1.

Introduction

The uniaxial compressive strength of rocks is one of the most frequently requested parameters in engineering designs. Rapid, inexpensive, easily set up experimental techniques to predict the UCS value of rock samples were thus developed. Schmidt Hammer and Point load index tests were carried out on two rock samples. The hammer test provided a qualitative assessment of the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock samples. 1.1 Objectives

The objective of this exercise was to perform simple index tests on rock samples and to log rock core according to BS5930. 1.2 Methods

BS 5930 (1999) and The Geological Society Engineering Group Working Party Report on The logging of rock cores for engineering purposes (1970) were consulted for recommendations on logging rock core. Point Load and Schmidt Hammer index tests were performed to determine the uniaxial compressive strength of two different rock samples. 1.3 Index Tests

Description of rock samples Sample 1 Moderately strong to strong, fresh, light yellowish fine grained LIMESTONE (Magnesian Limestone) Sample 2 Slighty weathered, moderately strong, light yellowish medium grained, SANDSTONE (Kirkwood sandstone)

1.3.1

Hammer test

Hand held specimens of Sample 1 and Sample 2 were fractured by a single firm blow of the geological hammer. Based on the results of the hammer test, the unconfined compressive strength of Sample 1 and Sample 2 is likely to be between 25-50 MPa. The hammer test is very subjective and the result is operator dependent. On its own, this data is not very reliable but provides a useful comparison aid or serve to confirm what more reliable estimates predict. The following factors affect the results: 1.3.2 The size and shape of rock The strength of the operator influences how hard the rock is struck with the hammer A heavier hammer will break rock more easily than a lighter hammer The surface on which the rock rests. Schmidt Hammer Test

The Schmidt hammer test is a rebound hardness test which measures the reflection of strain energy form the rock. The test was originally developed to test the strength of concrete but has found widespread use in geotechnical investigations due to reliable estimates of rock strengths obtained with the hammer. However, the application of the hammer does not extend to very weak or very strong rocks. On very weak rocks, the hammer does not rebound due to plastic deformation. The test was performed with an L type Schmidt hammer according to the prescribed ISRM method. Two blocks with the following dimensions were tested: Magnesian Limestone 5 cm 5 cm 9.5 cm Kirkwood sandstone 5 cm 3 cm 9 cm

The samples were stored uncovered on a laboratory worktop, the moisture content at the time of the tests is not known. The samples were placed on the floor and all tests were performed with the hammer pointing vertically downwards. Results The rebound values were corrected to account for the hammer orientation (-90). The uniaxial compressive strength associated with each rebound value was calculated from the calibration curve of the appropriate Schmidt hammer. Details of the calculations are in Appendix 1.1. The average uniaxial compressive strength was calculated from the highest five values according to the ISRM recommendation. The correction factor for this hammer is the ratio of the specified standard value of the anvil to the average of ten readings on the anvil. For the L-type hammer, the calibration rebound number (RA) is = 70. Because the calibrated value differs from the nominal value, rebound numbers were corrected according to the formula:
R=

R 74
n RA

where RA is the calibration rebound number. Sample 1 Sample 2 Magnesian Limestone Kirkwood sandstone Measured R Corrected R value Measured R Corrected R value 40 42.6 36 38.8 41 43.6 39 41.7 42 44.5 39 41.7 45 47.4 40 42.6 45 47.4 41 43.6 46 48.4 41 43.6 49 51.2 42 44.5 49 51.2 42 44.5 49 51.2 42 44.5 50 52.2 44 46.4 Table 1.1 Measured and Corrected for inclination Rebound Values The average rebound hardness of the limestone was greater than 50 therefore the following equation was used to convert the hardness to compressive strength:

 c = 1.72R 18.96
For the sandstone, the cube compressive strength was calculated from the equation:

c = 244R-1868, where c is in psi.

A summary of the results of the Schmidt Hammer test is given in Table 1.2 Sample Limestone Average rebound hardness 50.9 Corrected average rebound hardness 53.8 Average UCS (MPa) 73.5 Table 1.2 Summary of results of the Schmidt Hammer Test Sandstone 44.7 47.3 66.7

Discussion Non horizontal impact directions were corrected for the effect of gravitational pull using manufacturer supplied normalisation curves. However, the supplied correction curves for the test were empirically derived for compact Portland cement with a density of 2000 kgm-3 hence cannot truly represent the rock types tested by the hammer. The accuracy of the test is affected by cracks or fissures on the surface of the specimen. Inaccuracies in the technique are sometimes caused by the hammer itself, for example, crushing discrete grains, cracking of the sample due to the hammer impact or chipping off of the sample. Testing near the boundaries of sample leads to inaccuracies due to the greater dissipation of impact energy (Aydin and Basu, 2005). Because low values are influenced by the poor test technique, cracks or fissures and inadequate surface preparation, the ISRM recommends calculating the average from the upper 50% of the readings. However, Aydin and Basu (2005) argue that discarding the lower values in the Schmidt hammer test may be erroneous. Rather, they suggest that the reason for the lower values be ascertained first. They recommend the use of all values as long as they are not influenced by cracks or discontinuities.

Contrary to ISRM recommendations, carrying out five continuous impacts at a point gives more accurate results that single impact points separated by one plunger diameter (Poole and Farmer, (1980); Aydin and Basu, (2005), Buyuksagis and Goktan, (2007). The ISRM recommends the use of the L type hammer to determine rebound values. However, research shows that the L type hammer is more sensitive to sample heterogeneity as reflected by the greater amount of scatter in the data obtained (Aydin and Basu (2005), Buyuksagis and Goktan, (2007). The N type hammer consistently gives higher results than the L type hammer as documented by various studies, ((Poole and Farmer, (1980); Aydin and Basu, (2005), Buyuksagis and Goktan, (2007), for example. In addition, the predictions by the N type hammer were more accurate than the L type due to the ability of the N type to sample a larger volume of rock (because of its higher impact energy).

1.3.3

The point load test

The point load test is an index classification test whose use extends to the prediction of the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. One of the strengths of this test is its applicability to rock samples in the form of blocks, core and irregular lumps. Due to the limited availability of samples, one irregular lump was tested in this experiment. The irregular lump test is suitable for lumps of size 50 35 mm with a D/W ratio 0.3 to 1.0. The equivalent diameter of the sample, De was calculated according to, De = 4A/ where A is the minimum cross sectional area of a plane through the platen contact points. The uncorrected point load strength Is is Is = P / De2 To correct for the size effect, the size corrected point load index Is50 was calculated.

Is50 = F Is Where F, the size correction factor, is = (De/50)0.45 Results Sample: Kirkwood Sandstone 65.64 50.09 W average / mm 70.22 D average / mm 48.10 2 2 De / mm 2.33 Is / MPa 4300.97 F 0.98 Is 50 / MPa 2.28 UCS MPa 50.3 Table 1.3 Results of the Point Load Test W D 71.29 46.78 73.74 47.44

The UCS value predicted by the point load test was lower than the value predicted by the Schmidt Hammer (50.3 and 66.7 MPa respectively). The preferred tests for strength classification are the diametral and axial test. The point load test is insensitive to specimen length but is sensitive to the diameter of the sample. The specimen strength decreases with increasing core diameter (Broch and Franklin, 1972). The size correction procedure is valid for anisotropic samples and all directions of loading. The force required for failure is a function of the minimum cross sectional area hence W was measured after testing the sample. The moisture content of the samples was not determined before carrying out the test due to practical considerations. The sample tested in this practical is a sedimentary rock and it is entirely possible that some degree of anisotropy exists in the sample. Determination of the point load strength anisotropy index would have given a clearer picture of the degree of anisotropy in the sample and improved the analysis of results. The point load index was converted to the UCS of the rock using the following relationship UCS = 22Is50 (Broch and Franklin, 1972)

However, this ratio does not necessarily for different rock types, especially anisotropic or strong rocks. A number of published correlations of the UCS and point load index are listed in Kahraman, (2001). 1.4 Rock Core Logging

Two logs were prepared according to standard guidelines for logging rock core. The fracture state of the core was described with the following parameters: The Rock Quality Designation: the ratio of solid core pieces longer than 10 cm to the length of the core run The Total Core Recovery: the ratio of solid and non intact core recovered to the length of core run The Solid Core Recovery: the ratio of solid core recovery to the length of the core run. The fracture index : the number of fractures over an arbitrary length of core of similar intensity or fracturing Blue Coatts Nottingham core A borehole log was prepared for BH 101, Box 9, depth 25.80 28.80 metres. Solid Core Recovery = 116.5 / 300 = 38.8 % Total core recovery RQD = 100% = 74/300 = 24.7% Two regions of the core were identified, one with a high intensity of fractures, generally non intact core and a region of more competent rock. The fracture index from 26.90metres to 28.8 metres is 25 fractures per metre.

Bradford Royal Infirmary Core Borehole depth Solid Core Recovery 9.40 12.43 metres = 125 / 303 = 41.3 % Total core recovery RQD = 97.69 % = 89.5 / 303 = 29.5 % This core was dominated by one rock type, very little variation was observed in the three metres of core. The fracture index of this core was equal to fractures per metre. Where there was doubt regarding the origin of breaks in the core, it was assumed that the breaks were natural. This led to a conservative calculation of the RQD. The RQD method is not recommended in areas where joints contain clay fillings as these reduce joint friction. The high RQD obtained in these cases is misleading because the rock is essentially unstable in the presence of water. The applicability of the RQD is also limited in large excavations. It would be difficult to ascertain if defects found in one borehole apply to the rock mass as a whole. The RQD value may be misleading in cases of rock mass with joint spacing slightly over 100 mm. These systems would have an RQD of 100%. The orientation of the borehole relative to the geological formation also influences the RQD value.

References Geological Society Engineering Group Working Party Report on The logging of rock cores for engineering purposes (1970) Q. Jl Engng Geol. Vol. 3, pp. 1-24,