2ND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

(CIRAIC2009)

RIPPABILITY ASSESSMENT OF ROCK BASED ON SPECIFIC ENERGY AND PRODUCTION RATE

Mohd For Mohd Amin1, Chan Sook Huei2, Zuhairi Abd. Hamid3, Mohd Khairolden Ghani4
2

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor MSc. Student, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor 3 Executive Director, CREAM, CIDB, Kuala Lumpur 4 Manager, CREAM, CREAM, CIDB, Kuala Lumpur e-mail: mohdfor@utm.my/mohdfor@yahoo.com ABSTRACT

Ripping is a method commonly used to excavate rocks that are relatively weak to be blast but, too strong to be removed by excavator. Despite of being a common method in earthwork, there is no proper procedure currently available to assess ease of excavating rocks by ripping. As a result, ripping is frequently subjected to disputes between relevant parties in construction. This study is aimed at developing a proper procedure to assess rippability of rock. Relevant parameters, obtained from the lab and field assessments, were used in the verification process. Specifically, these include laboratory ripping test which indicates specific energy (SE) required to rip rock samples, and field ripping test which verifies field production rate (Qr) to rip the in situ rock body. Good correlation exists between SE and Qr hence, SE can be used as indicator for degree of difficulty to rip a rock mass in the field. For the rock type and ripper dozer investigated, this is proposed in the form of rippability classification. A comprehensive and objective procedure to assess rippability of rock is also given. Such procedure will help to minimise disputes between project owners and contractors.

Keyword: Ripping, quartzite, specific energy, production rate

1. INTRODUCTION Excavation of strong rocks by drill and blast, and removal of soils using normal excavator are rarely being disputed. However, if hard materials encountered do not fit these two well-defined earth materials, uncertainty on their method of excavation may arise. These materials include some moderately strong rocks (e.g. sedimentary and metamorphic rocks) that are relatively weak to be excavated by blasting but too strong to be removed by excavator. In surface excavation, ripping is the common method used to excavate these rocks, a decision which is frequently based on experience and trial excavation on site. With no proper procedure currently available to justify this decision, ripping is often exposed to elements of dispute and exploitation. For instance, contractors are more inclined to opt for the expensive method (i.e. blasting) although these rocks are cheaper to be excavated by ripping. Client on the other hand, tends to demand for a cheaper method, or may insist on proper assessment procedure to substantiate the suitability of ripping. This paper highlights a study on assessing rippability of rocks, specifically on appropriate approach and methods to be adopted in the assessment process. 2. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY The ease of excavating (excavatability) earth materials must be assessed so that earthwork can be planned and priced accordingly. Basic classification as soils or rocks is often insufficient to justify the reason for adopting specific excavation method. For hard materials like rocks, in addition to lithologic classification, a clear conception of their properties that affect excavatability must be addressed (Legget & Hatheway, 1988). Different method of excavation utilises different mechanisms to loosen a rock body, and various rock types exhibit different strengths against fracturing. In other words, if factors like volume and shape of

2ND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

(CIRAIC2009)

excavation permit, each method is only effective for some rock types. Lack of understanding on this matter, and with deficiencies in the existing specifications on earthwork, excavation in some rocks may lead to disputes between project owner and contractor. Observations indicate that suitability of ripping on some rocks is the most common matter being disputed. Issues are mainly confined to the classification of hard materials encountered, and the justifications for adopting ripping to excavate these materials. 2.1 Rock properties and ripping method Ripping is a mechanical method that uses steel tyne/shank which is attached to a ripper dozer (Fig. 1) to loosen a rock body. It is cheaper than blasting for breaking discontinuous weak rock masses (Bell, 2004). As the tyne is dragged in the rock mass it creates sets of stresses which breaks the rock, along the cut groove, into smaller fragments (Fig. 2). Further loosening is achieved by cutting subsequent grooves that are parallel to each other. The rate of excavation depends on strengths of the in situ rock and capacity of dozer used. Due to its mode of excavation ripping is suitable for shallow excavation (stripping) in large area, e.g. site preparation and road construction. For some rock types and shape of excavation, ripping is more suitable than blasting as some physical properties of rocks may give rise to difficult blasting (Pettifer & Fookes, 1994). Weaker sedimentary rocks (compressive strength < 15 MPa) like mudstones are not readily removed by blasting, since they pulverized easily (due to low strength) when the blasting waves have dissipated. Rocks that possess marked anisotropy (e.g. schist) also give rise to difficult blasting as these rocks split more easily along the lineation rather than across it. Rocks displaying uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) between of 2 and 70 MPa are rippable however, the degree of difficulty or toughness (Pettifer & Fookes, 1994) increases with UCS. Rocks exhibiting seismic velocity (V) less than 2000 m/s are rippable using D7 and D8 ripper (Caterpillar, 2008), these include some sedimentary and metamorphic rocks and highly weathered and fractured strong rocks. Other rock properties that affect excavatability include surface hardness, density (compactness) and tensile strength (Peter & Fookes, 1994; Singh & Goel, 1999).

Fig. 1: Single-shank CAT D6 ripper dozer

Fig. 2: Cut produced by single-shank ripper

Large-scale discontinuities like beddings and joints are also known to affect excavatability of rocks. The use of fracture spacing index by Pettifer & Fookes (1994) in their revised graphical method signifies the importance of rock discontinuities. Field seismic wave velocity (V) is perhaps the most important properties to indicate excavatability of in situ rock (Caterpillar, 2008) as propagation of waves in the rock depends on prevailing fractures and discontinuities. Sedimentary rocks such as thin- and well-bedded sandstone (V < 2000 m/s) are more readily excavated by ripping. 2.2 Rippability Assessments Rippability assessment can be divided into two types; direct and indirect methods. If direct methods cannot be employed, then indirect methods are alternative to assess rippability of rocks.

2ND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

(CIRAIC2009)

Direct method: Conventionally, ease of ripping a rock mass is assessed by undertaking trial excavation on site using ripper dozer (e.g. Komatsu and Caterpillar). The ripper performance is evaluated based on field production rate, Qr in m3/hour, which is estimated using either volume by weight, volume by cross sectioning and volume by length method (Basarir & Karpuz, 2004). Qr depends on factors such as ripper horsepower and properties of the in situ rock. Although this is the most reliable approach however, it is costly and time consuming. Occasionally, it may not be possible to perform this test due to project constraint and availability of suitable ripper. In this study, the volume by length method is adopted for the field ripping test and Qr is calculated as: Production rate, Qr = qr [60/Cr] Er (1)

where, qr is production per cycle (on-bank volume, m3/h), Cr is cycle or run time (min), and Er is operator efficiency (80 to 100 % depending on nature of site). Indirect method: Known as quick graphical method it is often used during planning stage of a major earthwork. The typical graphs/charts used are shown in Fig. 3 and 4. Less expensive and simpler in nature, each chart provides different level of assessment, rock mass and rock material level, depending on the scale of rock properties being considered. Chart in Fig. 3 is used to assess excavatability of rock based its material properties. Performance of ripper dozer to excavate rocks displaying different seismic velocity (mass properties) can be verified using chart shown in Fig. 4.

Source: (McLean & Gribble, 1985)

Source: (Caterpillar, 2008)

Fig. 3: Excavatability based on Rebound no. & compressive strength

Fig. 4: Rippability based on seismic velocity

Rippability obtained from some graphical methods (e.g. Fig. 3) does not indicate level of difficulty to undertake actual ripping. For planning of major earthwork it is important to substantiate this rippability quantitatively. Preferably it should relate to in situ excavatability (field production rate) and work done to fracture a rock, i.e. toughness (Pettifer & Fookes, 1994). 2.3 Laboratory ripping test Test can be undertaken on laboratory ripping machine (see Fig. 5) which is designed to assess ease of ripping rock samples at a reduced scale and under controlled conditions (Fowell & Johnson, 1991; Basarir & Karpuz, 2004). The machine used in this study simulates ripping mechanism of single shank ripper dozer with engine rating 1850 rpm and cutting speed of 150 mm/s (Mohd For Mohd Amin, 2008).

2ND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

(CIRAIC2009)

Specially shaped cutting shank (see Fig. 6), made from tungsten carbide + 10 % cobalt, is used to produce a v-shaped cut in rock sample, and appropriate devices (e.g. Inverter and PLC) are used to measure power (Watt) required to produce that cut. Data obtained is the rippability in terms of specific energy (SE) in MJ/m3. If sufficient data is available, correlation between SE and Qr can be established.

Fig. 5: Laboratory ripping machine 3. RIPPABILITY ASSESSMENT ON QUARTZITE

Fig. 6: Shank to produce cut in sample

This study was undertaken at an excavation site located about 2 km to the west of the Dengkil Town, Selangor. The in situ rock is quartzite (metamorphic rock). To facilitate field assessments and sampling, the site was divided into 6 panels (A to E in Fig. 7). Consistent correlations between field and lab data is ensured by collecting samples in batches, each batch for each panel. All field and lab assessments were carefully selected so that they form a systematic approach to evaluate rippability of rocks.

F A

Fig. 7: Layout of the 6 panels within the study site 3.1 Laboratory Assessments Lithologic classification of the quartzite was based on field observation and petrographic study. The relevant rock properties were obtained from series of lab tests (conducted according to ISRM, 1981) which evaluate the rock strengths and toughness against ripping. Tests conducted include Schmidts hammer, Point-load Index Strength, Brazilian and Slake Durability (see Mohd For Mohd Amin et al., 2009). Result obtained for the samples collected from the 6 panels is shown in Table 1.

2ND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

(CIRAIC2009)

Table 1: Properties of quartzite based on lab tests for samples obtained from various panels
Density (kg/m3) 2034 -2154 2150-2198 2234-2355 2278-2360 2251-2388 2084-2182 Rebound Number (%) 19.4-27.9 27.6-31.2 33.8-42.6 36.8-42.6 35.2-43.5 22.9-30.5 qu (MPa) 22.8-34.6 34.1-41.1 47.3-78.1 55.9-78.5 51.0-84.0 26.9-39.4 Lab seismic velocity (m/s) 1571-2162 2162-2396 2596-3063 2692-3036 2637-2960 1818-2341 Point-load (MPa) 1.23-2.12 2.08-2.78 2.65-3.87 2.52-3.87 2.77-4.15 1.39-2.87 Tensile Strength (MPa) 3.56-5.48 5.13-6.66 7.14-8.54 7.26-8.56 7.36-8.56 4.23-6.23 UCS (MPa) 23.2-38.3 37.9-46.8 48.9-66.8 46.9-65.2 48.9-66.3 25.9-46.9 Slaking Index (%) 69-75 72-78 81-87 80-91 80-89 71-80

Panel A B C D E F

Ease of ripping the rock samples in laboratory was verified using specially fabricated ripping machine (see Fig. 5). Cutting shank (see Fig. 6) is used to cut a V-shaped groove of 5 mm deep and 12-13 mm wide on block samples of dimensions 15010075 mm (see Fig. 8). For each test, 2 sets of data were collected; power (Watt) required for the shank to rip the sample, and power to drive the shank freely (without cutting). The difference between these 2 sets of data gives the mean power, Pm, needed to rip the sample, e.g. 295 Watt in Fig. 9. Using the weight of cut rock fragments and its density, the volume of cut (V in m3) was calculated. Specific energy (SE) in MJ/m3 required in producing that cut is calculated using equation (2) below by taking 1 Watt = 1 Joule. Typical data obtained from the ripping test is shown in Table 2. SE = Pm / V (2)

Fig. 8: Block samples and v-cut

Fig. 9: Typical output data produced from lab ripping test

Table 2: Laboratory ripping tests results of samples obtained from various panels
Panel A 3.70 3.19 3.69 4.39 4.01 3.45 3.39 4.15 4.08 4.17 B 4.53 4.33 4.57 5.07 4.62 4.71 4.50 4.88 4.67 4.52 C 6.14 5.52 5.94 5.50 5.90 5.73 5.68 6.07 5.89 6.06 D 5.06 6.07 6.23 6.30 5.91 6.19 5.51 4.80 5.99 5.91 E 5.85 5.64 5.32 5.59 5.88 5.32 6.07 5.57 5.88 5.36 F 4.56 4.01 4.46 4.29 3.75 3.71 4.42 4.59 4.35 4.22

Specific Energy, SE (MJ/m3)

2ND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

(CIRAIC2009)

3.2 Field Assessments To relate the material properties with the in situ properties, a number of field assessments were carried out these include seismic refraction survey and field ripping test (see Mohd For Mohd Amin et al., 2009). Seismic velocity (V) of the in situ quartzite was verified using 24-channel Geometrics ES-3000 seismograph. The typical V for the upper substrata materials in panel B and C is shown in Fig. 10, which lies between 1000 and 2000 m/s. To evaluate the field production rate (Qr), direct ripping was carried out on the in situ rock using single-shank CAT D6 (165 HP) ripper dozer. The production rate was estimated by measuring volume of cut produced by the ripper, similar to the volume by length method used by Basarir & Karpuz, (2004). For each panel, 10 rip lines were carried out with length varies between 20 and 30 m. However, for reliability of data only the middle portion of 15 m length (L) was considered for related measurements. At this portion of the rip line, the ripper dozer is thought to have achieved its steady speed of 0.6 to 0.8 m/s. Time (min) taken to complete one ripping cycle (Cr) was recorded and the volume of rip was estimated from the length L and the dimensions W and D shown in Fig. 11. Using equation (1), the Qr for each rip line was estimated (note: for simple manoeuvre the operator efficiency Er 100 %). The field production rates obtained for the 6 panels are listed in Table 3.

W
Ground surface

Fig. 10: Typical profile and seismic velocity (V) for Panel B and C

Fig. 11: Dimensions of V-cut produced by single-shank ripper

Table 3: Summary of production rate obtained from field ripping test at various panel
Panel A 282 298 277 242 264 287 292 260 261 263 B 241 244 239 221 227 229 237 232 228 236 C 147 204 178 183 180 175 164 173 188 181 D 183 145 149 146 150 178 145 178 179 173 E 184 132 173 196 183 175 160 178 164 145 F 229 239 275 272 248 267 255 254 248 249

Field Production Rate, Qr (m3/hr)

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The properties of the quartzite like Rebound number (R) and compressive strength (qu) (see Table 1) can be used to substantiate that this rock requires ripping for excavation, for example by plotting values of R and qu against Fig. 3, and field seismic velocity (V) against Fig. 4.

2ND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

(CIRAIC2009)

Comparing the field production rate Qr (see Table 3) with the rippability classification proposed by Basarir & Karpuz (2004) implies that the rippability of this rock is difficult to very difficult. Although this rating is an over-estimate, as the classification was based on D8 ripper (of higher power than D6) however, such rating does indicate the degree of difficulty to rip the in situ rock. Appropriate rippability classification for quartzite and CAT D6 dozer is discussed later. Table 4 shows correlations between properties of quartzite and SE, with all the correlations displaying R2 > 0.8. The best correlation is between SE and tensile strength, and this is expected as this strength is the most indicative parameter for excavatability of rocks. The good correlations strongly indicate that besides its material properties, degree of rippability of quartzite can also be evaluated using its SE value. Table 4: Correlation between Specific Energy (SE) and material properties of quartzite
Correlation SE and Tensile Strength (t) SE and Laboratory Seismic Velocity (VL) SE and Rebound Value (%) SE and Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) Equation SE = 0.5419(t) + 1.440 SE = 0.0019(VL) + 0.384 SE = 0.1182(R) + 1.154 SE = 0.0651(UCS) + 1.882 Coefficient, R2 0.903 0.861 0.866 0.790

Correlations between Qr and some properties of the quartzite is listed in Table 5. The correlation between SE and Qr shows coefficient R2 of 0.85. This verifies the fact that for a given rock type, the rippability of its samples in laboratory (SE) is closely related to rippability of that rock mass on site (Qr), as postulated by other researchers. Table 5: Correlation between field production rate (Qr) and properties of quartzite
Correlation Qr and Field Seismic Velocity(Vf) Qr and Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) Qr and Specific Energy (SE) Equation Qr = -163.19Ln(Vf) + 2798.4 Qr = -162.31Ln(UCS) + 833.71 Qr = -235.27Ln(SE) + 586.22 Coefficient, R2 0.730 0.876 0.850

The value of SE and Qr for the 6 panels is shown in Table 6 which clearly indicates that the higher the SE the more difficult to rip the in situ rock, i.e. lower Qr. The lab ripping test on the rock samples collected from Panel C, D and E, show a higher SE (> 5.5 MJ/m3), hence a lower Qr is observed during in situ ripping of these panels (< 180 m3/hr). Panel A which exhibits the lowest SE of 3.82 MJ/m3 gives the highest Qr of 273 m3/hr. Again this verifies that SE is directly related to Qr. Table 6: Specific energy and field production rate for the various panels
Panel A B C D E F Specific Energy (SE), MJ/m3 3.82 4.64 5.84 5.80 5.65 4.24 Field production rate (Qr), m3/hr 273 233 177 162 169 254

Rippability classification for the quartzite by using 165 HP CAT D6 ripper dozer is shown in Table 7. The classification is based on the ratings suggested by Basarir & Karpuz (2004). Based on the range of SE and Qr, the rippability of the in situ quartzite is rated as easy to moderate. An objective and systematic approach to assess rippability of quartzite is also proposed. The stages and scopes of the assessment are summarised in Fig. 10 (details are given in Mohd For Mohd Amin et al., 2009).

2ND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

(CIRAIC2009)

Table 7: Rippability classification of quartzite using D6 ripper dozer (185 HP)

Specific energy SE, MJ/m3 >7.00 5.25 7.00 3.75 5.25 < 3.75 Field production rate Qr, m3/hr <130 130-200 200-270 >270 Rippability Difficult Moderate Easy Very easy

STAGE 1

Classification: Lithology, physical properties & strengths

Observation, laboratory index & strength tests

Igneous & high grade metamorphic rock (strong to very strong UCS > 60 MPa) Determination of rippability based on material properties STAGE 2

Non-crystalline, cemented & foliated (moderately weak to moderately strong UCS < 60 MPa) Graphical methods (e.g. McLean & Gribble, 1985)

NON-RIPPABLE STAGE 3

RIPPABLE

Mass/in situ properties: seismic velocity, discontinuities, RQD

Field production rate, Qr (if any), in situ assessment (e.g. Pettifer & Fookes, 2004)

Rippability assessment & classification (e.g. Basarir and Karpuz, 2004)

Correlation SE & Qr

Lab ripping test to determine SE

Fig. 12: Systematic approach to assess rippability of quartzite (and other comparable rocks) 5. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions can be derived from this study: 1. In assessing the rippability of rock, besides its lithology it is also important to address its physical and strength properties, particularly those that can substantiate its resistance against ripping. 2. Degree of difficulty to excavate a rock by ripping method can be evaluated in laboratory, termed as specific energy it represents power required to rip a given volume of the rock sample. 3. Correlation between specific energy and field production rate is established, for the type of rock and ripper dozer investigated. This correlation is essential in planning and costing of major earthwork. 4. Finally, a systematic approach to assess rippability of quartzite is proposed which can be used to assess the suitability of ripping for quartzite and other rocks of comparable properties and strengths. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors wish to express their gratitude to Construction Research Institute of Malaysia (CREAM) for the financial support, and Research Management Centre, UTM, for the help in managing the project.

2ND CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

(CIRAIC2009)

REFERENCES Basarir, H. and Karpuz, C. (2004). A Rippability Classification System for Marls in Lignite mines. Journal of Engineering Geology, (Vol. 74) Issues 3-4: 303-318. Bell, F.G. (2004). Engineering Geology and Construction. London: Spon Press. Caterpillar (2008). Caterpillar Performance Handbook Edition (38th ed). Peoria, Illnois, USA: CAT publication, Caterpillar Inc. Fowell, R.J. & Johnson, S.T. (1991). Cuttability Assessment Applied to Drag Tool Tunneling Machines. Proc. 7th Int. Congress Rock Mechanics. ISRM, ed. Wittke, A.A. Balkema, Achen: 985-990. ISRM (1981). Rock Characterisation Testing and Monitoring, ISRM Suggested Methods. Commission on Testing Methods, Int. Society for Rock Mechanics. Brown E.T. (ed) Pergamon Press Ltd. Oxford. Legget, R.F. & Hatheway, A.W. (1988). Geology and Engineering. (3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. McLean, A.C. & Gribble, C.D. (1985). Geology for Civil Engineers, 2nd ed. London: E & FN Spon. Mohd For Mohd Amin (2008). Laboratory Ripping Machine-Invention Disclosure for INATEX 2008. August 2008. Research Management Centre, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor. Mohd For Mohd Amin, Chan Sook Huei, Azman Kassim, Mushairry Mustaffa & Edy Tonizam Mohammad (2009). Excavatability of Unclassified Hard Materials (LPPIM: CREAM/ UPP03-02-060111) Final Report, CIDB-CREAM, Kuala Lumpur. Pettifer, G.S., and Fookes, P.G. (1994). A Revision of the Graphical Method for Assessing the Excavatability of Rock: Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, (Vol. 27): 45-164. Singh, B. and Goel, R.K. (1999). Rock Mass Classification- A Practical Approach in Civil Engineering. (1st ed.). Elsevier Science Ltd. Oxford.