The uniaxial compressive strength test is a destructive and time consuming test. A number of non-destructive methods using portable testing equipment are more applicable and easier to conduct. This paper presents the results of a systematic approach to determine the uniaxial compressive strength of rock material using the Schmidt hammer rebound test. A total of five distinct locations (Graham Coast, Davis Coast, Nanson Island, Danco Coast and Trinity Island) were tested using the Schmidt rebound hammer test. Peninsula Antarctic located at northwest of Antarctic region comprising of igneous and metamorphic rocks. Statistical analysis of the results at 95% confidence level showed the Schmidt rebound value of the Graham Coast ranges from 40±1.7 to 41±1.3 with standard deviation of 8.2 to 6.4. The rebound value for Davis Coast was 39±1.6 with standard deviation of 7.7. Rocks from Nanson Island and Danco Coast have the Schmidt rebound value of 54±1.7 with standard deviation of 8.0 and 36±1.3 with standard deviation of 6.2, respectively. The Schmidt rebound value of rocks at Trinity Island ranges from 29±1.4 to 32±1.7 with standard deviation of 6.8 to 8.1. Thus, the respective uniaxial compressive strengths of rock materials from Graham Coast, Davis Coast, Danco Coast, Nanson Island and Trinity Island were 73-108, 50, 59, 164 and 45-59 MPa. The respective ISRM strength classification of rock materials of Graham Coast, Davis Coast, Danco Coast, Nanson Island and Trinity Island were strong (R4) to very strong rock (R5), medium strong rock (R3), strong rock (R4), very strong rock (R5) and medium strong (R3) to strong rock (R4). The results showed a mean of quantification of rock material strength based on the Schmidt Hammer rebound test in Antarctic Peninsula.
The stability of the limestone cliff at Gunung Kandu, Gopeng, Perak, Malaysia was assessed based on the Slope Mass
Rating (SMR) system on 53 cross sections of the Gunung Kandu hill slopes. The slopes of Gunung Kandu were identified
as class I (very good) to IV (poor). The kinematic analysis showed that 12 out of 53 hill slopes of Gunung Kandu were
identified as having potential wedge, planar and toppling failures. The assessment showed that the stability of the western
flanks can be classified as stable to unstable with the probability of failure from 0.2 to 0.6. The stability of the eastern and
southern flanks range from very stable to partially stable with the probability of failure from 0.0 to 0.4. While the stability
of northern flanks are from very stable to stable with the probability of failure of 0.0 - 0.2. This systematic approach
offers a practical method especially for large area of rock slope stability assessment and the results from probability of
failure values will help engineers to design adequate mitigation measures.
The limestone hill of Batu Caves is slowly being turned into a recreation park for slope climbing, base jumping and cave exploring. Quantitative assessment on the stability of the cave is essential to ensure the safety of tourists and visitors. The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess the stability of Gua Damai, Batu Caves, Selangor, Malaysia by using the Q system for rock mass classification, together with other factors such as cave width and thickness of the cave roof. The stability of the limestone cave wall was evaluated using Slope Mass Rating (SMR). A discontinuity survey conducted along the slopes beneath the opening of the cave showed that the rock mass comprised of four major joint sets labeled as J1, J2, J3, and J4 with the dip directions and angles of 110˚/73˚, 325˚/87˚, 243˚/39˚ and 054˚/30˚, respectively. The result of kinematic analysis showed that the dip direction/dip angle of a potential wedge failure was 051˚/59˚. By referring to the ratio of cave roof thickness with cave width, the results showed that the cave is stable. Based on the relationship between Q system and the cave width, the stabilities of Section 4 of Gua Damai is stable while Section 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 require supports. Based on SMR, the cave walls stability at Portion c, d, and f were not stable while Portion a, b, e and g were stable. Overall, the most stable part of the cave is Section 4 followed by Sections 5 and 2. Sections 1, 3 and 8 are moderately stable while Sections 6 and 7 have poor stability.