2. Why, How, and What ? Simply we will answer the following three questions 1. Why do we evaluate the engineering properties of rock. 2. How could we evaluate the engineering properties of rock 3. What are the major outcomes of our project in term of results and conclusions.

3. Why ? 1.Study and evaluate general characteristics of rocks in Nablus. 2.Study and evaluate the engineering behavior of rocks under different ground conditions. 3.Determine the efficiency for the design assumptions values used in Nablus city.

4. Why ? (continued) 4.Saving money by assuming higher beaning capacity values 5.Scarce of researchers involved in rocks in our local area. 6.Nablus city is mountainous region, and people have to build in mountains.

5. Why ? (continued) 7. Act as base step for successor students to start over our work and make good progress in rock research field

6. How ? Seven sites were chosen in Nablus city area as shown below.

7. How ? (continued) Eight samples from each site are taken under these considerations: 1.Deep of each sample. 2.Location with respect to site 3.Any needed preparations before testing

8. How ? (continued) The following tests were conducted for each site: 1.Specific Gravity. 2. Absorption. 3. Porosity. 4. Abrasion ( Los Anglos test ) 5. Axial load (unconfined compression test)

9. What ? Test results for each site

10. What ? (continued) Conclusions are as follows 1.Rocks strength ranges from weak to strong with no very strong or very weak 2.Majority of rocks are sedimentary with some metamorphic ones. 3.Absorption values are relatively small

11. Site A Tests Results Test and Results Sample ID Axial Load Average Abrasion (%) Porosity (%) Absorption (%) Specific Gravity (KN/m 2 ) G Bulk.SSDG sa G sb 31388.8 42857.434 4.12 24.78 1.63 13.80 2.56 2.04 2.63 2.39 2.52 1.80 A1 A2

12. Site B Tests Results Test and Results Sample ID Axial Load Average Abrasion (%) Porosity (%) Absorption (%) Specific Gravity (KN/m 2 ) G Bulk.SSDG sa G sb 16094.67 10329.67 ----------- 29.6431.22 31.97 34.38 18.64 19.84 21.33 1.99 1.93 1.96 2.44 2.37 2.46 1.68 1.61 B1 B2 B3

13. Site C Tests Results Test and Results Sample ID Axial Load Average Abrasion (%) Porosity (%) Absorption (%) Specific Gravity (KN/m 2 ) G Bulk.SSDG sa G sb 39722.22 22333.33 ----------- 30.5124.83 2.83 0.62 13.74 13.30 1.16 0.23 5.99 2.12 2.46 2.69 2.43 2.48 2.50 2.70 2.66 1.87 2.43 2.68 2.30 C1 C2 C3 C4

14. Site D Tests Results Test and Results Sample ID Axial Load Average Abrasion (%) Porosity (%) Absorption (%) Specific Gravity (KN/m 2 ) G Bulk.SSDG sa G sb 52500 13978.4 26.121.59 0.42 0.62 0.16 2.57 2.69 2.59 2.70 2.55 2.69 D1 D2

15. Site E Tests Results Test and Results Sample ID Axial Load Average Abrasion (%) Porosity (%) Absorption (%) Specific Gravity (KN/m 2 ) G Bulk.SSDG sa G sb 27692.31 31538.46 ----------- 3612.31 11.35 17.11 5.29 4.85 7.75 2.45 2.38 2.65 2.64 2.66 2.33 2.34 2.21 E1 E2 E3

16. Site F Tests Results Test and Results Sample ID Axial Load Average Abrasion (%) Porosity (%) Absorption (%) Specific Gravity (KN/m 2 ) G Bulk.SSDG sa G sb 28402.3 40710.0 300.91 2.48 0.34 0.99 2.69 2.52 2.71 2.56 2.68 2.49 F1 F2

17. Site G Tests Results Test and Results Sample ID Axial Load Average Abrasion (%) Porosity (%) Absorption (%) Specific Gravity (gm/cm 3 ) (KN/m 2 ) G Bulk.SSDG sa G sb 2366.86 12747.14 ----------- 253.97 4.40 7.04 1.18 1.66 1.83 3.05 0.44 2.42 2.45 2.38 2.66 2.48 2.52 2.49 2.68 2.38 2.41 2.31 2.65 G1 G2 G3 G4

18. General rock tests Purpose of TestType of Test Strength Uniaxial Compression Direct Shear Triaxial Compression Direct Tension Brazilian Split Point Load* Deformability Uniaxial Compression Triaxial Compress Swell Creep CharacterizationWater Content Porosity Density (Unit Weight) Specific Gravity Absorption Rebound Sonic Velocities Abrasion Resistance