Analysis of the Leeb Hardness Test Data Obtained by Using Two Different Rock Core Holders

Year 2018, Volume: 22 Issue: 1, 24 - 31, 01.03.2018

Nurdan Güneş Yılmaz , R. Mete Göktan

https://doi.org/10.19113/sdufbed.28343

Cited By: 6

Abstract

In this study, an investigation was carried out to elucidate if the core holder type affects the measured Leeb hardness values (HL) of rock materials obtained by using the Equotip hardness tester. To achieve this goal, NX-size core specimens of different rock samples were subjected to Leeb hardness testing by employing an ‘Arch-shaped’ and a ‘V-shaped’ core holder. The results indicated a strong degree of linear correlation (R²  0.95) between mean rebound hardness values determined in the arch-shaped holder (HL_A) and V-shaped holder (HL_V). The maximum difference in HL values obtained from the two holders was 74.2 units on the HL-scale, corresponding to a difference of 10.2 %. Although the differences in magnitudes of HL_A and HL_V values were small and varied from one rock variety to another, there was a tendency of the V-shaped holder to give relatively lower values. On the other hand, when compared to the minimum values, a higher statistical correspondence was observed between maximum HL_A and HL_V values. The results also showed that it is possible to predict uniaxial compressive strength of the tested rocks reliably by employing any of the holders.

Keywords

Core holder, Equotip hardness tester; Leeb hardness; Uniaxial compressive strength; Rebound hardness

References

• [1] Aydin, A., Basu, A. 2005. The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization. Engineering Geology 81, 1-14.
• [2] Aoki, H., Matsukura, Y. 2007. A new technique for non-destructive field measurement of rock-surface strength: an application of Equotip hardness tester to weathering studies. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32, 1759-1769.
• [3] Wilhelm, K., Viles, H., Burke, O. 2016. Low impact surface hardness testing (Equotip) on porous surfaces – advances in methodology with implications for rock weathering and stone deterioration research. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 41, 1027-1038.
• [4] Proceq SA. 2007. Equotip 3 portable hardness tester, operating instructions. Switzerland.
• [5] Viles, H., Goudie, A., Grab, S., Lalley, J. 2011. The use of the Schmidt hammer and Equotip for rock hardness assessment in geomorphology and heritage science: a comparative analysis. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 36, 320-333.
• [6] Hack, HRGK., Hıngıra, J., Verwaal, W. 1993. Determination of discontinuity wall strength by Equotip and ball rebound tests. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanical Abstracts 30, 151-155.
• [7] Verwaal, W., Mulder, A. 1993. Estimating rock strength with the Equotip hardness tester. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanical Abstracts 30: 659-662.
• [8] Alvarez Grima, M., Babuska, R. 1999. Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconfined compressive strength of rock samples. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 36, 339-349.
• [9] Mol, L., Viles, HA. 2010. Geoelectric investigations into sandstone moisture regimes: Implications for rock weathering and the deterioration of San Rock Art in the Golden Gate Reserve. Geomorphology 118, 280-287.
• [10] Asiri, Y., Corkum, A., El Naggar, H. 2016. Leeb hardness test for UCS estimation of sandstone. 69 th Geo Vancouver Conference, Vancouver, October 2016.
• [11] Günes Yılmaz, N. 2013. The influence of testing procedures on uniaxial compressive strength prediction of carbonate rocks from Equotip hardness tester (EHT) and proposal of a new testing methodology: Hybrid dynamic hardness (HDH). Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 46, 95-106.
• [12] Aoki, H., Matsukura, Y. 2008. Estimating the unconfined compressive strength of intact rocks from Equotip hardness. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 67, 23-29.
• [13] Kawasaki, S., Yoshida, M., Tanimoto, C., Masuya, T. 2001. The development of property evaluation method for rock materials based on the simple rebound hardness test: Investigations on the effects of test conditions and fundamental properties. Rock Mechanics – a challenge for Society, Sarkka and Eloranta (eds), Proceedings of the ISRM Regional Symposium Eurock 2001, Espoo, 4-7 June 2001, pp 103-108
• [14] Meulenkamp, F., Alvarez Grima, M. 1999. Application of neural networks for the prediction of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) from Equotip hardness. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanical Abstracts 36, 29-39.
• [15] Van de Wall ARG, Ajalu JS. 1997. Characterization of the geotechnical properties of rock material for construction purposes. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 34, 3-4, paper No. 319.
• [16] Gunes Yılmaz N, Goktan RM, Onargan T. 2015. The influence of Leeb hardness testing procedures on uniaxial compressive strength prediction of some selected decorative stones. Proceedings of the XIII National Conference With International Participation of the Open and Underwater Mining of Minerals. 1-5 September, Varna, Bulgaria.
• [17] Gunsallus KL., Kulhawy, FH., O’Rourke, TD. 1984. Evaluation of Schmidt hammer rebound hardness test holders. Geotechnical Testing Journal 7, 164-166.
• [18] Gunes Yilmaz, N., Goktan, RM., Yavuz, AB., Karaca, Z. 2016. Influence of rock cradle block geometry on rebound hardness. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 75, 325-339.
• [19] Turkish Standard TS EN 1936 (March 2001) Natural stone test methods-Determination of real density and apparent density, and of total and open porosity.
• [20] ISRM. 2007. The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974-2006. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA (Eds) Suggested methods prepared by the ISRM commission on testing methods. Compilation arranged by the ISRM Turkish National Group, Ankara.