See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/297961662

Rock strength at the coring interface

Article · June 2004

CITATIONS READS

3 18,588

1 author:

Burt Look
Foundation Specialist Group
71 PUBLICATIONS   200 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rapid and Direct Assessment of Bearing Capacity via Light Falling Weight Deflectomer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Burt Look on 11 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ROCK STRENGTH AT THE CORING INTERFACE

Burt Look
Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT
Boreholes in rock usually involve drilling to practical tungsten carbide bit refusal and then changing the drilling
technique to rock coring. Often this change is used as an indication of a change in rock weathering or strength. Before
the commencement of rock coring the SPT result would typically be to refusal. After obtaining the rock core, point
load index tests are used to classify the rock strength. This paper examines the validity of the usual assumption of a
change in rock property at this drilling interface. The results show that a drilling interface does not necessarily translate
into a geological interface or change in rock properties. The current definition of SPT refusal level in rock is shown to
be inadequate, and the strength interpretation of such tests in rock is dependent on the rock type and defects of the rock.

1 INTRODUCTION
The Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) is discontinued when a total of 30 blows cause less than 100 mm penetration or
no measurable penetration occurs (Australian Standards, 1993). The limitations of stopping the SPT at 30 blows in the
seating drive for rock material was discussed in Look (1997). The commencement of rock coring occurs shortly after
SPT refusal and practical tungsten carbide bit refusal. Many borehole reports show a “jump” in classification at the
interface as the change in drilling technique to rock coring is often viewed as also a change in classification, e.g.
Extremely Weathered (XW) to Distinctly Weathered (DW) or very low strength to medium strength, etc.
While there is some dependence on the drilling rig and drilling techniques used, nature does not usually have a
pronounced transition for the same geological material unit. For the same material there is a transition from one zone
to another rather than the line on the borelog, which represents a geological model rather than a geological reality. The
drilling supervisor can provide a more accurate description from the rock core rather than the SPT sample or non-cored
drilling just above, especially if wash boring techniques are being used to advance the boreholes. Therefore the material
just above the start of coring is conservatively assumed to be a weaker grade of material. This is an implicit assumption
in many borelogs produced. Rock core samples are then used to carry out the visual strength classification, point load
index testing and other types of testing.
In some instances rock coring is not carried out and drilling is stopped at SPT or drilling refusal. This paper therefore
examines the more reliable rock core test results and compares with the SPT results near that interface with the aim to:
• Assess if the usually inferred change in rock strength does occur at that drilling interface i.e. is drilling interface =
geological interface and
• Determine the relationship between SPT values and rock strength.

2 BACKGROUND CONSIDERATIONS
Clayton (1995) provides the following relationship between the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and the
corrected SPT value (N60) for weak rocks.
UCS ≥ 10 N60 (kPa) (1)
Broch and Franklin (1972) describe the point load index test and provided empirical relationships between the index
and uniaxial compressive strength (Equation 2). Broch and Franklin (1972) also recommend the strength classification
from extremely low to very high based on the point load index testing, and this classification has been adopted in the
Australian Standards (1993) for Geotechnical Site Investigations.
UCS = 24 Is(50) (2)
Therefore, if Equations 1 and 2 were valid, then one would expect
Is(50) ≥ 10 /24 N60 (kPa) = 0.4 N60 (kPa) or 0.4 * 10 -3 N60 (MPa) (3)
When tested for reasonableness then some values seem unrealistic. Only the “greater than” part of the equation
provides some comfort to the values obtained. For example:

Australian Geomechanics Vol 39 No 2 June 2004 105

ROCK STRENGTH AT THE CORING INTERFACE B LOOK

• A very low strength rock (Is(50) = 0.03 to 0.1 MPa) requiring an SPT in the range 72 to 240 seems reasonable,
however,
• A high strength rock (Is(50) > 1.0 MPa) requiring an N value of 2400 seems unreasonable.
Look and Griffiths (2001 and 2004) have shown that UCS / Is(50) ratio of 5 to 17 generally applies for the rocks in
South East Queensland and that data at the rock drilling interface was extended to incorporate the SPT N value used in
this analysis. Therefore, assuming Equation 1 is still valid and using the local data, then Table 1 provides the
corresponding relationships for the rocks in South East Queensland.
Table 1: Strength relationships between various tests.
Rock Type UCS - Is(50) Is(50) - N60 (MPa) Strength Classification from Is(50) values
ratio relationship derived from SPT N Values
100 200 400
From the Standard Ratio 24 I s (50) > 0.4 * 10 –3N60 (V. Low +) (Low +)
General (Brisbane rocks) 11* I s (50) > 0.9 * 10 -3 N60 (V. Low +) (Low +) (Medium +)
Tuff 18 I s (50) > 0.6* 10 -3 N60 (V. Low +) (Low +)
Phyllite 5 I s (50) > 2.0 * 10 -3 N60 (Low +) (Medium +)
Greywacke / Argillites 8 I s (50) > 1.2 * 10 -3 N60 (Low +) (Medium +)
* Varies from 12 to 9 for the Is(50) values in the axial and diametral direction, respectively
Table 1 is based on the assumption of the validity of Equation 1. This is subsequently shown to be invalid. Table 1
however serves to highlight that different rock types would have different strength implications for the same SPT value
e.g. an SPT of 400 could be a medium strength phyllite but a low strength Tuff. Note that even with an N value of 400
(usually inferred), a high strength rock has not been achieved using Equation 1, and in the case of the standard 24 ratio
usually applied, the rock is still low strength to even an N value of 700.

3 DATA ANALYSIS
Data from sites in the South East and central Queensland region, described in Look and Griffiths (2001 and 2004), have
been tabulated to assess any relationship between the point load index strengths and the standard penetration tests. The
inferred SPT was used by directly converting to a 300 mm standard penetration and the Is(50) data within 1 metre of the
SPT refusal was tabulated. The total relevant 89 data points from the 150 boreholes initially tabulated covered the
following rock types:
• Sandstones / Siltstones (19 data points)
• Tuff (10 data points)
• Phyllites (16 data points)
• Greywackes / Argillites (38 data points)
• Conglomerate (5 data points)
• Mudstone (1 data point)
The latter 2 rock types were generally excluded as insufficient data in the analysis of rock type trends or showed up as
outliers in the trend analysis. The rock weathering on which the point load testing was carried out was predominantly
Distinctly Weathered (DW) but 17 of the data points were Slightly Weathered (SW). In almost all cases the SPT refusal
rock just above was classified as a weathering grade lower. In many cases the classification was Highly Weathered
(HW) before the start of coring and Moderately Weathered (MW) for the cored samples. In order to establish trends the
data was sorted into:
• Defects
• Rock Types
• SPT N Values ranges
The analysis process involved starting with the total number of data points and progressively removing outliers until a
reasonable regression correlation was obtained. In many of the Tables below the strength range and SPT values have
been extrapolated nominally beyond the data points for completeness only.

3.1 DEFECTS
When considering the effects of defects on the rock strength, the linear trend analysis resulted in a very poor correlation.
Improved (but only marginally OK) correlation was obtained with exponential trends. Figure 1 shows all the 89 data

106 Australian Geomechanics Vol 39 No 2 June 2004

ROCK STRENGTH AT THE CORING INTERFACE B LOOK

points with 19 and 70 data point for defects less than or equal to 60 mm and greater than 60 mm, respectively. These
relationships are not considered meaningful.

4
3.5
Point Load Index (MPa)

3
2.5
2
1.5 y = 0.467e0.002x y = 0.441e0.001x
2
R = 0.028 (> 60mm) R2 = 0.016
1 (All Values)

0.5 y = 0.273e0.001x
R2 = 0.025 (< = 60mm)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Inferred SPT N - Value

< = 60mm > 60 mm Expon. (< = 60mm) Expon. (> 60 mm) Expon. (All Vallues)

Figure 1: Effect of Defects on N Value (No of points = 89).

3
Point Load Index (MPa)

2.5 y = 0.086e
0.010x

2
R = 0.336 (< = 60mm)
2
0.006x
y = 0.241e
1.5 2
R = 0.143
(All Values)
1
0.004x
y = 0.316e
0.5 2
R = 0.110 (> 60mm)

0
0 100 200 300 400
Inferred SPT N - Value

< = 60mm > 60 mm Expon. (< = 60mm)

Expon. (> 60 mm) Expon. (All Vallues)

Figure 2: Effect of Defects on N Value (No of points = 73 with outliers removed).

When the outlier points are removed the relationship improves significantly (Figure 2). Where the defects are less than
60 mm the correlation begin to show some meaningful relationship. Conversely when defects are greater than 60 mm
the correlation is weak. Table 2 provides the strength classification evident from this relationship. The approximate
UCS / N value ratio based on the general UCS / Is(50) ratio in Table 1 is also shown.

Australian Geomechanics Vol 39 No 2 June 2004 107

ROCK STRENGTH AT THE CORING INTERFACE B LOOK

Table 2: Rock Strength assessment from the SPT N Value (simplified)

Strength Is(50) SPT N Value Approximate UCS (kPa) / N
(MPa) Defects <= 60 Defects > 60 Defects <= 60 Defects > 60
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Extremely Low to Low < 0.3 < 125 < 300 25
40
Medium 0.3 – 1.0 125 – 250 25 to 45
High 1.0 – 3.0 250 – 350 300 – 550 45 – 95 40 – 60
Very to Extremely High > 3.0 > 350 > 550 95 60
This is for all rock types examined in this analysis, and N values above 350 have been extrapolated beyond the data
points shown. This limitation should be kept in mind.

3.2 ROCK TYPES

When the data is sorted into the various rock types, the limited data shows that any SPT value in tuff should be
disregarded, as a negative relationship is evident (Figure 3). This may suggest that at the drilling interface where this
data was obtained that some significant change in rock properties could be occurring. This correlates with the general
observation that the tuff has less of a weathering profile. The SPT in sandstone / siltstone provides the best correlation
for the rock types in this analysis. Table 2 can then be refined for the various rock types as shown in Table 3. Note that
this provides a picture different from the previous SPT values used for strength based on defects only.
Table 3: Rock Strength assessment from the SPT N Value for various rock types (simplified).
Strength Is(50) Value SPT N Value
(MPa) Phyllite Sandstones / Greywacke / Tuff
Siltstones Argillites
Extremely Low to Low < 0.3 < 100
< 100 < 200
Medium 0.3 – 1.0 100 – 200 No
High 1.0 – 3.0 100 – 200 200 – 300 200 – 500 Relationship
Very to Extremely High > 3.0 > 200 > 300 > 500
Table 3 also shows that the relationships of Table 1 would be generally incorrect by a factor of 4 to 5 and by an order of
magnitude for Equation 3. This data does not agree with Equation 1. Using local relationships of Table 3 then
Equation 1 may be valid for extremely low to low strength values only i.e. UCS less than 3 MPa. Above this value the
exponential nature of the trend line shows the estimation of UCS from a linear relationship would be significantly
underestimated. The approximate UCS / N value ratio based on the UCS / Is(50) ratio for the various rock types
provided in Table 1 is shown in Table 4.
The summary results of Table 3 should be read with the understanding of the limitations summarized in Table 5. The
outlier points were progressively removed until an “optimum” relationship was obtained. In the case of the tuff, the
removal of any outlier points resulted in a further decrease in the strength of the relationship. The approximate
percentage of points neglected provides an indication of the reliability of typical data obtained.
Table 4: UCS / SPT N Value ratio for various rock types (simplified).
Strength Is(50) Approximate UCS (kPa) / N
(MPa) Phyllite Sandstones / Greywacke / Argillites
Siltstones
Extremely Low to Low < 0.3 30
50 40
Medium 0.3 – 1.0 30 – 50
High 1.0 – 3.0 50 – 75 50 – 100 40 – 50
Very to Extremely High > 3.0 75 100 50
Table 5: Limitation of data set used in the Rock Strength assessment for various rock types.
SPT N Value
Data Used Phyllite Sandstones Greywacke / Tuff
Argillites
Total Number of Points 16 19 38 10
Data Points with outliers removed 12 17 22 10
% Neglected 25% 10% 40% 100%

108 Australian Geomechanics Vol 39 No 2 June 2004

ROCK STRENGTH AT THE CORING INTERFACE B LOOK

2.5
Point Load Index (MPa)

y = 0.34e 0 .0 1x
2 R2 = 0.43 Phy llite

1.5 y = 0.394e 0 .00 4 x

R2 = 0.328 Grey /A rg

y = 0.12e 0 .01 x
1 R2 = 0.45 Sands tone

0.5

y = 1.04e -0 .0 2 x
0 R2 = 0.09 Tuf f

0 100 200 300 400

Inferred SPT N- Value
Sands tones Grey w ac kes /A rgillites
Phy llites Tuf f
Ex pon. (Sands tones ) Ex pon. (Grey w ac kes /A rgillites )
Ex pon. (Phy llites ) Ex pon. (Tuf f )

Figure 3: Effect of Rock Types on N Value (No of points = 65 with outliers removed).

3.3 SPT N VALUES

Figure 4 shows the SPT data sorted with all values and then with the outliers removed. The data is then sorted into SPT
values less than 100, greater than 100 and greater than 120. This data shows that SPT N values less than 100 have little
relevance in terms of its relationship to strength data. SPT N values above 120 are generally 12 times much more
reliable than N values less than 100.
The regression correlation coefficient of 0.44 suggests that there is a high degree of scatter of results even after
removing the obvious outliers. This may be due to the following factors:
• The Is(50) test represents an intact strength (undisturbed) while the SPT produces a disturbed test.
• The Is(50) results represent both axial and diametral results
The results suggest that in order to use the SPT values with confidence the strength classification should be known
before. This seems to be contradictory as the intent is to use the SPT result to obtain the strength classification.
However there are instances when rock core samples are available to suggest the strength classification and additional
data from the SPT can then be used to refine the design.

4 CONCLUSIONS
Data from various geotechnical reports in different rock type in south east Qυeensland was analysed to show:
• An SPT value in rock has little engineering significance unless qualified in terms of the rock type, defects or a
prior knowledge of the rock strength classification. For example an SPT of 200 could mean a medium strength
rock with defects less than 60 mm or a low strength rock with defects greater than 60 mm. The value of 200
could also indicate a high strength phyllite or a low strength greywacke.
• SPT values are most reliable in the sandstone and siltstone and meaningless in tuff. This may indicate that for
tuff there is a sudden change in rock strength / weathering with drilling technique change, while for the other
rock types the change is a more gradual transition.

Australian Geomechanics Vol 39 No 2 June 2004 109

 ROCK STRENGTH AT THE CORING INTERFACE B LOOK

2.5
y = 0.23 2e 0.009x
Point Load Index (MPa)
R 2 = 0 .0 37
N < 10 0 y = 0.270e 0.0 04 x y = 0.14e 0 .0 1x
2 R2 = 0.147 R2 = 0.44
N > 100 N > 120

1.5
y = 0.318e 0 .0 0 3x
R2 = 0.073
1 A ll - outiers remov ed

y = 0.438e 0.0 01 x
0.5 R2 = 0.017
A ll V alues

0
0 100 200 300 400
Inferred S P T N - V alue
A ll V alues A ll V alues - Outliers Remov ed
N < 100 N > 100
N > 120 Ex pon. (N < 100)
Ex pon. (A ll V alues ) Ex pon. (A ll V alues - Outliers Remov ed)
Ex pon. (N < 100) Ex pon. (N > 100)
Ex pon. (N > 120)

Figure 4: Reliability of SPT N Values (No of points = 71 with outliers removed).

• When the relationship of UCS ≥ 10 N60 (kPa) is used with UCS = 24 Is(50), meaningless values result at higher
values due to the exponential fit trend lines. Local relationships provided more meaningful results, but only for
rocks classified as low strength and would fit only a lower bound line for the data used herein. Therefore when
used with local UCS / Is(50) ratios the following relationships were more applicable and avoid the errors
associated with a simple linear extrapolation of one trend line
UCS ≥ 20 N60 (kPa) extremely low to low strength rocks (SPT < 200),
UCS ≥ 30 N60 (kPa) medium strength rocks,
UCS ≥ 40 N60 (kPa)… high strength rocks (SPT > 200)
UCS ≥ 50 N60 (kPa)… very to extremely high strength rocks
This seems to be contradictory, as the intent is to use the SPT result to obtain the strength classification. This
means that to be useful in design the rock cores must first be suitably classified in terms of strength before being
able to use the numerical SPT value in design. Due to the method of derivation the above relationship provides
the intact rock strength UCS value while the SPT N value represents a disturbed value.
• The data showed that an inferred SPT extrapolation less than 100 had little relevance to strength for engineering
design and only values above 120 show some correlation with strength. To be relevant the SPT refusal in rock
should therefore be defined as 40 blows / 100 mm penetration in the test drive. This is higher than the Australian
Standard of 30 blows / 100 mm penetration at any stage of the drive, i.e. seating or test drive.

5 REFERENCES
Clayton, C.R.I. (1995), “The Standard Penetration Test (SPT): Methods and Use “ CIRIA Report 143
Broch, E.M. and Franklin, JA (1972) “The Point Load Strength Test”, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mineral Science, Volume 9: pp 669 – 697
Look, B.G. (1997), “The Standard Penetration Test Procedure in Soil Rock” Australian Geomechanics Journal,
Canberra, Vol. 32, pp 66-68.
Look, B.G. and Griffiths, S.G. (2001), “An engineering assessment of the strength and deformation properties of
Brisbane rocks,” Australian Geomechanics Journal, Canberra, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp 17-30.
Look, B.G. and Griffiths, S.G. (2004), “Rock Strength properties in south east Queensland,” 9th Australian New
Zealand Conference in Geomechanics, Auckland, New Zealand, Vol. 1, pp 196 - 203.
Standards Australia (1993), “Determination of the penetration resistance of a soil - Standard Penetration Test”
Australian Standard AS 1289 6.31. - 1993
Standards Australia (1993), “Geotechnical Site Investigations” Australian Standard AS 1726 - 1993

110 Australian Geomechanics Vol 39 No 2 June 2004

View publication stats