Estimating Unconfined Compressive Strength of

Sedimentary Rocks in the United Arab Emirates

from Generated Empirical Correlations

Estimating Unconfined Compressive Strength of

Sedimentary Rocks in the United Arab Emirates
from Generated Empirical Correlations

By
Hussain Osama Salah

I
II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest and warmest gratitude to all those who helped me

complete this research. I would especially like to give my deepest thanks to my supervisors;

Dr. Maher Omar, Prof. Abdullah Shanableh, and Eng. Ali Tahmaz, who spent so much

effort reviewing, making suggestions and helping me in carrying out this study.

I would also like to thank, Eng. Yousef Al-Soboh, Director of Baynunah Engineering lab,

Abu Dhabi, Eng. Mohammed Obaid, Director of Matrix lab, Dubai, and Eng. Imad Al-Sharif,

Director of the Arab Center of Engineering Studies (ACES) Dubai for their assistance and

contribution. Additionally, I would like to thank everyone who was involved, directly or

indirectly, in completing this work.

I would also like to thank the examiners; Dr. Radhi Al-Zubaidi, the internal examiner, and

Prof. Mousa Attom, the external examiner, for their reviews, remarks, and comments on this

work. Their input was of great help in producing this research as it is now.

Finally, I would like to express my warmest, deepest and heartfelt gratitude to my family for

their love, support, patience and encouragement.

III
 Estimating Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Sedimentary Rocks in the United Arab Emirates
from Generated Empirical Correlations
By: Hussain Osama Salah

Supervisors: Dr. Maher Omar and Prof. Abdullah Shanableh

ABSTRACT

A laboratory study was conducted to develop a database and models for predicting the

unconfined compressive strength of sedimentary rocks. A large number of rock samples from

different sites in the United Arab Emirates were collected and tested for the development of

the database and evaluation of models. Reliable empirical relationships were developed for

estimating the unconfined compressive strength of UAE rocks based on results obtained from

the following mechanical and physical tests that were performed on rock samples: unconfined

compressive strength, point load strength index, Schmidt rebound, Brazilian splitting and

ultrasonic pulse velocity tests. These were conducted to determine the mechanical properties

of rock specimens, while the bulk specific weight and moisture content test was conducted to

determine the physical properties of rock specimens.

Twenty nine relations were selected from more than a hundred and thirty generated relations

developed. Each relation was the result of a statistical analysis and the application of the

Mean Average (MA) data smoothing algorithm and Least Absolute Residuals (LAR) robust

regression wherever that was necessary. In addition, four general relationships were

developed relating unconfined compressive strength to moisture content, unit weight, point

load strength index and type of rock.

Keywords: Unconfined Compressive Strength; Modulus of Elasticity; Empirical Relations,

Laboratory Testing.

IV
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.4. Scope of Study ................................................................................................................ 3
1.5. Engineering Significance ................................................................................................ 4
1.6. Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Definition and History of Rock Mechanics and Engineering ......................................... 5
2.1.1. Definition of Rock Mechanics and Engineering ...................................................... 5
2.1.2. History of Rock Mechanics and Engineering ........................................................... 6
2.2. Main Areas of Interest in Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering ................................ 7
2.2.1. Interests in Rock Slopes Stability ............................................................................. 7
2.2.2. Interests in Shafts, Tunnels, Caverns and Underground Mines ............................... 8
2.2.3. Interests in Rock Foundations .................................................................................. 9
2.3. Software Usage in Rock Mechanics and Engineering .................................................. 11
2.4. Brief about Sedimentary Rocks .................................................................................... 12
2.5. Geological History of the United Arab Emirates and Its Rocks ................................... 14
2.6. Rock Classification ....................................................................................................... 17
2.7. Unconfined Compressive strength (UCS) of Rocks ..................................................... 19
2.7.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 19
2.7.2. Relations between UCS and Mechanical Properties .............................................. 21
2.7.2.1 Relations between UCS and Point Load Strength Index (Is(50)) ..................... 21
2.7.2.2. Relations between UCS and Schmidt Hammer Rebound Number .................. 23
2.7.2.3 Relations between UCS and Brazilian Splitting Tensile Strength .................... 25
2.7.2.4 Relations between UCS and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity ................................... 26
2.7.2.5 Relations between UCS and Modulus of Elasticity .......................................... 28
2.7.3. Relations between UCS and Physical Properties ................................................... 31
2.7.3.1 Relations between UCS and Bulk Specific Weight .......................................... 31
2.7.3.2. Relations between UCS and Moisture Content ............................................... 32

V
Chapter 3 Experimental Program ........................................................................................ 33
3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 33
3.2. Sample Collection ......................................................................................................... 33
3.3. Sample Transporting and Storing.................................................................................. 36
3.4. Sample Identification .................................................................................................... 38
3.5. Sample Preparation ....................................................................................................... 39
3.6. Sample Testing .............................................................................................................. 40
3.6.1. Mechanical Tests Done .......................................................................................... 40
3.6.1.1. The Point Load Test. ........................................................................................ 40
3.6.1.2. The Schmidt Hammer Test .............................................................................. 42
3.6.1.3. Brazilian Splitting Test .................................................................................... 42
3.6.1.4. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test......................................................................... 43
3.6.1.5. UCS and E Test ................................................................................................ 43
3.6.2. Physical Tests Done................................................................................................ 45
3.6.2.1. Moisture Content Test...................................................................................... 45
3.6.2.2 Specific Weight Test ......................................................................................... 45
3.6.3. Order of Testing...................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 4 Results, Analysis and Discussion ........................................................................ 47
4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 47
4.2. Test Results ................................................................................................................... 47
4.2.1. Mechanical Test Results ......................................................................................... 47
4.2.1.1 The Schmidt Hammer Test ............................................................................... 47
4.2.1.2 The Point Load Strength Index Test. ................................................................ 48
4.2.1.3. The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test ................................................................. 48
4.2.1.4. The Brazilian Splitting Tensile Test ................................................................ 49
4.2.1.5. The UCS Test ................................................................................................... 49
4.2.1.6. The Young’s Modulus of Elasticity Test ......................................................... 50
4.2.2. Physical Tests Results ............................................................................................ 53
4.2.2.1. The Moisture Content Test. ............................................................................. 53
4.2.2.2 The Unit Weight Test........................................................................................ 53
4.3 Generated Relations ....................................................................................................... 54
4.3.1. UCS Relations with Mechanical Properties ........................................................... 55
4.3.1.1. UCS vs. HR....................................................................................................... 55
VI
 4.3.1.3 UCS vs. Vp ........................................................................................................ 63
4.3.1.5. E vs. UCS ......................................................................................................... 68
4.3.2 Multiple Regression Models .................................................................................... 71
Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusion and Final Recommendations ....................................... 76
5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 76
5.2 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 77
5.3 Recommendations for Future Research ......................................................................... 78
References ................................................................................................................................ 79
Appendixes.............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

VII
 List of Tables
Table 2.1: Relation For Different Is(50) Classes 22
Table 2.2: Recent BST Relations Collected By Nazir 25
Table 2.3: Correlations Found By Yassar and Erdogan 27
Table 3.1: Summary of Borehole Locations and Data 34
Table 4.1: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of HR 47
Table 4.2: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of Is(50) 48
Table 4.3: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of VP 48
Table 4.4: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of St 49
Table 4.5: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of UCS 50
Table 4.6: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of E 50
Table 4.7: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of ω 53
Table 4.8: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of γ 53
Table 4.9: Relation Cases Codes 55
Table 4.10: Relations Between UCS and HR, General Case 56
Table 4.11: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and HR 56
Table 4.12: Relations Between UCS and Is(50), General Case 58
Table 4.13: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and Is(50) 59
Table 4.14: Relations Between UCS and VP, General Case 63
Table 4.15: Relations Between UCS and St, General Case 64
Table 4.16: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and St, 65
Table 4.17: Relations Between E and UCS, General Case 68
Table 4.18: Other Relations Summary Between E and UCS 69
Table 5.1: Summary of Direct Relations 77
Table 5.2: Summary of Multiple Regression Relations 77
Table A.1: Schmidt Hammer Test, All Results 84
Table A.2: Point Load Strength Test, All Results 86
Table A.3: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test, All Results 90
Table A.4: Brazilian Test, All Results 92
Table A.5: Unconfined Compression Strength Test, All Results 94
Table A.6: Modulus of Elasticity Test, All Results 98
Table A.7: Moisture Content Test, All Results 99
Table A.8: Unit Weight Test, All Results 103

VIII
 List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Rock Slope Stability 7
Figure 2.2: Felton Quarry Granite Slope Failure 8
Figure 2.3: Copiapó Mining Accident 2010 9
Figure 2.4: Illustration of Rock Foundation of Burj Khalifa 10
Figure 2.5: House Poarch Foundation Stones 10
Figure 2.6: Clastic Rock Classification Scheme 13
Figure 2.7: Different Types of Sedimentary Rocks 13
Figure 2.8: Arabian Plate and UAE Position 14
Figure 2.9: Summary Stratagraphic of the UAE Foreland Basin 16
Figure 2.10: Different Compression States of Rocks 20
Figure 2.11: UCS – Is(50) Linear and Power Relation By Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis 22
Figure 2.12: UCS – Is(50) Stratified Relation By Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis 22
Figure 2.13: UCS vs. HR Relation By Shalabi etal. 24
Figure 2.14: UCS vs. HR Relation By Yilmaz and Sendir 24
Figure 2.15: UCS vs. BST Relation By Nazir 26
Figure 2.16: Comparison of Different Studies With Lab Work By Nazir 26
Figure 2.17: Vp vs. UCS Relation By Yassar and Erdogan 27
Figure 2.18: Vp vs. E Relation By Yassar and Erdogan 28
Figure 2.19: Average Modulus of Elasticity Calculation 28
Figure 2.20: 3D Visualization of Equation 2.7 30
Figure 2.21: Nomograph Constructed for Equation 2.7 30
Figure 2.22: UCS vs. ρ Relation By Moh’d 31
Figure 3.1: General Work Plan For Thesis 33
Figure 3.2: Sample Contribution By Place and Type 35
Figure 3.3: Envelop Borehole Locations 35
Figure 3.4: Flow Chart for Preserving and Transporting Rock Core Samples 36
Figure 3.5: Sample ID Illustration 38
Figure 3.6: Sample Ready for the Point Load Test 41
Figure 3.7: Point Load Test Different Failure Patterns 41
Figure 3.8: Failed Sample After Brazilian Test 43
Figure 3.9: Sample Ready for the UCS and E Test 44
Figure 3.10: Sample Testing Stages Flowchart 46
IX
Figure 4.1: Sample of Stress-Strain Diagrams of Samples 50
Figure 4.2: UCS vs. HR Relation, General Case 56
Figure 4.3: UCS vs. HR Relation, AV Case 57
Figure 4.4: UCS vs. HR Relation, AW Case 57
Figure 4.5: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, General Case 58
Figure 4.6: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, AV Case 59
Figure 4.7: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, AW Case 59
Figure 4.8: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, CA Case 60
Figure 4.9: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, CW Case 60
Figure 4.10: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, MA Case 61
Figure 4.11: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, MV Case 61
Figure 4.12: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, SA Case 62
Figure 4.13: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, SV Case 62
Figure 4.14: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, SW Case 63
Figure 4.15: UCS vs. VP Relation, General Case 64
Figure 4.16: UCS vs. St Relation, General Case 65
Figure 4.17: UCS vs. St Relation, AV Case 65
Figure 4.18: UCS vs. St Relation, AW Case 66
Figure 4.19: UCS vs. St Relation, CA Case 66
Figure 4.20: UCS vs. St Relation, MA Case 67
Figure 4.21: UCS vs. St Relation, SA Case 67
Figure 4.22: E vs. UCS Relation, General Case 68
Figure 4.23: E vs. UCS Relation, AV Case 69
Figure 4.24: E vs. UCS Relation, AW Case 69
Figure 4.25: E vs. UCS Relation, CA Case 70
Figure 4.26: E vs. UCS Relation, MA Case 70
Figure 4.27: Comparison of Works for Rebound Number HR 72
Figure 4.28: Comparison of Works for Point Load Strength Index Is(50) 73
Figure 4.29: Comparison of Works for Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity 74
Figure 4.30: Comparison of Works for Brazilian Strength St 74
Figure 4.31: Comparison of Works for Modulus of Elasticity E 75

X
 Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. Background

A closer look at the development projects and construction boom that occurred in the last

decade in the United Arab Emirates gives thoughtful considerations about the construction of

such major projects. In every construction project, geotechnical investigations are carried out

to determine how the components of the project that interact with the soil should proceed.

Geotechnical investigations vary in complexity and prices; some of them require days of

sophisticated work, complex procedures to be followed and fortunes of money to be spent.

Therefore, geotechnical engineers thought about devising easier, less sophisticated and

cheaper ways to estimate results of some important geotechnical parameters. Estimation of

such parameters is also needed to overcome sampling and handling problems. Estimation of

parameters is typically done through generating empirical correlations that simplify

estimation of the values of parameters with considerations to safety and efficiency.

One of the most important rock parameters is the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test

of rocks, since it is used widely in rock classifications like Rock Mass Rating (RMR),

analysis and design of rock related structures. Here, special sample preparation is involved. In

the case of sedimentary rocks, UCS testing becomes harder due to the fact that the recovered

rocks are sometimes of such geometric parameters that they are not allowed by the code to

have the test performed on them, or some rocks fail in the preparation stage before

performing the UCS test. Therefore, the need of a way to determine this important parameter

arises.

1
Moreover, due to the lack of information on local rocks, the main purpose of this work is to

generate empirical relations between UCS of sedimentary rocks in the UAE and other

relevant physical and mechanical properties.

1.2. Problem Statement

Rock’s UCS is a very important test to be done on rock cores to give full understanding of the

rocks’ capabilities to accommodate proposed project loads and to do the RMR classification

analysis for rocks. Sometimes, Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of a certain core specimen

is of a level so low that it is hard to find a core piece to perform the UCS test on, since codes

require a special length to diameter ratio of (2:1) and received rocks’ condition usually

doesn’t meet this requirement. On the other hand, other tests can be done on these rocks' core

specimens like the point load strength index, rebound hammer and many other tests.

Therefore, it is assumed that there is a need for a simpler way to determine the UCS of rocks.

As a result of all of the above, the researcher decided to write a thesis on relating the UCS of

sedimentary rocks of the UAE to other mechanical parameters like point load strength index,

Brazilian splitting strength, modulus of elasticity, rebound number and ultrasonic pulse

velocity, as well as physical properties like bulk specific weight and moisture content. All of

this in order to simplify the approach of estimating the UCS for sedimentary rocks in the

UAE.

1.3. Objectives

The main objective of this research paper is to develop empirical relations between the UCS

of sedimentary rocks in the UAE and other physical and mechanical properties of rocks. The

specific objectives of the study are to relate the rock’s UCS to mechanical parameters like

point load strength index, Brazilian splitting strength, modulus of elasticity, rebound number

2
and ultrasonic pulse velocity, as well as physical properties like bulk specific weight and

moisture content. All tests were performed in accordance with the American Society of

Testing and Materials procedure codes. All math works were done using the MATLAB

software.

1.4. Scope of Study

The following steps were done to fulfill the work. First, previous studies regarding the same

topic were reviewed. Next, a database with means of identification was created. Then, lab

environment was prepared to receive, store and retrieve specimens. After that, sedimentary

rock samples from different types (mudstone, crystalline gypsum, sandstone and calcarenite),

from different areas in the UAE (western region, central Abu Dhabi City and Dubai) were

acquired. Subsequently, lab tests on acquired samples were conducted. These tests include;

unconfined compressive strength, modulus of elasticity point load strength index, Schmidt

rebound, Brazilian splitting and ultrasonic pulse velocity tests, and were performed to

determine the mechanical properties of rock specimens, while the bulk specific weight and

moisture content test were performed to determine the physical properties of rock specimens.

The created database was then filled with the worked test results ready for relation generation

between data from different performed tests. Afterwards, the correctness and integrity of

found relations was checked versus previously done work regarding the same subject.

Finally, Mathematical representation of relations plots was done.

This thesis has 5 chapters; chapter 1 presents study background, problem statement,

objectives, significance of the study and study limitations. Chapter 2 presents the literature

review done for the thesis. Chapter 3 discusses methodologies of testing, lab environment and

worked data digestion. Chapter 4 presents and discusses results found in the lab. And, chapter

5 states conclusions and recommendations.

3
1.5. Engineering Significance

This thesis provides new and advanced knowledge about rocks in the UAE, as it brings

together analysis of strength and different physical properties and rock types of the UAE with

standardized international studies. This work is about developing relations between UCS of

UAE sedimentary rocks with other different, easier to find parameters and widely used tests

due to the lack of information about such properties. It is hoped that this work will provide a

good tool to predict rock’s UCS from other mechanical and physical parameters.

1.6. Limitations of the Study

All investigations were done on sedimentary rocks of the following types; sandstone,

mudstone and crystalline gypsum in the UAE only. Therefore, careful generalization of

generated correlations for any different rock types than the aforementioned ones and other

regions than the UAE would be much recommended. Also, this study was conducted on

samples in their as received condition.

4
 Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1. Definition and History of Rock Mechanics and Engineering

2.1.1. Definition of Rock Mechanics and Engineering

After many studies in the field of rock mechanics and engineering (RME), researchers in this

field have agreed to use Judd’s definition of RME, which was stated in 1964 and amended in

1974 to become as follows “Rock mechanics is the theoretical and applied science of the

mechanical behavior of rock and rock masses; it is that branch of mechanics concerned with

the response of rock and rock masses to the force fields of their physical environment.” This

definition is more convenient in mining works as mine excavation changes force fields that

rock masses encounter. Additionally, Brady, B. and Brown, E. (2005) noted that rock

mechanics is a diverse science based on the type of rocks considered in the study. For

example, if fragmented or weathered rocks are considered, then rock mechanics approaches

soil mechanics. On the other hand, if rocks are at inaccessible depths for mining and drilling,

rock mechanics approaches mechanical aspects of structural geology. The definition of rock

engineering can be rewritten to conform with engineering definition by Smith (2012) which

was “The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures,

machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in

combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to

forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended

function, economics of operation and safety to life and property,” to be the following “The

creative application of scientific principles of rock mechanics to design or develop rock

related structures and to forecast and monitor their behavior under recommended operating

5
conditions with respects of intended function, economics of operation and safety to lives and

properties.”

2.1.2. History of Rock Mechanics and Engineering

Jaeger (1979) and Hoek (2006) have diligently studied the history and development of RME.

They disagreed on the date of the establishment of RME as a modern discipline. Jaeger gave

examples of construction of tunnels in the Alps Mountains in the late 19th century. He

thought that the first notice of residual stresses on rocks was back in 1874 when the German

tunnel expert, Rziha, noted the bursts and squeezing in the tunnels and galleries of the Alps

Mountains. He further stated that Heim, a professor at Zurich University and Zurich Federal

Institute of Technology, concurred with Rziha’s observation. Heim suggested that the order

of magnitude of horizontal forces acting on rocks in these mountains had to be the same as

the vertical forces acting on them. Jaeger observed that the first attempt at rock mechanics

was in 1926 when Schmidt conducted a thesis of which he related what Heim suggested

about residual stresses in rocks to the newly formulated ideas about rock elasticity.

Alternatively, Hoek had a different date of the beginning of rock mechanics and engineering.

He believed that rock engineering was considered a modern discipline as early as 1773 when

Coulomb had included results of Bordeaux rocks testing results in a thesis that was read

before the French academy in Paris. Hoek also gave the construction of the Panama Canal as

an example of the development of RME. He stated that 60 slides occurred in the cuts along

the Panama Canal during its construction and its operation (1910 – 1964). Hoek stated that

Lutton and others have concluded in 1979 that slides have occurred because of the structural

discontinuity of rocks. Hoek also reiterated a part of Karl Terzaghi’s presidential speech in

the first international conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering in 1936

about the Panama Canal slides “The catastrophic descent of the slopes of the deepest cut of

6
the Panama Canal issued a warning that we were overstepping the limits of our ability to

predict the consequences of our actions.”

2.2. Main Areas of Interest in Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

One can confidently claim that RME is a science by itself that has its own areas of interest.

The following is a demonstration of some of the main areas of interest which are classified

based on a personal point of view of analysis and design logic.

2.2.1. Interests in Rock Slopes Stability

Slope stability is a branch of geotechnical engineering which deals with the “assessment of

static and dynamic effects on different kinds of slopes; earth and rock-fill dams, slopes of

other types of embankments, excavated slopes and natural slopes in soil and soft rocks.” (US

Army Corps of Engineers, 2003) Based on the previous definition, it could be conclude that

rock slope stability is a conjoined science between slope stability and RME as shown in

Figure 2.1. The rock’s UCS plays an important role here.

Rock
Slope Mechanics
Stability and
Engineering

Figure 2.1: Rock Slope Stability

The concern with the stability of rock slopes is associated with the major safety concerns of

many areas in the world which are settled next to a rock slope. This becomes more important

in the case of open mines and quarries, since any rock slope failure would result in not only

7
working site hazards but also possible economic consequences due to the subsequent fixing

and rehabilitation required so they could be used again as reported by Rogers (1995).

Figure 2.2 shows the failure of Felton quarry, Santa Cruz, California on November 20, 1992.

Figure 2.2: Felton Quarry Granite Slope Failure (Rogers, 1995)

2.2.2. Interests in Shafts, Tunnels, Caverns and Underground Mines

It is easy to note the variation in sizes and applications among all main areas of interest in

RME. However, all of them share the main concept of analysis and design. As stated

previously in the definition of RME, it is concerned with the stress state in rocks before and

after the construction of rock related structures, especially in shafts and similar types of

structures where the main construction concept of them, briefly speaking, is to analyze the

stress state of the rock containing them in order to provide the design solution for the project.

The UCS of the rock is very much needed here. Any mistake in this step might be the

deathblow of the whole structure. An example from memory is the Copiapó mining accident

in Chile on August 8th, 2010 reported in Wikipedia (2012). Figure 2.3 illustrates the accident.

8
 Figure 2.3: Copiapó Mining Accident on 2010, Acquired from Wikipedia (2012)

2.2.3. Interests in Rock Foundations

Depending on the geotechnical conditions of the site, a geotechnical engineer has only two

options: option one, to construct the project on or through soil which has its own design

considerations, or, option two, to construct the project on or through rocks which have their

different design considerations. A project constructed through rocks was addressed

previously. A project constructed on a rock bearing stratum is the one considered here.

Different design criteria are needed since the foundation supporting condition is different

than soil. A good designing manual is the US army corps of engineers' manual number EM

1110-1-2908, (1994). This manual gives a good idea about design considerations for large

military and civil engineering structures in terms of design considerations, site investigation,

rock characterization, bearing capacity, settlement considerations, different rock slopes’

stability and finally construction considerations.

9
Also, depending on rock depth and the proposed project the design parameters would change

either to construct a small project on a shallow rock bearing stratum, or to construct a major

project on a deep rock bearing stratum like the case of Burj Khalifa in Dubai, UAE, where

piles where constructed through soil to reach the rock stratum which is about 50 meters deep.

The following Figure 2.4 illustrates how the rock foundations for Burj Khalifa look like.

Here, the rocks’ UCS played an important role in the design of this major project.

Figure 2.4: Illustration of Rock Foundation of Burj Khalifa (Business Week, 2007)
One must not mix between rock foundations and the base stone that is found under porches of

some houses in America. These stones serve as a “raft” for the house porch structural wise.

See Figure 2.5. These stones might be rock foundation if the bearing stratum beneath them

was rock.

Figure 2.5: House Porch Foundation Stones (Brooks Stone Inc. 2011)

10
2.3. Software Usage in Rock Mechanics and Engineering

To facilitate the job for rock engineers and mechanics, many types of software have been

developed in the area of rock mechanics and engineering. These software programs, in a

personal point of view, are categorized in terms of the purpose of their usage. Some are used

as lab analysis software; others are used for specific types of rock-structural analysis, and

some offer rock analysis as an included accessory to the efficacy of a program.

RocLab®, offered by RocScience Inc. (2013), is a simple lab analysis software program in

which small numbers of data are needed to calculate different parameters like Hoek-Brown

Classification, Hoek-Brown Criterion, Mohr-Coulomb Fit, tensile strength, uniaxial

compressive strength, global strength and deformation modulus along with major and minor

stresses chart and normal-shear stress charts

Other programs offered by RocScience Inc. offer specialized analysis software for various

types of application. For example, Examine3D® (2013) is specialized boundary element

analysis software for rock structures like tunnels, caverns and other underground structures.

A more advanced finite element method software like TNO DIANA® offered by TNO BV

(2012) and Abacus® offered by Simulia Inc. (2012) are very advanced and general finite

element analysis software that can be utilized to solve different and complex rock structural

analysis problems and designs.

11
2.4. Brief about Sedimentary Rocks

In nature, rocks are categorized into three different types: igneous, metamorphic and

sedimentary rocks. It might be believed that the most dominant rock type is the sedimentary

rock as most people encounter this type in nature. But the fact is stated by Buchner, K and R.

Grapes (2011) which is; sedimentary rocks are only 8% of the total volume of the earth crust,

the area where all oceans and continents are placed.

The best definition of sedimentary rocks is stated by Hamblin, K. and Christiansen, E.,

(2009) as follows “Sedimentary rocks are rocks that form from fragments derived from other

rocks and by precipitation from water.” These rocks are usually classified based on their

texture and composition into two categories, clastic rocks and chemical and biochemical

rocks.

A closer look at a clastic rock reveals the composition. Clastic rocks are formed from gravel,

sand and mud fragments. The word clastic comes from the Greek word “klastos”, which

means broken, and that implies the process of weathering and erosion of rocks, transportation

of fragments to deposition sites and finally the precipitation process where fragments fuse

with each other to form the sedimentary rock.

The next Figure 2.6 shows clastic rocks' classification scheme which illustrates that clastic

rocks are classified into three categories based on their grain size. Conglomerates, shown in

Figure 2.7 (a), are those rocks with a grain size larger than 2 mm Rocks with grain sizes

varying between (1/16 – 2) mm are called sandstone, shown in Figure 2.7 (b). Lastly, rocks

with a grain size bellow 1/16 mm are named mudstones, shown in Figure 2.7 (c).

12
Figure 2.6: Clastic Rocks' Classification Scheme after Hamblin, K. and Christiansen, E., (2009)

On the other hand, chemical and biochemical rocks are formed from the chemical

precipitation or evaporation of salty lakes and shallow seas, from the growth process of some

organisms like coral and some types of algae, or from the decay of hydrocarbons in deep

sedimentary strata. Gypsum rock (CaSO4·2H2O), shown in Figure 2.7 (d), is a type of

chemical sedimentary rocks that results from the evaporation of shallow seas. An example of

chemical sedimentary rocks resulting from precipitation is Limestone, shown in Figure 2.7

(e). Coal is a sedimentary rock resulting from the decay of hydrocarbon content of organisms,

shown in Figure 2.7 (f).

a b c

d e f
(a) Conglomerate (b) Sandstone (c) Mudstone (d) Gypsum rock (e) Limestone (f) Coal
Figure 2.7: Different Types Sedimentary of Rocks
13
2.5. Geological History of the United Arab Emirates and Its Rocks

Understanding the geological history of UAE is of utmost importance here, because it makes

it easy to somewhat comprehend the formation of different types of geological formations in

the country, down from sabkhas to mid high elevation sand deserts to the Hajar mountains in

the eastern region of the country. Feulner (2005) conducted a research on the geological

history of the UAE and Hajar mountains. He concluded that the UAE is located in the corner

of the Arabian plate as shown in Figure 2.8 after Pierce (2002).

Figure 2.8: Arabian Plate and UAE Position (Dark Red) after Pierce (2002)
The UAE is highlighted in dark red. The Arabian plate is considered relatively sTable since

the Cambrian system of the Paleozoic era, about 520 million years ago, time scale-wise. The

Arabian plate includes, besides the Arabian Peninsula, the not true ocean basin, shallow

Arabian Gulf and the Zagros mountains. In the Chattian stage, about 25 million years ago, the

Arabian plate was disjointed from the Afro – Arabian continent to form the Red Sea.

Feulner also stated that the Precambrian history of the UAE can be known by reading the

Precambrian sediments of Saudi Arabia and Oman. It shows that the UAE has participated in
14
the late Precambrian glaciations. The UAE was often covered with shallow sea throughout its

history.

Feulner also stated that the movements of the Afro-Arabian plate during the Paleozoic caused

it to pass near the southern pole. In the Mid-Paleozoic, the Afro-Arabian continent was joined

to other continents to form the super continent of Gondwana, which began to breakup in the

Permian and Triassic periods. The UAE attained tropical and sub-tropical latitudes since the

end of Paleozoic era.

Feulner also found that despite all the movements the UAE has made in its history; it still

appears to be tectonically sTable. The only exception is the formation of Al-Hajar Mountains

in the eastern region of the country. In general, the geological history of the UAE is just a

record of the advance and retreat of the sea in response to tectonic and climate changes

through time.

Ali, M.Y. etal. (2013) carried out valuable research on the seismic stratigraphy and

subsidence history of the UAE. In their work they presented a summary stratigraphic column

of the geological rock sequence in the UAE foreland basin. Although their research was

focused on oil bearing strata, the presentation way of their summary column is of great

interest. They found that UAE’s rocks are mainly carbonate rocks with small intercepts of

sandstones, siltstones and shale.

In their study they used locally used names for formations of the UAE with tectonic

interpretation regarding geological conditions and events that contributed to making the

subsurface history of the UAE in its known form. The following Figure 2.9 shows their work

regarding the geological time of the UAE.

15
Figure 2.9: Summary Stratigraphic of the UAE Foreland Basin , Ali, M.Y. etal (2013)
16
2.6. Rock Classification

Regardless of its different schemes, rock classification is considered beneficial in preliminary

design. It can be used as a check list for information or as an idea developer of strength and

deformation characteristics of rocks. Hoek (2006) did a good job in collecting different used

rock classification schemes in his book. The following is a brief exhibition of encountered

classification schemes in that book.

a. Terzaghi’s rock mass classification: This classification scheme generated in

1946 uses descriptive bases to classify rocks. In this scheme, rocks are

classified into 7 categories; intact, stratified, moderately jointed, blocky and

seamy, crushed, squeezing and swelling rock. This scheme is used to estimate

rock loads which are carried by steel sets for tunnel designing purposes.

b. Classifications involving stand-up time: The stand-up time is the time for a

rock span being unsupported. The first researcher to propose the idea that rock

quality is related to stand-up time was Lauffer in 1958. For tunnels, the

unsupported span is the rock over the tunnel or between two supports. Some

modifications have been done on what Lauffer proposed by Pacher and others

in 1974 and are now part of the New Austrian Tunneling Method.

c. Rock quality designation index (RQD): This classification is a quantitative

scheme developed by Deere and others in 1967. The RQD is defined as the

percentage of length of intact rock pieces longer than 100 mm in the total

length of the core. The drill bit for this classification should be of size NX (Φ

= 54.7 mm) or larger.

17
 d. Rock structure rating (RSR): a quasi-quantitative scheme developed by

Wickham in 1972 to describe the quality of rock mass and to select the

appropriate support in terms of tunnel construction. This system is considered

a comprehensive system in terms of counting the different factors affecting the

quality of the rock mass which are the geological considerations, geometry of

proposed structure and effect of ground water inflow and joint conditions yield

in the RSR number of maximum value of 100.

e. Rock mass rating system (RMR): a widely used quasi-quantitative scheme to

classify rock masses developed by Bieniawski in 1976 and amended by him in

1989. This classification deals with many factors affecting the rock mass and

is one of schemes that uses strength of material or unconfined strength as a

criteria that contributes to the classification process. This scheme uses the

following factors to fulfill a classification job; strength of material, rock

quality designation (RQD), spacing, condition and orientation of

discontinuities and groundwater condition. The range of this classification is

from 0 (very poor) to 100 (very good).

f. Rock tunneling quality index (Q): a widely used quasi-quantitative scheme

developed by Barton in 1974 for rock mass characteristics and tunnel support

requirements represented by a numeric value (Q) that follows logarithmic

scale from 10-3 to 103. This scheme, unlike others, is a very advanced

classification system that takes into consideration the effects of rock quality,

joint conditions and stresses in a more rational way.

One has to be cautious when using rock classifications as there might be shortcomings of the

used scheme. Palmstorm and Broch (2006) worked on a thesis on the uses and misuses of the

18
Q rock classification scheme. They concluded that the shortcomings in the Q classification

scheme make it not recommended for use when it comes to calculating the penetration rate

(PR) and the advance rate (AR) for tunnel boring machines (TBM). They also strongly

recommended against correlating different rock classification schemes through correlation

equation. Furthermore, they quoted Terzaghi's statement in his last years “The geotechnical

engineer should apply theory and experimentation but temper them by putting them into the

context of the uncertainty of nature. Judgment enters through engineering geology”

2.7. Unconfined Compressive strength (UCS) of Rocks

2.7.1 Background

There are three types of compressive strength tests of rocks. The first is the unconfined

compressive strength (UCS) where only the axial load is applied to a rock sample and no

lateral loads of any type are applied, mathematically speaking (UCS1 > 0, UCS2 = UCS3 =

0). The second is the triaxial loading where not only axial loading is applied on the rock

sample, but also equal lateral loading is applied on the other two dimensions, mathematically

speaking (UCS1 > UCS2 = UCS3). The third is the true triaxial loading, similar to triaxial

loading but the difference being that lateral loads are not equal, mathematically speaking

(UCS1 > UCS2 > UCS3). The true triaxial loading is done using cubical load sample (Jaeger,

etal. (2007)). The following Figure (2.10) illustrates different compression types. (a) Implies

UCS, (b) implies triaxial loading and (c) implies true triaxial loading

19
 Figure 2.10: Different Compression States of Rock by Jaegar, etal. (2007)
The most commonly used test is the UCS test as it is the easiest and less sophisticated among

all three compression test types. Other tests are needed if further understanding of rock

failure in semi-natural cases is required. But in general, rock triaxial and true triaxial are

seldom performed in the UAE. Another advantage of rock UCS test is the UCS value that is

used to determine the point bearing capacity of piles resting on rocks.

This test is performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials

(ASTM) code number D2938 (2002) requirements. Although this code was withdrawn in the

year 2005 by the ASTM, the replacement code number ASTM-D7012 (2010), which is the

unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and modulus of elasticity (E) testing procedures,

specifies that the details of the testing procedure is acquired from the withdrawn code and

using it is recommended. The following equation is used to determine the UCS,

𝑃
𝜎 = 𝜋 𝑢2 ...................................................... (2.1)
4
𝑑

Where (Pu) is the ultimate load the sample can take and (d) is the sample’s diameter

20
2.7.2. Relations between UCS and Mechanical Properties

2.7.2.1 Relations between UCS and Point Load Strength Index (Is(50))

The point load strength index test is performed in accordance with the ASTM-D5731 (2008)

procedure and is meant to measure the rock’s point load strength index, which is a very

important numerical parameter in terms of rock strength.

The following equation 2.2 was used to calculate the point load strength index Where (Pf) is

the failure load and (d2) is the specimen’s diameter

𝑃𝑓
𝐼𝑠 (50) = ………………………………. (2.2)
𝑑2

An interesting study was conducted by G. Tsiambaos and N. Sabatakakis (2004). The study

was about considerations on strength of intact sedimentary rocks, which aimed to find

correlations between point load strength index (Is(50)) with UCS (UCS) and Hoek-Brown

material constant (mi). In their study, sedimentary rocks from Greece where used. They

compared their work to the previous work of Bieniawski and the International Society of

Rock Mechanics (ISRM).

Based on their data, they concluded that the relation between point load index and UCS could

be presented through three different models. The linear model was the first one shown in

Figure 2.11 as the bold line. This model gave an accepTable value of R2 of 0.75. They

concluded that their result is similar to the one found by Bieniawski and the International

Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM). The power model was the second one shown also in

Figure 2.11 as the dashed curve. This model showed a better relationship as R2 was 0.82. The

classified linear model was the third one. They have observed that the point load index could

be categorized into three different classes (I, II and III). For each class a conversion factor

21
was assigned to multiply with the point load strength index value in order to get the UCS

value. The next Table 2.1 shows these classes which are shown in Figure 2.12.

Table 2.1: Relations for Different (Is(50)) Classes Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis (2004)
Class Is(50) Conversion Factor (UCS = Is(50) × ↓ )
I <2 13
II 2–5 20
III 5< 28

Figure 2.11: UCS – Is(50) Linear and Power Correlation by Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis (2004)

Figure 2.12: UCS – Is(50) Classified Correlation Tsiambaos, G. & Sabatakakis, N. (2004)
22
2.7.2.2. Relations between UCS and Schmidt Hammer Rebound Number

The Schmidt rebound hammer test is performed in accordance with the ASTM-D5873 (2013)

procedure and is meant to measure the rock’s surface hardness either in situ or in lab to give a

rapid indication about the rock’s strength. This test is best suited for rocks with UCS value

between 1 to 100 MPa.

Faisal Shalabi and his colleagues carried out research about estimation of rock engineering

properties using hardness tests. The main idea was to estimate some important rock properties

such as UCS, modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio using easier and cheaper methods

such as Schmidt hammer, shore scleroscope, abrasion, total hardness and unit weight. They

used dolomite, dolomitic limestone, shale, dolomitic marble, deopside and anhydrite from

different locations in California and New York as subject rocks for their study. All samples

were of size NX (54 mm diameter), which is the minimum requirement to perform a Schmidt

hammer test on rocks as per ASTM-D5873 (2013). They used standard practices to perform

required tests. They concluded that linear model could be used to estimate the UCS of

sedimentary rocks (Dolomite) from other properties such as Schmidt hammer rebound

number (Hr) as shown in Figure 2.13.

23
 Figure 2.13: UCS vs HR Relation by Shalabi, F. et al. (2007)
Another interesting paper was about correlation of Schmidt hardness with unconfined

compressive strength for gypsum from Sivas (Turkey) by Yilmaz and Sendir (2002). They

used the exponential model to express this relation. The value of R2 was as high as 0.96. The

following Figure 2.14 shows their work.

Figure 2.14: UCS vs HR Relation by Yilmaz and Sendir (2002)

24
2.7.2.3 Relations between UCS and Brazilian Splitting Tensile Strength

The Brazilian splitting tensile strength test is performed in accordance with the ASTM-

D3967 (2008) code and is meant to measure the rock’s splitting tensile strength. The code

states that rock engineers require the determination of complicated stress fields where a

combination of both compressive and tensile stresses are available. Furthermore, doing pure

tensile strength test is theoretically applicable but very hard to do on a practical level. This

test serves as an easy alternative to find this mechanical property of rocks. The following is

the equation used to calculate the strength, where (Pu) is the failure load, (L) is sample’s

height and (D) is the sample’s diameter.

2𝑃𝑢
𝑆𝑡 = ………………………………… (2.3)
𝜋𝐿𝐷

Nazir, R. etal. (2013) conducted a research regarding correlating UCS to the Brazilian

splitting strength of lime stone samples. Firstly, they collected different relations from recent

studies. The following Table 2.2 summarizes these relations. Here BST stands for St.

Table 2.2: Recent St Relations Collected By Nazir, R. etal (2013)

Source Year Equation R2 Type
Kahraman etal 2012 UCS(MPa) = 10.61 St 0.50 Different rocks inc. limestone
Farah 2011 UCS(psi) = 5.11 St – 133.86 0.68 Weathered limestone
1.0725
Altindag etal 2010 UCS(MPa) = 12.38 St 0.79 Different rocks inc. limestone

They also stated that one of the most agreed upon correlations is the one done by Sheorey,

where UCS equals 10 times the Brazilian splitting strength. They concluded that there is a

relation between St and UCS which is presented in Figure 2.15. They also compared

different previous work presented in Table 2.2. The following Figure 2.16 shows this

comparison.

25
 Figure 2.15: UCS vs. St (BTS) found relation by Nazir, R. et al. (2013)

Figure 2.16: Comparison of Different Studies with lab Work by Nazir, R. et al. (2013)

2.7.2.4 Relations between UCS and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

This test is performed according to the ASTM-D2845 (2008) code and is meant to measure

the rock’s ultrasonic pulse velocity, which can be correlated to different important rock

properties like UCS, E and Poisson’s ratio (µ). It is important to mention that this test is not

meant to measure stress wave attenuation. The sound velocity (VP) is found by the following

equation;

𝑙
𝑉𝑝 = ………………………………….... (2.4)
𝑡

Where l = the length of specimen and t = is the time for a sound wave to move from the

transducer to receiver in seconds.

26
A paper was written by Yasar and Erdogan (2004) regarding correlating sound velocity with

the density, compressive strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate rocks. The scope of the

work was to correlate density, UCS and Young’s Modulus (E) for carbonate rocks in

different areas in Middle Turkey (Adana). The linear model was used to present these

relations. In their study, three types of rocks were used; Dolomite, Marble and Limestone.

Correlating different rock types with each other is an interesting idea since Marble is a

metamorphic rock and other rocks were sedimentary. But from their point of view, they

considered all as carbonate rocks. They concluded that there is a good linear relation between

mean P-wave sound velocity (Vp) with UCS and E. The following Table 2.3 shows their

results and the following Figures 2.17 and 2.18 show these relations.

Table 2.3: Correlations Found By Yasar, E. & Erdogan, Y. (2004)

Equation R2
Vp = 0.0317 UCS + 2.0195 0.80
Vp = 0.0937 E + 1.7528 0.86

Figure 2.17: Vp – UCS Correlation by Yasar, E. & Erdogan, Y. (2004)

27
 Figure 2.18: Vp – E Correlation by Yasar, E. & Erdogan, Y. (2004)

2.7.2.5 Relations between UCS and Modulus of Elasticity

As stated previously, the ASTM merged the determination of the UCS and the modulus of

elasticity of rocks into one code starting from 2005. The code ASTM D-7012 (2010) is the

standardized procedure now to perform the modulus of elasticity E test. In this thesis, the

average modulus method was used to calculate the modulus of elasticity; which is the average

slope of the apparently straight line of the stress strain diagram. This is shown in the next

Figure 2.19.

Figure 2.19: Average Modulus of Elasticity Calculation as Per ASTM-D7012 (2010).

28
Strain (ε) is calculated as per the following equation, where (δ) is the instantaneous

deformation and (L) is the sample length.

𝛿
𝜖= ……………………………………. (2.5)
𝐿

This test is done simultaneously with the UCS test. In fact, this test can be considered a

byproduct of the UCS test. Therefore it is logical to find the modulus of elasticity as a

function of the UCS. Tziallas, etal. (2009) did good research in correlating the UCS to E

through different models. They concluded that E can be determined as a function of UCS

with high R2 value equals 0.95. The following equation 2.6 is their concluded correlation;

where E and UCS are both in MPa.

𝐸 = 3576.5 𝑒 0.016𝑈𝐶𝑆 ……………………………. (2.6)

They also concluded that E can be determined as a function of both UCS and the longitudinal

sound velocity Vp. The following equation 2.7 is their other concluded equation; where E is

in GPa, UCS is in MPa and Vp is in m/sec.

0.541
𝐸 = 0.051(𝑈𝐶𝑆 ∗ 𝑉𝑝 ) − 0.27𝑈𝐶𝑆 …………………… (2.7)

They also visualized this correlation as a 3D diagram shown in Figure 2.20 and as a

nomograph shown in Figure 2.21.

29
 Figure 2.20: 3D visualization of equation 2.7 by Tziallas (2009)

Figure 2.21: Nomograph constructed for equation 2.7 by Tziallas (2009)

30
2.7.3. Relations between UCS and Physical Properties

2.7.3.1 Relations between UCS and Bulk Specific Weight

The specific weight of rocks is determined according to the South Carolina department of

transportation code number SC-T-39 (2008). This procedure is considered one of the easiest

procedures done. The following equation 2.8 explains how it is calculated

𝑊
𝛾= ……………………………………. (2.8)
𝑉

Where W is the sample weight and V is the sample volume. The methodology is to measure

the total weight and divide it by the total volume which counts for all voids in the specimen.

In any case, it is assumed that the denser the specimen, the stronger it will be. A study

confirms that was carried out by Moh’d, B. (2009). He also concluded that there is a good

relation between specific weight and UCS of a regression coefficient R2 as high as 0.9666.

Here he correlated density to UCS. In fact, the specific weight is nothing but the density

times the acceleration of gravity (g) therefore this fixed value can be included easily in the

correlation without jeopardizing the accuracy of the results. The following Figure 2.22 shows

the found relation.

Figure 2.22: UCS – ρ Relation by Moh’d, B. (2009)

31
2.7.3.2. Relations between UCS and Moisture Content

The moisture content is determined as per the ASTM-D2216 (2010) code. The procedure to

perform this test is described in the following chapter. The following equation 2.9 describes

how to calculate moisture content by mass.

𝑀𝑖 − 𝑀𝑜𝑣
𝑀𝐶 = × 100% …………………………. (2.9)
𝑀𝑜𝑣

Where Mi is the as received mass and Mov is the oven dry mass. The methodology is

summarized as measuring the masses of the rock specimen before and after placing it in the

oven for a certain time and temperature. It is believed that moisture content influences UCS.

32
 Chapter 3
Experimental Program
3.1. Introduction

To achieve the proposed objectives of the study, lab and office works were conducted on a

set of samples from different locations in UAE. All Samples were acquired from the UAE's

coastal zone; the western region (W.R.), Abu Dhabi region (A.D.) and northern Emirates

region (N.E.). These samples were prepared and tested in accordance with the ASTM for all

tests except for the unit weight test where the code of South Carolina Department of

Transportation was used. The next Figure 3.1 shows the work plan flow. Every step of this

plan is a section of this chapter.

Sample Collection Data Processing

Sample Testing
Sample • Mechanical Tests
Transporting and • Physical Tests
Storing

Sample Identification
• Define Type and Depth of Sample
Each Sample
• Number The samples for Preperation
Ease of Access

Figure 3.1: General Work Plan of the Thesis

3.2. Sample Collection

In order to produce consistent and relaTable results, it was decided to have the sample span in

the core be of 1 meter length in order to ensure the uniformity of the tested samples. All cores

33
were of size HX (76.2 mm) to avoid misleading results in mechanical tests. The following

Table 3.1 shows in detail the core locations in UTM coordinates with a summary about them.

Table 3.1: Summary of Borehole Locations and Data

№ Northing Easting UTM UAE* Total Depth (m) № of Samples
1 2767823 305716 40R N.E. 16.5 7
2 2767806 305732 40R N.E. 32 6
3 2767751 305786 40R N.E. 30 1
4 2767738 473700 40R N.E. 15 3
5 2650178 626625 39R W.R. 15 14
6 2768393 335292 40R N.E. 15 11
7 2660156 643514 39R W.R. 20 20
8 2660214 643604 39R W.R. 20 16
9 2707345 230782 40R A.D. 20 15
10 2707747 234323 40R A.D. 30 25
11 2724650 249993 40R A.D. 20 15
12 2724617 249987 40R A.D. 20 16
13 2694666 249562 40R A.D. 20 14
14 2692041 249007 40R A.D. 20 15
15 2718238 266660 40R A.D. 8 5
16 2707685 259667 40R A.D. 35 20
17 2706781 259435 40R A.D. 35 20
18 2696124 267506 40R A.D. 20 15
19 2706530 259174 40R A.D. 35 25
20 2666105 752296 39R W.R. 20 1
21 2704006 253194 40R A.D. 20 18
22 2702117 251995 40R A.D. 15 11
23 2706744 258934 40R A.D. 35 25
24 2701589 256627 40R A.D. 20 11
25 2703094 255158 40R A.D. 20 11
26 2706864 259161 40R A.D. 35 20
27 2706648 259576 40R A.D. 35 15
28 2699153 267310 40R A.D. 20 10
29 2783068 328432 40R N.E. 15 4
30 2783332 328266 40R N.E. 15 1
31 2783338 328620 40R N.E. 10 1
32 2784128 329250 40R N.E. 15 3
33 2783412 329433 40R N.E. 15 1
34 2787555 326779 40R N.E. 50 5
35 2802955 337470 40R N.E. 15 5
36 2802912 337430 40R N.E. 15 5
37 2802818 337489 40R N.E. 15 2
38 2802960 337425 40R N.E. 30 4
39 2813801 345495 40R N.E. 25 3
Total Number of Samples 419
*N.E. stands for Northern Emirates, A.D. stands for Abu Dhabi and W.R. stands for Western Region

34
Figure 3.2 shows the contribution of samples by location and type where Figure 3.3 shows

envelop of borehole locations.

Sample Contribution Sample Contribution

By Place By Type
Abu Dhabi Crystalline Gypsum
Northern Emirates Mudstone
Westren Region Sandstone

12%
21%
34%
15%

73%
45%

(a) (b)
Figure 3.2: Sample Contributions (a) by Place, and (b) by Rock Type

Figure 3.3: Zone of Borehole Locations, Acquired from Google Maps (2013)
35
3.3. Sample Transporting and Storing

To ensure the integrity of the acquired cores, the ASTM-D5079 (2008) practice code was

used in transporting and preserving rock core samples. This code gives very detailed

procedures for samples from the time they are recovered from cores till the deposition of the

samples or storing for a certain period of time for future testing. The code provides a nice

flow chart for personnel in charge of all stages of core recovery, transporting, testing and

storage. The following Figure 3.4 shows this flow chart which is quoted with alteration from

the code.

1. Sample Recovery
2. Handling 3. Core Photography
From Drill

5. Sample Protection
•Routine Care 6. Preparation of
4. Initial Logging •Special Care Storage and Shipping
•Critical Care Containers
•Soil Like Care

9. Specimen
7. Transportation 8. Storage
Preparation

10. Testing

Figure 3.4: ASTM Flow Chart For Preserving and Transporting Rock Core Samples (2008)
36
Some geotechnical laboratories cooperated in granting all studied rock core specimens.

Therefore, due to their expertise, the chart steps 1 through 6 were assumed to be

professionally done. Steps 7 through 10 were done again in transporting samples from

laboratories to the university through testing of samples. Thankfully, all samples didn’t

require special transportation therefore a normal truck was used to transport samples.

Regarding storing of samples, the code specifies special measurements for storing if test

results are affected by storing conditions. In this study, only the moisture content test required

special storing measurements whereas all other tests required the normal rock core box

storing measurements.

The next step was specimen preparation for tests. This step was very important as it defined

which test came before the other. Before that, all samples were identified for ease of use and

access of data collected from various tests. Identification and preparation of samples are

addressed in the next sections.

Another important step is sample protection. Although this step can be considered as sample

identification related step because it involves some identification, this identification is

required to determine how the sample processing should proceed. This identification means

extra protection measures for every class. Class one is the routine care which is for cores of

1.5 meters run and larger. If cores are less than 3 meters run, they are stored in structurally

sound core boxes. If they are longer than 3 meters run, they are placed in slightly wider and

longer PVC pipes. Here, core runs of 1 meter were considered the base for core box storing.

The second class is the special care class. It is necessary if the moisture condition is needed.

In addition to storing in structurally sound core boxes, vinylidene chloride seal is

recommended. The third class of care is the critical care which is needed for sample

protection against shock, vibration and variations in temperature. The fourth and last class of

37
care is soil like care. Logically and by the code one can consider dealing with these cores as

soil. Thankfully, only class two of care was needed as a result of the as received situation of

the cores.

3.4. Sample Identification

For ease of access, an identification system was established. Samples were given an ID of the

form XYZ-a-b. This is illustrated in the following Figure 3.5.

ID: XYZ-a-b

XYZ = Lab Name a = Core Number b = Sample Number

• AC: Arab Center for Engineering Studies

• GC: Gulf Laboratory

• BY: Baynunah Laboratory

• *MA: Matrix Laboratory

Figure 3.5: Sample ID Illustration

For example; sample ID (BY-5-08) means this sample is acquired with Baynunah labs, taken

from the 5th borehole acquired with that lab and 08 means this is the 8th sample acquired from

that borehole. It is good to mention here that the greater the sample number, the deeper the

sample. For tabulation purposes, the ID itself represents three columns of data; XY, a and b

data columns. This made it easy to store the sample depth and type in the database

established for this purpose. Here it is good to mention that the code assigned for the three

rock types is the following; CRGP is crystalline gypsum, MUDS is mudstone and SANDS is

sandstone.

38
3.5. Sample Preparation

Depending on the test, one can decide if the specimen requires preprocessing or not. Some

tests like the UCS and E tests require special preparation, whereas other tests don’t need any

preparation, such as the point load test. All samples were cut using the diamond rock core

cutter for the UCS and E, Brazilian splitting, and ultrasonic pulse velocity where the

geometry of the sample is required to perform these tests as explained in the next section.

In fact, only the UCS and E test needed special sample preparation. Since the height to

diameter ratio of the sample has to be 2:1 sharp with a very low margin of error. Moreover,

the two surfaces of the sample had to be parallel to each other with a very low margin of error

and vertical to the sample with, likewise, a very low margin of error. These margins and

checking methods are stated in the ASTM D-4543-08 code. This method involves three

checks of the sample, and these are; the deviation from straightness, flatness and

perpendicularity of ends checks as follows;

For straightness check, the sample was placed on a horizontal surface prepared for this check.

The sample was then rolled on that surface to check the straightness. Any sample that had a

gap more than 0.5 mm didn’t meet the straightness check. The check of flatness was done as

per procedure 5.2 B of the code. In this procedure, the sample was placed on the horizontal

surface. Then a dial gage of precision 2.5 µm was set in contact with the specimen. Readings

of three diameters were taken for the specimen. If the difference between maximum and

minimum readings of the diameter was less than 38 µm, the sample was accepted.

For perpendicularity check, the sample was placed on the horizontal surface again with a true

square being in contact with the specimen. Then the sample is rotated to find the maximum

gap between the specimen and the square. If the gap to the length ratio was less than 1:230

then the sample met the perpendicularity requirements.

39
Some samples happened to be very weak. In fact it was very hard to be prepared to meet the

ASTM-D4543 (2008), section 5.2 requirements even with “best effort” as the code stated,

which was using a very sharp diamond cutter and dry cutting methodology operated by a very

experienced person. The code here gave a concession for this case as the code directed to cut

the sample to desired length and apply end caps to specimen.

3.6. Sample Testing

The following is a demonstration of the detailed procedures used to perform tests. Tests are

classified into mechanical tests; point load, Schmidt hammer, Brazilian splitting, ultrasonic

pulse velocity and UCS and E tests; as well as physical tests; moisture content, and specific

weight tests. Tests are presented in that order to make it easy for the reader to navigate

through their procedures.

3.6.1. Mechanical Tests Done

3.6.1.1. The Point Load Test.

As stated previously in chapter 2, this test was done in accordance with ASTM D-5731-08.

This test was performed by subjecting a rock specimen to an increasing concentrated load

until splitting of the specimen. The concentrated load was applied through coaxial conical

platens. The failure load was used to calculate the point load strength index by equation 2.2

which was used to estimate the UCS. The Figure 3.6 shows a sample ready for the test. This

test was done as follows;

 A qualifying sample was of length to diameter ratio of 1:1 or more (no preparation
needed)
 The diameter of the sample was then recorded
 Sample was then inserted into the machine and platens were closed to form contact
with the diameter of the specimen. Here the contact point had to be in the middle if
the sample
 Sample was then subject to steadily increasing load until failure occurred
40
 The failure load and pattern were recorded
 If the failure pattern was the same as Figure 3.7 (a) the test was conducted perfectly
 If the failure pattern was the same as Figure 3.7 (b) the test was rejected.

Figure 3.6: Sample Ready for the Point Load Test

(a) (b)
Figure 3.7: Point Load Test Different Failure Patterns as Per ASTM-D5731 (2008)
(a) Accepted (b) Rejected

41
3.6.1.2. The Schmidt Hammer Test

As stated previously in chapter 2, this test was done in accordance with ASTM D-5873-13.

This test was performed by subjecting a rock specimen to shock load without resulting in the

failure of the specimen. The shock load was applied through a rebound hammer (Schmidt

hammer). The height of the plunger after the shock was then recorded to calculate the

rebound number which was used to estimate UCS. This test was done as follows;

 The rigid base was placed on a firm surface

 Sample was then firmly tightened to that base
 The verticality of the rebound hammer was achieved by using a vertical guide
 Plunger head was distanced more than one diameter from the edge
 Ten shocks were given on various areas of the sample by gradually pressing the
plunger on the specimen
 The average of these ten readings was calculated
 Any result that deviated by more than 7 units was canceled and the averaging was
done again to determine the rebound number (HR)
 The test was rejected if the sample failed before completing the test.
3.6.1.3. Brazilian Splitting Test

As stated previously in chapter 2, this test was done in accordance with ASTM D-3967-08.

This test was performed by subjecting a rock specimen to an increasing concentrated load

until splitting of the specimen. The concentrated load was applied through coaxial flat

platens. The failure load was used to calculate the tensile strength of the sample by equation

2.3 which could be used to estimate the UCS. This test was done as follows;

 Samples were prepared as per ASTM D-4543-08. The thickness to diameter ratio was
to be between 0.2 and 0.75. Thickness and diameter were recorded
 Samples were then marked on their diameter to ensure proper positioning in the
loading machine
 Then, samples were positioned in the loading frame
 After that, samples were loaded until failure of samples as shown in Figure 3.9
 The failure load was recorded for all samples and the strength was calculated for all
samples as per equation 2.3

42
 Figure 3.8: Failed Sample after Brazilian Test

3.6.1.4. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

As stated previously in chapter 2, this test was done in accordance with ASTM D-2845-08.

This test was performed by subjecting a rock specimen to an ultrasonic pulse. This pulse was

applied by a transducer and received by a receiver. The machine records the time a pulse

needed to travel from the transducer to the receiver. Then the pulse velocity was calculated

by equation 2.4 which was then used to determine some parameters for the rock of which

UCS is one of them. This test was done as follows;

 Samples finely prepared as per ASTM D-4543-08. Length to diameter ratio was
recommended not to exceed 5 and at least 10 times the larger grain size. The length of
the sample was recorded
 Samples were then marked for the place of transducer and receiver placement
 Then, grease was applied to surface of samples, transducer and receiver to ensure no
air is entrapped between the apparatus and the sample
 The sample was then subjected to ultrasonic pulse. The time of travel was recorded
for each sample
 The pulse velocity was then calculated by equation 2.4
3.6.1.5. UCS and E Test

As stated previously in chapter 2, UCS and E are usually done simultaneously. This test

was done in accordance with ASTM D-7012-10 methods C and D. A rock core specimen was

cut to achieve an aspect ratio of 2:1. The ends were engineered. The specimen was placed in

a loading machine. Axial load was applied gradually and increasingly on the specimen.

Deformation was measured as a function of load until peak load and failure happened. Then
43
the UCS was calculated by equation 2.1 and E was calculated as per equation 2.5 and Figure

2.18. Figure 3.10 shows a sample ready for the test. This test was done as follows;

 Samples finely prepared as per ASTM D-4543-08. Length to diameter ratio was to be
2:1 The length and diameter of sample were recorded
 Samples were then placed in the loading machine connected to a computer to record
load and its corresponding deflection to construct the stress strain diagram
 After that, samples were loaded until their failure
 The extreme load was used to determine the UCS as per equation 2.1
 The whole record was converted into stress strain diagram as per equations 2.1 and
2.5 and Figure 2.19. (E) was then calculated from the stress strain diagram

Figure 3.9: Sample Ready for the UCS and E Test

44
3.6.2. Physical Tests Done

3.6.2.1. Moisture Content Test

As stated previously in chapter 2, this test was done in accordance with ASTM D-2216-10. A

test specimen was dried in an oven at a temperature of 110° ± 5°C to a constant mass. The

loss of mass due to drying is considered to be water. The water content is calculated using the

mass of water and the mass of the dry specimen. The moisture content is then calculated by

equation 2.11. The following is the detailed procedure;

 Specimens’ masses before drying were recorded

 Specimens then were placed in an oven at a temperature of 110° ± 5°C for 24 ± 4 hrs
 Specimens then were removed from oven and left to cool down to room temperature
 Specimens’ masses after drying were recorded
 Moisture content is calculated by equation 2.11
3.6.2.2 Specific Weight Test

As stated previously in chapter 2, this test was done in accordance with SC T 39-08.

Specimens’ dimensions and weight were recorded and the specific weight was calculated as

per equation 2.10.

3.6.3. Order of Testing

A closer look at the specifications of performed tests and its influence on the sample in terms

of destructivity reveals many facts. To ensure the correctness of moisture content test results,

it was decided to perform it first, just after removing the sample cover. Therefore the stage

one of testing was the moisture content.

As mentioned earlier, sample preparation for other tests required accurate measurements and

cautious cutting of samples depending on their condition. This processing was required for

geometry related tests like unit weight, ultrasonic pulse velocity, UCS and E, and Brazilian

45
splitting strength tests. Also, the unit load test was the simplest test done so it was decided to

combine the unit weight test with sample preparation in one stage (stage two).

For the ultrasonic pulse velocity and The Schmidt hammer tests, it was obvious that no

sample destruction resulted. Therefore it was decided to group both tests in stage three. Stage

four was the last stage; all destructive tests were performed in this stage. It is good to mention

that the desired sample span of 1 meter facilitated the conduction of all previously mentioned

tests. Therefore, a sample segment was only tested once for stage three and four. The

following Figure 3.11 summarizes these finding in a flowchart.

Moisture
Stage One
Content

Schmidt
Sample Stage Three USPV
Hammer

Sample Unit
Stage Two Point Load
Preparation Weight

Stage Four UCS and E

Brazilian
Splitting

Figure 3.10: Sample Testing Stages Flowchart

46
 Chapter 4
Results, Analysis and Discussion
4.1. Introduction

This chapter is dedicated to presenting, analyzing and discussing lab test results. Section 4.2

presents all lab tests results with some statistical analysis and relations to rock types that were

included in the study. Section 4.3 is dedicated to the correlation analysis, in order to meet

goals and objectives set for the thesis. Section 4.4 holds a comparison between this thesis’s

results and previous work results presented previously in chapter 2.

4.2. Test Results

This section presents a summary of results for all experiments done, where statistical analysis

was performed to define 95% confidence intervals estimate of the expected value from each

test. All data are presented in appendixes

4.2.1. Mechanical Test Results

4.2.1.1 The Schmidt Hammer Test

Since the capacity of the used rebound hammer varies between 10 and 90, nearly 12% of

samples failed before the fulfillment of the test. Here, 210 samples passed this test. From a

statistical analysis to determine the confidence interval of the expected value based on 95 %

confidence, the results are given in the following Table 4.1. All data is in appendix Table A.1

Table 4.1: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of (HR)

Rock Type Minimum Expected Maximum Expected
Any 15 16
Mudstone (MUDS) 13 15
Sandstone (SANDS) 15 17
Crystalline Gypsum (CRGP) 15 18

47
4.2.1.2 The Point Load Strength Index Test.

In this test, the apparatus used was more sensitive, although apparatus’s gauges were

analogue clock type gauges, and knowing that this test doesn’t require further sample

processing, 419 samples were tested according to the point load test. Some samples just failed

because of fastening the apparatus on the sample.

This test is considered one of the most important tests as it is correlated directly to the UCS

of rock and is widely used for its ease of application. Nonetheless, the following Table 4.2

shows the result of the 95% confidence interval analysis for the expected value of test results.

All test results are shown in appendix Table A.2

Table 4.2: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values Is(50) (MPa)
Rock Type Minimum Expected Maximum Expected
Any 0.468 0.582
Mudstone (MUDS) 0.469 0.633
Sandstone (SANDS) 0.419 0.608
Crystalline Gypsum (CRGP) 0.314 0.636

4.2.1.3. The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test

Although this test is simple to perform, the requirement of sample processing to obtain an

engineered surface cut the amount of samples tested to 183 samples. The next Table 4.3

displays the result of confidence interval analysis and appendix Table A.3 shows all test

results

Table 4.3: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of VP (m/s)

Rock Type Minimum Expected Maximum Expected
Any 2810 3790
Mudstone (MUDS) 2646 4165
Sandstone (SANDS) 2170 2695
Crystalline Gypsum (CRGP) 3548 9422

48
4.2.1.4. The Brazilian Splitting Tensile Test

In this test, the geometric constraint of length to diameter ratio is smaller and less strict. But

this doesn’t mean that no sample pre-processing is required. In fact, all tests which take into

account the geometry of the sample have a specific sample processing. At any rate, 195

samples were tested according to the Brazilian splitting tensile strength test. The next Table

4.4 shows the 95% confidence intervals and appendix Table A.4 shows all results.

Table 4.4: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of St (MPa)

Rock Type Minimum Expected Maximum Expected
Any 1.146 1.364
Mudstone (MUDS) 1.033 1.301
Sandstone (SANDS) 1.114 1.505
Crystalline Gypsum (CRGP) 1.064 1.640

4.2.1.5. The UCS Test

This test was very accurate, since the testing machine and sensors were all computer

controlled. However, the geometrical requirements for samples were very strict; like strict

length to diameter ratio, strict verticality of the sample and strict parallelism of ends

constraint. Therefore, the amount of samples tested was 419 samples. If this suggests

something, it implies that the weathering conditions of United Arab Emirates have affected

the rocks; therefore it was hard to recover samples for the unconfined test.

As per the BS, EN, ISO 14689-1:2003, the rock classification of results is of two categories.

Very weak rocks are rocks that have their UCS less than (5 MPa) whereas weak rocks have

their UCS between (5 MPa) and (25 MPa). Therefore it is obvious that all results are either

weak or very weak. The next Table 4.5 shows the result of the confidence interval analysis

and appendix Table A.5 holds all data

49
 Table 4.5: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of UCS (MPa)
Rock Type Minimum Expected Maximum Expected
Any 6.246 7.976
Mudstone (MUDS) 5.269 8.106
Sandstone (SANDS) 6.009 8.197
Crystalline Gypsum (CRGP) 6.053 11.051

4.2.1.6. The Young’s Modulus of Elasticity Test

Since UCS and E were done simultaneously as one test. The same strict geometrical

constraints apply here too. The following Table 4.6 shows the confidence interval analysis

results while appendix Table A.6 shows all test results. The Figure 4.1 shows a sample of

stress-strain diagrams of samples where a and b are sandstones, c is crystalline gypsum and d

and e are mudstones

Table 4.6: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of E (MPa)

Rock Type Minimum Expected Maximum Expected
Any 1084 1648
Mudstone (MUDS) 828 1222
Sandstone (SANDS) 1046 2260
Crystalline Gypsum (CRGP) 693 2936

a) Sandstone
50
 b) Sandstone

c) Crystalline Gypsum
51
 d) Mudstone

e) Mudstone
Figure 4.1: A Sample of Stress-Strain Diagrams of Samples

52
4.2.2. Physical Tests Results

4.2.2.1. The Moisture Content Test.

The time needed to perform this test is approximately 24 hours if we consider the time the

samples spent in the oven. It doesn’t require any sample processing, but because of the long

time it takes to be done it was scheduled to be performed at the end of the testing. In any

case, 419 samples were tested here. The next Table 4.7 shows the result of the confidence

interval analysis while appendix Table A.7 shows all test results.

Table 4.7: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of ω (%)

Rock Type Minimum Expected Maximum Expected
Any 4.51 6.33
Mudstone (MUDS) 4.29 7.06
Sandstone (SANDS) 1.69 2.77
Crystalline Gypsum (CRGP) 10.84 16.21

4.2.2.2 The Unit Weight Test.

A total of 419 samples were tested here. The next Table 4.8 shows the results of the

confidence interval analysis while Table A.8 shows all test results.

Table 4.8: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of γ (kN/m3)

Rock Type Minimum Expected Maximum Expected
Any 16.76 17.35
Mudstone (MUDS) 16.94 16.98
Sandstone (SANDS) 16.67 17.25
Crystalline Gypsum (CRGP) 18.45 20.38

53
4.3 Generated Relations

The enormous amount of data that resulted from conducting nearly 1630 tests made it easy to

do correlation analysis. It also made it easy to understand some special characteristics and

relationships between rock properties in the UAE, which was the main objective of this study.

The following is a demonstration of the generated correlations between UCS and other rock

properties.

In statistical analysis, especially in raw data as this work’s data, it is very helpful to do data

smoothing before starting the correlation analysis. Data smoothing helps in dealing with

outliers that might affect the goodness of fit of the generated model. Also, the least square

regression analysis sometimes gives very low value of R2, which seems to be a not good fit,

because this method counts for all records without distinguishing outliers from other data.

This becomes worse in equally weighted records case. Therefore it was decided to use the

moving average (MA) smoothing method, with least absolute residuals (LAR) robust fit

wherever it was necessary.

Since three rock types were encountered, if possible, a relation for each rock type was

generated in addition to the general relation. Therefore, based on rock type, relations can be

categorized into four categories. Also, based on BS EN ISO 14689-1 (2003) rocks have been

classified into weak rocks, for UCS between (5 MPa) to (25 MPa), and very weak rocks, for

UCS less than (5 MPa). Therefore, based on strength, rocks and relations can be classified

into three categories. Therefore, the result will be twelve different categories by combining

everything together. The next Table 4.9 shows the Cartesian product used to generate cases.

54
 Table 4.9: Cartesian Product for Codes of Different Cases
All Strengths (A) Very Weak (V) Weak (W)
All Types (A) AA AV AW
Crystalline Gypsum (C) CA CV CW
Mudstone (M) MA MV MW
Sandstone (S) SA SV SW

Moreover, for the first relation, the AA case, different generated relations were presented,

and then the best relations were selected based on R2 value. Other generated relations would

be the result of this analysis only. This means, for any selected relation, 5 relations were

generated. This does not mean other equations for the general case are not useable, it means

the selected equation is highly recommended unless users prefer to use a simpler equation for

the fulfillment of their design process.

4.3.1. UCS Relations with Mechanical Properties

4.3.1.1. UCS vs. HR

Based on data retrieved from both UCS and Schmidt hammer tests, 3 relations had been

generated. The presented relations are the best possible relations that could be found either

with or without the application of MA data smoothing and LAR robust regression.

For the AA case (the general case), five different possibilities were generated. It was found

that the exponential model was the best for the general case (AA) and the general weak case

(AW) whereas the power model was the best for the general very weak case. The following

Table 4.10 presents relation analysis for the general case (AA) while Table 4.11 shows the

other two found relations. Figures 4.2 to 4.4 show these found relations.

55
 Table 4.10: Relations Between UCS and HR, General Case
Figure Case Equation: UCS = R2
 0.295 HR + 3.009 0.49
 0.4872 HR 0.27
 AA 1.939 sqrt(HR) 0.45
 1.428 (HR)0.612 0.47
4.2 4.06 exp (0.04 HR) 0.52

Figure 4.2: UCS vs. HR Relation, All Types, All Strengths

Table 4.11: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and HR

Figure Case Equation: UCS = R2
0.3254
4.3 AV 1.352 (HR) 0.56
4.4 AW 7.113 exp(0.02 HR) 0.38

56
Figure 4.3: UCS vs. HR Relation, AV Case

Figure 4.4: UCS vs. HR Relation, AW Case

57
4.3.1.2. UCS vs. Is(50)

Based on data retrieved from both UCS and point load tests, 10 relations had been generated.

The presented relations are the best possible relations that could be found either with or

without the application of MA data smoothing and LAR robust regression. The following

Table 4.12 presents the relation analysis for the general case (AA) while Table 4.13 shows

the other best found relations. Figures 4.5 to 4.14 show these relations.

Table 4.12: Relations Between UCS and Is(50) (MPa) General Case
Figure Case Equation: UCS = R2
 7.977 Is(50) + 1.151 0.67
 9.459 Is(50) 0.63
 AA 8.306 sqrt(Is(50)) 0.62
4.5 9.191 (Is(50))0.75 0.68
 2.67 exp(1.085 Is(50)) 0.6

For the simpler linear model (UCS = 9.459 Is(50)), the large difference between this model

and the proposed ISRM model of (UCS = 24 Is(50)) can be noted. It is obvious how the

structural safety for a design based on the ASTM equation is jeopardized.

Figure 4.5: UCS vs. IS(50) Relation, General Case

58
 Table 4.13: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and Is(50) (MPa)
Figure Case Equation: UCS = R2
4.6 AV 5.833 √Is(50) 0.73
4.7 AW 5.414 exp(0.57 Is(50)) 0.69
4.8 CA 11.08 Is(50) 0.69
4.9 CW 11.24 Is(50) 0.55
4.1 MA 6.050 √Is(50) 0.71
4.11 MV 5.953 √Is(50) 0.7
4.12 SA 7.701 Is(50) 0.72
4.13 SV 5.679 √Is(50) 0.8
4.14 SW 8.170 √Is(50) 0.44

Figure 4.6: UCS vs. IS(50) Relation, AV Case

Figure 4.7: UCS vs. IS(50) Relation, AW Case

59
 UCS = 11.08 Is(50)
R2 = 0.69

Figure 4.8: UCS vs. IS(50) Relation, CA Case

UCS = 11.24 Is(50)

R2 = 0.55

Figure 4.9: UCS vs. IS(50) Relation, CW Case

60
UCS = 6.050 sqrt(Is(50))
R2 = 0.71

Figure 4.10: UCS vs. IS(50) Relation, MA Case

UCS = 5.953 sqrt(Is(50))

R2 = 0.70

Figure 4.11: UCS vs. IS(50) Relation, MV Case

61
UCS = 7.701 Is(50)
R2 = 0.72

Figure 4.12: UCS vs. IS(50) Relation, SA Case

UCS = 5.679 sqrt(Is(50))

R2 = 0.80

Figure 4.13: UCS vs. IS(50) Relation, SV Case

62
 UCS = 8.170 sqrt(Is(50))
R2 = 0.44

Figure 4.14: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, SW Case

4.3.1.3 UCS vs. Vp

Based on data retrieved from both UCS and ultrasonic pulse velocity tests, only 1 relation had

been generated. Here, it was obvious that the power model gave the best fit. The following

Table 4.14 presents the relation analysis for the general case while Figure 4.15 shows this

relation.

Table 4.14: Relations Between UCS and Vp (m/s) General Case

Figure Case Equation: UCS = R2
 (Vp / 386.6) – 1.088 0.58
 (Vp / 452.8) 0.57
 AA (sqrt(Vp) / 8.511) 0.39
 2.037 exp (Vp / 2587.3) 0.58
4.15 (Vp1.178 / 1881) 0.59

63
 Figure 4.15: UCS vs Vp Relation, General Case

4.3.1.4 UCS vs. St

Based on data retrieved from both UCS and Brazilian splitting tests, 6 relations had been

generated. Here, the power model and the exponential model dominated the relationship

between UCS and St. The following Table 4.15 presents the relation analysis for the general

case while Table 4.16 presents other found relation. Figures 4.16 to 4.21 show these relations.

Table 4.15: Relations Between UCS and St (MPa) General Case

Figure Case Equation: UCS = R2
 3.627 St + 2.053 0.69
 4.815 St 0.6
 AA 6.358 sqrt(St) 0.66
 3.794 exp(0.4265 St) 0.63
4.16 5.823 St0.6823 0.7

64
 Figure 4.16: UCS vs St Relation, General Case

Table 4.16: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and St (MPa)

Figure Case Equation: UCS = R2
0.1863
4.17 AV 3.328 St 0.5
4.18 AW 5.531 exp(0.2893 St) 0.65
4.19 CA 5.007 exp(0.3613 St) 0.95
4.2 MA 4.783 St 0.8703 0.63
4.21 SA 6.321 sqrt(St) 0.87

Figure 4.17: UCS vs St Relation, AV Case

65
Figure 4.18: UCS vs St Relation, AW Case

Figure 4.19: UCS vs St Relation, CA Case

66
Figure 4.20: UCS vs St Relation, MA Case

Figure 4.21: UCS vs St Relation, SA Case

67
4.3.1.5. E vs. UCS

An important set of relations that was generated is between modulus of elasticity and the

UCS. Here, 5 relations had been generated. In this case, the power and exponential models

proved to be the best choice for all generated relations. The following Table 4.17 presents

these found relations while Table 4.18 presents other generated relations. Figures 4.22 to 4.26

show these relations.

Table 4.17: Relations Between E and UCS (MPa) General Case

Figure Case Equation: E = R2
 65.1 UCS + 690.9 0.45
 444.1 sqrt(UCS) 0.43
AA 0.401
4.22 548.2 UCS 0.46
 813.2 exp(0.04638 UCS) 0.41

Figure 4.22: E vs. UCS Relation, General Case

68
 Table 4.18: Relations Summary Between E and UCS (MPa)
Figure Case Equation: E = R2
4.23 AV 285.2 exp(0.3641 UCS) 0.65
0.5741
4.24 AW 355.2 UCS 0.49
4.25 CA 609.9 exp(0.09 UCS) 0.88
4.26 MA 411.6 sqrt(UCS) 0.65

Figure 4.23: E vs. UCS Relation, AV Case

Figure 4.24: E vs. UCS Relation, AW Case

69
Figure 4.25: E vs. UCS Relation, CA Case

Figure 4.26: E vs. UCS Relation, MA Case

70
4.3.2 Multiple Regression Models

Other relations was found to be very useful in the field where simple tests were correlated

together to give the following relation. The UCS can be related to the point load strength

index, moisture content, specific weight and type of rock. Here, the type of rock was given a

factor named ToR (Type of Rock) where 1 is assigned to mudstone, 2 is assigned to

sandstone and 3 is assigned to crystalline gypsum. The following relation is the UCS as a

function of point load strength index, specific weight and type of rocks. It was concluded that

a good relation between UCS and the independent variables. The value of R2 was equal to

0.74. The next equation is the found relation.

𝑈𝐶𝑆 = 0.661 𝐼𝑠 (50) + 0.193 𝛾 + 0.156 𝑇𝑜𝑅

The following relation is the UCS as a function of point load strength index, specific weight,

moisture content and type of rocks. It was concluded that a good relation between UCS and

the independent variables. Here, the value of R2 was 0.75.The next equation is the found

relation.

𝑈𝐶𝑆 = 0.628 𝐼𝑠 (50) − 0.11 𝜔 + 0.267 𝛾 + 0.08 𝑇𝑜𝑅

Here it was found that the type of rock has small influence on the result of the equation unlike

the previous equation. Therefore, the following equation is between UCS and the same

parameters except the rock type, the value of R2 was 0.74.

𝑈𝐶𝑆 = 0.635 𝐼𝑠 (50) − 0.16 𝜔 + 0.315 𝛾

Another good relation was found between UCS and point load strength index, moisture

content and rock type. The value of R2 = 0.72

𝑈𝐶𝑆 = 0.695 𝐼𝑠 (50) + 0.064 𝜔 + 0.271 𝑇𝑜𝑅

71
4.4 Comparison of Work with Previous Literature

It is hard in geotechnical engineering to do such comparisons due to differences in regions, in

sedimentation scenarios and in chemical and physical compositions of one rock type to

another. Even so, designers keep using relations from different places to determine some

required parameters. The following Figures present comparisons between different relations

plus those which were presented earlier with lab determined results. This comparison aims to

show how far some widely used relations are from the real rock properties it is to determine.

The next Figure 4.27 compares between the Schmidt hardness relations.

Figure 4.27: Comparison of Works for Rebound Number

It is obvious that there are two competing models, the one presented in this thesis and another

which was done by Yilmaz et.al (2002). The proposed model by Shalabi (2006) doesn’t work

well with UAE rocks.

72
The next comparison between point load strength index and UCS is of great importance, as

many designers rely on the ASTM relation to predict the UCS. This comparison is to show

how far this relation is from reality about UCS of UAE rocks and promotes a better solution.

The next Figure 4.28 shows this clearly.

Figure 4.28: Comparison of Works for Point Load Strength Index

Here, it is clear that the ASTM relation diverges from the real value of the UCS where one

might claim that the work of T. and S. (2004) seems more suitable to be used. The answer to

this claim is: it is a fact that the presented model gives lower values for the UCS, but, having

lower values for a capacity factor (UCS) gives more conservative designs.

The next comparison is between works for the ultrasonic pulse velocity (USPV). The

following Figure 4.29 shows this comparison. This very sensitive parameter is not only

affected by the type of rock, but also the physical condition (cracks, voids, integrity, … etc.)

of the same rock.

73
 Figure 4.29: Comparison of Works for USPV
Here, the proposed model by Yassar and Erdogan (2004) fails to give true UCS results, since

UCS can never be a negative value. Again, the proposed relation gave conservative results for

UCS as shown on the Figure.

The next relation compares works done by Nazir (2013) and the presented relation for the

Brazilian splitting tensile strength. Once more, the presented work maintained the trend and

gave more conservative results. The following Figure 4.30 shows that

Figure 4.30: Comparison of Works for Brazilian Strength

74
The last comparison to be presented is between relations generated for the modulus of

elasticity. The model presented by Tziallas (2009) failed to give conservative results. The

importance of this parameter was to calculate the allowable settlement of structures resting on

rock. Therefore a more conservative model would be a good choice to perform settlement

analysis. The following Figure 4.31 shows this clearly.

Figure 4.31: Comparison of Works for Modulus of Elasticity

Although all models are confidently conforming, this doesn’t mean the end of scientific

research in the field of rock engineering. These results are subjected to correctness and

falseness. The duty of the coming researchers is to prove the correctness or the falseness of

the proposed work. To insure that all proposed equations are used in the correct way they are

crated for.

75
 Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusion and Final Recommendations
5.1 Summary

A laboratory study was conducted to develop a database for predicting the unconfined

compressive strength of sedimentary rocks. Large numbers of rock samples from different

sites in United Arab Emirates (UAE) were collected and tested for the development of this

database and evaluation of models. Reliable empirical relationships were developed for UCS

of UAE rocks with the following mechanical and physical tests:

1. Schmidt Rebound

2. Point Load Test

3. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

4. Brazilian Test

5. Modulus of Elasticity

6. Moisture Content

7. Unit Weight

Sixteen hundred and thirty tests were performed on various sedimentary rock types, from

various depths and areas in the UAE. Lab experiments were conducted to investigate and

discover possible relations between parameters of these rocks to predict the UCS of them.

Twenty nine relations were selected from more than 130 generated relations to relate all

rocks' parameters to each other and if applicable, subsets of samples based on their type and

strength were also related. Furthermore, general relationships were developed relating

unconfined compressive strength with unit weight, moisture content point load strength index

and type of rock. It is thus hoped that this research will serve civil and geotechnical engineers

in the UAE in making practical decisions at the stage of the preliminary site investigation

76
works and for determining the unconfined compressive strength of UAE rocks from quick

and cheap tests. The following Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show the general case relations

Table 5.1: Summary of Direct Relations

Equation R2
UCS = 9.191 (Is(50))0.75 0.68
UCS = 5.823 St0.6823 0.70
UCS = (VP)1.178/ 1881 0.59
UCS = 4.06 exp(0.04 HR) 0.52
E = 548.2 UCS0.401 0.46

Table 5.2: Summary of Multiple Regression Relations

2
Equation R
𝑈𝐶𝑆 = 0.661 𝐼𝑠 (50) + 0.193 𝛾 + 0.156 𝑇𝑜𝑅 0.74
𝑈𝐶𝑆 = 0.695 𝐼𝑠 (50) + 0.064 𝜔 + 0.271 𝑇𝑜𝑅 0.72
𝑈𝐶𝑆 = 0.628 𝐼𝑠 (50) − 0.11 𝜔 + 0.267 𝛾 + 0.08 𝑇𝑜𝑅 0.75
𝑈𝐶𝑆 = 0.635 𝐼𝑠 (50) − 0.16 𝜔 + 0.315 𝛾 0.74
Where ToR = 1 for Mudstone, 2 for Sandstone and 3 for Crystalline Gypsum

5.2 Conclusion

From different tests performed, including the Schmidt’s rebound hammer, point load strength

index, ultrasonic pulse velocity, UCS, E, Brazilian splitting strength, moisture content, and

bulk specific weight tests, all with conformance to the ASTM standard, it was concluded that

there are valid relations between UCS and rock physical and mechanical parameters of

sedimentary rocks of UAE. These relations were found to be in conformance to other

previous literature and more reliable and conservative. For the sake of developing these

relations, different statistical methods were used in addition to the use of the least square

regression wherever that was required. These methods were the mean average data smoothing

MA to produce better relatable data sets, and least absolute residuals LAR to optimize found

relations. After that, a simple analysis was done based on the highest R2 value to determine

77
the best model to be used in representing the relation between UCS and the subject physical

or mechanical parameter.

5.3 Recommendations for Future Research

As recommendations for future research and in light of the results reported in this thesis,

further research could be done to investigate the correctness and falseness of the work

presented here. Future researchers might be interested in studying a specific region in the

UAE. For although this country's size is small, the geotechnical and geological diversity

makes it a very interesting subject for research in this field, especially in rock engineering

which has its own influences on the petroleum wealth of the country.

78
 References
1. Ali, M. Y. e. (2013). Seismic stratigraphy and subsidence history of the United Arab

Emirates (UAE) rifted margin and overlying foreland basins. In K. Al-Hosani etal

(Ed.), Lithosphere dynamics and sedimentary basins: The Arabian plate and

analogues (pp. 127-143). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-

30609-9_6

2. Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core

specimens, ASTM. D2938-95(R02) (2002).

3. Standard practice for preparing rock core specimens and determining dimensional and

shape tolerances, ASTM. D4543-08 (2008).

4. Standard test method for determination of the point load strength index of rock and

application to rock strength classifications, ASTM. D5731-08 (2008).

5. Standard test method for laboratory determination of pulse velocities and ultrasonic

elastic constants of rock, ASTM. D2845-08 (2008).

6. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of intact rock core specimens,

ASTM. D3967-08 (2008).

7. Standard test method for compressive strength and elastic moduli of intact rock core

specimens under varying states of stress and temperatures, ASTM. D7012-10 (2010).

8. Standard test method for determination of pore volume and pore volume distribution

of soil and rock by mercury intrusion porosimetry, ASTM. D4404-10 (2010).

9. Standard test method for specific gravity and absorption of rock for erosion control,

ASTM. D6473-10 (2010).

10. Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture) content of soil

and rock by mass, ASTM. D2216-10 (2010).

79
11. Standard test method for determination of rock hardness by rebound hammer method,

ASTM. D5873-13 (2013).

12. Brady, B. B., E. (2005). Rock mechanics and mining engineering, general concepts.

Rock mechanics for underground mining (Third Edition ed., pp. p. 1). United States of

America: Springer Science.

13. Brooks Stone Inc. (2011). House porch foundation stones. Retrieved from

http://www.brooks-stone.com/photos/medium/4722.PNG

14. Geotechnical investigation and testing identification and classification of rock

identification and description, ISO 14689-1 (2003).

15. Buchner, K and Grapes, R. (2011). Metamorphic rocks. Petrogenesis of metamorphic

rocks (7th ed., pp. 21-56). USA: Springer.

16. Busines Week. (2007). Monster foundation. Retrieved from

http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/05/0501_makingof_burj/image/1_piles.jpg

17. Feulner, G. (2005). Geology. The emirates, A natural history (pp. 41-46). South

Africa: Trident Press Limited.

18. Hamblin, K. and Christiansen, E. (2009). Sedimentary rocks. Earth's dynamic systems

(10th ed., pp. 114-143). USA: Pearson.

19. Hoek, E. (2006). The development of rock engineering. Practical rock engineering

(pp. 1.1-1.5). Ontario: RocSciense.

20. Hoek, E. (2006). Rock mass classification. Practical rock engineering (pp. 3.1-3.23).

Ontario: RocScience.

21. Jaeger, J. (1979). The historical development of rock mechanics. Rock mechanics and

engineering (Second Edition ed., pp. 1-4). United Kingdom: Cambridge University

Press. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511735349.003

80
22. Jaeger, J. e. a. (2007). Deformation and failure of rocks. Fundumentals of rock

mechanics (4th Edition ed., pp. 80). USA: Blackwell Publishing.

23. Moh'd, B. (2009). Compressive strength of vuggy oolitic limestones as a function of

their and sound propagation . Jordan Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences,

2(1), 18-25.

24. Nazir. R. etal. (2013). Correlation between unconfined compressive strength and

indirect tensile strength of limestone rock samples. Electronic Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering, 18, 1737-1746.

25. Palmstorm, A. and Broch, E. (2006). Use and misuse of rock mass classification

systems with particular reference to the Q-system. Tunnelling and Underground

Space Technology, 21, 575-593.

26. Pierce, W. (2002). Schematic arabian plate map WHPierce Exploration.

27. RocScience Inc. (2006). Roclab. Retrieved from

http://www.rocscience.com/products/14/RocLab

28. RocScience Inc. (2006). Tunnels softwares. Retrieved from

http://www.rocscience.com/usage/use/1/Tunnels

29. Rogers, J. (1995). Felton quarry granite slope failure, santa cruz, california.

30. Shalabi, F. e. a. (2007). Estimation of rock engineering rpoperties using hardness

tests. Engineering Geology, 90, 138-147.

31. Simulia Inc. (2006). Abacus. Retrieved from

http://www.3ds.com/products/simulia/portfolio/abaqus/latest-release/

32. Smith. (2012). Definition of Engineering. Encyclopedia Britannica

33. South Carolina Department of Transportation. (2008). Method for determining the

unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core specimens . Test Procedures,

34. TNO BV Inc. (2012). Tno diana. Retrieved from http://tnodiana.com/

81
35. Tsiambaos, G. & Sabatakakis, N. (2004). Considerations on strength of intact

sedimentary rocks. Engineering Geology, 72, 261-273.

36. Tziallas, G. P., etal. (2009). Determination of rock strength and deformability of intact

rocks . Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 14(Bund, G, P2)

37. US. Army Corps of Engineers. (2003). Slope stability. (Manual No. EM 1110-2-

1902). United States of America: US. Army Corps of Engineers.

38. Wikipedia. (2012). 2010 copiapó mining accident. Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Copiap%C3%B3_mining_accident

39. Yasar, E. & Erdogan, Y. (2004). Correlating sound velocity with the density,

compressive strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate rocks. International Journal

of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 41, 871-875.

40. Yilmaz, I. & Sendir, H. (2002). Correlation of schmidt hardness with unconfined

compressive strength and Young’s modulus in gypsum from sivas (turkey).

Engineering Geology, 66, 211-219.

82