Estimating UAE Sed. Rocks UCS From Emp. Correlations

Estimating Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Sedimentary Rocks in the United Arab Emirates

from Generated Empirical Correlations

By
Hussain Osama Salah

University of Sharjah
College of Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department

Supervisors
Dr. Maher Omar
Prof. Abdullah Shanableh

Program: Master of Science in Civil Engineering

9
th
of December 2013
I


By
Hussain Osama Salah

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering

In the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
University of Sharjah
Approved By

Dr. Maher Omar Chairman
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Sharjah

Prof. Abdulla Shanableh Co-Supervisor
Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Sharjah

Dr. Radhi Al-Zubaidi Member
Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Sharjah

Prof. Mousa Attom Member
Professor of Civil Engineering, American University of Sharjah

9
th
of December 2013
II

To my father who has been my teacher and advisor.
To my mother who has been my rock in life.
To my sisters and brother who have been my life companions.
To all scientific researchers who devote their lives to making the world a
better place.

III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest and warmest gratitude to all those who helped me
complete this research. I would especially like to give my deepest thanks to my supervisors;
Dr. Maher Omar, Prof. Abdullah Shanableh, and Eng. Ali Tahmaz, who spent so much effort
reviewing, making suggestions and helping me in carrying out this study.
I would also like to thank, Eng. Yousef Al-Soboh, Director of Baynunah Engineering lab,
Abu Dhabi, Eng. Mohammed Obaid, Director of Matrix lab, Dubai, and Eng. Imad Al-Sharif,
Director of the Arab Center of Engineering Studies (ACES) Dubai for their assistance and
contribution. Additionally, I would like to thank everyone who was involved, directly or
indirectly, in completing this work.
I would also like to thank the examiners; Dr. Radhi Al-Zubaidi, the internal examiner, and
Prof. Mousa Attom, the external examiner, for their reviews, remarks, and comments on this
work. Their input was of great help in producing this research as it is now.
Finally, I would like to express my warmest, deepest and heartfelt gratitude to my family for
their love, support, patience and encouragement.
IV

By: Hussain Osama Salah
Supervisors: Dr. Maher Omar and Prof. Abdullah Shanableh
ABSTRACT
A laboratory study was conducted to develop a database and models for predicting the
unconfined compressive strength of sedimentary rocks. A large number of rock samples from
different sites in the United Arab Emirates were collected and tested for the development of
the database and evaluation of models. Reliable empirical relationships were developed for
estimating the unconfined compressive strength of UAE rocks based on results obtained from
the following mechanical and physical tests that were performed on rock samples: unconfined
compressive strength, point load strength index, Schmidt rebound, Brazilian splitting and
ultrasonic pulse velocity tests. These were conducted to determine the mechanical properties
of rock specimens, while the bulk specific weight and moisture content test was conducted to
determine the physical properties of rock specimens.
Twenty nine relations were selected from more than a hundred and thirty generated relations
developed. Each relation was the result of a statistical analysis and the application of the
Mean Average (MA) data smoothing algorithm and Least Absolute Residuals (LAR) robust
regression wherever that was necessary. In addition, four general relationships were
developed relating unconfined compressive strength to moisture content, unit weight, point
load strength index and type of rock.
Keywords: Unconfined Compressive Strength; Modulus of Elasticity; Empirical Relations,
Laboratory Testing.
V

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.4. Scope of Study ................................................................................................................ 3
1.5. Engineering Significance ................................................................................................ 4
1.6. Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review .................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Definition and History of Rock Mechanics and Engineering ......................................... 5
2.1.1. Definition of Rock Mechanics and Engineering ...................................................... 5
2.1.2. History of Rock Mechanics and Engineering ........................................................... 6
2.2. Main Areas of Interest in Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering ................................ 7
2.2.1. Interests in Rock Slopes Stability ............................................................................. 7
2.2.2. Interests in Shafts, Tunnels, Caverns and Underground Mines ............................... 8
2.2.3. Interests in Rock Foundations .................................................................................. 9
2.3. Software Usage in Rock Mechanics and Engineering .................................................. 11
2.4. Brief about Sedimentary Rocks .................................................................................... 12
2.5. Geological History of the United Arab Emirates and Its Rocks ................................... 14
2.6. Rock Classification ....................................................................................................... 17
2.7. Unconfined Compressive strength (UCS) of Rocks ..................................................... 19
2.7.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 19
2.7.2. Relations between UCS and Mechanical Properties .............................................. 21
2.7.2.1 Relations between UCS and Point Load Strength Index (I
s
(50)) ..................... 21
2.7.2.2. Relations between UCS and Schmidt Hammer Rebound Number .................. 23
2.7.2.3 Relations between UCS and Brazilian Splitting Tensile Strength .................... 25
2.7.2.4 Relations between UCS and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity ................................... 26
2.7.2.5 Relations between UCS and Modulus of Elasticity .......................................... 28
2.7.3. Relations between UCS and Physical Properties ................................................... 31
2.7.3.1 Relations between UCS and Bulk Specific Weight .......................................... 31
2.7.3.2. Relations between UCS and Moisture Content ............................................... 32

VI

Chapter 3 Experimental Program ........................................................................................ 33
3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 33
3.2. Sample Collection ......................................................................................................... 33
3.3. Sample Transporting and Storing .................................................................................. 36
3.4. Sample Identification .................................................................................................... 38
3.5. Sample Preparation ....................................................................................................... 39
3.6. Sample Testing .............................................................................................................. 40
3.6.1. Mechanical Tests Done .......................................................................................... 40
3.6.1.1. The Point Load Test. ........................................................................................ 40
3.6.1.2. The Schmidt Hammer Test .............................................................................. 42
3.6.1.3. Brazilian Splitting Test .................................................................................... 42
3.6.1.4. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test......................................................................... 43
3.6.1.5. UCS and E Test ................................................................................................ 43
3.6.2. Physical Tests Done ................................................................................................ 45
3.6.2.1. Moisture Content Test...................................................................................... 45
3.6.2.2 Specific Weight Test ......................................................................................... 45
3.6.3. Order of Testing...................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 4 Results, Analysis and Discussion ........................................................................ 47
4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 47
4.2. Test Results ................................................................................................................... 47
4.2.1. Mechanical Test Results ......................................................................................... 47
4.2.1.1 The Schmidt Hammer Test ............................................................................... 47
4.2.1.2 The Point Load Strength Index Test. ................................................................ 48
4.2.1.3. The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test ................................................................. 48
4.2.1.4. The Brazilian Splitting Tensile Test ................................................................ 49
4.2.1.5. The UCS Test ................................................................................................... 49
4.2.1.6. The Youngs Modulus of Elasticity Test ......................................................... 50
4.2.2. Physical Tests Results ............................................................................................ 53
4.2.2.1. The Moisture Content Test. ............................................................................. 53
4.2.2.2 The Unit Weight Test........................................................................................ 53
4.3 Generated Relations ....................................................................................................... 54
4.3.1. UCS Relations with Mechanical Properties ........................................................... 55
4.3.1.1. UCS vs. H
R
....................................................................................................... 55
VII

4.3.1.3 UCS vs. V
p
........................................................................................................ 63
4.3.1.5. E vs. UCS ......................................................................................................... 68
4.3.2 Multiple Regression Models .................................................................................... 71
Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusion and Final Recommendations ....................................... 76
5.1 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 76
5.2 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 77
5.3 Recommendations for Future Research ......................................................................... 78
References ................................................................................................................................ 79
Appendixes.............................................................................................................................. 83

VIII

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Relation For Different I
s
(50) Classes 22
Table 2.2: Recent BST Relations Collected By Nazir 25
Table 2.3: Correlations Found By Yassar and Erdogan 27
Table 3.1: Summary of Borehole Locations and Data 34
Table 4.1: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of H
R
47
Table 4.2: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of I
s
(50) 48
Table 4.3: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of V
P
48
Table 4.4: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of S
t
49
Table 4.5: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of UCS 50
Table 4.6: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of E 50
Table 4.7: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of 53
Table 4.8: Confidence Interval Estimate of Expected Values of 53
Table 4.9: Relation Cases Codes 55
Table 4.10: Relations Between UCS and H
R
, General Case 56
Table 4.11: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and H
R
56
Table 4.12: Relations Between UCS and I
s
(50), General Case 58
Table 4.13: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and I
s
(50) 59
Table 4.14: Relations Between UCS and V
P
, General Case 63
Table 4.15: Relations Between UCS and St, General Case 64
Table 4.16: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and S
t
, 65
Table 4.17: Relations Between E and UCS, General Case 68
Table 4.18: Other Relations Summary Between E and UCS 69
Table 5.1: Summary of Direct Relations 77
Table 5.2: Summary of Multiple Regression Relations 77
Table A.1: Schmidt Hammer Test, All Results 84
Table A.2: Point Load Strength Test, All Results 86
Table A.3: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test, All Results 90
Table A.4: Brazilian Test, All Results 92
Table A.5: Unconfined Compression Strength Test, All Results 94
Table A.6: Modulus of Elasticity Test, All Results 98
Table A.7: Moisture Content Test, All Results 99
Table A.8: Unit Weight Test, All Results 103

IX

List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Rock Slope Stability 7
Figure 2.2: Felton Quarry Granite Slope Failure 8
Figure 2.3: Copiap Mining Accident 2010 9
Figure 2.4: Illustration of Rock Foundation of Burj Khalifa 10
Figure 2.5: House Poarch Foundation Stones 10
Figure 2.6: Clastic Rock Classification Scheme 13
Figure 2.7: Different Types of Sedimentary Rocks 13
Figure 2.8: Arabian Plate and UAE Position 14
Figure 2.9: Summary Stratagraphic of the UAE Foreland Basin 16
Figure 2.10: Different Compression States of Rocks 20
Figure 2.11: UCS I
s
(50) Linear and Power Relation By Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis 22
Figure 2.12: UCS I
s
(50) Stratified Relation By Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis 22
Figure 2.13: UCS vs. H
R
Relation By Shalabi etal. 24
R
Relation By Yilmaz and Sendir 24
Figure 2.15: UCS vs. BST Relation By Nazir 26
Figure 2.16: Comparison of Different Studies With Lab Work By Nazir 26
Figure 2.17: V
p
vs. UCS Relation By Yassar and Erdogan 27
Figure 2.18: V
p
vs. E Relation By Yassar and Erdogan 28
Figure 2.19: Average Modulus of Elasticity Calculation 28
Figure 2.20: 3D Visualization of Equation 2.7 30
Figure 2.21: Nomograph Constructed for Equation 2.7 30
Figure 2.22: UCS vs. Relation By Mohd 31
Figure 3.1: General Work Plan For Thesis 33
Figure 3.2: Sample Contribution By Place and Type 35
Figure 3.3: Envelop Borehole Locations 35
Figure 3.4: Flow Chart for Preserving and Transporting Rock Core Samples 36
Figure 3.5: Sample ID Illustration 38
Figure 3.6: Sample Ready for the Point Load Test 41
Figure 3.7: Point Load Test Different Failure Patterns 41
Figure 3.8: Failed Sample After Brazilian Test 43
Figure 3.9: Sample Ready for the UCS and E Test 44
Figure 3.10: Sample Testing Stages Flowchart 46
X

Figure 4.1: Sample of Stress-Strain Diagrams of Samples 50
R
Relation, General Case 56
R
Relation, AV Case 57
R
Relation, AW Case 57
Figure 4.5: UCS vs. I
s
(50) Relation, General Case 58
s
(50) Relation, AV Case 59
s
(50) Relation, AW Case 59
s
(50) Relation, CA Case 60
s
(50) Relation, CW Case 60
s
(50) Relation, MA Case 61
s
(50) Relation, MV Case 61
s
(50) Relation, SA Case 62
s
(50) Relation, SV Case 62
s
(50) Relation, SW Case 63
Figure 4.15: UCS vs. V
P
Figure 4.16: UCS vs. S
t
t
Relation, AV Case 65
t
Relation, AW Case 66
t
Relation, CA Case 66
t
Relation, MA Case 67
t
Relation, SA Case 67
Figure 4.22: E vs. UCS Relation, General Case 68
Figure 4.23: E vs. UCS Relation, AV Case 69
Figure 4.24: E vs. UCS Relation, AW Case 69
Figure 4.25: E vs. UCS Relation, CA Case 70
Figure 4.26: E vs. UCS Relation, MA Case 70
Figure 4.27: Comparison of Works for Rebound Number H
R
72
Figure 4.28: Comparison of Works for Point Load Strength Index I
s
(50) 73
Figure 4.29: Comparison of Works for Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity 74
Figure 4.30: Comparison of Works for Brazilian Strength S
t
74
Figure 4.31: Comparison of Works for Modulus of Elasticity E 75
1

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. Background
A closer look at the development projects and construction boom that occurred in the last
decade in the United Arab Emirates gives thoughtful considerations about the construction of
such major projects. In every construction project, geotechnical investigations are carried out
to determine how the components of the project that interact with the soil should proceed.
Geotechnical investigations vary in complexity and prices; some of them require days of
sophisticated work, complex procedures to be followed and fortunes of money to be spent.
Therefore, geotechnical engineers thought about devising easier, less sophisticated and
cheaper ways to estimate results of some important geotechnical parameters. Estimation of
such parameters is also needed to overcome sampling and handling problems. Estimation of
parameters is typically done through generating empirical correlations that simplify
estimation of the values of parameters with considerations to safety and efficiency.
One of the most important rock parameters is the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
of rocks, since it is used widely in rock classifications like Rock Mass Rating (RMR),
analysis and design of rock related structures. Here, special sample preparation is involved. In
the case of sedimentary rocks, UCS testing becomes harder due to the fact that the recovered
rocks are sometimes of such geometric parameters that they are not allowed by the code to
have the test performed on them, or some rocks fail in the preparation stage before
performing the UCS test. Therefore, the need of a way to determine this important parameter
arises.
2

Moreover, due to the lack of information on local rocks, the main purpose of this work is to
generate empirical relations between UCS of sedimentary rocks in the UAE and other
relevant physical and mechanical properties.
1.2. Problem Statement
Rocks UCS is a very important test to be done on rock cores to give full understanding of the
rocks capabilities to accommodate proposed project loads and to do the RMR classification
analysis for rocks. Sometimes, Rock Quality Designation (RQD) of a certain core specimen
is of a level so low that it is hard to find a core piece to perform the UCS test on, since codes
require a special length to diameter ratio of (2:1) and received rocks condition usually
doesnt meet this requirement. On the other hand, other tests can be done on these rocks' core
specimens like the point load strength index, rebound hammer and many other tests.
Therefore, it is assumed that there is a need for a simpler way to determine the UCS of rocks.
As a result of all of the above, the researcher decided to write a thesis on relating the UCS of
sedimentary rocks of the UAE to other mechanical parameters like point load strength index,
Brazilian splitting strength, modulus of elasticity, rebound number and ultrasonic pulse
velocity, as well as physical properties like bulk specific weight and moisture content. All of
this in order to simplify the approach of estimating the UCS for sedimentary rocks in the
UAE.
1.3. Objectives
The main objective of this research paper is to develop empirical relations between the UCS
of sedimentary rocks in the UAE and other physical and mechanical properties of rocks. The
specific objectives of the study are to relate the rocks UCS to mechanical parameters like
point load strength index, Brazilian splitting strength, modulus of elasticity, rebound number
3

and ultrasonic pulse velocity, as well as physical properties like bulk specific weight and
moisture content. All tests were performed in accordance with the American Society of
Testing and Materials procedure codes. All math works were done using the MATLAB
software.
1.4. Scope of Study
The following steps were done to fulfill the work. First, previous studies regarding the same
topic were reviewed. Next, a database with means of identification was created. Then, lab
environment was prepared to receive, store and retrieve specimens. After that, sedimentary
rock samples from different types (mudstone, crystalline gypsum, sandstone and calcarenite),
from different areas in the UAE (western region, central Abu Dhabi City and Dubai) were
acquired. Subsequently, lab tests on acquired samples were conducted. These tests include;
unconfined compressive strength, modulus of elasticity point load strength index, Schmidt
rebound, Brazilian splitting and ultrasonic pulse velocity tests, and were performed to
determine the mechanical properties of rock specimens, while the bulk specific weight and
moisture content test were performed to determine the physical properties of rock specimens.
The created database was then filled with the worked test results ready for relation generation
between data from different performed tests. Afterwards, the correctness and integrity of
found relations was checked versus previously done work regarding the same subject.
Finally, Mathematical representation of relations plots was done.
This thesis has 5 chapters; chapter 1 presents study background, problem statement,
objectives, significance of the study and study limitations. Chapter 2 presents the literature
review done for the thesis. Chapter 3 discusses methodologies of testing, lab environment and
worked data digestion. Chapter 4 presents and discusses results found in the lab. And, chapter
5 states conclusions and recommendations.
4

1.5. Engineering Significance
This thesis provides new and advanced knowledge about rocks in the UAE, as it brings
together analysis of strength and different physical properties and rock types of the UAE with
standardized international studies. This work is about developing relations between UCS of
UAE sedimentary rocks with other different, easier to find parameters and widely used tests
due to the lack of information about such properties. It is hoped that this work will provide a
good tool to predict rocks UCS from other mechanical and physical parameters.
1.6. Limitations of the Study
All investigations were done on sedimentary rocks of the following types; sandstone,
mudstone and crystalline gypsum in the UAE only. Therefore, careful generalization of
generated correlations for any different rock types than the aforementioned ones and other
regions than the UAE would be much recommended. Also, this study was conducted on
samples in their as received condition.

5

Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1. Definition and History of Rock Mechanics and Engineering
2.1.1. Definition of Rock Mechanics and Engineering
After many studies in the field of rock mechanics and engineering (RME), researchers in this
field have agreed to use Judds definition of RME, which was stated in 1964 and amended in
1974 to become as follows Rock mechanics is the theoretical and applied science of the
mechanical behavior of rock and rock masses; it is that branch of mechanics concerned with
the response of rock and rock masses to the force elds of their physical environment. This
definition is more convenient in mining works as mine excavation changes force fields that
rock masses encounter. Additionally, Brady, B. and Brown, E. (2005) noted that rock
mechanics is a diverse science based on the type of rocks considered in the study. For
example, if fragmented or weathered rocks are considered, then rock mechanics approaches
soil mechanics. On the other hand, if rocks are at inaccessible depths for mining and drilling,
rock mechanics approaches mechanical aspects of structural geology. The definition of rock
engineering can be rewritten to conform with engineering definition by Smith (2012) which
was The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures,
machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in
combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to
forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended
function, economics of operation and safety to life and property, to be the following The
creative application of scientific principles of rock mechanics to design or develop rock
related structures and to forecast and monitor their behavior under recommended operating
6

conditions with respects of intended function, economics of operation and safety to lives and
properties.
2.1.2. History of Rock Mechanics and Engineering
Jaeger (1979) and Hoek (2006) have diligently studied the history and development of RME.
They disagreed on the date of the establishment of RME as a modern discipline. Jaeger gave
examples of construction of tunnels in the Alps Mountains in the late 19
th
century. He
thought that the first notice of residual stresses on rocks was back in 1874 when the German
tunnel expert, Rziha, noted the bursts and squeezing in the tunnels and galleries of the Alps
Mountains. He further stated that Heim, a professor at Zurich University and Zurich Federal
Institute of Technology, concurred with Rzihas observation. Heim suggested that the order
of magnitude of horizontal forces acting on rocks in these mountains had to be the same as
the vertical forces acting on them. Jaeger observed that the first attempt at rock mechanics
was in 1926 when Schmidt conducted a thesis of which he related what Heim suggested
about residual stresses in rocks to the newly formulated ideas about rock elasticity.
Alternatively, Hoek had a different date of the beginning of rock mechanics and engineering.
He believed that rock engineering was considered a modern discipline as early as 1773 when
Coulomb had included results of Bordeaux rocks testing results in a thesis that was read
before the French academy in Paris. Hoek also gave the construction of the Panama Canal as
an example of the development of RME. He stated that 60 slides occurred in the cuts along
the Panama Canal during its construction and its operation (1910 1964). Hoek stated that
Lutton and others have concluded in 1979 that slides have occurred because of the structural
discontinuity of rocks. Hoek also reiterated a part of Karl Terzaghis presidential speech in
the first international conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering in 1936
about the Panama Canal slides The catastrophic descent of the slopes of the deepest cut of
7

the Panama Canal issued a warning that we were overstepping the limits of our ability to
predict the consequences of our actions.
2.2. Main Areas of Interest in Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
One can confidently claim that RME is a science by itself that has its own areas of interest.
The following is a demonstration of some of the main areas of interest which are classified
based on a personal point of view of analysis and design logic.
2.2.1. Interests in Rock Slopes Stability
Slope stability is a branch of geotechnical engineering which deals with the assessment of
static and dynamic effects on different kinds of slopes; earth and rock-fill dams, slopes of
other types of embankments, excavated slopes and natural slopes in soil and soft rocks. (US
Army Corps of Engineers, 2003) Based on the previous definition, it could be conclude that
rock slope stability is a conjoined science between slope stability and RME as shown in
Figure 2.1. The rocks UCS plays an important role here.

The concern with the stability of rock slopes is associated with the major safety concerns of
many areas in the world which are settled next to a rock slope. This becomes more important
in the case of open mines and quarries, since any rock slope failure would result in not only
Slope
Stability
Rock
Mechanics
and
Engineering
Figure 2.1: Rock Slope Stability
8

working site hazards but also possible economic consequences due to the subsequent fixing
and rehabilitation required so they could be used again as reported by Rogers (1995).
Figure 2.2 shows the failure of Felton quarry, Santa Cruz, California on November 20, 1992.

2.2.2. Interests in Shafts, Tunnels, Caverns and Underground Mines
It is easy to note the variation in sizes and applications among all main areas of interest in
RME. However, all of them share the main concept of analysis and design. As stated
previously in the definition of RME, it is concerned with the stress state in rocks before and
after the construction of rock related structures, especially in shafts and similar types of
structures where the main construction concept of them, briefly speaking, is to analyze the
stress state of the rock containing them in order to provide the design solution for the project.
The UCS of the rock is very much needed here. Any mistake in this step might be the
deathblow of the whole structure. An example from memory is the Copiap mining accident
in Chile on August 8
th
, 2010 reported in Wikipedia (2012). Figure 2.3 illustrates the accident.
Figure 2.2: Felton Quarry Granite Slope Failure (Rogers, 1995)
9

2.2.3. Interests in Rock Foundations
Depending on the geotechnical conditions of the site, a geotechnical engineer has only two
options: option one, to construct the project on or through soil which has its own design
considerations, or, option two, to construct the project on or through rocks which have their
different design considerations. A project constructed through rocks was addressed
previously. A project constructed on a rock bearing stratum is the one considered here.
Different design criteria are needed since the foundation supporting condition is different
than soil. A good designing manual is the US army corps of engineers' manual number EM
1110-1-2908, (1994). This manual gives a good idea about design considerations for large
military and civil engineering structures in terms of design considerations, site investigation,
rock characterization, bearing capacity, settlement considerations, different rock slopes
stability and finally construction considerations.
Figure 2.3: Copiap Mining Accident on 2010, Acquired from Wikipedia (2012)
10

Also, depending on rock depth and the proposed project the design parameters would change
either to construct a small project on a shallow rock bearing stratum, or to construct a major
project on a deep rock bearing stratum like the case of Burj Khalifa in Dubai, UAE, where
piles where constructed through soil to reach the rock stratum which is about 50 meters deep.
The following Figure 2.4 illustrates how the rock foundations for Burj Khalifa look like.
Here, the rocks UCS played an important role in the design of this major project.

One must not mix between rock foundations and the base stone that is found under porches of
some houses in America. These stones serve as a raft for the house porch structural wise.
See Figure 2.5. These stones might be rock foundation if the bearing stratum beneath them
was rock.

Figure 2.5: House Porch Foundation Stones (Brooks Stone Inc. 2011)
Figure 2.4: Illustration of Rock Foundation of Burj Khalifa (Business Week, 2007)
11

2.3. Software Usage in Rock Mechanics and Engineering
To facilitate the job for rock engineers and mechanics, many types of software have been
developed in the area of rock mechanics and engineering. These software programs, in a
personal point of view, are categorized in terms of the purpose of their usage. Some are used
as lab analysis software; others are used for specific types of rock-structural analysis, and
some offer rock analysis as an included accessory to the efficacy of a program.
RocLab
, offered by RocScience Inc. (2013), is a simple lab analysis software program in

which small numbers of data are needed to calculate different parameters like Hoek-Brown
Classification, Hoek-Brown Criterion, Mohr-Coulomb Fit, tensile strength, uniaxial
compressive strength, global strength and deformation modulus along with major and minor
stresses chart and normal-shear stress charts
Other programs offered by RocScience Inc. offer specialized analysis software for various
types of application. For example, Examine
3D
(2013) is specialized boundary element
analysis software for rock structures like tunnels, caverns and other underground structures.
A more advanced finite element method software like TNO DIANA
offered by TNO BV
(2012) and Abacus
offered by Simulia Inc. (2012) are very advanced and general finite
element analysis software that can be utilized to solve different and complex rock structural
analysis problems and designs.

12

2.4. Brief about Sedimentary Rocks
In nature, rocks are categorized into three different types: igneous, metamorphic and
sedimentary rocks. It might be believed that the most dominant rock type is the sedimentary
rock as most people encounter this type in nature. But the fact is stated by Buchner, K and R.
Grapes (2011) which is; sedimentary rocks are only 8% of the total volume of the earth crust,
the area where all oceans and continents are placed.
The best definition of sedimentary rocks is stated by Hamblin, K. and Christiansen, E.,
(2009) as follows Sedimentary rocks are rocks that form from fragments derived from other
rocks and by precipitation from water. These rocks are usually classified based on their
texture and composition into two categories, clastic rocks and chemical and biochemical
rocks.
A closer look at a clastic rock reveals the composition. Clastic rocks are formed from gravel,
sand and mud fragments. The word clastic comes from the Greek word klastos, which
means broken, and that implies the process of weathering and erosion of rocks, transportation
of fragments to deposition sites and finally the precipitation process where fragments fuse
with each other to form the sedimentary rock.
The next Figure 2.6 shows clastic rocks' classification scheme which illustrates that clastic
rocks are classified into three categories based on their grain size. Conglomerates, shown in
Figure 2.7 (a), are those rocks with a grain size larger than 2 mm Rocks with grain sizes
varying between (1/16 2) mm are called sandstone, shown in Figure 2.7 (b). Lastly, rocks
with a grain size bellow 1/16 mm are named mudstones, shown in Figure 2.7 (c).
13

On the other hand, chemical and biochemical rocks are formed from the chemical
precipitation or evaporation of salty lakes and shallow seas, from the growth process of some
organisms like coral and some types of algae, or from the decay of hydrocarbons in deep
sedimentary strata. Gypsum rock (CaSO
4
2H
2
O), shown in Figure 2.7 (d), is a type of
chemical sedimentary rocks that results from the evaporation of shallow seas. An example of
chemical sedimentary rocks resulting from precipitation is Limestone, shown in Figure 2.7
(e). Coal is a sedimentary rock resulting from the decay of hydrocarbon content of organisms,
shown in Figure 2.7 (f).

a b c

d e f

Figure 2.6: Clastic Rocks' Classification Scheme after Hamblin, K. and Christiansen, E., (2009)

(a) Conglomerate (b) Sandstone (c) Mudstone (d) Gypsum rock (e) Limestone (f) Coal
Figure 2.7: Different Types Sedimentary of Rocks

14

2.5. Geological History of the United Arab Emirates and Its Rocks
Understanding the geological history of UAE is of utmost importance here, because it makes
it easy to somewhat comprehend the formation of different types of geological formations in
the country, down from sabkhas to mid high elevation sand deserts to the Hajar mountains in
the eastern region of the country. Feulner (2005) conducted a research on the geological
history of the UAE and Hajar mountains. He concluded that the UAE is located in the corner
of the Arabian plate as shown in Figure 2.8 after Pierce (2002).

The UAE is highlighted in dark red. The Arabian plate is considered relatively sTable since
the Cambrian system of the Paleozoic era, about 520 million years ago, time scale-wise. The
Arabian plate includes, besides the Arabian Peninsula, the not true ocean basin, shallow
Arabian Gulf and the Zagros mountains. In the Chattian stage, about 25 million years ago, the
Arabian plate was disjointed from the Afro Arabian continent to form the Red Sea.
Feulner also stated that the Precambrian history of the UAE can be known by reading the
Precambrian sediments of Saudi Arabia and Oman. It shows that the UAE has participated in
Figure 2.8: Arabian Plate and UAE Position (Dark Red) after Pierce (2002)
15

the late Precambrian glaciations. The UAE was often covered with shallow sea throughout its
history.
Feulner also stated that the movements of the Afro-Arabian plate during the Paleozoic caused
it to pass near the southern pole. In the Mid-Paleozoic, the Afro-Arabian continent was joined
to other continents to form the super continent of Gondwana, which began to breakup in the
Permian and Triassic periods. The UAE attained tropical and sub-tropical latitudes since the
end of Paleozoic era.
Feulner also found that despite all the movements the UAE has made in its history; it still
appears to be tectonically sTable. The only exception is the formation of Al-Hajar Mountains
in the eastern region of the country. In general, the geological history of the UAE is just a
record of the advance and retreat of the sea in response to tectonic and climate changes
through time.
Ali, M.Y. etal. (2013) carried out valuable research on the seismic stratigraphy and
subsidence history of the UAE. In their work they presented a summary stratigraphic column
of the geological rock sequence in the UAE foreland basin. Although their research was
focused on oil bearing strata, the presentation way of their summary column is of great
interest. They found that UAEs rocks are mainly carbonate rocks with small intercepts of
sandstones, siltstones and shale.
In their study they used locally used names for formations of the UAE with tectonic
interpretation regarding geological conditions and events that contributed to making the
subsurface history of the UAE in its known form. The following Figure 2.9 shows their work
regarding the geological time of the UAE.
16

Figure 2.9: Summary Stratigraphic of the UAE Foreland Basin , Ali, M.Y. etal (2013)
17

2.6. Rock Classification
Regardless of its different schemes, rock classification is considered beneficial in preliminary
design. It can be used as a check list for information or as an idea developer of strength and
deformation characteristics of rocks. Hoek (2006) did a good job in collecting different used
rock classification schemes in his book. The following is a brief exhibition of encountered
classification schemes in that book.
a. Terzaghis rock mass classification: This classification scheme generated in
1946 uses descriptive bases to classify rocks. In this scheme, rocks are
classified into 7 categories; intact, stratified, moderately jointed, blocky and
seamy, crushed, squeezing and swelling rock. This scheme is used to estimate
rock loads which are carried by steel sets for tunnel designing purposes.
b. Classifications involving stand-up time: The stand-up time is the time for a
rock span being unsupported. The first researcher to propose the idea that rock
quality is related to stand-up time was Lauffer in 1958. For tunnels, the
unsupported span is the rock over the tunnel or between two supports. Some
modifications have been done on what Lauffer proposed by Pacher and others
in 1974 and are now part of the New Austrian Tunneling Method.
c. Rock quality designation index (RQD): This classification is a quantitative
scheme developed by Deere and others in 1967. The RQD is defined as the
percentage of length of intact rock pieces longer than 100 mm in the total
length of the core. The drill bit for this classification should be of size NX (
= 54.7 mm) or larger.
18

d. Rock structure rating (RSR): a quasi-quantitative scheme developed by
Wickham in 1972 to describe the quality of rock mass and to select the
appropriate support in terms of tunnel construction. This system is considered
a comprehensive system in terms of counting the different factors affecting the
quality of the rock mass which are the geological considerations, geometry of
proposed structure and effect of ground water inflow and joint conditions yield
in the RSR number of maximum value of 100.
e. Rock mass rating system (RMR): a widely used quasi-quantitative scheme to
classify rock masses developed by Bieniawski in 1976 and amended by him in
1989. This classification deals with many factors affecting the rock mass and
is one of schemes that uses strength of material or unconfined strength as a
criteria that contributes to the classification process. This scheme uses the
following factors to fulfill a classification job; strength of material, rock
quality designation (RQD), spacing, condition and orientation of
discontinuities and groundwater condition. The range of this classification is
from 0 (very poor) to 100 (very good).
f. Rock tunneling quality index (Q): a widely used quasi-quantitative scheme
developed by Barton in 1974 for rock mass characteristics and tunnel support
requirements represented by a numeric value (Q) that follows logarithmic
scale from 10
-3
to 10
3
. This scheme, unlike others, is a very advanced
classification system that takes into consideration the effects of rock quality,
joint conditions and stresses in a more rational way.
One has to be cautious when using rock classifications as there might be shortcomings of the
used scheme. Palmstorm and Broch (2006) worked on a thesis on the uses and misuses of the
19

Q rock classification scheme. They concluded that the shortcomings in the Q classification
scheme make it not recommended for use when it comes to calculating the penetration rate
(PR) and the advance rate (AR) for tunnel boring machines (TBM). They also strongly
recommended against correlating different rock classification schemes through correlation
equation. Furthermore, they quoted Terzaghi's statement in his last years The geotechnical
engineer should apply theory and experimentation but temper them by putting them into the
context of the uncertainty of nature. Judgment enters through engineering geology
2.7. Unconfined Compressive strength (UCS) of Rocks
2.7.1 Background
There are three types of compressive strength tests of rocks. The first is the unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) where only the axial load is applied to a rock sample and no
lateral loads of any type are applied, mathematically speaking (UCS
1
> 0, UCS
2
= UCS
3
=
0). The second is the triaxial loading where not only axial loading is applied on the rock
sample, but also equal lateral loading is applied on the other two dimensions, mathematically
speaking (UCS
1
> UCS
2
= UCS
3
). The third is the true triaxial loading, similar to triaxial
loading but the difference being that lateral loads are not equal, mathematically speaking
(UCS
1
> UCS
2
> UCS
3
). The true triaxial loading is done using cubical load sample (Jaeger,
etal. (2007)). The following Figure (2.10) illustrates different compression types. (a) Implies
UCS, (b) implies triaxial loading and (c) implies true triaxial loading

20

The most commonly used test is the UCS test as it is the easiest and less sophisticated among
all three compression test types. Other tests are needed if further understanding of rock
failure in semi-natural cases is required. But in general, rock triaxial and true triaxial are
seldom performed in the UAE. Another advantage of rock UCS test is the UCS value that is
used to determine the point bearing capacity of piles resting on rocks.
This test is performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) code number D2938 (2002) requirements. Although this code was withdrawn in the
year 2005 by the ASTM, the replacement code number ASTM-D7012 (2010), which is the
unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and modulus of elasticity (E) testing procedures,
specifies that the details of the testing procedure is acquired from the withdrawn code and
using it is recommended. The following equation is used to determine the UCS,

Where (P
u
) is the ultimate load the sample can take and (d) is the samples diameter

Figure 2.10: Different Compression States of Rock by Jaegar, etal. (2007)
...................................................... (2.1)
21

2.7.2. Relations between UCS and Mechanical Properties
2.7.2.1 Relations between UCS and Point Load Strength Index (I
s
(50))
The point load strength index test is performed in accordance with the ASTM-D5731 (2008)
procedure and is meant to measure the rocks point load strength index, which is a very
important numerical parameter in terms of rock strength.
The following equation 2.2 was used to calculate the point load strength index Where (P
f
) is
the failure load and (d
2
) is the specimens diameter
()

An interesting study was conducted by G. Tsiambaos and N. Sabatakakis (2004). The study
was about considerations on strength of intact sedimentary rocks, which aimed to find
correlations between point load strength index (I
s(50)
) with UCS (UCS) and Hoek-Brown
material constant (m
i
). In their study, sedimentary rocks from Greece where used. They
compared their work to the previous work of Bieniawski and the International Society of
Rock Mechanics (ISRM).
Based on their data, they concluded that the relation between point load index and UCS could
be presented through three different models. The linear model was the first one shown in
Figure 2.11 as the bold line. This model gave an accepTable value of R
2
of 0.75. They
concluded that their result is similar to the one found by Bieniawski and the International
Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM). The power model was the second one shown also in
Figure 2.11 as the dashed curve. This model showed a better relationship as R
2
was 0.82. The
classified linear model was the third one. They have observed that the point load index could
be categorized into three different classes (I, II and III). For each class a conversion factor
. (2.2)
22

was assigned to multiply with the point load strength index value in order to get the UCS
value. The next Table 2.1 shows these classes which are shown in Figure 2.12.
Table 2.1: Relations for Different (I
s(50)
) Classes Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis (2004)
Class I
s(50)
Conversion Factor (UCS = I
s
(50) )
I < 2 13
II 2 5 20
III 5 < 28

Figure 2.11: UCS I
s(50)
Linear and Power Correlation by Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis (2004)
Figure 2.12: UCS I
s(50)
Classified Correlation Tsiambaos, G. & Sabatakakis, N. (2004)
23

2.7.2.2. Relations between UCS and Schmidt Hammer Rebound Number
The Schmidt rebound hammer test is performed in accordance with the ASTM-D5873 (2013)
procedure and is meant to measure the rocks surface hardness either in situ or in lab to give a
rapid indication about the rocks strength. This test is best suited for rocks with UCS value
between 1 to 100 MPa.
Faisal Shalabi and his colleagues carried out research about estimation of rock engineering
properties using hardness tests. The main idea was to estimate some important rock properties
such as UCS, modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio using easier and cheaper methods
such as Schmidt hammer, shore scleroscope, abrasion, total hardness and unit weight. They
used dolomite, dolomitic limestone, shale, dolomitic marble, deopside and anhydrite from
different locations in California and New York as subject rocks for their study. All samples
were of size NX (54 mm diameter), which is the minimum requirement to perform a Schmidt
hammer test on rocks as per ASTM-D5873 (2013). They used standard practices to perform
required tests. They concluded that linear model could be used to estimate the UCS of
sedimentary rocks (Dolomite) from other properties such as Schmidt hammer rebound
number (H
r
) as shown in Figure 2.13.
24

Another interesting paper was about correlation of Schmidt hardness with unconfined
compressive strength for gypsum from Sivas (Turkey) by Yilmaz and Sendir (2002). They
used the exponential model to express this relation. The value of R
2
was as high as 0.96. The
following Figure 2.14 shows their work.

Figure 2.13: UCS vs H
R
Relation by Shalabi, F. et al. (2007)
Figure 2.14: UCS vs H
R
Relation by Yilmaz and Sendir (2002)
25

2.7.2.3 Relations between UCS and Brazilian Splitting Tensile Strength
The Brazilian splitting tensile strength test is performed in accordance with the ASTM-
D3967 (2008) code and is meant to measure the rocks splitting tensile strength. The code
states that rock engineers require the determination of complicated stress fields where a
combination of both compressive and tensile stresses are available. Furthermore, doing pure
tensile strength test is theoretically applicable but very hard to do on a practical level. This
test serves as an easy alternative to find this mechanical property of rocks. The following is
the equation used to calculate the strength, where (P
u
) is the failure load, (L) is samples
height and (D) is the samples diameter.

Nazir, R. etal. (2013) conducted a research regarding correlating UCS to the Brazilian
splitting strength of lime stone samples. Firstly, they collected different relations from recent
studies. The following Table 2.2 summarizes these relations. Here BST stands for St.
Table 2.2: Recent S
t
Relations Collected By Nazir, R. etal (2013)
Source Year Equation R
2
Type
Kahraman etal 2012 UCS
(MPa)
= 10.61 S
t
0.50 Different rocks inc. limestone
Farah 2011 UCS
(psi)
= 5.11 S
t
133.86 0.68 Weathered limestone
Altindag etal 2010 UCS
(MPa)
= 12.38 S
t

1.0725
0.79 Different rocks inc. limestone

They also stated that one of the most agreed upon correlations is the one done by Sheorey,
where UCS equals 10 times the Brazilian splitting strength. They concluded that there is a
relation between S
t
and UCS which is presented in Figure 2.15. They also compared
different previous work presented in Table 2.2. The following Figure 2.16 shows this
comparison.

(2.3)
26

Figure 2.16: Comparison of Different Studies with lab Work by Nazir, R. et al. (2013)

2.7.2.4 Relations between UCS and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
This test is performed according to the ASTM-D2845 (2008) code and is meant to measure
the rocks ultrasonic pulse velocity, which can be correlated to different important rock
properties like UCS, E and Poissons ratio (). It is important to mention that this test is not
meant to measure stress wave attenuation. The sound velocity (V
P
) is found by the following
equation;

Where l = the length of specimen and t = is the time for a sound wave to move from the
transducer to receiver in seconds.
t
(BTS) found relation by Nazir, R. et al. (2013)

.... (2.4)
27

A paper was written by Yasar and Erdogan (2004) regarding correlating sound velocity with
the density, compressive strength and Youngs modulus of carbonate rocks. The scope of the
work was to correlate density, UCS and Youngs Modulus (E) for carbonate rocks in
different areas in Middle Turkey (Adana). The linear model was used to present these
relations. In their study, three types of rocks were used; Dolomite, Marble and Limestone.
Correlating different rock types with each other is an interesting idea since Marble is a
metamorphic rock and other rocks were sedimentary. But from their point of view, they
considered all as carbonate rocks. They concluded that there is a good linear relation between
mean P-wave sound velocity (V
p
) with UCS and E. The following Table 2.3 shows their
results and the following Figures 2.17 and 2.18 show these relations.
Table 2.3: Correlations Found By Yasar, E. & Erdogan, Y. (2004)
Equation R
2

V
p
= 0.0317 UCS + 2.0195 0.80
V
p
= 0.0937 E + 1.7528 0.86

Figure 2.17: V
p
UCS Correlation by Yasar, E. & Erdogan, Y. (2004)
28

2.7.2.5 Relations between UCS and Modulus of Elasticity
As stated previously, the ASTM merged the determination of the UCS and the modulus of
elasticity of rocks into one code starting from 2005. The code ASTM D-7012 (2010) is the
standardized procedure now to perform the modulus of elasticity E test. In this thesis, the
average modulus method was used to calculate the modulus of elasticity; which is the average
slope of the apparently straight line of the stress strain diagram. This is shown in the next
Figure 2.19.

Figure 2.18: V
p
E Correlation by Yasar, E. & Erdogan, Y. (2004)
Figure 2.19: Average Modulus of Elasticity Calculation as Per ASTM-D7012 (2010).
29

Strain () is calculated as per the following equation, where () is the instantaneous
deformation and (L) is the sample length.

This test is done simultaneously with the UCS test. In fact, this test can be considered a
byproduct of the UCS test. Therefore it is logical to find the modulus of elasticity as a
function of the UCS. Tziallas, etal. (2009) did good research in correlating the UCS to E
through different models. They concluded that E can be determined as a function of UCS
with high R
2
value equals 0.95. The following equation 2.6 is their concluded correlation;
where E and UCS are both in MPa.

They also concluded that E can be determined as a function of both UCS and the longitudinal
sound velocity V
p
. The following equation 2.7 is their other concluded equation; where E is
in GPa, UCS is in MPa and V
p
is in m/sec.
(

They also visualized this correlation as a 3D diagram shown in Figure 2.20 and as a
nomograph shown in Figure 2.21.
. (2.6)
(2.7)
. (2.5)
30

Figure 2.20: 3D visualization of equation 2.7 by Tziallas (2009)
Figure 2.21: Nomograph constructed for equation 2.7 by Tziallas (2009)
31

2.7.3. Relations between UCS and Physical Properties
2.7.3.1 Relations between UCS and Bulk Specific Weight
The specific weight of rocks is determined according to the South Carolina department of
transportation code number SC-T-39 (2008). This procedure is considered one of the easiest
procedures done. The following equation 2.8 explains how it is calculated

Where W is the sample weight and V is the sample volume. The methodology is to measure
the total weight and divide it by the total volume which counts for all voids in the specimen.
In any case, it is assumed that the denser the specimen, the stronger it will be. A study
confirms that was carried out by Mohd, B. (2009). He also concluded that there is a good
relation between specific weight and UCS of a regression coefficient R
2
as high as 0.9666.
Here he correlated density to UCS. In fact, the specific weight is nothing but the density
times the acceleration of gravity (g) therefore this fixed value can be included easily in the
correlation without jeopardizing the accuracy of the results. The following Figure 2.22 shows
the found relation.

. (2.8)
Figure 2.22: UCS Relation by Mohd, B. (2009)
32

2.7.3.2. Relations between UCS and Moisture Content
The moisture content is determined as per the ASTM-D2216 (2010) code. The procedure to
perform this test is described in the following chapter. The following equation 2.9 describes
how to calculate moisture content by mass.

Where M
i
is the as received mass and M
ov
is the oven dry mass. The methodology is
summarized as measuring the masses of the rock specimen before and after placing it in the
oven for a certain time and temperature. It is believed that moisture content influences UCS.

. (2.9)
33

Chapter 3
Experimental Program
3.1. Introduction
To achieve the proposed objectives of the study, lab and office works were conducted on a
set of samples from different locations in UAE. All Samples were acquired from the UAE's
coastal zone; the western region (W.R.), Abu Dhabi region (A.D.) and northern Emirates
region (N.E.). These samples were prepared and tested in accordance with the ASTM for all
tests except for the unit weight test where the code of South Carolina Department of
Transportation was used. The next Figure 3.1 shows the work plan flow. Every step of this
plan is a section of this chapter.

3.2. Sample Collection
In order to produce consistent and relaTable results, it was decided to have the sample span in
the core be of 1 meter length in order to ensure the uniformity of the tested samples. All cores
Sample Collection
Sample
Transporting and
Storing
Sample Identification
Define Type and Depth of
Each Sample
Number The samples for
Ease of Access
Sample
Preperation
Sample Testing
Mechanical Tests
Physical Tests
Data Processing
Figure 3.1: General Work Plan of the Thesis
34

were of size HX (76.2 mm) to avoid misleading results in mechanical tests. The following
Table 3.1 shows in detail the core locations in UTM coordinates with a summary about them.
Table 3.1: Summary of Borehole Locations and Data
Northing Easting UTM UAE* Total Depth (m) of Samples
1 2767823 305716 40R N.E. 16.5 7
2 2767806 305732 40R N.E. 32 6
3 2767751 305786 40R N.E. 30 1
4 2767738 473700 40R N.E. 15 3
5 2650178 626625 39R W.R. 15 14
6 2768393 335292 40R N.E. 15 11
7 2660156 643514 39R W.R. 20 20
8 2660214 643604 39R W.R. 20 16
9 2707345 230782 40R A.D. 20 15
10 2707747 234323 40R A.D. 30 25
11 2724650 249993 40R A.D. 20 15
12 2724617 249987 40R A.D. 20 16
13 2694666 249562 40R A.D. 20 14
14 2692041 249007 40R A.D. 20 15
15 2718238 266660 40R A.D. 8 5
16 2707685 259667 40R A.D. 35 20
17 2706781 259435 40R A.D. 35 20
18 2696124 267506 40R A.D. 20 15
19 2706530 259174 40R A.D. 35 25
20 2666105 752296 39R W.R. 20 1
21 2704006 253194 40R A.D. 20 18
22 2702117 251995 40R A.D. 15 11
23 2706744 258934 40R A.D. 35 25
24 2701589 256627 40R A.D. 20 11
25 2703094 255158 40R A.D. 20 11
26 2706864 259161 40R A.D. 35 20
27 2706648 259576 40R A.D. 35 15
28 2699153 267310 40R A.D. 20 10
29 2783068 328432 40R N.E. 15 4
30 2783332 328266 40R N.E. 15 1
31 2783338 328620 40R N.E. 10 1
32 2784128 329250 40R N.E. 15 3
33 2783412 329433 40R N.E. 15 1
34 2787555 326779 40R N.E. 50 5
35 2802955 337470 40R N.E. 15 5
36 2802912 337430 40R N.E. 15 5
37 2802818 337489 40R N.E. 15 2
38 2802960 337425 40R N.E. 30 4
39 2813801 345495 40R N.E. 25 3
Total Number of Samples 419
*N.E. stands for Northern Emirates, A.D. stands for Abu Dhabi and W.R. stands for Western Region
35

Figure 3.2 shows the contribution of samples by location and type where Figure 3.3 shows
envelop of borehole locations.

73%
15%
12%
Sample Contribution
By Place
Abu Dhabi
Northern Emirates
Westren Region
21%
45%
34%
Sample Contribution
By Type
Crystalline Gypsum
Mudstone
Sandstone
(a) (b)
Figure 3.2: Sample Contributions (a) by Place, and (b) by Rock Type
Figure 3.3: Zone of Borehole Locations, Acquired from Google Maps (2013)
36

3.3. Sample Transporting and Storing
To ensure the integrity of the acquired cores, the ASTM-D5079 (2008) practice code was
used in transporting and preserving rock core samples. This code gives very detailed
procedures for samples from the time they are recovered from cores till the deposition of the
samples or storing for a certain period of time for future testing. The code provides a nice
flow chart for personnel in charge of all stages of core recovery, transporting, testing and
storage. The following Figure 3.4 shows this flow chart which is quoted with alteration from
the code.

1. Sample Recovery
From Drill
2. Handling 3. Core Photography
4. Initial Logging
5. Sample Protection
Routine Care
Special Care
Critical Care
Soil Like Care
6. Preparation of
Storage and Shipping
Containers
7. Transportation 8. Storage
9. Specimen
Preparation
10. Testing
Figure 3.4: ASTM Flow Chart For Preserving and Transporting Rock Core Samples (2008)
37

Some geotechnical laboratories cooperated in granting all studied rock core specimens.
Therefore, due to their expertise, the chart steps 1 through 6 were assumed to be
professionally done. Steps 7 through 10 were done again in transporting samples from
laboratories to the university through testing of samples. Thankfully, all samples didnt
require special transportation therefore a normal truck was used to transport samples.
Regarding storing of samples, the code specifies special measurements for storing if test
results are affected by storing conditions. In this study, only the moisture content test required
special storing measurements whereas all other tests required the normal rock core box
storing measurements.
The next step was specimen preparation for tests. This step was very important as it defined
which test came before the other. Before that, all samples were identified for ease of use and
access of data collected from various tests. Identification and preparation of samples are
addressed in the next sections.
Another important step is sample protection. Although this step can be considered as sample
identification related step because it involves some identification, this identification is
required to determine how the sample processing should proceed. This identification means
extra protection measures for every class. Class one is the routine care which is for cores of
1.5 meters run and larger. If cores are less than 3 meters run, they are stored in structurally
sound core boxes. If they are longer than 3 meters run, they are placed in slightly wider and
longer PVC pipes. Here, core runs of 1 meter were considered the base for core box storing.
The second class is the special care class. It is necessary if the moisture condition is needed.
In addition to storing in structurally sound core boxes, vinylidene chloride seal is
recommended. The third class of care is the critical care which is needed for sample
protection against shock, vibration and variations in temperature. The fourth and last class of
38

care is soil like care. Logically and by the code one can consider dealing with these cores as
soil. Thankfully, only class two of care was needed as a result of the as received situation of
the cores.
3.4. Sample Identification
For ease of access, an identification system was established. Samples were given an ID of the
form XYZ-a-b. This is illustrated in the following Figure 3.5.

For example; sample ID (BY-5-08) means this sample is acquired with Baynunah labs, taken
from the 5
th
borehole acquired with that lab and 08 means this is the 8
th
sample acquired from
that borehole. It is good to mention here that the greater the sample number, the deeper the
sample. For tabulation purposes, the ID itself represents three columns of data; XY, a and b
data columns. This made it easy to store the sample depth and type in the database
established for this purpose. Here it is good to mention that the code assigned for the three
rock types is the following; CRGP is crystalline gypsum, MUDS is mudstone and SANDS is
sandstone.
ID: XYZ-a-b
XYZ = Lab Name a = Core Number b = Sample Number
Figure 3.5: Sample ID Illustration
AC: Arab Center for Engineering Studies
GC: Gulf Laboratory
BY: Baynunah Laboratory
*MA: Matrix Laboratory

39

3.5. Sample Preparation
Depending on the test, one can decide if the specimen requires preprocessing or not. Some
tests like the UCS and E tests require special preparation, whereas other tests dont need any
preparation, such as the point load test. All samples were cut using the diamond rock core
cutter for the UCS and E, Brazilian splitting, and ultrasonic pulse velocity where the
geometry of the sample is required to perform these tests as explained in the next section.
In fact, only the UCS and E test needed special sample preparation. Since the height to
diameter ratio of the sample has to be 2:1 sharp with a very low margin of error. Moreover,
the two surfaces of the sample had to be parallel to each other with a very low margin of error
and vertical to the sample with, likewise, a very low margin of error. These margins and
checking methods are stated in the ASTM D-4543-08 code. This method involves three
checks of the sample, and these are; the deviation from straightness, flatness and
perpendicularity of ends checks as follows;
For straightness check, the sample was placed on a horizontal surface prepared for this check.
The sample was then rolled on that surface to check the straightness. Any sample that had a
gap more than 0.5 mm didnt meet the straightness check. The check of flatness was done as
per procedure 5.2 B of the code. In this procedure, the sample was placed on the horizontal
surface. Then a dial gage of precision 2.5 m was set in contact with the specimen. Readings
of three diameters were taken for the specimen. If the difference between maximum and
minimum readings of the diameter was less than 38 m, the sample was accepted.
For perpendicularity check, the sample was placed on the horizontal surface again with a true
square being in contact with the specimen. Then the sample is rotated to find the maximum
gap between the specimen and the square. If the gap to the length ratio was less than 1:230
then the sample met the perpendicularity requirements.
40

Some samples happened to be very weak. In fact it was very hard to be prepared to meet the
ASTM-D4543 (2008), section 5.2 requirements even with best effort as the code stated,
which was using a very sharp diamond cutter and dry cutting methodology operated by a very
experienced person. The code here gave a concession for this case as the code directed to cut
the sample to desired length and apply end caps to specimen.
3.6. Sample Testing
The following is a demonstration of the detailed procedures used to perform tests. Tests are
classified into mechanical tests; point load, Schmidt hammer, Brazilian splitting, ultrasonic
pulse velocity and UCS and E tests; as well as physical tests; moisture content, and specific
weight tests. Tests are presented in that order to make it easy for the reader to navigate
through their procedures.
3.6.1. Mechanical Tests Done
3.6.1.1. The Point Load Test.
As stated previously in chapter 2, this test was done in accordance with ASTM D-5731-08.
This test was performed by subjecting a rock specimen to an increasing concentrated load
until splitting of the specimen. The concentrated load was applied through coaxial conical
platens. The failure load was used to calculate the point load strength index by equation 2.2
which was used to estimate the UCS. The Figure 3.6 shows a sample ready for the test. This
test was done as follows;
A qualifying sample was of length to diameter ratio of 1:1 or more (no preparation
needed)
The diameter of the sample was then recorded
Sample was then inserted into the machine and platens were closed to form contact
with the diameter of the specimen. Here the contact point had to be in the middle if
the sample
Sample was then subject to steadily increasing load until failure occurred
41

The failure load and pattern were recorded
If the failure pattern was the same as Figure 3.7 (a) the test was conducted perfectly
If the failure pattern was the same as Figure 3.7 (b) the test was rejected.

(a) (b)
Figure 3.7: Point Load Test Different Failure Patterns as Per ASTM-D5731 (2008)
(a) Accepted (b) Rejected

Figure 3.6: Sample Ready for the Point Load Test
42

3.6.1.2. The Schmidt Hammer Test
This test was performed by subjecting a rock specimen to shock load without resulting in the
failure of the specimen. The shock load was applied through a rebound hammer (Schmidt
hammer). The height of the plunger after the shock was then recorded to calculate the
rebound number which was used to estimate UCS. This test was done as follows;
The rigid base was placed on a firm surface
Sample was then firmly tightened to that base
The verticality of the rebound hammer was achieved by using a vertical guide
Plunger head was distanced more than one diameter from the edge
Ten shocks were given on various areas of the sample by gradually pressing the
plunger on the specimen
The average of these ten readings was calculated
Any result that deviated by more than 7 units was canceled and the averaging was
done again to determine the rebound number (H
R
)
The test was rejected if the sample failed before completing the test.
3.6.1.3. Brazilian Splitting Test
This test was performed by subjecting a rock specimen to an increasing concentrated load
until splitting of the specimen. The concentrated load was applied through coaxial flat
platens. The failure load was used to calculate the tensile strength of the sample by equation
2.3 which could be used to estimate the UCS. This test was done as follows;
Samples were prepared as per ASTM D-4543-08. The thickness to diameter ratio was
to be between 0.2 and 0.75. Thickness and diameter were recorded
Samples were then marked on their diameter to ensure proper positioning in the
loading machine
Then, samples were positioned in the loading frame
After that, samples were loaded until failure of samples as shown in Figure 3.9
The failure load was recorded for all samples and the strength was calculated for all
samples as per equation 2.3
43

3.6.1.4. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test
This test was performed by subjecting a rock specimen to an ultrasonic pulse. This pulse was
applied by a transducer and received by a receiver. The machine records the time a pulse
needed to travel from the transducer to the receiver. Then the pulse velocity was calculated
by equation 2.4 which was then used to determine some parameters for the rock of which
UCS is one of them. This test was done as follows;
Samples finely prepared as per ASTM D-4543-08. Length to diameter ratio was
recommended not to exceed 5 and at least 10 times the larger grain size. The length of
the sample was recorded
Samples were then marked for the place of transducer and receiver placement
Then, grease was applied to surface of samples, transducer and receiver to ensure no
air is entrapped between the apparatus and the sample
The sample was then subjected to ultrasonic pulse. The time of travel was recorded
for each sample
The pulse velocity was then calculated by equation 2.4
3.6.1.5. UCS and E Test
As stated previously in chapter 2, UCS and E are usually done simultaneously. This test
was done in accordance with ASTM D-7012-10 methods C and D. A rock core specimen was
cut to achieve an aspect ratio of 2:1. The ends were engineered. The specimen was placed in
a loading machine. Axial load was applied gradually and increasingly on the specimen.
Deformation was measured as a function of load until peak load and failure happened. Then
Figure 3.8: Failed Sample after Brazilian Test
44

the UCS was calculated by equation 2.1 and E was calculated as per equation 2.5 and Figure
2.18. Figure 3.10 shows a sample ready for the test. This test was done as follows;
Samples finely prepared as per ASTM D-4543-08. Length to diameter ratio was to be
2:1 The length and diameter of sample were recorded
Samples were then placed in the loading machine connected to a computer to record
load and its corresponding deflection to construct the stress strain diagram
After that, samples were loaded until their failure
The extreme load was used to determine the UCS as per equation 2.1
The whole record was converted into stress strain diagram as per equations 2.1 and
2.5 and Figure 2.19. (E) was then calculated from the stress strain diagram

Figure 3.9: Sample Ready for the UCS and E Test
45

3.6.2. Physical Tests Done
3.6.2.1. Moisture Content Test
As stated previously in chapter 2, this test was done in accordance with ASTM D-2216-10. A
test specimen was dried in an oven at a temperature of 110 5C to a constant mass. The
loss of mass due to drying is considered to be water. The water content is calculated using the
mass of water and the mass of the dry specimen. The moisture content is then calculated by
equation 2.11. The following is the detailed procedure;
Specimens masses before drying were recorded
Specimens then were placed in an oven at a temperature of 110 5C for 24 4 hrs
Specimens then were removed from oven and left to cool down to room temperature
Specimens masses after drying were recorded
Moisture content is calculated by equation 2.11
3.6.2.2 Specific Weight Test
As stated previously in chapter 2, this test was done in accordance with SC T 39-08.
Specimens dimensions and weight were recorded and the specific weight was calculated as
per equation 2.10.
3.6.3. Order of Testing
A closer look at the specifications of performed tests and its influence on the sample in terms
of destructivity reveals many facts. To ensure the correctness of moisture content test results,
it was decided to perform it first, just after removing the sample cover. Therefore the stage
one of testing was the moisture content.
As mentioned earlier, sample preparation for other tests required accurate measurements and
cautious cutting of samples depending on their condition. This processing was required for
geometry related tests like unit weight, ultrasonic pulse velocity, UCS and E, and Brazilian
46

splitting strength tests. Also, the unit load test was the simplest test done so it was decided to
combine the unit weight test with sample preparation in one stage (stage two).
For the ultrasonic pulse velocity and The Schmidt hammer tests, it was obvious that no
sample destruction resulted. Therefore it was decided to group both tests in stage three. Stage
four was the last stage; all destructive tests were performed in this stage. It is good to mention
that the desired sample span of 1 meter facilitated the conduction of all previously mentioned
tests. Therefore, a sample segment was only tested once for stage three and four. The
following Figure 3.11 summarizes these finding in a flowchart.

Sample
Stage One
Moisture
Content
Stage Two
Sample
Preparation
Unit
Weight
Stage Three USPV
Schmidt
Hammer
Stage Four
Point Load
UCS and E
Brazilian
Splitting
Figure 3.10: Sample Testing Stages Flowchart
47

Chapter 4
Results, Analysis and Discussion
4.1. Introduction
This chapter is dedicated to presenting, analyzing and discussing lab test results. Section 4.2
presents all lab tests results with some statistical analysis and relations to rock types that were
included in the study. Section 4.3 is dedicated to the correlation analysis, in order to meet
goals and objectives set for the thesis. Section 4.4 holds a comparison between this thesiss
results and previous work results presented previously in chapter 2.
4.2. Test Results
This section presents a summary of results for all experiments done, where statistical analysis
was performed to define 95% confidence intervals estimate of the expected value from each
test. All data are presented in appendixes
4.2.1. Mechanical Test Results
4.2.1.1 The Schmidt Hammer Test
Since the capacity of the used rebound hammer varies between 10 and 90, nearly 12% of
samples failed before the fulfillment of the test. Here, 210 samples passed this test. From a
statistical analysis to determine the confidence interval of the expected value based on 95 %
confidence, the results are given in the following Table 4.1. All data is in appendix Table A.1
Table 4.1: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of (H
R
)
Rock Type Minimum Expected Maximum Expected
Any 15 16
Mudstone (MUDS) 13 15
Sandstone (SANDS) 15 17
Crystalline Gypsum (CRGP) 15 18

48

4.2.1.2 The Point Load Strength Index Test.
In this test, the apparatus used was more sensitive, although apparatuss gauges were
analogue clock type gauges, and knowing that this test doesnt require further sample
processing, 419 samples were tested according to the point load test. Some samples just failed
because of fastening the apparatus on the sample.
This test is considered one of the most important tests as it is correlated directly to the UCS
of rock and is widely used for its ease of application. Nonetheless, the following Table 4.2
shows the result of the 95% confidence interval analysis for the expected value of test results.
All test results are shown in appendix Table A.2
Table 4.2: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values I
s
(50) (MPa)
Any 0.468 0.582
Mudstone (MUDS) 0.469 0.633
Sandstone (SANDS) 0.419 0.608
Crystalline Gypsum (CRGP) 0.314 0.636

4.2.1.3. The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test
Although this test is simple to perform, the requirement of sample processing to obtain an
engineered surface cut the amount of samples tested to 183 samples. The next Table 4.3
displays the result of confidence interval analysis and appendix Table A.3 shows all test
results
Table 4.3: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of V
P
(m/s)
Any 2810 3790

49

4.2.1.4. The Brazilian Splitting Tensile Test
In this test, the geometric constraint of length to diameter ratio is smaller and less strict. But
this doesnt mean that no sample pre-processing is required. In fact, all tests which take into
account the geometry of the sample have a specific sample processing. At any rate, 195
samples were tested according to the Brazilian splitting tensile strength test. The next Table
4.4 shows the 95% confidence intervals and appendix Table A.4 shows all results.
Table 4.4: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of S
t
(MPa)
Any 1.146 1.364

4.2.1.5. The UCS Test
This test was very accurate, since the testing machine and sensors were all computer
controlled. However, the geometrical requirements for samples were very strict; like strict
length to diameter ratio, strict verticality of the sample and strict parallelism of ends
constraint. Therefore, the amount of samples tested was 419 samples. If this suggests
something, it implies that the weathering conditions of United Arab Emirates have affected
the rocks; therefore it was hard to recover samples for the unconfined test.
As per the BS, EN, ISO 14689-1:2003, the rock classification of results is of two categories.
Very weak rocks are rocks that have their UCS less than (5 MPa) whereas weak rocks have
their UCS between (5 MPa) and (25 MPa). Therefore it is obvious that all results are either
weak or very weak. The next Table 4.5 shows the result of the confidence interval analysis
and appendix Table A.5 holds all data

50

Table 4.5: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of UCS (MPa)
Any 6.246 7.976

4.2.1.6. The Youngs Modulus of Elasticity Test
Since UCS and E were done simultaneously as one test. The same strict geometrical
constraints apply here too. The following Table 4.6 shows the confidence interval analysis
results while appendix Table A.6 shows all test results. The Figure 4.1 shows a sample of
stress-strain diagrams of samples where a and b are sandstones, c is crystalline gypsum and d
and e are mudstones
Table 4.6: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of E (MPa)
Any 1084 1648

a) Sandstone
51

b) Sandstone
c) Crystalline Gypsum
52

d) Mudstone
e) Mudstone
Figure 4.1: A Sample of Stress-Strain Diagrams of Samples
53

4.2.2. Physical Tests Results
4.2.2.1. The Moisture Content Test.
The time needed to perform this test is approximately 24 hours if we consider the time the
samples spent in the oven. It doesnt require any sample processing, but because of the long
time it takes to be done it was scheduled to be performed at the end of the testing. In any
case, 419 samples were tested here. The next Table 4.7 shows the result of the confidence
interval analysis while appendix Table A.7 shows all test results.
Table 4.7: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of (%)
Any 4.51 6.33

4.2.2.2 The Unit Weight Test.
A total of 419 samples were tested here. The next Table 4.8 shows the results of the
confidence interval analysis while Table A.8 shows all test results.
Table 4.8: 95% Confidence Intervals Estimates of Expected Values of (kN/m
3
)
Any 16.76 17.35

54

4.3 Generated Relations
The enormous amount of data that resulted from conducting nearly 1630 tests made it easy to
do correlation analysis. It also made it easy to understand some special characteristics and
relationships between rock properties in the UAE, which was the main objective of this study.
The following is a demonstration of the generated correlations between UCS and other rock
properties.
In statistical analysis, especially in raw data as this works data, it is very helpful to do data
smoothing before starting the correlation analysis. Data smoothing helps in dealing with
outliers that might affect the goodness of fit of the generated model. Also, the least square
regression analysis sometimes gives very low value of R
2
, which seems to be a not good fit,
because this method counts for all records without distinguishing outliers from other data.
This becomes worse in equally weighted records case. Therefore it was decided to use the
moving average (MA) smoothing method, with least absolute residuals (LAR) robust fit
wherever it was necessary.
Since three rock types were encountered, if possible, a relation for each rock type was
generated in addition to the general relation. Therefore, based on rock type, relations can be
categorized into four categories. Also, based on BS EN ISO 14689-1 (2003) rocks have been
classified into weak rocks, for UCS between (5 MPa) to (25 MPa), and very weak rocks, for
UCS less than (5 MPa). Therefore, based on strength, rocks and relations can be classified
into three categories. Therefore, the result will be twelve different categories by combining
everything together. The next Table 4.9 shows the Cartesian product used to generate cases.

55

Table 4.9: Cartesian Product for Codes of Different Cases

All Strengths (A) Very Weak (V) Weak (W)
All Types (A) AA AV AW
Crystalline Gypsum (C) CA CV CW
Mudstone (M) MA MV MW
Sandstone (S) SA SV SW

Moreover, for the first relation, the AA case, different generated relations were presented,
and then the best relations were selected based on R
2
value. Other generated relations would
be the result of this analysis only. This means, for any selected relation, 5 relations were
generated. This does not mean other equations for the general case are not useable, it means
the selected equation is highly recommended unless users prefer to use a simpler equation for
the fulfillment of their design process.
4.3.1. UCS Relations with Mechanical Properties
4.3.1.1. UCS vs. H
R

Based on data retrieved from both UCS and Schmidt hammer tests, 3 relations had been
generated. The presented relations are the best possible relations that could be found either
with or without the application of MA data smoothing and LAR robust regression.
For the AA case (the general case), five different possibilities were generated. It was found
that the exponential model was the best for the general case (AA) and the general weak case
(AW) whereas the power model was the best for the general very weak case. The following
Table 4.10 presents relation analysis for the general case (AA) while Table 4.11 shows the
other two found relations. Figures 4.2 to 4.4 show these found relations.

56

Table 4.10: Relations Between UCS and H
R
, General Case
Figure Case Equation: UCS = R
2

AA
0.295 H
R
+ 3.009 0.49
0.4872 H
R
0.27
1.939 sqrt(H
R
) 0.45
1.428 (H
R
)
0.612
0.47
4.2 4.06 exp (0.04 H
R
) 0.52

Table 4.11: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and H
R

2

4.3 AV 1.352 (H
R
)
0.3254
0.56
4.4 AW 7.113 exp(0.02 H
R
) 0.38

R
Relation, All Types, All Strengths
57

R
Relation, AV Case
R
Relation, AW Case
58

4.3.1.2. UCS vs. I
s
(50)
Based on data retrieved from both UCS and point load tests, 10 relations had been generated.
The presented relations are the best possible relations that could be found either with or
without the application of MA data smoothing and LAR robust regression. The following
Table 4.12 presents the relation analysis for the general case (AA) while Table 4.13 shows
the other best found relations. Figures 4.5 to 4.14 show these relations.
Table 4.12: Relations Between UCS and I
s
(50) (MPa) General Case
2

AA
7.977 I
s
(50) + 1.151 0.67
9.459 I
s
(50) 0.63
8.306 sqrt(I
s
(50)) 0.62
4.5 9.191 (I
s
(50))
0.75
0.68
2.67 exp(1.085 I
s
(50)) 0.6

For the simpler linear model (UCS = 9.459 I
s
(50)), the large difference between this model
and the proposed ISRM model of (UCS = 24 I
s
(50)) can be noted. It is obvious how the
structural safety for a design based on the ASTM equation is jeopardized.

S
(50) Relation, General Case
59

Table 4.13: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and I
s
(50) (MPa)
2

4.6 AV 5.833 I
s
(50) 0.73
4.7 AW 5.414 exp(0.57 I
s
(50)) 0.69
4.8 CA 11.08 I
s
(50) 0.69
4.9 CW 11.24 I
s
(50) 0.55
4.1 MA 6.050 I
s
(50) 0.71
4.11 MV 5.953 I
s
(50) 0.7
4.12 SA 7.701 I
s
(50) 0.72
4.13 SV 5.679 I
s
(50) 0.8
4.14 SW 8.170 I
s
(50) 0.44

S
(50) Relation, AW Case
S
(50) Relation, AV Case
60

UCS = 11.08 I
s
(50)
R
2
= 0.69
UCS = 11.24 I
s
(50)
R
2
= 0.55
S
(50) Relation, CA Case
S
(50) Relation, CW Case
61

UCS = 6.050 sqrt(I
s
(50))
R
2
= 0.71
UCS = 5.953 sqrt(I
s
(50))
R
2
= 0.70
S
(50) Relation, MA Case
S
(50) Relation, MV Case
62

UCS = 7.701 I
s
(50)
R
2
= 0.72
UCS = 5.679 sqrt(I
s
(50))
R
2
= 0.80
S
(50) Relation, SA Case
S
(50) Relation, SV Case
63

4.3.1.3 UCS vs. V
p

Based on data retrieved from both UCS and ultrasonic pulse velocity tests, only 1 relation had
been generated. Here, it was obvious that the power model gave the best fit. The following
Table 4.14 presents the relation analysis for the general case while Figure 4.15 shows this
relation.
Table 4.14: Relations Between UCS and V
p
(m/s) General Case
2

AA
(V
p
/ 386.6) 1.088 0.58
(V
p
/ 452.8) 0.57
(sqrt(V
p
) / 8.511) 0.39
2.037 exp (V
p
/ 2587.3) 0.58
4.15 (V
p
1.178
/ 1881) 0.59

UCS = 8.170 sqrt(I
s
(50))
R
2
= 0.44
Figure 4.14: UCS vs. Is(50) Relation, SW Case
64

4.3.1.4 UCS vs. St
Based on data retrieved from both UCS and Brazilian splitting tests, 6 relations had been
generated. Here, the power model and the exponential model dominated the relationship
between UCS and St. The following Table 4.15 presents the relation analysis for the general
case while Table 4.16 presents other found relation. Figures 4.16 to 4.21 show these relations.
Table 4.15: Relations Between UCS and St

(MPa) General Case
2

AA
3.627 St + 2.053 0.69
4.815 St 0.6
6.358 sqrt(St) 0.66
3.794 exp(0.4265 St) 0.63
4.16 5.823 St
0.6823
0.7

Figure 4.15: UCS vs V
p
Relation, General Case
65

Table 4.16: Other Relations Summary Between UCS and St

(MPa)
2

4.17 AV 3.328 S
t
0.1863
0.5
4.18 AW 5.531 exp(0.2893 S
t
) 0.65
4.19 CA 5.007 exp(0.3613 S
t
) 0.95
4.2 MA 4.783 S
t
0.8703
0.63
4.21 SA 6.321 sqrt(S
t
) 0.87

Figure 4.16: UCS vs S
t
Relation, General Case
t
Relation, AV Case
66

t
Relation, AW Case
t
Relation, CA Case
67

t
Relation, MA Case
t
Relation, SA Case
68

4.3.1.5. E vs. UCS
An important set of relations that was generated is between modulus of elasticity and the
UCS. Here, 5 relations had been generated. In this case, the power and exponential models
proved to be the best choice for all generated relations. The following Table 4.17 presents
these found relations while Table 4.18 presents other generated relations. Figures 4.22 to 4.26
show these relations.
Table 4.17: Relations Between E and UCS (MPa) General Case
Figure Case Equation: E = R
2

AA
65.1 UCS + 690.9 0.45
444.1 sqrt(UCS) 0.43
4.22 548.2 UCS
0.401
0.46
813.2 exp(0.04638 UCS) 0.41

Figure 4.22: E vs. UCS Relation, General Case
69

Table 4.18: Relations Summary Between E and UCS (MPa)
Figure Case Equation: E = R
2

4.23 AV 285.2 exp(0.3641 UCS) 0.65
4.24 AW 355.2 UCS
0.5741
0.49
4.25 CA 609.9 exp(0.09 UCS) 0.88
4.26 MA 411.6 sqrt(UCS) 0.65

Figure 4.23: E vs. UCS Relation, AV Case
Figure 4.24: E vs. UCS Relation, AW Case
70

Figure 4.25: E vs. UCS Relation, CA Case
Figure 4.26: E vs. UCS Relation, MA Case
71

4.3.2 Multiple Regression Models
Other relations was found to be very useful in the field where simple tests were correlated
together to give the following relation. The UCS can be related to the point load strength
index, moisture content, specific weight and type of rock. Here, the type of rock was given a
factor named ToR (Type of Rock) where 1 is assigned to mudstone, 2 is assigned to
sandstone and 3 is assigned to crystalline gypsum. The following relation is the UCS as a
function of point load strength index, specific weight and type of rocks. It was concluded that
a good relation between UCS and the independent variables. The value of R
2
was equal to
0.74. The next equation is the found relation.

()
The following relation is the UCS as a function of point load strength index, specific weight,
moisture content and type of rocks. It was concluded that a good relation between UCS and
the independent variables. Here, the value of R
2
was 0.75.The next equation is the found
relation.

()
Here it was found that the type of rock has small influence on the result of the equation unlike
the previous equation. Therefore, the following equation is between UCS and the same
parameters except the rock type, the value of R
2
was 0.74.

()
Another good relation was found between UCS and point load strength index, moisture
content and rock type. The value of R
2
= 0.72

()
72

4.4 Comparison of Work with Previous Literature
It is hard in geotechnical engineering to do such comparisons due to differences in regions, in
sedimentation scenarios and in chemical and physical compositions of one rock type to
another. Even so, designers keep using relations from different places to determine some
required parameters. The following Figures present comparisons between different relations
plus those which were presented earlier with lab determined results. This comparison aims to
show how far some widely used relations are from the real rock properties it is to determine.
The next Figure 4.27 compares between the Schmidt hardness relations.

It is obvious that there are two competing models, the one presented in this thesis and another
which was done by Yilmaz et.al (2002). The proposed model by Shalabi (2006) doesnt work
well with UAE rocks.
Figure 4.27: Comparison of Works for Rebound Number
73

The next comparison between point load strength index and UCS is of great importance, as
many designers rely on the ASTM relation to predict the UCS. This comparison is to show
how far this relation is from reality about UCS of UAE rocks and promotes a better solution.
The next Figure 4.28 shows this clearly.

Here, it is clear that the ASTM relation diverges from the real value of the UCS where one
might claim that the work of T. and S. (2004) seems more suitable to be used. The answer to
this claim is: it is a fact that the presented model gives lower values for the UCS, but, having
lower values for a capacity factor (UCS) gives more conservative designs.
The next comparison is between works for the ultrasonic pulse velocity (USPV). The
following Figure 4.29 shows this comparison. This very sensitive parameter is not only
affected by the type of rock, but also the physical condition (cracks, voids, integrity, etc.)
of the same rock.
Figure 4.28: Comparison of Works for Point Load Strength Index
74

Here, the proposed model by Yassar and Erdogan (2004) fails to give true UCS results, since
UCS can never be a negative value. Again, the proposed relation gave conservative results for
UCS as shown on the Figure.
The next relation compares works done by Nazir (2013) and the presented relation for the
Brazilian splitting tensile strength. Once more, the presented work maintained the trend and
gave more conservative results. The following Figure 4.30 shows that

Figure 4.29: Comparison of Works for USPV
Figure 4.30: Comparison of Works for Brazilian Strength
75

The last comparison to be presented is between relations generated for the modulus of
elasticity. The model presented by Tziallas (2009) failed to give conservative results. The
importance of this parameter was to calculate the allowable settlement of structures resting on
rock. Therefore a more conservative model would be a good choice to perform settlement
analysis. The following Figure 4.31 shows this clearly.

Although all models are confidently conforming, this doesnt mean the end of scientific
research in the field of rock engineering. These results are subjected to correctness and
falseness. The duty of the coming researchers is to prove the correctness or the falseness of
the proposed work. To insure that all proposed equations are used in the correct way they are
crated for.
Figure 4.31: Comparison of Works for Modulus of Elasticity
76

Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusion and Final Recommendations
5.1 Summary
A laboratory study was conducted to develop a database for predicting the unconfined
compressive strength of sedimentary rocks. Large numbers of rock samples from different
sites in United Arab Emirates (UAE) were collected and tested for the development of this
database and evaluation of models. Reliable empirical relationships were developed for UCS
of UAE rocks with the following mechanical and physical tests:
1. Schmidt Rebound
2. Point Load Test
3. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity
4. Brazilian Test
5. Modulus of Elasticity
6. Moisture Content
7. Unit Weight
Sixteen hundred and thirty tests were performed on various sedimentary rock types, from
various depths and areas in the UAE. Lab experiments were conducted to investigate and
discover possible relations between parameters of these rocks to predict the UCS of them.
Twenty nine relations were selected from more than 130 generated relations to relate all
rocks' parameters to each other and if applicable, subsets of samples based on their type and
strength were also related. Furthermore, general relationships were developed relating
unconfined compressive strength with unit weight, moisture content point load strength index
and type of rock. It is thus hoped that this research will serve civil and geotechnical engineers
in the UAE in making practical decisions at the stage of the preliminary site investigation
77

works and for determining the unconfined compressive strength of UAE rocks from quick
and cheap tests. The following Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show the general case relations
Table 5.1: Summary of Direct Relations
Equation R
2

UCS = 9.191 (I
s
(50))
0.75
0.68
UCS = 5.823 St
0.6823
0.70
UCS = (V
P
)
1.178
/ 1881 0.59
UCS = 4.06 exp(0.04 H
R
) 0.52
E = 548.2 UCS
0.401
0.46

Table 5.2: Summary of Multiple Regression Relations
Equation
R
2

() 0.74

() 0.72

() 0.75

() 0.74
Where ToR = 1 for Mudstone, 2 for Sandstone and 3 for Crystalline Gypsum
5.2 Conclusion
From different tests performed, including the Schmidts rebound hammer, point load strength
index, ultrasonic pulse velocity, UCS, E, Brazilian splitting strength, moisture content, and
bulk specific weight tests, all with conformance to the ASTM standard, it was concluded that
there are valid relations between UCS and rock physical and mechanical parameters of
sedimentary rocks of UAE. These relations were found to be in conformance to other
previous literature and more reliable and conservative. For the sake of developing these
relations, different statistical methods were used in addition to the use of the least square
regression wherever that was required. These methods were the mean average data smoothing
MA to produce better relatable data sets, and least absolute residuals LAR to optimize found
relations. After that, a simple analysis was done based on the highest R
2
value to determine
78

the best model to be used in representing the relation between UCS and the subject physical
or mechanical parameter.
5.3 Recommendations for Future Research
As recommendations for future research and in light of the results reported in this thesis,
further research could be done to investigate the correctness and falseness of the work
presented here. Future researchers might be interested in studying a specific region in the
UAE. For although this country's size is small, the geotechnical and geological diversity
makes it a very interesting subject for research in this field, especially in rock engineering
which has its own influences on the petroleum wealth of the country.

79

References
1. Ali, M. Y. e. (2013). Seismic stratigraphy and subsidence history of the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) rifted margin and overlying foreland basins. In K. Al-Hosani etal
(Ed.), Lithosphere dynamics and sedimentary basins: The Arabian plate and
analogues (pp. 127-143). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-
30609-9_6
2. Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core
specimens, ASTM. D2938-95(R02) (2002).
3. Standard practice for preparing rock core specimens and determining dimensional and
shape tolerances, ASTM. D4543-08 (2008).
4. Standard test method for determination of the point load strength index of rock and
application to rock strength classifications, ASTM. D5731-08 (2008).
5. Standard test method for laboratory determination of pulse velocities and ultrasonic
elastic constants of rock, ASTM. D2845-08 (2008).
6. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of intact rock core specimens,
ASTM. D3967-08 (2008).
7. Standard test method for compressive strength and elastic moduli of intact rock core
specimens under varying states of stress and temperatures, ASTM. D7012-10 (2010).
8. Standard test method for determination of pore volume and pore volume distribution
of soil and rock by mercury intrusion porosimetry, ASTM. D4404-10 (2010).
9. Standard test method for specific gravity and absorption of rock for erosion control,
ASTM. D6473-10 (2010).
10. Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture) content of soil
and rock by mass, ASTM. D2216-10 (2010).
80

11. Standard test method for determination of rock hardness by rebound hammer method,
ASTM. D5873-13 (2013).
12. Brady, B. B., E. (2005). Rock mechanics and mining engineering, general concepts.
Rock mechanics for underground mining (Third Edition ed., pp. p. 1). United States of
America: Springer Science.
13. Brooks Stone Inc. (2011). House porch foundation stones. Retrieved from
http://www.brooks-stone.com/photos/medium/4722.PNG
14. Geotechnical investigation and testing identification and classification of rock
identification and description, ISO 14689-1 (2003).
15. Buchner, K and Grapes, R. (2011). Metamorphic rocks. Petrogenesis of metamorphic
rocks (7th ed., pp. 21-56). USA: Springer.
16. Busines Week. (2007). Monster foundation. Retrieved from
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/05/0501_makingof_burj/image/1_piles.jpg
17. Feulner, G. (2005). Geology. The emirates, A natural history (pp. 41-46). South
Africa: Trident Press Limited.
18. Hamblin, K. and Christiansen, E. (2009). Sedimentary rocks. Earth's dynamic systems
(10th ed., pp. 114-143). USA: Pearson.
19. Hoek, E. (2006). The development of rock engineering. Practical rock engineering
(pp. 1.1-1.5). Ontario: RocSciense.
20. Hoek, E. (2006). Rock mass classification. Practical rock engineering (pp. 3.1-3.23).
Ontario: RocScience.
21. Jaeger, J. (1979). The historical development of rock mechanics. Rock mechanics and
engineering (Second Edition ed., pp. 1-4). United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511735349.003
81

22. Jaeger, J. e. a. (2007). Deformation and failure of rocks. Fundumentals of rock
mechanics (4th Edition ed., pp. 80). USA: Blackwell Publishing.
23. Moh'd, B. (2009). Compressive strength of vuggy oolitic limestones as a function of
their and sound propagation . Jordan Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences,
2(1), 18-25.
24. Nazir. R. etal. (2013). Correlation between unconfined compressive strength and
indirect tensile strength of limestone rock samples. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 18, 1737-1746.
25. Palmstorm, A. and Broch, E. (2006). Use and misuse of rock mass classication
systems with particular reference to the Q-system. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 21, 575-593.
26. Pierce, W. (2002). Schematic arabian plate map WHPierce Exploration.
27. RocScience Inc. (2006). Roclab. Retrieved from
http://www.rocscience.com/products/14/RocLab
28. RocScience Inc. (2006). Tunnels softwares. Retrieved from
http://www.rocscience.com/usage/use/1/Tunnels
29. Rogers, J. (1995). Felton quarry granite slope failure, santa cruz, california.
30. Shalabi, F. e. a. (2007). Estimation of rock engineering rpoperties using hardness
tests. Engineering Geology, 90, 138-147.
31. Simulia Inc. (2006). Abacus. Retrieved from
http://www.3ds.com/products/simulia/portfolio/abaqus/latest-release/
32. Smith. (2012). Definition of Engineering. Encyclopedia Britannica
33. South Carolina Department of Transportation. (2008). Method for determining the
unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core specimens . Test Procedures,
34. TNO BV Inc. (2012). Tno diana. Retrieved from http://tnodiana.com/
82

35. Tsiambaos, G. & Sabatakakis, N. (2004). Considerations on strength of intact
sedimentary rocks. Engineering Geology, 72, 261-273.
36. Tziallas, G. P., etal. (2009). Determination of rock strength and deformability of intact
rocks . Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 14(Bund, G, P2)
37. US. Army Corps of Engineers. (2003). Slope stability. (Manual No. EM 1110-2-
1902). United States of America: US. Army Corps of Engineers.
38. Wikipedia. (2012). 2010 copiap mining accident. Retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Copiap%C3%B3_mining_accident
39. Yasar, E. & Erdogan, Y. (2004). Correlating sound velocity with the density,
compressive strength and Youngs modulus of carbonate rocks. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 41, 871-875.
40. Yilmaz, I. & Sendir, H. (2002). Correlation of schmidt hardness with unconfined
compressive strength and Youngs modulus in gypsum from sivas (turkey).
Engineering Geology, 66, 211-219.

83

Appendixes

84

Table A.1 : Schmidt Hammer Test, All Results
Type H
R
Type H
R
Type H
R

1 MUDS 10 71 CRGP 22 141 SANDS 12
2 MUDS 16 72 CRGP 14 142 SANDS 16
3 MUDS 18 73 MUDS 10 143 SANDS 14
4 MUDS 10 74 MUDS 10 144 SANDS 14
5 MUDS 10 75 MUDS 14 145 SANDS 14
6 MUDS 12 76 MUDS 12 146 SANDS 16
7 MUDS 14 77 MUDS 10 147 SANDS 20
8 MUDS 16 78 MUDS 12 148 SANDS 24
9 MUDS 16 79 MUDS 10 149 CRGP 12
10 MUDS 16 80 MUDS 12 150 CRGP 14
11 MUDS 12 81 MUDS 16 151 MUDS 12
12 MUDS 10 82 MUDS 12 152 CRGP 12
13 MUDS 14 83 SANDS 14 153 CRGP 14
14 MUDS 26 84 SANDS 18 154 MUDS 12
15 MUDS 16 85 MUDS 12 155 MUDS 16
16 MUDS 22 86 MUDS 14 156 CRGP 20
17 MUDS 12 87 SANDS 10 157 CRGP 22
18 SANDS 12 88 MUDS 10 158 CRGP 14
19 SANDS 18 89 MUDS 12 159 CRGP 10
20 SANDS 10 90 MUDS 10 160 CRGP 18
21 SANDS 14 91 MUDS 18 161 SANDS 12
23 SANDS 16 93 MUDS 10 163 MUDS 14
24 SANDS 14 94 MUDS 14 164 MUDS 16
26 SANDS 18 96 MUDS 12 166 MUDS 16
28 CRGP 20 98 SANDS 10 168 SANDS 12
29 CRGP 20 99 SANDS 12 169 CRGP 12
30 CRGP 20 100 MUDS 12 170 MUDS 14
31 SANDS 24 101 MUDS 14 171 CRGP 20
32 SANDS 20 102 MUDS 10 172 CRGP 12
33 MUDS 26 103 MUDS 14 173 CRGP 18
34 MUDS 20 104 CRGP 16 174 CRGP 18
35 MUDS 22 105 CRGP 16 175 CRGP 16
36 MUDS 20 106 CRGP 12 176 MUDS 12
37 MUDS 26 107 MUDS 10 177 CRGP 14
38 MUDS 14 108 MUDS 24 178 CRGP 16
39 MUDS 14 109 MUDS 22 179 MUDS 12
40 MUDS 16 110 MUDS 16 180 MUDS 14
85

41 MUDS 12 111 SANDS 20 181 MUDS 10
42 SANDS 16 112 SANDS 16 182 CRGP 18
43 SANDS 16 113 SANDS 20 183 MUDS 14
44 SANDS 20 114 SANDS 20 184 MUDS 18
45 SANDS 10 115 SANDS 26 185 CRGP 20
46 MUDS 22 116 SANDS 14 186 MUDS 14
47 MUDS 20 117 SANDS 14 187 CRGP 16
48 MUDS 20 118 SANDS 16 188 MUDS 10
49 MUDS 10 119 SANDS 18 189 MUDS 12
50 MUDS 12 120 SANDS 14 190 CRGP 14
51 MUDS 12 121 SANDS 18 191 SANDS 18
52 MUDS 10 122 SANDS 20 192 SANDS 16
53 MUDS 10 123 MUDS 10 193 SANDS 16
54 MUDS 12 124 MUDS 14 194 SANDS 24
55 MUDS 14 125 MUDS 12 195 SANDS 26
56 MUDS 18 126 MUDS 14 196 SANDS 18
57 SANDS 14 127 MUDS 12 197 SANDS 18
58 SANDS 12 128 MUDS 10 198 SANDS 30
59 SANDS 20 129 SANDS 10 199 SANDS 12
60 MUDS 16 130 SANDS 10 200 SANDS 38
61 MUDS 16 131 SANDS 14 201 SANDS 14
62 MUDS 10 132 SANDS 14 202 MUDS 14
63 MUDS 12 133 SANDS 12 203 MUDS 16
64 CRGP 24 134 SANDS 18 204 MUDS 16
65 CRGP 14 135 SANDS 18 205 MUDS 18
66 CRGP 18 136 SANDS 18 206 SANDS 16
67 CRGP 20 137 SANDS 18 207 SANDS 16
68 CRGP 12 138 SANDS 12 208 SANDS 10
69 CRGP 18 139 SANDS 14 209 SANDS 10
70 CRGP 12 140 SANDS 14 210 MUDS 10

86

Table A.2 : Point Load Test, All Results
Type I
s
(50) (MPa) Type I
s
(50) (MPa) Type I
s
(50) (MPa)
1 MUDS 0.740 141 MUDS 0.080 281 SANDS 0.049
2 MUDS 0.186 142 MUDS 0.300 282 SANDS 0.093
3 MUDS 0.212 143 MUDS 0.110 283 SANDS 0.100
4 MUDS 0.166 144 MUDS 0.290 284 SANDS 0.203
5 MUDS 0.411 145 MUDS 0.130 285 SANDS 1.318
6 MUDS 0.190 146 MUDS 0.060 286 SANDS 0.720
7 MUDS 0.230 147 MUDS 0.090 287 SANDS 0.550
8 MUDS 0.330 148 MUDS 0.450 288 SANDS 0.350
9 MUDS 0.425 149 MUDS 0.200 289 SANDS 1.390
10 MUDS 0.340 150 MUDS 0.220 290 SANDS 0.880
11 MUDS 0.410 151 MUDS 0.140 291 SANDS 0.420
12 MUDS 0.267 152 MUDS 0.080 292 SANDS 0.390
13 MUDS 0.133 153 MUDS 0.160 293 SANDS 0.850
14 MUDS 0.133 154 MUDS 0.070 294 SANDS 0.530
15 MUDS 0.600 155 MUDS 0.110 295 SANDS 0.380
16 MUDS 0.067 156 MUDS 0.100 296 SANDS 0.410
17 MUDS 0.311 157 MUDS 0.110 297 SANDS 0.080
18 MUDS 0.102 158 MUDS 0.120 298 SANDS 0.530
19 MUDS 0.200 159 MUDS 0.090 299 SANDS 0.140
20 MUDS 0.207 160 MUDS 0.310 300 SANDS 0.900
21 MUDS 0.130 161 MUDS 0.140 301 SANDS 0.050
22 MUDS 0.044 162 MUDS 0.090 302 SANDS 0.550
23 MUDS 0.248 163 MUDS 0.170 303 SANDS 1.050
24 MUDS 0.365 164 MUDS 0.080 304 SANDS 0.600
25 MUDS 0.335 165 MUDS 0.100 305 SANDS 0.900
26 MUDS 0.540 166 MUDS 0.270 306 SANDS 0.430
27 MUDS 0.285 167 MUDS 0.080 307 SANDS 0.580
28 MUDS 0.649 168 MUDS 0.140 308 SANDS 0.420
29 MUDS 0.564 169 MUDS 0.300 309 SANDS 0.200
30 MUDS 0.686 170 MUDS 0.050 310 SANDS 0.100
31 MUDS 0.364 171 MUDS 0.100 311 SANDS 0.070
32 MUDS 0.220 172 MUDS 0.330 312 SANDS 0.210
33 MUDS 0.080 173 MUDS 0.270 313 SANDS 0.110
34 MUDS 0.581 174 MUDS 0.130 314 SANDS 0.210
35 MUDS 0.317 175 MUDS 0.050 315 SANDS 0.220
36 MUDS 0.541 176 MUDS 0.040 316 SANDS 0.240
37 MUDS 0.450 177 MUDS 0.160 317 SANDS 0.160
38 MUDS 0.619 178 MUDS 0.110 318 SANDS 0.180
39 MUDS 0.266 179 MUDS 0.130 319 SANDS 0.080
40 MUDS 0.694 180 MUDS 0.150 320 SANDS 0.430
87

41 MUDS 0.361 181 MUDS 0.160 321 SANDS 0.140
42 MUDS 0.220 182 MUDS 0.140 322 SANDS 0.100
43 MUDS 0.059 183 MUDS 0.140 323 SANDS 0.510
44 MUDS 0.080 184 MUDS 0.140 324 SANDS 0.440
45 MUDS 0.287 185 MUDS 0.160 325 SANDS 0.430
46 MUDS 0.195 186 MUDS 0.150 326 SANDS 0.040
47 MUDS 0.064 187 MUDS 0.130 327 SANDS 0.170
48 MUDS 0.479 188 MUDS 0.130 328 SANDS 0.060
49 MUDS 0.600 189 MUDS 0.120 329 SANDS 0.700
50 MUDS 0.443 190 SANDS 0.311 330 SANDS 0.090
51 MUDS 0.105 191 SANDS 0.200 331 SANDS 0.160
52 MUDS 0.551 192 SANDS 0.067 332 SANDS 0.190
53 MUDS 0.312 193 SANDS 0.650 333 SANDS 0.340
54 MUDS 0.210 194 SANDS 0.500 334 CRGP 1.092
55 MUDS 0.110 195 SANDS 0.920 335 CRGP 0.830
56 MUDS 0.210 196 SANDS 0.600 336 CRGP 0.580
57 MUDS 0.319 197 SANDS 1.100 337 CRGP 0.917
58 MUDS 0.556 198 SANDS 0.778 338 CRGP 0.723
59 MUDS 0.889 199 SANDS 0.267 339 CRGP 0.546
60 MUDS 0.067 200 SANDS 0.422 340 CRGP 0.614
61 MUDS 0.289 201 SANDS 1.000 341 CRGP 0.903
62 MUDS 0.067 202 SANDS 0.533 342 CRGP 0.891
63 MUDS 0.097 203 SANDS 0.222 343 CRGP 0.489
64 MUDS 0.348 204 SANDS 1.200 344 CRGP 1.000
65 MUDS 0.555 205 SANDS 0.680 345 CRGP 0.790
66 MUDS 0.387 206 SANDS 1.510 346 CRGP 1.333
67 MUDS 0.348 207 SANDS 0.230 347 CRGP 0.667
68 MUDS 0.132 208 SANDS 1.310 348 CRGP 0.644
69 MUDS 0.032 209 SANDS 0.414 349 CRGP 0.630
70 MUDS 0.048 210 SANDS 0.305 350 CRGP 0.780
71 MUDS 0.207 211 SANDS 0.103 351 CRGP 1.170
72 MUDS 0.309 212 SANDS 0.199 352 CRGP 0.780
73 MUDS 0.234 213 SANDS 0.316 353 CRGP 0.621
74 MUDS 0.248 214 SANDS 0.205 354 CRGP 0.910
75 MUDS 0.239 215 SANDS 0.082 355 CRGP 0.830
76 MUDS 0.048 216 SANDS 1.392 356 CRGP 0.588
77 MUDS 0.149 217 SANDS 1.760 357 CRGP 1.210
78 MUDS 0.093 218 SANDS 1.570 358 CRGP 0.840
79 MUDS 0.251 219 SANDS 1.000 359 CRGP 0.660
80 MUDS 0.195 220 SANDS 1.008 360 CRGP 1.167
81 MUDS 0.043 221 SANDS 0.685 361 CRGP 0.490
82 MUDS 0.317 222 SANDS 0.211 362 CRGP 1.360
88

83 MUDS 0.344 223 SANDS 0.339 363 CRGP 1.050
84 MUDS 0.110 224 SANDS 0.931 364 CRGP 1.443
85 MUDS 0.069 225 SANDS 1.571 365 CRGP 1.511
86 MUDS 0.043 226 SANDS 0.472 366 CRGP 1.141
87 MUDS 0.239 227 SANDS 1.229 367 CRGP 0.997
88 MUDS 0.190 228 SANDS 0.806 368 CRGP 1.598
89 MUDS 0.338 229 SANDS 0.795 369 CRGP 0.893
90 MUDS 0.046 230 SANDS 0.157 370 CRGP 0.810
91 MUDS 0.110 231 SANDS 1.165 371 CRGP 0.364
92 MUDS 0.280 232 SANDS 0.539 372 CRGP 0.950
93 MUDS 0.253 233 SANDS 0.292 373 CRGP 0.943
94 MUDS 0.273 234 SANDS 0.068 374 CRGP 1.256
95 MUDS 0.098 235 SANDS 0.619 375 CRGP 0.459
96 MUDS 0.090 236 SANDS 0.795 376 CRGP 0.711
97 MUDS 0.199 237 SANDS 0.848 377 CRGP 0.489
98 MUDS 0.244 238 SANDS 0.180 378 CRGP 0.850
99 MUDS 0.324 239 SANDS 0.525 379 CRGP 1.312
100 MUDS 0.217 240 SANDS 0.399 380 CRGP 1.733
101 MUDS 0.263 241 SANDS 1.629 381 CRGP 0.992
102 MUDS 0.242 242 SANDS 0.111 382 CRGP 1.160
103 MUDS 0.294 243 SANDS 0.926 383 CRGP 1.282
104 MUDS 0.355 244 SANDS 0.205 384 CRGP 1.149
105 MUDS 0.157 245 SANDS 0.439 385 CRGP 0.624
106 MUDS 0.113 246 SANDS 1.127 386 CRGP 1.002
107 MUDS 0.068 247 SANDS 0.873 387 CRGP 0.514
108 MUDS 0.123 248 SANDS 0.450 388 CRGP 0.500
109 MUDS 0.080 249 SANDS 0.214 389 CRGP 0.974
110 MUDS 0.242 250 SANDS 0.478 390 CRGP 0.377
111 MUDS 0.411 251 SANDS 0.619 391 CRGP 1.284
112 MUDS 0.191 252 SANDS 0.347 392 CRGP 0.487
113 MUDS 0.129 253 SANDS 0.960 393 CRGP 0.828
114 MUDS 0.251 254 SANDS 1.005 394 CRGP 0.322
115 MUDS 0.045 255 SANDS 0.209 395 CRGP 1.599
116 MUDS 0.157 256 SANDS 1.010 396 CRGP 0.743
117 MUDS 0.178 257 SANDS 0.698 397 CRGP 0.264
118 MUDS 0.469 258 SANDS 0.990 398 CRGP 0.286
119 MUDS 0.034 259 SANDS 0.222 399 CRGP 0.954
120 MUDS 0.125 260 SANDS 0.445 400 CRGP 1.002
121 MUDS 0.121 261 SANDS 1.856 401 CRGP 0.542
122 MUDS 0.173 262 SANDS 0.321 402 CRGP 0.830
123 MUDS 0.058 263 SANDS 0.533 403 CRGP 0.750
124 MUDS 0.109 264 SANDS 0.291 404 CRGP 0.372
89

125 MUDS 0.160 265 SANDS 0.061 405 CRGP 0.830
126 MUDS 0.251 266 SANDS 0.046 406 CRGP 0.406
127 MUDS 0.023 267 SANDS 0.060 407 CRGP 0.375
128 MUDS 0.052 268 SANDS 0.155 408 CRGP 1.278
129 MUDS 0.017 269 SANDS 0.114 409 CRGP 0.410
130 MUDS 0.138 270 SANDS 0.554 410 CRGP 0.450
131 MUDS 0.071 271 SANDS 0.526 411 CRGP 0.350
132 MUDS 0.241 272 SANDS 0.087 412 CRGP 0.410
133 MUDS 0.314 273 SANDS 0.379 413 CRGP 0.130
134 MUDS 0.069 274 SANDS 0.072 414 CRGP 0.170
135 MUDS 0.032 275 SANDS 0.072 415 CRGP 0.180
136 MUDS 0.383 276 SANDS 0.073 416 CRGP 0.720
137 MUDS 0.046 277 SANDS 0.048 417 CRGP 0.200
138 MUDS 0.089 278 SANDS 0.042 418 CRGP 0.110
139 MUDS 0.204 279 SANDS 0.050 419 CRGP 0.400
140 MUDS 0.113 280 SANDS 0.022

90

Table A.3: Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test, All Results
Type V
P
(m/s) Type V
P
(m/s) Type V
P
(m/s)
1 MUDS 7672.7 62 CRGP 29080.0 123 SANDS 2983.2
2 MUDS 13225.0 63 CRGP 9500.0 124 SANDS 2898.8
3 MUDS 17511.1 64 CRGP 5750.0 125 SANDS 3717.6
4 MUDS 22566.0 65 CRGP 1172.1 126 SANDS 3473.8
5 MUDS 1698.5 66 MUDS 3295.9 127 SANDS 3568.8
6 MUDS 2375.0 67 MUDS 2797.7 128 SANDS 3988.1
7 MUDS 2512.0 68 MUDS 3659.6 129 SANDS 3568.5
8 MUDS 2531.0 69 MUDS 2548.0 130 SANDS 3761.7
9 MUDS 2570.0 70 MUDS 2533.0 131 SANDS 2795.6
10 MUDS 4347.5 71 MUDS 2464.3 132 SANDS 3313.1
11 MUDS 1629.4 72 MUDS 2761.4 133 SANDS 1657.1
12 MUDS 3939.3 73 MUDS 2289.8 134 SANDS 2215.2
13 MUDS 2510.7 74 MUDS 2788.0 135 SANDS 3274.4
14 MUDS 2872.9 75 MUDS 2483.8 136 SANDS 2080.2
15 SANDS 1000.7 76 MUDS 1816.3 137 SANDS 2410.5
16 SANDS 1125.7 77 SANDS 1459.4 138 SANDS 3487.4
17 SANDS 920.4 78 SANDS 1629.5 139 CRGP 5997.5
18 SANDS 1814.7 79 MUDS 2151.2 140 CRGP 4585.5
19 SANDS 2078.7 80 MUDS 2303.3 141 MUDS 2368.2
20 SANDS 1900.8 81 SANDS 1729.5 142 MUDS 1129.7
21 SANDS 2597.4 82 MUDS 3558.5 143 MUDS 2601.1
22 SANDS 1169.3 83 MUDS 2300.8 144 CRGP 1606.1
23 SANDS 1429.5 84 MUDS 4636.8 145 CRGP 2851.4
24 SANDS 8275.9 85 MUDS 3738.2 146 MUDS 7161.7
25 CRGP 6015.0 86 MUDS 2441.9 147 CRGP 11472.2
26 CRGP 2351.6 87 MUDS 2700.0 148 CRGP 9488.9
27 CRGP 11730.8 88 MUDS 2314.8 149 CRGP 6577.7
28 SANDS 2869.3 89 MUDS 2314.8 150 SANDS 1876.9
29 MUDS 2097.6 90 SANDS 1770.5 151 SANDS 1712.4
30 MUDS 3714.8 91 SANDS 1612.0 152 SANDS 1835.5
31 MUDS 3714.8 92 SANDS 1322.7 153 SANDS 1938.2
32 MUDS 2612.4 93 MUDS 2819.5 154 SANDS 2238.0
33 MUDS 1816.7 94 MUDS 1124.4 155 SANDS 3069.4
34 MUDS 2296.9 95 MUDS 1054.0 156 SANDS 1573.0
35 MUDS 2150.4 96 MUDS 899.5 157 SANDS 2017.7
36 MUDS 1917.8 97 MUDS 1270.6 158 SANDS 1269.0
37 MUDS 1579.8 98 CRGP 7322.4 159 SANDS 1709.0
38 SANDS 1156.8 99 CRGP 5377.1 160 SANDS 3005.3
39 SANDS 3143.2 100 MUDS 1472.4 161 MUDS 999.6
40 SANDS 2788.5 101 MUDS 3720.6 162 MUDS 2572.8
91

41 SANDS 1999.2 102 MUDS 1530.5 163 MUDS 4364.3
42 MUDS 1474.4 103 SANDS 3855.6 164 MUDS 2813.3
43 MUDS 1526.0 104 SANDS 5075.0 165 SANDS 2545.5
44 MUDS 1946.6 105 SANDS 3839.5 166 SANDS 1959.7
45 MUDS 1996.5 106 SANDS 3471.1 167 SANDS 1078.3
46 MUDS 5945.5 107 SANDS 3283.9 168 SANDS 953.2
47 MUDS 12127.3 108 SANDS 4351.9 169 SANDS 747.3
48 MUDS 2004.0 109 SANDS 3537.7 170 SANDS 3200.0
49 MUDS 8786.1 110 SANDS 2879.1 171 SANDS 3690.9
50 MUDS 1168.6 111 SANDS 2702.5 172 SANDS 2976.7
54 MUDS 2547.3 115 MUDS 2498.6 176 SANDS 589.2
55 MUDS 2433.6 116 MUDS 2756.4 177 SANDS 1366.7
56 MUDS 4050.0 117 MUDS 3115.7 178 SANDS 566.1
57 MUDS 2767.2 118 MUDS 3339.3 179 SANDS 594.0
58 CRGP 3959.4 119 MUDS 2535.5 180 SANDS 689.6
59 CRGP 1352.9 120 SANDS 2780.0 181 SANDS 1416.8
60 CRGP 1132.8 121 SANDS 3492.1 182 MUDS 2089.2
61 CRGP 2372.3 122 SANDS 3187.1 183 MUDS 1656.4

92

Table A.4: Brazilian Splitting Test, All Results
Type S
t
(MPa) Type S
t
(MPa) Type S
t
(MPa)
1 MUDS 1.466 66 MUDS 0.699 131 CRGP 0.383
2 MUDS 1.773 67 MUDS 0.416 132 MUDS 2.173
3 MUDS 1.581 68 SANDS 0.205 133 CRGP 1.494
4 MUDS 1.644 69 SANDS 0.711 134 CRGP 1.255
5 MUDS 1.208 70 MUDS 0.334 135 CRGP 1.370
6 MUDS 0.789 71 MUDS 0.613 136 SANDS 1.214
7 MUDS 1.573 72 SANDS 0.284 137 MUDS 1.506
8 SANDS 0.230 73 MUDS 1.668 138 SANDS 1.733
9 SANDS 0.559 74 MUDS 1.005 139 MUDS 1.082
10 SANDS 1.012 75 MUDS 2.570 140 MUDS 1.943
11 SANDS 1.959 76 MUDS 1.253 141 SANDS 2.041
12 SANDS 1.284 77 MUDS 1.430 142 MUDS 0.290
13 SANDS 0.484 78 MUDS 1.113 143 SANDS 1.716
14 SANDS 0.514 79 MUDS 1.180 144 SANDS 1.888
15 SANDS 0.433 80 SANDS 0.304 145 MUDS 0.533
16 SANDS 1.309 81 SANDS 0.503 146 CRGP 0.337
17 CRGP 1.209 82 SANDS 0.377 147 MUDS 0.492
18 CRGP 1.109 83 MUDS 2.580 148 CRGP 1.973
19 CRGP 2.925 84 MUDS 0.758 149 MUDS 0.660
20 SANDS 2.442 85 CRGP 2.054 150 CRGP 1.023
21 MUDS 1.690 86 CRGP 2.170 151 MUDS 0.739
22 MUDS 2.317 87 MUDS 1.004 152 MUDS 1.306
23 MUDS 1.894 88 MUDS 2.332 153 MUDS 0.293
24 MUDS 1.011 89 MUDS 0.422 154 CRGP 1.811
25 MUDS 2.071 90 SANDS 2.618 155 MUDS 1.125
26 MUDS 1.411 91 SANDS 2.024 156 MUDS 0.979
27 MUDS 1.735 92 SANDS 2.788 157 CRGP 0.590
28 SANDS 0.477 93 SANDS 1.797 158 MUDS 0.492
29 SANDS 1.187 94 SANDS 1.915 159 MUDS 0.435
30 SANDS 1.380 95 SANDS 1.809 160 CRGP 0.643
31 SANDS 2.000 96 SANDS 1.052 161 MUDS 0.461
32 MUDS 1.236 97 SANDS 2.121 162 CRGP 1.724
33 MUDS 1.029 98 SANDS 0.608 163 SANDS 0.830
34 MUDS 0.900 99 SANDS 2.719 164 SANDS 0.704
35 MUDS 1.591 100 SANDS 1.670 165 SANDS 1.546
36 MUDS 1.205 101 SANDS 1.555 166 SANDS 2.397
37 MUDS 1.601 102 MUDS 1.036 167 SANDS 3.919
38 MUDS 0.772 103 MUDS 1.693 168 SANDS 0.698
39 MUDS 1.936 104 MUDS 1.449 169 SANDS 2.442
40 MUDS 1.105 105 MUDS 1.175 170 SANDS 4.189
93

41 MUDS 1.218 106 MUDS 1.798 171 SANDS 0.766
44 SANDS 0.643 109 SANDS 1.861 174 MUDS 0.486
45 MUDS 0.546 110 SANDS 1.306 175 MUDS 0.188
46 MUDS 1.988 111 SANDS 1.700 176 MUDS 0.604
47 MUDS 1.436 112 SANDS 2.264 177 MUDS 0.288
48 MUDS 1.505 113 SANDS 2.956 178 SANDS 0.206
49 CRGP 3.237 114 SANDS 2.710 179 SANDS 0.394
50 CRGP 0.935 115 SANDS 1.470 180 SANDS 0.140
51 CRGP 0.924 116 SANDS 2.760 181 SANDS 0.490
52 CRGP 2.173 117 SANDS 1.184 182 SANDS 0.091
53 CRGP 1.103 118 SANDS 1.519 183 SANDS 1.435
54 CRGP 1.433 119 SANDS 0.443 184 SANDS 1.844
55 CRGP 0.952 120 SANDS 0.386 185 SANDS 1.524
56 CRGP 1.359 121 SANDS 0.175 186 SANDS 1.075
57 MUDS 1.913 122 SANDS 0.607 187 SANDS 1.736
58 MUDS 1.723 123 SANDS 0.385 188 SANDS 1.370
59 MUDS 2.591 124 SANDS 1.279 189 SANDS 0.463
60 MUDS 1.151 125 CRGP 1.173 190 SANDS 0.196
61 MUDS 0.822 126 CRGP 0.727 191 SANDS 0.098
62 MUDS 0.945 127 MUDS 0.401 192 SANDS 0.168
63 MUDS 0.734 128 MUDS 0.799 193 SANDS 0.124
64 MUDS 1.011 129 MUDS 0.248 194 MUDS 0.510
65 MUDS 1.063 130 CRGP 0.418 195 MUDS 0.101

94

Table A.5: UCS Test, All Results
Type UCS (MPa) Type UCS (MPa) Type UCS (MPa)
1 MUDS 2.490 141 MUDS 1.388 281 SANDS 8.610
2 MUDS 1.970 142 MUDS 4.196 282 SANDS 2.378
3 MUDS 2.560 143 MUDS 1.724 283 SANDS 2.820
4 MUDS 3.120 144 MUDS 4.362 284 SANDS 3.638
5 MUDS 4.643 145 MUDS 2.059 285 SANDS 7.950
6 MUDS 3.020 146 MUDS 1.133 286 SANDS 4.560
7 MUDS 3.310 147 MUDS 1.564 287 SANDS 3.890
8 MUDS 3.520 148 MUDS 6.255 288 SANDS 2.950
9 MUDS 4.360 149 MUDS 3.019 289 SANDS 9.580
10 MUDS 3.540 150 MUDS 3.174 290 SANDS 8.600
11 MUDS 4.910 151 MUDS 2.219 291 SANDS 4.880
12 MUDS 3.880 152 MUDS 1.393 292 SANDS 2.660
13 MUDS 1.950 153 MUDS 2.447 293 SANDS 6.400
14 MUDS 1.780 154 MUDS 1.280 294 SANDS 4.626
15 MUDS 5.240 155 MUDS 1.797 295 SANDS 3.603
16 MUDS 0.920 156 MUDS 1.741 296 SANDS 3.889
17 MUDS 4.120 157 MUDS 1.801 297 SANDS 1.589
18 MUDS 1.800 158 MUDS 2.094 298 SANDS 4.544
19 MUDS 2.540 159 MUDS 1.684 299 SANDS 2.068
20 MUDS 4.020 160 MUDS 4.146 300 SANDS 6.372
21 MUDS 1.520 161 MUDS 1.842 301 SANDS 0.617
22 MUDS 0.690 162 MUDS 1.506 302 SANDS 4.621
23 MUDS 2.510 163 MUDS 2.640 303 SANDS 8.112
24 MUDS 3.890 164 MUDS 1.403 304 SANDS 4.787
25 MUDS 3.540 165 MUDS 1.702 305 SANDS 6.607
26 MUDS 4.850 166 MUDS 4.022 306 SANDS 3.818
27 MUDS 2.570 167 MUDS 1.392 307 SANDS 4.761
28 MUDS 4.840 168 MUDS 2.305 308 SANDS 3.883
29 MUDS 4.420 169 MUDS 4.375 309 SANDS 2.315
30 MUDS 5.310 170 MUDS 1.039 310 SANDS 1.867
31 MUDS 3.147 171 MUDS 1.641 311 SANDS 1.640
32 MUDS 2.630 172 MUDS 4.509 312 SANDS 2.558
33 MUDS 1.080 173 MUDS 3.920 313 SANDS 1.908
34 MUDS 4.460 174 MUDS 2.080 314 SANDS 2.247
35 MUDS 4.510 175 MUDS 1.007 315 SANDS 2.428
36 MUDS 3.710 176 MUDS 0.937 316 SANDS 2.724
37 MUDS 3.260 177 MUDS 2.468 317 SANDS 2.166
38 MUDS 4.120 178 MUDS 1.869 318 SANDS 2.166
39 MUDS 2.870 179 MUDS 2.115 319 SANDS 1.201
40 MUDS 3.840 180 MUDS 2.418 320 SANDS 3.943
95

41 MUDS 3.000 181 MUDS 2.396 321 SANDS 2.080
42 MUDS 4.120 182 MUDS 2.589 322 SANDS 1.868
43 MUDS 0.840 183 MUDS 2.253 323 SANDS 4.420
44 MUDS 1.320 184 MUDS 2.229 324 SANDS 3.998
45 MUDS 3.840 185 MUDS 2.333 325 SANDS 3.932
46 MUDS 2.650 186 MUDS 2.373 326 SANDS 1.335
47 MUDS 0.952 187 MUDS 2.196 327 SANDS 2.297
48 MUDS 3.820 188 MUDS 2.188 328 SANDS 1.242
49 MUDS 4.620 189 MUDS 2.083 329 SANDS 5.518
50 MUDS 5.120 190 SANDS 3.400 330 SANDS 1.626
51 MUDS 1.920 191 SANDS 2.080 331 SANDS 2.272
52 MUDS 3.480 192 SANDS 1.140 332 SANDS 2.384
53 MUDS 2.290 193 SANDS 6.990 333 SANDS 3.365
54 MUDS 3.890 194 SANDS 5.590 334 CRGP 8.319
55 MUDS 1.950 195 SANDS 8.660 335 CRGP 5.157
56 MUDS 2.130 196 SANDS 5.650 336 CRGP 6.762
57 MUDS 3.210 197 SANDS 5.980 337 CRGP 12.010
58 MUDS 4.390 198 SANDS 5.030 338 CRGP 5.060
59 MUDS 4.950 199 SANDS 2.920 339 CRGP 6.124
60 MUDS 0.840 200 SANDS 3.800 340 CRGP 16.120
61 MUDS 2.610 201 SANDS 6.700 341 CRGP 14.910
62 MUDS 0.960 202 SANDS 3.980 342 CRGP 10.160
63 MUDS 1.870 203 SANDS 2.710 343 CRGP 5.230
64 MUDS 2.450 204 SANDS 9.770 344 CRGP 5.570
65 MUDS 3.870 205 SANDS 7.250 345 CRGP 9.770
66 MUDS 3.520 206 SANDS 12.130 346 CRGP 16.960
67 MUDS 2.949 207 SANDS 2.920 347 CRGP 22.440
68 MUDS 1.820 208 SANDS 7.010 348 CRGP 15.250
69 MUDS 1.080 209 SANDS 4.880 349 CRGP 7.640
70 MUDS 1.120 210 SANDS 2.764 350 CRGP 6.880
71 MUDS 1.980 211 SANDS 2.020 351 CRGP 14.620
72 MUDS 2.320 212 SANDS 2.260 352 CRGP 12.130
73 MUDS 2.950 213 SANDS 3.410 353 CRGP 5.920
74 MUDS 3.533 214 SANDS 3.400 354 CRGP 8.170
75 MUDS 3.927 215 SANDS 1.900 355 CRGP 6.820
76 MUDS 0.960 216 SANDS 10.910 356 CRGP 7.420
77 MUDS 1.730 217 SANDS 13.840 357 CRGP 17.190
78 MUDS 1.360 218 SANDS 11.220 358 CRGP 12.870
79 MUDS 2.870 219 SANDS 9.610 359 CRGP 8.430
80 MUDS 1.920 220 SANDS 6.110 360 CRGP 16.000
81 MUDS 0.750 221 SANDS 4.890 361 CRGP 5.800
82 MUDS 2.610 222 SANDS 2.510 362 CRGP 11.180
96

83 MUDS 2.840 223 SANDS 3.500 363 CRGP 9.130
84 MUDS 1.217 224 SANDS 7.120 364 CRGP 7.700
85 MUDS 0.860 225 SANDS 4.090 365 CRGP 18.500
86 MUDS 0.970 226 SANDS 3.870 366 CRGP 8.700
87 MUDS 2.628 227 SANDS 9.260 367 CRGP 7.500
88 MUDS 4.119 228 SANDS 10.500 368 CRGP 9.920
89 MUDS 3.250 229 SANDS 9.680 369 CRGP 7.930
90 MUDS 2.484 230 SANDS 1.980 370 CRGP 5.170
91 MUDS 4.230 231 SANDS 8.620 371 CRGP 4.720
92 MUDS 3.410 232 SANDS 5.730 372 CRGP 4.560
93 MUDS 3.216 233 SANDS 2.780 373 CRGP 4.720
94 MUDS 3.158 234 SANDS 1.790 374 CRGP 8.930
95 MUDS 1.230 235 SANDS 4.260 375 CRGP 5.590
96 MUDS 2.100 236 SANDS 6.780 376 CRGP 6.210
97 MUDS 2.891 237 SANDS 7.830 377 CRGP 5.460
98 MUDS 2.496 238 SANDS 2.130 378 CRGP 8.100
99 MUDS 3.744 239 SANDS 3.890 379 CRGP 10.230
100 MUDS 3.100 240 SANDS 2.990 380 CRGP 19.300
101 MUDS 4.600 241 SANDS 9.780 381 CRGP 6.954
102 MUDS 3.579 242 SANDS 1.520 382 CRGP 8.311
103 MUDS 3.340 243 SANDS 7.320 383 CRGP 9.200
104 MUDS 3.652 244 SANDS 2.240 384 CRGP 7.600
105 MUDS 2.340 245 SANDS 4.150 385 CRGP 5.890
106 MUDS 0.810 246 SANDS 9.230 386 CRGP 14.600
107 MUDS 0.750 247 SANDS 5.300 387 CRGP 7.159
108 MUDS 2.010 248 SANDS 4.090 388 CRGP 12.806
109 MUDS 1.530 249 SANDS 2.880 389 CRGP 12.360
110 MUDS 3.110 250 SANDS 4.720 390 CRGP 6.450
111 MUDS 3.560 251 SANDS 5.820 391 CRGP 18.100
112 MUDS 2.744 252 SANDS 3.470 392 CRGP 8.960
113 MUDS 3.330 253 SANDS 8.520 393 CRGP 11.300
114 MUDS 4.489 254 SANDS 6.850 394 CRGP 8.200
115 MUDS 0.910 255 SANDS 1.980 395 CRGP 20.210
116 MUDS 3.340 256 SANDS 8.850 396 CRGP 11.259
117 MUDS 4.249 257 SANDS 5.890 397 CRGP 6.700
118 MUDS 4.980 258 SANDS 8.920 398 CRGP 4.950
119 MUDS 0.750 259 SANDS 2.780 399 CRGP 14.600
120 MUDS 1.966 260 SANDS 4.650 400 CRGP 16.077
121 MUDS 2.688 261 SANDS 12.450 401 CRGP 5.320
122 MUDS 2.531 262 SANDS 4.787 402 CRGP 11.708
123 MUDS 1.020 263 SANDS 3.320 403 CRGP 9.530
124 MUDS 3.000 264 SANDS 2.210 404 CRGP 6.970
97

125 MUDS 2.850 265 SANDS 1.420 405 CRGP 10.200
126 MUDS 3.910 266 SANDS 1.520 406 CRGP 5.680
127 MUDS 0.660 267 SANDS 1.610 407 CRGP 7.520
128 MUDS 0.910 268 SANDS 2.250 408 CRGP 22.606
129 MUDS 0.770 269 SANDS 1.940 409 CRGP 5.195
130 MUDS 1.646 270 SANDS 3.880 410 CRGP 5.390
131 MUDS 1.120 271 SANDS 4.630 411 CRGP 5.086
132 MUDS 2.991 272 SANDS 1.520 412 CRGP 5.979
133 MUDS 2.910 273 SANDS 3.770 413 CRGP 1.909
134 MUDS 1.320 274 SANDS 1.120 414 CRGP 2.513
135 MUDS 0.890 275 SANDS 1.145 415 CRGP 2.642
136 MUDS 5.230 276 SANDS 1.620 416 CRGP 10.565
137 MUDS 1.080 277 SANDS 1.570 417 CRGP 2.654
138 MUDS 1.840 278 SANDS 1.100 418 CRGP 1.551
139 MUDS 1.870 279 SANDS 0.980 419 CRGP 5.391
140 MUDS 2.614 280 SANDS 0.540

98

Table A.6: Modulus of Elasticity Test, All Results
Type E (MPa) Type E (MPa) Type E (MPa)
1 MUDS 820 31 MUDS 673 61 MUDS 584
2 MUDS 439 32 MUDS 732 62 MUDS 571
3 MUDS 539 33 MUDS 3435 63 CRGP 2077
4 MUDS 494 34 SANDS 1145 64 SANDS 1378
5 MUDS 2494 35 SANDS 2817 65 SANDS 1132
6 MUDS 891 36 SANDS 1925 66 SANDS 1023
7 MUDS 536 37 MUDS 1228 67 SANDS 1338
8 MUDS 962 38 MUDS 1414 68 SANDS 756
9 MUDS 1143 39 MUDS 1399 69 SANDS 761
10 MUDS 1226 40 CRGP 3118 70 SANDS 2542
11 MUDS 1274 41 CRGP 494 71 SANDS 249
12 MUDS 1144 42 CRGP 2247 72 MUDS 540
13 MUDS 1270 43 CRGP 2776 73 SANDS 6068
14 SANDS 762 44 CRGP 1002 74 SANDS 2973
15 SANDS 992 45 CRGP 736 75 SANDS 1097
16 SANDS 846 46 MUDS 1115 76 SANDS 572
17 SANDS 1640 47 MUDS 2179 77 SANDS 8736
18 SANDS 823 48 MUDS 679 78 MUDS 511
19 SANDS 990 49 MUDS 627 79 MUDS 236
20 SANDS 805 50 MUDS 811 80 CRGP 689
21 SANDS 455 51 MUDS 574 81 SANDS 2354
22 CRGP 828 52 MUDS 532 82 CRGP 7191
23 CRGP 1437 53 MUDS 448 83 CRGP 227
24 MUDS 2227 54 SANDS 542 84 CRGP 768
25 MUDS 1898 55 MUDS 1193 85 MUDS 298
26 MUDS 1241 56 MUDS 619 86 SANDS 1760
27 SANDS 1586 57 MUDS 666 87 SANDS 707
28 SANDS 1373 58 MUDS 539 88 SANDS 1594
29 SANDS 1162 59 MUDS 765 89 MUDS 910
30 MUDS 1427 60 MUDS 1798

99

Table A.7: Moisture Content Test, All Results
Type (%) Type (%) Type (%)
1 MUDS 0.604 141 MUDS 16.600 281 SANDS 1.331
2 MUDS 14.800 142 MUDS 15.800 282 SANDS 12.300
3 MUDS 15.300 143 MUDS 16.200 283 SANDS 13.700
4 MUDS 20.100 144 MUDS 12.600 284 SANDS 11.900
5 MUDS 6.219 145 MUDS 17.300 285 SANDS 8.500
6 MUDS 2.853 146 MUDS 18.500 286 SANDS 10.200
7 MUDS 0.907 147 MUDS 17.000 287 SANDS 12.900
8 MUDS 0.899 148 MUDS 12.300 288 SANDS 14.200
9 MUDS 1.624 149 MUDS 14.500 289 SANDS 9.100
10 MUDS 1.802 150 MUDS 14.700 290 SANDS 12.600
11 MUDS 1.992 151 MUDS 14.600 291 SANDS 10.200
12 MUDS 14.000 152 MUDS 15.400 292 SANDS 11.200
13 MUDS 14.200 153 MUDS 15.600 293 SANDS 8.200
14 MUDS 16.300 154 MUDS 16.700 294 SANDS 12.600
15 MUDS 4.305 155 MUDS 17.600 295 SANDS 14.200
16 MUDS 5.195 156 MUDS 17.000 296 SANDS 14.300
17 MUDS 18.342 157 MUDS 16.600 297 SANDS 15.000
18 MUDS 19.348 158 MUDS 15.400 298 SANDS 14.600
19 MUDS 17.481 159 MUDS 17.000 299 SANDS 15.100
20 MUDS 6.867 160 MUDS 15.900 300 SANDS 12.000
21 MUDS 8.236 161 MUDS 16.400 301 SANDS 17.600
22 MUDS 18.281 162 MUDS 18.000 302 SANDS 14.800
23 MUDS 17.751 163 MUDS 15.900 303 SANDS 11.300
24 MUDS 12.200 164 MUDS 17.000 304 SANDS 15.100
25 MUDS 2.200 165 MUDS 17.700 305 SANDS 11.700
26 MUDS 1.400 166 MUDS 12.500 306 SANDS 15.300
27 MUDS 2.000 167 MUDS 18.800 307 SANDS 15.500
28 MUDS 4.000 168 MUDS 15.100 308 SANDS 14.300
29 MUDS 3.000 169 MUDS 16.600 309 SANDS 14.300
30 MUDS 5.200 170 MUDS 17.600 310 SANDS 14.900
31 MUDS 3.700 171 MUDS 16.400 311 SANDS 14.200
32 MUDS 2.934 172 MUDS 12.200 312 SANDS 13.200
33 MUDS 18.000 173 MUDS 14.500 313 SANDS 15.600
34 MUDS 5.400 174 MUDS 15.100 314 SANDS 5.400
35 MUDS 4.800 175 MUDS 25.000 315 SANDS 15.900
36 MUDS 2.930 176 MUDS 24.800 316 SANDS 14.300
37 MUDS 12.300 177 MUDS 17.300 317 SANDS 13.800
38 MUDS 10.200 178 MUDS 19.300 318 SANDS 14.800
39 MUDS 17.200 179 MUDS 18.300 319 SANDS 15.800
40 MUDS 1.123 180 MUDS 17.000 320 SANDS 14.600
100

41 MUDS 5.900 181 MUDS 17.000 321 SANDS 14.800
42 MUDS 4.800 182 MUDS 17.000 322 SANDS 16.300
43 MUDS 12.500 183 MUDS 17.200 323 SANDS 13.500
44 MUDS 16.980 184 MUDS 17.000 324 SANDS 14.000
45 MUDS 3.191 185 MUDS 16.500 325 SANDS 14.800
46 MUDS 7.154 186 MUDS 17.300 326 SANDS 16.700
47 MUDS 2.120 187 MUDS 17.100 327 SANDS 10.100
48 MUDS 3.500 188 MUDS 17.000 328 SANDS 16.700
49 MUDS 15.000 189 MUDS 18.200 329 SANDS 12.100
50 MUDS 0.995 190 SANDS 9.100 330 SANDS 16.800
51 MUDS 23.500 191 SANDS 6.800 331 SANDS 16.300
52 MUDS 15.444 192 SANDS 2.907 332 SANDS 15.800
53 MUDS 14.012 193 SANDS 8.765 333 SANDS 14.300
54 MUDS 4.915 194 SANDS 6.826 334 CRGP 0.768
55 MUDS 8.992 195 SANDS 5.834 335 CRGP 0.742
56 MUDS 2.660 196 SANDS 6.713 336 CRGP 0.748
57 MUDS 6.547 197 SANDS 5.036 337 CRGP 1.500
58 MUDS 9.563 198 SANDS 7.439 338 CRGP 8.204
59 MUDS 16.953 199 SANDS 7.323 339 CRGP 4.602
60 MUDS 23.100 200 SANDS 10.165 340 CRGP 10.276
61 MUDS 18.600 201 SANDS 3.400 341 CRGP 8.111
62 MUDS 18.400 202 SANDS 1.842 342 CRGP 2.100
63 MUDS 22.340 203 SANDS 6.400 343 CRGP 17.652
64 MUDS 6.398 204 SANDS 11.427 344 CRGP 4.010
65 MUDS 10.167 205 SANDS 2.919 345 CRGP 14.963
66 MUDS 24.205 206 SANDS 3.246 346 CRGP 2.434
67 MUDS 2.099 207 SANDS 10.942 347 CRGP 2.191
68 MUDS 20.923 208 SANDS 4.952 348 CRGP 1.972
69 MUDS 22.468 209 SANDS 3.964 349 CRGP 4.212
70 MUDS 12.439 210 SANDS 1.040 350 CRGP 5.359
71 MUDS 4.494 211 SANDS 1.188 351 CRGP 3.620
72 MUDS 12.666 212 SANDS 2.800 352 CRGP 5.800
73 MUDS 21.954 213 SANDS 3.900 353 CRGP 4.988
74 MUDS 10.000 214 SANDS 2.076 354 CRGP 1.876
75 MUDS 25.290 215 SANDS 2.722 355 CRGP 3.989
76 MUDS 18.200 216 SANDS 2.981 356 CRGP 5.842
77 MUDS 11.818 217 SANDS 1.600 357 CRGP 3.219
78 MUDS 8.562 218 SANDS 0.587 358 CRGP 4.463
79 MUDS 22.412 219 SANDS 0.822 359 CRGP 3.809
80 MUDS 1.601 220 SANDS 0.786 360 CRGP 19.137
81 MUDS 1.885 221 SANDS 0.859 361 CRGP 5.200
82 MUDS 0.959 222 SANDS 1.106 362 CRGP 11.329
101

83 MUDS 1.050 223 SANDS 1.700 363 CRGP 1.200
84 MUDS 2.534 224 SANDS 2.600 364 CRGP 2.500
85 MUDS 1.397 225 SANDS 0.732 365 CRGP 1.593
86 MUDS 18.600 226 SANDS 0.730 366 CRGP 1.200
87 MUDS 23.600 227 SANDS 2.100 367 CRGP 2.900
88 MUDS 26.800 228 SANDS 2.100 368 CRGP 5.300
89 MUDS 19.400 229 SANDS 1.560 369 CRGP 2.400
90 MUDS 21.700 230 SANDS 1.800 370 CRGP 3.953
91 MUDS 22.100 231 SANDS 2.500 371 CRGP 4.600
92 MUDS 21.400 232 SANDS 1.800 372 CRGP 3.300
93 MUDS 21.600 233 SANDS 2.400 373 CRGP 14.060
94 MUDS 27.800 234 SANDS 3.800 374 CRGP 2.400
95 MUDS 23.000 235 SANDS 2.000 375 CRGP 1.700
96 MUDS 24.400 236 SANDS 2.000 376 CRGP 4.100
97 MUDS 16.700 237 SANDS 3.000 377 CRGP 12.300
98 MUDS 28.500 238 SANDS 2.700 378 CRGP 1.688
99 MUDS 21.600 239 SANDS 1.500 379 CRGP 8.200
100 MUDS 24.700 240 SANDS 2.000 380 CRGP 7.420
101 MUDS 28.500 241 SANDS 1.034 381 CRGP 14.200
102 MUDS 25.600 242 SANDS 6.500 382 CRGP 9.200
103 MUDS 19.700 243 SANDS 1.128 383 CRGP 4.600
104 MUDS 23.400 244 SANDS 2.100 384 CRGP 8.600
105 MUDS 7.400 245 SANDS 1.500 385 CRGP 6.600
106 MUDS 29.200 246 SANDS 2.700 386 CRGP 6.200
107 MUDS 28.100 247 SANDS 4.200 387 CRGP 6.000
108 MUDS 18.400 248 SANDS 3.000 388 CRGP 4.500
109 MUDS 18.800 249 SANDS 2.100 389 CRGP 4.000
110 MUDS 12.700 250 SANDS 4.800 390 CRGP 3.600
111 MUDS 28.500 251 SANDS 3.100 391 CRGP 3.000
112 MUDS 14.400 252 SANDS 2.900 392 CRGP 3.600
113 MUDS 16.600 253 SANDS 5.100 393 CRGP 4.900
114 MUDS 30.900 254 SANDS 2.053 394 CRGP 3.300
115 MUDS 15.200 255 SANDS 1.511 395 CRGP 11.200
116 MUDS 23.000 256 SANDS 3.314 396 CRGP 7.500
117 MUDS 20.600 257 SANDS 3.022 397 CRGP 4.900
118 MUDS 17.200 258 SANDS 4.007 398 CRGP 6.100
119 MUDS 19.900 259 SANDS 2.800 399 CRGP 4.300
120 MUDS 13.600 260 SANDS 2.795 400 CRGP 5.100
121 MUDS 25.300 261 SANDS 3.146 401 CRGP 5.800
122 MUDS 21.200 262 SANDS 1.461 402 CRGP 5.900
123 MUDS 25.700 263 SANDS 4.500 403 CRGP 5.000
124 MUDS 17.900 264 SANDS 1.600 404 CRGP 4.000
102

125 MUDS 20.000 265 SANDS 1.301 405 CRGP 6.300
126 MUDS 23.500 266 SANDS 1.449 406 CRGP 7.800
127 MUDS 14.200 267 SANDS 1.209 407 CRGP 2.700
128 MUDS 15.400 268 SANDS 1.314 408 CRGP 8.300
129 MUDS 13.900 269 SANDS 1.533 409 CRGP 7.400
130 MUDS 26.100 270 SANDS 1.206 410 CRGP 7.300
131 MUDS 14.800 271 SANDS 0.983 411 CRGP 7.500
132 MUDS 17.000 272 SANDS 1.169 412 CRGP 1.800
133 MUDS 22.600 273 SANDS 0.969 413 CRGP 17.300
134 MUDS 22.300 274 SANDS 0.839 414 CRGP 15.800
135 MUDS 27.800 275 SANDS 0.934 415 CRGP 14.900
136 MUDS 28.400 276 SANDS 1.103 416 CRGP 5.500
137 MUDS 26.900 277 SANDS 1.458 417 CRGP 13.200
138 MUDS 23.200 278 SANDS 2.096 418 CRGP 8.600
139 MUDS 22.600 279 SANDS 4.800 419 CRGP 13.200
140 MUDS 24.100 280 SANDS 2.179

103

Table A.8: Unit Weight Test, All Results
Type (kN/m
3
) Type (kN/m
3
) Type (kN/m
3
)
1 MUDS 15.900 141 MUDS 19.356 281 SANDS 15.773
2 MUDS 17.500 142 MUDS 20.184 282 SANDS 19.248
3 MUDS 18.200 143 MUDS 19.708 283 SANDS 18.886
4 MUDS 19.200 144 MUDS 20.245 284 SANDS 18.542
5 MUDS 18.258 145 MUDS 19.237 285 SANDS 19.758
6 MUDS 17.015 146 MUDS 18.439 286 SANDS 19.671
7 MUDS 17.509 147 MUDS 19.001 287 SANDS 19.701
8 MUDS 16.828 148 MUDS 20.630 288 SANDS 18.752
9 MUDS 17.924 149 MUDS 20.060 289 SANDS 19.987
10 MUDS 16.367 150 MUDS 19.717 290 SANDS 20.392
11 MUDS 16.447 151 MUDS 19.642 291 SANDS 19.307
12 MUDS 18.200 152 MUDS 18.845 292 SANDS 19.404
13 MUDS 18.192 153 MUDS 19.791 293 SANDS 19.433
14 MUDS 17.868 154 MUDS 18.252 294 SANDS 20.932
15 MUDS 18.221 155 MUDS 19.122 295 SANDS 19.882
16 MUDS 16.800 156 MUDS 18.942 296 SANDS 19.660
17 MUDS 19.300 157 MUDS 19.146 297 SANDS 19.171
18 MUDS 18.560 158 MUDS 18.937 298 SANDS 20.101
19 MUDS 17.900 159 MUDS 18.837 299 SANDS 19.210
20 MUDS 16.563 160 MUDS 19.773 300 SANDS 20.653
21 MUDS 17.011 161 MUDS 19.183 301 SANDS 17.722
22 MUDS 16.870 162 MUDS 18.656 302 SANDS 20.469
23 MUDS 18.100 163 MUDS 19.610 303 SANDS 21.325
24 MUDS 17.900 164 MUDS 18.509 304 SANDS 20.776
25 MUDS 16.200 165 MUDS 18.820 305 SANDS 20.743
26 MUDS 17.100 166 MUDS 20.565 306 SANDS 19.636
27 MUDS 15.780 167 MUDS 18.818 307 SANDS 20.386
28 MUDS 16.300 168 MUDS 18.692 308 SANDS 20.060
29 MUDS 15.800 169 MUDS 20.743 309 SANDS 19.877
30 MUDS 17.200 170 MUDS 18.593 310 SANDS 19.142
31 MUDS 15.743 171 MUDS 19.078 311 SANDS 19.528
32 MUDS 15.689 172 MUDS 20.117 312 SANDS 19.765
33 MUDS 17.200 173 MUDS 19.591 313 SANDS 19.455
34 MUDS 16.900 174 MUDS 18.957 314 SANDS 19.299
35 MUDS 17.400 175 MUDS 20.050 315 SANDS 19.749
36 MUDS 16.343 176 MUDS 20.118 316 SANDS 20.083
37 MUDS 17.100 177 MUDS 19.671 317 SANDS 18.754
38 MUDS 18.800 178 MUDS 19.828 318 SANDS 19.585
39 MUDS 18.633 179 MUDS 19.803 319 SANDS 18.505
40 MUDS 18.640 180 MUDS 19.644 320 SANDS 19.642
104

41 MUDS 16.439 181 MUDS 19.668 321 SANDS 19.619
42 MUDS 15.777 182 MUDS 19.644 322 SANDS 19.713
43 MUDS 16.650 183 MUDS 19.654 323 SANDS 19.511
44 MUDS 18.360 184 MUDS 19.679 324 SANDS 19.631
45 MUDS 16.540 185 MUDS 19.584 325 SANDS 19.585
46 MUDS 15.870 186 MUDS 19.683 326 SANDS 19.757
47 MUDS 14.853 187 MUDS 19.696 327 SANDS 19.279
48 MUDS 15.690 188 MUDS 19.715 328 SANDS 19.816
49 MUDS 17.200 189 MUDS 19.799 329 SANDS 19.438
50 MUDS 17.374 190 SANDS 19.300 330 SANDS 19.833
51 MUDS 19.870 191 SANDS 17.626 331 SANDS 19.690
52 MUDS 19.143 192 SANDS 17.337 332 SANDS 19.686
53 MUDS 15.371 193 SANDS 18.717 333 SANDS 19.591
54 MUDS 15.800 194 SANDS 17.124 334 CRGP 21.010
55 MUDS 15.309 195 SANDS 18.207 335 CRGP 19.560
56 MUDS 15.620 196 SANDS 17.535 336 CRGP 20.200
57 MUDS 17.316 197 SANDS 17.597 337 CRGP 20.930
58 MUDS 18.982 198 SANDS 17.323 338 CRGP 19.520
59 MUDS 19.870 199 SANDS 16.869 339 CRGP 20.230
60 MUDS 18.600 200 SANDS 18.734 340 CRGP 22.100
61 MUDS 19.799 201 SANDS 19.300 341 CRGP 21.360
62 MUDS 18.600 202 SANDS 18.945 342 CRGP 20.890
63 MUDS 19.340 203 SANDS 14.746 343 CRGP 20.271
64 MUDS 16.870 204 SANDS 18.076 344 CRGP 19.890
65 MUDS 16.800 205 SANDS 18.444 345 CRGP 20.800
66 MUDS 19.500 206 SANDS 19.272 346 CRGP 22.300
67 MUDS 15.400 207 SANDS 17.970 347 CRGP 22.600
68 MUDS 18.790 208 SANDS 18.977 348 CRGP 21.750
69 MUDS 17.900 209 SANDS 19.441 349 CRGP 20.560
70 MUDS 16.800 210 SANDS 18.200 350 CRGP 19.980
71 MUDS 16.800 211 SANDS 16.800 351 CRGP 20.740
72 MUDS 17.100 212 SANDS 17.000 352 CRGP 21.552
73 MUDS 18.200 213 SANDS 18.100 353 CRGP 20.453
74 MUDS 17.600 214 SANDS 18.700 354 CRGP 19.204
75 MUDS 19.800 215 SANDS 15.161 355 CRGP 19.420
76 MUDS 16.800 216 SANDS 18.007 356 CRGP 18.597
77 MUDS 17.600 217 SANDS 19.067 357 CRGP 21.289
78 MUDS 16.000 218 SANDS 18.588 358 CRGP 20.540
79 MUDS 19.600 219 SANDS 18.046 359 CRGP 21.200
80 MUDS 15.200 220 SANDS 18.500 360 CRGP 21.793
81 MUDS 14.336 221 SANDS 18.790 361 CRGP 21.244
82 MUDS 16.316 222 SANDS 17.500 362 CRGP 21.300
105

83 MUDS 16.086 223 SANDS 17.042 363 CRGP 19.910
84 MUDS 15.600 224 SANDS 18.900 364 CRGP 20.100
85 MUDS 16.026 225 SANDS 17.850 365 CRGP 21.300
86 MUDS 18.383 226 SANDS 17.530 366 CRGP 19.870
87 MUDS 20.518 227 SANDS 19.200 367 CRGP 20.140
88 MUDS 20.922 228 SANDS 19.610 368 CRGP 21.540
89 MUDS 18.376 229 SANDS 19.320 369 CRGP 20.750
90 MUDS 19.776 230 SANDS 17.300 370 CRGP 20.750
91 MUDS 20.733 231 SANDS 18.503 371 CRGP 20.300
92 MUDS 21.743 232 SANDS 17.900 372 CRGP 20.560
93 MUDS 19.906 233 SANDS 16.890 373 CRGP 21.540
94 MUDS 18.365 234 SANDS 17.169 374 CRGP 20.880
95 MUDS 21.464 235 SANDS 17.422 375 CRGP 19.760
96 MUDS 18.884 236 SANDS 18.790 376 CRGP 21.497
97 MUDS 19.582 237 SANDS 19.400 377 CRGP 21.754
98 MUDS 18.954 238 SANDS 16.391 378 CRGP 20.780
99 MUDS 19.274 239 SANDS 17.480 379 CRGP 21.780
100 MUDS 18.219 240 SANDS 16.800 380 CRGP 21.800
101 MUDS 18.645 241 SANDS 19.300 381 CRGP 21.730
102 MUDS 19.305 242 SANDS 16.300 382 CRGP 21.300
103 MUDS 18.577 243 SANDS 18.600 383 CRGP 20.780
104 MUDS 22.817 244 SANDS 16.526 384 CRGP 20.800
105 MUDS 17.979 245 SANDS 17.900 385 CRGP 21.853
106 MUDS 19.884 246 SANDS 20.310 386 CRGP 22.483
107 MUDS 20.060 247 SANDS 18.600 387 CRGP 22.430
108 MUDS 18.980 248 SANDS 18.990 388 CRGP 22.906
109 MUDS 18.782 249 SANDS 17.900 389 CRGP 22.963
110 MUDS 15.508 250 SANDS 18.600 390 CRGP 21.963
111 MUDS 18.144 251 SANDS 19.200 391 CRGP 23.525
112 MUDS 17.469 252 SANDS 18.570 392 CRGP 22.347
113 MUDS 18.982 253 SANDS 19.300 393 CRGP 22.627
114 MUDS 19.334 254 SANDS 18.450 394 CRGP 23.129
115 MUDS 20.056 255 SANDS 16.870 395 CRGP 22.852
116 MUDS 17.983 256 SANDS 19.660 396 CRGP 21.715
117 MUDS 18.235 257 SANDS 18.960 397 CRGP 22.449
118 MUDS 19.783 258 SANDS 18.660 398 CRGP 23.565
119 MUDS 17.493 259 SANDS 17.660 399 CRGP 17.825
120 MUDS 18.415 260 SANDS 18.990 400 CRGP 22.975
121 MUDS 17.617 261 SANDS 19.870 401 CRGP 22.133
122 MUDS 16.932 262 SANDS 15.276 402 CRGP 24.336
123 MUDS 19.986 263 SANDS 16.500 403 CRGP 22.995
124 MUDS 18.781 264 SANDS 14.383 404 CRGP 23.161
106

125 MUDS 18.600 265 SANDS 16.026 405 CRGP 22.876
126 MUDS 20.489 266 SANDS 16.456 406 CRGP 21.851
127 MUDS 18.763 267 SANDS 16.361 407 CRGP 23.600
128 MUDS 12.775 268 SANDS 16.669 408 CRGP 22.126
129 MUDS 19.431 269 SANDS 16.123 409 CRGP 21.920
130 MUDS 18.650 270 SANDS 18.849 410 CRGP 21.782
131 MUDS 18.207 271 SANDS 18.845 411 CRGP 22.310
132 MUDS 19.668 272 SANDS 15.890 412 CRGP 22.790
133 MUDS 17.985 273 SANDS 17.454 413 CRGP 21.820
134 MUDS 19.629 274 SANDS 15.780 414 CRGP 20.410
135 MUDS 22.621 275 SANDS 16.078 415 CRGP 21.260
136 MUDS 18.849 276 SANDS 15.660 416 CRGP 22.610
137 MUDS 19.670 277 SANDS 14.890 417 CRGP 20.670
138 MUDS 18.850 278 SANDS 15.230 418 CRGP 21.480
139 MUDS 20.106 279 SANDS 16.400 419 CRGP 21.210
140 MUDS 19.980 280 SANDS 15.990

Estimating UAE Sed. Rocks UCS From Emp. Correlations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estimating UAE Sed. Rocks UCS From Emp. Correlations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estimating Unconfined Compressive Strength of

Sedimentary Rocks in the United Arab Emirates

, offered by RocScience Inc. (2013), is a simple lab analysis software program in

You might also like