An Analysis of Index Properties and Rock Characteristics of Granite Gneiss Core Samples from Mount Airy, Virginia

Kyle Hoffman Linley Mescher Ryan Ordung Kevin Becker

October 3, 2011

Abstract The basis of the laboratory analysis is to determine the values of several index properties of rock samples. The laboratory tests performed included RQD, Point Load, Schmidt hammer, Brazilian, P and S wave, and porosity/density. The core samples yielded an average uniaxial compressive and tensile strength of 28500 psi and 1680 psi, respectively. The rock mass proved to be solid and impermeable to water, as an RQD value of 86.2% and a porosity reading of .522% would suggest. The density of the rock was on par with typical granite gneiss the dry density was 174.7 lb/ft3 and the wet density was slightly higher with a value of 175.0 lb/ft3. Overall, these values prove that the Mount Airy rock is strong, impermeable, and has mild jointing.

Summary of Results Table I: Summary of results from lab Test RQD Density/Porosity Average Value RQD = 86.2 n = 0.522% dry = 174.7 lb/ft3 wet = 175.0 lb/ft3 G = 2.81 w = 0.187% P wave = 187000in/sec S wave = 83000in/sec Is = 1227psi qu = 29400psi Hardness = 37.4 ult = 12470psi Tb = 1680psi

Acoustic Point Load Schmidt Hammer Brazilian

Table of Contents Abstract Summary of Results List of Tables List of Figures Introduction Sample Preparation Rock Quality Designation Porosity/Density P-Wave and S-Wave Test Point Load Test Schmidt Hammer Test Brazilian Test Conclusion and Recommendation References Appendix A- Sample Calculations Appendix B- Original Data Sheets 2 3 4 5 8 11 15 19 25 27 31 32 33 35

List of Tables Table I: Summary of Results Table II: Core sample information Table III: Core lengths of samples Table IV: RQD averages Table V: Rock mass rating classification table Table VI: Porosity and density of rock samples Table VII: P and S wave velocities Table VIII: Axial loading data Table IX: Diametral loading data Table X: Recommendations for the rock mass rating Table XI: Schmidt hammer hardness scale Table XII: Results from Brazilian test 5 9 9 10 13 17 22 23 24 26 30

List of Figures Figure 1: Tile saw used to cut samples Figure 2: Vice and grinder used to grind and polish ends of samples Figure 3: Fixed caliper used to ensure level plane Figure 4: Boxes of samples used in determining RQD Figure 5: Equipment used for determining density and porosity Figure 6: Acoustic testing system for determining P and S wave velocity Figure 7: Loading for axial test Figure 8: Loading for diametral test Figure 9: Parts of the point load testing device Figure 10: Directions of stress applied during the Brazilian test Figure 11: MTS Testing System used for Brazilian test Figure 12: Example of sample broken along diameter during Brazilian test Figure 13: Computer monitor and load-displacement graph displayed during Brazilian test 6 6 7 8 12 16 20 20 21 27 28 29 29

Introduction The main purpose of the rock analysis contained in this report, is to investigate the rock characteristics and geology of a granite gneiss body in the region of Mount Airy, Virginia. This report is intended for all audiences, whether it be those in the mining industry who are looking at the prospect of mining in the area, management in the construction and building fields who are examining the region for future construction purposes, or a member of the general public who simply wishes to educate themselves about the area in which they live and work every day. The information contained in this report is written in a manner that is easy to understand, even without a background in geology, mining, or engineering, yet still provides a level of analysis that is useful for more quantitative practices. The following report helps to answer questions regarding the strength and properties of the rock mass that would otherwise go unknown. The subsequent report divides the overall analysis of the rock into a series of tests that each work to provide data regarding the rock characteristics of Mount Airy. A brief description of each test is provided to educate those who may be unfamiliar with the procedure. Equipment used for each test are identified and explained, and pictures of the equipment are provided to further educate inexperienced readers. Following the description is tabular data of the results accompanied by textual support and discussion. At the end of the report are conclusions and recommendations regarding the findings of the experiments. The report, as previously stated, will thoroughly analyze several rock characteristics regarding strength and density aspects of core samples obtained from the Mount Airy region of Virginia. These tests will provide individuals from both companies and the general public the ability to examine the provided data so that they can educate themselves for both professional and personal use.

Sample Preparation All of the samples for this lab are core samples from an ore body in Mt. Airy, Virginia. These core samples are made up of granite gneiss, a foliated metamorphic rock, with grains large enough to be seen with the unaided eye, composed mainly of quartz, feldspar, amphiboles, and other minerals. Granite gneiss is strong enough to bear a large amount of weight, resists weathering, is hard enough to resist most abrasions, and polishes well. Given these characteristics, granite gneiss is a very desirable and useful rock to be mined. Samples provided for this lab came from five different cylindrical boreholes with a diameter of 1.86 inches. Eight wooden boxes were filled with core samples, and shipped to Holden Hall, Blacksburg, VA. Each box was labeled with the corresponding Hole Number, Box Number, and the depth (in feet) below the surface at which those samples started, to where they end. Table II shows the corresponding information for each box of samples. Table II: Core sample information Hole Number 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 Box Number 14 15 7 14 18 19 18 19 Depth From (ft) 194 188.5 97 163 200 209.5 145.5 206 Depth To (ft) 203 198 106 172 209.5 218.5 206 215

Once the samples were received, they were then prepared for use in the lab. The core samples were placed onto a tile saw, made by Longyear, model number 108736, shown below in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Tile saw used to cut samples The samples were then cut into pieces four inches in length. The cut samples were then placed vertically into the vice of a grinder, made by Swisher, model number 66403, shown below in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Vice and grinder used to grind and polish ends of samples Once the sample is secured, water from a hose was directed towards the top of the sample to reduce heat from friction. The operator then lowered the grinder to the height of the sample, and turned the grinder on its hinge horizontally to provide a level surface. This was also done to the opposite face of

the sample, creating two level and polished faces of the sample. Fixed calipers, shown in Figure 3, were then used to determine if both ends of the sample were level.

Figure 3: Fixed caliper used to ensure level plane If both ends of the sample were not level the process was repeated. This reduces the variance of the lengths across the exposed cross-section of the sample. The same process of cutting and polishing was then conducted for a sample one inch in length. For this report, a combination of four inch samples and one inch samples were used for the different tests.

10

Rock Quality Designation Theory The Rock Quality Designation, or RQD, is an important factor in determining the Rock Mass Rating, or RMR. All rocks have discontinuities in the form of cracks, joints, and fractures these discontinuities contribute to the weakening of the rock. The more discontinuities there are the more likely failure will occur. While mining underground it is much more likely that rock failures will occur due to rocks falling from highly fractured rock as opposed to rock bursting from high pressure. It is therefore of utmost importance to quantify the discontinuities as accurately as possible. The RQD is the percentage of intact core pieces longer than four inches over the total length of a core sample, RQD=(Li/L). Li is the length of the cores longer than four inches and L is the total length of the cores.

Experimental Apparatus and Procedure To determine the RQD a ruler is used to determine the individual lengths of broken cores. Wooden boxes, as shown in Figure 4, are used to house these samples. The samples, after they were prepared and put into core boxes with the date, location, depth, and drillhole number, are then possible to analyze. Each broken piece of core was measured from the center of the core sample using a ruler and recorded. The total length of the core pieces over four inches were then summed and divided over the total core length to determine the RQD.

Figure 4: Boxes of samples used in determining RQD 11

Tabulation of Data and Results The RQD for this specific lab group was determined to be 88.6%. This was the number determined from this specific lab group, rather than the RQD average of all lab groups. The raw data containing all RQD values for each group is not available in Appendix B, however while still in the lab we determined the average RQD for all the groups was 86.2 with a standard deviation of 1.92. The average values found are seen below in Table III, and Table IV. Table III: Core lengths of samples Total Length (in.) 672 Table IV: RQD averages Group average Total average Standard deviation Discussion of Results The average RQD for all the groups was 86.2%. Plugging this value into Table V gives a value of 17, which can then be used in the RMR system. More analysis can then be used to determine the point load index, the spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities, groundwater conditions, and joint orientation to determine the final RMR. This additional analysis would utilize the information in Table V. The RMR has a great effect on the final mine design, determining excavation, roof bolts, shotcrete, and steel sets that should be used according to the rating determined. 88.6 86.2 1.92 Core Length > 4 in. 595.25

12

Table V: Rock mass rating classification table

13

Porosity/Density Theory The porosity/density test is used to determine the compactness of a rock sample as well as its impenetrability to water. Small pores in the rock can slowly fill with groundwater, which in turn affects the density and weight of the rock. This test is performed in a laboratory setting, and uses the volume and weight of a sample to determine the porosity and density characteristics. Porosity is determined using the equation below:

where n is the porosity (proportion of solids to pore space in the sample), Vp is volume of the pores, and Vt is total volume of the sample. Vp can be found by using:

where Wwet is the weight of the sample when it is saturated with water, Wdry is the weight of the sample once all the water has been removed from the pore space, and w is the unit weight of water, 62.4 lb/ft3. Vt is calculated using the equation:

where D is the diameter of the sample and h is the length of the sample from end to end. Furthermore, the dry density, dry, which is the density of the rock without any water present in the pores, can be found using the equation:

and the wet density, wet, described as the density of the rock when it is saturated with water, can be calculated using the equation:

The water content by weight, w, of the sample is found by using the equation:

Finally, the specific gravity, G, is found using the equation:

14

Experimental Apparatus and Procedure Several pieces of equipment are used for this test. Calipers are used to accurately measure the dimensions of the samples. A scale with a tolerance of .005 ounces is required, along with a saturation vacuum chamber, vacuum pump, and desiccators. These devices are all shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Equipment used for determining density and porosity

The latter three pieces of equipment are used to remove all pore air from the sample while filling the pores completely with water. The vacuum chamber is a container that is filled with water and can be sealed; the vacuum pump is used to remove all air from the vacuum chamber, and therefore, all the air from the sample. To begin the test, the volume, Vt of the samples was calculated. The samples were roughly two inches in diameter and four inches in length. They were then weighed on the scale, which yields the dry weight Wdry. The samples were then submerged in water in the vacuum chamber and sealed by placing the lid on top. The vacuum pump was then attached to the chamber and then pump was turned on. The pump was left running overnight to ensure that all the air had been removed from the pores of the rock. The following day, the samples were then weighed again, providing data for the wet weight, Wwet. With this information, the necessary calculations could be completed.

15

Tabulation of Data After accumulating the required data, the necessary calculations could be completed. Sample calculations can be found in appendix A, equation A5-A11. Table VI shows the recorded results and is shown below. Table VI: Porosity and density of rock samples Specimen # TTM-1 TTM-2 CLR-1 CLR-2 GR-1 GR-2 H-1 H-2 JP-MV-1 JP-MV-2 TH-1 TH-2 ABCD #1 ABCD #2 ROD RAM ROCK1 ROCK2 SUMMER LIZ BOB 1 BOB 2 SUM1 SUM2 AVERAGE STND DEV D (inches) 1.882 1.883 1.866 1.861 1.866 1.864 1.872 1.868 1.867 1.868 1.864 1.863 1.865 1.866 1.864 1.865 1.867 1.867 1.861 1.876 1.865 1.863 1.865 1.869 1.867 0.006 L (inches) 3.893 3.967 3.973 3.978 3.932 3.983 3.871 3.900 4.053 3.934 3.953 3.842 3.886 3.892 3.871 3.953 3.92 3.844 3.814 3.948 3.974 3.890 4.040 3.950 3.928 0.060 W(wet) (oz) 17.365 17.990 17.370 17.740 16.860 18.085 17.250 17.415 17.565 17.585 17.535 17.095 16.775 17.740 17.210 17.430 17.645 16.320 17.265 17.735 16.715 17.070 18.215 18.290 17.43 0.482 W(dry) (oz) 17.305 17.955 17.325 17.695 16.820 18.025 17.235 17.390 17.545 17.565 17.505 17.065 16.755 17.710 17.185 17.390 17.620 16.305 17.235 17.690 16.690 17.035 18.185 18.255 17.40 0.477 n% 0.959 0.548 0.717 0.720 0.644 0.955 0.244 0.405 0.312 0.321 0.481 0.496 0.326 0.488 0.410 0.641 0.403 0.247 0.500 0.714 0.399 0.571 0.470 0.559 0.522 0.194 (wet) (lb/ft^3) 173.2 175.9 172.7 177.1 169.3 179.7 174.9 176.0 171.0 176.2 175.6 176.3 170.7 180.0 176.0 174.3 177.6 167.5 179.7 175.5 166.3 173.9 178.2 182.3 175.0 3.958 (dry) (lb/ft^3) 172.6 175.5 172.2 176.6 168.9 179.1 174.7 175.7 170.8 176.0 175.3 176.0 170.5 179.7 175.7 173.9 177.3 167.3 179.4 175.1 166.0 173.5 178.0 181.9 174.7 3.929 G 301.58 305.48 300.21 307.90 294.28 312.98 303.12 305.36 296.50 305.51 304.80 306.09 295.99 312.55 305.34 302.96 308.15 290.33 312.10 305.19 288.52 302.01 309.45 316.65 303.87 6.987 W% 0.347 0.1949 0.260 0.254 0.238 0.333 0.087 0.1438 0.1140 0.1139 0.1714 0.1758 0.1194 0.1694 0.1455 0.230 0.1419 0.092 0.1741 0.254 0.1498 0.205 0.1650 0.1917 0.187 0.069

Discussion of Results After accumulating all of the results of the test, some valuable information was obtained. The average porosity of the samples is .522%, showing that the rock at Mount Airy has hardly any pore space. This means that ground water does not have much ability to flow. The averages of wet and dry densities are 174.7 lb/ft3 and 175.0 lb/ft3, respectively, showing that the water content did not greatly 16

affect the density of the rock. The specific gravity averaged 2.81, and the mean value of the water content of the rock was .1865%, once again proving that the Mount Airy rock proved to have very little pore space for water to accumulate.

17

P-Wave and S-Wave Velocity Test Theory The behavior and strength of a particular rock can be drastically influenced by porosity and fissuring. One way to determine the degree of fissuring is to time the propagation of sonic waves through the rock. By comparing experimental results to known values, a basic ratio (IQ%) can be constructed. The IQ score gives an estimate of fissuring for a given porosity:

Where V is the measured velocity, and V* is the known velocity for the rock. Two types of sonic waves are used, primary (compression) waves and secondary (shear) waves. The relationship between these two wave types allows calculation of dynamic Poissons ratio and dynamic elastic modulus ratio, with respective equations below. :

Where d is dynamic Poissons ratio, Ed is dynamic modulus of elasticity, Vp is primary wave velocity and Vs is secondary wave velocity. Experimental Apparatus & Procedure The samples used for the P & S wave testing were 4 inch long cylindrical rock samples that were tested axially. The equipment consists of a SonicViewer oscilloscope with two piezoelectric transducers that are used to secure the samples as shown below in Figure 6.

18

Figure 6: Acoustic testing system for determining P and S wave velocity Lubricating gel is applied between the transducers and rock sample in order to ensure full contact and proper transmission of the waves. The SonicViewer works by using one transducer as a signal propagation source and the other as a receiver. It then displays a line representing the receiving transducers signal, which will remain flat until the sound wave is received. At the moment the sound wave reaches the second transducer, the signal displayed would sharply decline. By using a timing measurement on the SonicViewer, the arrival time to the second transducer was found. After placing the sample in the holder with transducers attached, the SonicViewer was turned on and put in the proper mode for either P wave or S wave testing. For both P wave and S wave testing, the procedure is the same with the only difference being the transducers and mode of the SonicViewer. First, the samples length was measured multiple times in order to give an accurate length. Then a P wave was sent through the rock sample and visualized on the display screen of the SonicViewer. The timing knob was used to find the exact time that the wave arrived, in microseconds. This process was repeated 4 times on each sample, for both P and S waves, and the average time was taken.

19

Tabulation of Data After collecting the average P and S wave arrival times, the next step was to calculate P and S wave velocities of the rock sample. These velocities, and corresponding arrival times, are listed in Table VII below. Also shown are the IQ%, dynamic modulus of elasticity and dynamic Poissons ratio. Sample calculations can be found in appendix A, equations A2-A4. Table VII: P and S wave velocities Specimen Number Ghost R 1 Ghost R 2 TTM - 1 TTM - 2 JPMV - 1 JPMV - 2 TH1 TH2 H-1 H-2 ABCD - 1 ABCD - 2 ROD RAM Rock 1 Rock 2 Bog 1 Bog 2 SUM 1 SUM 2 Liz Summer CLR - 1 CLR - 2 Average STD Dev Length (in) 3.932 3.983 3.893 3.967 4.053 3.934 3.953 3.842 3.871 3.9 3.886 3.892 3.871 3.953 3.92 3.844 3.974 3.89 4.04 3.95 3.948 3.814 3.973 3.978 3.93 0.06 P wave Arrival (s) 17.4 25.73 23.1 24.1 21.6 20.85 23.9 21.2 23.45 19.9 19.9 17.85 21.6 21.85 21 17.6 20.8 20.9 20.4 23.7 22.3 19.05 18.8 20.95 21.16 2.15 S wave Arrival (s) 43.7 51.3 47.9 52.5 46.7 46 50.6 48 39.6 39.8 48.6 44.6 47.7 51.8 49.5 44.1 45.7 48 48 52.8 51.6 46.9 47.4 48.85 47.57 3.51 P wave velocity (in/sec) 225977.0 154799.8 168528.1 164605.8 187638.9 188681.1 165397.5 181226.4 165074.6 195979.9 195276.4 218039.2 179213.0 180915.3 186666.7 218409.1 191057.7 186124.4 198039.2 166666.7 177040.4 200210.0 211329.8 189880.7 187365.7 18653.43 S wave velocity (in/sec) 89977.1 77641.3 81273.5 75561.9 86788.0 85521.7 78122.5 80041.7 97752.5 97989.9 79958.8 87264.6 81153.0 76312.7 79191.9 87165.5 86958.4 81041.7 84166.7 74810.6 76511.6 81322.0 83818.6 81433.0 82990.8 6166.80 Ed (psi) Vd

2881397 1560996 1841222 1721530 2245887 2245517 1761477 2036249 1487334 2502077 2214681 2697263 2024641 1954993 2091868 2698304 2308126 2124972 2358190 1741404 1911234 2309286 2509448 2184687 2142199 362046.13

0.406 0.332 0.348 0.367 0.364 0.371 0.356 0.379 0.230 0.333 0.399 0.405 0.371 0.392 0.390 0.405 0.369 0.383 0.390 0.374 0.385 0.401 0.407 0.387 0.373 0.04

20

Discussion of Results After compiling the data and calculating velocities, the dynamic modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio were also found. The average primary wave velocity is 187,366 in/sec, which gives an IQ% score of 95.2%, assuming the known velocity of the rock is 196,850 in/sec. This IQ%, in combination with porosity of 0.5%, shows that the rock is non-fissured. This is very important because it will allow the behavior of the rock to be more accurately predicted since it is relatively homogenous in composition. The dynamic modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio are found to be 2.14106 psi and 0.373 respectively. These values are useful in determining how the rock mass will behave under rapid loading conditions, such as blasting.

21

Point Load Test Theory The point load test is used to estimate the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rock. The UCS is the maximum stress that can be applied uniaxially before failure. It is necessary to have an estimate for this characteristic of the rock since it is an integral part of any mine design. The stress in the rock cannot exceed this number; otherwise there will be massive failures and possible collapse in the mine. The sample is placed in the point load machine, which applies a concentrated load through conical platens on opposing sides of the sample until failure occurs. The machine will display the force applied uniaxially to the rock, P (lb), this force over the diameter of the sample, D (in.) is equal to the point load index in a cylindrical sample, Is (psi), shown by the equation:

The point load index is then multiplied by a conversion factor of 24 in order to determine the estimated uniaxial compressive strength, qu (psi):

If the sample given is not cylindrical other equations must be used to find the equivalent core diameter (De). De can be found using this equation:

with W being length of the shortest side of the sample perpendicular to where the force will be applied, and D being the length of the side in the same direction that the force will be applied to, as shown in Figure 7. Knowing the equivalent diameter it is then possible to determine the point load index. In this case it is determined by the equation:

P being the force applied, De being the equivalent diameter and F being determined by this equation: ( )

The point load index is an integral part of the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) classification system. The RMR not only takes into account the compressive strength of the rock, but also the Rock Quality Designation (RQD), spacing of discontinuities, condition of discontinuities, groundwater conditions, and orientation of discontinuities to give the rock a class, ranging from very good to very poor rock. The RMR is a basic guide to determining what sort of support and bolting will be needed and the pace of 22

mine advancement. Knowing the correct safety precautions is crucial to keeping the miners safe and keeping the mine running at full capacity.

Experimental Apparatus and Procedure

The Point Load Tester used applies a concentrated load through conical platens on opposing sides of the sample until failure occurs. It features a built in ruler in order to give the exact value for D as the sample is loaded into the machine. The point load machine also features a built in shield to protect the operator from rock bursts. A caliper measures the length in the Diametral test, and the diameter, W in the Axial test. There are two different configurations to test the UCS: diametrically and axially. Axial and Diametral loading are shown below in Figures 6 and 7 respectively.

Figure 7: Loading for axial test

Figure 8: Loading for Diametral test The first step for both experiments was to determine the dimensions of the sample rock. The diameter plays a key role in the equation for the point load index but equations for diametral loading 23

are based on the assumption that L is greater than 0.5D, as seen in Figure 8. The length, L, is measured using a caliper and placed in the point load machine accordingly. The diameter, D, was measured after the sample is inserted into the point load machine on the ruler built into the device. This ensures D is the exact distance between the platens that apply the load. All of the samples were cut to a specific diameter, in this case 48 mm, therefore the variable W was known. After the dimensions are taken it was necessary to test the maximum force the samples could withstand before failure. The samples were loaded into the point load machine, as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Parts of the point load testing device The shield was lowered and the pump lever was removed from the valve and placed in the jack. Pumping the lever slowly increased the force applied until the rock eventually failed. The maximum force applied was then displayed by the point load tester and recorded for future reference. This was repeated for samples of rock for the diametral and axial tests.

Tabulation of Data

24

Table VIII shows the data and results for the Axial loading test. Table IX shows the data and results for the Diametral loading test. Sample calculations can be found in Appendix A in equations A12A13. Table VIII: Axial loading data Sample clr-1 clr-2 ttm-1 ttm-2 plt-3 plt-4 h-1 h-2 jpmv-1 jpmv-2 jpmv-3 th-1 th-2 rock-1 rock-2 rmrd-1 rmrd-2 abcd-1 abcd-2 grnk-1 grnk-2 bob-1 bob-2 sum-1 sum-2 Average Stnd Dev D (mm) 53 38 53 22 36 55 31.5 25 19 40.5 25.5 26 30 34 26 22 23 29 29 31 34 37 32 28 25 D (in) 2.086614 1.496063 2.086614 0.866142 1.417323 2.165354 1.240157 0.984252 0.748031 1.594488 1.003937 1.023622 1.181102 1.338583 1.023622 0.866142 0.905512 1.141732 1.141732 1.220472 1.338583 1.456693 1.259843 1.102362 0.984252 1.454 W (in.) 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.909449 1.893701 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.893701 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.890 P (lbs) 4414 5619 4733 3588 2816 5021 4400 2994 1422 3840 3226 3244 3230 4095 3700 3197 3476 2927 4711 3711 3767 3194 3966 2645 2969 3636.2 880.464 De (in) 2.2407133 1.8973182 2.2407133 1.4436427 1.8467139 2.2825995 1.7364165 1.5405305 1.3416065 1.9587359 1.5542413 1.569405 1.6858114 1.7946833 1.569405 1.4436427 1.4760881 1.6574764 1.6574764 1.713678 1.7965518 1.872187 1.7410986 1.6286486 1.5389283 1.7291325 0.2505949 F (in) 1.059654 0.983226 1.059654 0.869455 0.971337 1.068522 0.944788 0.895245 0.841243 0.997423 0.898822 0.902757 0.932297 0.958925 0.902757 0.869455 0.878195 0.925213 0.925213 0.939201 0.959374 0.977344 0.945934 0.917936 0.894826 0.943003 0.060033 Is (psi) 931.5877 1534.73 998.9136 1496.856 802.0537 1029.709 1378.73 1129.414 664.616 998.2948 1200.331 1189 1059.592 1219.166 1356.134 1333.737 1401.025 985.7562 1586.572 1186.836 1119.707 890.6023 1237.561 915.3421 1121.791 1150.722 232.0803 Qu (psi) 22358.106 36833.52 23973.927 35924.549 19249.289 24713.008 33089.529 27105.928 15950.784 23959.075 28807.94 28535.992 25430.215 29259.993 32547.217 32009.695 33624.603 23658.148 38077.737 28484.075 26872.957 21374.455 29701.47 21968.21 26922.98 27617.336 5569.928

25

Table IX: Diametral loading data Sample clr-1 clr-2 ttm-1 ttm-2 plt-3 plt-4 h-1 h-2 jpmv-1 jpmv-2 th-1 th-2 rock-1 rock-2 rmrd-1 rmrd-2 abcd-1 abcd-2 grnk-1 grnk-2 bob-1 bob-2 sum-1 sum-2 Avg std dev Discussion of results Using two different tests to estimate the same property, the UCS of the rock is important due to the fact that both tests gave slightly different results. After compiling the results, the Axial test shows the point load index is 1150 psi with a compressive strength of 27,600 psi. The Diametral test shows a point load index of 1223 psi with a compressive strength of 29,400 psi. While there is a slight difference in the compressive strength by the two different tests the difference does not have a great effect on the final analysis of the results. Both strengths fit into a range of values in the rock mass rating system as seen in Table V. A UCS between 14,000 psi to 36,300 psi yields a rating of 12. This rating, along with the 26 D (mm) 48 48 48 48 48 48 48.5 48.1 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48.1 48 48 48 48.0 D (in) 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.909449 1.893701 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.893701 1.889764 1.889764 1.889764 1.890 P (lbs) 2424 2691 2111 3486 3411 1166 2617 3893 1307 2200 1825 2128 1714 1491 1364 2919 1754 2706 1087 3830 1925 3237 1174 3226 2320.25 876.9192 Is (Psi) 1282.7 1423.988 1117.071 1844.675 1804.988 617.0083 1370.553 2055.763 691.6208 1164.167 965.7292 1126.067 906.9917 788.9875 721.7833 1544.638 928.1583 1431.925 575.2042 2026.708 1016.528 1712.913 621.2417 1707.092 1226.937 463.5434 Qu (psi) 30784.8 34175.7 26809.7 44272.2 43319.7 14808.2 32893.262 49338.312 16598.9 27940 23177.5 27025.6 21767.8 18935.7 17322.8 37071.3 22275.8 34366.2 13804.9 48641 24396.674 41109.9 14909.8 40970.2 29446.498 11125.042

RQD, joint spacing, ground water inflow, and joint condition, gives a rating which can be used to determine the rock mass class. The rock mass class provides recommendations for excavation, rock bolting, shotcrete usage, and steel sets that should be used according to the rating determined, using Table X below.

Table X: Recommendations for the rock mass rating

27

Schmidt Hammer Test Theory The Schmidt hammer test is used to measure the uniaxial compressive strength of a rock specimen. It is vital to know the strength of rock in mining because of its importance in underground pillar design, highwall and bench design, and blasting applications. Due to the portability of the Schmidt rebound hammer, tests can be completed under laboratory conditions or in the field. The following equation is used to determine the compressive strength of the rock:

where ult is the maximum compressive strength of the rock in psi. dry, in lb/ft3, is the density of the rock when no water is present in the rock pores. R is the Schmidt hardness as determined by the Schmidt rebound hammer.

Experimental Apparatus and Procedure A sample with a diameter of roughly two inches and a length of four inches is used for this test, although the Schmidt hammer test can be used to test any sample type. There are two pieces of equipment that are used in the Schmidt hammer test the Schmidt rebound hammer and the sample cradle. The Schmidt rebound hammer is essentially a tube housing a spring and hammer, which when compressed registers the Schmidt hardness number, R. The sample cradle is a solid steel frame that securely holds the sample and guides the Schmidt hammer to ensure an accurate reading. To complete the test, a sample was placed in the sample cradle. The Schmidt hammer was then applied to the core sample, and a reading was recorded by pushing a small button on the back of the housing after the rebound occurs. After every reading, the sample was moved slightly so that variances in the rock could be accounted for. After forty readings were collected, the readings were averaged to get one accurate value for the sample.

Tabulation of Data Twenty two individual samples, all approximately two inches in diameter, were tested using the Schmidt hammer. Each sample was subjected to twenty individual readings, yielding 440 recorded values. The averages of these values are visible in Table XI below. Dry densities for each sample were retrieved from the porosity/density tests previously completed. For samples that failed to match a specimen number from the prior test, the average dry density of 174.7 lb/in3 was used. These values are displayed below in Table XI. Sample calculations are visible in Appendix A in equations A12 and A13. 28

Table XI: Schmidt hammer hardness scale Sample Hardness Dry Density (lb/ft3) 172.6 175.5 172.3 176.6 174.7 174.7 174.7 175.3 175.9 170.7 175.9 174.7 174.7 170.4 179.7 175.7 173.9 174.7 174.7 178.0 182.0 166.0 173.4 174.6 3.16 Uniaxial Compression (psi) 5449 10649 4513 14540 14879 9880 7527 14174 18968 10479 13965 15390 14795 12314 13062 10494 14394 14344 17322 12793 12670 13319 10934 12472 3442

TTM #1 TTM #2 CLR 1 CLR 2 CLR 3 SCH 1 SCH 2 TH 1 TH 2 JPMV 1 JPMV 2 H-1 H-2 ABCD-1 ABCD -2 RMRD-1 RMRD-2 GEKN-1 GEKN-2 SUM1 SUM2 BOB-1 BOB-2 AVERAGE STND DEV

23.85 35.30 20.50 40.55 41.40 34.13 29.30 40.40 45.40 36.00 40.00 42.00 41.30 39.00 38.00 35.00 41.00 40.75 44.10 38.00 37.00 41.50 36.20 37.42 5.99

Discussion of Results This test yielded an average uniaxial compressive strength of 12472 psi with a standard deviation of 3442 psi. This places the rock in the hard category, which ranges from 8000 to 20000 psi.

29

Brazilian Test Theory The Brazilian strength test is used to determine indirect tensile strength. Finding the tensile strength of a rock using the uniaxial tensile test is difficult and expensive. The Brazilian test method is a much simpler and less expensive alternative. Also, because rock mechanics involves a combination of compressive and tensile stresses, the compressive and tensile strengths obtained together give a better representation of conditions in the field. This is done by placing a load on a sample along the diameter until failure. Figure 10 shows tensile and compressive stresses acting on the sample. When compressive stress (blue arrows), act along the loading diameter, it creates a tensile stress (red arrows) pulling outward along the diameter.

Figure 10: Directions of stress applied during the Brazilian test The maximum load that can be applied along the diameter (D) before failure (Pmax), can be inserted into the equation below to find the tensile strength (TB), with the thickness of the disk being (t):

30

Experimental Apparatus and Procedure In order to conduct the Brazilian test, a sample disk with one inch thickness is wrapped twice with masking tape along the circumference. This is done in order to reduce pore space, and create an even surface along the circumference that will be in contact with the platens to ensure even loading. Second, the disk is placed into the MTS testing system. The sample sits upright, with the cut surfaces facing out, in-between two curved platens. Figure 11 shows the MTS testing system that was used for this test.

Figure 11: MTS Testing System used for Brazilian test Once the disk was loaded, the operator of the machine closed the gap between the platens and the sample. A force of 100 pounds was entered into the computer, and then all data was zeroed. From there, a constant load was applied to the sample along the diameter, at a rate of 1.2x10-4 inches per second. The load and displacement data was collected at one point per second, and continuously plotted on a graph once 200 pounds of force was exceeded. This compressive load was applied until failure, with a maximum force of 20,000 pounds. After enough force was applied, the rock failed along the load diameter, and the computer displayed what the maximum force applied was. A sample broken

31

along the load diameter is shown in Figure 12. The computer monitor as well as the corresponding loaddisplacement graph is shown in Figure 13.

Figure 12: Example of sample broken along diameter during Brazilian test

Figure 13: Computer monitor and load-displacement graph displayed during Brazilian test The maximum force can be used to determine the tensile strength of the sample. This was done by plugging the maximum load into the equation stated earlier, along with each corresponding diameter and thickness, which determined the tensile strength of each sample. These results are shown in Table XII.

32

Tabulation of Data The following table provides the results of the experiment, as found by the Brazilian test. Sample calculations can be seen in Appendix A in equation A15. Table XII: Results from Brazilian test Sample Number 1-9-149.9 1-9-152.8 TTM-3 TTM-4 CLR-1 CLR-2 H-3 H-4 1-14-195.6 1-14-196.9 TH-3 TH-4 ABCD 3 ABCD 4 Da Do Rock 3 Rock 4 BOB 3 BOB 4 Emily Emma Sum3 Sum4 AVG STD Compressive Force (lb) 4322 5507 5063 5291 4714 5973 3980 4823 4861 5944 3009 4494 4418 3915 5153 4926 4612 3430 3092 5384 5461 4394 4689 5275 4697 794.9 Diameter (in) 1.868 1.872 1.887 1.887 1.876 1.877 1.878 1.867 1.881 1.878 1.864 1.863 1.865 1.864 1.864 1.871 1.864 1.866 1.864 1.866 1.863 1.862 1.865 1.867 1.870 0.00770 Thickness (in) 0.928 1.042 0.967 0.903 1.019 1.043 0.917 0.964 0.9437 0.9438 1.095 0.969 0.852 0.895 0.963 0.938 0.919 0.88 0.973 0.94 0.937 0.93 0.969 0.955 0.954 0.0542 Tensile Strength (psi) 1587 1797 1766 1977 1570 1942 1471 1706 1743 2135 938.5 1585 1770 1494 1828 1787 1714 1330 1085 1954 1992 1615 1652 1883 1680 278.6

Discussion of Results Based on the compressive strength results of the Brazilian test, the tensile strength of each sample was calculated. An average tensile strength of 1680 psi with a standard deviation of 278.6 psi

33

was obtained. This is important in the comparison of compressive vs. tensile strength of the rock, as well as how the samples are affected by simultaneous compressive and tensile strength. Conclusion and Recommendations The main purpose of this laboratory was to find essential rock characteristics that may be used in mine design, mine planning, or applications in other industries, such as the field of construction. The core samples used in the tests were prepared by means that are commonplace in the mining industry, and all tests followed procedures that are widely accepted in the industry. Based on the data that was compiled in the lab, four conclusions about the sample rock can be drawn: The rock quality designation is 86.2%, showing a largely intact rock mass with limited jointing. Also, the dry and wet densities of the rock are 174.7 lb/ft3 and 175.0 lb/ft3, respectively. These very similar densities are influenced by the low porosity of the rock, which is 0.522%. The extremely low porosity also indicates that this rock has very low permeability. The uniaxial compressive strength of the rock is 12,472 psi, as given by Schmidt hammer testing, and 29,400 psi and 27,600 psi as given by point load testing under diameteral and axial loading conditions, respectively. The tensile strength of the rock is 1680 psi, as measured by the Brazilian test. This gives a value for the ultimate tensile strength which can be used for mine design purposes. The tensile strength of the sample is relatively low, which is due to the nature of the gneiss being very foliated. The rock has a dynamic modulus of elasticity of 2.14106 psi and dynamic Poissons ratio of 0.373. These values are useful in determining how the rock will behave under rapid loading situations, such as blasting or mechanical fracturing. Further analysis must be conducted in order to determine the feasibility of future mine operations.

34

References [1] Granite: Igneous Rock Pictures, Definition, & More. Geology.com Earth Science News, Maps, Dictionary, Articles, Jobs. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. <http://geology.com/rocks/granite.shtml>. [2] Mavko, Gary. Conceptual Overview of Rock and Fluid Factors that Impact Seismic Velocity and Impedence. <www.pangea.stanford.edu> pp.74

35

Appendix A- Sample Calculations Below, the sample calculations used throughout the report are displayed: A1: RQD

*100%=

A2: IQ% ( )*100 = ( A3: Dynamic Poissons Ratio

( ) )

)*100 = 95.2%

d = [

]= [

= 0.373 ]

A4: Dynamic Elasticity Modulus

Ed =

] =

] = 2,142,199 psi

A5: Total Volume

A6: Pore Volume

A7: Porosity

A8: Dry Density

A9: Wet Density

36

A10: Water Content by Weight

A11: Specific Gravity

A12: Uniaxial Compressive Strength for Diametral Test

A13: Uniaxial Compressive Strength for Axial Test

= =( = ) = =

A14: Uniaxial Compressive Strength

A15: Brazilian Test TB = = = 1714psi 37

Appendix B- Original Data Sheets

38