Minor Project Presentation Topic Establishing relationship between Schmidt hammer rebound value & some of the physical and index properties of the rocksIntroduction ® Hardness is kriown to be one of the physical properties of materials. Various methods to determine the hardness have been proposed (Brinell, Vickers, Rockwell, Knoop, Schmidt, Shore, Mohr’s) depending on the properties’ of the material to be tested. ® However, traditional approach of obtaitiing hardness of rock involve complex process & a number of allied instruments. The test carried with these instruments require careful operation & a number of precautionary measures to be followed. The Schmidi hardness test is a quick, cheap and non-destructive. It is widely used for its. simplicity, portabi and the capability of instant data production ® The Schmidt liammer, which was originally developed for measuring the strength of hardened concrete (Schmidt, 1951) has later been improved to predict the strength of rocks. Today, even. though variety of Schmidt hammers are ayailable for use, the models of L-type and N-type are extensively employed.Significance of Project Schmidt Hammer is used for prediction of unconfined compressive strength of rock samples by performing Schmidt’s hammer test & UCT on prepared rock samples. / A new correlation with a great degree of accuracy & reliability can be developed. Also the correlation developed has an advantage of being a function of only one independent variable ie. rebound number.Schmidt's Hammer The SH consists of a spring-loaded piston which is released when the plunger is pressed against a surface. The impact of the pistan onto the plunger transfers the energy to the material. The extent to which Ahis energy is recovered depends fon the hardness (or impact penetration/damage resistance) of the material, which is expressed as a percentage of the maximum stretched length of the key spring before the release of the piston to its length after the rebound.More About Schmidt Hammer = A Schmidt hammer, also known as a rebound hammer, is a device to measure k, mainly surface hardness and penetration the strength of concrete or nce. res ® It was invented by Ernst Schmidt, a Swi s engineer = The hammer measures the rebound of a spring-loaded plunger impacting Against the surface of the sample. The test hammer will hit the rock at a defined : energy. Its rebound is dependent on the hardness of the rock and is measured by the test equipment. The rebound yalue can be used to determine the compressive strength. When conducting the test the hammer should be At angles to the surface which in turn should be flat and smooth. The rebound reading will be affected by the orientation of the hammer, when used in a vertical position (on the underside of a suspended slab for example) gravity will increase the rebound distatice of the mass and vice versa for a test conducted on a floor slab. The Schmidt hammer is an arbitrary scale ranging from 10 fo 100‘Spring fully compressed LOADED AFTER FIRING Construction of Hammer READY TO FIRE Cait Worth tal Goat peneesting ANVIL Schmidt’s Hammer Performance Check Conducting Test Performance check shall be carried out after every 1000 Impacts or every 3 months (as suggested by manufacturer) Steps followed to check calibration ™ Place the testing anvil on a hard smooth surface = Clean the contact-surface of the anvil & the impact plunger ® Perform about 10 impacts with the test hammer & check the results aginst calibration value specified on the testing anvil.Sample Holder We have prepared a sample holder such that the Schmidt Hammer remain vertical to the sample during the experiment. A nut-bolt system is provided to the sample holder to prevent any kind of movement during the hammering and to keep axis of sample and hammer perpendicular during all time.Common Types of Schmidt’s Hammer Sid + Handing equals type N, but the type L offers + an impact energy three times smaller. The type LILR Original Schmidt operates with + significant lower impact energy, making this test hammer the ideal option for testing thin walled + items with a thickness between 50 to 100 mm Ltype hammer has_—greater sensitivity in the lower range and gives better + results when testing weak, porous and weathered racks The standard L-type hammers, produces impact energy of 0735 N m, Rebound values are read from a scale for subsequent calculation of the mean. Compressive sirength values can be read from @ conversion diagram. The N-type hammer is less sensitive to surface imegularities, and should be preferred in field applications. The standard N-type hammers, produces impact energy of 2207N mTEST PERFORMED UNDER THIS PROJECT ™ SLAKE DURABILITY INDEX =» DENSITY ® POINT LOAD STRENGTHSlake Durability Test ™ The siake durability index is calculated as the percentage ratio of the final to initial dry sample masses -as follows. Where, A= Initial weight of sample + drum (gm) C= Weight of sample retained + drum after second cycle of rotation (am) E = Weight of empty drum (gm) ID = 2nd eycle Slake durability index (%)SLAKE DURABILITY INDEX TABLE 25-50 Low 50-75 Medium 75-90 High 90-95 Very high 95-100 Extremely highAncillary Equipment used for various Measurements = DRYING OVEN ™ WEIGHING MACHINE~S Drying oven temperature was kept at 105 Degree Celsius and the sample was dried for 10 hoursWeighing Machine Digital Weighing machine was used to accurately measure the weight of the samples. Its least count was 1 gmDENSITY = For measuring density of the rock sample, we take dry weight of the sample. = For drying the sample we use the dry oven, in which we keep the sample for atleast 10 hours at a temperature of 105 degree celsius, = For measuting the weight we Use’an electronic weighing machine which gives the measurement electronically, because of which the chances of error is very less. = Now for measuting the volume we use water displacement technique by putting ‘the sample in water and measuring the volume of water displaced using a measuring cylinder. = Weight density is calculated using the formula= weight/volume. = All the specimens prepared were of Standard NX size i.e having height to dia ratio 2:4. and the samples were made free: from any irregularities. finishing has been done through grinding machine:Point Load Test For UCS = The Paint Load Strength was calculated as; Ij=F/D2, Where, ly =Point load strength index F = Failure load (N) D®, = Distance? between cones (usually diameter of the sample) Sa -_ L q beer Peo viene Fig 2 Fig. 20 Fig. 34nd sass es Antal west Arreguiar lump testCalculation Of UCS using Point Load Index Value Broch and Franklin [5] reported that for 50 mm diameter cores the uniaxial ~~ compressive strength is approximately equal to 24 times the point load index. UCS = 24 |,(50) Bieniawski [6] suggested the following approximate relation between UCS, Is and the core diameter (D). UGS = (14 + 0.175 D) 14(50)CONCLUSION AND RESULTS @ Five samples cach of Siltstone, Fine Sandstone & Shale were taken corresponding Hammer rebound values, density and Point Load Index was determined. = The results of tests for density, Schmidt rebound hammer, Density, Slake durability index, point load strength and unconfined compressive strength are given in Table.HAMMER REBOUND VALUE- SILTSTONE Pato) [; [ R4 R | 13 18 13 19 2 13 25 19 2B 2 3 2 2 20 22 22 4 19 24 19 23 19 5 1B 4 23 22 23 6 12 29 2 19 19 7 20 7 12 13 20 8 18 16 \4 16 13 9 20 %6 7 20 16 10 15 19 4 Is 19 AVERAGE, 16.5 22a 18.2 18.9 19.2Fine Sandstone D Cy) Cy R3 Cry 1 29 32 20 3B 2 25 30 33 25 31 3 27 33 25 30 29 4 26 34 29 31 33 5 24 32 35 29 27 6 24 3 22 23 a 7 25 28 25 29 27 8 26 28 28 23 35 9 26 ai 31 30 22 10 28 19 27 29 26 AVERAGE 26 29.8 275 27.9 28.1Ca) R4 20 19 14 24 23 23 20 25 16 13 20 2 25 12 17 20 13 20 15 22 2 14 2 24 25 15 20 24 12 19 17 19 20 21 14 2 21 9 28 21 20 19 23 10 2 12 2 24 24 AVERAGE 22 173 18.9 19,9 19.2Density SiltStone Pra i 45 26 173) oe 6l 30 2.03 3 51 28 1.82 4 51 29 Ts 35 46. 25 1.84 AVERAGE 1.834Fine SandStone A 6L 30 2.03 S 31 28 1.82 4 Sl 29 17s 5 46 25 1.84 AVERAGE 1.834AVERAGE 33 31 3 1.68 1.63 1.67 1.54 1.60POINT LOAD INDEX- SiltStone CEU INN) AVERAGE 473 4.73 A472 474 0.58 1.25 1.07 0.84 0.94 0.94AVERAGE Fine SandStone 1.20 0.80 0.67 1.08 0.99a AVERAGE 4.73 471 4.72 0.84 1.29 0.67 0.62 0.91SLAKE DURABILITY INDEX- ROCKTYPE |DRYWEIGHT| DRY W T DV aaa Na (gm) AFTER 187 CYCLE | AFTER 2°? CYCLE | DURABILITY SILTSTONE 2 FINE SANDSTON! 310 503 495 97.05 3 SHALE 502 495 482, 96.01ESTABLISHMENT OF RELATION USING IBM-SPSS SOFTWARE = IBM SPSS Statistics is one of the best solutions to formulate hypotheses and thus clarify the relation between variables. Use its analysis tools to identify trends and complete predictions. Furthermore, IBM SPSS Statistics allows you to see in depth customized tables and dynamics which will make it easier to understand data. have used this software to establish relation between various properties and rebound hammer values using regression analysis. The inalysis is carried out using curve-linear model with hammer value as. independent variable & other properties as dependent variable. The best fit curve gives the relation between those variables.SiltStone REBOUND VALUE VS DENSITY DENSITY = The plot of the Schmidt rebound hammer number as a function of Density is shown in Fig = The best fit trend line can be explained by following equation: R2=0.844 D=0.815+0,054R. vas wee 300 ae REBOUND_VALUE FIG - SCHIMDT REBOUND VALUE VS DENSITYREBOUND VALUE VS POINT LOAD INDEX POINT_LOAD_INDEX = Figure shows the relationship between Schimdt Hammer rebound Value and Paint Load Index The figure shows a fairly good relation having a coefficient of relation(R?=0.762) Id= -1,15840.111R. FIG - SCHIMDT REBOUND VALUE VS POINT LOAD, INDEX 5 5 4 ® A E= The plot of the Schmidt rebound hammer number as a function of Density is shown in Fig, = The best fit trend line can be explained by following equation: R?= 0.798 D=0.97140.028R Fine Standstone REBOUND VALUE VS DENSITY FIG -SCHIMDT REBOUND VALUE VS DENSITY, Density Rebound Value © OnsenINDEX = Figure shows _the relationship between Schimat Hammer rebound Value and Point Load Index fine indstone. he figure shows a fairly good ‘relation having a coefficient of felation(R?=0.772) Id= -3.522 + 0.162R FIG - SCHIMDT REBOUND VALUE VS POINT LOAD INDEX, REBOUND VALUE VS POINT LOAD POINT_LOAD_INDEXShale REBOUND VALUE VS DENSITY Density = The plot of the Schmidt al rebound hammer number as a function of Density is shown in Fig. © The best fit trend line can ‘be explained by following equation: Re= 0.744 D= 0.85 + 0.039R 08 ve ae ea 3 Be Rebound. Vslus FIG- SCHIMDT REBOUND VALUE VS DENSITYREBOUND VALUE VS POINT LOAD INDEX Point Load Index = Figure shows _ the relationship between Schimdt Hammer rebound Value and Point Load / Index for shale. ™ The figure shows a fairly good relation having a coefficient of relation(R?=0.861). Id= -2.149 + 0.157R SCHIMDT REBOUND VALUE VS POINT LOAD Rebound VaiveCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS = DENSITY : For Siltstone, =0.815+0.054*r (R*= 0.844) For Fine Sandstone, D=0,971 + 0,028"r (R?= 0.798) For Shale. D=0.850 + 0.039'r (R?=0.744) = POINT LOAD INDEX For Siltstone, 1.158 +0.111*r (R? = 0.762) For Fine Sandstone, For Shale, Where, D-Density Id-point load index R?- coffiecient of regression r-hammer rebound number 1.522 + 0.162*r (R? = 0.772) -2.149 + 0.157'r (R? = 0.861)Shortcomings ® The use of developed correlation for UCS prediction in highly weathered rocks is not recommended due to improper UCS prediction. ® SRH provides only a crude estimate for the UCS of rocks = SRH is not sensitive to intrinsic properties of rocks such as texture, saturation, porosity & micro-fractures controlling the mechanical behavior of rocks There is no unique relationship between the SRH & UCS for all rock types.Factors affecting the analysis are: i. Calibration ii. Surface irregularities iii. Surface moisture content iv. Spacing between impacts v. Orientation of the hammer