You are on page 1of 8

Bull Eng Geol Environ (2008) 67:491–498

DOI 10.1007/s10064-008-0158-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

 

Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength from point load strength, Schmidt hardness and P-wave velocity

Ibrahim _ C¸ obanog˘ lu Æ Sefer Beran C¸ elik

Received: 22 October 2007 / Accepted: 29 March 2008 / Published online: 15 May 2008

Springer-Verlag 2008

Abstract Uniaxial compressive strength is considered

one of the most important parameters in the characterization

of rock material in rock engineering practice. The study

investigated correlations between uniaxial compressive

strength and point load index, P-wave velocity and Schmidt

hardness rebound number together with the effects of core

diameter size. A total of 150 core samples at five different

diameters (54, 48, 42, 30 and 21 mm) were obtained from

sandstone, limestone and cement mortar. Ten saturated

samples at each diameter (length:diameter ratio 2:1) were

prepared from each of the three materials. The best corre-

lations were found between uniaxial compressive strength

and point load or Schmidt hammer values. The closest

relationship was observed for the 48 mm diameter cores.

Keywords

Uniaxial compressive strength

Point load strength index

Schmidt hammer rebound value Sonic wave velocity

Re´ sume´ La re´ sistance a` la compression simple est con-

side´ re´ e comme l’un des parame` tres les plus importants pour

caracte´ riser la re´ sistance de la matrice rocheuse dans les

applications de la me´ canique des roches. L’e´ tude s’est

in-

te´ resse´ e aux corre´ lations entre la re´ sistance a` la compression

simple et l’indice d’e´ crasement entre pointes, la vitesse des

ondes P et l’indice de rebond au marteau de Schmidt, con-

side´ rant

de plus l’influence du diame` tre des carottes teste´ es.

Au total, 150 e´ chantillons de gre` s, calcaires et mortiers de

I. _ C¸ obanog˘ lu (&) S. B. C¸ elik

Department of Geological Engineering, Pamukkale University,

20017 Kınıklı Campus, Denizli, Turkey

e-mail: icobanoglu@pau.edu.tr

S. B. C¸ elik

e-mail: scelik@pau.edu.tr

ciment, dans cinq diame` tres diffe´ rents (54, 48, 42, 30 et

  • 21 mm) ont e´ te´ pre´ pare´ s. Dix e´ chantillons sature´ s ont e´ te´

teste´ s pour les trois types

de roche et pour chaque diame` tre

(ratio longueur/diame` tre =

2/1). Les meilleures corre´ la-

tions ont

e´ te´ trouve´ es entre la re´ sistance a` la compression

simple et la re´ sistance entre pointes ou l’indice de rebond de

Schmidt. Les relations les plus pre´ cises ont e´ te´ obtenues

pour les e´ chantillons de diame` tre 48 mm.

Mots cle´ s

Re´ sistance a` la compression simple

Indice de re´ sistance entre pointes

Indice de rebond de Schmidt

Vitesse de propagation du son

Introduction

Many studies have considered the possibility of a quick and

easy way to estimate the uniaxial compressive strength

(UCS) of rock based on Schmidt hammer rebound (SHR),

point load (Is (50) ), P-wave velocity (Vp), slake durability

index (SDI) and Shore hardness (SH). Of these parameters,

SHR, Is 50 and Vp tests are the most widely used as they are

comparatively cheap and easy to apply, with the point load

test being the most common for stronger rocks, e.g.

Wiesner and Gillate (1997).

There are various studies in the literature proposing

relationships between Is 50 and UCS (Broch and Franklin

1972; Bieniawski 1975; Pells 1975; Hawkins 1998; Al Jassar

and Hawkins 1979; Hawkins and Olver 1986; Norbury 1986;

Romana 1999; Thuro and Plinninger 2005; Wiesner and

Gillate 1997; Palchik and Hatzor 2004). Tsiambaos and

Sabatakakis (2004) reported that there are many factors

which affect the correlation between UCS and Is 50 and

confirmed that different conversion factors are required for

soft to hard rocks.

123

492

_

  • I. C¸ obanog˘ lu and S. B. C¸ elik

492 _ I. C¸ obanog˘ lu and S. B. C¸ elik Fig. 1 The thin sections

Fig. 1 The thin sections of the samples: L—fine grained limestone;

S—calcerous fine grained sandstone; C—Cement mortar with

microsparitic limestone grains

Palchik and Hatzor (2004) investigated the effect of

porosity on the Brazilian, UCS and Is 50 tests for porous

chalkstones from Israel and determined conversion factors

of between 8 and 18 for relating UCS and Is (50) .

A number of authors (Hassani et al. 1980; Forster 1983;

Ghosh and Srivastava 1991) studied the influence of rock

specimen diameter on Is (50) . Ghosh and Srivastava (1991)

considered the ideal diameter for obtaining a result corre-

latable with UCS is 40–50 mm.

Materials tested

Blocks of sandstone and limestone were obtained from

quarries and natural

outcrops

in

the

areas

around

Nig˘ de-Ulukıs¸la and Antalya, respectively, and carefully

checked to ensure they were homogeneous and free from

visible weaknesses. As the empirical results could be

affected by the structural characteristics of the rock,

cement mortar samples were also prepared (Fig. 1). This

consisted of Serinhisar sand, with an average grain size

of 1.7 mm, a coefficient of uniformity (C u ) of 3.45 and a

coefficient of curvature (C c ) of 0.86, mixed with cement

and water with a ratio of 3:1:0.5. After the cylinders

were cast, the samples were vibrated for 25 s and left

covered for 24 h, after which they stood in a water bath

for 56 days.

A total of 150 cores were prepared from the sandstone,

limestone and cement mortar, with five different diameters:

54, 48, 42, 30 and 21 mm. The length:diameter ratio of the

cores was 2:1, following ASTM (1984). The ends of the

cores were smoothed to within 0.02 mm and perpendicu-

larity was kept at 0.05 mm. Cut cores may have slight

imperfections hence to ensure the results were comparable,

the lengths and diameters of the cores were checked and an

average of the ten measurements for each diameter size

was used in the calculations. The maximum and minimum

values for unit weight and water content are given in

Table 1.

Thin section investigations

According to the results of the petrographical examina-

tion, the limestone samples were dominantly calcite: the

calcite minerals sporadically showing polysynthetic twin-

ning. In addition to pellets, intraclasts of sand, gravel and

rarely finer grains were present in a matrix of sparry

calcite. The material is classified as fine-grained limestone

(intramicrosparite).

The sandstone samples contained calcite, sub-angular

quartz, chlorite and to a lesser extent plagioclase, musco-

vite and biotite as well as varying amounts of opaque

minerals, some of which showed evidence of oxidation.

The samples also included chert fragments in microcrystal

form. The material is classified as calcareous cemented

fine-grained sandstone (calcarenite).

The mortar samples consisted of sub-rounded or elon-

gate micritic-microsparitic limestone, microspar, calcite

and rounded pellets with a cement matrix.

Table 1 Some physical properties of the core samples

Code

Type

Sample diameters (mm)

Dry unit weight (kN/m 3 )

Saturated unit weight (kN/m 3 )

Water content (%)

C

Cement mortar

54, 48, 42, 30, 21

21.01–21.22

22.79–22.99

8.131–8.740

S

Sandstone

54, 48, 42, 30, 21

26.02–26.18

26.21–26.35

0.663–0.744

L

Limestone

54, 48, 42, 30, 21

24.14–24.71

24.94–25.28

2.400–3.273

Estimation of UCS from quicker/simpler tests

493

Table 2 Test data of the samples

Sample

name

Core

diameter,

d (mm)

Water

content

(%)

UCS

(MPa)

Point

load

index

I

s-50

(MPa)

Vp

(km/s)

Schmidt

hardness

rebound

value

CA-1

CA-2

CA-3

CA-4

CA-5

LA-1

LA-2

LA-3

LA-4

LA-5

SA-1

SA-2

SA-3

SA-4

SA-5

CB-1

CB-2

CB-3

CB-4

CB-5

LB-1

LB-2

LB-3

LB-4

LB-5

SB-1

SB-2

SB-3

SB-4

SB-5

CC-1

CC-2

CC-3

CC-4

CC-5

LC-1

LC-2

LC-3

LC-4

LC-5

SC-1

SC-2

SC-3

SC-4

SC-5

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

42

42

42

42

42

42

42

42

42

42

42

42

42

42

42

8,515

8,233

8,752

8,842

9,009

1,883

2,343

2,506

2,543

2,957

0,605

0,773

0,620

0,628

0,990

7,190

7,397

7,727

7,908

8,135

3,050

2,787

3,130

3,209

4,136

0,462

0,505

0,509

0,559

0,589

7,614

7,695

8,157

8,229

8,261

1,639

2,399

2,493

2,811

2,992

0,509

0,517

0,532

0,590

0,738

35,277

37,497

37,520

37,841

40,530

62,973

63,695

74,074

74,113

74,931

82,657

85,247

97,941

105,420

105,471

28,785

33,922

38,917

43,209

43,865

40,924

49,306

54,374

58,420

72,760

76,654

90,350

93,380

103,237

111,670

25,357

32,790

33,340

34,132

44,398

54,130

60,611

65,368

69,613

75,410

71,553

89,498

98,364

103,239

120,881

2,442

2,850

3,150

3,438

3,501

3,594

3,860

3,938

4,050

4,408

7,425

8,500

9,500

11,290

11,356

3,419

3,419

3,420

3,445

4,297

4,791

6,058

6,300

6,531

7,806

7,416

8,043

8,261

8,682

9,593

3,161

3,322

3,817

4,212

4,540

5,359

5,386

5,628

8,532

8,543

8,694

8,990

9,344

9,656

9,744

3,982

4,031

4,045

4,048

4,054

4,753

4,799

4,866

4,869

5,109

4,911

4,926

4,973

4,979

5,007

4,051

4,056

4,065

4,071

4,100

4,627

4,665

4,736

4,748

4,764

4,792

4,811

4,827

4,830

4,846

3,956

3,995

4,013

4,019

4,037

4,693

4,696

4,746

4,795

4,982

4,627

4,716

4,721

4,726

4,746

38

38

40

40

40

43

44

44

45

46

40

42

44

46

48

Table 2 continued

 

Sample

Core

Water

UCS

Point

Vp

Schmidt

name

diameter,

content

(MPa)

load

(km/s)

hardness

d (mm)

(%)

index

rebound

 

I

s-50

value

(MPa)

 

CD-1

30

7,676

38,166

2,805

CD-2

30

7,740

39,127

3,174

CD-3

30

8,008

41,517

3,258

CD-4

30

8,020

43,634

3,703

CD-5

30

8,023

44,659

5,317

LD-1

30

2,829

40,949

5,225

LD-2

30

3,337

50,349

5,366

LD-3

30

3,354

55,036

7,103

LD-4

30

4,010

55,062

7,740

LD-5

30

4,081

57,481

8,205

SD-1

30

0,560

88,293

8,917

SD-2

30

0,593

93,411

9,817

SD-3

30

0,602

103,446

10,272

SD-4

30

0,835

111,039

10,988

SD-5

30

1,130

114,732

11,254

CE-1

21

7,298

32,808

4,345

CE-2

21

7,612

37,216

4,424

CE-3

21

7,633

38,791

4,701

CE-4

21

7,924

40,351

5,113

CE-5

21

7,975

45,611

5,436

LE-1

21

1,956

47,605

4,496

LE-2

21

3,189

55,221

5,354

LE-3

21

3,323

85,709

5,532

LE-4

21

3,602

89,637

6,017

LE-5

21

3,898

91,262

6,021

SE-1

21

0,448

84,012

5,925

SE-2

21

0,514

92,528

11,440

SE-3

21

0,669

96,703

11,878

SE-4

21

1,288

99,894

11,932

SE-5

21

1,491

146,834

13,350

Uniaxial compressive tests

Uniaxial compressive strength tests were carried out using

a loading rate of 0.5 MPa/s. Five tests were undertaken for

each core size (54, 48, 42, 30, 21 mm) of each material

type (total 75 samples, see Table 2).

The relationship between the UCS value and the size of

core is indicated in Fig. 2. The highest value for the

limestone (102 MPa) was obtained on the 21 mm sample

and the lowest (68 MPa) on the 54 mm sample, with a

pronounced reduction of 25 MPa between the 48 and

54 mm diameter cores. The highest strength for the sand-

stones (84 MPa) was on the larger diameter cores (54 mm),

and the lowest strength (50 MPa) on the 30 mm samples.

123

494

_

  • I. C¸ obanog˘ lu and S. B. C¸ elik

120 C Group Samples L Group Samples S Group Samples 100 80 60 40 20 0
120
C Group Samples
L Group Samples
S Group Samples
100
80
60
40
20
0
21
30
42
48
54
UCS (MPa)

Core Diameter (mm)

Fig. 2 UCS values of rock types for different core diameters

There was less variation in the strength of the cement

mortar samples which ranged between 36 MPa (42 mm

diameter) and 40 MPa (30 mm). It would appear therefore

that the compressive strength is affected not only by the

core size but also by the lithological characteristics.

Hoek and Brown (1980) reviewed the influence of the

diameter of a specimen on the measured strength of dif-

ferent types of rocks. They proposed the following

equation (Eq. 1) can be used to relate UCS estimated from

samples with different core diameters.

r C 50 ¼

 

r C

ð1Þ

50

0:18

 

d

 

where;

 

r

C50

: UCS value calculated for 50 mm diameter core

r C

sample,

: UCS value calculated for sample which has a

different core diameter size,

  • d : sample diameter (mm).

1,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 C Group Samples L Group Samples 0,2 S Group
1,6
1,4
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
C
Group Samples
L
Group Samples
0,2
S Group Samples
0
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Core Diameter, d (mm)
UCS of specimen of diameter d
UCS of 54mm specimen

Fig. 3 Influence of specimen size on the strength of investigated core

samples

12 C Group Samples L Group Samples S Group Samples 10 8 6 4 2 0
12
C
Group Samples
L
Group Samples
S Group Samples
10
8
6
4
2
0
21
30
42
48
54
Point Load Index, Is(50) (MPa)

Core Diameter (mm)

Fig. 4 Variations of Is (50) values with core diameters

increased from 5.6 to 8.8 (Table 2). In the case of the

cement mortar, there was a slight decrease from 4.8 for the

21 mm cores to 2.8 for the 54 mm cores.

Not all authors who reported point load strength iden-

Hawkins (1998) stated that the results of his studies on

tified the particular rock types on which the results were

sedimentary rocks samples do not support the equation

obtained. Al Jassar and Hawkins (1979) investigated the

presented by Hoek and Brown (1980) who used mainly

change in the point load strength index for specimens

crystalline (igneous) rocks. Hawkins found the maximum

having 30, 50 and 76 mm diameters, in five groups of

strength range to be obtained on 38–54 mm diameter

limestone and one group of dolomite. They identified a

samples and that UCS values declined above or below this

significant decrease in the point load strength index with

range. The present study does not extend the diameters

increase in core size. In this study, similar results were

above 54 mm but the relationship shown by Hawkins is not

observed for the limestone and cement mortar specimens

apparent in Fig. 3.

but the sandstone results did not follow this trend.

The relationship between the Is (50) and UCS values

obtained in this study for the five core diameters are given

Point load tests

in Fig. 5. Although there is a very evident spread of values,

As seen in Fig. 4, the point load test results indicate that for

the 21–54 mm diameter samples the I S50 for the limestones

decreased from 10.6 to 3.8 while for the sandstones it

equations have been derived relating these two properties

based on a straight-line relationship (Table 3).

D’Andrea et al. (1965), using 25 mm diameter speci-

mens, suggested a multiplier of 16 when relating I S50 to

123

Estimation of UCS from quicker/simpler tests

495

160 A (54 mm) Group Samples 140 120 100 80 60 40 y = 7,18x +
160
A
(54 mm) Group Samples
140
120
100
80
60
40
y = 7,18x + 27,78
20
r 2 = 0,80
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
UCS (MPa)

Is (50) (MPa)

160 B (48 mm) Group Samples 140 120 100 80 60 40 y = 11,78x -
160
B
(48 mm) Group Samples
140
120
100
80
60
40
y = 11,78x - 9,17
20
r 2 = 0,91
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Is (50) (MPa)
UCS (MPa)
160 C (42 mm) Group Samples 140 120 100 80 60 40 y = 10,73x -
160
C
(42 mm) Group Samples
140
120
100
80
60
40
y = 10,73x - 5,50
20
r 2 = 0,88
0
UCS (MPa)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Is (50) (MPa) 160 D (30 mm) Group
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Is (50) (MPa)
160
D
(30 mm) Group Samples
140
120
100
80
60
40
y = 8,87x + 4,11
20
r 2 = 0,86
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
UCS (MPa)

Is (50) (MPa)

160 E (21 mm) Group Samples 140 120 100 80 60 40 y = 8,25x +
160
E
(21 mm) Group Samples
140
120
100
80
60
40
y = 8,25x + 14,02
20
r 2 = 0,67
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Is (50) (MPa)
UCS (MPa)

Fig. 5 The relation between Is 50 and UCS values of samples depend

on core diameters

Table 3 Derived equations with different core diameters

Core diameter (mm)

UCS–Is (50) equation

2

r

  • 54 UCS = 7.18 Is (50) + 27.78

  • 48 UCS = 11.78 Is (50) - 9.17

  • 42 UCS = 10.73 Is (50) - 5.50

  • 30 UCS = 8.87 Is (50) + 4.11

  • 21 UCS = 8.25 Is (50) + 14.02

0.80

0.91

0.88

0.86

0.67

UCS. Broch and Franklin (1972) proposed a value of 24 for

  • 38 mm diameter specimens. Hawkins and Olver (1986),

testing rocks from a single site in the Corallian in the UK

found values of 26.5 for limestone, 24.8 for sandstone and

9.3 for siltstone (core diameters corrected to 50 mm).

Ghosh and Srivastava (1991) pointed out that a specimen

size/platen distance of 40–50 mm is ideal for point load

testing.

For some rocks, the relationship between the point load

index and the UCS value also depends on whether the

comparison is with the UCS dry or UCS wet . Clearly, with dry

specimens the cones of the point load machine will create a

brittle fracture without penetration into the rock, whereas

with wet/saturated specimens some penetration of the cone

may occur. Hawkins (1998) reported the UCS strength of

saturated sandstone samples may be only half to three

quarters of that obtained on dry samples. As mentioned

earlier, in this study saturated samples were used in both

the UCS and Is 50 tests. The results are given in Fig. 6

which shows a significant variation on either side of the

regression line.

Sonic velocity tests

The relationship between uniaxial compressive strength

and sonic velocity (V p ) was investigated by D’Andrea et al.

(1965) and McCann et al. (1990 in Entwisle et al. 2005) for

160 C Samples 140 L Samples 120 S Samples 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
160
C
Samples
140
L
Samples
120
S Samples
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
UCS (MPa)

Is-50 (MPa)

Fig. 6 Correlation of Is (50) and UCS values of tested samples

123

496

_

  • I. C¸ obanog˘ lu and S. B. C¸ elik

140 C Samples L Samples 120 S Samples 100 80 60 40 20 0 UCS (MPa)
140
C
Samples
L
Samples
120
S Samples
100
80
60
40
20
0
UCS (MPa)
120 C Samples L Samples 100 S Samples 80 60 40 20 0 UCS (MPa)
120
C
Samples
L
Samples
100
S Samples
80
60
40
20
0
UCS (MPa)
 

3,8

4,0

4,2

4,4

4,6

4,8

5,0

5,2

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

 

Vp (km/s)

 

Schmidt Hardness Rebound Number

 

Fig. 7

Correlation of sonic velocities and UCS values of tested

Fig. 9 Correlation of SHR and UCS values of tested samples

 

samples

160 140 120 100 80 60 Göktan (1988) 40 Kahraman (2001) This Study 20 3,8 4,0
160
140
120
100
80
60
Göktan (1988)
40
Kahraman (2001)
This Study
20
3,8
4,0
4,2
4,4
4,6
4,8
5,0
5,2
5,4
UCS (MPa)

P-Wave Velocity, Vp (km/s)

Fig. 8 The comparison of the derived equation with the previous

studies between Vp and UCS

different rock types. In the present study, a total of 45

samples with a diameter greater than 30 mm were used

(Table 2). The relationship between P-wave velocity and

UCS is depicted in Fig. 7. A comparison of the equations

obtained in this study with the equations of Go¨ ktan (1988)

and Kahraman (2001) is shown in Fig. 8.

Schmidt Hammer test

A total of 15 NX sized core samples were tested using the

L-type Schmidt hammer and a rock cradle following ISRM

(1981). The relationship between Schmidt hammer

rebound number and uniaxial compressive strength is given

in Fig. 9. The test data are shown in Table 2.

Various empirical equations have been proposed for

calculating uniaxial compressive strength from Schmidt

hammer rebound number (Singh et al. 1983; O’Rourke

1989; Sachpazis 1990; Katz et al. 2000; Yas¸ar and

Erdog˘ an 2004), and both linear and exponential functions

have been used by different researchers to correlate these

parameters. In this study, linear function gave the highest

correlation coefficient. The proposed correlation between

SHR and UCS values is only applicable to saturated

samples.

Regression analyses and assessment of the prediction

performance

Initially, simple regression analyses were performed to

define the type of the relationship between dependent and

independent parameters by considering linear functions.

The results are given in Table 4 with their correlation

coefficients.

Multiple regression analysis is a powerful modelling

technique which can help in the evaluation of the

mechanical properties of rock. Figure 10 shows the results

for five models. Model 5 explains 98.8% of the total var-

iation in the 15 UCS tests undertaken. To assess the

Table 4 Some statistical

parameters on evaluation of

validity of derived equations

Model no.

UCS model (MPa)

Std. error

r 2

VAF (%)

RMSE

  • 1 UCS = 8.66 Is (50) + 10.85

13.63

76.4

76

0.03

  • 2 UCS = 56.71 V p - 192.93

15.36

67.0

82

6.16

  • 3 UCS = 6.59 SHR - 212.63

15.06

64.7

75

5.05

  • 4 UCS = 6.24 Is (50) + 25.8 V p - 90.3

10.4

85.2

85

0.76

  • 5 UCS = 4.14 Is (50) + 29.8 V p + 0.54 SHR - 116

3.10

98.8

99

1.96

123

Estimation of UCS from quicker/simpler tests

497

120 Model 1 100 80 60 40 20 0 Predicted UCS (MPa)
120
Model 1
100
80
60
40
20
0
Predicted UCS (MPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 120 Model 2 100 80 60 40 20 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
120
Model 2
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Predicted UCS (MPa)
120 Model 3 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
120
Model 3
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Predicted UCS (MPa)
120 Model 4 100 80 60 40 20 0 Predicted UCS (MPa)
120
Model 4
100
80
60
40
20
0
Predicted UCS (MPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 120 Model 5 100 80 60 40 20 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
120
Model 5
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Predicted UCS (MPa)

UCS (MPa)

Fig. 10 Predicted UCS versus actual UCS graphs for 5 models

performance of the multiple regression models, Root Mean

Square Error (RMSE, Eq. 2) and Variance Account (VAF,

Eq. 3) were used:

 
 

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

RMSE ¼

v

u

u

t

1

N

N X

ðy i y

i

Þ 2

i¼1

 
 

varðy i y

Þ

100

VAF ¼

1

i

varðy i Þ

ð2Þ

ð3Þ

where y i is the measured value, y * i is the estimated value

and N is the number of samples. If the VAF is 100 and

RMSE is 0, the model proposed would be excellent. As can

be seen in Table 4, the VAF values in particular indicate

this is a realistic prediction model.

Conclusions

Indirect methods are widely used to estimate rock

strength parameters. However, empirical studies show

that water content and core size have an enormous impact

on the test results and thus should not be neglected. In

this study, the Is 50 , Vp and SHR have been compared

with the measured UCS of saturated limestone, sandstone

and cement mortar samples. The regression analysis

indicates there is a linear relationship between Is (50) , V p,

SHR and UCS values.

Using all the point load values for the samples reported

in this article and others, the relationship between I s(50) and

uniaxial compressive strength is:

UCS ¼ 8:66 Is ð50Þ þ 10:85 :

For the samples tested in this study, the relationship

between SHR and UCS is

ðUCS ¼ 6:59 SHR 212:63Þ:

The correlation between UCS values and Vp is not as

good, but was established as

ðUCS ¼ 56:71 Vp 192:93Þ:

From this study, the lithological properties of the rock

have a greater influence on the relationship between UCS

and Is 50 values than the core diameter. Not surprisingly, the

two strengths for the cement mortar samples are very

similar for all the core diameter sizes while there is a

significant variation with the natural samples.

It is important to note that the validity of the proposed

equations is limited by the data range and sample types

which were used to derive the equations. They should

therefore be only used with saturated rocks with similar

lithological characteristics to those reported here.

123

498

_

  • I. C¸ obanog˘ lu and S. B. C¸ elik

References

Al Jassar SH, Hawkins AB (1979) Geotechnical properties of the

Carboniferous Limestone of the Bristol area—the influence of

petrography and chemistry. In: 4th ISRM Conference, Mont-

reaux, vol 1, pp 3–14

ASTM (1984) American Society for testing and materials. Standard

test method for unconfined compressive strength of intact rock

core specimens. Soil and Rock, Building Stones: Annual Book of

ASTM Standards, vol 4.08, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Bieniawski ZT (1975) Point load test in geotechnical practice. Eng

Geol 1:1–11

Broch EM, Franklin JA (1972) The point load strength test. Int J Rock

Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 9:669–697

D’Andrea DV, Fischer RL, Fogelson DE (1965) Prediction of

compressive strength from other rock properties. US Bureau of

Mines Report of Investigations 6702

Entwisle DC, Hobbs PRN, Jones LD, Gunn D, Raines MG (2005) The

relation between effective porosity, uniaxial compressive

strength and sonic velocity of intact Borrowdale Volcanic Group

core samples from Sellafield. Geotechn Geol Eng 23:793–809

Forster IR (1983) The influence of core sample geometry on the axial

point load test. Int Rock Mech Min Sci 20:291–295

Ghosh DK, Srivastava M (1991) Point-load strength: an index for

classification of rock material. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 44:27–

33

Go¨ ktan RM (1988) Theoretical and practical analysis of rock

rippability. PhD Thesis, Istanbul Technical University

Hassani FP, Scoble MJ, Whittacker BN (1980) Application of the

point load index test to strength determination of rock and

proposals for a new size correction chart. In: Proc 21st US Symp.

Rock Mech., Rolla, pp 543–553

Hawkins AB (1998) Aspects of rock strength. Bull Eng Geol Env

57:17–30

Hawkins AB, Olver JAG (1986) Point load tests: correlation factor

and contractual use. An example from the Corallian at

Weymouth In: Hawkins AB (ed) Site Investigation Practice:

Assessing BS 5930, Geological Society, London, pp 269–271

Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock. Inst Min

Metal, London

ISRM (1981) Rock characterization, testing and monitoring, ISRM

suggested methods. Pergamon, Oxford, 211 p

Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the

uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci

38:981–994

Katz O, Reches Z, Roegiers JC (2000) Evaluation of mechanical rock

properties using a Schmidt hammer. Tech Note Int J Rock Mech

Min Sci 37:723–728

Norbury DR (1986) The point load test. In: Hawkins AB (ed) Site

investigation practice: assessing BS 5930, Geological Society,

pp 325–329

O’Rourke JE (1989) Rock index properties for geo-engineering in

underground development. Min Eng 41:106–110

Palchik V, Hatzor YH (2004) The influence of porosity on tensile and

compressive strength of porous chalks. Rock Mech Rock Eng

37(4):331–341

Pells PJN (1975) The use of the point load test in predicting the

compressive strength of rock materials, Aust Geomech J G5, pp

54–56

Romana M (1999) Correlation between uniaxial compressive and

point load (Franklin test) strengths for different rock classes. In:

9th ISRM Congress, 1999, vol 1, pp 673–676, Paris

Sachpazis CI (1990) Correlating Schmidt hammer rebound number

with compressive strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate

rocks. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 42:75–83

Singh RN, Hassani FP, Elkington PAS (1983) The application of

strength and deformation index testing to the stability assessment

of Coal Measures excavations. In: Proceedings of 24th US

symposium on rock mechanics, Texas A&M Univ, AEG, pp

599–609

Thuro K, Plinninger RJ (2005) Scale effects in rock properties: Part 2.

Point load test and point load strength index. EUROCK Swets

and Zeitlinger, pp 175–180, Lisse

Tsiambaos G, Sabatakakis N (2004) Considerations on strength of

intact sedimentary rocks. Eng Geol 72:261–273

Wiesner E, Gillate SJ (1997) An evaluation of the relationship

between unconfined compressive strength and point load

strength index. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 56:115–118

Yas¸ar E, Erdog˘ an Y (2004) Estimation of rock physicomechanical

properties using hardness methods. Eng Geol 71:281–288

123