Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

NQ vs HQ rock cores

NQ vs HQ rock cores

NQ vs HQ rock cores

Hi everyone, what are limitations of NQ coring for geotechnical investigations? The structure is a light weight industrial structure which will be on piles penetrating to the rock and the client want to use NQ coring. Is there any limitations in type of information or tests that can be done on smaller NQ cores versus HQ core. Thanks

RE: NQ vs HQ rock cores

I have looked in to this briefly before. Generally the bigger the core barrel the better your recovery, which means better samples for tests. Although on the flip side, Hoek and Brown show that UCS decreases with increasing core diameter.

Based on International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM) Suggested Methods (ISRM 2007), the diameter of the core specimen used for uniaxial compression testing should not be less than 54 mm, while it is 47 mm for the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM; ASTM 1994; ASTM 2000).

NQ = 47mm dia so still acceptable to run UCS test. Note sure on any other limitations.

We typically use PQ which is 85mm dia core. Sometimes we have to change to NQ to run pressure meter tests. Have never been questioned on the core size possibly leading to lower UCS. I think clients might be more concerned with quality of rock recovered that a slight loss of strength as fractures, discontinuities have likely a bigger effect.

RE: NQ vs HQ rock cores

Thanks for the detailed response. The difference in lab requirement is interesting. It appears that for poor rocks it’s better to get larger core but if the rock quality is good, NQ may be enough. One article was saying RQD should be based on a diameter more than 54 mm, but I see many practitioners get RQD from NQ size. Thanks again

RE: NQ vs HQ rock cores

There is another obscure consideration which I have personal experience with. There isnt a huge cost differential between the cost per foot on different hole diameters.. When coring in atrocious ground conditions, if ope starts with a larger diameter, when the drillers start to encounter major difficulties they then have the option to drop down a diameter size and sucessfully complete the hole.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close