Download - Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
1/31
IMPACT STRENGTH OF BRITTLEIMPACT STRENGTH OF BRITTLEMATERIALS (ROCKS)MATERIALS (ROCKS)
COMPARISONCOMPARISON OF THE PROTODYAKONOVOF THE PROTODYAKONOVANDAND AIVAIV ((AGGREGATE IMPACT VALUEAGGREGATE IMPACT VALUE))
METHODSMETHODS
Kostas Tsakalakis,Kostas Tsakalakis,
School of Mining & Metallurgical EngineeringSchool of Mining & Metallurgical Engineering
National Technical University of Athens, AthensNational Technical University of Athens, Athens--GreeceGreece
ee--mail:mail: [email protected]@metal.ntua.gr
Presented at the Meeting of the Refractory Experts MORE, heldPresented at the Meeting of the Refractory Experts MORE, heldin T.U. Freibergin T.U. Freiberg--Saxony, Germany, 4Saxony, Germany, 4--5 May 20065 May 2006
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
2/31
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
3/31
3
AGGREGATESAGGREGATES--PROPERTIESPROPERTIES
They depend on the properties of the parent rock,They depend on the properties of the parent rock,which are:which are:
chemical and mineralogical compositionchemical and mineralogical composition
petrographicpetrographic originorigin
specific gravityspecific gravityhardnesshardness
strength and elasticitystrength and elasticity
physical and chemical stability (behavior)physical and chemical stability (behavior)particle shape and surface textureparticle shape and surface texture
porosity, absorption and permeability andporosity, absorption and permeability and
color.color.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
4/31
4
TESTINGTESTING MECHANICAL PROPERTIESMECHANICAL PROPERTIES OFOF
AGGREGATESAGGREGATESAggregatesAggregates are subjected toare subjected to variousvarious dynamic stressesdynamic stresses((impactimpact,, compressioncompression,, abrasionabrasion))..
It must be thoroughly tested for their mechanicalIt must be thoroughly tested for their mechanicalproperties and their performance.properties and their performance.
Standard methods have been adoptedStandard methods have been adopted ((AA..SS..TT..MM.,., BSBS,,
DD..II..NN.,., etcetc.).)..
In brittle fracture, the cracks run close to perpendicularIn brittle fracture, the cracks run close to perpendicularto the applied stress. This leaves a relatively flat surfaceto the applied stress. This leaves a relatively flat surface
at the break. Besides having a nearly flat fractureat the break. Besides having a nearly flat fracturesurface, brittle materials usually contain a pattern onsurface, brittle materials usually contain a pattern ontheir fracture surfaces. Some brittle materials have linestheir fracture surfaces. Some brittle materials have lines
and ridges beginning at the origin of the crack andand ridges beginning at the origin of the crack andspreading out across the crack surface.spreading out across the crack surface.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
5/31
5
Aggregates iAggregates impactmpact ttestingesting
IImpact testingmpact testing measures the energy required to break ameasures the energy required to break a
specimen by dynamically applying a load.specimen by dynamically applying a load. Impact strength is one of the most commonly tested andImpact strength is one of the most commonly tested and
reported properties ofreported properties of brittle materials in which thebrittle materials in which the
aggregates also belongaggregates also belong..
As theAs the cement and concretecement and concrete industry grows, so do theindustry grows, so do the
number of different methods for measuring impactnumber of different methods for measuring impactstrengthstrength of the aggregatesof the aggregates -- with each method having itswith each method having its
own inherent advantages and disadvantages.own inherent advantages and disadvantages.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
6/31
6
Fracture
Fracture: separation of a body into pieces due to
stress, at temperatures below the melting point.
Steps in fracture: crack formation
crack propagation
Depending on the ability of material to undergo
plastic deformation before fracture,two fracture modes can be defined
ductile or brittle
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
7/31
7
Ductile & Brittle Fracture
Ductile fracture - most metals (not too cold):
Extensive plastic deformation ahead of crack
Crack is stable: resists further extension unless
applied stress is increased
Brittle fracture - ceramics, ice, cold metals,
brittle rocks:
Relatively little plastic deformation Crack is unstable: propagates rapidly without
increase in applied stress.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
8/31
8
Fundamental Interpretations of FractureFundamental Interpretations of Fracture
StrainStrain energy approach to fractureenergy approach to fractureThe work (The work (WW) done by a force) done by a force (e.g. falling hammer)(e.g. falling hammer) acting on aacting on asurface (e.g. mass of rock particles)surface (e.g. mass of rock particles) is converted intois converted into::
recoverable elastic energy (recoverable elastic energy (UU) and) and energy which is used for the creation of new surfaces through crenergy which is used for the creation of new surfaces through crackack
propagation, i.e.propagation, i.e.
However, unstable crack growth responsible for brittle fractureHowever, unstable crack growth responsible for brittle fracture resultsresultswhen the incremental change in the difference between the workwhen the incremental change in the difference between the workdone and the elastic energy exceeds the energy requirements fordone and the elastic energy exceeds the energy requirements for thethecreation of a new surface (crack):creation of a new surface (crack):
wherewhere is the surface energy per unit areais the surface energy per unit area ((AA)) andand aa is half theis half the
length of a crack.length of a crack.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
9/31
9
Brittle vs. Ductile Fracture
Ductile materials - extensive plastic deformationand energy absorption (toughness) before
fracture
Brittle materials - little plastic deformation and
low energy absorption before fracture.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
10/31
10
METHODS USED FOR AGGREGATESMETHODS USED FOR AGGREGATES
IMPACT TESTINGIMPACT TESTING Three basic factors contribute to a brittleThree basic factors contribute to a brittle--cleavage type ofcleavage type of
fracture. (fracture. (a)a) triaxialtriaxialstate of stressstate of stress, (, (bb)) a low temperaturea low temperature, and, and
((cc)) a high strain rate or rapid rate of loading (ea high strain rate or rapid rate of loading (e.g. impact.g. impactstress).stress).
All three of these factors do not have to be present at the sameAll three of these factors do not have to be present at the sametime to produce brittle fracture. Atime to produce brittle fracture. A triaxialtriaxial state of stress, suchstate of stress, such
as exists at a notch, and low temperature are responsible foras exists at a notch, and low temperature are responsible formost service failures of the brittle type. However, since thesemost service failures of the brittle type. However, since theseeffects are accentuated at a high rate of loading, many typeseffects are accentuated at a high rate of loading, many typesof impact tests have been used to determine the susceptibilityof impact tests have been used to determine the susceptibilityof materials to brittle behavior.of materials to brittle behavior.
Standard testsStandard tests evaluated hereevaluated here are theare the ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs test andtest andthe AIVthe AIV testtest ((Aggregate Impact ValueAggregate Impact Value)) used for theused for thedetermination of the strength of brittle materials (rocks) indetermination of the strength of brittle materials (rocks) in
impact and compression stresses.impact and compression stresses. The materials, whoseThe materials, whoseimpact strength is tested, are limestone, emery and quartzite.impact strength is tested, are limestone, emery and quartzite.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
11/31
11
Operating conditions of the variousOperating conditions of the various
impact test proceduresimpact test procedures
4040
(2 particles)(2 particles)
135135
640640
13501350
Mass of theMass of the
specimen, gspecimen, g
(e.g. 2.7 g/cm(e.g. 2.7 g/cm33))
VaryingVarying0.640.642.42.4ProtodyakonovProtodyakonov
10100.4120.4121515TRETONTRETON
15150.380.3813.513.5--14.014.0AggregateAggregate
impact valueimpact value
(AIV)(AIV)
10100.370.375050SchlagversuchSchlagversuch
Number ofNumber of
blows, Nblows, N
Height ofHeight of
fall, mfall, m
FallingFalling
mass, kgmass, kgMETHODMETHOD
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
12/31
12
PROTODYAKONOVSPROTODYAKONOVS
rock strengthrock strength drop testerdrop tester
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
13/31
13
ProtodyakonovProtodyakonovs tests test
For the prediction of theFor the prediction of the ProtodyakonovProtodyakonov rockrockstrengthstrengthcoefficientcoefficient FFNN, by the modified from the U, by the modified from the U..SS.. BureauBureauof Minesof Mines methodmethod,, a sample of total weighta sample of total weight ((gg)) equal toequal to
7575 timestimes of theof the specific gravity of the rockspecific gravity of the rock ((gg//cmcm33)) isissuitably preparedsuitably prepared..
Every sample consists of ten (10) irregularly shapedEvery sample consists of ten (10) irregularly shaped
particles weighing aboutparticles weighing about 2020 gg each, depending on theeach, depending on thespecific gravity of the material testedspecific gravity of the material tested..
For every test, two particles (For every test, two particles (40 g)40 g) are put on theare put on thebottom of thebottom of the Rock strength drop testerRock strength drop tester and areand arecrushed by a specific number N of hammer drops. Thecrushed by a specific number N of hammer drops. Theparticles suffer strains and fatigue like those of brittleparticles suffer strains and fatigue like those of brittlematerialsmaterials..
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
14/31
14
ProtodyakonovProtodyakonovs test (contd)s test (contd)
The strength of each specimen (2 particles) isThe strength of each specimen (2 particles) istested by using, progressively, an increasingtested by using, progressively, an increasingnumber of drops (e.g. 5, 10, 15, 20, 25). Eachnumber of drops (e.g. 5, 10, 15, 20, 25). Eachcrushed sample is sieved through a U.S.crushed sample is sieved through a U.S.series No. 35 mesh (0.5 mm) sieve and theseries No. 35 mesh (0.5 mm) sieve and the
mass of themass of the --0.5 mm material produced is0.5 mm material produced isdetermined.determined.
he solid volume (Vhe solid volume (VNN) of the undersize) of the undersize
material is determined from the ratio of thematerial is determined from the ratio of themass (mass (WWNN) and the specific gravity () and the specific gravity () of the) of thematerial.material. ((VV
== WW
/ )./ ).
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
15/31
15
ProtodyakonovProtodyakonovs test (contd)s test (contd)
The number of drops (N), used to produce the certain volumeThe number of drops (N), used to produce the certain volume
(V(VNN) of) of --0.5 mm material, divided by the volume V0.5 mm material, divided by the volume VNN gives thegives the
value of the impact rock strength coefficient (value of the impact rock strength coefficient (FFNN) for this) for this
particular number of drops.particular number of drops.
Thus, theThus, the ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs impact strength coefficientimpact strength coefficientFF
,, forfor
a specific numbera specific number of the hammer falls, is given byof the hammer falls, is given by::
FF
= /= / VV
Where:Where:
is the number of the free fallsis the number of the free falls
andand VV is the mean solid volumeis the mean solid volume of theof the00..55 mmmm material producedmaterial produced
afterafter hammer drops.hammer drops.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
16/31
16
After completing the test procedure for all specimens, a graphAfter completing the test procedure for all specimens, a graph((FF
,, ) is constructed.) is constructed.
The rock strength coefficientThe rock strength coefficient FFNN is graphically determinedis graphically determinedfrom the curve (from the curve (FF
,, ) and corresponds to the minimum) and corresponds to the minimum
value of the curve.value of the curve. This minimum value ofThis minimum value of FFNN is, by definition, the impact rockis, by definition, the impact rock
strength coefficient (strength coefficient (FFNN), as representing the optimum), as representing the optimumspecific crushing energy (minimum impact energy per unitspecific crushing energy (minimum impact energy per unit
volume ofvolume of --0.5 mm material).0.5 mm material).FFNN has dimensions cmhas dimensions cm--33..
It has been previously proved that it correlates with relativeIt has been previously proved that it correlates with relativeaccuracy with the mechanical properties of the rock, such as:accuracy with the mechanical properties of the rock, such as:
ToughnessToughness Modulus of resilienceModulus of resilience
UniaxialUniaxial compressive strengthcompressive strength
Shore hardness andShore hardness and
DriDri
lllabilitylability
of the rockof the rock
ProtodyakonovProtodyakonovs test (contd)s test (contd)
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
17/31
17
ProtodyakonovProtodyakonovs test (modification)s test (modification)
Here, aHere, a modified proceduremodified procedure is proposed for theis proposed for thedetermination of thedetermination of the ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs rock strengthrock strength
coefficientcoefficient FFNN..
The modification, applied to the procedure adopted byThe modification, applied to the procedure adopted by
the U.S. Bureau of Mines, is shown in thethe U.S. Bureau of Mines, is shown in the flowflow
diagramdiagram of the next slide.of the next slide.
From theFrom the FFNN values corresponding to each productvalues corresponding to each product
(undersize material), graphs ((undersize material), graphs (FFNN , N), similar to those, N), similar to those
shown in the following slides, are constructed.shown in the following slides, are constructed.
Then, the minimumThen, the minimum FFNN values are graphicallyvalues are graphically
determined.determined.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
18/31
18
SPECIMEN (2 Particles)
Mass 40 g
1st Test
(5 Hammer drops)
Classification in size
fractions
Recombination of the
size fractions
2nd Test
(10 Hammer drops)
Classification in sizefractions
Recombination of the
size fractions
Final Test (e.g. 45
Hammer drops)
Classification in sizefractions
Weighing &FNprediction
3rd Test etc.
Protodyakonovs Test (New modification)
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
19/31
19
ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs
IMPACTIMPACT
STRENGTHSTRENGTH
COEFFICIENTCOEFFICIENT
of Limestoneof Limestone
0
0,20,4
0,6
0,8
11,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
2
2,2
2,4
2,6
2,8
3
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Number of free falls (drops),
Protody
akonovimp
actstrength
coefficientF
(numberoffreefalls/cm
3)
2 1 0,5 0,25
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
20/31
20
ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs
IMPACTIMPACT
STRENGTHSTRENGTHCOEFFICIENTCOEFFICIENT
of Emeryof Emery
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Number of free falls (drops), N
Protodyako
novimpacts
trengthcoeff
icientF(
number
offreefalls/cm
3)
2 1 0,5 0,25
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
21/31
21
ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs
IMPACTIMPACT
STRENGTHSTRENGTH
COEFFICIENTCOEFFICIENT
of Quartziteof Quartzite
00,2
0,40,60,8
11,2
1,41,61,8
22,2
2,42,62,8
3
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Number of free falls (drops), Protodyako
nov
im
pactstrength
coefficien
t
F
num
bero
ffree
falls
/cm
3
2 1 0,5 0,25
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
22/31
22
PROTODYAKONOVSPROTODYAKONOVSImpact strengthImpact strength
((size fractionsize fraction --22
mm)mm)
Comparison ofComparison of
LimestoneLimestoneEmeryEmery
QuartziteQuartzite
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
23/31
23
TestTest AIVAIV ((Aggregate Impact Value,Aggregate Impact Value,
SSSS19741974))
TheThe
AIVAIV
((Aggregate Impact ValueAggregate Impact Value
))
is ais a
standard test procedurestandard test procedureby which the impactby which the impact
strength of aggregates is testedstrength of aggregates is tested.. Just like inJust like in
ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs test, the material usedtest, the material usedconsists of irregularly shaped particles ofconsists of irregularly shaped particles of
thethe --1144 + 10+ 10 mm size fractionmm size fraction.. The weightThe weightof the specimen isof the specimen isAA..
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
24/31
24
AIVAIV
ApparatusApparatus
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
25/31
25
Aggregate impact value (AIV) testAggregate impact value (AIV) test
procedureprocedure
The two (2) specimens tested are subjected to 15The two (2) specimens tested are subjected to 15
blows of the hammer dropping 380 mm, at an intervalblows of the hammer dropping 380 mm, at an intervalnot less than one second.not less than one second.
The crushed material is removed from the mould andThe crushed material is removed from the mould and
then it is sieved over a 2.36 mm sieve. The mass ofthen it is sieved over a 2.36 mm sieve. The mass ofthe material passing (the material passing (BB) and the retained fraction on) and the retained fraction on
the sieve (the sieve (CC) are weighed to the nearest 0.1 g.) are weighed to the nearest 0.1 g.
IfIfAA--((BB++CC)>1 g, the result is discarded and the test is)>1 g, the result is discarded and the test isrepeated with fresh material. The AIV value isrepeated with fresh material. The AIV value is
calculated from the average of the two tests:calculated from the average of the two tests:
(%)100)/( = ABAIV
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
26/31
26
ConclusionsConclusions
Applying theApplying the ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs test proceduretest procedurefor the determination of the impact strength offor the determination of the impact strength of
the three rocks results in:the three rocks results in:
The impact rock strengthThe impact rock strength ((FF
)) of quartzite isof quartzite islower than that of limestone, for all sizelower than that of limestone, for all sizefractionsfractions testedtested.. This obviously happens,This obviously happens,
because the quartzite presents greater brittlenessbecause the quartzite presents greater brittlenessthan the limestone.than the limestone.
Emery, as it was expected, presents greaterEmery, as it was expected, presents greaterimpact strength than the other rocks examined.impact strength than the other rocks examined.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
27/31
27
ConclusionsConclusions ((contcontdd))
The rock impact strength, according to theThe rock impact strength, according to the
AIV method, shows the same tendency ofAIV method, shows the same tendency ofthat presented by thethat presented by the ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs
resultsresults..
The percentage % mass lossThe percentage % mass loss ((--2.362.36 mmmm))
calculated from the AIV method is: onlycalculated from the AIV method is: only
3.68%3.68% for thefor the emery andemery and 9.569.56,, 1313..6%6% forforthe limestone and the quartzite,the limestone and the quartzite,
respectively.respectively.
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
28/31
28
COMPARISON OF THE TWOCOMPARISON OF THE TWO
METHODSMETHODS
9.5813.620.292.68Quartzite
12.549.560.512.65Limestone
56.73.684.313.48Emery
AIV,
2.36 mm
Protodyakonov,
2 mm
Bond workindex Wi ,
kWh/short ton
Impact strength for 15
hammer falls (drops)Specificgravity,
g/cm3Material
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
29/31
29
ConclusionsConclusions ((contcontdd))
The two methods use irregularly shapedThe two methods use irregularly shapedspecimens (particles).specimens (particles).
Thus, they present certain advantages over theThus, they present certain advantages over thealternative standard testsalternative standard tests ((compressioncompression tensiletensileteststests)) in which regularly shaped specimensin which regularly shaped specimens(cylinders, cubes)(cylinders, cubes) are required. The alternativeare required. The alternativemethods present increased cost and are timemethods present increased cost and are time--consuming for performing the tests.consuming for performing the tests.
TheThe ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs method can also be utilizedmethod can also be utilizedfor the determination of the impact strength offor the determination of the impact strength ofother brittle materials (ceramics, cold metals,other brittle materials (ceramics, cold metals,
etc.).etc.).
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
30/31
30
ConclusionsConclusions ((contcontdd))
TheThe AIV methodAIV method is preferableis preferable than that ofthan that of
ProtodyakonovProtodyakonov for afor a roughroughprediction of theprediction of the
impact strength of the rocks, becauseimpact strength of the rocks, because::
The AIVThe AIV method is simpler in its application than themethod is simpler in its application than the
ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs ((except sizing, no need for particleexcept sizing, no need for particlesize preparationsize preparation of the test sampleof the test sample isis requiredrequired))
TheThe AIV method can be ranked asAIV method can be ranked as more reliable duemore reliable dueto the greaterto the greater mass of the sample testedmass of the sample tested ((atat leastleast 1515
times that used intimes that used in ProtodyakonovsProtodyakonovs testtest))..
-
8/10/2019 Aiv vs Protodyakonov Method
31/31
31
Thank you very muchThank you very much
VielenVielen Dank aufDank auf ihreihre
AufmerksamkeitAufmerksamkeit