Zusammenfassung
Die einaxiale Druckfestigkeit von Gesteinen findet breite Anwendung in der Gebirgsmechanik. Dieser Parameter kann entweder direkt in Laboruntersuchungen oder indirekt mithilfe einfacher Schmidt-Hammer und Dichtemessung bestimmt werden. Für 104 Proben sedimentärer, metamorpher und Tiefengesteine wurden das spezifische Gewicht, die Porosität und der Schmidt-Hammer Rückprallwert bestimmt und statistisch ausgewertet. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die bisher zur Anwendung kommenden Zusammenhänge zwischen der einaxialen Druckfestigkeit und den genannten Parametern wenig geeignet sind, die Druckfestigkeit der untersuchten Gesteine indirekt zu bestimmen. Neue Zusammenhänge wurden statistisch erarbeitet. Dabei hat sich gezeigt, dass durch die Berücksichtigung der Porosität als wichtiger festigkeitsvermindernder Parameter bedeutende Verbesserungen der Prognosegenauigkeit erzielt werden können. Die gefundenen Zusammenhänge werden im Detail beschrieben.
Summary
Uniaxial compressive strength as one the mechanical properties of rock has various applications in rock engineering. This parameter can be determined directly either in laboratory tests or estimated indirectly using a cheap and conventional method such as Schmidt hammer rebound test and unit weight. Schmidt hammer rebound, unit weight, porosity and uniaxial compressive strength were determined for 104 specimens of different types of sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks. Relationships of Schmidt hammer rebound value, unit weight and porosity of different types of rock and uniaxial strength were analyzed statistically using test results. Present relationships of estimating the indirect uniaxial compressive strength of rock were evaluated on the basis of the test results. Statistic analysis of the results showed that estimating indirect uniaxial compressive strength using the present relationships yields different re- sults compared to measured uniaxial compressive strength. Various relationships of estimating uniaxial compressive strength (σc) as a function of combination of three properties of Schmidt hammer rebound (Hs), unit weight (γ) and porosity (P) were applied to find improved relationships. For the relationship between uniaxial compressive strength (σc) and (Hs-P)γ a correlation (R2 =0.9501) was achieved. When effect of porosity as one of the weakness points of rock on the relationship was applied to analyze the test results, a relationship with a better correlation was obtained to estimate uniaxial compressive strength.
References
ISRM. Suggested method for determination of the Schmidt rebound hardness. Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring, ed. by Brown, ET.; 1981, pp. 101–102
Bieniawski, Z. T.: Rock mechanics design in mining and tunneling. A.A. Balkema, P.227, 1984
Schmidt, E.: A nondestructive concrete tester. Concrete, 1951
Cargill, J.S., and A. Shakoor: Evaluation of empirical methods for measuring the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, 27 (1990), pp. 495–503
Poole, R., and I. Farmer: Consistancy and repeatability of Schmidt hammer rebound data during field testing. 17 (1980), pp. 167–171
Deere, D. V., and R. P. Miller: Engineering classifications and index properties of intact rock. Tech. Report No. ASWL-TR 65–116. Univ. of Illinois, pp. 300, (1960)
Katz O., Z. Reches, and J. C. Roegiers: Evaluation of mechanical rock properties using a Schmidt Hammer. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, Vol. 37 (2000), pp. 723–728
Kidybinsky, A.: Method of investigation, estimation and classification of roofs in mines in the U.S. for the selection of suitable mechanized support for longwalls. Report No. 3, (1980)
Aguilera, R.: Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Penn Well Publishing Com, (1980)
ISRM: Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and deformability of rock materials. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 16 (1979), pp. 135–140
Smorodinov, M.I., E.A. Motovilov, and V.A. Volkov: Determinations of correlation relationships between strength and some physical characteristics of rocks. Proc. Second Congress of ISRM, Belgrade, Privredni pregled, Vol. 2; (1970), pp. 35–37
Dunn, D. E., L. J. LaFountain, and R. E. Jackson: Porosity dependence of mechanism of brittle fracture in sandstones. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 78, No. 14 (1973), pp. 2403–2417
Vernik, L., M. Bruno, and C. Bovberg: Empirical relations between compressive strength and porosity of siliciclastic rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 30, No. 7 (1993); pp. 677–680
Laskaripour, G. R., and E. K. S. Passaris: Correlations between index parameters and mechanical properties of shales. Proc. 8th Congress of ISRM, Tokyo, Vol.1 (1995), pp. 257–261
Moomivand, H.: Some factors affecting the strength of rock under triaxial compressive stresses. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of New South Wales (1996)
Vutukuri, V.S. and H. Moomivand: Development of a brittle rock-like material having different values of porosity, density and strength. Eurock '96, Proc. ISRM International Symposium on Prediction and Performance in Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Torino, Italy, (1996), pp. 213–220
Vutukuri, V.S., and K. Katsuyama: Introduction to rock mechanics. Industrial Publishing and Consulting, Inc. Tokyo, Japan, 275 p, (1997)
Griffith, A.A.: The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Phil. Trans Roy. Soc., A221: (1997), pp. 163–97
Griffith, A.A.: The theory of rupture. Proceeding of First International Congress of Applied Mechanics, ed. by Biezeno C.B and Burgers J.M (1924), pp. 54–63
Paterson, M. S.: Experimental Rock Deformation – the Brittle Field. Springer: Berlin (1978)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moomivand, H. Development of a New Method for Estimating the Indirect Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock Using Schmidt Hammer. Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh 156, 142–146 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-011-0644-5
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-011-0644-5