Regrettably, the author noticed an error in the code used to compute all the results in the original paper. Namely, the ordering of the last two shear components of the strain/stress vector (6×1 vector in the Voigt notation) was not consistent. When this error was fixed, the results changed notably. Consequently, the analyses of the results in the original paper are not fully correct. In what follows, the re-computed results are presented along with their corrected analyses as well as the other errors or misprints found in the original manuscript. In the second paragraph in Section 4 (Numerical simulations), the Weibull distribution parameters should read xu = 5 MPa, xu = 50 MPa, not xu = 6 MPa, xu = 60 MPa. In Figure 2a in Section 4.1 (Single-button bit case: simulations with different button geometries), the radius of the button should read R = 5 mm, not R = 10 mm. Figure 4 in Section 4.1.1(Simulations with hemispherical button) should be as below. In the second paragraph of Section 4.1.1 analysing the results in Figure 4, the maximum penetration should read (≈ 1.13 mm), not (≈ 1.19 mm). Moreover, the statement ‘The projection of the subsurface tensile damage pattern on the symmetry plane takes the form of a hollow cone or fan opening downwards’ in the same paragraph is not valid in view of the corrected results and should thus be removed. In the third paragraph of Section 4.1.1, the sentence ‘As to the shear fractures shown in Figure 4c, they are restricted to the button contact area close to the rock surface as well as inside the tensile damage cone’ should read ‘As to the shear fractures shown in Figure 4c, they are restricted to the button contact area close to the rock surface’. After this, a statement ‘The shear damage has also taken place in subsurface elements forming a spherical shaped volume’ should be added. Figure 5 in Section 4.1.1(Simulations with hemispherical button) should be as below. Figure 6 in Section 4.1.2(Simulations with cylindrical button) should be as below. Figure 8 in Section 4.2.1(Simulation with a typical stress wave) should be as below. In the second paragraph of Section 4.2.1 analysing the results in Figure 8, the first sentence should read ‘The general picture at the end of loading is quite similar as in the single-button bit case, i.e. the surface elements have failed in tensile mode and some subsurface damage formation is induced’. In the same paragraph, the sentence ‘Moreover, laterally outwards propagating damage zones, signified by A in Figure 8a, have been generated during loading’ should read ‘Moreover, outwardly inclined damage zones, signified by A in Figure 8a, have been generated during loading’. Figure 9 in Section 4.2.1(Simulation with a typical stress wave) should be as below. In the first paragraph in Section 4.2.2 (Influence of the pulse parameters), the pulse parameters should read Pulse1: σA = 212.1 MPa, trise = 1.41×10−5 s, tdur = 17×10−5 s, tdes = 1.41×10−5 s, not Pulse1 σA = 150 MPa, trise = 1×10−5 s, tdur = 18×10−5 s, tdes = 1×10−5 s. Moreover, in the same paragraph, the impact velocities should read of 10.9 m/s and 15.4 m/s and lengths of 400 mm and 200 mm, not of 7.7 m/s and 15.4 m/s and lengths of 500 mm and 230 mm. Finally, the third last sentence of the paragraph should read ‘The time parameters of the pulses are chosen so that their energy contents are approximately the same’, not ‘The time parameters of the pulses are chosen so that their energy contents, i.e. the areas under them in the time-stress axes, are the same’. Figure 10 in Section 4.2.2 should be as below. In the second paragraph in Section 4.2.2 analysing the results in Figure 10, the first sentence should read ‘The results for the simulations with Pulse1 and Pulse2 in Figure 10a and b are almost equal’. The second sentence in the same paragraph should read ‘The differences in the bit force–penetration responses are not significant, the maximum penetration with Pulse1 being approximately 95 % of that with Pulse2’, instead of ‘The differences in the bit force–penetration response are more pronounced, the maximum penetration with Pulse1 being approximately 80% of that with Pulse2’. Figure 11 in Section 4.2.3 (Influence of the bit design) should be as below. In the second paragraph in Section 4.2.3 analysing the results in Figure 11, the second sentence ‘Moreover, median cracks are somehow more pronounced in this simulation, as can be observed in Figure 11a’ should be removed in the light of the corrected results. In the final paragraph of Section 4.2.3, the second sentence ‘However, the influence with the bottom edge is now weak enough so that the type A (see Figure 8a) localization zones are not induced’ should read ‘However, the influence with the bottom edge is now weak enough so that the type A (see Figure 8a) localization zones are clearly diminished’. Figure 12 in Appendix A should be as below.