Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1. Introduction
Physico-mechanical properties of intact rocks are
very important in mining and civil engineering works
that interact with rock such as underground structures, dams, foundations on rock, rock slopes,
tunnels, dams, deep trenches, caverns, etc. They are
also very important for the study of rock bursts and
bumps in underground mines, pillar design, prediction of failure of rock mass, etc. Determination of
physico-mechanical properties in the laboratory as
508
M. Khandelwal
Table 1
List of rock types with class and location
Rock type
Rock class
Quartzite
Granite
Dolomite
Sandstone 1
Sandstone 2
Sandstone 3
Limestone 1
Limestone 2
Shale
Kota stone
Marble (white)
Marble (pink)
Marble (green)
Igneous
Igneous
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Rampur (H.P.)
Jalore (Raj)
Jodhpur (Raj)
Jodhpur (Raj)
Bijoliyan (Raj)
Bundi (Raj)
Satna (M.P.)
Amreli (Guj)
Jharia (Jharkhand)
Ramganjmandi (Raj)
Makrana (Raj)
Babarmal (Raj)
Kesariyaji (Raj)
3. Laboratory Investigation
Core specimens of different rock types were cored
in NX size by a coring machine, and the ends were
trimmed as required and further smoothened by a
lathe in order to avoid end effects. The specimens
were then prepared in the laboratory as per the ISRM
(1981) standards designed to determine different
physico-mechanical properties. Before testing, the
specimens were dried at 105 C for 24 h to remove
any moisture.
93.8
91.8
90.8
87.3
88.9
86.7
84.3
92.4
87.3
85.1
85.2
86.2
0.010
0.013
0.014
0.023
0.021
0.014
0.016
0.022
0.018
0.017
0.011
0.015
0.3
0.29
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.25
0.22
0.29
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.2
5.74
8.15
7.59
5.53
4.79
6.38
2.70
8.69
7.34
3.43
5.23
7.06
94.7
87.2
58
41.6
47.5
44.08
18.5
81.34
64.87
59.63
55.57
51.39
70 99.82 1.02
110 99.26 1.56
80
98.3 1.47
80
97.1 1.68
130 97.8 1.06
90
97.5 1.11
70
96.8 1.76
60
98.7 1.74
120 97.9 1.95
90
97.6 1.22
100 97.3 1.67
60
96.8 1.19
2,740
2,670
2,580
2,360
2,370
2,330
2,070
2,580
2,560
2,410
2,280
2,160
1.57
2.06
1.43
1.28
1.03
1.62
0.89
2.34
1.89
1.53
2.07
0.94
25.4
20.63
13.29
9.44
12.79
11.55
7.69
22.57
16.61
14.63
10.29
11.41
0.71
0.72
.86
0.74
0.77
0.24
0.36
0.88
0.79
0.49
0.60
0.51
8.69
9
6.93
4.99
6.35
5.2
4.64
9.27
7.56
5.01
4.73
4.4
197 133.48 10.21
153 121.45 7.84
132 89.45 6.34
159 44.96 5.82
143 59.92 10.35
178
47.2 8.20
107 32.51 7.17
177 99.23 9.63
119 64.72 5.71
137 46.69 4.68
141 42.27 3.89
99
48.34 8.40
4,657
4,350
3,283
2,384
3,108
3,016
1,682
4,375
3,239
2,844
2,370
2,146
Quartz
Granite
Dolerite
Sandstone, Bundi
Limestone
Limestone 2
Shale
Kota stone
Marble (white)
Marble (pink)
Marble (green)
Sandstone, Jodhpur
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
TS 2P=p D T
UCS (MPa)
where P is the failure load, and A is the cross-sectional area of the cylindrical specimen.
Tensile strength (TS) is determined in the laboratory by the Brazilian test. It is an indirect and easy
method for determination of tensile strength. This test
is based on the experimental fact that most rocks in
biaxial stress fields fail in tension at their uniaxial
tensile strength when one principal stress is tensile
and the other finite principal stress is compressive
with a magnitude not exceeding three times that of
the tensile principal stress (JAEGER 1967). Rock
specimens of a 2:1 diameter-to-thickness ratio were
prepared for the Brazilian tests. They were loaded
diametrically between the loading platens of UTM as
per ISRM (1978b) standards. Tensile strength can be
calculated with the help of the following formula:
Vp (m/s)
Table 2
UCS P=A
ISI
3.8
5.3
5.4
4.9
4.1
5.8
4.7
3.2
3.7
5.3
2.1
4.4
SHRN
509
3
4
7
5
3
8
6
4
8
7
4
6
64
62
49
36
45
42
28
56
43
40
37
31
510
M. Khandelwal
Table 3
Regression analysis results
R2
value
S. no. Parameters
to be related
Regression equation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
511
9.
TS = 0.001 9 Vp ? 0.662
0.882
0.904
0.931
q = 0.202 9 Vp ? 1,794.7
0.863
YM = 0.020 9 Vp - 5.881
0.835
PR = 8 9 10-09 9 (Vp)2
2 9 10-05 9 (Vp)
? 0.222
ISI = 0.003 9 Vp ? 78.63
0.849
SHRN = 0.012 9 Vp
? 6.849
0.843
0.968
Figure 1
Correlation between P-wave velocity and uniaxial compressive
strength
5. Students t test
The significance of R values can be determined by
the t test, assuming that both variables are normally
distributed and the observations are chosen randomly.
The test compares the computed t value with a tabulated t value using the null hypothesis. It is done for
comparing the means of two variables, even if they
512
M. Khandelwal
Figure 2
Correlation between P-wave velocity and tensile strength
Figure 3
Correlation between P-wave velocity and punch shear strength
Figure 5
Correlation between P-wave velocity and slake durability index
Figure 6
Correlation between P-wave velocity and Youngs modulus
Figure 4
Correlation between P-wave velocity and density
Figure 7
Correlation between P-wave velocity and Poissons ratio
513
Table 4
Tabulated results of the t test
Rock tests
t test
Calculated Tabulated
value
value
Figure 8
Correlation between P-wave velocity and impact strength index
Figure 9
Correlation between P-wave velocity and Schmidt hammer
rebound number
11.3
2.18
11.5
11.5
2.18
2.18
11.5
11.2
2.18
2.18
11.3
11.5
11.2
2.18
2.18
2.18
11.3
2.18
i.e., the 95 % confidence interval. Since a 95 % confidence level was chosen in this test, a corresponding
critical t value of 2.18 was obtained. As is seen in
Table 4, the two computed t values remain in the upper
critical region. Therefore, it is concluded that there is a
real correlation between the P-wave velocity and uniaxial compressive strength, tensile strength, shear
strength, density, Youngs modulus, and Poissons
ratio, supporting the engineering use of correlations.
In all the above ten cases, the calculated value of
the t test is much higher than the tabulated value;
hence, they all have significantly strong correlation
among themselves, and this can be used for the prediction of these parameters using P-wave velocity.
6. Conclusions
This study indicates that the uniaxial compressive
strength, tensile strength, punch shear strength, density,
slake durability index, Youngs modulus, Poissons
ratio, impact strength index, and Schmidt hammer
rebound number of various rock types can be estimated
from their P-wave velocity values by using simple
empirical equations under the specified limits without
extrapolation. All these properties showed a linear
relationship with the P-wave velocity except Poissons
ratio where a higher coefficient of determination was
obtained by the polynomial relation. It can be inferred
514
M. Khandelwal
that P-wave velocity shows a good statistical relationship in the range of 1,6824,657 m/s with the different
physico-mechanical properties of rocks. This implies
that rocks having the above range of P-wave velocities
could be ideal sources for the determination of the
index properties of those mentioned above.
A strong coefficient of determination was found
between P-wave velocity and different physicomechanical properties of the tested rocks. This was also
verified by Students t test, which showed higher calculated values for each relation rather than tabulated
values. These equations are practical, simple, and
accurate enough to apply for the use in general practice
to obtain important static physico-mechanical properties of the different rocks for the design and planning of
excavation with greater safety and stability.
The P-wave velocity measurements cannot completely replace the mechanical testing of rock
specimens in demanding applications. For delineating
the volume of rock mass where one can interpolate or
extrapolate the measured rock properties, using the
laboratory and field measurements of P-wave velocities is a fast and cost effective tool.
REFERENCES
BOADU, F.K., 2000. Predicting the transport properties of fractured
rocks from seismic information: numerical experiments. J. App.
Geophysics 44, 103113.
EVANS I, POMEROY C.D., 1966. The strength, fracture and workability of coal. Pergamon Press, London.
GAVIGLIO, P., 1989. Longitudinal waves propagation in a limestone:
the relationship between velocity and density. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 22, 299306.
GOKTAN, R.M. and AYDAY, C., 1993. A suggested improvement to
the Schmidt rebound hardness ISRM suggested method with
particular reference to rock machineability, Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., 30(3): 321322.
HOBBS, D.W., 1964. Rock compressive strength. Colliery Eng,
41:287292.
INOUE, M., OHOMI M., 1981. Relation between uniaxial compressive
strength and elastic wave velocity of soft rock, Proceedings of
the Int. Symp. Weak Rock, Tokyo, 913.
IS 1121, 1974. Methods of test for determination of strength
properties of natural building stones: Part IV Shear strength.
ISRM, 1978a. Suggested method for determining sound velocity.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15(2), 5358.
(Received November 15, 2010, revised July 9, 2012, accepted July 10, 2012, Published online July 29, 2012)