Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LIII25=J
by
M. M. Protod'yak-onov
81 12082
U. S. BOARD ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES TRANSLITERATION SYSTEM
rot curl
1g log
'"....
EDITED TRANSLATION
MICRFICH NR:FTD-81-C-001026
PROFESSOR M. M. PROTODIYAKONOVIS STRENGTH
COEFFICIENT f OF ROCKS
By: M. M. Protod'yakonov
English pages: 37
Source: Voprosy Razrusheniya i Davleniya
Gornykh Porod, Ugletekhizdat, Moscow,
1955, pp. 42- 5 5
Country of origin: USSR
Translated by: Gale M. Weisenbarger
Requester: FTD/SDBF
Approved for public release; distribution
unlimited.
FTD-D(RS)T129-81Date 12 Nov 19 81
-~~ ', ,* S -a
-L
DOC = 1293 PAGE 1
1293,gw
science it has long been the custcm to determine not the absolute
valuns of strength of rock, but only to compare rocks with each
other, grouping them into kncwn classes of strength, in that sense in
which it is always understood, and to mike these classes so broad
DOC = 1293 PAGE 2
are satisfied simply with the terms:. "strong," "brittle" rocks and so
forth."
the strength of rocks. This study was one of the bases of the further
science.
.M S l
DOC - 1293 FAGE 3
-----------
DOC =1293 FAGI 4
- From what has baen presented above it follows that the content
of concepts embodied in the terms "str.ngth" and "crushing strength"
are not identical and that the term "crushing strength" is not
int.rchangeable with the term "strength."
wpm"
DOC = 1293 PAGE 6
many times stronger one rock is than another which is taken for cne.
of rocks.
mown"
DOC = 1293 PAGE 7
I.
I
DOC = 1293 PAGE E
However, the actual rocks are not ideal bodies. Therefore the
drawn conclusion can only he extended to them with a known error and
the questicn imwediately arises of its value; in other words it is
necessary to determine whether we are not risking obtaining clearly
inconsistent results."
ii
|'I
DOC= 1293 PAGE 5
classes of strength:
11i'l - ~ N
h~mi-
a,a.. p. .... .. ....... ..
, '*,l,,,
yroab .2 30b)
'00 - NICJor
,' L.ja6wjd l,)J)ohi a) I.ilia, Cwipol ii c'ol .1C -C I
1 3000 20 20 - 18 -- 13.3 - -
II 15u0 I0 II !0 12 12 10,7 10 10
fli 90o 6 7 7 6 6 6,7 6 6
iV 60o 4 4,8 4 - 4 4 4 4
V 300 2 1,7 2 - - 2 2 2
VI 1 1.1 I - - - I I
VI -1 0.7 0,6 0,5 - - 0.7 - 0.7
V! I 0,1-0,3 - .- - 0,1-0,3
S 0 -. . . .. 0
and refined the work performed in this area. Thus, he increased the
number of classes from eight tc ten and for some classes introduced
classifications.
coefficients and its more cozylete bases are given in the book by M.
- -*
DOC 1293 PAGE 12
Average; 10.0
strength coafficient which was ccmmon for the entire given group of
* rocks.
-A*
DOC =1293 PAGE 141
Otherb Asi we see, all lines intertwine closely together and move in a
bingle common bundle. The line of average valuas of the strangth
Ii ,__ // -/
--- " - ,,
i Ii I '
10 5
* ,.
--
Fig. 1. Relatioasips of iLdividual and average values of strength
- o,2 -
of rock in one and the same stcF-, [5]. In this case it is also
necessary to consider that M. H. Protod' yakonov compared data from
published works of various authcrs. Rocks of the same kind tested by
rocks with each other without kncwing what stresses there are in thcm
strengths is approximate.
drill and blast. Por the two classes of rocks the differenca in the
expenditure of explosives is mct proportional to the dificrence In
the quantity of blastholes per unit Cf volume.
I -J&
DOC 1293 PAGE 19
equal to
fl;O.01 H1
to find new empirical formulas %hich have the same structure and
differ only by numerical coefficients. For example, graphically
the same table (6, Table 32] it is possible to find that they are
A -. ..-
DOC - 1293 PAGE 21
f,3O. 15113;
f **4 H4 ,
S2,8hZ
904,
800
T .11
7, ,U 2,0 1) 8,o u,() 7 .() i~t
in Fig. 1.
f - -
iI I I
' I
__0__ -
m -.
___, _/1 _
0
K0 20 30
fcp
! "
DOC - 1293 PAGE 24
KEY: 1. average.
when repeating the tests usinS the same method in a stope (due to
Thus, the data of A. F, Sukhanov not only did not refute, but
rather, brilliantly ccnfirmed t e view of M. M. Protod'yakonov
DOC 1293 PAGE 25
?1 I
DOC - 1293 PAG E 26
K
Raw 0opol I, 14
1 37 33
II 26 '.
usually Aid) one can come to the incorrect conclusion that these two
each othar only by 1.2-1.4 times, we take the entire gamut of locks
and the broader the range of tested rocks, the clearer the connection
concerning the fact that: "If any rock is stronger than another a
- ~ ~h *L*
DOC = 1293 PAGE 2E
1 1,00 28
Xi 0,03 5
and let us take the ratio of these indices to each other. For rock of
strength class I the ratic will be equal tc 28: 1=28, and for rock of
class XI 5:0.03=167, i.e., six times greater.
te
DOC = 1293 PAG E 30
blasting such granite easily breaks into pieces and a small guantity
-. . ..
-. . . .o -
DOC - 1293 PAGE 32
() k1 II;
(2) 1 2.
(3)
Kt. K. Protod'yakonova often are not in the names indicated above but
a
For examplp, value H may be exFressed not only by kg/m , but
-SE. K
DOC = 1293 PAGE 34
in kg/t, and so forth. In this case only the numerical values of the
of machines, etc.
Designating:
T - time of breakdown;
A - expended labor;
(4) 1U '
1(5). k
* break down.
by many researchers.
LITERATJRE
I!
O
of miners. 1926.
Jil