Advertisement

A correlative study on textural properties and crushability of rocks

  • Ramazan Comakli
  • Serkan Cayirli
Original Paper
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Rock texture is a term representing the mineral grains, grain sizes, and matrices of rocks. Crushability properties of rocks are very important parameters on an industrial scale and they can be determined by different methods. This study investigated the effects of textural properties of rocks on their crushability. For this purpose, some physical and mechanical tests were carried out on 12 different rock samples, which were divided into igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock groups. All rock samples were crushed by using jaw and roll crushers, and crushability indices (CI) and particle sizes (d50, d80) were determined for all rock samples. The textural properties of rocks were defined by using the texture coefficient (TC) approach on thin section images. The test results were statistically analyzed, and firstly the physical and mechanical properties were correlated with CI and TC, respectively. Positive linear correlations were found between TC and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Brazilian tensile strength (BTS), and Schmidt hammer hardness (SHH). When the rock samples were grouped based on their geological origins, there were strong or good linear relationships between CI and UCS and BTS for both the jaw and roll crushers. Then, TC was correlated with CI, d50, and d80. It was found that TC was influential on CI especially for the roll crusher. However, when the rocks were separated as igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary, strong linear relationships were found for both crushers. The same was observed for the relationship between TC and both d50 and d80; the correlation coefficients were higher and more reliable for the roll crusher than the jaw crusher. The results of this study showed that the textural properties of rocks are more influential on the results obtained in a roll crusher than a jaw crusher. However, more rock samples are required to verify the results of this study.

Keywords

Texture coefficient Crushability index Particle size Roll crusher Jaw crusher 

References

  1. Åkesson U, Lindqvist J, Göransson M, Stigh J (2001) Relationship between texture and mechanical properties of granites, Central Sweden, by use of image-analysing techniques. Bull Eng Geol Environ 60:277–284.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s100640100105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alber M, Kahraman S (2009) Predicting the uniaxial compressive strength and elastic modulus of a fault breccia from texture coefficient. Rock Mech Rock Eng 42:117–127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-008-0167-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alber M, Yarali O, Dahl F et al (2014) ISRM suggested method for determining the abrasivity of rock by the cerchar abrasivity test. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:261–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-013-0518-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azzoni A, Bailo F, Rondena E, Zaninetti A (1996) Assessment of texture coefficient for different rock types and correlation with uniaxial compressive strength and rock weathering. Rock Mech Rock Eng 29:39–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01019938 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bearman RA, Barley RW, Hitchcock A (1991) Prediction of power consumption and product size in cone crushing. Miner Eng 4:1243–1256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0892-6875(91)90170-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell FG, Culshaw MG (1998) Petrographic and engineering properties of sandstones from the Sneinton formation, Nottinghamshire, England. Q J Eng Geol 31:5–19.  https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.QJEG.1998.031.P1.02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berry P, Dantini EM, Massacci P (1984) Influence of mechanical characteristics of rock on size reduction processing. In: Proc. Min. Process. Extractive Metall., Beijing, IMM. pp 15–26Google Scholar
  8. Bilgin N, Copur H, Balci C (2016) Use of Schmidt hammer with special reference to strength reduction factor related to cleat presence in a coal mine. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 84:25–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.01.016 Google Scholar
  9. Buyuksagis IS, Goktan RM (2007) The effect of Schmidt hammer type on uniaxial compressive strength prediction of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:299–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2006.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comakli R, Atici U (2017) Investigation of the relationship between the mineral shape properties and destruction specific energy in granitic rocks (in Turkish). Scientific Mining Journal 56:173–180Google Scholar
  11. Ersoy A, Waller MD (1995) Textural characterisation of rocks. Eng Geol 39:123–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7952(95)00005-Z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esmailzadeh A, Behnam S, Mikaeil R et al (2017) Relationship between texture and uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. Civil Engineering Journal 3:480–486Google Scholar
  13. Fahy MP, Guccione MJ (1979) Estimating strength of sandstone using petrographic thin-section data. Environ Eng Geosci xvi:467–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunsallus KL, Kulhawy FH (1984) A comparative evaluation of rock strength measures. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and 21:233–248.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(84)92680-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gupta A, Yan DS (2006) Mineral processing design and operation. ​Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Heikkilä P (1991) Improving the quality of crushed rock aggregate. Acta Polytech Scand 96:169Google Scholar
  17. Howarth DF, Rowlands JC (1986) Development of an index to quantify rock texture for qualitative assessment of intact rock properties. Geotech Test J 9:169–179.  https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10627J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howarth DF, Rowlands JC (1987) Quantitative assessment of rock texture and correlation with drillability and strength properties. Rock Mech Rock Eng 20:57–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01019511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ISRM (2007) In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 1974–2006. Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  20. Jankovic A, Sinclair S (2006) The shape of product size distributions in stirred mills. Miner Eng 19:1528–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahraman S, Toraman OY (2008) Predicting Los Angeles abrasion loss of rock aggregates from crushability index. Bull Mater Sci 31:173–177.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12034-008-0030-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahraman S, Toraman OY, Cayirli S (2017) Predicting the strength and brittleness of rocks from a crushability index. Bull Eng Geol Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-017-1012-9
  23. Kaya E, Hogg R, Kumar SR (2002) Particle shape modification in comminution. KONA Powder and Particle Journal 20:188–195.  https://doi.org/10.14356/kona.2002021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kekec B, Unal M, Sensogut C (2006) Effect of the textural properties of rocks on their crushing and grinding features. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing: Mineral Metallurgy Materials (Eng Ed) 13:385–392.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1005-8850(06)60079-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kotake N, Kuboki M, Kiya S, Kanda Y (2011) Influence of dry and wet grinding conditions on fineness and shape of particle size distribution of product in a ball mill. Adv Powder Technol 22:86–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lizotte YC, Scoble MJ (1994) Geological control over blast fragmentation. Can Min Metall Bull 87:57–71Google Scholar
  27. Napier-Munn TJ, Morrel S, Morrison RD, Kojovic T (1996) Mineral comminution circuits : their operation and optimisation, first. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, IndooroopillyGoogle Scholar
  28. Olaleye BM (2010) Influence of some rock strength properties on jaw crusher performance in granite quarry. Min Sci Technol 20:204–208.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1674-5264(09)60185-X Google Scholar
  29. Ozturk CA, Nasuf E (2013) Strength classification of rock material based on textural properties. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 37:45–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ozturk CA, Nasuf E, Bilgin N (2004) The assessment of rock cutability, and physical and mechanical rock properties from a texture coefficient. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 104:397–402Google Scholar
  31. Ozturk CA, Nasuf E, Kahraman S (2014) Estimation of rock strength from quantitative assessment of rock texture. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 114:471–480Google Scholar
  32. Přikryl R (2001) Some microstructural aspects of strength variation in rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:671–682.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(01)00031-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Přikryl R (2006) Assessment of rock geomechanical quality by quantitative rock fabric coefficients: limitations and possible source of misinterpretations. Eng Geol 87:149–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.05.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Räisänen M, Torppa A (2005) Quality assessment of a geologically heterogeneous rock quarry in Pirkanmaa county, southern Finland. Bull Eng Geol Environ 64:409–418.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-005-0006-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Räisänen M, Kupiainen K, Tervahattu H (2005) The effect of mineralogy, texture and mechanical properties of anti-skid and asphalt aggregates on urban dust, stages II and III. Bull Eng Geol Environ 64:247–256.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-004-0267-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sajid M, Coggan J, Arif M et al (2016) Petrographic features as an effective indicator for the variation in strength of granites. Eng Geol 202:44–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shakoor A, Bonelli RE (1991) Relationship between petrographic characteristics, engineering index properties, and mechanical properties of selected sandstones. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 28:55–71Google Scholar
  38. Shrivastava AK, Sharma AK (2012) A review on study of jaw crusher. International Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER) 2:885–888Google Scholar
  39. Tandon RS, Gupta V (2013) The control of mineral constituents and textural characteristics on the petrophysical & mechanical (PM) properties of different rocks of the Himalaya. Eng Geol 153:125–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2012.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tiryaki B, Dikmen AC (2006) Effects of rock properties on specific cutting energy in linear cutting of sandstones by picks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 39:89–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Toraman OY, Kahraman S, Cayirli S (2010) Predicting the crushability of rocks from the impact strength index. Miner Eng 23:752–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tuǧrul A, Zarif IH (1999) Correlation of mineralogical and textural characteristics with engineering properties of selected granitic rocks from Turkey. Eng Geol 51:303–317.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(98)00071-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tumac D, Copur H, Balci C et al (2017) Investigation into the effects of textural properties on Cuttability performance of a chisel tool. Rock Mech Rock Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-017-1376-y
  44. Wills BA, Napier-Munn TJ (2006) Wills' Mineral Processing Technology, Seventh Edition: An Introduction to the Practical Aspects of Ore Treatment and Mineral Recovery, Seventh. Elsevier Science & Technology BooksGoogle Scholar
  45. Yilmaz GN, Goktan RM, Kibici Y (2011) Relations between some quantitative petrographic characteristics and mechanical strength properties of granitic building stones. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:506–513.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.09.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zorlu K, Ulusay R, Ocakoglu F et al (2004) Predicting intact rock properties of selected sandstones using petrographic thin-section data. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.03.025

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mining EngineeringNigde Omer Halisdemir UniversityNigdeTurkey

Personalised recommendations