical equilibrium of forces on the layer cut:

 Fv   K 1  c o s (   )  C 1  s in ( )  C 2  s in (  )  K 2  cos(    )  0 (14-6)

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

 C 1  cos(     )  C 2  cos( )
K1  (14-7)
s in (        )

Page 386 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Atmospheric Rock Cutting.

The force K2 on the pseudo blade is now:

 C 1  cos( )  C 2  cos(     )
K 2  (14-8)
s in (        )

From equation (14-8) the forces on the pseudo blade can be derived. On the pseudo blade a force component in
the direction of cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

Fh  K 2  s in (    )  C 2  c o s (  ) (14-9)
F  K 2  c o s (    )  C 2  s in (  ) (14-10)

The normal force on the shear plane is now:

 C 1  cos(     )  C 2  cos( )
N1   cos( ) (14-11)
s in (        )

The normal force on the pseudo blade is now:

 C 1  cos( )  C 2  cos(     )
N2   cos( ) (14-12)
s in (        )

Now knowing the forces on the pseudo blade A-C, the equilibrium of forces on the wedge A-C-D can be derived.
The horizontal equilibrium of forces on the wedge is:

 Fh   K 4  s in       K 3  s in    C3

(14-13)
 C 2  cos     K 2  s in       0

The vertical equilibrium of forces on the wedge is:

 Fv   K 4  cos      K 3  cos   
(14-14)
 C 2  s in     K 2  cos       0

The unknowns in this equation are K3 and K4, since K2 has already been solved. Two other unknowns are, the
external friction angle δ, since the external friction does not have to be fully mobilized, and the wedge angle θ.
These 2 additional unknowns require 2 additional conditions in order to solve the problem. One additional
condition is the equilibrium of moments of the wedge, a second condition the principle of minimum required
cutting energy. Depending on whether the soil pushes upwards or downwards against the blade, the mobilization
factor is between -1 and +1.

The force K3 on the bottom of the wedge is now:

K 2  s in           C 3  c o s       C 2  c o s       
K  (14-15)
s in       
3

The force K4 on the blade is now:

K 2  s in         C 3  c o s     C 2  c o s     
K  (14-16)
s in       
4

This results in a horizontal force on the blade of:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 387 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Fh  K 4  s in     (14-17)

And in a vertical force on the blade of:

Fv  K 4  cos      (14-18)

Figure 14-2: The forces on the layer cut when a wedge is present.

Figure 14-3: The forces on the wedge.

Page 388 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Atmospheric Rock Cutting.

Figure 14-4: The forces on the blade when a wedge is present.

14.3. The Equilibrium of Moments.

In order to solve the problem, also the equilibrium of moments is required, since the wedge is not subject to
rotational acceleration. The equilibrium of moments can be taken around each point of the wedge. Here the tip of
the blade is chosen. The advantage of this is that a number of forces do not contribute to the moments on the
wedge.

Figure 14-5: The moments on the wedge.

In order to derive the equilibrium of moments equation the arms of all the forces contributing to this equilibrium
have to be known. Since these arms depend on the length of all the sides in the cutting process, first these lengths
are determined. The length of the shear plane A-B is:

hi
L1  (14-19)
s in   

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 389 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The length of the pseudo blade A-C is:

hb
L  (14-20)

2
s in

The length of the bottom of the wedge A-D is:

 1 1 
L 3  hb    (14-21)
 ta n    ta n    
 

The length of the blade C-D is:

hb
L4  (14-22)
s in   

The length of the line from the tip of the blade to the opposite side of the wedge and perpendicular to this side is:

L5  L 3  s in  (14-23)

The length of the line from point A to the intersection point of the previous line with side A-C is:

L6  L 3  cos  (14-24)

The distance from the acting point of the pore pressure force on side A-C to the intersection point of the previous
line with side A-C is:

L7  L6  R2 (14-25)

The values of the acting points R2, R3 and R4 follow from calculated or estimated stress distributions.

The equilibrium of moments is now:

 M  N 4 R 4  N 3 R 3  N 2 L7  S2  C2 L5  0 (14-26)

Page 390 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Atmospheric Rock Cutting.

14.4. Nomenclature.
a, τa Adhesion or adhesive shear strength. kPa
A Adhesive shear force on the blade. kN
c, τc Cohesion or cohesive shear strength. kPa
C1 Cohesive shear force on the shear plane. kN
C2 Cohesive shear force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
C3 Cohesive shear force on bottom of the wedge. kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force. kN
Fv Vertical cutting force. kN
G1 Weight of the layer cut. kN
G2 Weight of the wedge. kN
hb Blade height. m
hi Layer thickness. m
I Inertial force on the shear plane. kN
N1 Normal force on the shear plane. kN
N2 Normal force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
N3 Normal force on bottom of the wedge. kN
N4 Normal force on the blade. kN
K1 Sum of N1 and S1 on the shear plane. kN
K2 Sum of N2 and S2 on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
K3 Sum of N3 and S3 on bottom of the wedge. kN
K4 Sum of N4 and S4 on the blade. kN
L1 Length of the shear plane. m
L2 Length of the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). m
L3 Length of the bottom of the wedge. m
L4 Length of the blade. m
L5 Length of the line from the tip of the blade to the opposite side of the wedge and m
perpendicular to this side.
L6 Length of the line from point A to the intersection point of the previous line with side A-C. m
L7 Distance from the acting point of the pore pressure force on side m
A-C to the intersection point of the previous line L6 with side A-C.
R1 Acting point forces on the shear plane. m
R2 Acting point forces on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). m
R3 Acting point forces on the bottom of the wedge. m
R4 Acting point forces on the blade. m
S1 Shear (friction) force on the shear plane. kN
S2 Shear (friction) force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
S3 Shear (friction) force on the bottom of the wedge. kN
S4 Shear (friction) force on the blade. kN
W1 Pore pressure force on the shear plane. kN
W2 Pore pressure force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
W3 Pore pressure force on the bottom of the wedge. kN
W4 Pore pressure force on the blade. kN
vc Cutting velocity. m/sec
α Blade angle. °
β Shear angle. °
θ Wedge angle. °
φ Internal friction angle. °
δ External friction angle. °
λ Internal friction angle on pseudo blade. °

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 391 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 392 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Hyperbaric Rock Cutting.

Chapter 15: A Wedge in Hyperbaric Rock Cutting.

15.1. Introduction.
For completeness of the overview the equations for the cutting of the wedge mechanism for hyperbaric rock are
given here without further explanation.

Figure 15-1: Definitions.

Definitions:
1. A: The wedge tip.
2. B: End of the shear plane.
3. C: The blade top.
4. D: The blade tip.
5. A-B: The shear plane.
6. A-C: The wedge surface.
7. A-D: The wedge bottom.
8. D-C: The blade surface.
9. hb: The height of the blade.
10. hi: The thickness of the layer cut.
11. vc: The cutting velocity.
12. α: The blade angle.
13. β: The shear angle.
14. Fh: The horizontal force, the arrow gives the positive direction.
15. Fv: The vertical force, the arrow gives the positive direction.

15.2. The Equilibrium of Forces.

Figure 15-2 illustrates the forces on the layer of soil cut. The forces shown are valid in general for each type of
soil.

The forces acting on the layer A-B are:

1. A normal force acting on the shear surface N1, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
2. A shear force S1 as a result of internal friction N1·tan(φ.
3. A force W1 as a result of water under pressure in the shear zone.
4. A shear force C1 as a result of pure cohesion c or shear strength. This force can be calculated by multiplying
the cohesive shear strength c with the area of the shear plane.
5. A force normal to the pseudo blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
6. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/soil friction N2·tan(λ between the layer cut and the wedge pseudo
blade. The friction angle λ does not have to be equal to the internal friction angle φ in the shear plane, since
the soil has already been deformed.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 393 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

7. A shear force C2 as a result of the mobilized cohesion between the soil and the wedge c. This force can be
calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the soil and
the wedge.
8. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the wedge.

The normal force N1 and the shear force S1 can be combined to a resulting grain force K1.

2 2
K1  N 1  S1 (15-1)

The forces acting on the wedge front or pseudo blade A-C when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
9. A force normal to the blade N2, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
10. A shear force S2 as a result of the soil/soil friction N2·tan(λ  between the layer cut and the wedge pseudo
blade. The friction angle λ does not have to be equal to the internal friction angle φ in the shear plane, since
the soil has already been deformed.
11. A shear force C2 as a result of the cohesion between the layer cut and the pseudo blade c. This force can be
calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the soil and
the pseudo blade.
12. A force W2 as a result of water under pressure on the pseudo blade A-C.

These forces are shown in Figure 15-3. If the forces N2 and S2 are combined to a resulting force K2 and the adhesive
force and the water under pressures are known, then the resulting force K2 is the unknown force on the blade. By
taking the horizontal and vertical equilibrium of forces an expression for the force K2 on the blade can be derived.

2 2
K 2  N2  S2 (15-2)

The forces acting on the wedge bottom A-D when cutting soil, can be distinguished as:
13. A force normal to the blade N3, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
14. A shear force S3 as a result of the soil/soil friction N3·tan(φ  between the wedge bottom and the undisturbed
soil.
15. A shear force C3 as a result of the cohesion between the wedge bottom and the undisturbed soil c. This force
can be calculated by multiplying the cohesive shear strength c of the soil with the contact area between the
wedge bottom and the undisturbed soil.
16. A force W3 as a result of water under pressure on the wedge bottom A-D.

The normal force N3 and the shear force S3 can be combined to a resulting grain force K3.

2 2
K 3  N3  S3 (15-3)

The forces acting on a straight blade C-D when cutting soil (see Figure 15-4), can be distinguished as:
17. A force normal to the blade N4, resulting from the effective grain stresses.
18. A shear force S4 as a result of the soil/steel friction N4·tan(.
19. A force W4 as a result of water under pressure on the blade.

The normal force N4 and the shear force S4 can be combined to a resulting grain force K4.

2 2
K 4  N4  S4 (15-4)

The horizontal equilibrium of forces on the layer cut:

 F h  K 1  s in (    )  W 1  s in (  )  C 1  c o s (  )

(15-5)
 C 2  c o s (  )  W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  0

The vertical equilibrium of forces on the layer cut:

Page 394 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Hyperbaric Rock Cutting.

 F v   K 1  c o s (    )  W 1  c o s (  )  C 1  s in (  )

(15-6)
 C 2  s in (  )  W 2  c o s (  )  K 2  cos(   )  0

The force K1 on the shear plane is now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )  C 1  c o s (      )  C 2  c o s (  )
K1  (15-7)
s in (        )

The force K2 on the pseudo blade is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )  C 1  c o s (  )  C 2  c o s (      )
K 2  (15-8)
s in (        )

From equation (15-8) the forces on the pseudo blade can be derived. On the pseudo blade a force component in
the direction of cutting velocity Fh and a force perpendicular to this direction Fv can be distinguished.

F h   W 2  s in (  )  K 2  s in (    )  C 2  c o s (  ) (15-9)
F   W 2  c o s (  )  K 2  c o s (    )  C 2  s in (  ) (15-10)

The normal force on the shear plane is now:

W 2  s in (  )  W 1  s in (      )
N1   cos( )
s in (        )

(15-11)
 C 1  cos(     )  C 2  cos( )
  cos( )
s in (        )

The normal force on the pseudo blade is now:

W 2  s in (      )  W 1  s in (  )
N 2   cos( )
s in (        )

(15-12)
 C 1  cos( )  C 2  cos(     )
  cos( )
s in (        )

Now knowing the forces on the pseudo blade A-C, the equilibrium of forces on the wedge A-C-D can be derived.
The horizontal equilibrium of forces on the wedge is:

 F h  W 4  s in    K 4  s in       K 3  s in   
(15-13)
 C 3  W 2  s in     C 2  c o s     K 2  s in       0

The vertical equilibrium of forces on the wedge is:

 Fv  W 4  cos    K 4  cos       W 3  K 3  cos   

(15-14)
 W 2  c o s     C 2  s in     K 2  cos       0

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 395 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The unknowns in this equation are K3 and K4, since K2 has already been solved. Two other unknowns are, the
external friction angle δ, since the external friction does not have to be fully mobilized, and the wedge angle θ.
These 2 additional unknowns require 2 additional conditions in order to solve the problem. One additional
condition is the equilibrium of moments of the wedge, a second condition the principle of minimum required
cutting energy. Depending on whether the soil pushes upwards or downwards against the blade, the mobilization
factor is between -1 and +1.
The force K3 on the bottom of the wedge is now:

 W 2  s in         W 3  s in       W 4  s in   
K 
s in       
3

(15-15)
K 2  s in          C 3  cos       C 2  cos       

s in       

The force K4 on the blade is now:

 W 2  s in      W 3  s in    W 4  s in     
K 
s in       
4

(15-16)
K 2  s in        C 3  cos    C 2  cos     
s in       

This results in a horizontal force on the blade of:

Fh   W 4  s i n   K 4  s in     (15-17)

And in a vertical force on the blade of:

Fv   W 4  co s     K 4  cos      (15-18)

Figure 15-2: The forces on the layer cut when a wedge is present.

Page 396 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Hyperbaric Rock Cutting.

Figure 15-3: The forces on the wedge.

Figure 15-4: The forces on the blade when a wedge is present.

15.3. The Equilibrium of Moments.

In order to solve the problem, also the equilibrium of moments is required, since the wedge is not subject to
rotational acceleration. The equilibrium of moments can be taken around each point of the wedge. Here the tip of
the blade is chosen. The advantage of this is that a number of forces do not contribute to the moments on the
wedge. In order to derive the equilibrium of moments equation the arms of all the forces contributing to this
equilibrium have to be known. Since these arms depend on the length of all the sides in the cutting process, first
these lengths are determined. The length of the shear plane A-B is:

hi
L1  (15-19)
s in   

The length of the pseudo blade A-C is:

hb
L  (15-20)

2
s in

The length of the bottom of the wedge A-D is:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 397 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

 1 1 
L 3  hb    (15-21)
 ta n    ta n    
 

The length of the blade C-D is:

hb
L4  (15-22)
s in   

The length of the line from the tip of the blade to the opposite side of the wedge and perpendicular to this side is:

L5  L 3  s in  (15-23)

Figure 15-5: The moments on the wedge.

The length of the line from point A to the intersection point of the previous line with side A-C is:

L6  L 3  cos  (15-24)

The distance from the acting point of the pore pressure force on side A-C to the intersection point of the previous
line with side A-C is:

L7  L6  R2 (15-25)

The values of the acting points R2, R3 and R4 follow from calculated or estimated stress distributions.

The equilibrium of moments is now:

 M  N4  W4 R4  N3  W3 R3

(15-26)
 N2  W2 L7  S2  C2 L5  0

Page 398 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 A Wedge in Hyperbaric Rock Cutting.

15.4. Nomenclature.
a, τa Adhesion or adhesive shear strength. kPa
A Adhesive shear force on the blade. kN
c, τc Cohesion or cohesive shear strength. kPa
C1 Cohesive shear force on the shear plane. kN
C2 Cohesive shear force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
C3 Cohesive shear force on bottom of the wedge. kN
Fh Horizontal cutting force. kN
Fv Vertical cutting force. kN
G1 Weight of the layer cut. kN
G2 Weight of the wedge. kN
hb Blade height. m
hi Layer thickness. m
I Inertial force on the shear plane. kN
N1 Normal force on the shear plane. kN
N2 Normal force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
N3 Normal force on bottom of the wedge. kN
N4 Normal force on the blade. kN
K1 Sum of N1 and S1 on the shear plane. kN
K2 Sum of N2 and S2 on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
K3 Sum of N3 and S3 on bottom of the wedge. kN
K4 Sum of N4 and S4 on the blade. kN
L1 Length of the shear plane. m
L2 Length of the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). m
L3 Length of the bottom of the wedge. m
L4 Length of the blade. m
L5 Length of the line from the tip of the blade to the opposite side of the wedge and m
perpendicular to this side.
L6 Length of the line from point A to the intersection point of the previous line with side A-C. m
L7 Distance from the acting point of the pore pressure force on side m
A-C to the intersection point of the previous line L6 with side A-C.
R1 Acting point forces on the shear plane. m
R2 Acting point forces on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). m
R3 Acting point forces on the bottom of the wedge. m
R4 Acting point forces on the blade. m
S1 Shear (friction) force on the shear plane. kN
S2 Shear (friction) force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
S3 Shear (friction) force on the bottom of the wedge. kN
S4 Shear (friction) force on the blade. kN
W1 Pore pressure force on the shear plane. kN
W2 Pore pressure force on the pseudo blade (front of the wedge). kN
W3 Pore pressure force on the bottom of the wedge. kN
W4 Pore pressure force on the blade. kN
vc Cutting velocity. m/sec
α Blade angle. °
β Shear angle. °
θ Wedge angle. °
φ Internal friction angle. °
δ External friction angle. °
λ Internal friction angle on pseudo blade. °

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 399 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 400 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

Chapter 16: Exercises.

16.1. Introduction.
This book is used for the courses OE4607 Introduction Dredging Engineering and OE4626 Dredging Processes I
of the MSc program Offshore & Dredging Engineering of the Delft University of Technology. The exercises are
questions of the exams. After each exam, the new questions will be added to this chapter.

16.2. Chapter 2: Basic Soil Mechanics.

16.2.1. MC: Mohr Circles.
Which of the following statements are true?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The Mohr circle gives the relation between normal stress and tensile stress.
2. In the τ-σ diagram for soil the positive horizontal axis gives tensile stress.
3. In the τ-σ diagram for soil the positive horizontal axis gives compressive stress.
4. The Mohr circle gives the relation between normal stress and shear stress.
5. In the τ-σ diagram for steel the positive horizontal axis gives compressive stress.
6. In the τ-σ diagram for steel the positive horizontal axis gives tensile stress.
7. In the Mohr circle real angles are shown by a factor 2.
8. In the Mohr circle real angles are shown by a factor 1/2.

16.2.2. MC: Active/Passive Soil Failure.

Which of the following statements are true?
The bold green answers are true.

1. Passive soil failure is the failure where the soil is passive, the outside world is active.
2. Active soil failure is the failure where the outside world is active, the soil is passive.
3. Passive soil failure is the failure where the soil is active, the outside world is passive.
4. Active soil failure is the failure where the outside world is passive, the soil is active.
5. The stresses with passive failure are larger than with active failure.
6. The stresses with active failure are larger than with passive failure.
7. Excavating soil in dredging is a typical example of active failure.
8. Excavating soil in dredging is a typical example of passive failure.

16.2.3. MC: Active/Passive Mode.

Which of the following statements are true? (Active mode means the horizontal stress is smaller than the
vertical stress, passive mode means the horizontal stress is larger than the vertical stress).
The bold green answers are true.

1. Settled or sedimented sand is in active mode.

2. Settled or sedimented sand is in passive mode.
3. Glacial sand, after the ice has melted is in passive mode.
4. Glacial sand, after the ice has melted is in active mode.
5. Glacial sand, when the layer of ice is the thickest is in active mode.
6. Glacial sand, when the layer of ice is the thickest is in passive mode.
7. Sand with a building on top is in passive mode.
8. Sand with a building on top is in active mode.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 401 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

16.2.4. MC: Active/Passive Soil Failure.

Which of the following statements are true? (Active failure means the horizontal stress is smaller than the
vertical stress, passive failure means the horizontal stress is larger than the vertical stress).
The bold green answers are true.

1. The failure of a dike, because it’s too high, is passive failure.

2. At low tide a quay wall is pushed into to the water, this is active failure.
3. A bulldozer pushes a hole in a dike, this is active failure.
4. A very heavy truck drives over a dike. The dike collapses under the weight of the truck. This is active
failure.
5. Cutting processes in general are an example of active failure.
6. Forces occurring with active failure are always larger than with passive failure.
7. The cutting process of a cutter head is a typical example of passive failure.
8. The cutting process of a clamshell is a typical example of active failure.

16.2.5. MC: Mohr Circles.

Which of the following statements are true?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The Mohr circle gives the relation between normal stress and shear stress.
2. In the τ-σ diagram for soil the positive horizontal axis gives tensile stress.
3. In the τ-σ diagram for steel the positive horizontal axis gives compressive stress.
4. On the plane of a principle normal stress there is no shear stress.
5. The largest shear stress is always on a plane with an angle of 45 degrees with respect to the principal
stresses.
6. In the Mohr circle the angle between the two principal stresses is 180 degrees.
7. Mohr circles can cross the failure line/curve.
8. Tensile failure occurs on a plane with an angle of 90 degrees with the plane with the largest shear stress.

Page 402 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

16.2.6. Calc.: Bulldozer 1.

A bulldozer with a blade height of 0.5 m and a blade width of 3 m and a blade angle of 90 degrees is pushing
sand. The internal friction angle of the sand is 45 degrees. The sand has no cohesion or adhesion and the
friction between the sand and the blade is assumed to be zero, so a smooth blade. The bulldozer has a
maximum forward speed of 1.5 m/sec.

1. What is the coefficient of passive failure for this sand?

1  s in    1  s in   / 4 
K    5 .8 2 6 (-)
1  s in    1  s in   / 4 
p

2. What is the pushing force of the bulldozer?

The density of the dry sand ρs with 40% porosity is about 1.6 ton/m3.

1 2 1 2
F   s  g  h  w  K p   1 .6  9 .8 1  0 .5  3  5 .8 2 6  3 4 .3 (kN)
2 2

3. What is the pushing power of the bulldozer?

P  F  v  3 4 .3  1 .5  5 1 .4 5 (kW)

4. Suppose a total efficiency of 1/3 of the whole drive system of the bulldozer, what is the installed power of the
bulldozer.

P 5 1 .4 5
P in s ta lle d    1 5 4 .3 5 (kW)
 0 .3 3 3 3

5. What is the coefficient of active failure of this sand?

1  s in    1  s in   / 4 
K    0 .1 7 1 6 (-)
1  s in    1  s in   / 4 
a

6. What is the force the bulldozer has to exert on the sand not to make it fail in active mode?

1 2 1 2
F   s  g  h  w  K a
  1 .6  9 .8 1  0 .5  3  0 .1 7 1 6  1 .0 1 (kN)
2 2

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 403 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

16.2.7. Calc.: Bulldozer 2.

A bulldozer with a blade height of 1.0 m and a blade angle of 90 degrees is pushing dry sand. The internal
friction angle of the sand is 45 degrees. The sand has no cohesion or adhesion and the friction between the
sand and the blade is assumed to be zero, so a smooth blade. The bulldozer has a maximum forward speed
of 1.0 m/sec. The bulldozer has a maximum pushing force of 100 kN.

1. What is the coefficient of passive failure for this sand?

1  s in    1  s in   / 4 
K    5 .8 2 6 (-)
1  s in    1  s in   / 4 
p

2. What is the maximum width of the bulldozer blade?

The density of the dry sand ρs with 40% porosity is about 1.6 ton/m3.

1 2
F  s  g h w K p
 100 kN
2

100 100
w=   2 .1 8 7 m
2
1 2 0 .5  1 .6  9 .8 1  1  5 .8 2 6
s  g  h K p
2

Page 404 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

16.3. Chapter 3: The General Cutting Process..

16.3.1. MC: Cutting Mechanism.
The sine in the denominator of the generic cutting force equation has 4 angles in the argument. What
happens if the sum of these 4 angles approaches 180 degrees?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The cutting forces become very high.

2. The cutting forces become negative.
3. Nature will choose another cutting mechanism.
4. The cutting force will be constant above a certain sum of the 4 angles.
5. The cutting process will be cavitating.
6. The adhesion will become zero.
7. The vertical cutting force will become negative.
8. The curling type will occur.

16.3.2. MC: The Snow Plough.

Which of the following statements is true?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The snow plough effect occurs when the sum of the 4 angles in the argument of the sine in the denominator
of the generic cutting equation is larger than 180 degrees.
2. The snow plough effect occurs when the sum of the 4 angles in the argument of the sine in the denominator
of the generic cutting equation is equal to 180 degrees.
3. The snow plough effect will occur when the angle between the cutting velocity and the blade is not 90
degrees.
4. The snow plough effect will occur when the angle between the cutting velocity and the blade edge is
smaller than 90 degrees.
5. The snow plough effect will occur when the angle between the cutting velocity and the blade edge is
larger than 90 degrees.
6. The snow plough effect will push the blade sideways.
7. The snow plough effect reduces the cutting forces strongly.
8. The snow plough effect increases the cutting forces strongly.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 405 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

16.4. Chapter 4: Which Cutting Mechanism for Which Kind of Soil.

16.4.1. MC: Dry Sand Cutting.
Which of the following soil mechanical parameters play a dominant role in the cutting of dry sand?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The density of the sand.

2. The angle of internal friction.
3. The permeability of the sand.
4. The tensile strength of the sand.
5. The porosity of the sand.
6. The adhesion of the sand.
7. The angle of external friction of the sand.
8. The shear strength of the sand.

16.4.2. MC: Water Saturated Sand Cutting.

Which of the following soil mechanical parameters play a dominant role in the cutting of saturated sand?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The density of water.

2. The angle of internal friction.
3. The permeability of the sand.
4. The tensile strength of the sand.
5. The porosity of the sand.
6. The adhesion of the sand.
7. The angle of external friction of the sand.
8. The shear strength of the sand.

16.4.3. MC: Clay Cutting.

Which soil mechanical parameters dominate the cutting forces in clay?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The gravitational constant.

2. The density of the cutting blade.
3. The internal shear strength or cohesion of the clay.
4. The density of the clay.
5. The permeability of the clay.
6. The external shear strength or adhesion of the clay.
7. The porosity of the clay.
8. The angle of internal friction of the clay.

16.4.4. MC: Atmospheric Rock Cutting.

Which material properties play a dominant role in the atmospheric cutting of rock/stone?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The external friction coefficient of the rock.

2. The external shear strength or adhesion of the rock.
3. The external friction angle of the rock.
4. The density of the rock.
5. The permeability of the rock.
6. The tensile strength of the rock.
7. The shear strength or cohesion of the rock.
8. The internal friction angle of the rock.

Page 406 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

16.4.5. MC: Hyperbaric Rock Cutting.

Which material/environmental properties play a dominant role in the hyperbaric cutting of rock/stone?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The external friction coefficient of the rock.

2. The external shear strength or adhesion of the rock.
3. The external friction angle of the rock.
4. The hydrostatic pressure.
5. The permeability of the rock.
6. The tensile strength of the rock.
7. The shear strength or cohesion of the rock.
8. The internal friction angle of the rock.

16.5. Chapter 5: Dry Sand Cutting.

16.5.1. MC: Soil Mechanical Parameters.
Which of the following statements is true? The cutting of dry sand is:
The bold green answers are true.

1. Dominated by pore pressures.

2. Dominated by adhesion and cohesion.
3. Dominated by the permeability of the sand.
4. Dominated by the weight of the layer cut.
5. Influenced by the porosity of the sand.
6. Dominated by the inertial forces.
7. Influenced by the angle of external friction of the sand.
8. Dominated by the shear strength of the sand.

16.5.2. MC: The Shear Angle.

Which of the following statements are true in the case only the weight of the soil is considered if dry sand is
excavated with blade angles above 30º?
The bold green answers are true.

1. If the blade angle α increases, the shear angle β also increases.

2. If the angle of internal friction φ increases, the shear β angle also increases.
3. If the external friction angle δ increases, the shear β angle also increases.
4. If the blade angle α increases, the shear angle β decreases.
5. If the angle of internal friction φ increases, the shear angle β decreases.
6. If the external friction angle δ increases, the shear angle β decreases.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 407 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

16.5.3. Calc.: The Shear Angle.

Suppose the cutting of dry sand is completely dominated by the inertial forces. Derive the analytical solution
for the shear angle based on the minimum energy principle.

s in    cos   
 s in     
2
Fh   s  v c  h i  w  
s in      s in         

This is at a minimum when the denominator is at a maximum, so:


 s in       s in            0


c o s       s in           s in       c o s           s in  2    2         0

2   2       

 2    
  
2 2

Page 408 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

16.6. Chapter 6: Water Saturated Sand Cutting.

16.6.1. MC: Soil Mechanical Parameters.
Which of the following soil mechanical parameters play a dominant role in the cutting of saturated sand?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The density of water.

2. The angle of internal friction.
3. The permeability of the sand.
4. The tensile strength of the sand.
5. The porosity of the sand.
6. The adhesion of the sand.
7. The angle of external friction of the sand.
8. The shear strength of the sand.

16.6.2. MC: Dilatation.

What is the definition of dilatation?
The bold green answers are true.

1. Dilatation is the increase of the pore volume of sand caused by gravitation.

2. Dilatation is the decrease of the pore volume of sand caused by shear stress.
3. Dilatation is the decrease of the pore volume of sand caused by dredging.
4. Dilatation is the increase of the pore volume of sand caused by shear stress.
5. Dilatation is the increase of the pore volume of sand caused by dredging.
6. Dilatation is the decrease of the pore volume of sand caused by gravitation.

16.6.3. MC: Cavitation.

Which statements are true?
The bold green answers are true.

1. Cavitation is in fact the boiling of water.

2. Cavitation at 10 degrees centigrade occurs at about 0.1 bar absolute pressure.
3. At 100 degrees centigrade cavitation will occur at about 100 kPa.
4. Cavitation is the vaporization of water.
5. Cavitation at 10 degrees centigrade occurs at about 0.01 bar absolute pressure.
6. High in the mountains cavitation will occur at a temperature lower than 100 degrees centigrade.
7. At an atmospheric pressure of 100 kPa cavitation occurs at 10 degrees centigrade.
8. High in the mountains cavitation will occur at a temperature higher than 100 degrees centigrade.

16.6.4. Calc.: Porosity.

If the porosity of sand is 42% before cutting (in situ) and 50% after cutting, what is the volume increase of
the sand (grains + pores) as a fraction?

n m ax  n i 0 .5  0 .4 2
    0 .1 6
1  n m ax 1  0 .5

16.6.5. Calc. : Density.

Assume a water density of 1.000 ton/m3 and a quarts density of 2.650 ton/m3. What is the density of a mixture
with a volumetric concentration of 40% quarts (saturated sand)?

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 409 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

 s   1  n    q  n   w   1  0 .4   2 .6 5  0 .4  1 .0 0  1 .9 9 (ton/m3)

16.6.6. Calc.: Permeability.

What is the value of the mean permeability km as used in the cutting equations for water saturated sand?
Consider a sand with the following properties:
Initial permeability: ki=0.0001 m/sec
Maximum permeability: kmax=0.0004 m/sec

k i  k m ax 0 .0 0 0 1  0 .0 0 0 4
km    0 .0 0 0 2 5 (m/sec)
2 2

16.6.7. Calc.: Dilatancy.

What is the value of the dilatancy ε?
Consider a sand with the following properties:
initial porosity: ni=40%
Maximum porosity: nmax=50%

n m ax  n i 0 .5  0 .4
    0 .2 0 (-)
1  n m ax 1  0 .5

16.6.8. Calc.: Transition Velocity.

Give the equation for the transition velocity from non-cavitating cutting to cavitating cutting.

d1   z  10   k m
vc 
c1  h i  

16.6.9. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Specific Energy.

Consider a sand with the following properties:
Angle of internal friction: φ=36º
Angle of external friction: δ=24º
Initial permeability: ki=0.00005 m/sec
Maximum permeability: kmax=0.00025 m/sec
initial porosity: ni=42%
Maximum porosity: nmax=50%

The cutting blade has the following properties:

The cutting angle: α=60º
The shear angle: β=20º
The blade height: hb=0.2 m
The thickness of the layer to be cut: hi=0.1 m
The width of the blade: w=1 m

Coefficients for the cutting equations:

The coefficient for non-cavitating cutting: c1=0.35
The coefficient for cavitating cutting: d1=4.5

General constants:
The density of water: ρw=1.025 tons/m3
The gravitational constant: g=9.81 m/sec2

A: What are the horizontal cutting forces at 0 m, 15 m and 30 m water depth for the non-cavitational cutting
process at a cutting velocity of 0.5 m/s?

Page 410 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

2 2
c1   w  g  v c  h i    w 0 .3 5  1 .0 2 5  9 .8 1  0 .1  0 .1 6  1
Fh    vc
km 0 .0 0 0 1 5

(kN)
 3 7 .5 4  v c  3 7 .5 4  0 .5  1 8 .7 7

The non-cavitational force does not depend on the water depth.

B: What are the horizontal cutting forces at 0 m, 15 m and 30 m water depths for the cavitational cutting
process?

F h  d 1   w  g   z  1 0   h i  w  4 .5  1 .0 2 5  9 .8 1  0 .1  1   z  1 0 

 4 .5 2   z  1 0 
(kN)

This gives for 0 m water depth a force of 45.2 kN, for 15 m water depth a force of 113 kN and for 30 m water
depth a force of 180.8 kN.

C: At which velocities are the transitions between the cavitational and the non-cavitational cutting process
at 0 m, 15 m and 30 m water depths?

3 7 .5 4  v c  4 .5 2   z  1 0   v c  0 .1 2   z  1 0  (m/sec)

This gives for 0 m water depth a transition velocity of 1.2 m/sec, for 15 m water depth a transition velocity of 3.0
m/sec and for 30 m water depth a transition velocity of 4.8 m/sec.

D: What is the specific energy at 0 m, 15 m and 30 m water depth at a cutting velocity of 1 m/s?

Fh  v c Fh Fh
E sp     1 0  Fh
hi  w  vc hi w 0 .1  1
(kPa)

At a cutting velocity of 1 m/sec the cutting process is non-cavitational at all 3 water depths, so in all 3 cases the
specific energy is 375.4 kPa.

E: What is the specific energy at a water depth of 0 m, 15 m and 30 m at a cutting velocity of 2 m/s?

At a cutting velocity of 2 m/sec, the cutting process at 0 m water depth is cavitating, giving a specific energy of
452 kPa. At a water depth of 15 m the cutting process is non-cavitational giving a specific energy of 750.8 kPa.
At a water depth of 30 m the cutting process is also non-cavitational giving a specific energy of 750.8 kPa.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 411 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal cutting force versus Cutting velocity

400

350

300
Horizontal cutting force (kN)

250

z=0 m Cavitation
200 z=15 m Cavitation
z=30 m Cavitation

150
z=45 m Cavitation
No Cavitation

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cutting velocity (m/s)

Figure 16-1: The horizontal cutting forces.

Specific energy versus Cutting velocity

4000

3500

3000
Specific energy (kNm/m3)

2500

z=0 m Cavitation
2000 z=15 m Cavitation
z=30 m Cavitation

1500
z=45 m Cavitation
No Cavitation

1000

500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cutting velocity (m/s)

Figure 16-2: The specific energy.

Page 412 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

F: Determine the pore pressure at the centre of the shear plane using the parallel resistor method for a
cutting velocity of 0.5 m/sec.

First the 4 lengths have to be determined:

    hb
s1   L m ax  L         0 .4 8 6
 2 2  s in   

s 2  0 .8  L        0 .1 6 3

s 3  0 .8  L        0 .3 2 7

0 .5 0 .4
 hi   ki 
 L m ax  L         0 .9  h i  
2
s4     1 .8 5       0 .6 3 6
 hb   k m ax 

Secondly the total resistance has to be determined:

1 1
  R t  439
R t  s1   s 2   s 3   s 4 
       
 k m ax   k m ax   k i   k i 

 p   w  g    v c  s in     R t
 1 2 0 .8 ( k P a )

Below which water depth will we have cavitation at this point?

An absolute pressure of 120.8 kPa is reached at a water depth of 2.07 m, so the point on the shear plane considered
will cavitated for water depths below 2.07 m.

Pore Pressures on the Blade & the Shear Plane

200

180

160
Pore Pressure p1 & p2 (kPa)

140

120

100
p1
80 p2

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
B-C A
Percentage of Blade & Shear Plane (%)

© S.A.M.

Figure 16-3: The pore pressures on blade and shear plane.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 413 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

16.6.10. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Specific Energy.

Consider a sand with the following properties:
Angle of internal friction: φ=36º
Angle of external friction: δ=24º
Initial permeability: ki=0.000025 m/sec
Maximum permeability: kmax=0.000125 m/sec
initial porosity: ni=42%
Maximum porosity: nmax=50%

The cutting blade has the following properties:

The cutting angle: α=60º
The shear angle: β=20º
The blade height: hb=0.2 m
The thickness of the layer to be cut: hi=0.1 m
The width of the blade: w=1 m

Coefficients for the cutting equations:

The coefficient for non-cavitating cutting: c1=0.45
The coefficient for cavitating cutting: d1=5.5

General constants:
The density of water: ρw=1.025 tons/m3
The gravitational constant: g=9.81 m/sec2

A: What are the horizontal cutting forces at 0 m, 10 m and 20 m water depth for the non-cavitational cutting
process at a cutting velocity of 1.5 m/s?

2 2
c1   w  g  v c  h i    w 0 .4 5  1 .0 2 5  9 .8 1  0 .1  0 .1 6  1
Fh    vc
km 0 .0 0 0 0 7 5

(kN)
 9 6 .5 3  v c  9 6 .5 3  1 .5  1 4 4 .8

The non-cavitational force does not depend on the water depth.

B: What are the horizontal cutting forces at 0 m, 10 m and 20 m water depths for the cavitational cutting
process?

F h  d 1   w  g   z  1 0   h i  w  5 .5  1 .0 2 5  9 .8 1  0 .1  1   z  1 0 

 5 .5 3   z  1 0 
(kN)

This gives for 0 m water depth a force of 55.3 kN, for 10 m water depth a force of 110.6 kN and for 20 m water
depth a force of 165.9 kN.

C: At which velocities are the transitions between the cavitational and the non-cavitational cutting process
at 0 m, 10 m and 20 m water depths?

9 6 .5 3  v c  5 .5 3   z  1 0   v c  0 .0 5 7 3   z  1 0  (m/sec)

This gives for 0 m water depth a transition velocity of 0.573 m/sec, for 10 m water depth a transition velocity of
1.146 m/sec and for 20 m water depth a transition velocity of 1.719 m/sec.

D: What is the specific energy at 0 m, 10 m and 20 m water depth at a cutting velocity of 1 m/s?

Page 414 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

Fh  v c Fh Fh
E sp     1 0  Fh
hi  w  vc hi w 0 .1  1
(kPa)

At a cutting velocity of 1 m/sec the cutting process is non-cavitational at all z=0 m and non-cavitational at z=10 m
and z=20 m, so in the specific energy is 553 kPa at z=0 m and 965.3 kPa at z=10 m and z=20 m.

E: What is the specific energy at a water depth of 0 m, 10 m and 20 m at a cutting velocity of 2 m/s?

At a cutting velocity of 2 m/sec, the cutting process at 0 m water depth is cavitating, giving a specific energy of
553 kPa. At a water depth of 10 m the cutting process is cavitational giving a specific energy of 1106 kPa. At a
water depth of 20 m the cutting process is also cavitational giving a specific energy of 1659 kPa.

F: Determine the pore pressure at the centre of the shear plane using the parallel resistor method for a
cutting velocity of 1.5 m/sec.

First the 4 lengths have to be determined:

    hb
s1   L m ax  L         0 .4 8 6
 2 2  s in  

s 2  0 .8  L        0 .1 6 3

s 3  0 .8  L        0 .3 2 7

0 .5 0 .4
 hi   ki 
 L m ax  L         0 .9  h i  
2
s4     1 .8 5       0 .6 3 6
 hb   k m ax 

Secondly the total resistance has to be determined:

1 1
  R t  878
R t  s1   s 2   s 3   s 4 
       
 k m ax   k m ax   k i   k i 

 p   w  g    v c  s in     R t
 7 2 5 (k P a )

Below which water depth will we have cavitation at this point?

An absolute hydrostatic pressure of 725 kPa is reached at a water depth of 62.15 m, so the point on the shear plane
considered will cavitated for water depths below 62.15 m.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 415 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal cutting force versus Cutting velocity

300

250
Horizontal cutting force (kN)

200

z=0 m Cavitation
150 z=10 m Cavitation
z=20 m Cavitation
z=30 m Cavitation
100 No Cavitation

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cutting velocity (m/s)

Figure 16-4: The horizontal cutting forces.

Specific energy versus Cutting velocity

3000

2500
Specific energy (kNm/m3)

2000

z=0 m Cavitation
1500 z=10 m Cavitation
z=20 m Cavitation
z=30 m Cavitation
1000 No Cavitation

500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cutting velocity (m/s)

Figure 16-5: The specific energy.

Page 416 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

Pore Pressures on the Blade & the Shear Plane

1,000

900

800
Pore Pressure p1 & p2 (kPa)

700

600

500

p1
400 p2

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
B-C A
Percentage of Blade & Shear Plane (%)

© S.A.M.

Figure 16-6: The pore pressures on blade and shear plane.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 417 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

16.7. Chapter 7: Clay Cutting.

16.7.1. Calc.: Cutting Forces.
Consider clay with cohesion of 200 kPa and an adhesion of 50 kPa. The strengthening factor is 2. A blade
angle of 55 degrees is used and a blade height of 0.1 m and blade width w=1 m. The layer thickness is 0.1 m.
Assume the Flow Type.

What is the ac ratio r?

a hb 5 0  0 .1 1
r    (-)
c hi 2 0 0  0 .1 4

What is the shear angle?

See Figure 7-21 (Figure 7.20, 1st edition), blade angle α=55 degrees and r=0.25 gives a shear angle β of about 57
degrees.

What are the horizontal and the vertical cutting forces?

Figure 7-23 (Figure 7.22, 1st edition) gives a horizontal cutting force coefficient λHF of about 1.3 and Figure 7-24
(Figure 7.23, first edition) gives a vertical cutting force coefficient λVF of 0.6. This gives for the Flow Type:

F h   s  c  h i  w   H F  2  2 0 0  0 .1  1  1 .3  5 2 k N

F v   s  c  h i  w   V F  2  2 0 0  0 .1  1  0 .6  2 4 k N

16.7.2. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms.

Consider clay with cohesion of 200 kPa and an adhesion of 10 kPa. The strengthening factor is 2. A blade
angle of 55 degrees is used and a blade height of 0.1 m and blade width w=1 m. The layer thickness is 0.1 m.
Assume the Flow Type.

What is the ac ratio r?

a hb 1 0  0 .1 1
r    (-)
c hi 2 0 0  0 .1 20

What is the shear angle?

See Figure 7-21 (Figure 7.20, 1st edition), blade angle α=55 degrees and r=0.05 gives a shear angle β of about 62
degrees.

What are the horizontal and the vertical cutting forces?

Figure 7-23 (Figure 7.22, 1st edition) gives a horizontal cutting force coefficient λHF of about 1.1 and Figure 7-24
(Figure 7.23, first edition) gives a vertical cutting force coefficient λVF of 0.7. This gives for the Flow Type:

F h   s  c  h i  w   H F  2  2 0 0  0 .1  1  1 .1  4 4 k N

F v   s  c  h i  w   V F  2  2 0 0  0 .1  1  0 .7  2 8 k N

If the tensile strength is -20 kPa, will we have the Tear Type or the Flow Type?

Page 418 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

A tensile strength of -20 kPa gives a σT/c ratio of -0.1. With an ac ratio of r=0.05 this ratio should be below -0.5
according to Figure 7-27 (Figure 7-26, 1st edition) for the Flow Type, it is not, so we have the Tear Type.

Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress

1.5
Sigma Axis

1.0 Tau Axis

Tensile Failure
0.5 Criterion
Shear Stress (kPa)

Shear Failure
Criterion
0.0
Mohr Circle UCS
Test

-0.5 Mohr Circle

Shear Failure

Mohr Circle
-1.0 Tensile Failure 1

Mohr Circle
Tensile Failure 2
-1.5
-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Normal Stress (kPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 16-7: The Mohr circles.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 419 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

16.8. Chapter 8: Atmospheric Rock Cutting.

16.8.1. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms.
Consider a rock with a compressive strength of 30 MPa and a tensile strength of -2 MPa. The angle of
internal friction is 18 degrees, the angle of external friction is 12 degrees. A blade angle of 55 degrees is used
and a blade height of 0.2 m and blade width w=0.1 m. The layer thickness is 0.1 m.

Is the cutting process brittle shear or brittle tensile?

The cohesion or shear strength is:

U C S  1  s in    
c    = 1 0 .9 M P a
2  cos    
 

According to Figure 8-38 (Figure 8.22, 1st edition) & (φ=18°), the BTS/Cohesion ratio should be above -0.3 for
tensile failure, the ratio is -2/10.9=-0.183 which is above -0.3, so the process is brittle tensile failure.

If the tensile strength is -10 MPa, is the cutting process brittle shear or brittle tensile?

Now the ratio is -10/10.9=-0.92, which is below -0.3, so the process is shear failure, which is often related to
ductile failure, but it is brittle shear failure.

What are the horizontal and the vertical cutting forces?

According to Figure 8-45 (Figure 8.28, 1st edition) the brittle horizontal coefficient λHT is about 3.07 and according
to Figure 8-46 (Figure 8.29, 1st edition) the brittle vertical coefficient λVT about 1.30. This gives for a tensile
strength of -2 MPa:

F h   H T   T  h i  w  3 .0 7  2 0 0 0  0 .1  0 .1  6 1 k N

F v   V T   T  h i  w  1 .3 0  2 0 0 0  0 .1  0 .1  2 6 k N

For the case with a tensile strength of -10 MPa, the following is found:

According to Figure 8-31 (Figure 8.16, 1st edition) the brittle shear horizontal coefficient λHF is about 1.61 and
according to Figure 8-32 (Figure 8.17, 1st edition) the brittle shear vertical coefficient λVF about 0.68. This gives
for a compressive strength of 30 MPa (cohesion about 10.9 MPa):

F h   H F  c  h i  w  1 .6 1  1 0 9 0 0  0 .1  0 .1  1 7 6 k N

F v   V F  c  h i  w  0 .6 8  1 0 9 0 0  0 .1  0 .1  7 5 k N

Page 420 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress

30
Sigma Axis

20 Tau Axis

Mohr Circle UCS

10 Test
Shear Stress (MPa)

Tensile Failure
Criterion
0
Shear Failure
Criterion

-10 Shear Failure

Criterion

Mohr Circle
-20 Shear Failure

Mohr Circle
Tensile Failure
-30
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Normal Stress (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 16-8: The Mohr circles for a tensile strength of -2 MPa.

Tensile Failure.

Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress

30

Sigma Axis

20
Tau Axis

10 Mohr Circle UCS

Shear Stress (MPa)

Test

0
Tensile Failure
Criterion

Shear Failure
-10 Criterion

Shear Failure
Criterion
-20

Mohr Circle
Shear Failure
-30
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Normal Stress (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 16-9: The Mohr circles for a tensile strength of -10 MPa.
Shear Failure.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 421 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

16.8.2. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms.

Consider a rock with a compressive strength of 100 MPa and a tensile strength of -10 MPa. The angle of
internal friction is 20 degrees, the angle of external friction is 13.33 degrees. A blade angle of 60 degrees is
used and a blade height of 0.1 m and blade width w=1 m. The layer thickness is 0.1 m.

The shear angle is:

 
   = 4 3 .3 3 d e g r e e s
2 2

The cohesion or shear strength is:

U C S  1  s in    
c    =35 M P a
2  cos    
 

The normal stress on the shear plane is:

 c  cos(     )
 N1   c o s (  )  2 1 .5 2 M P a
s in (        )

The shear stress on the shear plane is:

 S1  c   N1  ta n    = 4 2 .8 4 M Pa

The normal stress in the center of the Mohr circle is:

C   N1   S 1  ta n   3 7 .1 M P a

The radius of this Mohr circle is now:

S1
R   4 5 .5 9 M P a
cos   

The minimum principle stress of this Mohr circle is:

 m in   C  R   8 .4 8 M P a

Since -8.48 MPa>-10 MPa there is no tensile failure but shear failure.

The horizontal force is now:

2  c  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    )
Fh    H F  c  h i  w  1 .9 1 2  3 5  0 .1  1  6 .6 9 1 M N
1  cos(     )

The vertical force is now:

2  c  h i  w  cos( )  cos(   )
F    V F  c  h i  w  0 .5 7 2  3 5  0 .1  1  2 .0 M N
1  cos(     )

Page 422 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress

70

60
Sigma Axis

50

40
Tau Axis

30

20
Mohr Circle UCS
Shear Stress (MPa)

Test
10

0
Tensile Failure
Criterion
-10

-20
Shear Failure
Criterion
-30
Shear Failure
-40
Criterion
-50
Mohr Circle
-60
Shear Failure
-70
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Normal Stress (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 16-10: The Mohr circles with tensile strength of -10 MPa
(UCS=100 MPa, φ=20º). Shear Failure.

16.8.3. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms.

Consider a rock with a compressive strength of 100 MPa and a tensile strength of -5 MPa. The angle of
internal friction is 20 degrees, the angle of external friction is 13.33 degrees. A blade angle of 60 degrees is
used and a blade height of 0.1 m and blade width w=1 m. The layer thickness is 0.1 m.

The shear angle is:

 
   = 4 3 .3 3 d e g r e e s
2 2

The cohesion or shear strength is:

U C S  1  s in    
c    =35 M P a
2  cos    
 
The normal stress on the shear plane is:

 c  cos(     )
 N1   c o s (  )  2 1 .5 2 M P a
s in (        )

The shear stress on the shear plane is:

 S1  c   N1  ta n    = 4 2 .8 4 M Pa

The normal stress in the center of the Mohr circle is:

C   N1   S 1  ta n   3 7 .1 M P a

The radius of this Mohr circle is now:

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 423 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

S1
R   4 5 .5 9 M P a
cos   

Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress

70
Sigma Axis
60

50
Tau Axis
40

30 Mohr Circle UCS

Test
20
Shear Stress (MPa)

10 Tensile Failure
Criterion
0
Shear Failure
-10 Criterion
-20
Shear Failure
-30 Criterion

-40 Mohr Circle

Shear Failure
-50

-60 Mohr Circle

Tensile Failure
-70
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Normal Stress (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 16-11: The Mohr circles with tensile strength of -5 MPa

(UCS=100 MPa, φ=20º). Tensile Failure.

The minimum principle stress of this Mohr circle is:

 m in   C  R   8 .4 8 M P a

Since -8.48 MPa<-5 MPa there is tensile failure but no shear failure. This results in another shear angle of 25.8°.

The horizontal force is now, Figure 8-45 (Figure 8.28, 1st edition):

2  c m  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    )
Fh    H T   T  h i  w  4  5  0 .1  1  2 M N
1  cos(     )

The vertical force is now, Figure 8-46 (Figure 8.29, 1st edition):

2  cm  h i  w  cos( )  cos(   )
F    V T   T  h i  w  1 .2 5  5  0 .1  1  0 .6 2 5 M N
1  cos(     )

Page 424 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

16.8.4. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms.

Consider a rock with a compressive strength of 60 MPa and a tensile strength of -10 MPa. The angle of
internal friction is 20 degrees, the angle of external friction is 13.33 degrees. A blade angle of 60 degrees is
used and a blade height of 0.1 m and blade width w=1 m. The layer thickness is 0.1 m.

The shear angle is:

 
   = 4 3 .3 3 d e g r e e s
2 2

The cohesion or shear strength is:

U C S  1  s in    
c    =21 M P a
2  cos    
 

The normal stress on the shear plane is:

 c  cos(     )
 N1   c o s (  )  1 2 .9 M P a
s in (        )

The shear stress on the shear plane is:

 S 1  c   N 1  ta n    = 2 5 .7 M Pa

The normal stress in the center of the Mohr circle is:

C   N1   S 1  ta n    2 2 .2 7 M P a

The radius of this Mohr circle is now:

S1
R   2 7 .3 5 M P a
cos   

The minimum principle stress of this Mohr circle is:

 m in   C  R   5 .0 9 M P a

Since -5.09 MPa>-10 MPa there is no tensile failure but shear failure.

The horizontal force is now:

2  c  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    )
Fh    H F  c  h i  w  1 .9 1 2  2 1  0 .1  1  4 .0 2 M N
1  cos(     )

The vertical force is now:

2  c  h i  w  cos( )  cos(   )
F    V F  c  h i  w  0 .5 7 2  2 1  0 .1  1  1 .2 0 M N
1  cos(     )

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 425 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress

70

60
Sigma Axis

50

40
Tau Axis

30

20
Mohr Circle UCS
Shear Stress (MPa)

Test
10

0
Tensile Failure
Criterion
-10

-20
Shear Failure
Criterion
-30
Shear Failure
-40
Criterion
-50
Mohr Circle
-60
Shear Failure
-70
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Normal Stress (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 16-12: The Mohr circles with tensile strength of -10 MPa
(UCS=60 MPa, φ=20º). Shear Failure.

Page 426 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

16.8.5. Calc.: Cutting Forces & Mechanisms.

Consider a rock with a compressive strength of 60 MPa and a tensile strength of -3 MPa. The angle of
internal friction is 20 degrees, the angle of external friction is 13.33 degrees. A blade angle of 60 degrees is
used and a blade height of 0.1 m and blade width w=1 m. The layer thickness is 0.1 m.
The shear angle is:

 
   = 4 3 .3 3 d e g r e e s
2 2

The cohesion or shear strength is:

U C S  1  s in    
c    =21 M P a
2  cos    
 

The normal stress on the shear plane is:

 c  cos(     )
 N1   c o s (  )  1 2 .9 M P a
s in (        )

The shear stress on the shear plane is:

 S1  c   N1  ta n    = 2 5 .7 M Pa

The normal stress in the center of the Mohr circle is:

C   N1   S 1  ta n    2 2 .2 7 M P a

The radius of this Mohr circle is now:

S1
R   2 7 .3 5 M P a
cos   

The minimum principle stress of this Mohr circle is:

 m in   C  R   5 .0 9 M P a

Since -5.09 MPa<-3 MPa there is tensile failure but no shear failure. This results in another shear angle of 25.8°.

The horizontal force is now, Figure 8-45 (Figure 8.28, 1st edition):

2  c m  h i  w  c o s (  )  s in (    )
Fh    H T   T  h i  w  4 .1  3  0 .1  1  1 .2 4 M N
1  cos(     )

The vertical force is now, Figure 8-46 (Figure 8.29, 1st edition):

2  cm  h i  w  cos( )  cos(   )
F    V T   T  h i  w  1 .2 4  3  0 .1  1  0 .3 7 1 M N
1  cos(     )

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 427 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Shear Stress vs. Normal Stress

70
Sigma Axis
60

50
Tau Axis
40

30 Mohr Circle UCS

Test
20
Shear Stress (MPa)

10 Tensile Failure
Criterion
0
Shear Failure
-10 Criterion
-20
Shear Failure
-30 Criterion

-40 Mohr Circle

Shear Failure
-50

-60 Mohr Circle

Tensile Failure
-70
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Normal Stress (MPa)
© S.A.M.

Figure 16-13: The Mohr circles with tensile strength of -3 MPa

(UCS=60 MPa, φ=20º). Tensile Failure.

Page 428 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Exercises.

16.9. Chapter 9: Hyperbaric Rock Cutting.

16.9.1. MC: Soil Mechanical Parameters.
Which material/environmental properties play a dominant role in the hyperbaric cutting of rock/stone at
high cutting velocities?
The bold green answers are true.

1. The ratio of the hydrostatic pressure to the cohesion of the rock.

2. The external shear strength or adhesion of the rock.
3. The external friction angle of the rock.
4. The hydrostatic pressure to adhesion ratio.
5. The permeability of the rock.
6. The tensile strength of the rock.
7. The shear strength or cohesion of the rock.
8. The internal friction angle of the rock.

1.1.1 Exercise 2.
Consider a rock with a compressive strength of 30 MPa and a tensile strength of -2 MPa. The angle of
internal friction is 20 degrees, the angle of external friction is 13 degrees. A blade angle of 60 degrees is used
and a blade height of 0.1 m and blade width w=0.05 m. The layer thickness is 0.01 m. The water depth is
1000 m.

What is the hydrostatic pressure to cohesion ratio rz?

The cohesion or shear strength is according to equation (8-117) (eqn 8.77, 1st edition):

U C S  1  s in    
c    = 1 0 .5 M P a
2  cos    
 

The hydrostatic pressure to cohesion ratio rz is according to equation (9-29) (eqn 9-27, 1st edition):

l  g   z  10  1 .0 2 5  9 .8 1   1 0 0 0  1 0 
rz    0 .9 6 7
c 10500

What is the mobilized blade height hb,m?

The ratio hb,m/hi=0.65, see Figure 9-17 (Figure 9-16, 1st edition).

h b ,m  0 .6 5  h i  0 .6 5  0 .0 1  0 .0 0 6 5 (m)

So what is the cutting mechanism with the original blade height of 0.1 m?

Since the mobilized blade height hb,m is smaller than the blade height hb, the Curling Type will occur.

What are the horizontal and the vertical cutting forces?

The horizontal force coefficient is about 2.9 according to Figure 9-19 (Figure 9-18, 1st edition) and the vertical
force coefficient is about 0.68 Figure 9-20 (Figure 9-19, 1st edition).

Horizontal Fh   H C  c  h i  w  2 .9  1 0 5 0 0  0 .0 1  0 .0 5  1 5 .2 3 (kN)
Vertical F v   V C  c  h i  w  0 .6 8  1 0 5 0 0  0 .0 1  0 .0 5  3 .5 7 (kN)

What is the shear angle β?

The shear angle is β=41°, according to Figure 9-18 (Figure 9-17, 1st edition).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 429 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 430 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Bibliography.

Chapter 17: Bibliography.

Abelev, A., & Valent, P. (2010). Strain rate dependency of strength of soft marine deposits of the Gulf of Mexico.
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529, USA.: Naval Research Laboratory.
Becker, S., Miedema, S., Jong, P., & Wittekoek, S. (1992). On the Closing Process of Clamshell Dredges in Water
Saturated Sand. WODCON XIII (p. 22 pages). Bombay, India: WODA.
Becker, S., Miedema, S., Jong, P., & Wittekoek, S. (1992, September). The Closing Process of Clamshell Dredges
in Water Saturated Sand. Terra et Aqua, No. 49, 22 pages.
Biot, M. (1941). General theory of three dimensional consolidation. Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 12., 155-164.
Bishop, A. (1966). The strength of soils as engineering materials. Geotechnique, vol. 16, no. 2., 91-128.
Brakel, J. (1981). Mathematisch model voor de krachten op een roterende snijkop van een in zeegang werkende
snijkopzuiger. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology - ScO/80/96.
Butterfield, R., & Andrawes, K. (1972). On the angles of friction between sand and plane surfaces. Journal of
Terramechanics, vol. 8, no. 4., 15-23.
Carman, P. (1937). Fluid flow through granular beds. Transactions Institute Chemical Engineering, 15, 150.
Carman, P. (1956). Flow of gases through porous media. London: Butterworths Scientific Publications.
Coulomb, C. (1776). Essai sur une application des regles des maximis et minimis a quelques problemes de statique
relatifs a l'architecture. Academie royale des sciences, Paris, Memoires de mathematique et de physique,
vol. 7., 343-382.
Detournay, E., & Atkinson, C. (2000). Influence of pore pressure on the drilling response in low permeability shear
dilatant rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, vol. 37., 1091-1101.
Evans, I. (1964). The force required to cut coal with blunt wedges. Mining Research Establishment Isleworth.
Evans, I., & Pomeroy, C. (1966). The strength, fracture and workability of coal. Pergamon Press.
Fairhurst, C. (1964). On the validity of the Brazilian test for brittle materials. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences, vol. 1., 535-546.
Geking, K. (1987). Rock Testing Procedures at VA’s Geotechnical Laboratory in Zeltweg. Zeltweg, Austria.:
Voest Alphine, International Report TZU 48.
Glasstone, S., Laidler, K., & Eyring, H. (1941). The theory of rate processes. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hansen, B. (1958). Line ruptures regarded as narrow rupture zones. Earth Pressure Problems, (pp. 39-48).
Brussels.
Hatamura, Y., & Chijiiwa, K. (1975). Analyses of the mechanism of soil cutting, 1st report. Bulletin of JSME, vol.
18, no. 120, 619-626.
Hatamura, Y., & Chijiiwa, K. (1976A). Analyses of the mechanism of soil cutting, 2nd report. Bulletin of the
JSME, vol. 19, no. 131., 555-563.
Hatamura, Y., & Chijiiwa, K. (1976B). Analyses of the mechanism of soil cutting, 3rd report. Bulletin of the JSME,
vol. 19, no. 139., 1376-1384.
Hatamura, Y., & Chijiiwa, K. (1977A). Analyses of the mechanism of soil cutting, 4th report. Bulletin of the JSME,
vol. 20, no. 139., 130-137.
Hatamura, Y., & Chijiiwa, K. (1977B). Analyses of the mechanism of soil cutting, 5th report. Bulletin of the JSME,
vol. 20, no. 141., 388-395.
Hazen, A. (1982). Some physical properties of sands and gravels with special reference to their use in filtration.
24th Annual Report, Massachusetts State Board of Health, Pub. Doc. No. 34., 539-556.
He, J., & Vlasblom, W. (1998). Modelling of saturated sand cutting with large rake angles. WODCON XV. Las
Vegas, USA: WODA.
He, J., Miedema, S., & Vlasblom, W. (2005). FEM Analyses Of Cutting Of Anisotropic Densely Compacted and
Saturated Sand. WEDAXXV/TAMU37. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA: WEDA/TAMU.
Hettiaratchi, D. (1967A). The mechanics of soil cultivation. AES, no. 3/245/C/28.
Hettiaratchi, D., & Reece, A. (1967B). Symmetrical three-dimensional soil failure. Journal of Terramechanics 4
(3)., 45-67.
Hettiaratchi, D., & Reece, A. (1974). The calculation of passive soil resistance. Geotechnique 24, no. 3., 289-310.
Hettiaratchi, D., & Reece, A. (1975). Boundary wedges in two dimensional passive soil failure. Geotechnique 25,
no. 2., 197-220.
Hettiaratchi, D., Witney, B., & Reece, A. (1966). The calculation of passive pressure in two dimensional soil
failure. Journal of Agriculture Engineering Resources 11 (2), 89-107.
Hoek, E., & Brown, E. T. (1988). The Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion - a 1988 Update. 15th Canadian Rock
Mechanics Symposium., (pp. 31-38).
Joanknecht, L. (1973). Mechanisch graaf onderzoek onder water. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of
Technology.
Joanknecht, L. (1974). Cutting forces in submerged soils. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Josselin de Jong, G. (1976). Rowe's stress dilatancy relation based on friction. Geotechnique 26, no. 3, 527-534.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 431 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Kaitkay, P., & Lei, S. (2005). Experimental study of rock cutting under external hydrostatic pressure. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, vol. 159., 206-213.
Kelessidis, V., & Maglione, R. (2008). Yield stress of water bentonite dispersions. Colloids and Surfaces A:
Physicochemical Engineering Aspects 318., 217-226.
Kelessidis, V., Tsamantaki, C., & Dalamarinis, P. (2007). Effect of pH and electrolyte on the rheology of aqueous
Wyoming bentonite dispersions. Applied Clay Science 38., 86-96.
Kesteren, W. G. (1995). Numerical simulations of crack bifurcation in the chip forming cutting process in rock. In
G. B. Karihaloo (Ed.), Fracture of brittle disordered materials: concrete, rock and ceramics. (pp. 505-
524). London, UK.: E&FN Spon.
Koning, J. d., Miedema, S., & Zwartbol, A. (1983). Soil/Cutterhead Interaction under Wave Conditions. WODCON
X. Singapore: WODA.
Kozeny, J. (1927). Uber kapillare leitung des wassers in boden. Wien: Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math.
Naturwiss. Kl. Abt. 2a, 136, 271-306.
Lambe, T., & Whitman, R. (1979). Soil mechanics, SI version. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Leussen, W. v., & Os, A. v. (1987 December). Basic research on cutting forces in saturated sand. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 113, no. 12., 1501-1516.
Leussen, W., & Nieuwenhuis, J. (1984). Soil mechanics aspects of dredging. Geotechnique 34, no. 3., 359-381.
Lobanov, V., & Joanknecht, L. (1980). The cutting of soil under hydrostatic pressure. WODCON IX. Vancouver,
Canada: WODA.
Ma, Y. (2001). Mathematical model analysis for the saturated sand cutting with large cutting angles in the non-
vavitation situation. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology, Report: 2001.BT.5581.
Ma, Y., Ni, F., & Miedema, S. (2006A). Calculation of the Blade Cutting Force for small Cutting Angles based
on MATLAB. The 2nd China Dredging Association International Conference & Exhibition, themed
Dredging and Sustainable Development. Guangzhou, China: CHIDA.
Ma, Y., Ni, F., & Miedema, S. (2006B). Mechanical Model of Water Saturated Sand Cutting at Blade Large
Cutting Angles. Journal of Hohai University, ISSN 1009-1130, CN 32-1591.
Meijer, K. (1981). Berekening van spanningen en deformaties in verzadigde grond. Delft, Netherlands: Delft
Hydraulics Laboratory, Report R914 part 1.
Meijer, K. (1985). Computation of stresses and strains in saturated soil, PhD Thesis. Delft, Netherlands: Delft
University of Technology.
Meijer, K., & Os, A. (1976). Pore pressures near a moving under water slope. Geotechnical Engineering Division
ASCE 102, no. GT4., 361-372.
Merchant, M. (1944). Basic mechanics of the metal cutting process. Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 11A., 168-
175.
Merchant, M. (1945A). Mechanics of metal cutting process, orthogonal cutting and a type 2 chip. Journal of
Applied Physics, vol. 16, no. 5., 267-275.
Merchant, M. (1945B). Mechanics of metal cutting, plasticity conditions in orthogonal cutting. Journal of Applied
Physics, vol. 16, no. 6., 318-324.
Miedema, S. (1981). The soil reaction forces on a crown cutterhead on a swell compensated ladder. Delft, The
Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Miedema, S. (1982). The Interaction between Cutterhead and Soil at Sea. Dredging Day November 19th (p. 25
pages in Dutch). Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Miedema, S. (1982). The mathematical modeling of the soil reaction forces on a cutterhead and the development
of the computer program DREDMO. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Miedema, S. (1984A). Mathematical Modeling of a Seagoing Cutter Suction Dredge. Delft, The Netherlands:
Delft University of Technology/KIVI.
Miedema, S. (1984B, October). The Cutting of Densely Compacted Sand under Water. Terra et Aqua, No. 28, 4-
10.
Miedema, S. (1985A, September). Derivation of the Differential Equation for Sand Pore Pressures. Dredging and
Port Construction, 35.
Miedema, S. (1985B, July). Mathematical Modeling of the Cutting of Densely Compacted Sand Under Water.
Dredging and Port Construction, 22-26.
Miedema, S. (1986A). The Application of a Cutting Theory on a Dredging Wheel. WODCON XI (p. 14 pages).
Brighton, UK: WODA.
Miedema, S. (1986B, June). Underwater Soil Cutting: a Study in Continuity. Dredging and Port Construction, 47-
53.
Miedema, S. (1987 September). The Calculation of the Cutting Forces when Cutting Water Saturated Sand, PhD
Thesis. Delft: Delft University of Technology.
Miedema, S. (1989). On the Cutting Forces in Saturated Sand of a Seagoing Cutter Suction Dredge. WODCON
XII (p. 27 pages). Orlando, Florida, USA: WODA.

Page 432 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Bibliography.

Miedema, S. (1989, December). On the Cutting Forces in Saturated Sand of a Seagoing Cutter Suction Dredge.
Terra et Aqua, No. 41, 27 pages.
Miedema, S. (1992). New developments of cutting theories with respect to dredging, the cutting of clay. WODCON
XIII. Bombay, India: World Dredging Association (WODA).
Miedema, S. (1994). On the Snow-Plough Effect when Cutting Water Saturated Sand with Inclined Straight
Blades. ASCE Dredging 94 (p. 24 pages). Orlando, Florida, USA: ASCE.
Miedema, S. (1995). Production Estimation Based on Cutting Theories for Cutting Water Saturated Sand.
WODCON IV (p. 30 pages). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: WODA.
Miedema, S. (1999). Considerations on limits of dredging processes. 19th Annual Meeting &amp; Technical
Conference of the Western Dredging Association. Louisville, Kentucky, USA: WEDA/TAMU.
Miedema, S. (2000). The modelling of the swing winches of a cutter dredge in relation with simulators. Texas A/M
32nd Annual Dredging Seminar. Warwick, Rhode Island, USA: WEDA/TAMU.
Miedema, S. (2003). The Existence of Kinematic Wedges at Large Cutting Angles. CHIDA Dredging Days.
Shanghai, China: CHIDA.
Miedema, S. (2004). The Cutting Mechanisms of Water Saturated Sand at Small and Large Cutting Angles.
International Conference on Coastal Infrastructure Development - Challenges in the 21st Century.
Hongkong: ICCD.
Miedema, S. (2005). The Cutting of Water Saturated Sand, the FINAL Solution. WEDAXXV/TAMU37. New
Orleans, Louisiana, USA: WEDA/TAMU.
Miedema, S. (2006A). The Cutting of Water Saturated Sand, the Solution. CEDA African Section: Dredging Days.
Tangiers, Morocco: CEDA.
Miedema, S. (2006B). The Cutting of Water Saturated Sand, the Solution. The 2nd China Dredging Association
International Conference & Exhibition, themed Dredging and Sustainable Development. Guangzhou,
China: CHIDA.
Miedema, S. (2009). New Developments Of Cutting Theories With Respect To Dredging, The Cutting Of Clay
And Rock. WEDA XXIX/Texas A/M 40. Phoenix, Arizona, USA: WEDA/TAMU.
Miedema, S. (2010). New Developments of Cutting Theories with respect to Offshore Applications. ISOPE (p. 8).
Beijing, China.: ISOPE.
Miedema, S. A. (2014). The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model. (1st ed.). Delft: IOS Press, Delft University
Press. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-454-1-i
Miedema, S. A., & Zijsling, D. (2012). Hyperbaric rock cutting. OMAE International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering (p. 14). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: ASME.
Miedema, S., & Becker, S. (1993). The Use of Modeling and Simulation in the Dredging Industry, in Particular
the Closing Process of Clamshell Dredges. CEDA Dredging Days (p. 26 pages). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: CEDA.
Miedema, S., & Frijters, D. (2003). The Mechanism of Kinematic Wedges at Large Cutting Angles - Velocity and
Friction Measurements. 23rd WEDA Technical Conference/35th TAMU Dredging Seminar (p. 14 pages).
Chicago, Illinois, USA: WEDA/TAMU.
Miedema, S., & Frijters, D. (2004). The wedge mechanism for cutting of water saturated sand at large cutting
angles. WODCON XVII. Hamburg, Germany: WODA.
Miedema, S., & He, J. (2002B). The Existance of Kinematic Wedges at Large Cutting Angles. WEDA XXII
Technical Conference/34th Texas A/M Dredging Seminar (p. 20 pages). Denver, Colorado, USA:
WEDA/TAMU.
Miedema, S., & Ma, Y. (2002A). The Cutting of Water Saturated Sand at Large Cutting Angles. ASCE Dredging
02 (p. 16 pages). Orlando, Florida, USA: ASCE.
Miedema, S., & Yi, Z. (2001). An Analytical Method of Pore Pressure Calculations when Cutting Water Saturated
Sand. Texas A/M 33nd Annual Dredging Seminar (p. 18 pages). Houston, USA: WEDA/TAMU.
Mitchell, J. (1976). Fundamentals of soil behavior. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mitchell, J., Campanella, R., & Singh, A. (1968). Soil creep as a rate process. Journal SMFD, vol. 94, no. 1, ASCE.
Mogi, K. (1966). Pressure dependence of rock strength and transition from brittle fracture to ductile flow. Bulletin
Earthquake Res. Inst. Japan, Vol. 44., 215-232.
Nishimatsu, Y. (1972). The mechanics of rock cutting. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
Science, vol. 9., 261-270.
Os, A. G. (1976). Snelle deformatie van korrelvormig materiaal onder water. PT-P31, no. 12, 735-741.
Os, A. G. (1977A). Behavior of soil when excavated under water. In International course on modern dredging.
The Hague, Netherlands.
Os, A. G. (1977B). Snelle deformatie van korrelvormig materiaal onder water. PT-B32, no. 8., 461-467.
Osman, M. (1964). The mechanics of soil cutting blades. J.A.E.R. 9 (4), 313-328.
Palmer, A. (1999). Speed effects in cutting and ploughing. Geotechnique 49, no. 3., 285-294.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 433 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Raalte, G., & Zwartbol, A. (1986). Disc bottom cutterhead, a report on laboratory and field tests. WODCON XI.
Brighton, UK: WODA.
Rafatian, N., Miska, S., Ledgerwood III, L., Hughes, B., Ahmed, R., Yu, M., & Takach, N. (2009). Experimental
study of MSE of a single PDC cutter under simulated pressurized conditions. SPE/IADC 119302 Drilling
Conference & Exhibition. Amsterdam, Netherlands: SPE International.
Reece, A. (1965). The fundamental equation of earth moving machinery. Symposium Earth Moving Machinery.
London: Institute of Mechanical Engineering.
Rhee, C., & Steeghs, H. (1991 June). Multi blade ploughs in saturated sand, model cutting tests. Dredging & Port
Construction.
Roberts, J., Jepsen, R., Gotthard, D., & Lick, W. (1998). Effects of particle size and bulk density on erosion of
quartz particles. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 1261-1267.
Rowe, P. (1962). The stress dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact.
Proceedings Royal Society A269. (pp. 500-527). Royal Society.
Roxborough, F. (1987). The role of some basic rock properties in assessing cuttability. Seminar on Tunnels -
Wholly Engineered Structures (pp. 1-21). Canberra, Australia: AFCC.
Schrieck, G. (1996). Introduction to Dredging Engineering. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of
Technology.
Segal, G. (2001). Sepra analysis programmers guide, standard problems and users manual. Leidschendam,
Netherlands: Ingenieursbureau Sepra.
Sohne, W. (1956). Some basic considerations of soil mechanics as applied to agricultural engineering. Grundlagen
der landtechnik (7)., 11-27.
Soydemir, C. (1977). Potential models for shear strength generation in soft marine clays. International Symposium
on Soft Clay. Bangkok, Thailand.
Stam, P. (1983). Analyse ten behoeve van het ontwerp van een klei snijdende sleepkop, CO/82/129. Delft,
Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Steeghs, H. (1985A). Snijden van zand onder water, part I. Ports & Dredging no. 121.
Steeghs, H. (1985B). Snijden van zand onder water, part II. Ports & Dredging no. 123.
Terzaghi, K., & Peck, R. (1964). Soil mechanics in engineering practise. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Turnage, G., & Freitag, D. (1970). Effects of cone velocity and size on soil penetration resistance. ASEA 69-670.
Verhoef, P. (1997). Wear of rock cutting tools: Implications for site investigation of rock dredging projects. Delft,
Netherlands: Balkema Rotterdam.
Verruijt, A. (1983). Soil Mechanics. Delft: DUM, Netherlands.
Vlasblom, W. (2003-2007). Rock Cutting, Lecture Notes. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.
Vukovic, M., & Soro, A. (1992). Determination of hydraulic conductivity of porous media from grain size
composition. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado.
Weijermars, R. (1997-2011). Principles of rock mechanics. Delft, Netherlands: Alboran Science Publishing.
Wismer, R., & Luth, H. (1972A). Performance of Plane Soil Cutting Blades. Transactions of ASEA.
Wismer, R., & Luth, H. (1972B). Rate effects in soil cutting. Journal of Terramechanics, vol. 8, no. 3., 11-21.
Yi, Z. (2000). The FEM calculation of pore water pressure in sand cutting process by SEPRAN. Delft, Netherlands:
Delft University of Technology, Report: 2001.BT.5455.
Yi, Z., & Miedema, S. (2001). Finite Element Calculations To Determine The Pore Pressures When Cutting Water
Saturated Sand At Large Cutting Angles. CEDA Dredging Days (p. 20 pages). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: CEDA.
Yi, Z., & Miedema, S. (2002). Finite Element Calculations To Determine The Pore Pressures When Cutting Water
Saturated Sand At Large Cutting Angles. CEDA Dredging Days (p. 20 pages). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: CEDA.
Zeng, D., & Yao, Y. (1988). Investigation on the relationship between soil metal friction and sliding speed. 2nd
Asian Pacific Conference of ISTVS. Bangkok, Thailand.
Zeng, D., & Yao, Y. (1991). Investigation on the relationship between soil shear strength and shear rate. Journal
of Terramechanics, 28 (1).
Zijsling, D. (1987). Single cutter testing - a key for PDC bit development (SPE 16529). Offshore Europe 87.
Aberdeen, Scotland.

Page 434 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Figures & Tables.

Chapter 18: Figures & Tables.

18.1. List of Figures.

Figure 1-1: Different types of dredging equipment. ................................................................................................ 2
Figure 1-2: A rock cutter head with pick points. ..................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1-3: The author on the clamshell dredge “Chicago” of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock. ................................ 4
Figure 1-4: The author on the backhoe dredge “New York” of Great Lakes Dredge & Dock................................ 4
Figure 2-1: Earthwork in Germany (source Wikimedia). ....................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-2: Fox glacier, New Zealand (source Wikimedia). ................................................................................... 7
Figure 2-3: Soil naming according to USDA. ......................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-4: Soil failure (www.4isfge.org). .............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2-5: The Wenjiagou landslide (blogs.agu.org)............................................................................................10
Figure 2-6: Karl von Terzaghi, one of the founders of modern soil mechanics. ....................................................10
Figure 2-7: Sand from the Gobi desert, Mongolia (source Wikimedia). ................................................................11
Figure 2-8: Sand in the Sahara desert (source Luca Galuzzi – www.galuzzi.it) ....................................................12
Figure 2-9: Quaternary clay in Estonia (source Wikimedia) ..................................................................................13
Figure 2-10: Varved clay, Little River State Park, Waterbury, Vermont (source www.anr.state.vt.us). ..............14
Figure 2-11: Sample of igneous gabbro, Rock Creek Canyon, California (source Wikimedia). ...........................15
Figure 2-12: Sandstone formations, Vermillion Cliffs, Arizona (source www.reddit.com). .................................17
Figure 2-13: Columns of Basalt of the Scottish Island of Staffa (National Geographic). ......................................17
Figure 2-14 A: Aid to identification of rock for engineering purposes (After BS 5930:1981). ............................18
Figure 2-15 B: Aid to identification of rock for engineering purposes (After BS 5930:1981). ............................19
Figure 2-16: Utica Shale, Fort Plain, New York (Wikipedia). ...............................................................................20
Figure 2-17: The rock formation cycle (galleryhip.com). ......................................................................................20
Figure 2-18: The particle size distributions of the sands used by Roberts et al. (1998). .......................................21
Figure 2-19: Liquid limit device. ...........................................................................................................................22
Figure 2-20: Liquid limit device. ...........................................................................................................................22
Figure 2-21: The relation between SL, PL, LL and PI. ..........................................................................................23
Figure 2-22: SPT values versus relative density (Miedema (1995). ......................................................................26
Figure 2-23: Friction angle versus SPT value (Miedema (1995). ..........................................................................31
Figure 2-24: A UCS test facility (Timely Engineering Soil Tests, LLC). ..............................................................34
Figure 2-25: Bending (Vlasblom (2003-2007)). ...................................................................................................34
Figure 2-26: The Brazilian split test (Vlasblom (2003-2007)). ..............................................................................35
Figure 2-27: Diagram showing definitions and directions for Darcy’s law. ..........................................................40
Figure 2-28: Brittle failure types (Vlasblom (2003-2007)). ...................................................................................42
Figure 2-29: Brittle-ductile failure of marble (M.S. Patterson, Australian National University). ..........................42
Figure 2-30: A set of sieves (Essa Australia from: www.directindustry.com). ......................................................43
Figure 2-31: The Standard Penetration Test (www.shalviengineering.com). ........................................................44
Figure 2-32: A typical CPT test setup (www.geotechdata.com). ...........................................................................46
Figure 2-33: Several configurations of cones (www.geotechdata.info). ................................................................46
Figure 2-34: Several cone configurations. .............................................................................................................47
Figure 2-35: The Triaxial apparatus (www.geotechdata.info). ..............................................................................48
Figure 2-36: The Triaxial apparatus cross-section (civilblog.org). ........................................................................49
Figure 2-37: The direct shear test. ..........................................................................................................................50
Figure 2-38: The vane shear test (English.geocpt.es).............................................................................................51
Figure 2-39: Shear vane and Torvane for soil testing (www.humboldtmfg.com). .................................................51
Figure 2-40: Point load test facility (inside.mines.edu). ........................................................................................52
Figure 2-41: Brazilian splitting tension test. ..........................................................................................................52
Figure 2-42: BTS zoomed. .....................................................................................................................................52
Figure 2-43: A BTS test after failure. ....................................................................................................................53
Figure 2-44: The stresses on a soil element. ..........................................................................................................55
Figure 2-45: The forces on a soil element. .............................................................................................................55
Figure 2-46: The resulting Mohr circle for cohesion less soil. ...............................................................................58
Figure 2-47: Determining the angle of internal friction from tri-axial tests of cohesion less soil. .........................58
Figure 2-48: The Mohr circle for soil with cohesion. ............................................................................................59
Figure 2-49: Determining the angle of internal friction from tri-axial tests of soil with cohesion. .......................59
Figure 2-50: An example of Mohr circles resulting in an internal friction angle and cohesion (www.dplot.com).
.........................................................................................................................................................60

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 435 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 2-51: Active soil failure. .............................................................................................................................61

Figure 2-52: The Mohr circle for active soil failure. ..............................................................................................64
Figure 2-53: An example of active soil failure, Utah copper mine landslide (photoblog.nbcnews.com). .............64
Figure 2-54: Passive soil failure. ............................................................................................................................65
Figure 2-55: The Mohr circle for passive soil failure. ............................................................................................68
Figure 2-56: An example of passive soil failure, the Komatsu D65PX-15 (www.youtube.com). .........................68
Figure 2-57: The Mohr circles for active and passive failure for a cohesion less soil. .........................................69
Figure 2-58: The Mohr circles for active and passive failure for a soil with cohesion. ........................................70
Figure 2-59: The coefficients of active and passive soil failure Ka & Kp...............................................................71
Figure 2-60: The coefficient of active soil failure Ka. ............................................................................................72
Figure 2-61: The coefficient of passive soil failure Kp. .........................................................................................72
Figure 3-1: The Curling Type, the Flow Type, the Tear Type, the Shear Type, the Crushed Type and the Chip
Type. ...............................................................................................................................................75
Figure 3-2: The cutting process, definitions. ..........................................................................................................76
Figure 3-3: The Flow Type ....................................................................................................................................77
Figure 3-4: The Shear Type ...................................................................................................................................77
Figure 3-5: The Crushed Type. ..............................................................................................................................77
Figure 3-6: The forces on the layer cut. .................................................................................................................78
Figure 3-7: The forces on the blade. ......................................................................................................................78
Figure 3-8: The Curling Type of cutting mechanism. ............................................................................................81
Figure 3-9: The general equilibrium of moments. .................................................................................................81
Figure 3-10: The Tear Type cutting mechanism in clay. ......................................................................................82
Figure 3-11: The Chip Type cutting mechanism in rock. .....................................................................................82
Figure 3-12: The Mohr circle for UCS and cohesion. ............................................................................................83
Figure 3-13: The Mohr circles of the Tear Type. ...................................................................................................85
Figure 3-14: The forces on the layer cut. ...............................................................................................................86
Figure 3-15: Urban winter service vehicle with snowplow (commons.wikimedia.org). ........................................88
Figure 3-16: The 3D cutting process. .....................................................................................................................88
Figure 3-17: Velocity conditions............................................................................................................................89
Figure 3-18: Force directions. ................................................................................................................................89
Figure 3-19: A piece of a program showing the iteration scheme. .........................................................................92
Figure 4-1: The Shear Type in dry sand cutting. ....................................................................................................95
Figure 4-2: The Shear Type in saturated sand cutting. ...........................................................................................96
Figure 4-3: The Curling Type in clay and loam cutting. ........................................................................................98
Figure 4-4: The Flow Type in clay and loam cutting. ............................................................................................98
Figure 4-5: The Tear Type in clay and loam cutting. .............................................................................................98
Figure 4-6: The Crushed Type in atmospheric rock cutting. ................................................................................100
Figure 4-7: The Chip Type in atmospheric rock cutting. .....................................................................................100
Figure 4-8: The Crushed Type in hyperbaric rock cutting. ..................................................................................101
Figure 5-1: The cutting mechanism in dry sand, the Shear Type. ........................................................................105
Figure 5-2: Dry sand modeled according to the Flow Type. ...............................................................................105
Figure 5-3: The cutting process, definitions. ........................................................................................................105
Figure 5-4: The forces on the layer cut in dry sand. .............................................................................................106
Figure 5-5: The forces on the blade in dry sand. ..................................................................................................106
Figure 5-6: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2. ......................................................108
Figure 5-7: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2. ............109
Figure 5-8: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2. ................109
Figure 5-9: The alternative shape of the layer cut. ...............................................................................................110
Figure 5-10: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2. ....................................................111
Figure 5-11: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2. ..........113
Figure 5-12: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2. ..............113
Figure 5-13: The percentage inertial force for a layer thickness hi=1.0 m, blade height hb=1.0 m and a cutting
velocity vc=0.5 m/sec. ...................................................................................................................114
Figure 5-14: The percentage inertial force for a layer thickness hi=1.0 m, blade height hb=1.0 m and a cutting
velocity vc=15.7 m/sec. .................................................................................................................114
Figure 5-15: The shear angle β, including the effect of inertial forces.................................................................115
Figure 5-16: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHI. ....................................................................................115
Figure 5-17: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVI. ........................................................................................116
Figure 5-18: A dredging wheel used in the German braunkohl mines (www.wikiwand.com). ...........................118
Figure 5-19: The shear angle versus the blade angle. ..........................................................................................119

Page 436 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Figures & Tables.

Figure 5-20: The total cutting force versus the blade angle. ................................................................................120
Figure 5-21: The direction of the total cutting force versus the blade angle. .......................................................120
Figure 5-22: Cutting forces versus cutting velocity. ............................................................................................121
Figure 5-23: A bulldozer pushing sand (commons.wikimedia.org). ....................................................................122
Figure 6-1: The cutting process definitions. .........................................................................................................123
Figure 6-2: The cutting mechanism in water saturated sand, the Shear Type. .....................................................126
Figure 6-3: Water saturated sand modeled according to the Flow Type. .............................................................126
Figure 6-4: The forces on the layer cut in water saturated sand. ..........................................................................127
Figure 6-5: The forces on the blade in water saturated sand. ...............................................................................127
Figure 6-6: The forces on the blade when cutting water saturated sand. .............................................................128
Figure 6-7: The cutting process modeled as a continuous process. ......................................................................129
Figure 6-8: The volume balance over the shear zone. ..........................................................................................131
Figure 6-9: Flow of the pore water to the shear zone. ..........................................................................................132
Figure 6-10: The coarse mesh as applied in the pore pressure calculations. ........................................................133
Figure 6-11: The fine mesh as applied in the pore pressure calculations. ............................................................133
Figure 6-12: The water under-pressures distribution in the sand package around the blade. ..............................134
Figure 6-13: The pore pressure distribution on the blade A-C and in the shear zone A-B. ................................134
Figure 6-14: The equipotential lines. ...................................................................................................................135
Figure 6-15: The equipotential lines in color. ......................................................................................................135
Figure 6-16: Flow lines or stream function. .........................................................................................................136
Figure 6-17: The stream function in colors. .........................................................................................................136
Figure 6-18: The water pore pressures on the blade as function of the length of the wear section w. .................137
Figure 6-19: The water pore pressure in the shear zone as function of the length of the wear section w. ...........137
Figure 6-20: The flow lines used in the analytical method. .................................................................................138
Figure 6-21: A small program to determine the pore pressures. ..........................................................................143
Figure 6-22: The dimensionless pressures on the blade and the shear plane, α=60°, β=20°, ki/kmax=0.25, hi/hb=1/3.
.......................................................................................................................................................143
Figure 6-23: The dimensionless pressures on the blade and the shear plane, α=60°, β=20°, ki/kmax=0.25, hi/hb=1/2.
.......................................................................................................................................................144
Figure 6-24: The dimensionless pressures on the blade and the shear plane, α=60°, β=20°, ki/kmax=0.25, hi/hb=1/1.
.......................................................................................................................................................144
Figure 6-25: The forces Fh and Ft as function of the shear angle β and the blade angle . .................................146
Figure 6-26: The force Fh as function of the ratio between ki and kmax. ..............................................................149
Figure 6-27: The reciprocal of the force Fh as function of the ratio between ki and kmax. ...................................149
Figure 6-28: Friction angle versus SPT value (Lambe & Whitman (1979), page 148) and Miedema (1995)). ..153
Figure 6-29: SPT values versus relative density (Lambe & Whitman (1979), page 78) and Miedema (1995)). 155
Figure 6-30: SPT values reduced to 10m water depth. ........................................................................................155
Figure 6-31: Specific energy versus SPT value (45 deg. blade). .........................................................................156
Figure 6-32: Production per 100kW versus SPT value (45 deg. blade). ..............................................................156
Figure 6-33: The total dimensionless cutting force ct, dt. .....................................................................................159
Figure 6-34: The influence of wear. .....................................................................................................................159
Figure 6-35: The influence of side effects............................................................................................................159
Figure 6-36: Side view of the old laboratory. ......................................................................................................161
Figure 6-37: The cross section of the new laboratory DE. ...................................................................................162
Figure 6-38: An overview of the old laboratory DE. ...........................................................................................162
Figure 6-39: An overview of the new laboratory DE. ..........................................................................................163
Figure 6-40: A side view of the carriage. .............................................................................................................164
Figure 6-41: The construction in which the blades are mounted..........................................................................164
Figure 6-42: The blades are mounted in a frame with force and torque transducers............................................165
Figure 6-43: The center blade and the side blades, with the pore pressure transducers in the center blade. ........165
Figure 6-44: A blade mounted under the carriage in the new laboratory DE. ......................................................166
Figure 6-45: The center blade of 30º, 45º and 60º, with and without wear flat. ...................................................167
Figure 6-46: Measuring the cone resistance of the sand. .....................................................................................167
Figure 6-47: The pre-amplifiers and filters on the carriage. .................................................................................168
Figure 6-48: A view of the measurement cabin. ..................................................................................................169
Figure 6-49: The development of cavitation over the blade. ................................................................................178
Figure 6-50: Partial cavitation limited by dissolved air, α=45º, hi=7cm. .............................................................179
Figure 6-51: The forces from which the soil/steel friction angle δ can be determined. .......................................180
Figure 6-52: The forces from which the angle of internal friction φ of the sand can be determined. .................181
Figure 6-53: The location of the pressure transducer behind the blade. ...............................................................181

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 437 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 6-54: An example of pore pressure measurements versus the theory. ......................................................183
Figure 6-55: An example of the forces measured versus the theory. ...................................................................184
Figure 6-56: An example of the measured signals (forces and pore pressures). ..................................................185
Figure 6-57: Fh, Fv, Fd and Esp as a function of the cutting velocity and the layer thickness, without deviation.186
Figure 6-58: Fh, Fv, Fd and Esp as a function of the cutting velocity and the layer thickness, with deviation. .....187
Figure 7-1: The cutting process, definitions. ........................................................................................................191
Figure 7-2: The Curling Type in clay. ..................................................................................................................192
Figure 7-3: The Flow Type in clay.......................................................................................................................192
Figure 7-4: The Tear Type in clay. ......................................................................................................................192
Figure 7-5: The Boltzman probability distribution. .............................................................................................193
Figure 7-6: The probability of exceeding an energy level Ea. .............................................................................193
Figure 7-7: The probability of net activation in direction of force. ......................................................................194
Figure 7-8: The adapted Boltzman probability distribution. ................................................................................195
Figure 7-9: The probability of net activation in case 1. .......................................................................................196
Figure 7-10: The probability of net activation in case 2. .....................................................................................197
Figure 7-11: The probability of net activation in case 3. .....................................................................................197
Figure 7-12: The probability of net activation in case 4. .....................................................................................197
Figure 7-13: Shear stress as a function of strain rate with the horizontal axis logarithmic. .................................201
Figure 7-14: Shear stress as a function of strain rate with logarithmic axis. ........................................................201
Figure 7-15: Comparison of 3 rheological models. ..............................................................................................202
Figure 7-16: Abelev & Valent (2010) data. .........................................................................................................203
Figure 7-17: Comparison of the model developed with the v/d Schrieck (1996) model. .....................................205
Figure 7-18: The Flow Type cutting mechanism when cutting clay. ...................................................................207
Figure 7-19: The forces on the layer cut in clay. ..................................................................................................207
Figure 7-20: The forces on the blade in clay. .......................................................................................................207
Figure 7-21: The shear angle as a function of the blade angle and the ac ratio r. ................................................212
Figure 7-22: The blade angle α + the shear angle β. ............................................................................................212
Figure 7-23: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHF as a function of the blade angle and the ac ratio r. ....213
Figure 7-24: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVF as a function of the blade angle and the ac ratio r. .........213
Figure 7-25: Specific energy and production in clay for a 60 degree blade. ........................................................214
Figure 7-26: The Tear Type cutting mechanism in clay. .....................................................................................215
Figure 7-27: The transition Flow Type vs. Tear Type. ........................................................................................218
Figure 7-28: The Mohr circles when cutting clay. ...............................................................................................218
Figure 7-29: The shear angle β vs. the blade angle α for the Tear Type. .............................................................220
Figure 7-30: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHT/rT. ...............................................................................220
Figure 7-31: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVT/rT. ...................................................................................221
Figure 7-32: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVT/rT zoomed. ......................................................................221
Figure 7-33: The Curling Type cutting mechanism when cutting clay. ...............................................................222
Figure 7-34: The equilibrium of moments on the layer cut in clay. .....................................................................227
Figure 7-35: The shear angle β for the Curling Type. ..........................................................................................228
Figure 7-36: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC. ...................................................................................228
Figure 7-37: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC. .......................................................................................229
Figure 7-38: The ratio hb/hi at the transition Flow Type/Curling Type. ...............................................................229
Figure 7-39: Horizontal force; cohesion c=1 kPa, adhesion a=1 kPa, tensile strength σT=-0.3 kPa, blade height
hb=0.1 m, blade angle α=55° .........................................................................................................230
Figure 7-40: Vertical force; Cohesion c=1 kPa, adhesion a=1 kPa, tensile strength σT=-0.3 kPa, blade height hb=0.1
m, blade angle α=55°.....................................................................................................................231
Figure 7-41: The Mohr circles for hi=0.1 m, two possibilities. ............................................................................231
Figure 7-42: The Mohr circles for hi=0.5 m, only tensile failure possible. ..........................................................232
Figure 7-43: The specific energy Esp in clay as a function of the compressive strength (UCS). ..........................233
Figure 7-44: The shear angles measured and calculated. .....................................................................................235
Figure 7-45: The total cutting force measured and calculated. ............................................................................235
Figure 7-46: The direction of the total cutting force measured and calculated. ...................................................236
Figure 7-47: The 60 degree experiments. .............................................................................................................236
Figure 7-48: The 30 degree experiment. ..............................................................................................................237
Figure 7-49: The strengthening factor. .................................................................................................................238
Figure 8-1: Ductile and brittle cutting Verhoef (1997). .......................................................................................241
Figure 8-2: The stress-strain curves for ductile and brittle failure. ......................................................................242
Figure 8-3: The Chip Type. ..................................................................................................................................243
Figure 8-4: Failure envelopre according to Verhoef (1997) (Figure 9.4) of intact rock. .....................................243

Page 438 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Figures & Tables.

Figure 8-5: Constructing the failure envelope. .....................................................................................................244

Figure 8-6: Resulting failure curve for Mancos Shale like rocks. ........................................................................245
Figure 8-7: Resulting failure curves for Pierre Shale like rocks. .........................................................................245
Figure 8-8: Brittle, semi brittle and ductile failure. ..............................................................................................248
Figure 8-9: Construction of the angle of internal friction UTS-UCS based. ........................................................249
Figure 8-10: Construction of the angle of internal friction BTS-UCS based. ......................................................250
Figure 8-11: Construction Hoek & Brown failure criterion Mohr circles. ...........................................................252
Figure 8-12: Construction Hoek & Brown failure criterion. ................................................................................252
Figure 8-13: The parabolic failure criterion. ........................................................................................................255
Figure 8-14: The Parabolic and Ellipsoid failure envelopes, with a=1.75·UCS. .................................................256
Figure 8-15 The Parabolic and Ellipsoid failure envelopes, with a=100·UCS. ...................................................257
Figure 8-16: The linear failure criterion. ..............................................................................................................258
Figure 8-17: The failure criteria. ..........................................................................................................................260
Figure 8-18: The Crushed Type. ..........................................................................................................................261
Figure 8-19: The Chip Type. ................................................................................................................................261
Figure 8-20: The brittle-tear horizontal force coefficient λHT (Evans). ................................................................263
Figure 8-21: The model of Evans. ........................................................................................................................264
Figure 8-22: The model of Evans under an angle ε. .............................................................................................265
Figure 8-23: The model of Evans used for a pick point. ......................................................................................267
Figure 8-24: Model for shear failure by Nishimatsu (1972). ...............................................................................269
Figure 8-25: The stress distribution along the shear plane. ..................................................................................271
Figure 8-26: The definitions of the cutting process..............................................................................................273
Figure 8-27: The Flow Type cutting mechanism in ductile rock cutting. ............................................................274
Figure 8-28: The forces on the layer cut in rock (atmospheric). ..........................................................................275
Figure 8-29: The forces on the blade in rock (atmospheric). ...............................................................................275
Figure 8-30: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α and the angle of internal friction φ. ..............277
Figure 8-31: The brittle (shear failure) horizontal force coefficient λHF. .............................................................278
Figure 8-32: The brittle (shear failure) vertical force coefficient λVF...................................................................278
Figure 8-33: The specific energy Esp to UCS ratio. ..............................................................................................279
Figure 8-34: The Tear Type cutting mechanism in rock under hyperbaric conditions. .......................................280
Figure 8-35: The Chip Type cutting mechanism in rock under hyperbaric conditions. .......................................280
Figure 8-36: The Mohr circle for UCS and cohesion. ..........................................................................................281
Figure 8-37: The Mohr circles of the Tear Type. .................................................................................................282
Figure 8-38: Below the lines (equation (8-125)) the cutting process is brittle (shear failure); above the lines it is
brittle (tensile failure). ...................................................................................................................283
Figure 8-39: The ratio UCS/BTS, below the lines there is brittle (shear failure), above the lines it is brittle (tensile
failure). ..........................................................................................................................................283
Figure 8-40: The moments on the layer cut. ........................................................................................................284
Figure 8-41: The shear angle with limitation. ......................................................................................................285
Figure 8-42: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT. ...........................................................286
Figure 8-43: The brittle (tensile failure) vertical force coefficient λVT. ...............................................................286
Figure 8-44: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α and the internal friction angle φ. .................287
Figure 8-45: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT. ...........................................................288
Figure 8-46: The brittle (tensile failure) vertical force coefficient λVT. ...............................................................288
Figure 8-47: Below the lines (equation (8-125)) the cutting process is brittle (shear failure); above the lines it is
brittle (tensile failure). ...................................................................................................................290
Figure 8-48: The ratio UCS/BTS, below the lines there is brittle (shear failure), above the lines it is brittle (tensile
failure). ..........................................................................................................................................290
Figure 8-49: Horizontal cutting force: UCS=100 MPa, φ=20º, hi=0.1 m w=0.1 m. ............................................291
Figure 8-50: Vertical cutting force: UCS=100 MPa, φ=20º, hi=0.1 m w=0.1 m..................................................291
Figure 8-51: Mohr circles tensile strength -8.5 MPA...........................................................................................292
Figure 8-52: Mohr circles tensile strength -20 MPa. ............................................................................................292
Figure 8-53: The tensile vs. shear failure range based on the BTS to cohesion ratio. .........................................293
Figure 8-54 The tensile vs. shear failure range based on the UCS to BTS ratio. ................................................293
Figure 9-1: Variations of average cutting forces with hydrostatic pressure, Kaitkay & Lei (2005). ...................297
Figure 9-2: MSE versus confining pressure for Carthage marble in light and viscous mineral oil, Rafatian et al.
(2009). ...........................................................................................................................................298
Figure 9-3: MSE versus confining pressure for Indiana limestone in light mineral oil, Rafatian et al. (2009). ..298
Figure 9-4: The definitions of the cutting process...............................................................................................300
Figure 9-5: The Flow Type cutting mechanism. .................................................................................................300

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 439 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure 9-6: The Crushed Type cutting mechanism. .............................................................................................300

Figure 9-7: The forces on the layer cut in rock (hyperbaric). ...............................................................................301
Figure 9-8: The forces on the blade in rock (hyperbaric). ....................................................................................301
Figure 9-9: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHF for a 60 degree blade, hb/hi=1. .....................................303
Figure 9-10: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVF for a 60 degree blade, hb/hi=1. ........................................303
Figure 9-11:The shear angle β, for a 60 degree blade, hb/hi=1. ............................................................................304
Figure 9-12: The Esp/UCS ratio, for a 60 degree blade, hb/hi=1. ..........................................................................304
Figure 9-13: The Tear Type cutting mechanism in rock under hyperbaric conditions. .......................................305
Figure 9-14: The Chip Type cutting mechanism in rock under hyperbaric conditions. .......................................305
Figure 9-15: The Curling Type or balling. ...........................................................................................................306
Figure 9-16: The equilibrium of moments on the layer cut in hyperbaric rock....................................................306
Figure 9-17: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 60 degree blade. ............................................................................................309
Figure 9-18:The shear angle β for a 60 degree blade ...........................................................................................309
Figure 9-19: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 60 degree blade. ................................................310
Figure 9-20: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 60 degree blade. Positive downwards. ...................310
Figure 9-21: The Esp/UCS ratio, for a 60 degree blade. .......................................................................................311
Figure 9-22: The theory of hyperbaric cutting versus the Zijsling (1987) experiments. .....................................313
Figure 9-23: The specific energy Esp and the drilling strength S, theory versus the Zijsling (1987) experiments.
.......................................................................................................................................................314
Figure 9-24: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 110 degree blade. ..........................................................................................315
Figure 9-25:The shear angle β for a 110 degree blade. ........................................................................................315
Figure 9-26: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 110 degree blade. ..............................................316
Figure 9-27: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 110 degree blade. Positive upwards. ......................316
Figure 9-28: The Esp/UCS ratio, for a 110 degree blade. .....................................................................................317
Figure 9-29: The specific energy Esp in rock versus the compressive strength (UCS) for a 110º blade...............319
Figure 9-30: The specific energy Esp in rock versus the compressive strength (UCS) for a 45º blade. ...............320
Figure 9-31: The specific energy Esp in rock versus the compressive strength (UCS) for a 60º blade. ...............321
Figure 10-1: The occurrence of a wedge. .............................................................................................................325
Figure 10-2: The forces on the layer cut when a wedge is present.......................................................................329
Figure 10-3: The forces on the wedge. .................................................................................................................329
Figure 10-4: The forces on the blade when a wedge is present. ...........................................................................330
Figure 10-5: The moments on the wedge. ............................................................................................................330
Figure 11-1: Definitions. ......................................................................................................................................333
Figure 11-2: Alternative geometry of the layer cut. ............................................................................................333
Figure 11-3: The cutting mechanism. ..................................................................................................................333
Figure 11-4: The forces on the layer cut when a wedge is present.......................................................................336
Figure 11-5: The forces on the wedge. .................................................................................................................337
Figure 11-6: The forces on the blade when a wedge is present. ...........................................................................337
Figure 11-7: The moments on the wedge. ............................................................................................................338
Figure 11-8: The shear angle, wedge angle and mobilized external friction angle calculated with wedge. .........339
Figure 11-9: The total cutting force. ....................................................................................................................340
Figure 11-10: The direction of the total cutting force. .........................................................................................340
Figure 11-11: The shear angle of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) versus the calculated shear angles, with and
without wedge. ..............................................................................................................................341
Figure 11-12: The shear angle, wedge angle and mobilized external friction angle calculated with wedge. .......341
Figure 11-13: The total force of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) versus the calculated total force, with and without
wedge. ...........................................................................................................................................342
Figure 11-14: The direction of the cutting force of Hatamura & Chijiiwa (1977B) versus the calculated force
direction, with and without wedge. ...............................................................................................342
Figure 12-1: Failure pattern with rake angle of 120º............................................................................................345
Figure 12-2: Sand cutting with a wedge, definitions. ...........................................................................................346
Figure 12-3: The cutting mechanism. ..................................................................................................................346
Figure 12-4: The forces on the layer cut in saturated sand with a wedge. ...........................................................348
Figure 12-5: The forces on the wedge in saturated sand. .....................................................................................348
Figure 12-6: The forces on the blade in saturated sand with a wedge. .................................................................348
Figure 12-7: The volume balance over the shear zone. ........................................................................................351
Figure 12-8: Possible flow lines. ..........................................................................................................................351
Figure 12-9: The boundaries of the FEM model. .................................................................................................352
Figure 12-10: Pore pressure distribution on the shear plane A-B, the bottom of the wedge A-D, the blade D-C and
the front of the wedge A-C. ...........................................................................................................352

Page 440 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Figures & Tables.

Figure 12-11: The parallel resistor method. .........................................................................................................353

Figure 12-12: The coarse mesh. ...........................................................................................................................354
Figure 12-13: The fine mesh. ...............................................................................................................................354
Figure 12-14: Equipotential lines of pore pressures. ............................................................................................355
Figure 12-15: Equipotential distribution in color. ................................................................................................355
Figure 12-16: The flow lines or stream function. .................................................................................................356
Figure 12-17: The stream function in colors. .......................................................................................................356
Figure 12-18: The equilibrium of moments on the wedge in water saturated sand. .............................................357
Figure 12-19: Moment versus wedge angle θ by using polynomial regression for: α=900; β=150,200,250,300; δ=280;
φ=420; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25 .....................................................................................................358
Figure 12-20: The moment versus the shear angle for 4 different wedge angles for: α=90 0; δ=280; φ=420; hi=1;
hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25..........................................................................................................................359
Figure 12-21: The forces on the wedges at 60, 75, 90, 105 and 120 cutting angles. ...................................360
Figure 12-22: No cavitation, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º. 361
Figure 12-23: No cavitation, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º. ............361
Figure 12-24: Cavitating, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º. ......363
Figure 12-25: Cavitating, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º. .................363
Figure 12-26: The lower and upper limit where a static wedge can exist for the non-cavitating cutting process.
.......................................................................................................................................................364
Figure 12-27: The lower and upper limit where a static wedge can exist for the cavitating cutting process. ......364
Figure 12-28: The lower limit where the wedge starts to occur. ..........................................................................365
Figure 12-29: Cross section of the cutting tank. ..................................................................................................367
Figure 12-30: Front view of the test facility. ........................................................................................................368
Figure 12-31: The blade mounted under the carriage .........................................................................................369
Figure 12-32: The camera in front of the window. .............................................................................................369
Figure 12-33: Cover with camera behind the blade. ............................................................................................369
Figure 12-34: The Perspex window in the blade. .................................................................................................370
Figure 12-35: View of the cutting process through the Perspex window. ............................................................370
Figure 12-36: Cutting forces for cutting depths (hi) from 3 to 7 cm; blade angle 60°. .......................................371
Figure 12-37: Cutting forces for cutting depths (hi) from 3 to 7 cm; blade angle 75°. .......................................372
Figure 12-38: Cutting forces for cutting depths (hi) from 3 to 7 cm; blade angle 90°. .......................................373
Figure 12-39: The dynamic wedge.......................................................................................................................375
Figure 13-1: The occurrence of a wedge in clay cutting. .....................................................................................377
Figure 13-2: The forces on the layer cut in clay cutting with a wedge. ...............................................................380
Figure 13-3: The forces on the wedge in clay cutting. .........................................................................................380
Figure 13-4: The forces on the blade when cutting clay with a wedge. ...............................................................381
Figure 13-5: The equilibrium of moments on the wedge when cutting clay. .......................................................381
Figure 14-1: Definitions. ......................................................................................................................................385
Figure 14-2: The forces on the layer cut when a wedge is present.......................................................................388
Figure 14-3: The forces on the wedge. .................................................................................................................388
Figure 14-4: The forces on the blade when a wedge is present. ...........................................................................389
Figure 14-5: The moments on the wedge. ............................................................................................................389
Figure 15-1: Definitions. ......................................................................................................................................393
Figure 15-2: The forces on the layer cut when a wedge is present.......................................................................396
Figure 15-3: The forces on the wedge. .................................................................................................................397
Figure 15-4: The forces on the blade when a wedge is present. ...........................................................................397
Figure 15-5: The moments on the wedge. ............................................................................................................398
Figure 16-1: The horizontal cutting forces. ..........................................................................................................412
Figure 16-2: The specific energy. ........................................................................................................................412
Figure 16-3: The pore pressures on blade and shear plane...................................................................................413
Figure 16-4: The horizontal cutting forces. ..........................................................................................................416
Figure 16-5: The specific energy. ........................................................................................................................416
Figure 16-6: The pore pressures on blade and shear plane...................................................................................417
Figure 16-7: The Mohr circles. ............................................................................................................................419
Figure 16-8: The Mohr circles for a tensile strength of -2 MPa. Tensile Failure. ................................................421
Figure 16-9: The Mohr circles for a tensile strength of -10 MPa. Shear Failure. .................................................421
Figure 16-10: The Mohr circles with tensile strength of -10 MPa (UCS=100 MPa, φ=20º). Shear Failure. ......423
Figure 16-11: The Mohr circles with tensile strength of -5 MPa (UCS=100 MPa, φ=20º). Tensile Failure. .....424
Figure 16-12: The Mohr circles with tensile strength of -10 MPa (UCS=60 MPa, φ=20º). Shear Failure. ........426
Figure 16-13: The Mohr circles with tensile strength of -3 MPa (UCS=60 MPa, φ=20º). Tensile Failure. .......428

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 441 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 442 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Figures & Tables.

18.2. List of Figures in Appendices.

Figure A-1: The coefficients of active and passive soil failure Ka & Kp. ............................................................ A-1
Figure A-2: The coefficient of active soil failure Ka. .......................................................................................... A-2
Figure A-3: The coefficient of passive soil failure Kp. ....................................................................................... A-2
Figure B-1: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=1. .....................................................B-3
Figure B-2: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=1. ...........B-4
Figure B-3: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=1.................B-4
Figure B-4: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2. .....................................................B-5
Figure B-5: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2. ...........B-6
Figure B-6: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.................B-6
Figure B-7: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=3. .....................................................B-7
Figure B-8: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=3. ...........B-8
Figure B-9: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=3.................B-8
Figure B-10: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=1. ...................................................B-9
Figure B-11: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=1. .......B-10
Figure B-12: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=1.............B-10
Figure B-13: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2. .................................................B-11
Figure B-14: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of........................................................B-12
Figure B-15: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.............B-12
Figure B-16: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=3. .................................................B-13
Figure B-17: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=3. .......B-14
Figure B-18: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=3.............B-14
Figure B-19: The percentage inertial force for a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λ i=0.025..................B-15
Figure B-20: The percentage inertial force for a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λ i=0.25....................B-15
Figure B-21: The percentage inertial force for a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λ i=2.5......................B-16
Figure B-22: The percentage inertial force for a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λ i=25.......................B-16
Figure B-23: The percentage inertial force for a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λ i=250.....................B-17
Figure B-24: The shear angle β, including the effect of inertial forces for a dimensionless inertial effect parameter
λi=250. .........................................................................................................................................B-17
Figure B-25: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHI for a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi=250. .B-
18
Figure B-26: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVI for a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi=250...B-18
Figure K-1: The PSD of the 200 μm sand. ........................................................................................................ K-51
Figure L-1: The PSD of the 105 μm sand. ......................................................................................................... L-55
Figure M-1: Dimensionless pore pressures, theory versus measurements. ....................................................... M-57
Figure M-2: Measured absolute pore pressures. ............................................................................................... M-57
Figure M-3: The cutting forces Fh and Fv, theory versus measurement. ........................................................... M-58
Figure M-4: Dimensionless pore pressures, theory versus measurements. ....................................................... M-59
Figure M-5: Measured absolute pore pressures. ............................................................................................... M-59
Figure M-6: The cutting forces Fh and Fv, theory versus measurement. ........................................................... M-60
Figure M-7: Dimensionless pore pressures, theory versus measurements. ....................................................... M-61
Figure M-8: Measured absolute pore pressures. ............................................................................................... M-61
Figure M-9: The cutting forces Fh and Fv, theory versus measurement. ........................................................... M-62
Figure M-10: α=30º, hi=33 mm, hb=100 mm. ................................................................................................... M-63
Figure M-11: α=30º, hi=50 mm, hb=100 mm. ................................................................................................... M-63
Figure M-12: α=30º, hi=100 mm, hb=100 mm. ................................................................................................. M-64
Figure M-13: α=45º, hi=47 mm, hb=141 mm. ................................................................................................... M-64
Figure M-14: α=45º, hi=70 mm, hb=141 mm. ................................................................................................... M-65
Figure M-15: α=45º, hi=141 mm, hb=141 mm. ................................................................................................. M-65
Figure M-16: α=60º, hi=30 mm, hb=173 mm. ................................................................................................... M-66
Figure M-17: α=60º, hi=58 mm, hb=173 mm. ................................................................................................... M-66
Figure M-18: α=60º, hi=87 mm, hb=173 mm. ................................................................................................... M-67
Figure M-19: α=60º, hi=173 mm, hb=173 mm. ................................................................................................. M-67
Figure M-20: α=30°, hi=33 mm, hb=100 mm. ................................................................................................... M-69
Figure M-21: α=30°, hi=50 mm, hb=100 mm. ................................................................................................... M-70
Figure M-22: α=30°, hi=100 mm, hb=100 mm. ................................................................................................. M-71
Figure M-23: α=45°, hi=47 mm, hb=141 mm. ................................................................................................... M-72
Figure M-24: α=45°, hi=70 mm, hb=141 mm. ................................................................................................... M-73

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 443 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure M-25: α=45°, hi=141 mm, hb=141 mm. ................................................................................................. M-74

Figure M-26: α=60°, hi=58 mm, hb=173 mm. ................................................................................................... M-75
Figure M-27: α=60°, hi=87 mm, hb=173 mm. ................................................................................................... M-76
Figure M-28: α=60°, hi=173 mm, hb=173 mm. ................................................................................................. M-77
Figure N-1: Blade angle 30 degrees – Deviation angle 00 degrees ................................................................... N-79
Figure N-2: Blade angle 30 degrees – Deviation angle 15 degrees ................................................................... N-80
Figure N-3: Blade angle 30 degrees – Deviation angle 30 degrees ................................................................... N-81
Figure N-4: Blade angle 45 degrees – Deviation angle 00 degrees ................................................................... N-82
Figure N-5: Blade angle 45 degrees – Deviation angle 15 degrees ................................................................... N-83
Figure N-6: Blade angle 45 degrees – Deviation angle 30 degrees ................................................................... N-84
Figure N-7: Blade angle 45 degrees – Deviation angle 45 degrees ................................................................... N-85
Figure N-8: Blade angle 60 degrees – Deviation angle 00 degrees ................................................................... N-86
Figure N-9: Blade angle 60 degrees – Deviation angle 15 degrees ................................................................... N-87
Figure N-10: Blade angle 60 degrees – Deviation angle 30 degrees ................................................................. N-88
Figure N-11: Blade angle 60 degrees – Deviation angle 45 degrees ................................................................. N-89
Figure O-1: Specific energy and production in sand for a 30 degree blade. ..................................................... O-91
Figure O-2: Specific energy and production in sand for a 45 degree blade. ..................................................... O-92
Figure O-3: Specific energy and production in sand for a 60 degree blade. ..................................................... O-93
Figure P-1: No cavitation, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º. .. P-95
Figure P-2: No cavitation, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º. ............ P-95
Figure P-3: No cavitation, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=35º and δ=23º. .. P-96
Figure P-4: No cavitation, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=35º and δ=23º. ............ P-96
Figure P-5: No cavitation, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=40º and δ=27º. .. P-97
Figure P-6: No cavitation, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=40º and δ=27º. ............ P-97
Figure P-7: No cavitation, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=45º and δ=30º. .. P-98
Figure P-8: No cavitation, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=45º and δ=30º. ............ P-98
Figure Q-1: Cavitating, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º. ..... Q-99
Figure Q-2: Cavitating, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º. ................ Q-99
Figure Q-3: Cavitating, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=35º and δ=23º. ... Q-100
Figure Q-4: Cavitating, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=35º and δ=23º. .............. Q-100
Figure Q-5: Cavitating, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=40º and δ=27º. ... Q-101
Figure Q-6: Cavitating, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=40º and δ=27º. .............. Q-101
Figure Q-7: Cavitating, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of the blade angle α for φ=45º and δ=30º. ... Q-102
Figure Q-8: Cavitating, the cutting forces as a function of the blade angle α for φ=45º and δ=30º. .............. Q-102
Figure S-1: The boundaries of the FEM model. ............................................................................................... S-109
Figure S-2: The boundaries of the 60/59 degree calculations. ......................................................................... S-109
Figure S-3: The equipotential lines. ................................................................................................................. S-110
Figure S-4: The equipotential lines in color. .................................................................................................... S-110
Figure S-5: The flow lines or stream function. ................................................................................................ S-111
Figure S-6: The stream function in colors. ....................................................................................................... S-111
Figure S-7: The pore pressures in the shear zone A-B, at the bottom of the wedge A-D, on the front of the wedge
C-A and on the blade C-D ......................................................................................................... S-112
Figure S-8: The coarse mesh. ........................................................................................................................... S-113
Figure S-9: The fine mesh. ............................................................................................................................... S-113
Figure S-10: The equipotential lines. ............................................................................................................... S-114
Figure S-11: The equipotential lines in color. .................................................................................................. S-114
Figure S-12: Pore pressure distribution on the shear plane A-B, the bottom of the wedge A-D, the blade D-C and
the front of the wedge A-C. ....................................................................................................... S-115
Figure S-13: Equipotential lines of pore pressures........................................................................................... S-116
Figure S-14: Equipotential distribution in color. .............................................................................................. S-116
Figure S-15: The flow lines or stream function. .............................................................................................. S-117
Figure S-16: The stream function in colors. ..................................................................................................... S-117
Figure S-17: Pore pressure distribution on the shear plane A-B, the bottom of the wedge A-D, the blade D-C and
the front of the wedge A-C. ....................................................................................................... S-118
Figure T-1: The forces on the wedge for a 60º blade. ...................................................................................... T-119
Figure T-2: The forces on the wedge for a 75º blade. ...................................................................................... T-120
Figure T-3: The forces on the wedge for a 90º blade. ...................................................................................... T-121
Figure T-4: The forces on the wedge for a 105º blade. .................................................................................... T-122
Figure T-5: The forces on the wedge for a 120º blade. .................................................................................... T-123
Figure U-1: Specific energy and production in clay for a 30 degree blade. .................................................... U-125

Page 444 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Figures & Tables.

Figure U-2: Specific energy and production in clay for a 45 degree blade. .................................................... U-126
Figure U-3: Specific energy and production in clay for a 60 degree blade. .................................................... U-127
Figure V-1: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α and the ac ratio r. ...................................... V-129
Figure V-2: The sum of the blade angle and the shear angle. ......................................................................... V-129
Figure V-3: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHF as a function of the blade angle α and the ac ratio r. ... V-
130
Figure V-4: The horizontal cutting force as a function of the blade angle α and the ac ratio r (c=400 kPa).. V-130
Figure V-5: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVF as a function of the blade angle α and the ac ratio r. . V-131
Figure V-6: The vertical cutting force as a function of the blade angle α and the ac ratio r (c=400 kPa). ..... V-131
Figure V-7: The transition Flow Type vs. Tear Type. .................................................................................... V-132
Figure V-8: The shear angle β vs. the blade angle α for the Tear Type. ......................................................... V-133
Figure V-9: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHT/rT. ........................................................................... V-133
Figure V-10: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVT/rT. ............................................................................. V-134
Figure V-11: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVT/rT zoomed. ................................................................ V-134
Figure V-12: The ratio hb/hi at the transition Flow Type/Curling Type. ......................................................... V-135
Figure V-13: The shear angle for the Curling Type ........................................................................................ V-135
Figure V-14: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC. ............................................................................. V-136
Figure V-15: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC. ................................................................................. V-136
Figure W-1: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α and the internal friction angle φ for shear failure.
................................................................................................................................................. W-137
Figure W-2: The brittle (shear failure) horizontal force coefficient λHF......................................................... W-137
Figure W-3: The brittle (shear failure) vertical force coefficient λVF. ........................................................... W-138
Figure W-4: The specific energy to UCS ratio. .............................................................................................. W-138
Figure W-5: The tensile/shear failure criterion based on BTS/Cohesion. ...................................................... W-139
Figure W-6: The tensile/shear failure criterion based on UCS/BTS. ............................................................. W-139
Figure W-7: The tensile/shear failure criterion based on BTS/Cohesion. ...................................................... W-140
Figure W-8: The tensile/shear failure criterion based on UCS/BTS. ............................................................. W-140
Figure W-9: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=20º. .......................................... W-141
Figure W-10: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=20º. ............................................... W-141
Figure W-11: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=0º. .......................................... W-142
Figure W-12: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=0º. ................................................. W-142
Figure W-13: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=5º. .......................................... W-143
Figure W-14: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=5º. ................................................. W-143
Figure W-15: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=10º. ........................................ W-144
Figure W-16: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=10º. ............................................... W-144
Figure W-17: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=15º. ........................................ W-145
Figure W-18: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=15º. ............................................... W-145
Figure W-19: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=20º. ........................................ W-146
Figure W-20: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=20º. ............................................... W-146
Figure W-21: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=25º. ........................................ W-147
Figure W-22: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=25º. ............................................... W-147
Figure W-23: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=30º. ........................................ W-148
Figure W-24: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=30º. ............................................... W-148
Figure W-25: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=35º. ........................................ W-149
Figure W-26: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=35º. ............................................... W-149
Figure W-27: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=40º. ........................................ W-150
Figure W-28: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=40º. ............................................... W-150
Figure W-29: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=45º. ........................................ W-151
Figure W-30: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=45º. ............................................... W-151
Figure W-31: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT. ................................................... W-153
Figure W-32: The brittle (tensile failure) vertical force coefficient λVT. ........................................................ W-153
Figure W-33: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT (DSCRCM, logarithmic). .......... W-154
Figure W-34: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT (Evans, logarithmic). ................. W-154
Figure W-35: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α and the internal friction angle φ for shear failure,
corrected. ................................................................................................................................. W-155
Figure W-36: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT, corrected. ................................... W-155
Figure W-37: The brittle (tensile failure) vertical force coefficient λVT , corrected. ...................................... W-156
Figure X-1: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 30 degree blade. ........................................................................................ X-157
Figure X-2: The shear angle β for a 30 degree blade. ..................................................................................... X-157
Figure X-3: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 30 degree blade.............................................. X-158

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 445 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure X-4: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 30 degree blade. ................................................. X-158
Figure X-5: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 30 degree blade. ............................................................. X-159
Figure X-6: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 45 degree blade. ........................................................................................ X-161
Figure X-7: The shear angle β for a 45 degree blade. ..................................................................................... X-161
Figure X-8: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 45 degree blade.............................................. X-162
Figure X-9: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 60 degree blade. ................................................. X-162
Figure X-10: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 45 degree blade. ........................................................... X-163
Figure X-11: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 60 degree blade. ...................................................................................... X-165
Figure X-12: The shear angle β for a 60 degree blade. ................................................................................... X-165
Figure X-13: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 60 degree blade............................................ X-166
Figure X-14: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 60 degree blade. ............................................... X-166
Figure X-15: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 60 degree blade. ........................................................... X-167
Figure X-16: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 75 degree blade. ...................................................................................... X-169
Figure X-17: The shear angle β for a 75 degree blade. ................................................................................... X-169
Figure X-18: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 75 degree blade............................................ X-170
Figure X-19: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 75 degree blade. ............................................... X-170
Figure X-20: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 75 degree blade. ........................................................... X-171
Figure X-21: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 90 degree blade. ...................................................................................... X-173
Figure X-22: The shear angle β for a 90 degree blade. ................................................................................... X-173
Figure X-23: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 90 degree blade............................................ X-174
Figure X-24: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 90 degree blade. ............................................... X-174
Figure X-25: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 90 degree blade. ........................................................... X-175
Figure X-26: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 105 degree blade. .................................................................................... X-177
Figure X-27: The shear angle β for a 105 degree blade. ................................................................................. X-177
Figure X-28: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 105 degree blade.......................................... X-178
Figure X-29: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 105 degree blade. ............................................. X-178
Figure X-30: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 105 degree blade. ......................................................... X-179
Figure X-31: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 120 degree blade. .................................................................................... X-181
Figure X-32: The shear angle β for a 120 degree blade. ................................................................................. X-181
Figure X-33: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 120 degree blade.......................................... X-182
Figure X-34: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 120 degree blade. ............................................. X-182
Figure X-35: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 120 degree blade. ......................................................... X-183
Figure Y-1: Dredging machine 1760 (ARA, Staten van Holland 5675), patent of F. D’Arles de Liniere in 1761.
.................................................................................................................................................. Y-185
Figure Y-2: A gold dredging bucket ladder dredge (www.miningandmetallurgy.com). ................................ Y-185
Figure Y-3: A dredge for canal works and a bucket ladder dredge (Swedish encyclopedia 1914). ................ Y-186
Figure Y-4: A bucket ladder dredge (IHC). .................................................................................................... Y-187
Figure Y-5: Bucket storage. ............................................................................................................................ Y-187
Figure Y-6: Garbage bucket dredge (Hamson Indonesia). .............................................................................. Y-188
Figure Y-7: The buckets of a gold dredge. ...................................................................................................... Y-188
Figure Y-8: The Mashour (Suez Canal Port Authorities, IHC). ...................................................................... Y-189
Figure Y-9: The Crawlcat (IHC). .................................................................................................................... Y-189
Figure Y-10: The d'Artagnan (28.200 kW, DEME group). ............................................................................ Y-190
Figure Y-11: A model rock cutter head (Delft University of Technology). .................................................... Y-190
Figure Y-12: A sand cutter head. .................................................................................................................... Y-191
Figure Y-13: A rock cutter head. .................................................................................................................... Y-191
Figure Y-14: A rock cutter head (van Oord). .................................................................................................. Y-191
Figure Y-15: Cutterhead (IHC). ...................................................................................................................... Y-192
Figure Y-16: Rock cutterhead (IHC). ............................................................................................................. Y-192
Figure Y-17: Gerardus Mercator (Jan de Nul, 18000 m3). .............................................................................. Y-193
Figure Y-18: The Gerardus Mercator (Jan de Nul, 18000 m3) with one drag arm. ......................................... Y-193
Figure Y-19: The Christobal Colon (Jan de Nul, 46.000 m3).......................................................................... Y-194
Figure Y-20: The Volvox Terranova rainbowing (van Oord). ........................................................................ Y-194
Figure Y-21: The Fairway (BosKalis, 35.000 m3). ......................................................................................... Y-195
Figure Y-22: TSHD suction pipe (Jan de Nul)................................................................................................ Y-195
Figure Y-23: Drag head (Damen Dredging). .................................................................................................. Y-196
Figure Y-24: Drag head (Damen Dredging). .................................................................................................. Y-196
Figure Y-25: Drag head (Damen Dredging). .................................................................................................. Y-196
Figure Y-26: A large backhoe dredge. ............................................................................................................ Y-197

Page 446 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Figures & Tables.

Figure Y-27: A large backhoe dredge. ............................................................................................................ Y-197

Figure Y-28: The Goliath (van Oord). ............................................................................................................ Y-198
Figure Y-29: The New York (Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company). ........................................................ Y-198
Figure Y-30: Line art drawing of a dredge (Pearson Scott Foresman). ........................................................... Y-199
Figure Y-31: The Chicago (Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company). ............................................................ Y-200
Figure Y-32: The Chicago (Great Lakes Dredge & Dock company). ............................................................. Y-200
Figure Y-33: The biggest clamshell in the world. ........................................................................................... Y-201
Figure Y-34: The Chicago (Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company). ............................................................ Y-201
Figure Y-35: A deep sea mining clamshell (Seatools). ................................................................................... Y-202
Figure_Apx Y-36: Artists impression of a clamshell operation. ..................................................................... Y-202
Figure Y-37: A bucket wheel dredge (IHC). ................................................................................................... Y-203
Figure Y-38: A bucket wheel dredge (China Hi Sea). .................................................................................... Y-203
Figure Y-39: Dredging wheel (IHC). .............................................................................................................. Y-204
Figure Y-40: Dredging wheel (IHC). .............................................................................................................. Y-204
Figure Y-41: The world’s largest excavator. ................................................................................................... Y-205
Figure Y-42: 95m high, 215m long, 45500 tons, $100 million, 10 m/min, 76000 m 3/day. ............................ Y-205
Figure Y-43: A bucket wheel excavator (www.directindustry.com). ............................................................. Y-206
Figure Y-44: Giant bucket wheel excavator.................................................................................................... Y-206
Figure Y-45: Deep sea mining, the Solwara Field. ......................................................................................... Y-207
Figure Y-46: A deep sea mining excavator (IHC). ......................................................................................... Y-207
Figure Y-47: Deep sea mining excavators (IHC). ........................................................................................... Y-208
Figure Y-48: Deep sea mining excavators. ..................................................................................................... Y-208
Figure Y-49: Sea floor production system. ..................................................................................................... Y-209
Figure_Apx Y-50: An IHC excavator. ............................................................................................................ Y-210
Figure Y-51: An artists impression of deep sea mining. ................................................................................. Y-210
Figure Y-52: Subsea Cable Trench Plough Sea Stallion 4 (IHC). .................................................................. Y-211
Figure Y-53: The Sea Stallion Ormonde OWF (VSMC). ............................................................................... Y-211
Figure Y-54: The Sea Stallion pulled by the mother ship. .............................................................................. Y-212
Figure Y-55: The Sea Stallion......................................................................................................................... Y-212
Figure Y-56: The Digging Donald (All Seas). ................................................................................................ Y-213
Figure Y-57: Arm with digging chain. ............................................................................................................ Y-213
Figure Y-58: Reef Subsea trencher (www.dredgingtoday.com). .................................................................... Y-214
Figure Y-59: Seatools Arthopod 600. ............................................................................................................. Y-214
Figure Y-60: Rock trencher (Rocksaw International). .................................................................................... Y-215
Figure Y-61: Rock trencher (Rocksaw International). .................................................................................... Y-215
Figure Y-62: NEPA pipeline trenching (lindeco.com). ................................................................................... Y-216
Figure Y-63: NEPA pipeline trenching (lindeco.com). ................................................................................... Y-216
Figure Y-64: A set of PDC cutters (HeJianShi FuLiang Dril Manufactury). .................................................. Y-217
Figure Y-65: PDC bits. ................................................................................................................................... Y-217
Figure Y-66: Percussion button bit and rotary drill bit (Varel International). ................................................. Y-218
Figure Y-67: StaySharp premium PDC cutter technology. ............................................................................. Y-218
Figure Y-68: Catterpillar D11T (mining.cat.com). ......................................................................................... Y-219
Figure Y-69: Caterpillar 24M motor grader. ................................................................................................... Y-219
Figure Y-70: Caterpillar 631G tractor scraper. ............................................................................................... Y-220
Figure Y-71: Komatsu D85ex bulldozer. ........................................................................................................ Y-220
Figure Y-72: Double head drum cutter (www.drumcutters.com). .................................................................. Y-221
Figure Y-73: Tunnel Boring Machine (Shanghai Kemei El. Co.). .................................................................. Y-221
Figure Y-74: Drumcutter for dry mining applications. ................................................................................... Y-222
Figure Y-75: A tunnel boring machine. .......................................................................................................... Y-222
Figure Y-76: An integrated TBM.................................................................................................................... Y-223
Figure Y-77: A TBM of Herrenknecht. .......................................................................................................... Y-223
Figure Y-78: The WesterSchelde TBM. ......................................................................................................... Y-224
Figure Y-79: Tunnel Boring Machine (www.imaker.ca). ............................................................................... Y-224

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 447 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 448 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Figures & Tables.

18.3. List of Tables.

Table 2-1: Soil Classification. ................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 2-2: Empirical values for ρt, of granular soils based on the standard penetration number, (from Bowels,
Foundation Analysis). .....................................................................................................................24
Table 2-3: Empirical values for ρs, of cohesive soils based on the standard penetration number, (From Bowels,
Foundation Analysis). .....................................................................................................................25
Table 2-4: Typical Soil Characteristics (From Lindeburg, Civil Engineering Reference Manual for the PE Exam,
8th edition). ......................................................................................................................................25
Table 2-5: Typical Values of Soil Index Properties ...............................................................................................25
Table 2-6: Designation of Granular Soil Based on Relative Density. ....................................................................26
Table 2-7: Empirical values for φ, of granular soils based on the standard penetration number, (From Bowels,
Foundation Analysis). .....................................................................................................................30
Table 2-8: Relationship between φ, and standard penetration number for sands, ..................................................30
Table 2-9: Relationship between φ, and standard penetration number for sands, ..................................................30
Table 2-10: External friction angle φ values. .........................................................................................................31
Table 2-11: Guide for Consistency of Fine-Grained Soil, NAVFAC 7.02 ............................................................33
Table 2-12: Empirical Values for Consistency of Cohesive Soil, (from Foundation Analysis, Bowels) ...............33
Table 2-13: The Mohs scale (source Wikipedia). ..................................................................................................36
Table 2-14: Typical values of the permeability k. ..................................................................................................41
Table 2-15: Some permeabilities according to Hazen’s equation. .........................................................................41
Table 4-1: The influences for each type of soil. ...................................................................................................103
Table 5-1: The inertial effect. ...............................................................................................................................116
Table 6-1: A comparison between the numerical and analytical dimensionless pore vacuum pressures. ............141
Table 6-2: The influence of the width ratio between the center blade and the side blades. .................................170
Table 6-3: The cutting forces on the side blades. .................................................................................................171
Table 6-4: Influence of the scale factor. ...............................................................................................................172
Table 6-5: The total cutting force measured. .......................................................................................................173
Table 6-6: The location of the resulting cutting force. .........................................................................................174
Table 6-7: The location of the resulting cutting force. .........................................................................................174
Table 6-8: Measured dimensionless forces. .........................................................................................................175
Table 6-9: Measured dimensionless forces. .........................................................................................................175
Table 6-10: Average dimensionless pore pressures on the blade. ........................................................................176
Table 6-11: Measured dimensionless forces. .......................................................................................................176
Table 7-1: Guide for Consistency of Fine-Grained Soil (Lambe & Whitman (1979)). ......................................211
Table 8-1: Some m values of Hoek & Brown. .....................................................................................................253
Table 8-2: Summary of the Evans theory. ............................................................................................................268
Table 8-3: Resulting forces and specific energy. .................................................................................................295
Table 9-1: Forces and specific energy example. ..................................................................................................318

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 449 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 450 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Figures & Tables.

18.4. List of Tables in Appendices.

Table C-1: The dimensionless pore pressures. ...................................................................................................C-19

Table D-1: β for hb/hi=1, non-cavitating. .......................................................................................................... D-21
Table D-2: β for hb/hi=2, non-cavitating. .......................................................................................................... D-22
Table D-3: β for hb/hi=3, non-cavitating. .......................................................................................................... D-23
Table E-1: c1 for hb/hi=1. .................................................................................................................................... E-25
Table E-2: c1 for hb/hi=2. .................................................................................................................................... E-26
Table E-3: c1 for hb/hi=3. .................................................................................................................................... E-27
Table F-1: c2 for hb/hi=1. .................................................................................................................................... F-29
Table F-2: c2 for hb/hi=2. .................................................................................................................................... F-30
Table F-3: c2 for hb/hi=3. .................................................................................................................................... F-31
Table G-1: a1 for hb/hi=1. .................................................................................................................................. G-33
Table G-2: a1 for hb/hi=2. .................................................................................................................................. G-34
Table G-3: a1 for hb/hi=3. .................................................................................................................................. G-35
Table H-1: β for hb/hi=1, cavitating. .................................................................................................................. H-37
Table H-2: β for hb/hi=2, cavitating. .................................................................................................................. H-38
Table H-3: β for hb/hi=3, cavitating. .................................................................................................................. H-39
Table I-1: d1 for hb/hi=1....................................................................................................................................... I-41
Table I-2: d1 for hb/hi=2....................................................................................................................................... I-42
Table I-3: d1 for hb/hi=3....................................................................................................................................... I-43
Table J-1: d2 for hb/hi=1. .....................................................................................................................................J-45
Table J-2: d2 for hb/hi=2. .....................................................................................................................................J-46
Table J-3: d2 for hb/hi=3. .....................................................................................................................................J-47
Table K-1: Pore percentages. ............................................................................................................................ K-50
Table K-2: Permeability as a function of the porosity. ..................................................................................... K-50
Table K-3: The d50 of the sand as function of the time. .................................................................................... K-50
Table K-4: The angle of internal friction as function of the pore percentage. .................................................. K-51
Table L-1: Pore percentages, indicated are the average measured densities for the various blade angles. ........ L-54
Table L-2: Permeabilities, indicated are the average permeabilities for the various blade angles. .................... L-54
Table L-3: The d50 of the sand as a function of time. ......................................................................................... L-55
Table L-4: The angle of internal friction as a function of the pore percentage. ................................................. L-55
Table R-1: The average water pore pressure and total pressure along the four sides. .....................................R-103
Table R-2: The average water pore pressure and total pressure along the four sides. .....................................R-104
Table R-3: The average water pore pressure and total pressure along the four sides. .....................................R-105
Table R-4: The average water pore pressure and total pressure along the four sides. .....................................R-106
Table R-5: Acting points for α=900; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25..........................................................................R-107
Table R-6: Acting points for α=800; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25..........................................................................R-107
Table R-7: Acting points for α=700; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25.........................................................................R-108
Table R-8: Acting points for α=600; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25.........................................................................R-108

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 451 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page 452 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Appendices.

Chapter 19: Appendices.

Appendix A: Active & Passive Soil Failure Coefficients. ......................................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients. ............................................................................................. B-3
B.1 Standard Configuration. .................................................................................................................B-3
B.1.1 Standard hb/hi=1. ........................................................................................................................B-3
B.1.2 Standard hb/hi=2. ........................................................................................................................B-5
B.1.3 Standard hb/hi=3. ........................................................................................................................B-7
B.2 Alternative Configuration...............................................................................................................B-9
B.2.1 Alternative hb/hi=1. ....................................................................................................................B-9
B.2.2 Alternative hb/hi=2. ..................................................................................................................B-11
B.2.3 Alternative hb/hi=3. ..................................................................................................................B-13
B.3 Percentage of Inertial Forces. .......................................................................................................B-15
Appendix C: Dimensionless Pore Pressures p1m & p2m. ............................................................................ C-19
Appendix D: The Shear Angle β Non-Cavitating. ................................................................................... D-21
Appendix E: The Coefficient c1. ............................................................................................................... E-25
Appendix F: The Coefficient c2. ............................................................................................................... F-29
Appendix G: The Coefficient a1. .............................................................................................................. G-33
Appendix H: The Shear Angle β Cavitating. ........................................................................................... H-37
Appendix I: The Coefficient d1................................................................................................................. I-41
Appendix J: The Coefficient d2................................................................................................................. J-45
Appendix K: The Properties of the 200 μm Sand. ................................................................................... K-49
Appendix L: The Properties of the 105 μm Sand. .................................................................................... L-53
Appendix M: Experiments in Water Saturated Sand. ............................................................................... M-57
M.1 Pore pressures and cutting forces in 105 μm Sand ...................................................................... M-57
M.2 Pore Pressures in 200 μm Sand. .................................................................................................. M-63
M.3 Cutting Forces in 200 μm Sand. .................................................................................................. M-69
Appendix N: The Snow Plough Effect. .................................................................................................... N-79
Appendix O: Specific Energy in Sand. .................................................................................................... O-91
Appendix P: Occurrence of a Wedge, Non-Cavitating. ............................................................................ P-95
Appendix Q: Occurrence of a Wedge, Cavitating. ................................................................................... Q-99
Appendix R: Pore Pressures with Wedge. .............................................................................................. R-103
Appendix S: FEM Calculations with Wedge.......................................................................................... S-109
S.1 The Boundaries of the FEM Model. ........................................................................................... S-109
S.2 The 60 Degree Blade. ................................................................................................................. S-110
S.3 The 75 Degree Blade. ................................................................................................................. S-113
S.4 The 90 Degree Blade. ................................................................................................................. S-116
Appendix T: Force Triangles. ................................................................................................................. T-119
Appendix U: Specific Energy in Clay. ................................................................................................... U-125
Appendix V: Clay Cutting Charts. ......................................................................................................... V-129
V.1 The Flow Type. ......................................................................................................................... V-129

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page 453 of 454

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

V.2 The Tear Type. .......................................................................................................................... V-132

V.3 The Curling Type. ..................................................................................................................... V-135
Appendix W: Rock Cutting Charts. ........................................................................................................W-137
W.1 Brittle Shear. ............................................................................................................................ W-137
W.2 The Transition Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile A. ........................................................................ W-139
W.3 The Transition Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile B. ........................................................................ W-140
W.4 Transition Ranges Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile. ....................................................................... W-142
W.5 Brittle Tensile Failure based on Brittle Shear Shear Angle. ..................................................... W-153
W.6 Brittle Tensile Failure based on Brittle Tensile Shear Angle. .................................................. W-155
Appendix X: Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts. ..................................................................................... X-157
X.1 The Curling Type of the 30 Degree Blade. ............................................................................... X-157
X.2 The Curling Type of the 45 Degree Blade. ............................................................................... X-161
X.3 The Curling Type of the 60 Degree Blade. ............................................................................... X-165
X.4 The Curling Type of the 75 Degree Blade. ............................................................................... X-169
X.5 The Curling Type of the 90 Degree Blade. ............................................................................... X-173
X.6 The Curling Type of the 105 Degree Blade. ............................................................................. X-177
X.7 The Curling Type of the 120 Degree Blade. ............................................................................. X-181
Appendix Y: Applications & Equipment. .............................................................................................. Y-185
Y.1 Historic Dredges. ....................................................................................................................... Y-185
Y.2 Bucket Ladder Dredges. ............................................................................................................ Y-187
Y.3 Cutter Suction Dredges. ............................................................................................................ Y-189
Y.4 Trailing Suction Hopper Dredges. ............................................................................................. Y-193
Y.5 Backhoe Dredges....................................................................................................................... Y-197
Y.6 Clamshell Dredges. ................................................................................................................... Y-199
Y.7 Bucket Wheel Dredges. ............................................................................................................. Y-203
Y.8 Braun Kohl Mining. .................................................................................................................. Y-205
Y.9 Deep Sea Mining. ...................................................................................................................... Y-207
Y.10 Cable Trenching. ....................................................................................................................... Y-211
Y.11 Offshore Pipeline Trenching. .................................................................................................... Y-213
Y.12 Dry Trenching. .......................................................................................................................... Y-215
Y.13 PDC Cutters (Oil & Gas Drilling). ............................................................................................ Y-217
Y.14 Bulldozers, Graders & Scrapers. ............................................................................................... Y-219
Y.15 Dry Mining. ............................................................................................................................... Y-221
Y.16 Tunnel Boring Machines. .......................................................................................................... Y-223
Appendix Z: Publications. ...................................................................................................................... Z-225

Page 454 of 454 TOC Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Active & Passive Soil Failure Coefficients.

Appendix A: Active & Passive Soil Failure Coefficients.

Ka & Kp vs. Angle of Internal Friction φ

100.00

10.00 Ka
Ka & Kp (-)

1.00

0.10 Kp

0.01
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Angle of Internal Friction φ (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure A-1: The coefficients of active and passive soil failure K a & Kp.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-1 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Ka vs. Angle of Internal Friction φ

0.5

0.4
Ka

0.3
Ka (-)

0.2

Kp
0.1

0.0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Angle of Internal Friction φ (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure A-2: The coefficient of active soil failure Ka.

Kp vs. Angle of Internal Friction φ

14

12

Ka

10
Kp (-)

Kp

2
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Angle of Internal Friction φ (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure A-3: The coefficient of passive soil failure Kp.

Page A-2 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients.

Appendix B: Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients.

B.1 Standard Configuration.

B.1.1 Standard hb/hi=1.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55 φ=25

50

45 φ=30
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 φ=35

30

25 φ=40

20

15 φ=45

10

5 φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-1: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=1.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-3 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD vs. Blade Angle α

40
38
36 φ=25
34
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD (-)

32
30 φ=30
28
26
24
φ=35
22
20
18
16
φ=40
14
12
10 φ=45
8
6
4
φ=50
2
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-2: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=1.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD vs. Blade Angle α

15.0

12.5 φ=25

10.0
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD (-)

7.5 φ=30

5.0

2.5 φ=35

0.0

-2.5 φ=40

-5.0

-7.5 φ=45

-10.0

-12.5 φ=50

-15.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-3: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=1.

Page A-4 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients.

B.1.2 Standard hb/hi=2.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55 φ=25

50

45 φ=30
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 φ=35

30

25 φ=40

20

15 φ=45

10

5 φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-4: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-5 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD vs. Blade Angle α

40
38
36 φ=25
34
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD (-)

32
30 φ=30
28
26
24
φ=35
22
20
18
16
φ=40
14
12
10 φ=45
8
6
4
φ=50
2
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-5: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD vs. Blade Angle α

15.0

12.5 φ=25

10.0
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD (-)

7.5 φ=30

5.0

2.5 φ=35

0.0

-2.5 φ=40

-5.0

-7.5 φ=45

-10.0

-12.5 φ=50

-15.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-6: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

Page A-6 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients.

B.1.3 Standard hb/hi=3.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55 φ=25

50

45 φ=30
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 φ=35

30

25 φ=40

20

15 φ=45

10

5 φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-7: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=3.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-7 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD vs. Blade Angle α

40
38
36 φ=25
34
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD (-)

32
30 φ=30
28
26
24
φ=35
22
20
18
16
φ=40
14
12
10 φ=45
8
6
4
φ=50
2
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-8: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=3.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD vs. Blade Angle α

15.0

12.5 φ=25

10.0
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD (-)

7.5 φ=30

5.0

2.5 φ=35

0.0

-2.5 φ=40

-5.0

-7.5 φ=45

-10.0

-12.5 φ=50

-15.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-9: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=3.

Page A-8 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients.

B.2 Alternative Configuration.

B.2.1 Alternative hb/hi=1.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55 φ=25

50

45 φ=30
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 φ=35

30

25 φ=40

20

15 φ=45

10

5 φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-10: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=1.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-9 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD vs. Blade Angle α

40
38
36 φ=25
34
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD (-)

32
30 φ=30
28
26
24
φ=35
22
20
18
16
φ=40
14
12
10 φ=45
8
6
4
φ=50
2
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-11: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=1.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD vs. Blade Angle α

15.0

12.5 φ=25

10.0
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD (-)

7.5 φ=30

5.0

2.5 φ=35

0.0

-2.5 φ=40

-5.0

-7.5 φ=45

-10.0

-12.5 φ=50

-15.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-12: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=1.

Page A-10 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients.

B.2.2 Alternative hb/hi=2.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55 φ=25

50

45 φ=30
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 φ=35

30

25 φ=40

20

15 φ=45

10

5 φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-13: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-11 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD vs. Blade Angle α

40
38
36 φ=25
34
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD (-)

32
30 φ=30
28
26
24
φ=35
22
20
18
16
φ=40
14
12
10 φ=45
8
6
4
φ=50
2
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-14: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD vs. Blade Angle α

15.0

12.5 φ=25

10.0
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD (-)

7.5 φ=30

5.0

2.5 φ=35

0.0

-2.5 φ=40

-5.0

-7.5 φ=45

-10.0

-12.5 φ=50

-15.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-15: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=2.

Page A-12 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients.

B.2.3 Alternative hb/hi=3.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55 φ=25

50

45 φ=30
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 φ=35

30

25 φ=40

20

15 φ=45

10

5 φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-16: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α for hb/hi=3.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-13 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD vs. Blade Angle α

40
38
36 φ=25
34
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHD (-)

32
30 φ=30
28
26
24
φ=35
22
20
18
16
φ=40
14
12
10 φ=45
8
6
4
φ=50
2
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-17: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=3.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD vs. Blade Angle α

15.0

12.5 φ=25

10.0
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVD (-)

7.5 φ=30

5.0

2.5 φ=35

0.0

-2.5 φ=40

-5.0

-7.5 φ=45

-10.0

-12.5 φ=50

-15.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-18: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVD as a function of

the blade angle α for hb/hi=3.

Page A-14 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients.

B.3 Percentage of Inertial Forces.

Percentage Inertial Force vs. Blade Angle α

100

φ=25
90

80
φ=30
Percentage Inertial Force (%)

70

60
φ=35

50

40
φ=40

30
φ=45
20

10
φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-19: The percentage inertial force for

a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi=0.025.

Percentage Inertial Force vs. Blade Angle α

100

φ=25
90

80
φ=30
Percentage Inertial Force (%)

70

60
φ=35

50

40
φ=40

30
φ=45
20

10
φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-20: The percentage inertial force for

a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi=0.25.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-15 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Percentage Inertial Force vs. Blade Angle α

100

φ=25
90

80
φ=30
Percentage Inertial Force (%)

70

60
φ=35

50

40
φ=40

30
φ=45
20

10
φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-21: The percentage inertial force for

a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi=2.5.

Percentage Inertial Force vs. Blade Angle α

100

φ=25
90

80
φ=30
Percentage Inertial Force (%)

70

60
φ=35

50

40
φ=40

30
φ=45
20

10
φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-22: The percentage inertial force for

a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi=25.

Page A-16 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dry Sand Cutting Coefficients.

Percentage Inertial Force vs. Blade Angle α

100

φ=25
90

80
φ=30
Percentage Inertial Force (%)

70

60
φ=35

50

40
φ=40

30
φ=45
20

10
φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-23: The percentage inertial force for

a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi=250.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

60

55 φ=25

50

45 φ=30
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

40

35 φ=35

30

25 φ=40

20

15 φ=45

10

5 φ=50

0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-24: The shear angle β, including the effect of inertial forces for
a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λi=250.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-17 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHI vs. Blade Angle α

5.0

4.5 φ=25
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHI (-)

4.0
φ=30
3.5

3.0
φ=35

2.5

2.0 φ=40

1.5
φ=45
1.0

0.5
φ=50

0.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-25: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHI

for a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λ i=250.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVI vs. Blade Angle α

1.0

0.8 φ=25
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVI (-)

0.6
φ=30
0.4

0.2
φ=35

0.0

-0.2 φ=40

-0.4
φ=45
-0.6

-0.8
φ=50

-1.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure B-26: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVI

for a dimensionless inertial effect parameter λ i=250.

Page A-18 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Dimensionless Pore Pressures p1m & p2m.

Appendix C: Dimensionless Pore Pressures p1m & p2m.

Table C-1: The dimensionless pore pressures.

hb/hi ki/kmax=1 ki/kmax=0.25

β =30 º 37.5 º 45 º 30 º 37.5 º 45 º
1 (s) 0.156 0.168 0.177 0.235 0.262 0.286
2 (s) 0.157 0.168 0.177 0.236 0.262 0.286
3 (s) 0.158 0.168 0.177 0.237 0.262 0.286
α =15 º
1 (b) 0.031 0.033 0.035 0.054 0.059 0.063
2 (b) 0.016 0.017 0.018 0.028 0.030 0.032
3 (b) 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.019 0.020 0.021
β =25º 30º 35º 25º 30º 35º
1 (s) 0.178 0.186 0.193 0.274 0.291 0.308
2 (s) 0.179 0.187 0.193 0.276 0.294 0.310
3 (s) 0.179 0.187 0.193 0.277 0.294 0.310
α =30 º
1 (b) 0.073 0.076 0.078 0.126 0.133 0.139
2 (b) 0.049 0.049 0.049 0.084 0.085 0.086
3 (b) 0.034 0.034 0.033 0.059 0.059 0.059
β =20º 25º 30º 20º 25º 30º
1 (s) 0.185 0.193 0.200 0.289 0.306 0.325
2 (s) 0.190 0.198 0.204 0.304 0.322 0.339
3 (s) 0.192 0.200 0.205 0.308 0.325 0.340
α =45 º
1 (b) 0.091 0.097 0.104 0.161 0.174 0.187
2 (b) 0.081 0.082 0.083 0.146 0.148 0.151
3 (b) 0.067 0.065 0.063 0.120 0.116 0.114
β =15º 20º 25º 15º 20º 25º
1 (s) 0.182 0.192 0.200 0.278 0.303 0.324
2 (s) 0.195 0.204 0.211 0.314 0.339 0.359
3 (s) 0.199 0.208 0.214 0.327 0.350 0.368
α =60 º
1 (b) 0.091 0.103 0.112 0.158 0.184 0.205
2 (b) 0.100 0.106 0.109 0.182 0.196 0.204
3 (b) 0.094 0.095 0.093 0.174 0.176 0.174

The dimensionless pore pressures p1m in the shear zone (s) and p2m on the blade surface (b) as a function of the
blade angle α, de shear angle β, the ratio between the blade height hb and the layer thickness hi and the ratio
between the permeability of the situ sand ki and the permeability of the sand cut kmax, with a wear zone behind the
edge of the blade of 0.2·hi.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-19 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-20 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Shear Angle β Non-Cavitating.

Appendix D: The Shear Angle β Non-Cavitating.

Table D-1: β for hb/hi=1, non-cavitating.

hb/hi=1  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 40.892 40.152 39.169 38.012 36.727
18 º 39.024 38.380 37.483 36.402 35.184
21 º 37.355 36.781 35.947 34.924 33.756
15
24 º 35.847 35.321 34.534 33.552 32.423
27 º 34.468 33.975 33.220 32.269 31.166
30 º 33.196 32.723 31.989 31.058 29.973
15 º 37.967 36.937 35.707 34.334 32.854
18 º 36.187 35.250 34.100 32.795 31.372
21 º 34.564 33.696 32.606 31.353 29.974
30
24 º 33.072 32.255 31.209 29.994 28.648
27 º 31.690 30.907 29.893 28.705 27.382
30 º 30.401 29.640 28.646 27.476 26.166
15 º 33.389 32.254 30.936 29.481 27.919
18 º 31.792 30.726 29.467 28.061 26.539
21 º 30.326 29.310 28.092 26.720 25.224
45
24 º 28.969 27.984 26.793 25.442 23.963
27 º 27.700 26.733 25.557 24.218 22.745
30 º 26.503 25.543 24.373 23.036 21.562
15 º 28.220 26.928 25.482 23.917 22.253
18 º 26.813 25.569 24.160 22.623 20.978
21 º 25.500 24.287 22.901 21.379 19.742
60
24 º 24.264 23.067 21.692 20.174 18.535
27 º 23.091 21.897 20.522 18.999 17.350
30 º 21.967 20.767 19.382 17.845 16.177

The shear angle  as a function of the blade angle , the angle of internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle
, for the non-cavitating cutting process, for hb/hi=1.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-21 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table D-2: β for hb/hi=2, non-cavitating.

hb/hi=2  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 41.128 40.402 39.427 38.273 36.986
18 º 39.239 38.609 37.720 36.643 35.424
21 º 37.554 36.993 36.167 35.147 33.979
15 º
24 º 36.030 35.517 34.738 33.760 32.630
27 º 34.638 34.158 33.410 32.462 31.358
30 º 33.354 32.893 32.167 31.238 30.152
15 º 39.129 37.939 36.562 35.056 33.457
18 º 37.223 36.144 34.859 33.429 31.894
21 º 35.458 34.468 33.258 31.891 30.408
30 º
24 º 33.820 32.899 31.748 30.432 28.992
27 º 32.293 31.425 30.320 29.043 27.637
30 º 30.864 30.035 28.965 27.718 26.336
15 º 33.483 32.334 30.991 29.508 27.918
18 º 31.743 30.679 29.408 27.985 26.444
21 º 30.142 29.141 27.925 26.547 25.043
45 º
24 º 28.660 27.704 26.527 25.182 23.705
27 º 27.278 26.353 25.202 23.879 22.420
30 º 25.982 25.074 23.939 22.630 21.179
15 º 27.692 26.533 25.186 23.694 22.085
18 º 26.156 25.057 23.759 22.307 20.729
21 º 24.744 23.683 22.418 20.991 19.432
60 º
24 º 23.432 22.394 21.147 19.733 18.180
27 º 22.203 21.173 19.932 18.520 16.965
30 º 21.039 20.008 18.763 17.344 15.776

The shear angle  as a function of the blade angle , the angle of internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle
, for the non-cavitating cutting process, for hb/hi=2.

Page A-22 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Shear Angle β Non-Cavitating.

Table D-3: β for hb/hi=3, non-cavitating.

hb/hi=3  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 42.346 41.502 40.418 39.164 37.786
18 º 40.414 39.674 38.681 37.507 36.198
21 º 38.673 38.010 37.086 35.973 34.718
15 º
24 º 37.087 36.481 35.609 34.542 33.328
27 º 35.631 35.064 34.230 33.197 32.013
30 º 34.283 33.742 32.934 31.926 30.763
15 º 40.176 38.793 37.257 35.619 33.909
18 º 38.242 36.978 35.537 33.977 32.331
21 º 36.421 35.258 33.900 32.407 30.817
30 º
24 º 34.711 33.631 32.341 30.906 29.364
27 º 33.103 32.090 30.858 29.470 27.968
30 º 31.590 30.631 29.444 28.095 26.625
15 º 35.406 33.895 32.248 30.509 28.703
18 º 33.548 32.142 30.578 28.907 27.156
21 º 31.788 30.472 28.981 27.368 25.665
45 º
24 º 30.126 28.885 27.455 25.891 24.230
27 º 28.557 27.376 25.996 24.474 22.845
30 º 27.075 25.941 24.600 23.111 21.509
15 º 28.252 26.972 25.516 23.930 22.241
18 º 26.613 25.406 24.010 22.472 20.823
21 º 25.094 23.940 22.588 21.086 19.464
60 º
24 º 23.677 22.560 21.238 19.760 18.156
27 º 22.348 21.253 19.950 18.485 16.890
30 º 21.092 20.008 18.713 17.254 15.600

The shear angle  as a function of the blade angle , the angle of internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle
, for the non-cavitating cutting process, for hb/hi=3.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-23 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-24 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Coefficient c1.

Appendix E: The Coefficient c1.

Table E-1: c1 for hb/hi=1.

hb/hi=1  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 0.104 0.118 0.132 0.146 0.162
18 º 0.119 0.134 0.150 0.167 0.186
21 º 0.133 0.150 0.169 0.189 0.210
15 º
24 º 0.147 0.167 0.188 0.211 0.236
27 º 0.162 0.184 0.209 0.235 0.264
30 º 0.177 0.202 0.229 0.259 0.292
15 º 0.175 0.203 0.234 0.268 0.306
18 º 0.195 0.227 0.261 0.300 0.343
21 º 0.215 0.251 0.290 0.334 0.384
30 º
24 º 0.236 0.276 0.320 0.370 0.427
27 º 0.257 0.302 0.352 0.409 0.474
30 º 0.279 0.329 0.385 0.450 0.525
15 º 0.254 0.304 0.360 0.425 0.502
18 º 0.279 0.334 0.398 0.472 0.560
21 º 0.305 0.367 0.438 0.523 0.624
45 º
24 º 0.332 0.401 0.482 0.578 0.695
27 º 0.360 0.437 0.529 0.639 0.774
30 º 0.390 0.477 0.580 0.706 0.863
15 º 0.360 0.445 0.547 0.671 0.826
18 º 0.393 0.488 0.604 0.746 0.928
21 º 0.428 0.535 0.666 0.831 1.045
60 º
24 º 0.466 0.587 0.736 0.928 1.180
27 º 0.507 0.643 0.815 1.039 1.341
30 º 0.553 0.707 0.905 1.169 1.534

The dimensionless force c1in the direction of the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle , for hb/hi=1

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-25 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table E-2: c1 for hb/hi=2.

hb/hi=2  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 0.106 0.119 0.133 0.148 0.163
18 º 0.120 0.135 0.152 0.169 0.187
21 º 0.135 0.152 0.171 0.191 0.213
15 º
24 º 0.149 0.169 0.191 0.214 0.239
27 º 0.164 0.187 0.211 0.237 0.267
30 º 0.179 0.205 0.232 0.262 0.296
15 º 0.185 0.214 0.246 0.281 0.320
18 º 0.207 0.240 0.276 0.317 0.362
21 º 0.230 0.267 0.308 0.354 0.407
30 º
24 º 0.254 0.296 0.342 0.395 0.455
27 º 0.278 0.325 0.378 0.437 0.507
30 º 0.303 0.356 0.415 0.483 0.563
15 º 0.282 0.335 0.396 0.466 0.547
18 º 0.313 0.373 0.441 0.521 0.616
21 º 0.345 0.412 0.490 0.582 0.692
45 º
24 º 0.379 0.454 0.543 0.648 0.775
27 º 0.414 0.499 0.600 0.721 0.869
30 º 0.452 0.547 0.662 0.801 0.974
15 º 0.415 0.509 0.622 0.760 0.932
18 º 0.458 0.565 0.693 0.853 1.056
21 º 0.504 0.625 0.772 0.958 1.197
60 º
24 º 0.554 0.690 0.860 1.077 1.362
27 º 0.607 0.762 0.958 1.213 1.556
30 º 0.665 0.843 1.070 1.372 1.787

The dimensionless force c1in the direction of the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle , for hb/hi=2

Page A-26 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Coefficient c1.

Table E-3: c1 for hb/hi=3.

hb/hi=3  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 0.105 0.119 0.133 0.148 0.164
18 º 0.120 0.135 0.152 0.169 0.188
21 º 0.135 0.152 0.171 0.192 0.214
15 º
24 º 0.150 0.170 0.191 0.215 0.240
27 º 0.165 0.188 0.212 0.239 0.268
30 º 0.180 0.206 0.234 0.264 0.298
15 º 0.185 0.215 0.247 0.282 0.322
18 º 0.208 0.241 0.278 0.318 0.364
21 º 0.232 0.269 0.310 0.357 0.410
30 º
24 º 0.256 0.298 0.345 0.398 0.459
27 º 0.280 0.328 0.381 0.441 0.511
30 º 0.306 0.359 0.419 0.488 0.569
15 º 0.290 0.345 0.408 0.480 0.565
18 º 0.324 0.386 0.457 0.541 0.640
21 º 0.359 0.429 0.511 0.607 0.722
45 º
24 º 0.396 0.476 0.568 0.679 0.813
27 º 0.436 0.525 0.631 0.758 0.914
30 º 0.478 0.579 0.699 0.846 1.029
15 º 0.439 0.538 0.657 0.802 0.983
18 º 0.489 0.601 0.737 0.906 1.120
21 º 0.542 0.670 0.826 1.024 1.278
60 º
24 º 0.599 0.744 0.926 1.157 1.461
27 º 0.660 0.827 1.037 1.310 1.676
30 º 0.728 0.918 1.163 1.487 1.933

The dimensionless force c1in the direction of the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle , for hb/hi=3

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-27 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-28 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Coefficient c2.

Appendix F: The Coefficient c2.

Table F-1: c2 for hb/hi=1.

hb/hi=1  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 0.113 0.137 0.161 0.187 0.215
18 º 0.110 0.134 0.159 0.186 0.215
21 º 0.106 0.130 0.156 0.184 0.214
15 º
24 º 0.101 0.126 0.152 0.181 0.213
27 º 0.096 0.121 0.148 0.178 0.211
30 º 0.090 0.116 0.143 0.174 0.208
15 º 0.117 0.146 0.177 0.211 0.249
18 º 0.110 0.139 0.171 0.206 0.246
21 º 0.103 0.132 0.164 0.200 0.241
30 º
24 º 0.094 0.123 0.156 0.193 0.235
27 º 0.084 0.114 0.147 0.184 0.228
30 º 0.074 0.103 0.136 0.174 0.218
15 º 0.101 0.130 0.164 0.202 0.247
18 º 0.090 0.119 0.152 0.191 0.237
21 º 0.078 0.106 0.139 0.178 0.224
45 º
24 º 0.064 0.092 0.124 0.162 0.208
27 º 0.049 0.075 0.106 0.143 0.188
30 º 0.032 0.056 0.085 0.120 0.164
15 º 0.060 0.084 0.112 0.146 0.189
18 º 0.041 0.063 0.088 0.120 0.160
21 º 0.021 0.039 0.061 0.088 0.124
60 º
24 º -0.003 0.011 0.028 0.050 0.078
27 º -0.030 -0.021 -0.011 0.003 0.021
30 º -0.061 -0.059 -0.057 -0.055 -0.053

The dimensionless force c2perpendicular to the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle , for hb/hi=1

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-29 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table F-2: c2 for hb/hi=2.

hb/hi=2  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 0.113 0.136 0.161 0.187 0.215
18 º 0.109 0.133 0.159 0.186 0.216
21 º 0.105 0.130 0.156 0.184 0.215
15 º
24 º 0.101 0.126 0.153 0.182 0.214
27 º 0.095 0.121 0.148 0.178 0.212
30 º 0.089 0.115 0.143 0.174 0.209
15 º 0.113 0.143 0.174 0.209 0.249
18 º 0.105 0.135 0.168 0.204 0.245
21 º 0.096 0.126 0.160 0.197 0.239
30 º
24 º 0.086 0.116 0.150 0.188 0.232
27 º 0.075 0.105 0.139 0.178 0.223
30 º 0.062 0.092 0.127 0.166 0.212
15 º 0.092 0.123 0.158 0.199 0.247
18 º 0.078 0.109 0.144 0.185 0.234
21 º 0.062 0.092 0.127 0.168 0.217
45 º
24 º 0.044 0.073 0.107 0.148 0.197
27 º 0.023 0.051 0.084 0.124 0.173
30 º 0.001 0.027 0.058 0.096 0.143
15 º 0.042 0.068 0.099 0.137 0.184
18 º 0.017 0.040 0.069 0.104 0.148
21 º -0.012 0.008 0.033 0.063 0.103
60 º
24 º -0.044 -0.029 -0.010 0.015 0.046
27 º -0.081 -0.071 -0.060 -0.045 -0.025
30 º -0.123 -0.121 -0.120 -0.118 -0.116

The dimensionless force c2perpendicular to the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle , for hb/hi=2

Page A-30 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Coefficient c2.

Table F-3: c2 for hb/hi=3.

hb/hi=3  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 0.113 0.137 0.161 0.188 0.216
18 º 0.110 0.134 0.159 0.187 0.216
21 º 0.105 0.130 0.156 0.185 0.216
15 º
24 º 0.101 0.126 0.153 0.182 0.214
27 º 0.096 0.121 0.149 0.179 0.212
30 º 0.090 0.116 0.144 0.175 0.210
15 º 0.113 0.142 0.174 0.209 0.248
18 º 0.105 0.135 0.167 0.204 0.244
21 º 0.096 0.126 0.159 0.196 0.239
30 º
24 º 0.085 0.116 0.149 0.188 0.231
27 º 0.074 0.104 0.138 0.177 0.222
30 º 0.061 0.091 0.125 0.165 0.211
15 º 0.089 0.121 0.156 0.197 0.246
18 º 0.073 0.105 0.140 0.182 0.232
21 º 0.056 0.086 0.122 0.163 0.214
45 º
24 º 0.035 0.065 0.100 0.141 0.192
27 º 0.012 0.041 0.074 0.115 0.164
30 º -0.013 0.013 0.045 0.083 0.131
15 º 0.032 0.058 0.090 0.129 0.177
18 º 0.002 0.026 0.055 0.091 0.136
21 º -0.031 -0.011 0.014 0.045 0.085
60 º
24 º -0.069 -0.054 -0.035 -0.011 0.021
27 º -0.112 -0.104 -0.093 -0.079 -0.059
30 º -0.162 -0.162 -0.162 -0.162 -0.162

The dimensionless force c2perpendicular to the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle , for hb/hi=3

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-31 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-32 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Coefficient a1.

Appendix G: The Coefficient a1.

Table G-1: a1 for hb/hi=1.

hb/hi=1  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 0.525 0.520 0.515 0.509 0.503
18 º 0.520 0.516 0.510 0.505 0.498
21 º 0.516 0.511 0.506 0.500 0.494
15 º
24 º 0.511 0.507 0.502 0.496 0.490
27 º 0.507 0.503 0.498 0.492 0.485
30 º 0.503 0.498 0.493 0.487 0.481
15 º 0.526 0.522 0.517 0.512 0.506
18 º 0.523 0.519 0.514 0.509 0.503
21 º 0.520 0.516 0.511 0.506 0.500
30 º
24 º 0.517 0.512 0.508 0.502 0.497
27 º 0.514 0.509 0.504 0.499 0.493
30 º 0.510 0.506 0.501 0.496 0.490
15 º 0.534 0.530 0.525 0.520 0.514
18 º 0.531 0.527 0.522 0.517 0.511
21 º 0.528 0.524 0.519 0.514 0.508
45 º
24 º 0.525 0.521 0.516 0.511 0.505
27 º 0.523 0.518 0.513 0.508 0.501
30 º 0.520 0.515 0.510 0.504 0.498
15 º 0.535 0.528 0.521 0.513 0.505
18 º 0.530 0.524 0.517 0.509 0.500
21 º 0.526 0.519 0.512 0.504 0.494
60 º
24 º 0.521 0.515 0.507 0.498 0.489
27 º 0.517 0.510 0.502 0.493 0.483
30 º 0.512 0.505 0.497 0.487 0.477

The weigh factor a1, for the determination of the weighted average permeability km, as a function of the blade
angle α, the angle of internal friction φ, the soil/interface friction angle δ, for hb/hi=1

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-33 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table G-2: a1 for hb/hi=2.

hb/hi=2  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 0.522 0.518 0.513 0.507 0.501
18 º 0.518 0.514 0.509 0.503 0.497
21 º 0.514 0.510 0.505 0.499 0.493
15 º
24 º 0.510 0.506 0.501 0.495 0.489
27 º 0.506 0.502 0.497 0.491 0.485
30 º 0.502 0.498 0.493 0.487 0.481
15 º 0.531 0.526 0.521 0.516 0.511
18 º 0.527 0.523 0.518 0.513 0.508
21 º 0.524 0.520 0.515 0.510 0.505
30 º
24 º 0.521 0.517 0.512 0.507 0.501
27 º 0.518 0.514 0.509 0.504 0.498
30 º 0.514 0.510 0.506 0.500 0.495
15 º 0.554 0.550 0.546 0.541 0.536
18 º 0.552 0.548 0.544 0.539 0.534
21 º 0.550 0.546 0.542 0.537 0.532
45 º
24 º 0.548 0.544 0.539 0.535 0.529
27 º 0.546 0.542 0.537 0.532 0.527
30 º 0.544 0.540 0.535 0.530 0.524
15 º 0.575 0.569 0.563 0.556 0.549
18 º 0.571 0.566 0.559 0.552 0.545
21 º 0.568 0.562 0.556 0.549 0.541
60 º
24 º 0.565 0.559 0.552 0.545 0.536
27 º 0.561 0.555 0.548 0.541 0.532
30 º 0.558 0.552 0.544 0.536 0.527

The weigh factor a1, for the determination of the weighted average permeability km, as a function of the blade
angle α, the angle of internal friction φ, the soil/interface friction angle δ, for hb/hi=2

Page A-34 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Coefficient a1.

Table G-3: a1 for hb/hi=3.

hb/hi=3  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 0.522 0.517 0.512 0.507 0.501
18 º 0.518 0.513 0.508 0.503 0.497
21 º 0.514 0.509 0.504 0.499 0.493
15 º
24 º 0.510 0.505 0.500 0.495 0.489
27 º 0.506 0.501 0.497 0.491 0.485
30 º 0.502 0.498 0.493 0.487 0.480
15 º 0.534 0.529 0.524 0.519 0.514
18 º 0.531 0.526 0.521 0.516 0.511
21 º 0.528 0.523 0.519 0.513 0.508
30 º
24 º 0.525 0.520 0.516 0.511 0.505
27 º 0.522 0.517 0.513 0.508 0.502
30 º 0.519 0.514 0.510 0.504 0.499
15 º 0.552 0.548 0.544 0.540 0.536
18 º 0.550 0.547 0.543 0.539 0.534
21 º 0.549 0.545 0.541 0.537 0.532
45 º
24 º 0.547 0.543 0.539 0.535 0.531
27 º 0.545 0.542 0.538 0.533 0.529
30 º 0.544 0.540 0.536 0.531 0.527
15 º 0.580 0.575 0.570 0.565 0.559
18 º 0.578 0.573 0.568 0.563 0.557
21 º 0.576 0.571 0.566 0.560 0.554
60 º
24 º 0.573 0.569 0.564 0.558 0.551
27 º 0.571 0.566 0.561 0.555 0.548
30 º 0.569 0.564 0.558 0.552 0.545

The weigh factor a1, for the determination of the weighted average permeability km, as a function of the blade
angle α, the angle of internal friction φ, the soil/interface friction angle δ, for hb/hi=3

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-35 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-36 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Shear Angle β Cavitating.

Appendix H: The Shear Angle β Cavitating.

Table H-1: β for hb/hi=1, cavitating.

hb/hi=1  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 37.217 37.520 37.355 36.831 36.026
18 º 34.461 34.854 34.790 34.370 33.669
21 º 32.163 32.598 32.594 32.243 31.613
15 º
24 º 30.212 30.661 30.689 30.379 29.796
27 º 28.530 28.973 29.012 28.726 28.173
30 º 27.060 27.483 27.520 27.243 26.707
15 º 39.766 39.060 38.014 36.718 35.232
18 º 37.341 36.757 35.823 34.628 33.233
21 º 35.196 34.696 33.844 32.725 31.399
30 º
24 º 33.280 32.837 32.041 30.977 29.704
27 º 31.554 31.145 30.387 29.363 28.127
30 º 29.985 29.593 28.859 27.860 26.650
15 º 36.853 35.599 34.097 32.412 30.591
18 º 34.768 33.616 32.202 30.594 28.839
21 º 32.866 31.789 30.441 28.892 27.188
45 º
24 º 31.119 30.094 28.794 27.288 25.623
27 º 29.502 28.512 27.246 25.770 24.132
30 º 27.996 27.026 25.781 24.325 22.705
15 º 31.992 30.395 28.608 26.683 24.654
18 º 30.155 28.634 26.911 25.039 23.055
21 º 28.444 26.979 25.303 23.471 21.520
60 º
24 º 26.841 25.414 23.772 21.968 20.040
27 º 25.330 23.927 22.306 20.520 18.605
30 º 23.897 22.506 20.896 19.118 17.208

The shear angle  as a function of the blade angle , the angle of internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle
, for the cavitating cutting process, for hb/hi=1.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-37 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table H-2: β for hb/hi=2, cavitating.

hb/hi=2  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 28.724 29.560 29.957 29.994 29.733
18 º 26.332 27.162 27.586 27.670 27.472
21 º 24.420 25.221 25.643 25.747 25.582
15 º
24 º 22.849 23.608 24.014 24.120 23.968
27 º 21.528 22.240 22.621 22.716 22.566
30 º 20.396 21.059 21.407 21.485 21.329
15 º 33.398 33.367 32.937 32.198 31.215
18 º 30.972 31.019 30.677 30.027 29.134
21 º 28.922 29.011 28.721 28.131 27.299
30 º
24 º 27.161 27.265 27.004 26.451 25.659
27 º 25.622 25.725 25.476 24.944 24.177
30 º 24.259 24.349 24.101 23.576 22.823
15 º 32.378 31.721 30.741 29.516 28.100
18 º 30.207 29.642 28.751 27.610 26.271
21 º 28.308 27.801 26.970 25.887 24.605
45 º
24 º 26.624 26.149 25.357 24.314 23.070
27 º 25.110 24.652 23.881 22.862 21.643
30 º 23.736 23.280 22.518 21.512 20.306
15 º 28.906 27.806 26.445 24.886 23.174
18 º 26.993 25.974 24.686 23.194 21.540
21 º 25.276 24.309 23.072 21.626 20.014
60 º
24 º 23.716 22.781 21.576 20.159 18.574
27 º 22.283 21.364 20.176 18.776 17.204
30 º 20.955 20.038 18.855 17.461 15.892

The shear angle  as a function of the blade angle , the angle of internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle
, for the cavitating cutting process, for hb/hi=2.

Page A-38 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Shear Angle β Cavitating.

Table H-3: β for hb/hi=3, cavitating.

hb/hi=3  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 24.046 25.019 25.609 25.872 25.856
18 º 21.976 22.900 23.476 23.751 23.765
21 º 20.350 21.217 21.763 22.030 22.053
15 º
24 º 19.031 19.838 20.348 20.596 20.615
27 º 17.932 18.680 19.150 19.374 19.381
30 º 16.996 17.687 18.117 18.313 18.303
15 º 29.286 29.575 29.466 29.038 28.353
18 º 26.992 27.319 27.267 26.908 26.297
21 º 25.100 25.435 25.410 25.090 24.525
30 º
24 º 23.504 23.828 23.811 23.511 22.973
27 º 22.130 22.433 22.410 22.116 21.592
30 º 20.928 21.202 21.165 20.867 20.346
15 º 29.236 28.919 28.257 27.325 26.179
18 º 27.101 26.853 26.266 25.411 24.339
21 º 25.277 25.065 24.524 23.719 22.699
45 º
24 º 23.690 23.493 22.977 22.203 21.215
27 º 22.288 22.091 21.584 20.825 19.857
30 º 21.031 20.823 20.315 19.561 18.600
15 º 26.619 25.832 24.754 23.450 21.967
18 º 24.711 23.995 22.987 21.750 20.329
21 º 23.037 22.362 21.398 20.206 18.826
60 º
24 º 21.543 20.889 19.951 18.785 17.431
27 º 20.193 19.545 18.617 17.464 16.121
30 º 18.958 18.303 17.374 16.222 14.880

The shear angle  as a function of the blade angle , the angle of internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle
, for the cavitating cutting process, for hb/hi=3.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-39 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-40 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Coefficient d1.

Appendix I: The Coefficient d1.

Table I-1: d1 for hb/hi=1.

hb/hi=1  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 1.390 1.505 1.625 1.753 1.890
18 º 1.626 1.766 1.913 2.069 2.238
21 º 1.860 2.028 2.205 2.393 2.597
15 º
24 º 2.092 2.291 2.501 2.726 2.970
27 º 2.324 2.557 2.803 3.068 3.358
30 º 2.556 2.826 3.112 3.423 3.764
15 º 1.206 1.374 1.559 1.766 2.000
18 º 1.381 1.575 1.791 2.033 2.309
21 º 1.559 1.783 2.033 2.315 2.638
30 º
24 º 1.741 1.998 2.286 2.613 2.991
27 º 1.928 2.222 2.552 2.930 3.370
30 º 2.121 2.455 2.833 3.269 3.781
15 º 1.419 1.688 2.000 2.365 2.800
18 º 1.598 1.905 2.262 2.685 3.192
21 º 1.784 2.133 2.543 3.032 3.625
45 º
24 º 1.980 2.376 2.846 3.411 4.105
27 º 2.186 2.636 3.174 3.829 4.642
30 º 2.404 2.916 3.533 4.292 5.249
15 º 1.879 2.331 2.883 3.570 4.444
18 º 2.099 2.615 3.252 4.054 5.090
21 º 2.336 2.925 3.661 4.602 5.837
60 º
24 º 2.593 3.267 4.120 5.228 6.711
27 º 2.872 3.645 4.639 5.952 7.746
30 º 3.179 4.069 5.232 6.798 8.991

The dimensionless force d1, in the direction of the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle , for hb/hi=1.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-41 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table I-2: d1 for hb/hi=2.

hb/hi=2  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 2.295 2.460 2.627 2.801 2.984
18 º 2.683 2.889 3.098 3.315 3.545
21 º 3.062 3.313 3.569 3.836 4.119
15 º
24 º 3.435 3.735 4.042 4.364 4.707
27 º 3.803 4.156 4.520 4.903 5.313
30 º 4.169 4.579 5.005 5.455 5.941
15 º 1.729 1.934 2.156 2.401 2.674
18 º 1.997 2.239 2.503 2.794 3.122
21 º 2.267 2.550 2.860 3.205 3.593
30 º
24 º 2.539 2.868 3.230 3.634 4.093
27 º 2.815 3.195 3.614 4.085 4.625
30 º 3.097 3.532 4.015 4.563 5.195
15 º 1.836 2.142 2.492 2.898 3.377
18 º 2.093 2.447 2.854 3.330 3.897
21 º 2.357 2.765 3.238 3.794 4.462
45 º
24 º 2.631 3.100 3.646 4.296 5.084
27 º 2.917 3.454 4.085 4.843 5.772
30 º 3.217 3.830 4.558 5.442 6.541
15 º 2.269 2.764 3.364 4.104 5.038
18 º 2.567 3.139 3.837 4.710 5.827
21 º 2.883 3.543 4.357 5.388 6.728
60 º
24 º 3.221 3.982 4.933 6.154 7.771
27 º 3.586 4.464 5.578 7.031 8.995
30 º 3.982 4.998 6.306 8.047 10.453

The dimensionless force d1, in the direction of the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle  , for hb/hi=2.

Page A-42 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Coefficient d1.

Table I-3: d1 for hb/hi=3.

hb/hi=3  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 3.145 3.362 3.578 3.799 4.028
18 º 3.672 3.945 4.218 4.497 4.789
21 º 4.185 4.519 4.855 5.200 5.562
15 º
24 º 4.687 5.087 5.492 5.910 6.351
27 º 5.180 5.652 6.132 6.631 7.159
30 º 5.667 6.216 6.778 7.366 7.993
15 º 2.216 2.458 2.717 3.000 3.312
18 º 2.567 2.858 3.169 3.510 3.889
21 º 2.919 3.262 3.632 4.038 4.492
30 º
24 º 3.272 3.673 4.107 4.587 5.127
27 º 3.629 4.093 4.599 5.162 5.799
30 º 3.991 4.525 5.110 5.766 6.515
15 º 2.222 2.566 2.954 3.402 3.925
18 º 2.549 2.951 3.408 3.938 4.562
21 º 2.883 3.350 3.885 4.509 5.252
45 º
24 º 3.228 3.768 4.391 5.123 6.004
27 º 3.585 4.207 4.929 5.788 6.831
30 º 3.958 4.671 5.508 6.513 7.750
15 º 2.632 3.170 3.817 4.610 5.605
18 º 2.999 3.627 4.387 5.329 6.526
21 º 3.387 4.116 5.008 6.128 7.572
60 º
24 º 3.799 4.645 5.692 7.025 8.774
27 º 4.240 5.222 6.453 8.044 10.175
30 º 4.717 5.856 7.307 9.217 11.833

The dimensionless force d1, in the direction of the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle  , for hb/hi=3.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-43 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-44 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Coefficient d2.

Appendix J: The Coefficient d2.

Table J-1: d2 for hb/hi=1.

hb/hi=1  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º 0.409 0.608 0.816 1.037 1.274
18 º 0.312 0.528 0.754 0.995 1.255
21 º 0.205 0.436 0.680 0.939 1.220
15 º
24 º 0.087 0.333 0.592 0.870 1.172
27 º -0.040 0.219 0.493 0.788 1.110
30 º -0.175 0.095 0.382 0.692 1.034
15 º 0.474 0.642 0.828 1.035 1.269
18 º 0.412 0.588 0.782 1.000 1.249
21 º 0.341 0.523 0.725 0.954 1.216
30 º
24 º 0.261 0.447 0.657 0.895 1.169
27 º 0.171 0.361 0.576 0.822 1.108
30 º 0.071 0.264 0.483 0.735 1.031
15 º 0.398 0.553 0.733 0.945 1.196
18 º 0.325 0.481 0.664 0.879 1.138
21 º 0.241 0.396 0.579 0.797 1.061
45 º
24 º 0.145 0.298 0.478 0.696 0.962
27 º 0.037 0.183 0.358 0.572 0.836
30 º -0.086 0.051 0.217 0.421 0.678
15 º 0.195 0.317 0.465 0.650 0.885
18 º 0.083 0.193 0.329 0.500 0.721
21 º -0.047 0.047 0.164 0.313 0.510
60 º
24 º -0.198 -0.126 -0.036 0.081 0.238
27 º -0.372 -0.331 -0.278 -0.208 -0.113
30 º -0.575 -0.574 -0.573 -0.572 -0.570

The dimensionless force d2, perpendicular to the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle , for hb/hi=1.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-45 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table J-2: d2 for hb/hi=2.

hb/hi=2  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º -0.024 0.262 0.552 0.853 1.170
18 º -0.253 0.064 0.387 0.722 1.076
21 º -0.496 -0.151 0.202 0.569 0.959
15 º
24 º -0.752 -0.381 -0.001 0.396 0.820
27 º -1.018 -0.626 -0.221 0.204 0.660
30 º -1.294 -0.884 -0.458 -0.007 0.479
15 º 0.266 0.471 0.693 0.938 1.211
18 º 0.136 0.354 0.592 0.854 1.149
21 º -0.008 0.222 0.473 0.752 1.067
30 º
24 º -0.165 0.074 0.337 0.631 0.965
27 º -0.336 -0.089 0.183 0.490 0.841
30 º -0.520 -0.268 0.011 0.327 0.693
15 º 0.216 0.393 0.595 0.830 1.107
18 º 0.087 0.267 0.475 0.718 1.007
21 º -0.059 0.123 0.334 0.582 0.880
45 º
24 º -0.221 -0.040 0.170 0.420 0.723
27 º -0.401 -0.226 -0.020 0.227 0.529
30 º -0.600 -0.435 -0.240 -0.002 0.293
15 º -0.009 0.124 0.285 0.484 0.735
18 º -0.182 -0.060 0.089 0.275 0.513
21 º -0.379 -0.274 -0.145 0.019 0.233
60 º
24 º -0.603 -0.523 -0.422 -0.293 -0.122
27 º -0.859 -0.812 -0.753 -0.676 -0.571
30 º -1.151 -1.151 -1.150 -1.148 -1.146

The dimensionless force d2, perpendicular to the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle , for hb/hi=2.

Page A-46 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Coefficient d2.

Table J-3: d2 for hb/hi=3.

hb/hi=3  32 º 37 º 42 º 47 º 52 º
 
15 º -0.552 -0.177 0.198 0.581 0.979
18 º -0.921 -0.501 -0.080 0.350 0.800
21 º -1.306 -0.846 -0.384 0.092 0.590
15 º
24 º -1.703 -1.208 -0.708 -0.191 0.353
27 º -2.111 -1.586 -1.053 -0.498 0.090
30 º -2.528 -1.979 -1.417 -0.828 -0.201
15 º 0.020 0.263 0.522 0.805 1.118
18 º -0.182 0.079 0.360 0.667 1.009
21 º -0.402 -0.124 0.176 0.505 0.873
30 º
24 º -0.638 -0.346 -0.030 0.319 0.711
27 º -0.890 -0.588 -0.259 0.107 0.521
30 º -1.158 -0.850 -0.511 -0.132 0.301
15 º 0.017 0.215 0.440 0.698 1.001
18 º -0.171 0.034 0.267 0.537 0.856
21 º -0.379 -0.171 0.068 0.346 0.677
45 º
24 º -0.608 -0.400 -0.160 0.122 0.460
27 º -0.858 -0.656 -0.420 -0.141 0.199
30 º -1.133 -0.941 -0.717 -0.447 -0.114
15 º -0.221 -0.076 0.097 0.310 0.578
18 º -0.455 -0.321 -0.159 0.042 0.298
21 º -0.718 -0.602 -0.460 -0.282 -0.052
60 º
24 º -1.014 -0.925 -0.814 -0.673 -0.488
27 º -1.349 -1.297 -1.231 -1.147 -1.034
30 º -1.728 -1.727 -1.726 -1.724 -1.722

The dimensionless force d2, perpendicular to the cutting velocity, as a function of the blade angle , the angle of
internal friction , the soil/interface friction angle , for hb/hi=3.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-47 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-48 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Properties of the 200 μm Sand.

Appendix K: The Properties of the 200 μm Sand.

The sand in the old laboratory DE, with a d50 of 200 m, is examined for the following soil mechanical parameters:
1. The minimum and the maximum density, Table K-1: Pore percentages.
2. The dry critical density, Table K-1: Pore percentages.
3. The saturated critical density, Table K-1: Pore percentages. The permeability as a function of the density,
Table K-2: Permeability as a function of the porosity.
4. The angle of internal friction as a function of the density, Table K-4: The angle of internal friction as function
of the pore percentage.
5. The d50 as a function of the time, Table K-3: The d50 of the sand as function of the time.
6. The cone resistance per experiment.
7. The density in the test stand in combination with the cone resistance.

The points 7 and 8 need some explanation. With the aid of a Troxler density measuring set density measurements
are performed in situ, that is in the test stand. During each measurement the cone resistance is determined at the
same position. In this way it is possible to formulate a calibration formula for the density as a function of the cone
resistance. The result is:

6 5 .6
n  w ith : n in % , C p in k P a (K-1)
0 .0 8 2
Cp

In which the cone resistance is determined in a top layer of 18 cm, where the cone resistance was continuously
increasing and almost proportional with the depth. The value to be used in this equation is the cone resistance for
the 18 cm depth.

With the aid of this equation it was possible to determine the density for each cutting test from the cone resistance
measurements. The result was an average pore percentage of 38.53% over 367 tests.
By interpolating in Table K-2 it can be derived that a pore percentage of 38.53% corresponds to a permeability of
0.000165 m/s. By extrapolating in this table it can also be derived that the maximum pore percentage of 43.8%
corresponds to a permeability of approximately 0.00032 m/s. At the start of the cutting tests the pore percentage
was averaged 38%, which corresponds to a permeability of 0.00012 m/s.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-49 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table K-1: Pore percentages.

Minimum density 43.8%

Maximum density 32.7%
Dry critical density 39.9%
Saturated critical density 40.7%-41.7%
Initial density 38.5%

Table K-2: Permeability as a function of the porosity.

Pore percentage Permeability (m/s)

36.97% 0.000077
38.48% 0.000165
38.98% 0.000206
39.95% 0.000240
40.88% 0.000297
41.84% 0.000307
43.07% 0.000289
43.09% 0.000322

Table K-3: The d50 of the sand as function of the time.

Date d50 (mm)

22-09-1982 0.175
17-12-1984 0.180
02-01-1985 0.170
08-01-1985 0.200
14-01-1985 0.200
21-01-1985 0.200
28-01-1985 0.195
04-02-1985 0.205
26-02-1985 0.210

Page A-50 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Properties of the 200 μm Sand.

Table K-4: The angle of internal friction as function of the pore percentage.

Pore percentage Cell pressure kPa Angle of internal friction

Dry
43.8% 50 35.1º
41.2% 50 36.0º
39.9% 50 38.3º
Saturated undrained
43.8% 100 30.9º
42.1% 10 31.2º
42.1% 50 31.2º
42.1% 100 31.6º
42.2% 100 32.0º
41.8% 10 33.1º
41.3% 10 31.9º
41.2% 50 32.2º
41.1% 50 30.1º
41.1% 100 31.3º
41.1% 100 33.7º
41.0% 100 35.2º
40.5% 10 33.8º
40.3% 50 33.7º
40.4% 100 33.1º
39.8% 10 34.1º
39.2% 10 33.8º
39.2% 50 33.8º
39.2% 100 33.9º
38.2% 10 35.2º
38.1% 50 35.3º
38.1% 100 35.0º
37.3% 10 37.4º
37.0% 10 38.6º
37.0% 50 37.3º
36.9% 100 36.8º
36.2% 100 38.0º

Cumulative Grain Size Distribution

100

90

80

70
% Finer by Weight

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Grain Size in mm
V . Fine Fine Medium Coar s e V . Fine Fine Medium Coar s e V . Coar s e Gr ains P ebbles Cobbles B oulder s
Clay
Silt Sand Gr avel

Figure K-1: The PSD of the 200 μm sand.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-51 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-52 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Properties of the 105 μm Sand.

Appendix L: The Properties of the 105 μm Sand.

The sand in the new laboratory DE, with a d50 of 105 m, is examined for the following soil mechanical parameters:
1. The minimum and the maximum density, Table L-1: Pore percentages, indicated are the average measured
densities for the various blade angles.
2. The saturated critical density, Table L-1: Pore percentages, indicated are the average measured densities for
the various blade angles.
3. The permeability as a function of the density, Table L-2: Permeabilities, indicated are the average
permeabilities for the various blade angles.
4. The angle of internal friction as a function of the density, Table L-4: The angle of internal friction as a function
of the pore percentage.
5. The d50 as a function of the time, Table L-3: The d50 of the sand as a function of time.
6. The cone resistance per test.
7. The density in the test stand in combination with the cone resistance.

The points 6 and 7 need some explanation. As with the 200 m sand density measurements are performed in situ
with the aid of a Troxler density measuring set. The calibration formula for the 105 m sand is:

6 9 .9
n  w ith : n in % , C p in k P a (L-1)
0 .0 6 8
Cp

In which the cone resistance is determined in a top layer of 12 cm, where the cone resistance was continuously
increasing and almost proportional with the depth. The value to be used in this equation is the cone resistance for
the 12 cm depth.

With the aid of this equation it was possible to determine the density for each cutting test from the cone resistance
measurements. As, however, new sand was used, the density showed changed in time. The sand was looser in the
first tests than in the last tests. This resulted in different average initial densities for the different test series. The
tests with a 45 blade were performed first with an average pore percentage of 44.9%. The tests with the 60 blade
were performed with an average pore percentage of 44.2%. The tests with the 30 blade were performed with an
average pore percentage of 43.6%. Because of the consolidation of the sand a relatively large spread was found in
the first tests.
Table L-2 lists the permeabilities corresponding to the mentioned pore percentages. By extrapolation in Table L-2
a permeability of 0.00017 m/s is derived for the maximum pore percentage of 51.6%.
The sand bed is flushed after the linear tests because of the visibility in the water above the sand. In the tables it is
indicated which soil mechanical parameters are determined after the flushing of the sand bed.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-53 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table L-1: Pore percentages, indicated are the average measured densities for the various blade angles.

Minimum density 51.6%

Maximum density 38.3%
Initial density 30 º 43.6%
Initial density 45 º 44.9%
Initial density 60 º 44.2%
After the flushing
Minimum density 50.6%
Maximum density 37.7%
Saturated critical density 44.5%

Table L-2: Permeabilities, indicated are the average permeabilities for the various blade angles.

Pore percentage Permeability (m/s)

42.2% 0.000051
45.6% 0.000082
47.4% 0.000096
49.4% 0.000129
Initial
43.6% 0.000062
44.2% 0.000067
44.9% 0.000075
After the flushing
39.6% 0.000019
40.7% 0.000021
41.8% 0.000039
43.8% 0.000063
45.7% 0.000093
48.3% 0.000128

Page A-54 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Properties of the 105 μm Sand.

Table L-3: The d50 of the sand as a function of time.

Date d50 (mm)

06-08-1986 0.102
06-08-1986 0.097
06-08-1986 0.104
06-08-1986 0.129
06-08-1986 0.125
06-08-1986 0.123
29-08-1986 0.105
29-08-1986 0.106
29-08-1986 0.102
16-09-1986 0.111
16-09-1986 0.105
16-09-1986 0.107

Table L-4: The angle of internal friction as a function of the pore percentage.

Pore percentage Cell pressure kPa Angle of internal friction

Saturated undrained After the flushing
44.7% 100 33.5º
44.9% 200 33.3º
44.5% 400 32.8º
42.6% 100 35.0º
42.1% 200 35.5º
42.2% 400 34.8º
39.8% 100 38.6º
39.9% 200 38.3º
39.6% 400 37.9º

Cumulative Grain Size Distribution

100

90

80

70
% Finer by Weight

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Grain Size in mm
V . Fine Fine Medium Coar s e V . Fine Fine Medium Coar s e V . Coar s e Gr ains P ebbles Cobbles B oulder s
Clay
Silt Sand Gr avel

Figure L-1: The PSD of the 105 μm sand.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-55 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-56 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

Appendix M: Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

M.1 Pore pressures and cutting forces in 105 μm Sand

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e

0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t

Figure M-1: Dimensionless pore pressures, theory versus measurements.

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

10

9
P o r e P re s s u re (m .w .c .)

v c = 0 .3 m /s v c = 0 .4 m /s v c = 0 .5 m /s

Figure M-2: Measured absolute pore pressures.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-57 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

8 .0 0

7 .2 0

6 .4 0

5 .6 0
F h (k N )

4 .8 0

4 .0 0

3 .2 0

2 .4 0

1 .6 0

0 .8 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

5 .0 0

4 .5 0

4 .0 0

3 .5 0
F v (k N )

3 .0 0

2 .5 0

2 .0 0

1 .5 0

1 .0 0

0 .5 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t

Figure M-3: The cutting forces Fh and Fv, theory versus measurement.

The cutting forces on the blade. Experiments in 105 m sand, with α=30°, β=30º, φ=41º, δ=27º, ni=43.6%,
nmax=51.6%, ki=0.000062 m/s, kmax=0.000170 m/s, hi=100 mm, hb=100 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and a partial
cavitating cutting process.

Page A-58 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t

Figure M-4: Dimensionless pore pressures, theory versus measurements.

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

10

9
P o r e P re s s u re (m .w .c .)

v c = 0 .4 m /s v c = 0 .5 m /s v c = 0 .6 m /s v c = 0 .8 m /s

v c = 0 .9 m /s v c = 1 .1 m /s v c = 1 .2 m /s v c = 1 .3 m /s

Figure M-5: Measured absolute pore pressures.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-59 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

8 .0 0

7 .2 0

6 .4 0

5 .6 0
F h (k N )

4 .8 0

4 .0 0

3 .2 0

2 .4 0

1 .6 0

0 .8 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

1 .0 0

0 .9 0

0 .8 0

0 .7 0
F v (k N )

0 .6 0

0 .5 0

0 .4 0

0 .3 0

0 .2 0

0 .1 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t

Figure M-6: The cutting forces Fh and Fv, theory versus measurement.

The cutting forces on the blade. Experiments in 105 m sand, with α=45°, β=30º, φ=38º, δ=25º, ni=45.0%,
nmax=51.6%, ki=0.000075 m/s, kmax=0.000170 m/s, hi=70 mm, hb=100 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and a partial
cavitating cutting process.

Page A-60 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t

Figure M-7: Dimensionless pore pressures, theory versus measurements.

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

10

9
P o r e P re s s u re (m .w .c .)

v c = 0 .6 m /s v c = 0 .8 m /s v c = 0 .9 m /s v c = 1 .1 m /s

v c = 1 .2 m /s v c = 1 .3 m /s

Figure M-8: Measured absolute pore pressures.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-61 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

8 .0 0

7 .2 0

6 .4 0

5 .6 0
F h (k N )

4 .8 0

4 .0 0

3 .2 0

2 .4 0

1 .6 0

0 .8 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t

P a rtia l C a v ita tio n

0 .0 0

- 0 .1 0

- 0 .2 0

- 0 .3 0
F v (k N )

- 0 .4 0

- 0 .5 0

- 0 .6 0

- 0 .7 0

- 0 .8 0

- 0 .9 0

- 1 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t

Figure M-9: The cutting forces Fh and Fv, theory versus measurement.

The cutting forces on the blade. Experiments in 105 m sand, with α=60°, β=30º, φ=36º, δ=24º, ni=44.3%,
nmax=51.6%, ki=0.000067 m/s, kmax=0.000170 m/s, hi=58 mm, hb=100 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and a partial
cavitating cutting process.

Page A-62 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

M.2 Pore Pressures in 200 μm Sand.

N o C a v ita tio n
D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e 0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t - W e a r M e a s u re m e n t - N o W e a r

Figure M-10: α=30º, hi=33 mm, hb=100 mm.

The dimensionless water pore pressures on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=30°, β=30º, φ=38º,
δ=30º, ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=33 mm, hb=100 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6
m and a non-cavitating cutting process.

N o C a v ita tio n
D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e

0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t - W e a r M e a s u re m e n t - N o W e a r

Figure M-11: α=30º, hi=50 mm, hb=100 mm.

The dimensionless water pore pressures on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=30°, β=29º, φ=38º,
δ=30º, ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=50 mm, hb=100 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6
m and a non-cavitating cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-63 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

N o C a v ita tio n
0 .3 0

D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e
0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t - W e a r M e a s u re m e n t - N o W e a r

Figure M-12: α=30º, hi=100 mm, hb=100 mm.

The dimensionless water pore pressures on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=30°, β=29º, φ=38º,
δ=30º, ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=100 mm, hb=100 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6
m and a non-cavitating cutting process.

N o C a v ita tio n
D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e

0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t - W e a r M e a s u re m e n t - N o W e a r

Figure M-13: α=45º, hi=47 mm, hb=141 mm.

The dimensionless water pore pressures on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=45°, β=25º, φ=38º,
δ=30º, ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=47 mm, hb=141 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6
m and a non-cavitating cutting process.

Page A-64 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

N o C a v ita tio n

D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e
0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t - W e a r M e a s u re m e n t - N o W e a r

Figure M-14: α=45º, hi=70 mm, hb=141 mm.

The dimensionless water pore pressures on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=45°, β=24º, φ=38º,
δ=30º, ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=70 mm, hb=141 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6
m and a non-cavitating cutting process.

N o C a v ita tio n
D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e

0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t - W e a r M e a s u re m e n t - N o W e a r

Figure M-15: α=45º, hi=141 mm, hb=141 mm.

The dimensionless water pore pressures on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=45°, β=25º, φ=38º,
δ=30º, ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=141 mm, hb=141 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6
m and a non-cavitating cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-65 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

N o C a v ita tio n

D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e
0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t - W e a r M e a s u re m e n t - N o W e a r

Figure M-16: α=60º, hi=30 mm, hb=173 mm.

The dimensionless water pore pressures on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=60°, β=19º, φ=38º,
δ=30º, ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=30 mm, hb=173 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6
m and a non-cavitating cutting process.

N o C a v ita tio n
0 .3 0
D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t - W e a r M e a s u re m e n t - N o W e a r

Figure M-17: α=60º, hi=58 mm, hb=173 mm.

The dimensionless water pore pressures on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=60°, β=19º, φ=38º,
δ=30º, ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=58 mm, hb=173 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6
m and a non-cavitating cutting process.

Page A-66 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

N o C a v ita tio n
0 .3 0

D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e
0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t - W e a r M e a s u re m e n t - N o W e a r

Figure M-18: α=60º, hi=87 mm, hb=173 mm.

The dimensionless water pore pressures on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=60°, β=19º, φ=38º,
δ=30º, ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=87 mm, hb=173 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6
m and a non-cavitating cutting process.

N o C a v ita tio n
D im e n s io n le s s P o r e P r e s s u r e

0 .3 0

0 .2 7

0 .2 4

0 .2 1

0 .1 8

0 .1 5

0 .1 2

0 .0 9

0 .0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 0

T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t

Figure M-19: α=60º, hi=173 mm, hb=173 mm.

The dimensionless water pore pressures on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=60°, β=20º, φ=38º,
δ=30º, ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=173 mm, hb=173 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6
m and a non-cavitating cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-67 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-68 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

M.3 Cutting Forces in 200 μm Sand.

N o C a v ita tio n
2 .0 0

1 .8 0

1 .6 0

1 .4 0
F h (k N )

1 .2 0

1 .0 0

0 .8 0

0 .6 0

0 .4 0

0 .2 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

N o C a v ita tio n
1 .0 0

0 .9 0

0 .8 0

0 .7 0
F v (k N )

0 .6 0

0 .5 0

0 .4 0

0 .3 0

0 .2 0

0 .1 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

Figure M-20: α=30°, hi=33 mm, hb=100 mm.

The cutting forces Fh and Fv on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=30°, β=30º, φ=38º, δ=30º,
ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=33 mm, hb=100 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and
a non-cavitating cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-69 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

N o C a v ita tio n
2 .0 0

1 .8 0

1 .6 0

1 .4 0
F h (k N )

1 .2 0

1 .0 0

0 .8 0

0 .6 0

0 .4 0

0 .2 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

N o C a v ita tio n
1 .0 0

0 .9 0

0 .8 0

0 .7 0
F v (k N )

0 .6 0

0 .5 0

0 .4 0

0 .3 0

0 .2 0

0 .1 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

Figure M-21: α=30°, hi=50 mm, hb=100 mm.

The cutting forces Fh and Fv on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=30°, β=30º, φ=38º, δ=30º,
ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=50 mm, hb=100 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and
a non-cavitating cutting process.

Page A-70 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

N o C a v ita tio n
1 0 .0 0

9 .0 0

8 .0 0

7 .0 0
F h (k N )

6 .0 0

5 .0 0

4 .0 0

3 .0 0

2 .0 0

1 .0 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

N o C a v ita tio n
5 .0 0

4 .5 0

4 .0 0

3 .5 0
F v (k N )

3 .0 0

2 .5 0

2 .0 0

1 .5 0

1 .0 0

0 .5 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

Figure M-22: α=30°, hi=100 mm, hb=100 mm.

The cutting forces Fh and Fv on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=30°, β=30º, φ=38º, δ=30º,
ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=100 mm, hb=100 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and
a non-cavitating cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-71 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

N o C a v ita tio n
2 .5 0

2 .2 5

2 .0 0

1 .7 5
F h (k N )

1 .5 0

1 .2 5

1 .0 0

0 .7 5

0 .5 0

0 .2 5

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

N o C a v ita tio n
0 .5 0

0 .4 0

0 .3 0

0 .2 0
F v (k N )

0 .1 0

0 .0 0

- 0 .1 0

- 0 .2 0

- 0 .3 0

- 0 .4 0

- 0 .5 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

Figure M-23: α=45°, hi=47 mm, hb=141 mm.

The cutting forces Fh and Fv on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=45°, β=30º, φ=38º, δ=30º,
ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=47 mm, hb=141 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and
a non-cavitating cutting process.

Page A-72 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

N o C a v ita tio n
5 .0 0

4 .5 0

4 .0 0

3 .5 0
F h (k N )

3 .0 0

2 .5 0

2 .0 0

1 .5 0

1 .0 0

0 .5 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

N o C a v ita tio n
1 .5 0

1 .3 0

1 .1 0

0 .9 0
F v (k N )

0 .7 0

0 .5 0

0 .3 0

0 .1 0

- 0 .1 0

- 0 .3 0

- 0 .5 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

Figure M-24: α=45°, hi=70 mm, hb=141 mm.

The cutting forces Fh and Fv on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=45°, β=30º, φ=38º, δ=30º,
ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=70 mm, hb=141 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and
a non-cavitating cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-73 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

N o C a v ita tio n
1 0 .0 0

9 .0 0

8 .0 0

7 .0 0
F h (k N )

6 .0 0

5 .0 0

4 .0 0

3 .0 0

2 .0 0

1 .0 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

N o C a v ita tio n
2 .5 0

2 .2 0

1 .9 0

1 .6 0
F v (k N )

1 .3 0

1 .0 0

0 .7 0

0 .4 0

0 .1 0

- 0 .2 0

- 0 .5 0
0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

Figure M-25: α=45°, hi=141 mm, hb=141 mm.

The cutting forces Fh and Fv on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=45°, β=30º, φ=38º, δ=30º,
ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=141 mm, hb=141 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and
a non-cavitating cutting process.

Page A-74 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

N o C a v ita tio n
5 .0 0

4 .5 0

4 .0 0

3 .5 0
F h (k N )

3 .0 0

2 .5 0

2 .0 0

1 .5 0

1 .0 0

0 .5 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

N o C a v ita tio n
0 .5 0

0 .4 0

0 .3 0

0 .2 0
F v (k N )

0 .1 0

0 .0 0

- 0 .1 0

- 0 .2 0

- 0 .3 0

- 0 .4 0

- 0 .5 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

Figure M-26: α=60°, hi=58 mm, hb=173 mm.

The cutting forces Fh and Fv on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=45°, β=30º, φ=38º, δ=30º,
ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=58 mm, hb=173 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and
a non-cavitating cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-75 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

N o C a v ita tio n
1 0 .0 0

9 .0 0

8 .0 0

7 .0 0
F h (k N )

6 .0 0

5 .0 0

4 .0 0

3 .0 0

2 .0 0

1 .0 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

N o C a v ita tio n
1 .0 0

0 .8 0

0 .6 0

0 .4 0
F v (k N )

0 .2 0

0 .0 0

- 0 .2 0

- 0 .4 0

- 0 .6 0

- 0 .8 0

- 1 .0 0
0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2 .0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2 M e a s u re m e n t 3

Figure M-27: α=60°, hi=87 mm, hb=173 mm.

The cutting forces Fh and Fv on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=45°, β=30º, φ=38º, δ=30º,
ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=87 mm, hb=173 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and
a non-cavitating cutting process.

Page A-76 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Experiments in Water Saturated Sand.

N o C a v ita tio n
1 0 .0 0

9 .0 0

8 .0 0

7 .0 0
F h (k N )

6 .0 0

5 .0 0

4 .0 0

3 .0 0

2 .0 0

1 .0 0

0 .0 0
0 .0 0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 0 .1 5 0 .2 0 0 .2 5 0 .3 0 0 .3 5 0 .4 0 0 .4 5 0 .5 0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2

N o C a v ita tio n
1 .0 0

0 .8 0

0 .6 0

0 .4 0
F v (k N )

0 .2 0

0 .0 0

- 0 .2 0

- 0 .4 0

- 0 .6 0

- 0 .8 0

- 1 .0 0
0 .0 0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 0 .1 5 0 .2 0 0 .2 5 0 .3 0 0 .3 5 0 .4 0 0 .4 5 0 .5 0

v c ( m /s )
T h e o ry M e a s u re m e n t 1 M e a s u re m e n t 2

Figure M-28: α=60°, hi=173 mm, hb=173 mm.

The cutting forces Fh and Fv on the blade. Experiments in 200 m sand, with α=45°, β=30º, φ=38º, δ=30º,
ni=38.53%, nmax=43.88%, ki=0.000165 m/s, kmax=0.000320 m/s, hi=173 mm, hb=173 mm, w=0.2 m, z=0.6 m and
a non-cavitating cutting process.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-77 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-78 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Snow Plough Effect.

Appendix N: The Snow Plough Effect.

1 5 .0

1 2 .0
F h in k N

9 .0

6 .0

3 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in m /s

1 0 .0

8 .0
F t in k N

6 .0

4 .0

2 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

3 .0

1 .8
F v in k N

0 .6

- 0 .6

- 1 .8

- 3 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 0 0 .0

4 0 0 .0
E s p in k P a

3 0 0 .0

2 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 3 0 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 0 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-1: Blade angle 30 degrees – Deviation angle 00 degrees

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-79 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

1 5 .0

1 2 .0
F h in k N

9 .0

6 .0

3 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in m /s

2 .5

2 .0
F t in k N

1 .5

1 .0

0 .5

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 .0

3 .0
F v in k N

1 .0

- 1 .0

- 3 .0

- 5 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 0 0 .0

4 0 0 .0
E s p in k P a

3 0 0 .0

2 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 3 0 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 1 5 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-2: Blade angle 30 degrees – Deviation angle 15 degrees

The 105 μm sand properties from Appendix L were used.

Page A-80 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Snow Plough Effect.

1 0 .0

8 .0
F h in k N

6 .0

4 .0

2 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in m /s

4 .0

3 .2
F t in k N

2 .4

1 .6

0 .8

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 .0

3 .0
F v in k N

1 .0

- 1 .0

- 3 .0

- 5 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 0 0 .0

4 0 0 .0
E s p in k P a

3 0 0 .0

2 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 3 0 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 3 0 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-3: Blade angle 30 degrees – Deviation angle 30 degrees

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-81 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

1 5 .0

1 2 .0
F h in k N

9 .0

6 .0

3 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 .0

4 .0
F d in k N

3 .0

2 .0

1 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

2 .5

1 .5
F v in k N

0 .5

- 0 .5

- 1 .5

- 2 .5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

500

400
E s p in k P a

300

200

100

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 4 5 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 0 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-4: Blade angle 45 degrees – Deviation angle 00 degrees

Page A-82 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Snow Plough Effect.

1 2 .0

9 .6
F h in k N

7 .2

4 .8

2 .4

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in m /s

4 .0

3 .2
F t in k N

2 .4

1 .6

0 .8

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

1 .5

0 .9
F v in k N

0 .3

- 0 .3

- 0 .9

- 1 .5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 0 0 .0

4 0 0 .0
E s p in k P a

3 0 0 .0

2 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 4 5 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 1 5 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-5: Blade angle 45 degrees – Deviation angle 15 degrees

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-83 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

1 0 .0

8 .0
F h in k N

6 .0

4 .0

2 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in m /s

4 .0

3 .2
F t in k N

2 .4

1 .6

0 .8

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

2 .5

1 .5
F v in k N

0 .5

- 0 .5

- 1 .5

- 2 .5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 0 0 .0

4 0 0 .0
E s p in k P a

3 0 0 .0

2 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 4 5 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 3 0 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-6: Blade angle 45 degrees – Deviation angle 30 degrees

Page A-84 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Snow Plough Effect.

1 0 .0

8 .0
F h in k N

6 .0

4 .0

2 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

5 .0

4 .0
F d in k N

3 .0

2 .0

1 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

2 .5

1 .5
F v in k N

0 .5

- 0 .5

- 1 .5

- 2 .5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

500

400
E s p in k P a

300

200

100

0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 4 5 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 4 5 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-7: Blade angle 45 degrees – Deviation angle 45 degrees

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-85 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2 0 .0

1 6 .0
F h in k N

1 2 .0

8 .0

4 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in m /s

5 .0

4 .0
F t in k N

3 .0

2 .0

1 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

3 .0

1 .8
F v in k N

0 .6

- 0 .6

- 1 .8

- 3 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

1 0 0 0 .0

8 0 0 .0
E s p in k P a

6 0 0 .0

4 0 0 .0

2 0 0 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 6 0 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 0 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-8: Blade angle 60 degrees – Deviation angle 00 degrees

Page A-86 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Snow Plough Effect.

2 0 .0

1 6 .0
F h in k N

1 2 .0

8 .0

4 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in m /s

5 .0

4 .0
F t in k N

3 .0

2 .0

1 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

3 .0

1 .8
F v in k N

0 .6

- 0 .6

- 1 .8

- 3 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

1 0 0 0 .0

8 0 0 .0
E s p in k P a

6 0 0 .0

4 0 0 .0

2 0 0 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 6 0 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 1 5 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-9: Blade angle 60 degrees – Deviation angle 15 degrees

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-87 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

2 0 .0

1 6 .0
F h in k N

1 2 .0

8 .0

4 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in m /s

5 .0

4 .0
F t in k N

3 .0

2 .0

1 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

3 .0

1 .8
F v in k N

0 .6

- 0 .6

- 1 .8

- 3 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

1 0 0 0 .0

8 0 0 .0
E s p in k P a

6 0 0 .0

4 0 0 .0

2 0 0 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 6 0 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 3 0 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-10: Blade angle 60 degrees – Deviation angle 30 degrees

Page A-88 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Snow Plough Effect.

1 2 .0

9 .6
F h in k N

7 .2

4 .8

2 .4

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in m /s

8 .0

6 .4
F t in k N

4 .8

3 .2

1 .6

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

1 .5

0 .9
F v in k N

0 .3

- 0 .3

- 0 .9

- 1 .5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

1 0 0 0 .0

8 0 0 .0
E s p in k P a

6 0 0 .0

4 0 0 .0

2 0 0 .0

0 .0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C u ttin g v e lo c ity in c m /s

25 m m 50 m m 100 m m 25 m m 50 m m 100 m m

S n o w -p l o u g h e f f e c t r e s e a r c h , t h e o r y v e r s u s m e a s u r e m e n t s .
B l a d e w i d t h 0 .3 m , b l a d e h e i g h t 0 .2 m , c u t t i n g a n g l e 6 0 d e g r e e s , d e v i a t i o n a n g l e 4 5 d e g r e e s .

Figure N-11: Blade angle 60 degrees – Deviation angle 45 degrees

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-89 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-90 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Specific Energy in Sand.

Appendix O: Specific Energy in Sand.

Specific energy
2500

2250

2000

1750

1500
kPa

1250

1000

750

500

250

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT
z= 0 m z= 5 m z = 10 m z = 15 m z = 20 m z = 25 m z = 30 m

Production per 100 kW

10000
m3 /hour

1000

100
1 10 100
SPT
z= 0 m z= 5 m z =10 m z = 15 m z = 20 m z = 25 m z = 30 m

Specific energy and production for a 30 degree blade and a cavitating

cutting process in sand as a function of the reduced SPT value.

Figure O-1: Specific energy and production in sand for a 30 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-91 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Specific energy
2500

2250

2000

1750

1500
kPa

1250

1000

750

500

250

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT
z= 0 m z= 5 m z = 10 m z = 15 m z = 20 m z = 25 m z = 30 m

Production per 100 kW

10000
m3 /hour

1000

100
1 10 100
SPT
z= 0 m z= 5 m z = 10 m z = 15 m z = 20 m z = 25 m z = 30 m

Specific energy and production for a 45 degree blade and a cavitating

cutting process in sand as a function of the reduced SPT value.

Figure O-2: Specific energy and production in sand for a 45 degree blade.

Page A-92 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Specific Energy in Sand.

Specific energy
2500

2250

2000

1750

1500
kPa

1250

1000

750

500

250

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT
z= 0 m z= 5 m z = 10 m z = 15 m z = 20 m z = 25 m z = 30 m

Production per 100 kW

10000
m3 /hour

1000

100
1 10 100
SPT
z= 0 m z= 5 m z = 10 m z = 15 m z = 20 m z = 25 m z = 30 m

Specific energy and production for a 60 degree blade and a cavitating

cutting process in sand as a function of the reduced SPT value.

Figure O-3: Specific energy and production in sand for a 60 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-93 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-94 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Occurrence of a Wedge, Non-Cavitating.

Appendix P: Occurrence of a Wedge, Non-Cavitating.

φ=30º, δ=20º, No Cavitation

90

75

60

45
Angles (º)

30
Teta
15 Beta
Delta
Labda
0

-15

-30

-45
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure P-1: No cavitation, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º.

φ=30º, δ=20º, No Cavitation

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5
Forces (kN)

0.0 Fh (Wedge)
Fv (Wedge)
-2.5 Fh (No wedge)
Fv (No wedge)
-5.0

-7.5

-10.0

-12.5

-15.0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure P-2: No cavitation, the cutting forces as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-95 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

φ=35º, δ=23º, No Cavitation

90

75

60

45
Angles (º)

30
Teta
15 Beta
Delta

0 Labda

-15

-30

-45
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure P-3: No cavitation, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=35º and δ=23º.

φ=35º, δ=23º, No Cavitation

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5
Forces (kN)

0.0 Fh (Wedge)
Fv (Wedge)
-2.5
Fh (No wedge)

-5.0 Fv (No wedge)

-7.5

-10.0

-12.5

-15.0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure P-4: No cavitation, the cutting forces as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=35º and δ=23º.

Page A-96 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Occurrence of a Wedge, Non-Cavitating.

φ=40º, δ=27º, No Cavitation

90

75

60

45
Angles (º)

30
Teta
15 Beta
Delta
0 Labda

-15

-30

-45
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure P-5: No cavitation, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=40º and δ=27º.

φ=40º, δ=27º, No Cavitation

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5
Forces (kN)

0.0 Fh (Wedge)
Fv (Wedge)
-2.5
Fh (No wedge)
-5.0 Fv (No wedge)

-7.5

-10.0

-12.5

-15.0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure P-6: No cavitation, the cutting forces as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=40º and δ=27º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-97 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

φ=45º, δ=30º, No Cavitation

90

75

60

45
Angles (º)

30
Teta
15 Beta
Delta
0 Labda

-15

-30

-45
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure P-7: No cavitation, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=45º and δ=30º.

φ=45º, δ=30º, No Cavitation

15.0

12.5

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5
Forces (kN)

0.0 Fh (Wedge)
Fv (Wedge)
-2.5
Fh (No wedge)
-5.0 Fv (No wedge)

-7.5

-10.0

-12.5

-15.0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure P-8: No cavitation, the cutting forces as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=45º and δ=30º.

Page A-98 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Occurrence of a Wedge, Cavitating.

Appendix Q: Occurrence of a Wedge, Cavitating.

φ=30º, δ=20º, Cavitation

90

75

60

45
Angles (º)

30
Teta
15 Beta
Delta

0 Labda

-15

-30

-45
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure Q-1: Cavitating, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º.

φ=30º, δ=20º, Cavitation

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Forces (kN)

5
0 Fh (Wedge)
-5 Fv (Wedge)
-10 Fh (No wedge)
-15 Fv (No wedge)
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure Q-2: Cavitating, the cutting forces as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=30º and δ=20º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-99 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

φ=35º, δ=23º, Cavitation

90

75

60

45
Angles (º)

30
Teta
15 Beta
Delta
0 Labda

-15

-30

-45
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure Q-3: Cavitating, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=35º and δ=23º.

φ=35º, δ=23º, Cavitation

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Forces (kN)

5
0 Fh (Wedge)
-5 Fv (Wedge)
-10 Fh (No wedge)
-15 Fv (No wedge)
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure Q-4: Cavitating, the cutting forces as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=35º and δ=23º.

Page A-100 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Occurrence of a Wedge, Cavitating.

φ=40º, δ=27º, Cavitation

90

75

60

45
Angles (º)

30
Teta
15 Beta
Delta
0 Labda

-15

-30

-45
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure Q-5: Cavitating, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=40º and δ=27º.

φ=40º, δ=27º, Cavitation

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Forces (kN)

5
0 Fh (Wedge)
-5 Fv (Wedge)
-10 Fh (No wedge)
-15 Fv (No wedge)
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure Q-6: Cavitating, the cutting forces as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=40º and δ=27º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-101 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

φ=45º, δ=30º, Cavitation

90

75

60

45
Angles (º)

30
Teta
15 Beta
Delta
0 Labda

-15

-30

-45
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure Q-7: Cavitating, the angles θ, β, δm and λ as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=45º and δ=30º.

φ=45º, δ=30º, Cavitation

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Forces (kN)

5
0 Fh (Wedge)
-5 Fv (Wedge)
-10 Fh (No wedge)
-15 Fv (No wedge)
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Blade Angle α (º)
© S.A.M.

Figure Q-8: Cavitating, the cutting forces as a function of

the blade angle α for φ=45º and δ=30º.

Page A-102 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Pore Pressures with Wedge.

Appendix R: Pore Pressures with Wedge.

Table R-1: The average water pore pressure and total pressure
along the four sides.

β p1m p2m p3m p4m

150 0.2489 0.0727 0.1132 0.0313
θ=300 200 0.2675 0.0713 0.1133 0.0290
250 0.2852 0.0702 0.1139 0.0268
300 0.3014 0.0695 0.1149 0.0249
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.2798 0.1040 0.1728 0.0688
θ=400 200 0.2980 0.1047 0.1788 0.0672
250 0.3145 0.1036 0.1827 0.0640
300 0.3291 0.1022 0.1859 0.0607
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3043 0.1338 0.2357 0.1141
θ=500 200 0.3240 0.1377 0.2523 0.1158
250 0.3404 0.1373 0.2635 0.1134
300 0.3544 0.1353 0.2722 0.1096
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3152 0.1492 0.2720 0.1392
θ=550 200 0.3367 0.1549 0.2967 0.1435
250 0.3540 0.1549 0.3143 0.1422
300 0.3684 0.1526 0.3284 0.1388
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3242 0.1626 0.3089 0.1607
θ=590 200 0.3481 0.1699 0.3436 0.1676
250 0.3675 0.1705 0.3707 0.1679
300 0.3838 0.1683 0.3922 0.1654

For α=600; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-103 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table R-2: The average water pore pressure and total pressure
along the four sides.

β p1m p2m p3m p4m

150 0.2499 0.0773 0.1071 0.0339
θ=300 200 0.2679 0.0735 0.1048 0.0292
250 0.2854 0.0715 0.1041 0.0261
300 0.3015 0.0704 0.1043 0.0240
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.2825 0.1127 0.1622 0.0712
θ=400 200 0.2992 0.1088 0.1625 0.0651
250 0.3152 0.1060 0.1634 0.0603
300 0.3297 0.1039 0.1646 0.0564
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3088 0.1438 0.2160 0.1129
θ=500 200 0.3259 0.1422 0.2230 0.1086
250 0.3414 0.1399 0.2283 0.1038
300 0.3549 0.1373 0.2325 0.0992
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3175 0.1496 0.1994 0.1104
θ=550 200 0.3382 0.1556 0.2103 0.1128
250 0.3547 0.1563 0.2156 0.1110
300 0.3682 0.1548 0.2184 0.1076
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3300 0.1719 0.2720 0.1562
θ=600 200 0.3498 0.1745 0.2907 0.1567
250 0..3664 0.1736 0.3043 0.1540
300 0.3803 0.1710 0.3150 0.1497
Β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3474 0.1984 0.3369 0.1970
θ=690 200 0.3737 0.2066 0.3760 0.2050
250 0.3953 0.2081 0.4060 0.2063
300 0.4134 0.2062 0.4306 0.2041

For α=700; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25.

Page A-104 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Pore Pressures with Wedge.

Table R-3: The average water pore pressure and total pressure
along the four sides.

β p1m p2m p3m p4m

150 0.2493 0.0738 0.0973 0.0279
θ=300 200 0.2679 0.0723 0.0966 0.0260
250 0.2856 0.0712 0.0962 0.0242
300 0.3018 0.0705 0.0964 0.0226
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.2810 0.1058 0.1450 0.0595
θ=400 200 0.2992 0.1065 0.1481 0.0581
250 0.3156 0.1055 0.1493 0.0555
300 0.3302 0.1042 0.1501 0.0527
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3062 0.1352 0.1917 0.0967
θ=500 200 0.3257 0.1393 0.2010 0.0978
250 0.3420 0.1393 0.2057 0.0954
300 0.3557 0.1378 0.2085 0.0919
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3170 0.1495 0.2153 0.1167
θ=550 200 0.3378 0.1554 0.2284 0.1195
250 0.3542 0.1560 0.2355 0.1176
300 0.3678 0.1544 0.2400 0.1140
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3271 0.1639 0.2398 0.1375
θ =600 200 0.3493 0.1716 0.2572 0.1422
250 0.3663 0.1728 0.2672 0.1411
300 0.3799 0.1712 0.2739 0.1375
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3465 0.1944 0.2946 0.1820
θ =700 200 0.3727 0.2057 0.3231 0.1914
250 0.3922 0.2082 0.3419 0.1923
300 0.4070 0.2062 0.3549 0.1890

For α=800; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-105 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table R-4: The average water pore pressure and total pressure
along the four sides.

β p1m p2m p3m p4m

150 0.2494 0.0740 0.0917 0.0270
θ=300 200 0.2680 0.0726 0.0908 0.0252
250 0.2857 0.0715 0.0902 0.0235
300 0.3018 0.0708 0.0901 0.0220
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.2813 0.1062 0.1358 0.0569
θ=400 200 0.2995 0.1070 0.1381 0.0556
250 0.3159 0.1060 0.1387 0.0530
300 0.3305 0.1047 0.1389 0.0504
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3067 0.1355 0.1782 0.0917
θ=500 200 0.3262 0.1397 0.1860 0.0926
250 0.3424 0.1397 0.1893 0.0904
300 0.3561 0.1383 0.1910 0.0871
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3175 0.1496 0.1994 0.1104
θ=550 200 0.3382 0.1556 0.2103 0.1128
250 0.3547 0.1563 0.2156 0.1110
300 0.3682 0.1548 0.2184 0.1076
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3276 0.1637 0.2209 0.1296
θ=600 200 0.3497 0.1713 0.2353 0.1338
250 0.3666 0.1727 0.2428 0.1327
300 0.3800 0.1713 0.2471 0.1292
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3464 0.1927 0.2670 0.1706
θ=700 200 0.3719 0.2038 0.2894 0.1780
250 0.3907 0.2065 0.3027 0.1793
300 0.4047 0.2049 0.3110 0.1759
β p1m p2m p3m p4m
150 0.3658 0.2253 0.3216 0.2157
θ=800 200 0.3965 0.2400 0.3556 0.2289
250 0.4185 0.2435 0.3776 0.2311
300 0.4347 0.2411 0.3930 0.2277

For θ=900; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25.

Page A-106 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Pore Pressures with Wedge.

Table R-5: Acting points for α=900; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25.

θ β E2 E3 E4
600 150 0.36 0.56 0.40
600 200 0.36 0.56 0.40
600 250 0.35 0.56 0.39
600 300 0.34 0.57 0.39
550 150 0.35 0.56 0.40
550 200 0.34 0.56 0.40
550 250 0.33 0.57 0.39
550 300 0.33 0.57 0.39
500 150 0.34 0.58 0.40
500 200 0.34 0.58 0.40
500 250 0.33 0.59 0.40
500 300 0.33 0.59 0.40
400 150 0.32 0.61 0.40
400 200 0.31 0.62 0.40
400 250 0.30 0.62 0.40
400 300 0.29 0.63 0.39

Table R-6: Acting points for α=800; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25.

θ β E2 E3 E4
600 150 0.36 0.54 0.39
600 200 0.35 0.54 0.39
600 250 0.35 0.55 0.38
600 300 0.34 0.56 0.37
550 150 0.35 0.55 0.40
550 200 0.34 0.55 0.39
550 250 0.33 0.56 0.39
550 300 0.33 0.57 0.38
500 150 0.35 0.57 0.40
500 200 0.34 0.57 0.40
500 250 0.33 0.58 0.39
500 300 0.32 0.58 0.39

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-107 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Table R-7: Acting points for α=700; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25.

θ β E2 E3 E4
600 150 0.36 0.53 0.36
600 200 0.35 0.53 0.35
600 250 0.34 0.54 0.34
600 300 0.34 0.54 0.34
550 150 0.35 0.54 0.37
550 200 0.34 0.54 0.37
550 250 0.33 0.54 0.36
550 300 0.33 0.54 0.35
500 150 0.34 0.55 0.38
500 200 0.33 0.55 0.38
500 250 0.32 0.56 0.37
500 300 0.31 0.56 0.36

Table R-8: Acting points for α=600; hi=1; hb=3; ki/kmax=0.25.

θ β E2 E3 E4
550 150 0.34 0.52 0.34
550 200 0.32 0.52 0.33
550 250 0.31 0.52 0.32
550 300 0.30 0.52 0.31
500 150 0.33 0.54 0.35
500 200 0.32 0.54 0.34
500 250 0.31 0.54 0.34
500 300 0.31 0.54 0.33

Page A-108 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 FEM Calculations with Wedge.

Appendix S: FEM Calculations with Wedge.

S.1 The Boundaries of the FEM Model.

Figure S-1: The boundaries of the FEM model.

Figure S-2: The boundaries of the 60/59 degree calculations.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-109 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

S.2 The 60 Degree Blade.

Figure S-3: The equipotential lines.

Figure S-4: The equipotential lines in color.

Page A-110 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 FEM Calculations with Wedge.

Figure S-5: The flow lines or stream function.

Figure S-6: The stream function in colors.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-111 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure S-7: The pore pressures in the shear zone A-B, at the bottom of
the wedge A-D, on the front of the wedge C-A and on the blade C-D

The wedge angle in these calculations is 59 degrees. The pore pressures on the blade C-D are almost equal to the
pore pressures on the front of the wedge A-C, which they should be with a blade angle of 60 degrees and a wedge
angle of 59 degrees. The pore pressures on the front of the wedge C-A are drawn in red on top of the pore pressures
on the blade C-A and match almost exactly.

Page A-112 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 FEM Calculations with Wedge.

S.3 The 75 Degree Blade.

Figure S-8: The coarse mesh.

Figure S-9: The fine mesh.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-113 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure S-10: The equipotential lines.

Figure S-11: The equipotential lines in color.

Page A-114 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 FEM Calculations with Wedge.

Figure S-12: Pore pressure distribution on the shear plane A-B, the bottom of
the wedge A-D, the blade D-C and the front of the wedge A-C.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-115 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

S.4 The 90 Degree Blade.

Figure S-13: Equipotential lines of pore pressures.

Figure S-14: Equipotential distribution in color.

Page A-116 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 FEM Calculations with Wedge.

Figure S-15: The flow lines or stream function.

Figure S-16: The stream function in colors.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-117 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure S-17: Pore pressure distribution on the shear plane A-B, the bottom of
the wedge A-D, the blade D-C and the front of the wedge A-C.

Page A-118 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Force Triangles.

Appendix T: Force Triangles.

Figure T-1: The forces on the wedge for a 60º blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-119 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure T-2: The forces on the wedge for a 75º blade.

Page A-120 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Force Triangles.

Figure T-3: The forces on the wedge for a 90º blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-121 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure T-4: The forces on the wedge for a 105º blade.

Page A-122 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Force Triangles.

Figure T-5: The forces on the wedge for a 120º blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-123 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-124 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Specific Energy in Clay.

Appendix U: Specific Energy in Clay.

Specific energy
6000

5400

4800

4200

3600
kPa

3000

2400

1800

1200

600

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT
r = 0.25 r = 0.50 r =1 r =2 r =4

Production per 100 kW

100000

10000
m3 /hour

1000

100

10
1 10 100
SPT
r = 0.25 r = 0.50 r =1 r =2 r =4

Specific energy and production for a 30 degree blade in clay.

Figure U-1: Specific energy and production in clay for a 30 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-125 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Specific energy
6000

5400

4800

4200

3600
kPa

3000

2400

1800

1200

600

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT
r = 0.25 r = 0.50 r =1 r =2 r =4

Production per 100 kW

100000

10000
m3 /hour

1000

100

10
1 10 100
SPT
r = 0.25 r = 0.50 r =1 r =2 r =4

Specific energy and production for a 45 degree blade in clay.

Figure U-2: Specific energy and production in clay for a 45 degree blade.

Page A-126 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Specific Energy in Clay.

Specific energy
6000

5400

4800

4200

3600
kPa

3000

2400

1800

1200

600

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SPT
r = 0.25 r = 0.50 r =1 r =2 r =4

Production per 100 kW

100000

10000
m3 /hour

1000

100

10
1 10 100
SPT
r = 0.25 r = 0.50 r =1 r =2 r =4

Specific energy and production for a 60 degree blade in clay.

Figure U-3: Specific energy and production in clay for a 60 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-127 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-128 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting Charts.

Appendix V: Clay Cutting Charts.

V.1 The Flow Type.

The Shear Angle β vs. The Blade Angle α

90

80

70
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

60
r=2.00

50
r=1.00
r=0.50

40
r=0.25
r=0.10

30
r=0.00

20

10

0
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-1: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α and the ac ratio r.

The Blade Angle α + The Shear Angle β vs. The Blade Angle α
180
170
160
150
Blade Angle α + Shear Angle β (Degrees)

140
130
120
110 r=2.00

100
r=1.00

90
r=0.50

80
r=0.25

70
r=0.10

60
r=0.00

50
40
30
20
10
0
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-2: The sum of the blade angle and the shear angle.

Shear angle and cutting forces for a layer thickness hi=0.1 m, a blade width w=1 m and a strain rate factor λc=1.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-129 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

The Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHF vs. The Blade Angle α
10

9
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHF (-)

r=2.00
6
r=1.00

5
r=0.50
r=0.25
4 r=0.10
r=0.00
3

0
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Blade angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-3: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHF as a function of

the blade angle α and the ac ratio r.

The Horizontal Cutting Force Fh vs. The Blade Angle α

400
Horizontal Cutting Force Fh (kN), c=400 kPa, hi=0.1 m, w=1 m

350

300

250 r=2.00
r=1.00
200 r=0.50
r=0.25
r=0.10
150
r=0.00

100

50

0
15 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175
Blade angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-4: The horizontal cutting force as a function of the blade angle α and
the ac ratio r (c=400 kPa).

Page A-130 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting Charts.

The Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVF vs. The Blade Angle α
2.0

1.0

0.0
Vertical cutting force Coefficient λVF (-)

-1.0

-2.0
r=2.00
-3.0
r=1.00
-4.0 r=0.50
r=0.25
-5.0
r=0.10
-6.0 r=0.00

-7.0

-8.0

-9.0

-10.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-5: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVF as a function of

the blade angle α and the ac ratio r.

The Vertical Cutting Force Fv vs. The Blade Angle α

100
Vertical Cutting Force Fv (kN), c=400 kPa, hi=0.1 m, w=1 m

50

-50

r=2.00
-100
r=1.00
-150 r=0.50
r=0.25
-200 r=0.10
r=0.00
-250

-300

-350

-400
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-6: The vertical cutting force as a function of the blade angle α and
the ac ratio r (c=400 kPa).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-131 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

V.2 The Tear Type.

Tensile Strength/Shear Strength Ratio at Transition of

Flow Type/Tear Type
1.0
0.9 r=1.0
0.8
0.7 r=0.9
0.6
r=0.8
0.5
0.4
r=0.7
0.3
0.2 r=0.6
0.1
σT/c (-)

0.0 r=0.5
-0.1
-0.2 r=0.4
-0.3
-0.4 r=0.3
-0.5
r=0.2
-0.6
-0.7
r=0.1
-0.8
-0.9 r=0.0
-1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-7: The transition Flow Type vs. Tear Type.

Page A-132 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting Charts.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

90
rt=0.0100
80
rt=0.0316

70
rt=0.100
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

60
rt=0.316

50 rt=1.00

40 rt=3.16

30
rt=10

rt=100
20

rt=1000
10

rt=10000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-8: The shear angle β vs. the blade angle α for the Tear Type.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHT/rT vs. Blade Angle α

1000.0
rt=0.0100

rt=0.0316
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHT/rT (-)

100.0 rt=0.100

rt=0.316

rt=1.00
10.0
rt=3.16

rt=10

1.0 rt=100

rt=1000

rt=10000
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-9: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHT/rT.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-133 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVT/rT vs. Blade Angle α

100
rt=0.0100
90

rt=0.0316
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVT/rT (-)

80

rt=0.100
70

60 rt=0.316

50 rt=1.00

40 rt=3.16

30
rt=10

20
rt=100
10
rt=1000
0
rt=10000
-10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-10: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVT/rT.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVT/rT vs. Blade Angle α

2.0
1.8 rt=0.0100
1.6
1.4 rt=0.0316
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVT/rT (-)

1.2
1.0 rt=0.100
0.8
0.6 rt=0.316
0.4
0.2 rt=1.00
0.0
-0.2 rt=3.16
-0.4
-0.6 rt=10
-0.8
-1.0 rt=100
-1.2
-1.4 rt=1000
-1.6
-1.8 rt=10000
-2.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-11: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVT/rT zoomed.

Page A-134 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Clay Cutting Charts.

V.3 The Curling Type.

Ratio hb/hi vs. Blade Angle α

at Transition of Flow Type/Curling Type
8 a/c=1.0

a/c=0.9
7

a/c=0.8
6
a/c=0.7

5 a/c=0.6
Ratio hb/hi (-)

4
a/c=0.5

a/c=0.4
3
a/c=0.3

2
a/c=0.2

1 a/c=0.1

a/c=0.0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-12: The ratio hb/hi at the transition Flow Type/Curling Type.

Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α

100
95 a/c=1.0
90
85 a/c=0.9
80
75 a/c=0.8
70
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

65
a/c=0.7
60
a/c=0.6
55
50
a/c=0.5
45
40 a/c=0.4
35
30 a/c=0.3
25
20 a/c=0.2
15
10 a/c=0.1
5
a/c=0.0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-13: The shear angle for the Curling Type

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-135 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs. Blade Angle α

10
a/c=1.0
9
a/c=0.9
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

8
a/c=0.8

7 a/c=0.7

a/c=0.6
6

a/c=0.5
5
a/c=0.4
4
a/c=0.3

3
a/c=0.2

2 a/c=0.1

a/c=0.0
1

N2>0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-14: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs. Blade Angle α

10
a/c=1.0

5 a/c=0.9
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

a/c=0.8
0
a/c=0.7

-5 a/c=0.6

a/c=0.5
-10
a/c=0.4

-15 a/c=0.3

a/c=0.2
-20
a/c=0.1

-25 a/c=0.0

N2>0
-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure V-15: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC.

Page A-136 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting Charts.

Appendix W: Rock Cutting Charts.

W.1 Brittle Shear.

A: Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α, Based on Shear Failure

90
85 φ=00
80
75 φ=05
70
φ=10
65
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

60
φ=15
55
50 φ=20
45
40 φ=25
35
30 φ=30

25
φ=35
20
15
φ=40
10
5 φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-1: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α and
the internal friction angle φ for shear failure.

B: Brittle Tensile Hor. Force Coefficient λHT vs. Blade Angle α

20

φ=00
18
Brittle Tensile Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT (-)

φ=05
16

φ=10
14

φ=15
12

φ=20
10

φ=25
8

φ=30
6

φ=35
4
φ=40
2
φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-2: The brittle (shear failure) horizontal force coefficient λHF.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-137 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

A: Brittle Shear Vertical Force Coefficient λVF vs. Blade Angle α

2

φ=00
1

φ=05
Brittle Shear Vertical Force Coefficient λVF (-)

-1 φ=10

-2
φ=15
-3
φ=20
-4
φ=25
-5

-6
φ=30

-7 φ=35

-8
φ=40

-9
φ=45
-10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-3: The brittle (shear failure) vertical force coefficient λVF.

A: Brittle Shear Esp/UCS Ratio vs. Blade Angle α

10.0

φ=00

φ=05

φ=10
Brittle Shear Esp/UCS Ratio (-)

φ=15

φ=20
1.0
φ=25

φ=30

φ=35

φ=40

φ=45
0.1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-4: The specific energy to UCS ratio.

In all figures an example is given for a 60º blade and an internal friction angle of 20º.

Page A-138 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting Charts.

W.2 The Transition Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile A.

A: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure

0.0

φ=00
-0.1
Tensile Failure φ=05
-0.2

φ=10
-0.3

φ=15
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.4

φ=20
-0.5

Shear Failure φ=25

-0.6

φ=30
-0.7
φ=35
-0.8
φ=40
-0.9
φ=45
-1.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-5: The tensile/shear failure criterion based on BTS/Cohesion.

Below the lines the cutting process is subject to shear failure, above the lines to tensile failure. The curves are
based on the shear angle resulting from shear failure.

A: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure

φ=00
Tensile Failure
φ=05

φ=10

φ=15

10 φ=20
Ratio -UCS/BTS

φ=25

φ=30

Shear Failure φ=35

φ=40

φ=45

Ductile
limit
Brittle
1 limit
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-6: The tensile/shear failure criterion based on UCS/BTS.

In all figures an example is given for a 60º blade and an internal friction angle of 20º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-139 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

W.3 The Transition Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile B.

B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure

0.0

φ=00
-0.1

-0.2 Tensile Failure φ=05

-0.3
φ=10
-0.4
φ=15
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6 φ=20

-0.7
φ=25
-0.8
φ=30
-0.9

-1.0
φ=35
Shear Failure
-1.1 φ=40

-1.2
φ=45
-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-7: The tensile/shear failure criterion based on BTS/Cohesion.

Below the lines the cutting process is subject to shear failure, above the lines to tensile failure. The curves are
based on the shear angle resulting from tensile failure.

B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure

φ=00
Tensile Failure
φ=05

φ=10

φ=15

10 φ=20
Ratio -UCS/BTS

φ=25

φ=30

φ=35

φ=40

φ=45
Shear Failure
Ductile
limit
Brittle
1 limit
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-8: The tensile/shear failure criterion based on UCS/BTS.

In all figures an example is given for a 60º blade and an internal friction angle of 20º.

Page A-140 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting Charts.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=20º

0.0

-0.1
Tensile Failure
Tear Type Shear Failure &
-0.2
Tensile Failure
-0.3 Upper
Chip Type
Limit
-0.4
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6 Shear Failure

Shear Type
-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1 Shear Failure

-1.2
Flow Type

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-9: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=20º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=20º

Tensile Failure Shear Failure &

Tear Type Tensile Failure Upper
Chip Type Limit

10
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Shear Failure
Shear Type

Lower
Limit

Shear Failure
Flow Type
1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-10: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=20º.

In all figures an example is given for a 60º blade and an internal friction angle of 20º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-141 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

W.4 Transition Ranges Brittle Shear/Brittle Tensile.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=0º

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3 Tensile Failure Upper

Shear Failure & Limit
-0.4
Tensile Failure
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8 Shear Failure

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-11: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=0º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=0º

Upper
Limit

10
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Tensile Failure
Shear Failure &
Tensile Failure

Lower
Shear Failure Limit

1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-12: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=0º.

Page A-142 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting Charts.

Figure W-13: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=5º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=5º

Upper
Limit

10
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Tensile Failure
Shear Failure &
Tensile Failure

Lower
Shear Failure Limit

1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-14: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=5º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-143 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=10º

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Tensile Failure Shear Failure &
Upper
Limit
-0.4 Tensile Failure
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7 Shear Failure

-0.8

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-15: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=10º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=10º

Upper
Limit

10 Tensile Failure
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Shear Failure &

Tensile Failure

Shear Failure
Lower
Limit

1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-16: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=10º.

Page A-144 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting Charts.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=15º

0.0

-0.1

-0.2
Tensile Failure
-0.3 Shear Failure & Upper
Limit
-0.4 Tensile Failure
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6
Shear Failure

-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-17: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=15º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=15º

Upper
Limit

10 Tensile Failure
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Shear Failure &

Tensile Failure

Shear Failure

Lower
Limit

1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-18: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=15º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-145 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=20º

0.0

-0.1 Tensile Failure

-0.2 Shear Failure &
Tensile Failure
-0.3 Upper
Limit
-0.4
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6 Shear Failure

-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-19: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=20º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=20º

Tensile Failure Shear Failure & Upper

Limit
Tensile Failure
10
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Shear Failure

Lower
Limit

1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-20: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=20º.

Page A-146 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting Charts.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=25º

0.0

-0.1

-0.2
Tensile Failure
Shear Failure &
-0.3 Upper
Tensile Failure
Limit
-0.4
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5 Shear Failure

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-21: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=25º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=25º

Shear Failure & Upper

Tensile Failure Tensile Failure Limit

10
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Shear Failure

Lower
Limit

1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-22: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=25º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-147 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=30º

0.0

-0.1

-0.2 Tensile Failure Shear Failure &

Tensile Failure
-0.3 Upper Limit

-0.4
Shear Failure
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-23: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=30º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=30º

Tensile Failure Shear Failure &

Tensile Failure Upper
Limit

10
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Shear Failure

Lower
Limit

1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-24: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=30º.

Page A-148 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting Charts.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=35º

0.0

-0.1
Tensile Failure Shear Failure &
-0.2
Tensile Failure
-0.3 Upper
Limit
-0.4 Shear Failure
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-25: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=35º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=35º

Shear Failure &

Tensile Failure
Tensile Failure
Upper
Limit

10 Shear Failure
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Lower
Limit

1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-26: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=35º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-149 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=40º

0.0

-0.1
Shear Failure &
-0.2 Tensile Failure Tensile Failure
-0.3 Upper Limit

-0.4
Shear Failure
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-27: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=40º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=40º

Tensile Failure Shear Failure &

Tensile Failure Upper
Limit

10 Shear Failure
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Lower
Limit

1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-28: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=40º.

Page A-150 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting Charts.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=45º

0.0

-0.1 Tensile Failure

-0.2
Shear Failure &
-0.3 Tensile Failure Upper
Limit
-0.4
Shear Failure
Ratio BTS/Cohesion

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

-0.8

-0.9
Lower
-1.0 Limit

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-29: The tensile/shear failure range based on BTS/Cohesion for φ=45º.

A & B: Tensile Failure vs. Shear Failure, φ=45º

Tensile Failure
Shear Failure &
Tensile Failure
Upper
Limit
Shear Failure
10
Ratio -UCS/BTS

Lower
Limit

1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-30: The tensile/shear failure range based on UCS/BTS for φ=45º.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-151 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-152 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting Charts.

W.5 Brittle Tensile Failure based on Brittle Shear Shear Angle.

A: Brittle Tensile Hor. Force Coefficient λHT vs. Blade Angle α

20
φ=00
18
Brittle Tensile Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT (-)

φ=05
16
φ=10
14
φ=15
12
φ=20
10
φ=25
8
φ=30
6
φ=35
4
φ=40
2
φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-31: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT.

A: Brittle Tensile Vertical Force Coefficient λVT vs. Blade Angle α

5.0

φ=00
4.5

φ=05
Brittle Tensile Vertical Force Coefficient λVT (-)

4.0
φ=10
3.5
φ=15
3.0
φ=20
2.5
φ=25
2.0
φ=30
1.5
φ=35
1.0
φ=40
0.5
φ=45
0.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-32: The brittle (tensile failure) vertical force coefficient λVT.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-153 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

A: Brittle Tensile Hor. Force Coefficient λHT vs. Blade Angle α

φ=00
Brittle Tensile Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT (-)

φ=05

10
φ=10

φ=15

φ=20

φ=25

φ=30

φ=35

φ=40

φ=45
1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-33: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT
(DSCRCM, logarithmic).

Evans Brittle Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT vs. Blade Angle α

φ=00

φ=05
Brittle Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT (-)

100 φ=10

φ=15

φ=20

φ=25

10
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40

φ=45
1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-34: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT
(Evans, logarithmic).

The Evans approach gives much higher values, since it is based on reaching the tensile strength in the whole failure
plane. The DSCRCM model assumes reaching the tensile strength only at the start of the tensile crack.

Page A-154 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Rock Cutting Charts.

W.6 Brittle Tensile Failure based on Brittle Tensile Shear Angle.

B: Shear Angle β vs. Blade Angle α, Based on Tensile Failure

90

85 φ=00
80

75 φ=05

70
φ=10
65
Shear Angle β (Degrees)

60
φ=15
55

50 φ=20
45

40 φ=25
35

30 φ=30

25
φ=35
20

15
φ=40
10

5 φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-35: The shear angle β as a function of the blade angle α and
the internal friction angle φ for shear failure, corrected.

B: Brittle Tensile Hor. Force Coefficient λHT vs. Blade Angle α

20

φ=00
18
Brittle Tensile Horizontal Force Coefficient λHT (-)

φ=05
16

φ=10
14

φ=15
12

φ=20
10

φ=25
8

φ=30
6

φ=35
4
φ=40
2
φ=45
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-36: The brittle (tensile failure) horizontal force coefficient λHT, corrected.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-155 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

B: Brittle Tensile Vertical Force Coefficient λVT vs. Blade Angle α

3.0

φ=00
2.5

φ=05
Brittle Tensile Vertical Force Coefficient λVT (-)

2.0

1.5 φ=10

1.0
φ=15
0.5
φ=20
0.0

φ=25
-0.5

-1.0 φ=30

-1.5 φ=35

-2.0
φ=40
-2.5
φ=45
-3.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Blade Angle α (Degrees)
© S.A.M.

Figure W-37: The brittle (tensile failure) vertical force coefficient λVT , corrected.

Page A-156 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

Appendix X: Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

X.1 The Curling Type of the 30 Degree Blade.

Ratio hb,m/hi vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

0.20

φ=01
0.18

φ=05
0.16
Flow Type
φ=10
0.14

φ=15
Ratio hb,m/hi (-)

0.12

0.10 φ=20

0.08
φ=25

0.06
φ=30

0.04
φ=35
0.02 Curling Type
φ=40
0.00
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-1: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 30 degree blade.

Shear Angle β vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

90

φ=01
80

φ=05
70

φ=10
60

φ=15
Shear Angle β (deg)

50

φ=20
40

φ=25
30

φ=30
20

φ=35
10

φ=40
0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-2: The shear angle β for a 30 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-157 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
100.0

φ=01
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

φ=05

φ=10
10.0
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
1.0
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-3: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 30 degree blade.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
100.0
φ=01

φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

φ=10
10.0
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
1.0
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-4: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 30 degree blade.

Page A-158 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

Specific Energy Esp/UCS vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
100.0

φ=01

φ=05

φ=10
Specific Energy Esp/UCS (-)

10.0
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
1.0
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-5: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 30 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-159 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-160 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

X.2 The Curling Type of the 45 Degree Blade.

Ratio hb,m/hi vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

0.50

φ=01
0.45
Flow Type
φ=05
0.40

φ=10
0.35

φ=15
Ratio hb,m/hi (-)

0.30

0.25 φ=20

0.20
Curling Type φ=25

0.15
φ=30

0.10
φ=35
0.05
φ=40
0.00
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-6: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 45 degree blade.

Shear Angle β vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

90

φ=01
80

φ=05
70

φ=10
60

φ=15
Shear Angle β (deg)

50

φ=20
40

φ=25
30

φ=30
20

φ=35
10

φ=40
0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-7: The shear angle β for a 45 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-161 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
100.0

φ=01
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

φ=05

φ=10
10.0
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
1.0
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-8: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 45 degree blade.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
100.0
φ=01

φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

φ=10
10.0
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
1.0
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-9: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 60 degree blade.

Page A-162 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
100.0
φ=01

φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

φ=10
10.0
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
1.0
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-10: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 45 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-163 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-164 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

X.3 The Curling Type of the 60 Degree Blade.

Ratio hb,m/hi vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

2.0

φ=01
1.8

φ=05
1.6

Flow Type φ=10

1.4

φ=15
Ratio hb,m/hi (-)

1.2

1.0 φ=20

0.8
φ=25

0.6
φ=30

0.4
Curling Type φ=35
0.2
φ=40
0.0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-11: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 60 degree blade.

Shear Angle β vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

90

φ=01
80

φ=05
70

φ=10
60

φ=15
Shear Angle β (deg)

50

φ=20
40

φ=25
30

φ=30
20

φ=35
10

φ=40
0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-12: The shear angle β for a 60 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-165 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
1000

φ=01
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

φ=05

φ=10
100
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
10
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-13: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 60 degree blade.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
10.0
φ=01
8.0

φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

6.0

φ=10
4.0

2.0 φ=15

0.0 φ=20

-2.0 φ=25

-4.0
φ=30

-6.0
φ=35
-8.0
φ=40
-10.0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-14: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 60 degree blade.

Page A-166 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

Specific Energy Esp/UCS vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
100.0

φ=01

φ=05

φ=10
Specific Energy Esp/UCS (-)

10.0
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
1.0
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-15: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 60 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-167 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-168 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

X.4 The Curling Type of the 75 Degree Blade.

Ratio hb,m/hi vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

3.0

2.8 φ=01

2.6
φ=05
2.4

2.2 φ=10
Flow Type
2.0

φ=15
Ratio hb,m/hi (-)

1.8

1.6
φ=20
1.4

1.2
φ=25
1.0

0.8 φ=30

0.6
Curling Type φ=35
0.4

0.2
φ=40
0.0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-16: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 75 degree blade.

Shear Angle β vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

90

φ=01
80

φ=05
70

φ=10
60

φ=15
Shear Angle β (deg)

50

φ=20
40

φ=25
30

φ=30
20

φ=35
10

φ=40
0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-17: The shear angle β for a 75 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-169 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
1000

φ=01
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

φ=05

φ=10
100
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
10
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-18: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 75 degree blade.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
10.0

8.0
φ=01

6.0
φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

4.0

2.0 φ=10
0.0

-2.0 φ=15

-4.0
φ=20
-6.0

-8.0 φ=25
-10.0

-12.0 φ=30

-14.0
φ=35
-16.0

-18.0 φ=40
-20.0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-19: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 75 degree blade.

Page A-170 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

Specific Energy Esp/UCS vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
1000.0

φ=01

φ=05

100.0
φ=10
Specific Energy Esp/UCS (-)

φ=15

10.0 φ=20

φ=25

φ=30
1.0

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-20: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 75 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-171 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-172 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

X.5 The Curling Type of the 90 Degree Blade.

Ratio hb,m/hi vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

5.0

φ=01
4.5

Flow Type φ=05

4.0

φ=10
3.5

φ=15
Ratio hb,m/hi (-)

3.0

2.5 φ=20

2.0
φ=25

1.5
φ=30

1.0
Curling Type φ=35
0.5
φ=40
0.0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-21: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 90 degree blade.

Shear Angle β vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

90

φ=01
80

φ=05
70

φ=10
60

φ=15
Shear Angle β (deg)

50

φ=20
40

φ=25
30

φ=30
20

φ=35
10

φ=40
0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-22: The shear angle β for a 90 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-173 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
1000

φ=01
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

φ=05

φ=10
100
φ=15

φ=20

φ=25
10
φ=30

φ=35

φ=40
1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-23: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 90 degree blade.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
10.0
φ=01
5.0

φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

0.0

φ=10
-5.0

-10.0 φ=15

-15.0 φ=20

-20.0 φ=25

-25.0
φ=30

-30.0
φ=35
-35.0
φ=40
-40.0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-24: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 90 degree blade.

Page A-174 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

Specific Energy Esp/UCS vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
1000.0

φ=01

φ=05

100.0
φ=10
Specific Energy Esp/UCS (-)

φ=15

10.0 φ=20

φ=25

φ=30
1.0

φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-25: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 90 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-175 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-176 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

X.6 The Curling Type of the 105 Degree Blade.

Ratio hb,m/hi vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

12.0
Flow Type φ=01
11.0

10.0 φ=05

9.0
φ=10
8.0

φ=15
Ratio hb,m/hi (-)

7.0

6.0 φ=20

5.0
φ=25
4.0

φ=30
3.0

2.0 φ=35

1.0
Curling Type φ=40
0.0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-26: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 105 degree blade.

Shear Angle β vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

90

φ=01
80

φ=05
70

φ=10
60

φ=15
Shear Angle β (deg)

50

φ=20
40

φ=25
30

φ=30
20

φ=35
10

φ=40
0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-27: The shear angle β for a 105 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-177 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
10000

φ=01
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

φ=05

1000
φ=10

φ=15

100 φ=20

φ=25

φ=30
10

φ=35

φ=40
1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-28: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 105 degree blade.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
0.0
φ=01
-10.0

φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

-20.0

φ=10
-30.0

-40.0 φ=15

-50.0 φ=20

-60.0 φ=25

-70.0
φ=30

-80.0
φ=35
-90.0
φ=40
-100.0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-29: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 105 degree blade.

Page A-178 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

Specific Energy Esp/UCS vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
10000.0

φ=01

φ=05
1000.0

φ=10
Specific Energy Esp/UCS (-)

100.0 φ=15

φ=20

10.0 φ=25

φ=30

1.0
φ=35

φ=40
0.1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-30: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 105 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-179 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-180 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

X.7 The Curling Type of the 120 Degree Blade.

Ratio hb,m/hi vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

10.0
Flow Type φ=01
9.0

φ=05
8.0

φ=10
7.0

φ=15
Ratio hb,m/hi (-)

6.0

5.0 φ=20

4.0
φ=25

3.0
φ=30

2.0
φ=35
1.0

Curling Type φ=40

0.0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-31: The ratio hb,m/hi for a 120 degree blade.

Shear Angle β vs. Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio

90

φ=01
80

φ=05
70

φ=10
60

φ=15
Shear Angle β (deg)

50

φ=20
40

φ=25
30

φ=30
20

φ=35
10

φ=40
0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-32: The shear angle β for a 120 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-181 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
100000

φ=01
Horizontal Cutting Force Coefficient λHC (-)

φ=05
10000

φ=10

1000 φ=15

φ=20

100 φ=25

φ=30

10
φ=35

φ=40
1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-33: The horizontal cutting force coefficient λHC for a 120 degree blade.

Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
0.0
φ=01
-50.0

φ=05
Vertical Cutting Force Coefficient λVC (-)

-100.0

φ=10
-150.0

-200.0 φ=15

-250.0 φ=20

-300.0 φ=25

-350.0
φ=30

-400.0
φ=35
-450.0
φ=40
-500.0
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-34: The vertical cutting force coefficient λVC for a 120 degree blade.

Page A-182 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Hyperbaric Rock Cutting Charts.

Specific Energy Esp/UCS vs.

Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio
100000

φ=01

φ=05
10000

φ=10
Specific Energy Esp/UCS (-)

1000 φ=15

φ=20

100 φ=25

φ=30

10
φ=35

φ=40
1
0.02 0.20 2.00 20.00
Hydrostatic Pressure/UCS Ratio (-)
© S.A.M.

Figure X-35: The specific energy to UCS ratio for a 120 degree blade.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-183 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-184 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Appendix Y: Applications & Equipment.

Y.1 Historic Dredges.

Figure Y-1: Dredging machine 1760 (ARA, Staten van Holland 5675),
patent of F. D’Arles de Liniere in 1761.

Figure Y-2: A gold dredging bucket ladder dredge (www.miningandmetallurgy.com).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-185 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-3: A dredge for canal works and a bucket ladder dredge (Swedish encyclopedia 1914).

Page A-186 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.2 Bucket Ladder Dredges.

Figure Y-4: A bucket ladder dredge (IHC).

Figure Y-5: Bucket storage.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-187 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-6: Garbage bucket dredge (Hamson Indonesia).

Figure Y-7: The buckets of a gold dredge.

Page A-188 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.3 Cutter Suction Dredges.

Figure Y-8: The Mashour (Suez Canal Port Authorities, IHC).

Figure Y-9: The Crawlcat (IHC).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-189 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-10: The d'Artagnan (28.200 kW, DEME group).

Figure Y-11: A model rock cutter head (Delft University of Technology).

Page A-190 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Figure Y-12: A sand cutter head. Figure Y-13: A rock cutter head.

Figure Y-14: A rock cutter head (van Oord).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-191 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-15: Cutterhead (IHC).

Figure Y-16: Rock cutterhead (IHC).

Page A-192 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.4 Trailing Suction Hopper Dredges.

Figure Y-17: Gerardus Mercator (Jan de Nul, 18000 m3).

Figure Y-18: The Gerardus Mercator (Jan de Nul, 18000 m3) with one drag arm.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-193 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-19: The Christobal Colon (Jan de Nul, 46.000 m3).

Figure Y-20: The Volvox Terranova rainbowing (van Oord).

Page A-194 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Figure Y-21: The Fairway (BosKalis, 35.000 m3).

Figure Y-22: TSHD suction pipe (Jan de Nul).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-195 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-23: Drag head (Damen Dredging).

Figure Y-24: Drag head (Damen Dredging).

Figure Y-25: Drag head (Damen Dredging).

Page A-196 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.5 Backhoe Dredges.

Figure Y-26: A large backhoe dredge.

Figure Y-27: A large backhoe dredge.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-197 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-28: The Goliath (van Oord).

Figure Y-29: The New York (Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company).

Page A-198 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.6 Clamshell Dredges.

Figure Y-30: Line art drawing of a dredge (Pearson Scott Foresman).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-199 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-31: The Chicago (Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company).

Figure Y-32: The Chicago (Great Lakes Dredge & Dock company).

Page A-200 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Figure Y-33: The biggest clamshell in the world.

Figure Y-34: The Chicago (Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-201 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-35: A deep sea mining clamshell (Seatools).

Figure_Apx Y-36: Artists impression of a clamshell operation.

Page A-202 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.7 Bucket Wheel Dredges.

Figure Y-37: A bucket wheel dredge (IHC).

Figure Y-38: A bucket wheel dredge (China Hi Sea).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-203 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-39: Dredging wheel (IHC).

Figure Y-40: Dredging wheel (IHC).

Page A-204 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.8 Braun Kohle Bergbau.

Figure Y-41: The world’s largest excavator.

Figure Y-42: 95m high, 215m long, 45500 tons, $100 million, 10 m/min, 76000 m3/day.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-205 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-43: A bucket wheel excavator (www.directindustry.com).

Figure Y-44: Giant bucket wheel excavator.

Page A-206 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.9 Deep Sea Mining.

Figure Y-45: Deep sea mining, the Solwara Field.

Figure Y-46: A deep sea mining excavator (IHC).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-207 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-47: Deep sea mining excavators (IHC).

Figure Y-48: Deep sea mining excavators.

Page A-208 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Figure Y-49: Sea floor production system.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-209 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure_Apx Y-50: An IHC excavator.

Figure Y-51: An artists impression of deep sea mining.

Page A-210 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.10 Cable Trenching.

Figure Y-52: Subsea Cable Trench Plough Sea Stallion 4 (IHC).

Figure Y-53: The Sea Stallion Ormonde OWF (VSMC).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-211 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-54: The Sea Stallion pulled by the mother ship.

Figure Y-55: The Sea Stallion.

Page A-212 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.11 Offshore Pipeline Trenching.

Figure Y-56: The Digging Donald (All Seas).

Figure Y-57: Arm with digging chain.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-213 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-58: Reef Subsea trencher (www.dredgingtoday.com).

Figure Y-59: Seatools Arthopod 600.

Page A-214 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.12 Dry Trenching.

Figure Y-60: Rock trencher (Rocksaw International).

Figure Y-61: Rock trencher (Rocksaw International).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-215 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-62: NEPA pipeline trenching (lindeco.com).

Figure Y-63: NEPA pipeline trenching (lindeco.com).

Page A-216 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.13 PDC Cutters (Oil & Gas Drilling).

Figure Y-64: A set of PDC cutters (HeJianShi FuLiang Dril Manufactury).

Figure Y-65: PDC bits.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-217 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

PDC cutters (Polycrystalline Diamond Composite) are widely used in petroleum/oil field PDC bit, eological PDC
exploration bits, gas exploration bits, PCD/PDC coal mining drill bits, ilfield drilling bits, currently, we developed
new type of PDC cutters, and the length of the cutter is 32mm, with a round radius of the tungsten carbide substrate
of the PDC cutter.

Figure Y-66: Percussion button bit and rotary drill bit (Varel International).

Figure Y-67: StaySharp premium PDC cutter technology.

Page A-218 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.14 Bulldozers, Graders & Scrapers.

Figure Y-68: Catterpillar D11T (mining.cat.com).

Figure Y-69: Caterpillar 24M motor grader.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-219 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-70: Caterpillar 631G tractor scraper.

Figure Y-71: Komatsu D85ex bulldozer.

Page A-220 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.15 Dry Mining.

Figure Y-72: Double head drum cutter (www.drumcutters.com).

Figure Y-73: Tunnel Boring Machine (Shanghai Kemei El. Co.).

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-221 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-74: Drumcutter for dry mining applications.

Figure Y-75: A tunnel boring machine.

Page A-222 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Applications & Equipment.

Y.16 Tunnel Boring Machines.

Figure Y-76: An integrated TBM.

Figure Y-77: A TBM of Herrenknecht.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-223 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Figure Y-78: The WesterSchelde TBM.

Figure Y-79: Tunnel Boring Machine (www.imaker.ca).

Page A-224 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Publications.

Appendix Z: Publications.
1. Miedema, S.A., "The soil reaction forces on a crown cutter head on a swell compensated ladder".
LaO/81/97, Delft University of Technology, 1981, 36 pages.
2. Miedema, S.A., "Computer program for the determination of the reaction forces on a cutter head, resulting
from the motions of the cutter head". Delft Hydraulics, 1981, 82 pages.
3. Miedema, S.A., "The mathematical modeling of the soil reaction forces on a cutter head and the
development of the computer program DREDMO". CO/82/125, Delft University of Technology, 1982,
with appendices 600 pages.
4. Miedema, S.A., "The Interaction between Cutter head and Soil at Sea" (In Dutch). Proc. Dredging Day
November 19th, Delft University of Technology 1982.
5. Koning, J. de, Miedema, S.A., & Zwartbol, A., "Soil/Cutter head Interaction under Wave Conditions ".
Proc. WODCON X, Singapore 1983.
6. Miedema, S.A., "Mathematical Modeling of a Seagoing Cutter Suction Dredge" (In Dutch). Published:
The Hague, 18-9-1984, KIVI Lectures, Section Under Water Technology.
7. Miedema, S.A., "The Cutting of Densely Compacted Sand under Water ". Terra et Aqua No. 28, October
1984 pp. 4-10.
8. Miedema, S.A., "Mathematical Modeling of the Cutting of Densely Compacted Sand Under Water".
Dredging & Port Construction, July 1985, pp. 22-26.
9. Miedema, S.A., "Derivation of the Differential Equation for Sand Pore Pressures". Dredging & Port
Construction, September 1985, pp. 35.
10. Miedema, S.A., "The Application of a Cutting Theory on a Dredging Wheel ". Proc. WODCON XI,
Brighton 1986.
11. Miedema, S.A., "Underwater Soil Cutting: a Study in Continuity". Dredging & Port Construction, June
1986, pp. 47-53.
12. Miedema, S.A., "The cutting of water saturated sand, laboratory research" (In Dutch). Delft University
of Technology, 1986, 17 pages.
13. Miedema, S.A., "The forces on a trenching wheel, a feasibility study" (In Dutch). Delft, 1986, 57 pages
+ software.
14. Miedema, S.A., "Calculation of the Cutting Forces when Cutting Water Saturated Sand ". Basic Theory
and Applications for 3-D Blade Movements and Periodically Varying Velocities for, in Dredging
Commonly used Excavating Means. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, September 15th 1987.
15. Bakker, A. & Miedema, S.A., "The Specific Energy of the Dredging Process of a Grab Dredge". Delft
University of Technology, 1988, 30 pages.
16. Miedema, S.A., "On the Cutting Forces in Saturated Sand of a Seagoing Cutter Suction Dredge". Proc.
WODCON XII, Orlando, Florida, USA, April 1989. This paper was given the IADC Award for the best
technical paper on the subject of dredging in 1989.
17. Miedema, S.A., "On the Cutting Forces in Saturated Sand of a Seagoing Cutter Suction Dredge". Terra
et Aqua No. 41, December 1989, Elsevier’s Scientific Publishers.
18. Miedema, S.A., "New Developments of Cutting Theories with respect to Dredging, the Cutting of Clay".
Proc. WODCON XIII, Bombay, India, 1992.
19. Miedema, S.A. & Journee, J.M.J. & Schuurmans, S., "On the Motions of a Seagoing Cutter Dredge, a
Study in Continuity". Proc. WODCON XIII, Bombay, India, 1992.
20. Becker, S. & Miedema, S.A. & Jong, P.S. de & Wittekoek, S., "On the Closing Process of Clamshell
Dredges in Water Saturated Sand". Proc. WODCON XIII, Bombay, India, 1992. This paper was given
the IADC Award for the best technical paper on the subject of dredging in 1992.
21. Becker, S. & Miedema, S.A. & Jong, P.S. de & Wittekoek, S., "The Closing Process of Clamshell Dredges
in Water Saturated Sand". Terra et Aqua No. 49, September 1992, IADC, The Hague.
22. Miedema, S.A., "Modeling and Simulation of Dredging Processes and Systems". Symposium "Zicht op
Bagger processen", Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 29 October 1992.
23. Miedema, S.A. & Becker, S., "The Use of Modeling and Simulation in the Dredging Industry, in
Particular the Closing Process of Clamshell Dredges", CEDA Dredging Days 1993, Amsterdam, Holland,
1993.
24. Miedema, S.A., "On the Snow-Plough Effect when Cutting Water Saturated Sand with Inclined Straight
Blades". ASCE Proc. Dredging 94, Orlando, Florida, USA, November 1994.
25. Miedema, S.A., "Production Estimation Based on Cutting Theories for Cutting Water Saturated Sand".
Proc. WODCON IV, November 1995, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1995.
26. Miedema, S.A. & Zhao Yi, "An Analytical Method of Pore Pressure Calculations when Cutting Water
Saturated Sand". Texas A&M 33nd Annual Dredging Seminar, June 2001, Houston, USA 2001.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-225 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

27. Zhao Yi, & Miedema, S.A., "Finite Element Calculations To Determine The Pore Pressures When Cutting
Water Saturated Sand At Large Cutting Angles". CEDA Dredging Day 2001, November 2001,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
28. Miedema, S.A., & Ma, Y., "The Cutting of Water Saturated Sand at Large Cutting Angles". Proc.
Dredging02, May 5-8, Orlando, Florida, USA.
29. Miedema, S.A., & He, Y., "The Existence of Kinematic Wedges at Large Cutting Angles". Proc. WEDA
XXII Technical Conference & 34th Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, June 12-15, Denver, Colorado, USA.
30. Miedema, S.A., Frijters, D., "The Mechanism of Kinematic Wedges at Large Cutting Angles - Velocity
and Friction Measurements". 23rd WEDA Technical Conference & 35th TAMU Dredging Seminar,
Chicago, USA, June 2003.
31. Miedema, S.A., "The Existence of Kinematic Wedges at Large Cutting Angles". CHIDA Dredging Days,
Shanghai, China, November 2003.
32. Miedema, S.A. & Frijters, D.D.J., "The wedge mechanism for cutting of water saturated sand at large
cutting angles". WODCON XVII, September 2004, Hamburg Germany.
33. Miedema, S.A., "THE CUTTING MECHANISMS OF WATER SATURATED SAND AT SMALL
AND LARGE CUTTING ANGLES". International Conference on Coastal Infrastructure Development -
Challenges in the 21st Century. Hong Kong, November 2004.
34. He, J., Miedema, S.A. & Vlasblom, W.J., "FEM Analyses Of Cutting Of Anisotropic Densely Compacted
and Saturated Sand", WEDAXXV & TAMU37, New Orleans, USA, June 2005.
35. Miedema, S.A., "The Cutting of Water Saturated Sand, the FINAL Solution". WEDAXXV & TAMU37,
New Orleans, USA, June 2005.
36. Miedema, S.A., "THE CUTTING OF WATER SATURATED SAND, THE SOLUTION". CEDA
African Section: Dredging Days 2006 - Protection of the coastline, dredging sustainable development,
Nov. 1-3, Tangiers, Morocco.
37. Miedema, S.A. & Vlasblom, W.J., "THE CLOSING PROCESS OF CLAMSHELL DREDGES IN
WATER-SATURATED SAND". CEDA African Section: Dredging Days 2006 - Protection of the
coastline, dredging sustainable development, Nov. 1-3, Tangiers, Morocco.
38. Miedema, S.A. "THE CUTTING OF WATER SATURATED SAND, THE SOLUTION". The 2nd China
Dredging Association International Conference & Exhibition, themed 'Dredging and Sustainable
Development' and in Guangzhou, China, May 17-18 2006.
39. Ma, Y, Ni, F. & Miedema, S.A., "Calculation of the Blade Cutting Force for small Cutting Angles based
on MATLAB". The 2nd China Dredging Association International Conference & Exhibition, themed
'Dredging and Sustainable Development' and in Guangzhou, China, May 17-18 2006.
40. Miedema, S.A. , Kerkvliet, J., Strijbis, D., Jonkman, B., Hatert, M. v/d, "THE DIGGING AND
HOLDING CAPACITY OF ANCHORS". WEDA XXVI AND TAMU 38, San Diego, California, June
25-28, 2006.
41. Ma Yasheng, Ni Fusheng, S.A. Miedema, "Mechanical Model of Water Saturated Sand Cutting at Blade
Large Cutting Angles", Journal of Hohai University Changzhou, ISSN 1009-1130, CN 32-1591, 2006.
42. Miedema, S.A., Lager, G.H.G., Kerkvliet, J., “An Overview of Drag Embedded Anchor Holding Capacity
for Dredging and Offshore Applications”. WODCON, Orlando, USA, 2007.
43. Miedema, S.A., "A Sensitivity Analysis of the Production of Clamshells". WEDA XXVIII & Texas A&M
39. St. Louis, USA, June 8-11, 2008.
44. Miedema, S.A., "A Sensitivity Analysis of the Production of Clamshells". WEDA Journal of Dredging
Engineering, December 2008.
45. Miedema, S.A., "New Developments Of Cutting Theories With Respect To Dredging, The Cutting Of
Clay And Rock". WEDA XXIX & Texas A&M 40. Phoenix Arizona, USA, June 14-17 2009.
46. Miedema, S.A., “New developments of cutting theories with respect to offshore applications, the cutting
of sand, clay and rock”. ISOPE 2010, Beijing China, June 2010.
47. Miedema, S.A., “The influence of the strain rate on cutting processes”. ISOPE 2010, Beijing China, June
2010.
48. Abdeli, M., Miedema, S.A., Schott, D., Alvarez Grima, M., “The application of discrete element modeling
in dredging”. WODCON XIX, Beijing China, September 2010.
49. Rahman, M., Schott, D.L., Miedema, S.A., Lodewijks, G., "Simulation of cutting process by hybrid
granular and multi-body dynamics software". 3rd International Conference on Bulk solids. Glasgow,
Scotland, September 9-10, 2010.
50. Rahman, M., Abdeli, M., Miedema, S.A., Schott, D., "Simulation of passive soil failure & cutting
processes in sand. OMAE 2011 ASME, June 19-24, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
51. Miedema, S.A., "Soil cutting processes, the cutting of water saturated sand". OMAE 2011 ASME, June
19-24, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Page A-226 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 Publications.

52. Miedema, S.A., “THE BULLDOZER EFFECT WHEN CUTTING WATER SATURATED SAND”.
OMAE 2012 ASME, June 10-15, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
53. Miedema, S.A., Zijsling, D., “HYPERBARIC ROCK CUTTING”. OMAE 2012 ASME, June 10-15, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil.
54. Kuiper, R.J., Miedema, S.A., Frumeau, J.C.L. & van Rhee, C., “Influence of the Hyperbaric Effect on
Apparrent Material Strength of Fully Saturated Porous Rock”. OTC 2013, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., May
2013.
55. Helmons, R.I.J. & Miedema, S.A., “Cutting Through Hard Rock-Like Materials, A Review of the
Process”. WODCON XX, Brussels, Belgium, June 2013.
56. Chen, X. & Miedema, S.A., “Porosity Calculation in Discrete Element Modeling of Sand Cutting
Process”. WODCON XX, Brussels, Belgium, June 2013.
57. Chen, X. & Miedema, S.A., “Influence of Particle Geometry on the Simulation of Sand Cutting Process”.
OMAE 2013, Nantes, France, June 2013.
58. Helmons, R.I.J. & Miedema, S.A., “Rock Cutting for Deep Sea Mining: an Extension into
Poromechanics”. Poromechanics V © ASCE 2013.
59. Liefferink, D.M., Alvarez Grima, M., Miedema, S.A., Plat, R., Rhee, C. van, “Failure mechanism of
cutting submerged frozen clay in an arctic trenching process”. OTC 2014. Houston, Texas, U.S.A., May
2014.
60. Chen, X., Miedema, S.A., “Numerical methods for modeling the rock cutting process in deep sea mining”.
ASME-OMAE 2014, San Francisco, USA, June 2014.
61. Helmons, R.L.J., Miedema, S.A., Rhee, C. van, “A new approach to model hyperbaric rock cutting
processes”. ASME-OMAE 2014, San Francisco, USA, June 2014.
62. Miedema, S.A., “A NEW APPROACH TO DETERMINE CUTTING FORCES IN BRITTLE ROCK
UNDER HYPERBARIC CONDITIONS”. ASME-OMAE 2014, San Francisco, USA, June 2014.
63. Chen, X., Miedema, S.A. & Rhee, C. van, “Numerical modeling of excavation process in dredging
engineering”. 7th World Congress on Particle Technology. Beijing, China, May 19-22, 2014.
64. Miedema, S.A., “The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model”. IOS Press, Delft University Press, Delft,
The Netherlands, 2015.
65. Chen, X., Miedema, S.A. & Rhee, C. van, “Numerical modeling of excavation process in dredging
engineering”. Procedia Engineering, Vol. 102, pp. 804-814, 2015.
66. Miedema, S.A., “The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model”. WEDA TAMU, Houston, Texas, USA,
June, 2015.
67. Combe, Th., & Miedema, S.A., “The influence of adhesion on cutting processes in dredging”. WEDA
TAMU, Houston, Texas, USA, June, 2015.
68. Alvarez Grima, M., Miedema, S.A., Ketterij, R.G. van de, Yenigul, N.B., Rhee, C. van, Ëffect of high
hyperbaric pressure on rock cutting process”. Engineering Geology, Vol. 196, pp. 24-36, 2015.
69. Chen, X., Miedema, S.A., Rhee, C. van, “Sensitivity study of bond radius and energy dissipation in
parallel bond method”. Joint Conference of 5th UK-China and 13th UK Particle Technology Forum, Leeds,
UK, 2015.

Copyright © Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC Page A-227 of 228

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock Cutting Model.

Page A-228 of 228 TOC Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema

 The Delft Sand, Clay & Rock
Cutting Model
3rd Edition

By

Sape A. Miedema

Copyright @Dr.ir. S.A. Miedema TOC