J

o
u
r
n
a
l
P
a
p
e
r
Introduction
Although brittleness is defined as the lack of
ductility, it is a material condition charac-
terized by its reduced ability to carry load as
the strain increases. In a broad sense
brittleness encompasses the whole failure
process (Hajiabdolmajid et al.
5
). Natural
heterogeneities and micro cracks promote non-
homogeneous distributions of higher stresses
than tensile strength, causing local failures
and progressively form the failure plane. High
stresses are generated due to stress concen-
trations arising around pores and flaws.
Testing of rock has provided insights into
how fractures are developed in relation to the
orientation of principal stresses. Extension
fractures will develop at a right angle to the
minimum principal compressive stress
direction
3
, and will contain the orientation of
the maximum principal compressive stress
1
as shown in Figure 1, (Herget
6
).
A rock material contains a large number of
randomly orientated zones of potential failure
in the form of grain boundaries. These
boundaries contain a number of open flaws.
Griffith
4
postulated that these flaws are
approximately elliptical in shape. It can be
shown that very high tensile stresses occur on
the boundary of a suitably orientated elliptical
opening, even under compressive stress
conditions, and it is assumed that fracture
initiates from the boundary of an open flaw
when the tensile stress on this boundary
exceeds the local tensile strength of the
material. Hoek and Bieniawski
7
studied this
fracture initiation and propagation in rock
under compression, where the loading
conditions were quasi-static.
On the contrary, under high dynamic
impact forces, materials undergo various
stages. Each stage has a different stress field
acting upon it. Also at each stage more micro
cracks and flaws are formed. These are in
different shape, length and location, some
inside grains, some along the grain
boundaries, and some extend along several
grains. Also, existing cracks propagate by
dislocations along slip planes.
Breakage mechanisms and an
encouraging correlation between the
Bond parameters and the friability
value
by H.T. Ozkahraman*
Synopsis
It is important to know the breakage mechanism in materials since
this knowledge influences the results of subsequent grinding
operations. There are two distinct failure mechanisms in breakage:
one is tensile micro crack generation at low stresses, which leads to
macroscopic failure by disintegration, and the other is formation of
shear zones under heavier dynamic impact forces, which generates
more fines as seen in crush zones in blasting. Tensile fracturing
simply breaks the material into fragments. It is seen as the disinte-
gration of the specimen into two or more separate fragments. This
happens under the absence of lateral stresses and the material is
free to expand. On the other hand, compressive-shear breakage
produces finer fragments due to shear stresses. The first mechanism
is observed in laboratory tensile and bending strength tests and the
second mechanism is observed both in laboratory brittleness tests
and in situ blasting operations under dynamic impact forces.
The friability of rocks and ores can be determined by a
brittleness test. A test apparatus to determine the friability value
has been designed to suit limestone strength characteristics used in
cement production. The friability and stored strain energy values of
barite, marble, limestone and bauxite have been determined and
compared with the corresponding Bond work index (W
i
) and
grindability index (G) of these materials. The physico-mechanical
properties of the tested materials have also been determined to
investigate their effect on friability and grinding. The relationships
obtained between the indices were in surprisingly good agreement,
with high correlations (0.99 and 0.97). The Bond work index and
grindability index can therefore be estimated from the friability
value, which can be determined more rapidly than the Bond test.
But for certain rock types such as andesites the relationships does
not hold.
Key words: comminution, tensile stress, shear forces, brittleness
test, strain energy.
* Department of Mining Engineering, University of
SDU.32200, Isparta/Turkey.
The Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 2010. SA ISSN 0038223X/3.00 +
0.00. These papers were selected from the,
Comminution 08 Conference, held in the UK on,
1720 June 2008.
153
The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 110 NON-REFEREED PAPER MARCH 2010

Breakage mechanisms and an encouraging correlation

Campbell et al.
2
, used high speed image and stress
analysis for the evaluation of tensile based breakage tests
and confirmed that the failure mechanisms in three point
bend and ring-loaded strength tests on rock samples were
inherently tensile in nature, as crack propagation was
observed to originate from areas of induced tension.
Nielsen and Malvik
10
showed that grindability is
enhanced by blast-induced micro cracks. The reductions of
the crushing and grinding resistance is caused by a large
number of micro cracks which are generated by the shock
waves emitted throughout the rock mass by the detonating
explosive in the drill hole. Michaux and Djordjevic
9
,
demonstrated that a relatively large increase in applied
explosive energy would produce a weaker ore, which in turn
would result in a higher throughput through the grinding
circuit. Blasting is probably the most economic method of
fragmenting rock.
Rock fails when stresses exceed strength. Failure in rock
occurs by development of fracture or slip surfaces. Previous
studies show that the type of fractures and their orientation
depend on the distribution of stresses across a specimen, the
type of material, and whether stresses are applied in tension
or compression. Therefore the breakage mechanism in
materials must be well understood to find an explanation as
to what is needed in subsequent comminution operations.
Breakage mechanism
Like any other material, rock fails when stresses exceed
strength. Rock materials are composed of crystals which
contain many flaws and defects called micro fractures. They
are found in mineral grains or on grain boundaries. There are
two breakage mechanisms: tensile fracturing and
compressive-shear failure depending on the level of applied
stresses. Tensile fracturing occurs under low stresses. This is
logical as tensile strength of rocks is 10 to 12 times lower
than compressive strength. Nielsen and Malvik
10
, experi-
mentally confirmed the Griffith theory. Failure in rock occurs
by development of micro cracks which weaken the material.
Hajiebdolmajid et al.
5
examined brittle fracturing, and found
that rock type, grain size, presence of voids (pre-existing
cracks and pores), and the presence of flaky, soft and altered
minerals influence the rock brittleness.
In order to understand breakage mechanism under
external forces one must look into triaxial loading conditions
at a confining pressure (stress). Fracture development during
failure of a rock sample under triaxial compressive stresses is
shown in Figure 1 (Herget
6
). The triaxial testing is designed
to determine an upper limit to how much shear stress a solid
material can support. The intact rock material is contained in
a cylindrical latex sleeve with a flat, circular platens closing
off the top and bottom ends. This cylinder is placed into a
bath of oil to provide pressure along the sides of the cylinder.
These horizontal pressures (stresses) applied in the
horizontal directions (along the sides of the cylinder) are
called minor principal stresses (
2
=
3
), Hoek and
Bieniawski
7
. The top platen can then be mechanically driven
up or down along the axis of the cylinder to squeeze the
material with
1
(major principal stress). The stress on the
platens is increased until the material in the cylinder fails and
forms sliding regions within itself, known as shear bands.
There is no movement along the failure planes until the axial
load reaches a certain value, which is dependent upon the
material properties. From the triaxial test data, it is possible
to extract fundamental material parameters about the rock
sample, including its angle of internal friction, apparent
cohesion, and dilatancy angle. These parameters are then
used in computer models to predict how the material will
behave in a larger-scale engineering applications. Under
triaxial loading conditions at a confining pressure applied
laterally, shear failure planes are formed and sliding takes
place on these planes. Material strength increases as lateral
stress level
3
increases. Therefore shear stress causing
sliding failure must overcome the increasing strength of the
material. Thus displacement on a shear plane under high
normal stresses could cause crushing of grains and asperities.
Shear () stresses calculated from principal stresses acting
(
1
,
2
=
3
) at failure and plotted against increasing
3
from
triaxial test data. A linear failure envelope is called the Mohr
failure envelope, which is drawn tangent to Mohr circles, is
given by Equation [1] and (Herget
6
):
[1]
According to elastic theory the stresses at failure are
(Mohrs circle):
[2]
Mohr circles formula Equation [4] is derived from
Equations [2] and [3]
[3]
[4]
Figure 2 shows that at failure, shear and normal stresses
(
n
) acting along failure plane. It can be seen that shear
stresses () are very sensitive to the level of lateral stress
3
,

154
MARCH 2010 VOLUME 110 NON-REFEREED PAPER The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Figure 1Extensions fractures and shear failure of a rock sample under
triaxial loading
and increase at a higher rate than
3
. Therefore the
compressiveshear failure mechanism requires high applied
stress levels. Most hard rocks like limestone exhibit brittle
behaviour and under high stress levels produce finer
fragmentation along shear bands. The higher the magnitude
of stresses, the finer the fragmentation becomes, and
grinding occurs with increasing resistance to movement
under frictional forces along these slip lines inside the
materials. The easiest way of generating high stresses is by
dynamic impact forces. Disintegration of the material into
fragments under low or no confinement (uniaxial stress field)
is in contrast to this shear movement under applied triaxial
compressive stresses.
Grindability enhancement in blasting
Crushed and fractured zones around a blast hole are shown
in Figure 3. The extension length of the crushed zone size is
two diameters in length and the similar zones, which are
produced by two simultaneously fired adjacent blast holes,
are shown in Figure 4. This phenomenon has been observed
in in situ blasting by the author. Simultaneously blasting two
adjacent holes produces enhanced crushing in the middle
zone between the holes due to shock waves travelling at very
high velocities and reinforcing each other. Fractures due to
blasting are produced by two mechanisms.
One mechanism is related to the compressiveshear
failure of the rock (mainly of the rock matrix) close to the
blast holes and between the blast holes where shock waves
collide with each other. The second mechanism is the tensile
failure of the rock mass. Fines in a blast are generated
predominantly by the crushing of rock around the blast hole
due to compressiveshear failure and at the mid distance
between blast holes by the impacting shock waves (blast
holes must be fired simultaneously and crushing dynamic
forces is maximum at the mid point between blast holes). The
coarse fragments are generated predominantly by tensile
failure beyond the crushing zone (Figures 3 and 4).
Materials tested
Goltas limestone, Ilmen barite, Seydisehir bauxite, Mugla
marble and Isparta andesite were tested in the study. Their
physico-mechanical properties were first determined. These
properties were unit weight, uniaxial compressive strength,
tensile strength, and point load index. The stored strain
energy of the marble and the limestone at failure was
calculated (see Appendix 1). The physico-mechanical
properties, grindability indices, work indices, friability values,
and strain energies at failure were compared. Test results are
given in Table I.
Standard Bond tests
The standard Bond grindability test is a closed-cycle dry
grinding and screening process, which is carried out until
steady state conditions are obtained (Bond
1
; Yap et al.
13
and
Magdalinovic
8
).
A feed sample of 700 cm
3
of material is used in the Bond
grinding tests. At the end of each grinding cycle, the entire
product is discharged from the mill and is screened on a test
sieve (P
i
). The oversize fraction is returned to the mill for the
second run together with fresh feed to make up the original
weight corresponding to 700 cm
3
. The weight of product per
unit of mill revolution, called the ore grindability of the cycle,
Breakage mechanisms and an encouraging correlation
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
P
a
p
e
r
155
The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 110 NON-REFEREED PAPER MARCH 2010

Figure 2Mohr failure envelope which is drawn tangentially to Mohr

circles. Increase in lateral stress 3, increases shear stresses causing
failure along shear plane at a higher rate than 3
Figure 3Fines in a blast are generated predominantly by the crushing
of rock around the blast hole due to compressiveshear failure close to
the blast holes, fractured zone created by the tensile failure of the rock
mass (Engineer Manual No.1110-2-38003)
Figure 4Compressiveshear failure zone of the rock is around the
blastholes and the mid distance between the blast holes, where shock
waves collide with each other
Breakage mechanisms and an encouraging correlation
is then calculated and is used to estimate the number of
revolutions required for the second run, equivalent to a
circulating load of 250%. The process is continued until a
constant value of the grindability is achieved, which is the
equilibrium condition. The average value of the last three
cycles is taken as the standard Bond grindability (G), which
is the net gram of undersize, produced per mill revolution.
Work index, W
i
is given by the following empirical
Equation [5]:
[5]
Brittleness test for the determination of the friability
value
The friability value S
7
was measured by the brittleness test
(Figure 5), which gives a value for rock resistance to
crushing due to repeated weight-drop (7) impacts. The
brittleness test apparatus is designed to determine
grindability characteristics of Tauros limestones, which are
used in cement production (Ozkahraman and Sirin
11
). The
dimensions of the mortar, the amount of drop weight, and the
height are all chosen in order to suit the compressive and
tensile strength of the limestone tested and from the energy
of the impact load.
The energy for each impact load in a brittleness test is:
[6]
Dynamic stresses generated by impact loads are given by
Popov
12
. Stresses generated by this energy level in the
brittleness test are:
[7]
[8]
The derivations of these Equations [7] and [8] are given
in Appendix 2. The tested rock sample of a 500 g aggregate
in the fraction -16.0+11.2 mm was inserted in to the mortar.
The friability value S
7
equals the percentage of undersized
material, which passes through the 11.2 mm mesh after the
aggregate test crushing in the mortar by seven weight-drops,
the mean value for a minimum of three to four parallel tests
being chosen as the rock sample S
7
value. A weight of 14 kg
was dropped from a height of 25 cm, 7 times. S
7
is the
percentage of undersized material, which passes through the
11.2 mm mesh. The results of brittleness test are given in
Table I. In the brittleness test the number of weight drops is
dependent on the strength of the materials tested, more
weight drops being required for harder rocks. A 14 kg weight
must be dropped 7 times from a height of 25 cm in order to
produce a product of 55% of total feed of limestone.
Therefore a friability value S
7
is equal to 55% for limestone
that means after 7 weight drops 55% of feed passed a -11.2
mm sieve. The apparatus is designed for limestone therefore
limestone and bauxite produced less than 100% of feed after
7 drops. But for weak ores like marble one weight drop
produced 17.76 % therefore 7 drops produces 7 x 17.76 =
124.3 %. And in the case of barite, 7 x 41.27= 288.9%.
Therefore for weak ores if too much breaks with one drop,
one can then extrapolate to get over 100% breakage.

156
MARCH 2010 VOLUME 110 NON-REFEREED PAPER The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Figure 5Brittleness test set-up
Table I
Physico-mechanical properties and friability values (S
7
), Bond work indices (W
i
) and grindability indices (G) of
tested materials
Barite BaSO4 Marble CaCO3 Limestone CaO,MgO,SiO2,Fe2O3 Bauxite (Al,Si, Fe, Ti, Ca, Mg)O
Unit weight (g/cm
3
) 5% 4.40 2.65 2.67 2.98
Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) 7% 56.88 60.2 54.95 90.56
Tensile strength (MPa) 7%* 3.25 4.90 4.62 5.18
Point load index (N/mm
2
) 9% 2.60 3.92 2.82 4.14
G (g/rev) 10% 6.19 2.98 1.11 0.95
Wi(kWh/sh ton) 12% 5.30 10.69 22.67 25.66
Brittleness index, S7, 6% 288.9 124.3 54.0 34.5
Elastic modulus (static, GPa), 20% - 70 37 -
Stored strain energy (kJ/m
3
) - 25.9 40.8 -
*Standard deviation on average
Results and discussion
The results are given in Table I. The stored strain energies of
marble and limestone are calculated from their corresponding
static elastic modulus. Elastic modulus of barite and bauxite
could not be determined due to non-availability of their intact
samples. The strongest material was bauxite ore. The
compressive, tensile and point load strength of bauxite were
the highest, as was the work index, indicating that the higher
the strength the higher the work index. This means that more
energy is needed to grind it. Highest strength gives the
lowest friability value and grindability index. Compressive,
tensile and point load strengths of marble and limestone were
similar, marble being pure calcium carbonate compared to
limestone which contains SiO
2
, MgO, and Fe
2
O
3
. The high
work index of limestone could be due to its strong
interlocking matrix and micro-crystalline structure, whereas
marble has larger crystals. By the same reasoning, the stored
strain energy (at failure) of limestone is 1.58 times higher
than marble (40.9/25.9 = 1.58). Similarly, the work index of
limestone is 2.12 times higher than marble, (22.67/10.69 =
2.12).
The friability value (S
7
), Bond work index (W
i
) and
grindability Index (G) are compared with each other and the
relationships are shown in Figure 6.
A linear relationship between grindability index, G, and
friability value was found as given in Equation [9]. The
correlation coefficient is very high, at 0.99.
[9]
The relationship between friability value (S
7
) and Bond
Work Index (W
i
) also has a high correlation of 0.97 and this
relationship is given in Equation [10]. The lower correlation
coefficient than G might be due to the calculation of W
i
from
G introduces P80 and F80, therefore the correlation has more
scatter.
[10]
In Table II, Bond parameters G, W
i
and the Brittleness
index S
7
of Traki andesite of Isparta is given. When
grindability value G = 1.39 g/rev is inserted in Equation [9],
the brittleness value S
7
= 58% is obtained. But this predicted
value is 3.5 times the actual value obtained from friability
test, which is 16.5%. Similarly the work index predicted from
Equation [10] is 33.36, instead of the actual value obtained
from Bond which is 12. These discrepancies might be the
result of a high porosity value of 5.2 for Traki andesite. High
stress concentration factors were produced around pores and
the breakage mechanism is influenced from these high
induced stresses around pores. Therefore the relationships do
not hold for volcanic rocks such as andesite with a high
porosity value.
Breakage mechanisms and an encouraging correlation
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
P
a
p
e
r
The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 110 NON-REFEREED PAPER MARCH 2010
157
Figure 6The relationship between (a) grindability index G, (b) work index Wi and friability value S7
Table II
Bond parameters G, W
i
and the brittleness index S
7
of Traki andesite of Isparta
Traki andesite volcanic
rock, SiO2,Al2O3, (K,Na,Ca)O
Unit weight (g/cm
3
) 1% 2.35
Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) 2% 40
Tensile strength (MPa) 3%* 2.8
Point load index(N/mm
2
) 5% 2.5
G (g/rev) 1% 1.39
Wi (kWh/sh ton) 2% 12
Brittleness index, S7, 2% 16.5
Real Pporosity, 2% 5.2
Breakage mechanisms and an encouraging correlation
Conclusion
The literature survey showed that crack propagation is
originated from areas of induced tension. Also tensile
fracturing simply breaks and disintegrates the material into
fragments. This happens under the absence of lateral stresses
and the material is free to expand. On the other hand,
compressive-shear breakage produces finer fragments due to
higher shear stresses which are produced under impact
forces. Studying crushed and fractured zones generated
around blast holes showed that fines in a blast are generated
predominantly by the crushing of rock around the blast hole
due to compressiveshear failure and between the blast holes,
where shock waves collide with each other. On the other
hand, fractured zones are created by the tensile failure of the
rock mass. Blasting practices in mines showed that
underground blasting produces finer fragments than surface
blasting. This is due to the higher stress levels due to
confinement. Therefore it can be postulated that above a
certain limit of surrounding compressive stress level
(triaxial), fragmentation gets finer in breakage. The author
conducted blasting trials and found that the damaged rocks
as a result of blasting contained micro cracks which enhance
the subsequent grinding. Blasts are usually designed to
fracture the in situ rock mass and prepare it for
transportation. Blasts in mines should also be designed to
produce a well fragmented rock to optimize crushing and
grinding performance.
The work index of limestone was higher than marble, due
to its strong interlocking matrix and micro-crystalline
structure, compared to marble with larger crystals. For similar
reasons strain energy (at failure) was higher for limestone
than marble and is shown in Appendix 1.
Dynamic impact loads produce much higher stresses than
static stresses due to the dynamic load factor, as
demonstrated by calculation in Appendix 2. Very high
correlations, of 0.99 and 0.97, were found between the
friability value and grindability and brittleness indices. The
grinding characteristics of ores can therefore be studied by
the brittleness test, designed to suit material properties and
strength.
The Bond method of grindability determination is time
consuming and a constant value of ore grindability is
achieved only after several grinding periods. In contrast, the
brittleness test is rapid and the friability value is obtained in
a much shorter time.
The tensile strength of ores was found to correlate better
with work index than with compressive strength and point
load index. Many factors, including porosity, influence the
grindability of ores and it is difficult to find analytical
relationships between them, as in the case of andesite. The
relationships obtained do not hold for volcanic rocks such as
andesite with high porosity value.
References
1. BOND, F. Crushing and grinding calculations. Brit. Chem. Eng, vol. 6, 1961.
pp. 543548.
2. CAMPBELL, P., YOUNG, R.J., BLACKBURN, S., MERCHANT, A.J., and VEASEY, T.J.
The use of high speed image and stress analysis for the evaluation of
tensile based breakage tests. Minerals Engineering, vol. 14, no. 8, 2001.
pp. 911915.
3. Engineer Manual No.1110-2-3800, Systematic drilling and blasting for
surface excavations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, D.C
20314-1000, 1972.
4. GRIFFITH, A.A. Theory of rupture. Intern. Congr. Appl. Mech. 1st, Delft,
1924. pp. 5563.
5. HAJIABDOLMAJID, V., KAISER, P.K., and MARTIN, C.D. Modeling brittle failure
of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.Sci., vol. 39, 2002. pp. 731741.
6. HERGET, G. Stresses in Rock. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, 1988.
179 p.
7. HOEK, E. and BIENIAWSKI, Z.T. Brittle fracture propagation in rock under
compression. I. J. Fracture Mech., vol. 1, no. 3, 1965. pp.137155.
8. MAGDALINOVIC, N. A procedure for rapid determination of the Bond work
index. Int. J. Miner. Process. vol. 27, 1989. pp. 125132.
9. MICHAUX, S. and DJORDJEVIC, N. INfluence of explosive energy on the
strength of the rock fragments and SAG mill throughput. Minerals
Engineering, vol. 18, 2005, pp. 439448.
10. NIELSEN, K. and MALVIK, T. Grindability enhancement by blast-induced
microcracks. Powder Technology, vol. 105, 1999, pp. 5256.
11. OZKAHRAMAN, H.T. and SIRIN, M. Determination of grindability and rock
quality of Goltas limestone. J. Geosound, No. 33, Adana, Turkey, 1998.
pp. 155163. ISSN 1019-1003.
12. POPOV, E.P. Engineering mechanics of solids. Prentice hall, N.J.07632,
USA., 1990,727 p.
13. YAP, R.F., SEPULUDE, J.L., and JAUREGUI, R. Determination of the Bond work
index using an ordinary laboratory batch ball mill. Mular, A.L. (ed.),
Design and Installation of Comminution Circuits, Soc. Min. Eng. AIME,
New York, USA, 1982. pp. 176203.
Appendix 1
The importance of material strength at breakage
If the normal stress , reaches the failure strength,
c
, of a
rock, then the stored strain energy at failure is per unit
volume is given by the equation below (Herget
6
):
Therefore stored strain energy in failure is proportional to
the square of strength,
c
.
For example, the uniaxial compressive strength of
limestone is
c
= 55 MPa and its elastic modulus is E = 37
GPa then,
Marble:
The stored energy of limestone at failure is 1.58 times
higher than marble (40.9/25.9 = 1.58).

158
MARCH 2010 VOLUME 110 NON-REFEREED PAPER The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Appendix 2
Dynamic stresses generated by impact loads in
brittleness test
Supposing a weight W, dropped vertically from a height h, on
to a rock sample as shown in Figure7.
max
is the maximum
strain created in the rock sample of length L. And the
corresponding stress in the rock is
max
.
Let P be the equivalent static or gradually applied load
which would produce the same extension
max
. Then the
strain energy in the rock is,
P
max
2
Also, loss of potential energy by falling weight = Gain of
strain energy of rock
[1]
Applying Hooks law,
max
=PL/AE, a quadratic in P is
obtained,
[2]
Rearranging, and multiplying through by AE/L,
Solving,
[3]
By dividing both side of the Equation [3] byh area A:
Maximum stress produced (dynamic) is
max
= P/A and
= W/A is the static stress gradually applied.
[4]
[5]
When h = 0, for a suddenly applied load gives a value

max
= 2. The stress produced by a suddenly applied load is
twice the static stress. In the case of the brittleness test, the
weight (14 kg) is dropped from a height of 25 cm. Then
dynamic load factor is X = 2260 (see below for details). This
means dynamic stress is 2260 times the static stress
produced by the falling weight.
In the calculation of load factor, X given by Equation [5],
the values below are used:
H = 25 cm.
A = 10 cm
2
(10 cm
2
is chosen arbitrarily)
E = 70 000 MPa (714 000 kg/cm
2
)
W = 14 kg
L = 5 cm. (the height of rock specimen)
Then X = 2260.
Breakage mechanisms and an encouraging correlation
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
P
a
p
e
r
The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 110 NON-REFEREED PAPER MARCH 2010
159
Figure 7Elastic behaviour under an impact force
L
Rock Sample
h = 25 cm
W = 14 kg

max