Rock Fragmentation

By handling the Rock

From Quarry to Breakwater

Tom J.A. Korevaar

06-05-2015

Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................................... 6
Test Phase ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Results ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Recommendation.................................................................................................................................. 18
Literature .............................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendix A: Test Phase......................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix B: Initial Grading Test............................................................................................................ 26
Appendix C: Final Grading Test ............................................................................................................. 28

Introduction
Potential breakage of armour stone could be a problem when it is exposed to many rough handling
events after it is purchased and before it is permanently placed in the breakwater. This could be a
significant problem when the rock is intended for a dynamically stable structure, for example berm
breakwaters. Especially the grading of the rock material could be influenced by a negative way due
to breaking and fragmentation of the rock. In this research the process of the rock from the quarry
until the final positioning at the breakwater has been tried to simulate as much as possible. During
this process tests are executed and the losses will be determined. Eventually it should a more clear
view of the breakage of armour stone during the construction stage.

Scope
Project
The research is done for the project Constanta Beach Rehabilitation in Romania. The project aims on
the rehabilitation of beaches by constructing breakwaters and sand nourishment of the beaches. An
overview of the project can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Figure 1: Overview rehabilitation beaches Tomis

Figure 2: Overview rehabilitation beaches Efori North

With the construction of the breakwaters a lot of armour stone has been used. This armour stone
has been delivered from a quarry a distance away from the project. The project includes the
construction of 8 emerged breakwaters and 5 submerged breakwaters. In Figure 3, Figure 4 and
Figure 5 typical cross-sections of the several breakwaters are shown. Visible is that the quantity of
core material is relatively small compared to the armour layer, in comparison to a larger breakwater.

Figure 3: Typical Cross-Section with 1-4 T armour layer

Figure 4: Typical Cross-section with 1-4 T and 300-600 kg as armour layer

Figure 5: Typical cross-section with 300-600 kg and Accropode

TM

II as armour layer

Research Question
The goal of this research is to obtain an understanding about which quantities of what grading are
lost during the time between purchase and the final positioning of the rock in the structure. Because
of this lost an additional volume has to be purchased or a higher grading has to be taken into
account during the design phase. The main research question will be:

What is the percentage of rock that is lost between purchase and final positioning?

A side aspect of the research will be to compare an image analysing software (IAS) to do a grading
test to a physical grading test. If such software could be applied in earlier stages of a project it could
have a major value. The functioning of such software will be explained in the chapter of theoretical
framework.

Theoretical Framework
Breakage
If a rock breaks two types of breakage can be identified that will have different effect on the
degradation. These two types are major breakage and minor breakage. Major breakage refers to
breakage of individual armour stones along pre-existing defects. In practice this means that the
broken part of the stone has a mass of at least 10 % of the initial stone mass. If major breakages
takes place on a significant number of stones, this may significantly affect the mass distribution of
the armour stone and consequently the value of the design parameters such as
and
. The
resistance to major breakage is named integrity. Minor breakage refers to breakage of asperities.
Often this happens when stone edges or small corners are broken off. The phenomenon has a
limited impact on the mass distribution and the
value.
Rock Grading
In Figure 6 the standard grading according to the Rock Manual are shown. In the project as
mentioned earlier the armour layer grading used are 1-4 ton and 300-600 kg. In the figure is also the
shown, the
is defined as the average mass of the sample heavier than a fragment [1]. So
the
will differ from the
.

Figure 6: Heavy, Light and Coarse European EN 13383 standard grading requirements. [1]

By blasting rock from a quarry the percentage fine rocks is significant higher than the fraction of
armour stone. [1] When small breakwaters are constructed the ratio between small material (core
and filter) and larger material (armour stone) is more equal than is acquired from the quarry. What
means that with every tonnage of produced armour stone the residual of small material will be
significantly higher than when a large breakwater is constructed. Therefore the focus of this research
will be done on the grading 1-4T, which is the grading of armour stone used on the breakwaters.
Because rock of the grading 1-4 T is unavailable 1-3 T is used. This will not have any effect on the
research that is going to be done. In Table 1 the lower and upper limits of the 1-3 T according to the
rock manual are stated. [1]
The sample that is used has to exist of at least 90 pieces of rock to be able to execute a proper
grading test during the different stages of the process. [1] A standard sampling method shall be used
as described in the EN13383. [2]

ELL
NLL
W50
NUL
EUL
Wmax

Lower and Upper Limits of 1000-3000kg Grading

kg
kg
min %
650
650
0
1000
1000
0
1800
2300
50
3000
3000
70
4500
4500
95
4500

Table 1: Limits 1000-3000 kg grading

max %
5
10
50
100
100
100

Intrinsic properties
Intrinsic properties of the rock relate to the properties of the rock source, its geological history or
the industrial process. [1] The intrinsic properties are determined using laboratory tests. The
relevant intrinsic properties for this experiment are the single axis compressive strength, the
resistance to wear and the density of the rock. All properties have been determined by previously
performed tests. The resistance to wear has been determined by using a Los Angeles method. The
rock used in the research is coming from different quarries and therefore the sample inlcudes
multiple kinds of rock. The sample will exist of rock from 3 quarries: Nicolae Balcescu (Limestone),
Ben-Ari Negev (Basalt) and Hidromineral (Granite). The intrinsic properties can be found in Table 2.
Property
Minimum density
(saturated dry
3
surface [kg/m ]
Maximum water
absorption [% of the
weight]
Minimum
compression stress
2
[N/mm ]
Resistance to
abrasion (Los
Angeles) maximum
weight loss

Basalt
(Ben-Ari Negev)
3

Granite
(Hidromineral)
3

Limestone
(Nicolae Balcescu)
3

2986 kg/m

2820 kg/m

2833 kg/m

0.13%

0.20%

2.56%

158 N/mm

12%

140 N/mm

19.70%

116 N/mm

23.30%

Table 2: Intrinsic Properties Stone

Image Analysing Software

The image Analysing software (IAS) determines a size grading on base of a picture taken from the
sample. When the picture is taken 2 objects with known dimensions have to be placed in the
stockpile (1 in the front and 1 in the back). The software will identity the individual blocks from the
image and will make a size distribution based on the 2 reference objects.

Process
During the tests the process as executed in reality has been tried to simulate as much as possible.
During the process from the quarry until the final position in the breakwater there will be some
critical stages in which the rock is handled by excavators and other equipment. These stages will be
elaborated in this paragraph and the critical points will be indicated.

Loading trucks at the Quarry: The first crucial point is when the graded rock is loaded into
trucks at the quarry for transport to the construction site. The rock stone is loaded by an
excavator with a bucket and drops into the trailer of the truck, during this process the rocks
will not be protected. The stage before the grading of the rocks is not relevant for this
investigation.
Dumping at the Stockpile: During the transport from the quarry to the construction site the
rocks are not exposed to major external forces and the fragmentation during the transport
will therefore be negligible. The next critical point in the process will be the dumping of the
rock from the quarry on the stockpiles on site. The trucks will tilt their trailer and the rock
slides out and will make impact with the rock from the stockpile.
Stockpiling: When the rock is in the stockpile it is occasionally moved by an excavator to
maintain the accessibility of the stockpile, during this procedure the excavator will drive over
the stockpile using his steel caterpillar tracks. Rock under the tracks will be exposed to an
larger force.
Loading from Stockpile: When the rock is transported to the breakwater it will be loaded
into dump trucks by an excavator. Again the rock will be exposed to an additional impact.
Dumping at/in Breakwater: When the rock arrives at the breakwater the rock will be
dumped directly in the water or on the already constructed part of the breakwater.
Positioning/profiling Armour Layer by Excavator: After the dump the final step will be the
positioning of the armour layer of an excavator with a bucket. When this step is completed
the armour layer will be in its final position and will no longer be exposed to major impact
forces caused by handling.

Test Phase
In Appendix A: Test Phase a more detailed description of the process executed during the test phase
is given. During the test phase has been tried to simulate the process as described above as much as
possible. In this chapter a small summary will be given. The following steps were executed:

Acquiring Sample

In this step the sample has been acquired according to methods of the EN13383. The number of
stones used is 90.

Initial Grading Test

During this step the initial grading test was executed. Also were the individual stones numbered and
the dimensions were measured.

Loading/Dumping

The first loading and dumping step simulated the rock brought from the quarry. During this step the
rock was loaded on a dump truck and after that dumped on a different place.

Stockpiling

After the first dump the stockpiling has been done by a wheel loader. In this step the wheel loader
piles the stones into a more compact pile.

Loading Trucks/ Weighing Bridge

The next step is the loading of the trucks which passed over the weighing bridge to determine the
intermediate mass loss

Dumping

The trucks dump the sample again, which simulates the stage in which the dumpers dump the
material on the breakwater.

Profiling

An excavator profiles the individual stones as it should be done on the breakwater.

Final Grading Test

The last step in the final grading test. With this test the profiled stones are again weight individual.

10

Results
This chapter will describe the results obtained during the tests. For images of breakage is referred to
Appendix A: Test Phase. In Figure 7 the grading curve is shown as a result of the grading test. Also
the obtained values shown in Table 3. The
of the sample is 1879 kg which falls within the limits
of 1700 kg and 2100 kg. [1]
1000 - 3000kg
100
90

Masspercentage lighter than (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
500

5000

Weight [kg]

Figure 7: Grading Initial Grading Test

Weight Criteria
[kg]<
650
1000
1800
2300
3000
4500
> 4500

Weight retained
[kg]
0
10620
57326
29365
32590
39227
0

Table 3: Results Initial Grading Test

11

Cumulative
weight [kg]
0
10620
67946
97311
129901
169128
169128

% Retained

% Cumulative

0
6.3
33.9
17.4
19.3
23.2
0

0
6.3
40.2
57.5
76.8
100
100

Intermediate Weighing Moment

The intermediate weighing moment shows the weight of the rock as measured on the weighing
bridge. 2 trucks are used from which the several weights are shown in Table 4 Including the empty
weights as a reference value. The losses in this stage are only losses by fragmentation (minor
breakage). The leftovers will also be left over at the

Truck

Empty
Weight [kg]

CT13KON
CT36KON

14300
14900

Weight Trip
1 [kg]

Weight Trip
2 [kg]

34720
34640
37400
37220
Total Weight [kg]:

Weight Trip
3 [kg]

Weight Trip
4 [kg]

35140
37620

24460
34460

Total
Weight
Rock [kg]
71760
87100
158860

Table 4: Results Truck weighing

Final Grading Test

During the final grading test the weight of every single rock has been determined again. This time
dimensions of the rock are disregarded. The individual results can be found in. In Figure 8 the
grading curve is shown as a result of the grading test. Also the obtained values shown in Table 5
Weight Criteria
[kg]<
650
1000
1800
2300
3000
4500
> 4500

Weight retained
[kg]
6933
15796
54339
24288
33664
23335
0

Table 5: Results Final Grading Test

12

Cumulative
weight [kg]
6933
22729
77068
101356
135020
158355
158355

% Retained

% Cumulative

4.4
10
34.3
15.3
21.3
14.7
0

4.4
14.4
48.7
64
85.3
100
100

The number of blocks measured in this test increased from 90 pieces till 105 pieces. Also pieces
below 650 kg were weighted and later used as fragments in the determination of the grading curve.
As shown in the curve and the table the percentage of stones smaller than 1000 kg is larger than the
tolerated amount. The grading shown in Figure 8 is no longer a 1000-3000 kg grading.
1000 - 3000kg

100
90

Masspercentage lighter than (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
500

5000

Weight [kg]

Figure 8: Grading Curve Final Grading Test

Weight Criteria
[kg]<
650
1000
1800
2300
3000
4500
> 4500

Weight retained
[kg]
6933
15796
54339
24288
33664
23335
0

Cumulative
weight [kg]
6933
22729
77068
101356
135020
158355
158355

% Retained

% Cumulative

4.4
10
34.3
15.3
21.3
14.7
0

4.4
14.4
48.7
64
85.3
100
100

Table 5: Results Final Grading Test

The
determined is 1701 Kg which is just in between the limits of 1700 kg and 2100 kg. During
the final grading test has been tried to identify the single blocks. For an amount of blocks this was
successful. The results from this comparison are shown in Table 12 in Appendix C: Final Grading Test.
In the table also the initial L/T value is shown.

13

Image Analysing Software

In Figure 10 the image shown as used for the image analysing software. The stock shown on the
picture is similar to the stock on which the final grading test has been executed. In Figure 9 the
image is shown after the software has processed it.

Figure 10: Image from Stockpile

Figure 9: Image Analysed by Image analysing Software

To converse the size distribution to a mass distribution the formula [1]:

With [1]:

= the sieve size which is used by the software. In Table 6 the conversed limit values are shown. The
density used is the average of the intrinsic properties which is 2880 kg/m3.

Kg
650
1000
1800
2300
3000
4500

[m3]
0.23
0.35
0.63
0.80
1.04
1.56

Table 6: Limit Values Size Distribution

14

[m]
0.61
0.70
0.85
0.93
1.01
1.16

[m]
0.72
0.84
1.02
1.10
1.21
1.38

Weight Criteria [kg] <

% Cumulative (Grading
Test)

% Cumulative (IAS)

650
1000
1800
2300
3000
4500
> 4500

4.4
14.4
48.7
64
85.3
100
100

62.3
78.3
92.7
95.8
99.1
100.0
100.0

Table 7: Results Image Analysing Software

Table 7 shows the results of the IAS compared to the result of the final grading test. Figure 11 shows
the comparison of the grading curves retrieved from both the grading test and the IAS.

1000 - 3000kg
100

90

Masspercentage lighter than (%)

80

70

60
Grading
Test
Grading
Curve
IAS
Grading
Curve

50

40

30

20

10

0
500

Figure 11: Grading Curve Final Grading test & IAS

15

Weight [kg]

5000

Conclusion
Fragmentation
From the test results can be concluded that the lost due to fragmentation (minor breakage) of this
process is the difference between the total mass of the both grading tests:

However the final grading test shows a grading that is no longer representative for a 1000-3000 kg
grading. See Figure 12. To make the sample a proper 1000-3000 kg grading again stones from the
lower weight regions have to be removed (degraded). Removing the stones smaller than 750 kg will
bring the grading back within the limits of the 1000 3000 kg. Table 8shows the new parameters of
the sample.

1000 - 3000kg
100

90

Masspercentage lighter than (%)

80

70

Final
Grading
Test

60
Initial
Grading
Test

50

40

Final
Sample
without
degraded
rock

30

20

10

0
500

Weight [kg]

Figure 12: Grading from Final and Initial grading test

16

5000

Weight Criteria
[kg] <
650
1000
1800
2300
3000
4500
> 4500

Weight retained
[kg]
0
14440
54339
24288
33664
23335
0

Cumulative
weight [kg]
0
14440
68779
93067
126731
150066
150066

% Retained

% Cumulative

0.0
9.6
36.2
16.2
22.4
15.5
0.0

0.0
9.6
45.8
62.0
84.5
100.0
100.0

Table 8: Final Grading After Degradation

The lost due to degradation (major breakage) will be another 8.3 tons. The percentage of lost due to
degradation will be:

This brings the total of losses at 11.3 %. It should be kept in mind that 4.9 % can be reused in a other
grading. From Figure 12 can be concluded that even if you grade your grading back to a proper 10003000 kg grading the grading curve will always be more steep than was in the initial state. It should be
kept in mind during this conclusion stage that the sample used for the test is already exposed to
breakage a couple of time compared to fresh rock from the quarry.
Image Analysing Software
The results from the Image analysing software are not accurate as shown in Figure 11. The strange
grading curve can be explained by the fact that most of the stones are covered by other stones and
therefore the software only sees a part of it. The grading is therefore much smaller as it supposed to
be. The software will probably function much better on a sample with a smaller grading, because the
dimensions of the rock are more similar.

17

Recommendation
Fragmentation Test
The location of the test could be improved to receive a more realistic value. The rock used in the
sample during this test was already handled multiple times and therefore it was already exposed to
breakage. In reality the quarry would be a better location to execute the test.
After the test some aspect could be improved for similar next tests. By acquiring the sample the
stockpile existed of different kinds of rocks which gave a completely general result. To achieve a
more specific result rock of 1 single kind should be used.
During the initial grading test the number of the blocks should be done by putting more numbers on
1 single block, because of the breaking an scratching a lot of numbers were already unidentifiable
after the first dumping step. At the end only 30% of the blocks could be identified again. This way
also the L/T-ratio can be checked with the breakage.
Another point that could be improved is the intermediate weighing moment. To see if every
dumping moment gives the same fraction of losses the process of dumping, stockpiling and loading
could be done an additional time. This also matches the reality in which the stone is often picked
more times than described above.

Image Analysing Software

To improve the results achieved by the image analysing software the picture should be taken from a
bird point of view or at least perpendicular to the sample. This way the major part of the stone will
not be hidden behind the stone in front of it as happened in this research. The pictures used in this
research were taken from a to flat angle.

18

Literature
1. CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF, 2007. The Rock Manual, second edition. The use of rock in hydraulic
engineering. CIRIA, London.
2. British Standard Institution (BSI), 2002a. Armour stone - part 1: Specification. BS EN 13383-1.
BSI, London.
3. British Standard Institution (BSI), 2002b. Armour stone - part 2: Test Methods. BS EN 13383-2.
BSI, London.

19

Appendix A: Test Phase

This Appendix will describe the process that has been followed during the test phase. The process
existed of several steps with several measuring moments, these steps will here be described in more
detail.
1. Acquiring Sample
The first step was the acquiring of the
sample. The sample should exist of at
least 90 pieces, according to the rock
manual. [1] To guarantee the
randomness of the sample, the rock
has been picked from different
locations from the stockpile. [2] To
select the rock an excavator is used as
shown in Figure 13. After the sample
had been established the initial grading
test could be executed.

Figure 13: Acquiring the sample

2. Initial Grading Test

The grading test is executed with a
weighing cell as shown in Figure 14.
Before the blocks were separately
weighted they were numbered and
measured.
The
measurements
determined were the length and the
thickness. With these the L/T ratio
was defined in a later stage of the
process. The length of the rock has
been defined as the longest side of
the rock, the thickness is the side
perpendicular to the length. The
blocks are lifted using a steel sling and
special trained riggers to handle the Figure 14: Weighing Cell
sling.

20

Figure 16: Numbering of the individual rocks

Figure 15: Measuring the individual rock

3. Loading/Dumping
The first step of the simulation is the loading and dumping of the sample. The sample has been
loaded into dump truck, transported to a different location and dumped again. During this process
some significant damage has been observed. The loading has been done by an excavator using his
bucket. The dumping of the material has been executed by dump trucks as shown in Figure 18. In
Figure 19 and Figure 20 results of the breakage after the dumping are shown.

Figure 18: Dumping of the sample

21

Figure 17: Loading the Dump trucks

Figure 19: Major Breakage after Dumping

Figure 20: Minor Breakage after Dumping

4. Stockpiling
The next step in the process is stockpiling the sample. The stockpiling has been done by a wheel
loader as shown in Figure 22. The result of the stockpiling is shown in Figure 21.

Figure 22: Stockpiling sample using Wheel loader

22

Figure 21: Result of the Stockpiling

5. Loading Trucks
The next step is loading trucks to put them on the weighing bridge to get a first intermediate result.
Before the trucks were loaded they were weighted empty to have a reference level. In the initial
method an intermediate measuring moment was planned between the first dumping and the
stockpiling. However after a conversation with the superintendent on site he explained that both
steps are not executed separately and therefore the measuring moment between the two steps in
not relevant for this research.

Figure 24: Truck on the weighing bridge

Figure 25: Minor Breakage Due to Stockpiling

23

Figure 23: Residual Stockpile

6. Dumping
After the trucks have been on the weighing bridge the dump the sample again. This step simulates
the dumping of the rock on the final position/at the breakwater as shown in .

Figure 27: Trucks Dumping Sample

Figure 26: Breakage Due to Dumping

7. Profiling
The final stage of the simulation is the profiling. In this stage the excavator placed the blocks in a
similar as it should be done at the breakwater. In this final stage also an image has been made for
using the Image analyzing software. The sample as is placed in the current state will be used for the
final grading test as well.

Figure 28: Profiling of sample by an excavator

24

Figure 29: Result of the Profiling Phase

8. Final Grading Test

After the positioning the final grading test was executed in the same way as described by the initial
grading test. The results of the test are compared with the initial results and the results of the
intermediate weighing moment. The results will me elaborated in more detail in the chapter results.
In Figure 30 a stone is shown that is still without breakage however has a high probability to break in
a next handling step.

Figure 30: Stone with Potential Breakage

25

Figure 31: Final Grading Test

Appendix B: Initial Grading Test

Nr Stone

Weight (kg)

Length (cm)

Thickness (cm)

L/T

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

2293
1496
1024
3956
2454
2741
1236
3007
3744
2690
2550
2210
3452
3076
2213
2081
3335
2620
1777
839
1496
3494
1651
3090
2843
1738
2290
926
1129
3198
1308
2604
1944
2989
1974
1248
2013
1499
1009
1642
1983
2072
1693
1738
1230

120
163
133
200
173
215
116
176
170
180
172
198
152
183
129
183
171
159
152
120
153
215
192
177
195
129
201
131
139
192
134
163
155
158
112
118
134
128
138
120
210
215
134
160
90

70
58
62
100
89
88
69
112
100
105
101
58
97
112
77
83
112
67
68
63
79
115
53
81
113
80
85
81
53
75
72
105
66
93
88
51
60
40
85
60
101
80
60
74
78

1.7
2.8
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.4
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
3.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
2.2
1.5
2.4
2.2
1.9
1.9
1.9
3.6
2.2
1.7
1.6
2.4
1.6
2.6
2.6
1.9
1.6
2.3
1.7
1.3
2.3
2.2
3.2
1.6
2.0
2.1
2.7
2.2
2.2
1.2

Table 9: Results Initial Grading Test. Part 1.

26

Nr Stone

Weight (kg)

Length (cm)

Thickness (cm)

L/T

46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90

1690
872
2096
1511
938
1454
2063
1012
4461
1281
1120
2463
2953
1675
1568
2222
1412
2861
1218
1705
830
4414
1254
1621
860
1523
1096
1490
947
1224
830
905
1460
1406
1221
830
914
1081
1054
1541
1911
1260
1535
2822
929

131
90
138
132
134
125
138
102
160
199
141
118
138
127
162
218
153
190
164
175
129
155
121
131
128
110
101
145
135
142
110
120
105
164
177
130
175
133
145
150
140
165
148
189
110

87
83
99
62
52
52
85
68
110
85
65
102
70
90
45
82
71
97
84
62
40
98
40
73
99
90
72
94
56
98
56
40
90
69
101
80
76
99
60
55
87
77
66
67
74

1.5
1.1
1.4
2.1
2.6
2.4
1.6
1.5
1.5
2.3
2.2
1.2
2.0
1.4
3.6
2.7
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.8
3.2
1.6
3.0
1.8
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.5
2.4
1.4
2.0
3.0
1.2
2.4
1.8
1.6
2.3
1.3
2.4
2.7
1.6
2.1
2.2
2.8
1.5

Table 10: Results Initial Grading Test. Part 2.

27

Appendix C: Final Grading Test

2251
1451
1511
1678
1523
3443
152
1612
1863
654
2287
600
896
1194
3114
1998
1597
618
1511
746
2048

245
2646
2893
735
982
702
1505
469
806
1212
1457
343
1732
624
1478
2720
1182
1254
2520
1672
2075

Table 11: Results Final Grading Test

28

Weight of Individual Blocks [kg]

1030
726
2123
2687
988
1484
1221
881
1275
1445
3291
600
794
1899
3941
621
1669
2637
1132
2314
2446
Number of Blocks: 105

242
803
2030
2890
788
1645
1696
806
1168
1403
1496
2308
2401
1535
340
1672
305
1347
1051
947
612

343
1935
1732
3102
2604
3213
833
517
896
950
1977
1439
1627
863
1018
3231
302
1311
2598
1374
1802

Number of Block
1
2
4
7
9
10
13
16
17
19
21
22
23
25
26
31
32
34
35
43
44
48
49
53
57
58
59
60
65
78
81
82
83
85
86
88

Initial Weight [kg]

2293
1496
3956
1236
3744
2690
3452
2081
3335
1777
1496
3494
1651
2843
1738
1308
2604
2989
1974
1693
1738
2096
1511
1012
2463
2953
1675
1568
1705
1460
830
914
1081
1541
1911
1535

Table 12: Blocks in Initial and Final Grading tests.

29

Final Weight [kg]

2123
1478
3941
1221
3231
2687
3291
2030
3213
1612
1496
3443
988
2646
1732
1182
2604
2893
1899
1678
1696
2075
1051
982
2287
1977
1672
1511
1627
1347
726
788
803
1505
1863
1535

Weight Loss [kg]

170
18
15
15
513
3
161
51
122
165
0
51
663
197
6
126
0
96
75
15
42
21
460
30
176
976
3
57
78
113
104
126
278
36
48
0

L/T
1.7
2.8
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
2.2
2.6
2.2
1.9
1.9
3.6
1.7
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.7
1.3
2.2
2.2
1.4
2.1
1.5
1.2
2.0
1.4
3.6
2.8
1.2
1.6
2.3
1.3
2.7
1.6
2.2