JournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015www.mwejournal.

org
doi:10.14355/mwe.2015.04.004

InvestigationofPhysicalandMechanical
PropertiesofSelectedRockTypesinKogi
StateUsingHardnessTests
Anikoh,G.A.*1,Adesida,P.A.2,Afolabi,O.C.3
DepartmentofMineralsandPetroleumResourcesEngineeringTechnology,KogiStatePolytechnic,Lokoja,
Nigeria,2DepartmentofMiningEngineering,theFederalUniversityTechnology,Akure,OndoState,Nigeria,
3DepartmentofMineralsandPetroleumResourcesEngineeringTechnology,AuchiPolytechnic,Auchi,EdoState,
Nigeria
*1

*1

anikohgodwin@yahoo.com;2adeniyi_adesida@yahoo.com;3cosmas_afolabi@yahoo.com

Abstract
The research investigated the physicomechanical properties of selected granite and limestone in Kogi State, Nigeria. The
objectives of the research were achieved through samples collection and analyses. The rock samples were collected for the
determination of the physicomechanical properties and the hardness properties of the rocks in the laboratory. The results
obtainedrevealthatthemeandensitiesofselectedgraniteandlimestoneare2.61g/cm3and2.67g/cm3respectivelywhiletheir
respectiveporositiesare1.35%and2.79%.Therespectivemainuniaxialcompressivestrength,pointloadstrengthandtensile
strengthoftheselectedgraniteandlimestoneare168.92MPa,112.17MPa,6.83MPa,4.34MPa,10.24MPaand6.51MPa.The
determined properties were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS of model IBM SPSS Statistics 21. The determined
physicomechanical properties are the dependent variables while the hardness properties are the independent variables. The
mathematical models were generated from the analysis. The generated models can be a useful tool in determining the
physicomechanicalpropertiesofthetestedrocks.
Keywords
PhysicomechanicalProperties;HardnessProperties;Density;Porosity;SPSS;MathematicalModel

Introduction
Rocks show a variety of physical and mechanical properties that may affect the use of rocks as a construction
material,theyarewidelyusedinstructuralandconstructionalworks,thephysicalandmechanicalpropertiesare
functions of mineralogical and textural characteristics of rock [1]. Those properties also may affect quarrying
operation,tunnellingminingslopestabilityandtheuseofrockasconstructionalmaterial[2].
Inaddition,experimentalanalysissuchastestsfortensilestrengthandcompressivestrengthoftherockcandictate
load or energy that can be absorbed before failure of rock mass [3]. Kahraman et al. [4] observed that the
physicomechanicalpropertiesinfluencingfragmentationofrocksincludeyoungmodulus,compressiveandtensile
strength.ErsoyandWaller[5]wereoftheviewthattexturesaremajorfactorsdeterminingthebehaviourofrock
prediction of performance. However, the strength of rocks does not only vary from rock to rock but also vary
withinthesamerocksandvariouslocalgeologicalconditions.Italsovarieswithseasonbecauseofmoistureeffect
on the mineral grains [6]. The strength of rock decreases with increase in water content due to reduction in the
coefficientofinternalfrictionoftherockparticles.Presenceofwaterinrockalsoincreasesthedeformabilityofthe
rockmass[7].
Faisaletal.[8]saidthatmanystudieshadbeencarriedouttocorrelatetheengineeringpropertiesofrockwithits
physical index properties. He explained further that Griffith [9] established the relationship between unconfined
compressivestrengthofdifferentrocktypes(sedimentary,igneous,andmetamorphicrocks)withtheirrespective
shore scleroscope hardness. Wuerker [10] also did similar work of correlating the uniaxial compressive strength
withshorescleroscopehardnessusingsimplelinearequation.DeereandMiller[11]alsocarriedoutanextensive
study on large number of rock samples representing different types of rocks (basalt, diabase, dolomite, gneiss,

37

www.mwejournal.orgJournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015

granite, limestone, marble, quartzite, rock salt, sandstone, schist, siltstone, and tuff) to develop an engineering
classificationsystemfortheintactrockandhediscoveredthatclassificationisstronglyaffectedbyrockmineralogy,
texture,andanisotropyotherresearchersthathaveestablishedrelationshipsbetweenrockpropertiesareAufmuth
[12],Singhetal.[13],ORourke[14],Sachpazis[15],TugrulandZarif[2],Katzetal.[16]amongothers.Thisresearch
work will establish the relationship between the hardness properties and physicomechanical properties of some
selectedrocksinKogiState,Nigeria.
GeologyofKogiState
Generally, Kogi State has two geological formations, Basement Complex and sedimentary basin. Approximately
halfofthestateiscoveredbycrystallinebasementcomplexwhiletheotherhalfiscoveredbycretaceoustorecent
sediments[17].Nigeriabasementandancienthardrockspredominantlyunderlinethewesternflankofthestate.
They are made of crystalline complex rocks (gneiss and migmatite) older Meta sediment Africa granites/older
granites)[18].Theeasternflankofthestateisonthealluvium(youngestandmostrecentsedimentaryrocks)and
other sedimentary rocks, which form part of cretaceous to recent sediments of Nigeria the crystalline complex
containseconomicsmineralssuchasIronOre,gemstone,quartz,feldsparandotherassociatedmineralwhilethe
pan Africagranite/ oldergranite contain cassiterite,tantalite, columbite, gemstone and other associatedminerals
[17].

FIGURE1:GEOLOGICALMAPOFKOGISTATESHOWINGTHESTUDYAREAS

Methods
DescriptionoftheStudy
ObajanaCementquarryislocatedat25kmfromKabbaJunctionroadofftheLokojaOkenehighway,Lokojaon
Latitude 0626511 and Longitude 0759816 and Gitto Construction Company is located opposite Bulleten
ConstructionCompanyFellele,LokojaonLatitude064417andLongitude074215bothinKogiState,Nigeria.
SampleCollectionandPreparation
ThesampleswerecollectedfromtwoselectedlocationswhichareObajanaCementquarryandGittoConstruction

38

JournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015www.mwejournal.org

Company both in Kogi State, Nigeria at different locations within the quarry faces using random sampling
technique.SamplesofgranitewerecollectedfromGittoquarrywhilelimestonesamplesweretakenfromObajana
cementquarry.Thesamplesforthedensity,porosityandpointloadtestswerepreparedinanirregularformand
thepreparationwascarriedoutintheRockMechanicslaboratoryattheFederalUniversityofTechnology,Akure
OndoState,Nigeria.ThepreparationsofthesesamplesfollowthestandardssuggestedbyISRM[19]andconform
toAmericanStandardforTestingMethod[20].
DeterminationofDensityofGraniteandLimestone
1)TestEquipmentandMaterials
The equipment used to determine the density of granite and limestone were; Measuring Cylinder, Oven
(24hours at 1050C +/5 0C), Desiccators, Caliper with accuracy of 0.1mm, Balance with accuracy of 0.01 g and
rangeof100gSamplecontainer(notcorrodible)withairtightlid;Sledgehammer.
2)TestMethod
The objective of the test is to measure the porosity of rock specimens of irregular form. The porosity is the
volume of pores in the rock expressed as a percentage of the total volume of the rock. The saturation and
Buoyancytechniqueforirregularrocksampleswereadoptedandtheproceduresfollowthestandardsuggested
byISRM[19]andconformtoASTM[20].Foursamplesofirregularformfromarepresentativesampleofrock
were prepared. The size of the specimens was made such that the following conditions were fulfilled: the
specimen mass should be at least 50 g of irregular form and the minimum specimen dimension should be at
leasttentimesthemaximumgrainsizeoftherock.
Thespecimenbulkvolume(V)wasdeterminedbymeasurementofthesaturatedsubmergedmass(Msub)and
thesaturatedmass(Msat)ofthesamplesforeachdimensionofthespecimen.Thespecimenissaturatedbywater
immersion in a vacuum of less than 800 Pa for a period of at least 1 hour, with periodic agitation to remove
trappedair.
Thespecimenisremovedfromthewaterandsurfacedriedusingamoistencloth,carebeingtakentoremove
onlysurfacewaterandtoensurethatnofragmentsarelost.Thespecimenislocatedinacontainertoavoidloss
of mass during subsequent sample handling. The mass of specimen plus container (B) is determined with an
accuracyof0.01g.Thespecimen(intheopencontainer)isdriedinanoventoconstantmass(generally24hours
isenough)atthetemperatureof105C.Afterclosureofthecontainerandcoolinginadesiccatorfor30minutes,
themass(C)ofthedrysamplewiththecontainer(andlid)isdeterminedwithanaccuracyof0.01g.
Thecontainerwiththelidiscleanedanddriedanditsmass(A)isdeterminedwithanaccuracyof0.01g.
Msat Msub
(1)
water
SaturatedsurfacedrymassMsat=BA(2)

Then,saturatedsurfacedrymass;Volume; V

SpecimenmassMs=CA(3)
PoreVolume, Vv

Msat Ms
(4)
Densityofwater ( w)

Porosity, n

Vv
100% (5)
V

HardnessTest
HardnesstestinvolvestheuseofSchmidtImpactHammeroftypeLforthehardnessdeterminationofinsiturock.
ThereboundvalueoftheSchmidtHammerisusedasanindexvaluefortheintactstrengthofrockmaterial,butit
is also used to give an indication of the compressive strength of rock material [19]. The major advantage of the
Schmidt hammer is that it is portable enough to be easily transported to and used in the field. The standard
methodfortheSchmidtHammertestasdescribedbyISRM[19]andASTM[20]wasfollowed.Themeasuredtest
valueswereorderedindescendingorder.Thelower50%ofthevalueswerediscardedandtheaverageobtainedof

39

www.mwejournal.orgJournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015

theupper50%valuetoobtaintheSchmidtReboundHardness[19].
DeterminationofRockwellHardness
1)TestMethod
Theirregularsampleswereprepared.Eachofthesampleshasthicknessnotgreaterthan10mm.Theindentor
was fixed on the digital Rockwell hardness tester. The load selector was turned to 150 kg to attain Rockwell
classC.Therankandpinwasturnedtomakethesampleincontactwiththeindentorfortheprimaryloadtobe
applied. The secondary load was applied by the machine itself automatically and the result was displayed.
Multipleindentationsweretakenoneachsampleforaccuracypurpose.Theaveragevalueswerethenrecorded.
Thesameprocedureswerefollowedoneachofthesamples.
MohsHardness
Mohs scale is a list of 10 common minerals that increase in hardness as one ascends the list. The selected rock
sampleswerescratchedagainstthemineralsontheMohsscale.ThevalueofthemineralontheMohsscalethat
correspondtowheretherockandthemineraldidnotscratcheachotherwasrecordedastherelativehardnessof
eachoftheselectedrocksamples.
UnconfinedCompressiveStrength(UCS)
TheuniaxialcompressivestrengthwasdeterminedbyadoptingthemathematicalmodeldevelopedbyAkramand
Bakar [21] which relatedpoint load strength indexanduniaxialcompressivestrength foruncored rock samples
wasadopted.ThemodelisshowninEquation(7).

c 22.792 I s (50) 13.295 (6)

PointLoadStrength
1)TestMethod
Theirregularrocksamplewaspreparedusingsledgehammer.Thesamplewidthwasmeasuredwiththeaid
veneercalliper.Thespecimenwasplacedbetweentheplatenpointinawaytoallowatleast0.5thediameter
and the distance between the platens was measured and recorded. The lower platen was raised into firm
contactwiththespecimenusingthepump.Themaximumloadachievedwasrecorded.Thepressuresreleased
valvewasopenedandmanuallyforcedthelowerplatendowntoallowthenextspecimentobetested.
Thecalculationwascarriedoutbyusinguncorrectedpointloadtestmethod.
Is P

where isthefailureloadand

De2

(7)

istheequivalentdiameter.
De2

A4

(8)

A DH

whereDisthedistancebetweenloadcontactpointsinmmandHisthewidthofthespecimeninmm.
F

De

50

0.45

(9)

isthecorrectionfactor.
I s (50) FI s (10)

where I s ( 50 ) isthecorrectedpointloadstrengthindex.
TensileStrength
Rocks are complex material and thereis nosinglefactor to relateuniaxial compressive with tensile strength like

40

JournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015www.mwejournal.org

otherstrengthparameterssuchasshearstrengthetc.ISRM[22]relationshipbetweenthepointloadstrength(Is(50))
andtensilestrength(To)asshowninEquation(12)belowwasusedinestimatingthetensilestrength.

To 1.5 I s (50) (11)

TheEquation(12)isadoptedinthisstudytodeterminethetensilestrength.
Results and Discussion
Results
Tables1and2aretheresultsoftheSchmidthardnesstestvaluesofGraniteandLimestonewhichwereobserved
onthefield.
TABLE1:SCHMIDTREBOUNDHARDNESSOFUPPER50%AVERAGEDFORGRANITE

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

54.0

55.0

50.0

50.0

54.0

50.0

50.0

48.0

50.0

48.0

50.0

48.0

48.0

50.0

48.0

48.0

46.0

45.0

47.0

48.0

46.0

46.0

44.0

46.0

46.0

46.0

46.0

44.0

45.0

45.0

44.0

44.0

42.0

45.0

45.0

44.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

44.0

Upper50%Averaged

S/N

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

42.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

44.0

10

40.0

38.0

38.0

40.0

42.0

46.4

45.3

43.9

45.3

46.4

AVG

TABLE2:SCHMIDTREBOUNDHARDNESSOFUPPER50%AVERAGEDFORLIMESTONE

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

46.0

45.0

45.0

46.0

44.0

44.0

43.0

42.0

42.0

43.0

42.0

42.0

40.0

40.0

43.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

40.0

42.0

38.0

40.0

38.0

38.0

42.0

38.0

40.0

38.0

38.0

42.0

34.0

40.0

36.0

36.0

40.0

34.0

38.0

36.0

36.0

40.0

34.0

38.0

35.0

36.0

40.0

10

34.0

35.0

35.0

33.0

38.0

38.4

40.1

38.5

38.5

41.4

Upper50%Averaged

S/N

3
4
5
6
7
8

AVG

TABLE3:ROCKWELLANDMOHRHARDNESSOFTHEGRANITESAMPLES

S/N

Rockwell

MohrHardness

87.9

6.5

92.9

7.0

86.2

6.8

89.0

7.5

89.0

6.5

AVG

89.0

6.9

41

www.mwejournal.orgJournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015

TABLE4:ROCKWELLANDMOHRHARDNESSOFTHELIMESTONESAMPLES

S/N

Rockwell

MohrHardness

79.2

3.0

95.5

3.8

86.8

3.5

86.6

3.6

84.8

3.2

AVG

86.6

3.4

TABLE5:DENSITYOFGRANITE

S/N

Mass(g)

V1(cm3)

V2(cm3)

V(cm3)

(g/cm3)

27.0

300.0

310.0

10.0

2.70

38.0

300.0

315.0

15.0

2.53

26.0

300.0

310.0

10.0

2.60

31.0

300.0

312.0

12.0

2.58

29.0

300.0

311.0

11.0

2.63

Average

2.61

TABLE6:DENSITYOFLIMESTONE

S/N

Mass(g)

V1(cm3)

V2(cm3)

V(cm3)

(g/cm3)

50.0

300.0

319.0

19.0

2.63

33.0

300.0

312.0

12.0

2.75

54.0

300.0

321.0

21.0

2.57

62.0

300.0

323.0

23.0

2.70

54.0

300.0

320.0

20.0

2.70

Average

2.67

TABLE7:POROSITYOFGRANITE

S/N

Mass(g)

Ms

Md

Vv

(%)

27.0

35

34.90

0.10

8.0

1.25

38.0

43

42.95

0.05

5.0

1.00

26.0

32

31.92

0.08

6.0

1.33

31.0

37

36.93

0.07

6.0

1.17

29.0

33

32.92

0.08

4.0

2.00

Average

1.35

TABLE8:POROSITYOFLIMESTONE

S/N

Mass(g)

Ms

Md

Vv

(%)

50.0

60

59.78

0.22

10.0

2.20

33.0

44

43.67

0.33

11.0

3.00

54.0

62

61.80

0.20

8.0

2.50

62.0

69

68.80

0.20

7.0

2.90

54.0

64

63.67

0.33

10.0

3.30

Average

42

2.79

JournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015www.mwejournal.org

TABLE9:UNIAXIALCOMPRESSIVESTRENGTHOFTHEGRANITESAMPLES

S/N

Is(50)(MPa)

c(MPa)

*StrengthClassification

5.85

146.63

Veryhigh

8.06

197.00

Veryhigh

7.52

184.69

Veryhigh

5.95

148.91

Veryhigh

6.76

167.37

Veryhigh

168.92

Veryhigh

Average

TABLE10:UNIAXIALCOMPRESSIVESTRENGTHOFTHELIMESTONESAMPLES

S/N

Is(50)(MPa)

c(MPa)

*StrengthClassification

3.90

102.18

Veryhigh

2.68

74.38

Veryhigh

5.03

127.94

Veryhigh

4.80

122.70

Veryhigh

5.28

133.64

Veryhigh

112.17

Veryhigh

Average
*Bell[23]

TABLE11:POINTLOADINDEXOFTHEGRANITESAMPLES

S/N

D(mm)

H
(mm)

Failure
Load(N)

A
(mm2)

De2
(mm2)

Is(MPa)

Is(50)
(MPa)

*StrengthClassification

60.0

45.0

18.80

2700

3437.75

5.47

1.07

5.85

VeryHighStrength

70.0

38.0

25.51

2660

3386.82

7.53

1.07

8.06

VeryHighStrength

50.0

50.0

22.56

2500

3183.10

7.09

1.06

7.52

VeryHighStrength

45.0

62.0

19.56

2790

3552.34

5.51

1.08

5.95

VeryHighStrength

55.0

48.8

21.61

2684

3417.37

6.32

1.07

6.76

VeryHighStrength

6.83

VeryHighStrength

*BrochandFranklin[24]
TABLE12:POINTLOADINDEXOFTHELIMESTONESAMPLES

S/N

D(mm)

H(mm)

Failure
Load(N)

A(mm2)

De2(mm2)

Is(MPa)

Is(50)(Mpa)

*Strength
Classification

48.0

38.0

9.25

1824.0

2322.39

3.98

0.98

3.90

Veryhigh

52.0

44.0

7.51

2288.0

2913.17

2.58

1.04

2.68

Veryhigh

48.0

45.0

13.56

2160.0

2750.20

4.93

1.02

5.03

Veryhigh

50.0

55.0

15.54

2750.0

3501.41

4.44

1.08

4.80

Veryhigh

45.0

45.5

11.47

2047.5

2047.50

5.50

0.96

5.28

Veryhigh

4.34

Veryhigh

*BrochandFranklin[24]
TABLE13:TENSILESTRENGTHOFTHEGRANITESAMPLES

S/N

Is(50)(MPa)

To(MPa)

*StrengthClassification

5.85

8.78

VeryHigh

8.06

12.09

VeryHigh

7.52

11.28

VeryHigh

5.95

8.93

VeryHigh

6.76

10.14

VeryHigh

10.24

VeryHigh

*Bell[23]

43

www.mwejournal.orgJournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015

TABLE14:TENSILESTRENGTHOFTHELIMESTONESAMPLES

S/N

Is(50)(MPa)

To(MPa)

*StrengthClassification

3.90

5.85

VeryHigh

2.68

4.02

VeryHigh

5.03

7.55

VeryHigh

4.80

7.20

VeryHigh

5.28

7.92

VeryHigh

6.51

VeryHigh

*Bell[23]

Tables15to24showtheresultsofmodelsdevelopedusingSPSSsoftware.
TABLE15:MODELCOMPUTATIONGRANITE(DENSITYISTHEDEPENDENTVARIABLE)

Model

Std.Error

Sig.

Constant

2.868

2.781

1.031

0.490

RW

0.006

0.017

0.384

0.767

SH

0.020

0.044

0.452

0.730

MH

0.085

0.109

0.784

0.577

TABLE16:MODELCOMPUTATIONFORLIMESTONE(DENSITYISTHEDEPENDENTVARIABLE)

Model

Std.Error

Sig.

Constant

1.132

1.771

0.639

0.638

RW

0.000

0.036

0.017

0.989

SH

0.031

0.061

0.515

0.697

MH

0.102

0.626

0.164

0.897

TABLE17:MODELCOMPUTATIONFORGRANITE(POROSITYISTHEDEPENDENTVARIABLE)

Model

Std.Error

Sig.

Constant

9.245

6.219

1.486

0.377

RW

0.121

0.038

3.212

0.192

SH

0.053

0.098

0.538

0.686

MH

0.372

0.243

1.531

0.368

TABLE18:MODELCOMPUTATIONFORLIMESTONE(POROSITYISTHEDEPENDENTVARIABLE)

Model

Std.Error

Sig.

Constant

12.626

1.681

7.511

0.084

RW

0.125

0.034

3.651

0.170

SH

0.438

0.058

7.559

0.084

MH

2.615

0.594

4.402

0.142

TABLE19:MODELCOMPUTATIONFORGRANITE(UCSISTHEDEPENDENTVARIABLE)

44

Model

Std.Error

Sig.

Constant

791.205

511.666

1.546

0.365

RW

8.251

3.096

2.665

0.229

SH

2.444

8.045

0.304

0.812

MH

16.717

19.981

0.837

0.556

JournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015www.mwejournal.org

TABLE20:MODELCOMPUTATIONFORLIMESTONE(UCSISTHEDEPENDENTVARIABLE)

Model

Std.Error

Sig.

Constant

151.372

426.733

0.355

0.783

RW

14.015

8.667

1.617

0.353

SH

19.462

14.715

1.323

0.412

MH

207.770

150.858

1.377

0.400

TABLE21:MODELCOMPUTATIONFORGRANITE(POINTLOADISTHEDEPENDENTVARIABLE)

Model

Std.Error

Sig.

Constant

35.299

22.452

1.572

0.361

RW

0.362

0.136

2.665

0.229

SH

0.107

0.353

0.304

0.812

MH

0.734

0.877

0.837

0.556

TABLE22:MODELCOMPUTATIONFORLIMESTONE(POINTLOADISTHEDEPENDENTVARIABLE)

Model

Std.Error

Sig.

Constant

7.221

18.722

0.386

0.766

RW

0.615

0.380

1.617

0.353

SH

0.854

0.646

1.322

0.412

MH

9.115

6.619

1.377

0.400

TABLE23:MODELCOMPUTATIONFORGRANITE(TENSILESTRENGTHISTHEDEPENDENTVARIABLE)

Model

Std.Error

Sig.

Constant

52.835

33.686

1.568

0.361

RW

0.541

0.204

2.653

0.229

SH

0.164

0.530

0.309

0.809

MH

1.095

1.315

0.832

0.558

TABLE24:MODELCOMPUTATIONFORLIMESTONE(TENSILESTRENGTHISTHEDEPENDENTVARIABLE)

Model

Std.Error

Sig.

Constant

10.808

28.158

0.384

0.767

RW

0.922

0.572

1.613

0.353

SH

1.280

0.971

1.318

0.413

MH

13.672

9.954

2.737

0.401

CorrelationbetweenthePhysicalandMechanicalPropertiesoftheSelectedRockTypes
Figure2showstheplotofdensityofGraniteagainstthestandardizedresidualvaluesandFigure3showstheplot
of density of limestone against the standardized residual values. Figures 4 and 5 show the plot of porosity of
graniteandlimestoneagainstthestandardizedresidualvaluesrespectively.Figures6and7showtheplotofUCS
of granite and limestone against the standardized residual values respectively. Figures 8 and 9 show the plot of
point load strength index of granite and limestone against the standardized residual values respectively and
Figures 10 and 11 show the plot of tensile strength of granite and limestone against the standardized residual
valuesrespectively.

45

www.mwejournal.orgJournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015

FIGURE2:DENSITYOFGRANITEAGAINSTTHESTANDARDIZEDRESIDUALVALUES

FIGURE3:DENSITYOFLIMESTONEAGAINSTTHESTANDARDIZEDRESIDUALVALUES

FIGURE4:POROSITYOFGRANITEAGAINSTTHESTANDARDIZEDRESIDUALVALUES

FIGURE5:POROSITYOFLIMESTONEAGAINSTTHESTANDARDIZEDRESIDUALVALUES

46

JournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015www.mwejournal.org

FIGURE6:UCSOFGRANITEANDTHEHARDNESSVALUES

FIGURE7:UCSOFLIMESTONEANDTHEHARDNESSVALUES

FIGURE8:POINTLOADSTRENGTHINDEXOFGRANITEANDSTANDARDIZEDRESIDUALVALUES

FIGURE9:POINTLOADSTRENGTHINDEXOFLIMESTONEANDSTANDARDIZEDRESIDUALVALUES

47

www.mwejournal.orgJournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015

FIGURE10:TENSILESTRENGTHINDEXOFGRANITEANDSTANDARDIZEDRESIDUALVALUES

FIGURE11:TENSILESTRENGTHINDEXOFLIMESTONEANDSTANDARDIZEDRESIDUALVALUES

Discussion
Table5andTable6showtheresultofdensityofgraniteandlimestonedeterminedfromlaboratorytest.Thevalue
ofdensityforthegraniterangesfrom2.53g/cm3to2.70g/cm3andthevalueofdensityoflimestonerangesfrom
2.57g/cm3to2.75g/cm3.Theresultofporosityofgraniteandlimestonedeterminedfromthelaboratoryisshownin
Table8andTable9,thevalueoftheporosityforthegraniterangesfrom1.00%to2.00%whilethatoflimestone
ranges from 2.20 % to 3.30 %. Limestone is more porous than granite as it is evidence from the result obtained.
Table10andTable11showtheresultofuniaxialcompressivestrengthofgraniteandlimestone,forthegranite,the
valuerangesfrom146.63MPato197.00MPawhilethatoflimestonerangesfrom102.18MPato133.64MPa.The
uniaxialcompressivestrengthofgraniteandthatoflimestonefallwiththerangeofaveryhighstrengthaccording
toBrochandFranklin[24].Table12andTable13showtheresultsofpointloadtestofgraniteandlimestone,the
valuerangesfrom5.85MPato8.06MPaforthegraniteandthatoflimestonerangesfrom2.68MPato5.28MPa.
Table14andTable15showtheresultsoftensilestrengthofgraniteandlimestone,thevaluerangesfrom8.78to
12.09 MPa for granite and that of limestone varies from 4.02 MPa to 7.92 MPa. The point load index values and
tensilestrengthofbothgraniteandlimestonefallwithintherangeofaveryhighstrengthaccordingtoBrochand
Franklin [24] classification. Tables 16 to 17 show the result of the models generated for the determination of the
physicomechanical properties of the selected rocks from the hardness properties using SPSS software. From the
tablesalltheinputvariablesaresignificantandtheretvaluesarefargreaterthan1.
CorrelationbetweenthePhysicalandMechanicalPropertiesoftheSelectedRockTypes
The determined physical and mechanical properties were also correlated using SPSS. Figure 2 shows the plot of
densityofgraniteagainsttheStandardizedresidualvalues.Thepositivelinearrelationshipexistsbetweenthem,
theequationofthelineispresentedinEquation13.

2.868 0.006 RW 0.020 SH 0.085MH (12)

48

JournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015www.mwejournal.org

Thecoefficientofthecorrelation(R2)is0.577indicatingthatbothvariableareaveragelycorrelated.
Figure 3 shows the plot of density of limestone against the standardized residual values. Positive linear
relationshipexistsbetweenthem,theequationofthelineispresentedinEquation14.

1.132 0.000 RW 0.031SH 0.102 MH (13)

Thecoefficientofcorrelation(R2)is0.516indicatingthatbothvariablesareaveragelycorrelated.
Figure 4 shows the plot of porosity of Granite and the standardized residual values. The equation of the line is
presentedinEquation15,theequationindicatinganegativelinearrelationshipbetweenthem,andthecoefficient
ofcorrelation(R2)is0.943indicatingaverystrongrelationshipbetweenthem.

9.245 0.121RW 0.053SH 0.372MH (14)

Figure5showstheplotofporosityofLimestoneandthestandardizedresidualvalues.Theequationofthelineis
presented in Equation 16, the equation indicates a negative linear relationship between them. The coefficient of
correlation(R2)is0.988indicatingaveryhighstrongrelationshipbetweenthem.

12.626 0.125RW 0.438SH 2.615MH (15)

Figure6showstheplotofUCSofgraniteandhardnessvaluesasobtainedfromtheSPSS.Theequationoftheline
is as written in Equation 17, indicating a negative linear relationship between them. The coefficient of the
correlationR2is0.883indicatingstrongrelationshipbetweenthem.

UCS 791.205 8.251RW 2.444SH 16.717MH (16)

Figure7showstheplotofUCSoflimestoneandhardnessvalues.TheequationofthelineiswritteninEquation18.

UCS 151.372 14.015 RW 19.462 SH 207.770 MH (17)

Theequationindicatesanegativelinearrelationshipbetweenthem,andthatthecoefficientofthecorrelationR2is
0.883indicatingstrongrelationshipbetweenthem.
Figure 8 shows the plot of point load strength index of Granite against the standardized residual values. The
equationofthegraphispresentedinEquation(19).

I S ( 50 ) 35.299 0.362 RW 0.107 SH 0.734 MH (18)

The equation indicates a negative linear relationship between them. The relatively coefficient of correlation R2 is
0.883indicatingstrongrelationshipbetweenthem.
Figure 9 shows the plot of point load strength index of limestone against the standardized residual values. The
equationofthelineispresentedinEquation(20).

I S ( 50 ) 7.221 0.615 RW 0.854 SH 9.115 MH (19)

Theequationshowsthatanegativelinearrelationshipexistsbetweenthem.Therelativelycoefficientofcorrelation
R2is0.763indicatingstrongrelationshipbetweenthem.
Figure10showstheplotoftensilestrengthindexofgraniteandthestandardizedresidualvalues.Theequationof
thelineispresentedinEquation(21).

To 52.835 0.541RW 0.164SH 1.095MH (20)

Theequationindicatesanegativelinearrelationshipbetweenthem,andthecoefficientofcorrelation(R2)is0.882
indicatingaverystrongrelationshipbetweenthem.
Figure11showstheplotoftensilestrengthindexofLimestoneandthestandardizedresidualvalues.Theequation
ofthelineiswritteninEquation(22).
To=10.8080.922RW+1.280SH+0.164SH+13.678MH(21)

49

www.mwejournal.orgJournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015

There is an indication of negative linear relationship between the mechanical properties and the rock hardness.
Thecoefficientofcorrelation(R2)is0.762indicatingslightlystrongrelationshipbetweenthem.
Conclusions
Fromtheresultsoftheresearchthefollowingconclusionscanbedrawn:
(a)Thetwotestedrockshaveveryhighmechanicalpropertiesthatcanbeusedforengineeringapplication;and
(b) The model equations generated can be used in determining the density, porosity, uniaxial compressive
strength,pointloadandtensilestrengthsofboththegraniteandlimestone.
REFERENCES

[1]

Irfan, T. Y. Mineralogy, Fabric Properties and Classification of Weathered Granites in Hong Kong. Quarterly Journal of
EngineeringGeology,No.29,p.535.1996.

[2]

Tugrul, A. and Zarif, I. H. Correlation of Mineralogical and Textural Characterization with Engineering Properties of
SelectedGranitehttp:www.sciencedirect.com/scienceretrievedJanuary14,2008pp.303315.1999

[3]

Adebayo,B.andUmeh,E.C.InfluenceofsomeRockPropertiesonBlastingPerformance,J.Eng.AppliedSci,2(1)pp41
44.2007.

[4]

Kahraman,S.,Bilgin,N.andFeridunoghi,C.DominantRockPropertiesAffectingthePenetrationRateofPercussiveDrills.
Int.J.RockMechanicsMiningSci.(40)pp.711723.2003.

[5]

Ersoy,A.andWaller,M.D.TexturalCharacteristicsofRocks.Eng.Geol,(39)pp.123126.1995.

[6]

Ojo, O. and Brook, N. Effect of Moisture on some Mechanical Properties of Rock. Min. Sci. and Tech. (10), Elsevier. Sci.
Publisher,B.V.Amsterdam,pp.145156,1990.

[7]

Ojo,O.andOlaleyeB.M.ClassificationofOndoStateIntactRockforEngineeringPurposes.JournalofSci.Eng.andtech.,
(11)3,pp.57535759.2004.

[8]

Faisal,I.S.,Edward,J.C.,andOmar,H.A.:Estimationofrockengineeringpropertiesusinghardnesstests,Engineering
Geology,Vol.90,pp.138147.2007.

[9]

Griffith,J.H.PhysicalpropertiesoftypicalAmericanrocks.IowaEngineeringExperimentStationBulletinp.131.1937.

[10] Wuerker,R.Thestatusoftestingstrengthofrock.Trans.Min.Eng.AIME,pp.11081113.1953.
[11] Deere, D. U. and Miller, R. P. Engineering Classification and Index Properties for Intact Rock. Tech. Report. Air Force
WeaponsLab.,NewMexico,No.AFWLTR65116.1966.
[12] Aufmuth,R.E.ASystematicDeterminationofEngineeringCriteriaforRocks.Bull.Assoc.Eng.Geol.11,235245.1973.
[13] Singh,R.N.,Hassani,F.P.andElkington,P.A.S.Theapplicationofstrengthanddeformationindextestingtothestability
assessmentofcoalmeasuresexcavations.Proc.24thUSSymp.OnRockMech.,TexasA&MUniv.AEG,pp.599609,1983.
[14] ORourke,J.E.Rockindexpropertiesforgeoengineeringinundergrounddevelopment.Min.Eng.106110.1989
[15] Sachpazis,C.I.CorrelatingSchmidthardnesswithcompressivestrengthandYoungsmodulusofcarbonaterocks.Bull.
Int.Assoc.Eng.Geol.42,pp.7583,1990.
[16] Katz,O.,Reches,Z.,Roegiers,J.EvaluationofmechanicalrockpropertiesusingaSchmidthammer.Int.J.RockMech.Min.
Sci.37,723728.2000.
[17] MSMKS.MinistryofSolidMineralsKogiState,2000
[18] Rahaman, M. A. Recent Advance in the Study of Basement Complex of Nigeria. Oluyide, P.O., Mbonu, W.C. (Editors).
1998.
[19] ISRM.SuggestedMethodsforRockCharacterizationTestingandMonitoringISRMCommissiononTestingmethods,E.T.
BrownEdition.PergamonPressOxford211p.1981.
[20] ASTM.AnnualBookofASTMStandardConstructionSoilandRocks.ASTMPublication,Vol.04,No.08p.975.1994.

50

JournalofMiningWorldExpress(MWE)Volume4,2015www.mwejournal.org

[21] Akram,M.andBakar,M.Z.A.CorrelationbetweenUniaxialCompressiveStrengthandPointLoadIndexforSaltRange
Rocks.PakistanianJournalofEngineeringandAppliedScience,Vol.1.,2007.
[22] ISRM.SuggestedMethodsforDeterminingPointLoadStrength,Int.J.Rock,Mech.Min.Sci.andGeomech.Abstr.(22)pp
5360.1985.
[23] Bell,F.G.Engineeringinrockmasses,ButterworthHeinemann,JordanHill,Oxford,p.580.1992.
[24] Broch,E.andFranklin,J.A.ThePointLoadTest,Int.J.RockMech.Min.Sci.(9)pp.669697.1972.

51