Rock Mechanics

Imani Richards - 816034566

CVNG 1011 – Geology
Table of Contents
Aim ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Apparatus ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Procedure ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Results and Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 4
Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Pictures .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Aim
1. To examine, identify and classify three sedimentary rock specimens based on characteristics
such as colour, texture, grain size and distribution, hardness, homogeneity, and ability to react to
a weak acid.
2. To determine the uniaxial compressive strength from the uncorrected point load strength
indices calculated, for each specimen.
3. To determine the correlation coefficient from a zero-intercept linear regression with values
obtained for each specimen.

Apparatus
The apparatus used for the Rock Identification Test are:
1. Three (3) sedimentary rock specimens
2. Streak Plates
3. Copper Coin
4. Steel Nail
5. Hand Lens
6. Dilute HCL

The apparatus used for the Point Load Strength Test are:
1. Point Load Strength Test Machine
2. A 100 mm scale attached with the loading frame
3. Pressure Gauge (Capacity 25 Kn or 50 Kn)
4. Safety Glasses

The apparatus used for the Point Load Strength Test are:
1. Point Load Strength Test Machine
2. A 100 mm scale attached with the loading frame
3. Pressure Gauge (Capacity 25 Kn or 50 Kn) 4. Safety Glasses

Procedure
Rock Classification Test
1. Each specimen was inspected to determine the presence of any similarities or distinctive
characteristics including their colour and composition, whether they were isotropic or
anisotropic.

2. For each specimen, a hand lens was used to visually identify whether each specimen was
clastic or crystalline, if they were foliated and, to determine their grain size (if possible).

3. Using each specimen, a streak plate made of glass, was etched. The observations in
identifying whether a permanent mark was obtained on the streak plate, were recorded,
 and correlated to determine a scale value of hardness for each specimen. This process
was repeated for the copper coin, steel nail and fingernail tests as well.

4. Using a white streak plate, each was gently scratched along on the plate. Drops of the
HCl acid were then placed on the scratch-markings. The corresponding chemical reaction
was then observed and recorded.

5. Using these observations, along with those recorded from steps 1, 2 and 3, observations
were correlated, and a rock classification was subsequently designated to each specimen.

6. The observations recorded from each step were then tabulated

Point Load (Block) Test

1. With the aid of the Laboratory Technician, specimen 1 was placed firmly between the
two platens. The specimen was placed such that, the tip of the platens touched the point
where mid-length of the specimen was.

2. With the help of the scale attached with the loading frame, the distance between the two
platen contact points (D) and length of the specimen were recorded.

3. By applying force on the hand pump of the Point Load Strength Test Machine, loads
were applied to the specimen so that failure occurred within 10-60 seconds. The load
value at which the specimen failed was then recorded.

4. Steps 2 to 4 were repeated for specimens 2 and 3.

5. Photos of each specimen were re-taken for comparison with those in step 1, as well as to
indicate the failure present in each specimen.

6. The values recorded from steps 2 to 5 were then tabulated in the Results section of this
lab report.

7. The uniaxial compressive strength and the corrected point load index were calculated for
each of the tests conducted.
 8. A graph of uniaxial compressive strength against corrected point load index was plotted
to find the correlation value.

Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test

1. A rock specimen was provided and placed firmly on the ground. The face of the
specimen that was the smoothest and most levelled, was placed face-side-down on the
floor.

2. If the specimen was not levelled with the floor and still exhibited unevenness, the
specimen was held firm on both sides by grounded objects.

3. The plunger of the Schmidt Rebound Hammer was placed at the centre of the upside-face
of the specimen, and pushed down after the hammer was released.

4. The latch was kept in situ and the rebound readings were taken.

5. Steps 3 and 4 were repeated to obtain a total of ten readings. The readings were tabulated
in the Results section of this lab report.

Results and Analysis

Data Obtained for each sample from the rock classification test
Sample 1
Colour Isotropic Hardness ≥ 2.5 Texture Crystalline
Density 1.93 – 2.90
Brief This rock is a sedimentary rock. It is isotropic and it has a crystalline texture.
Description This rock is formed by chemical weathering. The rock reacts with acid giving
of the off an effervesces or bubbles. The grain size is microscopic to very fine
Texture (0.001mm). The name of the rock, therefore, is limestone.
Other The grain size is microscopic to very fine Name Limestone
Diagnostic (0.001mm). The rock reacts with acid,
Properties resulting in an effervescent reaction.

Sample 2
Colour Isotropic Hardness ≤5.5 Texture Crystalline
Density 1.93 – 2.90
Brief This rock is a sedimentary rock. It is isotropic and it has a crystalline texture..
Description This rock is formed by chemical weathering. The rock reacts with acid giving
 of the off an effervesces or bubbles. The grain size is microscopic to very fine
Texture (0.001mm). The name of the rock, therefore, is limestone.
Other The grain size is microscopic to very fine Name Limestone
Diagnostic (0.001mm). The rock reacts with acid,
Properties resulting in an effervescent reaction.

Sample 3
Colour Isotropic Hardness ≥ 2.5 Texture Crystalline
Density 1.93 – 2.90
Brief This rock is a sedimentary rock. It is isotropic and it has a crystalline texture.
Description This rock is formed by chemical weathering. The rock reacts with acid giving
of the off an effervesces or bubbles. The grain size is microscopic to very fine
Texture (0.001mm). The name of the rock, therefore, is limestone.
Other The grain size is microscopic to very fine Name Limestone
Diagnostic (0.001mm). The rock reacts with acid,
Properties resulting in an effervescent reaction.

Findings
The following values were established:
- Width of each sample, W = 35mm
- Distance between platens for each sample, D= 55mm
- Index to Strength Conversion Factor, K = 18.38351

Table 1: ‘K’ value obtained for De = 24.76 through interpolation

Core Size, De (mm) Value of ‘K’
21.5 18
24.76 18.38351
30 19
Sample Calculation for table 1:
𝑊𝐷 (35)(55)
Equivalent Core Diameter: De = √ =√ = 24.76mm
𝜋 𝜋

Table 2: Recorded Breaking Load Values (P) obtained for each specimen
Specimen Breaking Load for each specimen, P (KN)
1 1.164
2 3.532
3 0.056
 Table 3: The incorrected/initial point load strength index values calculated for each specimen
Specimen Is (MPa)
1 1.899
2 5.761
3 0.091
Sample Calculation for table 3:
𝑃(1000) 1.164(1000)
Incorrected/Initial Point Load Strength Index: Is = 𝐷𝑒 2 = (24.76)2 = 1.899 Mpa

Table 4: The corrected/standard point load strength index values obtained for each specimen
Specimen Is (50) (MPa)
1 1.384
2 4.199
3 0.663
Sample Calculation for table 4:
𝐷𝑒
Size Correction Factor: F =( 50 )0.45= 0.729
Corrected/ Standard Point Load Strength Index: Is(50) = (0.729)(1.899) = 1.384 MPa

Table 5: Values of the uniaxial compressive strength obtained for each specimen
Specimen UCS (MPa)
1 34.910
2 105.907
3 1.673
Sample Calculation for table 5:
Uniaxial Compressive Strength: Sc = K × Is = (18.38351) (1.899) = 34.910 MPa

Table 6: 10 Rebound Values obtained for specimen from Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test
Specimen Rebound Number
1 18
2 20
3 20
4 26
5 22
6 16
7 18
8 15
9 18
10 16
Total 189
Average 18.9
 Graph 1: Point Load Strength Index Against Uniaxial Compressive Strength
Point Load Strength Index vs Uniaxial Compressive Strength
7

6
y = 0.0544x - 5E-07
Point Load Strength Index/MPa

R² = 1
5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Uniaxial Compressive Strength Index/MPa

For the three specimens that were tested via block test, each specimen could be described from
the placement of the specimen and application of load.

Specimen 1:
First Inspection: Rock 1 is inspected for any obvious defects or features prior to the test starting.
It could seem uniform and strong, devoid of any visible fissures or faults.
In order to guarantee that the specimen's mid-length lines up with the platens' contact points,
Rock 1 is securely placed between the testing apparatus's two platens.
The specimen experiences stress as force is applied to rock 1 using the Point Load Strength Test
Machine. Tensile stresses are created in the rock as a result of the applied load, particularly at
weak spots or naturally occurring cracks.
Tensile stress in rock 1 surpasses tensile strength as load increases. As a result, fractures begin to
spread perpendicular.

Specimen 2:
Rock 2 was inspected for defects before performing the test, an initial crack was seen at the
corner of the rock. It was positioned between the platens of the apparatus with the location of the
initial crack noted. The mid-length of the specimen was aligned with the contact point of the
platens. As force was applied to rock 2 using the Point Load Strength Test Machine stress was
therefore distributed throughout the specimen, due to the presence of the initial crack a stress
concentration point occurred causing the top left-hand corner more susceptible to failure. As a
result, as the load increased, the corner stress concentrations lead to the propagation of the rock,
this caused a portion off the rock to break off from the main body along the crack line. After
failure, the initial crack at the corner of rock 2 has extended further into the specimen, resulting
in the detachment of a portion of the rock. The broken-off portion is directly associated with the
initial crack and exhibits similar characteristics.
Specimen 3:
Just as rock 1 and 2, rock 3 was also inspected for defects prior to performing the test and none
were seen. It could seem uniform and strong, devoid of any visible fissures or faults.
In order to guarantee that the specimen's mid-length lines up with the platens' contact points,
Rock 3 is securely placed between the testing apparatus's two platens.
The specimen experiences stress as force is applied to rock 3 using the Point Load Strength Test
Machine. Tensile stresses are created in the rock as a result of the applied load, particularly at
weak spots or naturally occurring cracks.
Tensile stress in rock 3 surpasses tensile strength as load increases. As a result, fractures begin to
spread along the fracture plane due to shearing.

Discussion
Specimen Classification

The specimens 1,2 and 3 were all laminated limestone, due to the classification of the limestone
the grain sizes were too fine to be seen individually and the textures had a smooth texture.
To assist with testing, a weak acid (hydrochloric acid) was added to all 3 specimens and an
effervescent reaction took place on each rock, this suggests carbon dioxide was released as a
product of the reaction and calcite was present in the specimens.

Point Load Test

For this test, in table 2, specimen 2 was able to withstand the highest breaking load, the largest
uniaxial compressive strength and the largest strength index. Due to this, it suggests a different
rock classification; from the graph 1 shown above Point Load Strength Index vs Uniaxial
Compressive Strengths each value obtained from each specimen was plotted accordingly and as
such the correlation coefficient (R2) was obtained from the zero-intercept linear regression was
calculated to be 1. In addition to the graph’s positive slope, the existing correlation was found to
be ≤ 0.8.

Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test

For this experiment, the recorded values were not used for arithmetical analysis within this
report, they were solely used to evaluate the compressive strength of a material from a sample by
comparing its rebound strength after testing; it is also beneficial for determining the uniformity
and quality of the material.

Sources of error
1) Sweating from hands, when handling rock samples, this could have altered the reaction
time for the acidic testing of the samples.
2) The specimens could have possibly not been placed appropriately in the centre between
the platens of the Point Load Strength Test Machine.
3) The specimen for the Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test may not have been levelled with
the floor, causing the sample to crack giving readings > 12.
Precautions
1. Students were required to wash hands thoroughly after HCl acid use for acid testing of all
specimen samples.

2. Tests requiring the use of the streak plates and/or steel nail, as well as the Schmidt
Rebound Hammer Test, were done on flat surfaces to avoid potential injury or damage.

3. Safety goggles were worn for the Point Load Test to avoid potential eye injury

Conclusion
For this experiment the three rock specimens that were required to be examined and analyzed to
determine a suitable rock classification. Apparatus were provided to test hardness, grain size,
shape, colour and ability to react to HCL acid as a result all specimens were classified as
limestone. As seen from the three samples tested for the Point Load Test, specimen 2 was found
to be the highest load value and the largest Point Load Strength Index value of the three
specimens. The tabulated values for the uniaxial compressive strengths of each of the specimens
were found to be 34.910 MPa, 105.907 MPa and 1.673MPa respectively. Based on the graphical
data shown in graph 1, the correlation coefficient, (R2) indicated strong correlation. With respect
to the failure mode for each of the three specimens, it was found that all three specimens had
valid block test modes of failure.
Pictures