Aiv Vs Protodyakonov Method

IMPACT STRENGTH OF BRITTLE
MATERIALS (ROCKS)
COMPARISON OF THE PROTODYAKONOV
AND AIV (AGGREGATE IMPACT VALUE)
METHODS
Kostas Tsakalakis,
School of Mining & Metallurgical Engineering
National Technical University of Athens, Athens-Greece
e-mail: kostsakg@metal.ntua.gr
Presented at the Meeting of the Refractory Experts MORE, held in T.U. FreibergSaxony, Germany, 4-5 May 2006
Introduction
The
concrete consists of 70-80 vol. % by

aggregates. This contributes to the low cost of the
concrete, since the aggregates as raw materials are
cheap and they are produced by simple and relative
low-cost methods (mining, crushing, classification
and wet scrubbing).
The
concrete quality is significantly influenced by

the aggregates quality. The properties of the
aggregates influence the durability and the static
behavior of the concrete constructions.
2
AGGREGATES-PROPERTIES
They depend on the properties of the parent rock,
which are:
chemical
and mineralogical composition

petrographic origin
specific gravity
hardness
strength and elasticity
physical and chemical stability (behavior)
particle shape and surface texture
porosity, absorption and permeability and
color.
TESTING MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF

AGGREGATES
Aggregates
are subjected to various dynamic stresses

(impact, compression, abrasion).
It must be thoroughly tested for their mechanical
properties and their performance.
Standard methods have been adopted (A.S.T.M., BS,
D.I.N., etc.).
In
brittle fracture, the cracks run close to perpendicular

to the applied stress. This leaves a relatively flat surface
at the break. Besides having a nearly flat fracture
surface, brittle materials usually contain a pattern on
their fracture surfaces. Some brittle materials have lines
and ridges beginning at the origin of the crack and
spreading out across the crack surface.
4
Aggregates impact testing
Impact testing measures the energy required to break a

specimen by dynamically applying a load.
Impact strength is one of the most commonly tested and

reported properties of brittle materials in which the
aggregates also belong.
As the cement and concrete industry grows, so do the

number of different methods for measuring impact
strength of the aggregates - with each method having its
own inherent advantages and disadvantages.
5
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
6
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.
7
Fundamental Interpretations of Fracture
Strain energy approach to fracture

The work (W) done by a force (e.g. falling hammer) acting on a
surface (e.g. mass of rock particles) is converted into:
recoverable elastic energy (U) and

energy which is used for the creation of new surfaces through crack
propagation, i.e.
However, unstable crack growth responsible for brittle fracture results

when the incremental change in the difference between the work
done and the elastic energy exceeds the energy requirements for the
creation of a new surface (crack):
where is the surface energy per unit area (A) and a is half the
length of a crack.
8
Brittle vs. Ductile Fracture

Ductile materials - extensive plastic deformation
and energy absorption (toughness) before

fracture
Brittle materials - little plastic deformation and
low energy absorption before fracture.
METHODS USED FOR AGGREGATES

IMPACT TESTING
Three basic factors contribute to a brittle-cleavage type of

fracture. (a) triaxial state of stress, (b) a low temperature, and
(c) a high strain rate or rapid rate of loading (e.g. impact
stress).
All three of these factors do not have to be present at the same
time to produce brittle fracture. A triaxial state of stress, such
as exists at a notch, and low temperature are responsible for
most service failures of the brittle type. However, since these
effects are accentuated at a high rate of loading, many types
of impact tests have been used to determine the susceptibility
of materials to brittle behavior.
Standard tests evaluated here are the Protodyakonovs test and
the AIV test (Aggregate Impact Value) used for the
determination of the strength of brittle materials (rocks) in
impact and compression stresses. The materials, whose
impact strength is tested, are limestone, emery and quartzite.
10
Operating conditions of the various

impact test procedures
METHOD
Schlagversuch
Aggregate
impact value
(AIV)
TRETON
Protodyakonov
Mass of the
specimen, g
Falling
mass, kg
Height of
fall, m
50
0.37
1350
10
13.5-14.0
0.38
640
15
15
0.412
135
10
0.64
40
(2 particles)
Varying
2.4
(e.g. 2.7 g/cm3)
Number of
blows, N
11
PROTODYAKONOVS
rock strength drop tester
12
Protodyakonovs test
For the prediction of the Protodyakonov rock strength

coefficient FN, by the modified from the U.S. Bureau
of Mines method, a sample of total weight (g) equal to
75 times of the specific gravity of the rock (g/cm3) is
suitably prepared.
Every sample consists of ten (10) irregularly shaped
particles weighing about 20 g each, depending on the
specific gravity of the material tested.
For every test, two particles (40 g) are put on the
bottom of the Rock strength drop tester and are
crushed by a specific number N of hammer drops. The
particles suffer strains and fatigue like those of brittle
materials.
13
Protodyakonovs test (contd)

The strength of each specimen (2 particles) is
tested by using, progressively, an increasing
number of drops (e.g. 5, 10, 15, 20, 25). Each
crushed sample is sieved through a U.S.
series No. 35 mesh (0.5 mm) sieve and the
mass of the -0.5 mm material produced is
determined.
he solid volume (VN) of the undersize
material is determined from the ratio of the
mass (WN) and the specific gravity () of the
material. (V = W / ).
14
The number of drops (N), used to produce the certain volume

(VN) of -0.5 mm material, divided by the volume VN gives the
value of the impact rock strength coefficient (FN) for this
particular number of drops.
Thus, the Protodyakonovs impact strength coefficient F , for

a specific number of the hammer falls, is given by:
F = / V
Where:
is the number of the free falls
and V is the mean solid volume of the 0.5 mm material produced

after hammer drops.
15

After completing the test procedure for all specimens, a graph
(F, ) is constructed.
The rock strength coefficient FN is graphically determined
from the curve (F , ) and corresponds to the minimum
value of the curve.
This minimum value of FN is, by definition, the impact rock
strength coefficient (FN), as representing the optimum
specific crushing energy (minimum impact energy per unit
volume of -0.5 mm material). FN has dimensions cm-3.
It has been previously proved that it correlates with relative

accuracy with the mechanical properties of the rock, such as:
Toughness
Modulus of resilience
Uniaxial compressive strength
Shore hardness and
Drillability of the rock
16
Protodyakonovs test (modification)

Here, a modified procedure is proposed for the
determination of the Protodyakonovs rock strength
coefficient FN.
The modification, applied to the procedure adopted by
the U.S. Bureau of Mines, is shown in the flow
diagram of the next slide.
From the FN values corresponding to each product
(undersize material), graphs (FN , N), similar to those
shown in the following slides, are constructed.
Then, the minimum FN values are graphically
determined.
17
Protodyakonovs Test (New modification)

SPECIMEN (2 Particles)
Mass 40 g
1st Test
(5 Hammer drops)
Classification in size
fractions
Recombination of the
size fractions
3rd Test etc.

2nd Test
(10 Hammer drops)
Final Test (e.g. 45

Hammer drops)
fractions
fractions
Recombination of the
size fractions
Weighing & FN
prediction
18
Pro to d y ak o n o v imp act stren g th co efficien t F

3
(n u mb er o f free falls/cm )
Protodyakonovs
IMPACT
STRENGTH
COEFFICIENT
of Limestone
3
2,8
2,6
2,4
2,2
2
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
10
15
20
0,5
25
30
0,25
35
Number of free falls (drops),
40
45
19
0,5
0,25
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
of free falls/cm )
P rotodyakonov impact strength coefficient F (number
Protodyakonovs
IMPACT
STRENGTH
COEFFICIENT
of Emery
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
20
Number of free falls (drops), N
P r o to d y a k o n o v im p a c t s tr e n g th c o e f f ic ie n t F
( n u m b e r o f f r e e f a lls /c m 3 )
Protodyakonovs
IMPACT
STRENGTH
COEFFICIENT
of Quartzite
0,5
0,25
3
2,8
2,6
2,4
2,2
2
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Number of free falls (drops),
21
PROTODYAKONOVS
Impact strength
(size fraction -2
mm)
Comparison of
Limestone
Emery
Quartzite
22
Test AIV (Aggregate Impact Value,

SS 1974)
The AIV (Aggregate Impact Value) is a

standard test procedure by which the impact
strength of aggregates is tested. Just like in
Protodyakonovs test, the material used
consists of irregularly shaped particles of
the -14 + 10 mm size fraction. The weight
of the specimen is A.
23
AIV
Apparatus
24
Aggregate impact value (AIV) test

procedure
The two (2) specimens tested are subjected to 15

blows of the hammer dropping 380 mm, at an interval
not less than one second.
The crushed material is removed from the mould and
then it is sieved over a 2.36 mm sieve. The mass of
the material passing (B) and the retained fraction on
the sieve (C) are weighed to the nearest 0.1 g.
If A-(B+C)>1 g, the result is discarded and the test is
repeated with fresh material. The AIV value is
calculated from the average of the two tests:
AIV = ( B / A) 100(%)
25
Conclusions
Applying the Protodyakonovs test procedure
for the determination of the impact strength of
the three rocks results in:
The impact rock strength (F) of quartzite is

lower than that of limestone, for all size
fractions tested. This obviously happens,
because the quartzite presents greater brittleness
than the limestone.
Emery, as it was expected, presents greater

impact strength than the other rocks examined.
26
Conclusions (contd)
The rock impact strength, according to the
AIV method, shows the same tendency of
that presented by the Protodyakonovs
results.
The percentage % mass loss (-2.36 mm)
calculated from the AIV method is: only
3.68% for the emery and 9.56, 13.6% for
the limestone and the quartzite,
respectively.
27
COMPARISON OF THE TWO

METHODS
Impact strength for 15
hammer falls (drops)
Bond work
index Wi ,
Material
Specific
gravity,
g/cm3
Emery
3.48
4.31
3.68
56.7
Limestone
2.65
0.51
9.56
12.54
Quartzite
2.68
0.29
13.62
9.58
Protodyakonov,
AIV,
2 mm
2.36 mm kWh/short ton
28
Conclusions (contd)
The two methods use irregularly shaped

specimens (particles).
Thus, they present certain advantages over the
alternative standard tests (compression tensile
tests) in which regularly shaped specimens
(cylinders, cubes) are required. The alternative
methods present increased cost and are timeconsuming for performing the tests.
The Protodyakonovs method can also be utilized
for the determination of the impact strength of
other brittle materials (ceramics, cold metals,
etc.).
29
Conclusions (contd)
The
AIV method is preferable than that of

Protodyakonov for a rough prediction of the
impact strength of the rocks, because:
The AIV method is simpler in its application than the

Protodyakonovs (except sizing, no need for particle
size preparation of the test sample is required)
The AIV method can be ranked as more reliable due

to the greater mass of the sample tested (at least 15
times that used in Protodyakonovs test).
30
Thank you very much
Vielen Dank auf ihre

Aufmerksamkeit
31

Aiv Vs Protodyakonov Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aiv Vs Protodyakonov Method

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Aiv Vs Protodyakonov Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPACT STRENGTH OF BRITTLE

concrete consists of 70-80 vol. % by

concrete quality is significantly influenced by

and mineralogical composition

TESTING MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF

are subjected to various dynamic stresses

brittle fracture, the cracks run close to perpendicular

Aggregates impact testing

Impact testing measures the energy required to break a

Impact strength is one of the most commonly tested and

As the cement and concrete industry grows, so do the

Fracture: separation of a body into pieces due to

Depending on the ability of material to undergo

Ductile & Brittle Fracture

Ductile fracture - most metals (not too cold):

Extensive plastic deformation ahead of crack

Brittle fracture - ceramics, ice, cold metals,

Relatively little plastic deformation

Fundamental Interpretations of Fracture

Strain energy approach to fracture

recoverable elastic energy (U) and

However, unstable crack growth responsible for brittle fracture results

Brittle vs. Ductile Fracture

and energy absorption (toughness) before

METHODS USED FOR AGGREGATES

Three basic factors contribute to a brittle-cleavage type of

Operating conditions of the various

(e.g. 2.7 g/cm3)

For the prediction of the Protodyakonov rock strength

Protodyakonovs test (contd)

Protodyakonovs test (contd)

The number of drops (N), used to produce the certain volume

Thus, the Protodyakonovs impact strength coefficient F , for

is the number of the free falls

and V is the mean solid volume of the 0.5 mm material produced

Protodyakonovs test (contd)

It has been previously proved that it correlates with relative

Protodyakonovs test (modification)

Protodyakonovs Test (New modification)

3rd Test etc.

Final Test (e.g. 45

Pro to d y ak o n o v imp act stren g th co efficien t F

Number of free falls (drops),

P rotodyakonov impact strength coefficient F (number

Test AIV (Aggregate Impact Value,

The AIV (Aggregate Impact Value) is a

Aggregate impact value (AIV) test

The two (2) specimens tested are subjected to 15

The impact rock strength (F) of quartzite is

Emery, as it was expected, presents greater

COMPARISON OF THE TWO

The two methods use irregularly shaped

AIV method is preferable than that of

The AIV method is simpler in its application than the

The AIV method can be ranked as more reliable due

Thank you very much

Vielen Dank auf ihre

You might also like