International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial

compressive strength of rock
S. Kahraman*
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, University of Nigde, 5100 Nigde, Turkey
Accepted 13 July 2001

Abstract
Published data on 48 dierent rocks are used to evaluate the correlations between the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) values
and the corresponding results of point load, Schmidt hammer, sound velocity and impact strength tests. The variability of test results
for each test and each rock type was evaluated by calculating the coecient of variation. Using the method of least squares
regression, the UCS values were correlated with the other test values. Also, the test methods were evaluated by plotting the estimated
values of compressive strength vs. the measured values of compressive strength for each test. The results indicate that the least
variability is shown in the impact strength test. So, among the test methods included in this study, the impact strength test is the
most reproducible test; but the variability of test results for the other test methods is within acceptable limits for most engineering
purposes. Strong linear relations between the point load strength index values and the UCS values were found for the coal measure
rocks and the other rocks included in this study. The Schmidt hammer and the sound velocity tests exhibit signicant non-linear
correlations with the compressive strength of rock. In the sound velocity test, the data points are scattered at higher strength values.
There is no clear relation between the impact strength values and the compressive strength values for the coal measure rocks. A weak
non-linear correlation was found between the impact strength values and the compressive strength values for the other rocks. All
test methods evaluated in this study, except the impact strength, provide reliable estimate of the compressive strength of rock.
However, the prediction equations derived by dierent researchers are dependent on rock types and test conditions, as they are in
this study. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Rock engineers widely use the uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) of rock in designing surface and
underground structures. The procedure for measuring
this rock strength has been standardised by both the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) [1]
and the International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM) [2]. Although, the method is relatively simple,
it is time consuming and expensive; also, it requires well
prepared rock cores. Therefore, indirect tests are often
used to predict the UCS, such as Schmidt rebound
number, point load index, impact strength and sound
velocity. These are easier tests to carry out because they
necessitate less or no sample preparation and the testing
equipment is less sophisticated. Also, they can be used
easily in the eld. As a result, compared to the uniaxial
*Tel.: +90-388-225-0115; fax: +90-388-225-0112.
E-mail address: kahramans@ttnet.net.tr (S. Kahraman).

compression test, indirect tests are simpler, faster and

more economical.
The main objective of this study is to evaluate these
simple methods of estimating the UCS of rock. The data
in Refs. [35] were used to accomplish this objective.
The result of uniaxial compression test carried out on 48
dierent rocks, of which 26 are coal measures rocks,
were compared with the corresponding results of the
point load, the Schmidt hammer, the sound velocity and
the impact strength tests. To determine the correlation
coecient and the variability of results for each test, the
data were statistically analysed.

2. Previous investigations
2.1. Point load test
The point load test has often been reported as an
indirect measure of the compressive or tensile strength

1365-1609/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 5 - 1 6 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 3 9 - 9

982

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

of rock [69]. It has been used widely in practice due to

its testing ease, simplicity of specimen preparation, and
eld applications.
DAndrea et al. [6] performed uniaxial compression
tests and the point load tests. They used a linear
regression model to obtain the correlation between two
tests. It should be noted that their point load specimen
diameter was 25 mm, and that size adjustments must be
made to use their relation. Broch and Franklin [8] state
that the compressive strength is approximately equal to
24 times the point load index (Is ), referred to a standard
size of 50 mm. They also developed a size correction
chart so that core of various diameters could be used for
strength determination. Bieniawski [9] showed that the
compressive strength is nearly 23 times Is : Pells [10]
showed that the index-to-strength conversion factor of
24 can lead to 20% error in the prediction of
compressive strength for rocks such as dolerite, norite
and pyroxenite.
Greminger [11] and Forster [12] also showed that the
conversion factor of 24 cannot be validly applied to
anisotropic rocks. Hassani et al. [13] studied the point
load test using an expended database with tests on large
specimens and revised the size correlation chart commonly used to reference point load values from cores
with diering diameters to the standard size of 50 mm.
With this new correction, they found the ratio of
compressive strength to Is50 to be approximately 29.
Brook [14] emphasised the possible sources of error
when using point load test, and proposed an analytical
method of size correction to a chosen standard size. It
is stated by ISRM [15] that on average, the compressive
strength is 2025 times Is : However, it is also reported
that in tests on many dierent rock types the range
varied between 15 and 50, especially for anisotropic
rocks. So, errors up to 100% should be expected if an
arbitrary ratio value is chosen to predict compressive
strength from point load tests. Turk
. and Dearman [16]
have proposed some improvements in the determination
of point load strength. They proposed a simple method
for determining standard point load strength Is50 ; from
test results obtained from a number of irregular, and
regular prismatic specimens of dierent diameter using
loglog plots of Is against diameter. This relation is
usually linear. Chau and Wong [17] proposed a simple
analytical formula for the calculation of the UCS based
on the point load strength corrected to a specimen
diameter of 50 mm Is50 ). The index-to strength conversion factor (k) relating UCS to Is50 depends on the
compressive to tensile strength ratio, the Poissons ratio,
the length and the diameter of the rock specimen. Their
theoretical prediction for k (=14.9) is reasonably close
to the experimental observation (k 12:5) for Hong
Kong rocks.
Table 1 lists the available equations correlating the
UCS to the point load index.

Table 1
Equations correlating the UCS (qu ) to the point load index (Is )a
Reference

Equation

DAndrea et al. [6]

Broch and Franklin [8]
Bieniawski [9]
Hassani et al. [13]
Read et al. [18]
(1) Sedimentary rocks
(2) Basalts
Forster (12)
Gunsallus and Kulhawy [19]
ISRM [15]
Chargill and Shakoor [20]
Chou and Wong [17]
Grasso et al. [21]

qu
qu
qu
qu

15:3Is50 16:3
24Is50
23Is50
29Is50

qu
qu
qu
qu
qu
qu
qu
qu

16Is50
20Is50
14:5Is50
16:5Is50 51:0
20y25Is50
23Is54 13
12:5Is50
9:30Is50 20:04

qu and Is in MPa.

2.2. Schmidt hammer test

The Schmidt hammer has been used for testing the
quality of concretes and rocks. Schmidt hammer models
are designed in dierent levels of impact energy, but the
types L and N are commonly adopted for rock property
determinations. The type L has an impact energy of
0.735 Nm which is only one third that of the type N:
.
Ayday and Goktan
[22] found reliable correlations
between L and N-type hammer rebound values obtained
during eld testing.
There are dierent Schmidt hammer recording
.
techniques in the literature. Ayday and Goktan
[23]
statistically compared the three most accepted methods
(Hucka, Poole and Farmer, and ISRM methods) and
concluded that the ISRM method was dierent from the
other methods.
While the Schmidt hammer is widely used for the
prediction of UCS [2428], a number of authors
have reported its other specic applications. Among
these are: the assessment of rock discontinuities [29],
mine roof control [30], roadheader and tunnel boring
machine performance [31], drilling machine penetration
rate [3235] and joint wall strength [36].
Various empirical equations have been proposed for
calculating UCS of rock from Schmidt hammer rebound
number. Most researchers have used similar approaches
for deriving these equations, four of which are reported
by Haramy and DeMarco [27]. Kidybinski (1980)
evaluated the use of Schmidt hammer by testing
dierent rock types from Northern Silesia. He observed
a correlation between rebound number and UCS for
rock and coal, and derived the following equation for
estimating the strength of rock:
qu 0:477 e0:045Rn r ;

where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the Schmidt hammer

rebound number and r is the rock density (g/cm3).

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

Aufmuth (1973) acquired Schmidt hammer data from

approximately 800 core samples, representing 168
geologic formation and 25 lithologic types. Four
rebound readings were taken at dierent locations along
the centre axis of the core. The following equation
describes the best-t approximation relating compressive strength to Schmidt hammer rebound number.
qu 6:9101:348logRn r1:325

where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the Schmidt hammer

rebound number and r is the rock density (g/cm3).
Deere and Miller (1966) tested 55 mm diameter core
from 28 dierent locations. Twelve rebound readings
were recorded along the length of the core for each 901
rotation. The best-t approximation for compressive
strength is as follows:
qu 6:9100:160:0087Rn r ;

where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the Schmidt hammer

rebound number and r is the rock density (g/cm3).
Beverly et al. (1979) used the same test procedures as
Deere and Miller to obtain additional Schmidt hammer
data from 20 new locations. They combined their data
with that of Deere and Miller and derived the following
relation:
qu 12:74 e0:0185Rn r ;

where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the Schmidt hammer

rebound number and r is the rock density (g/cm3).
Haramy and DeMarco [27] conducted Schmidt
hammer (L-type) test using large coal blocks acquired
from 10 dierent US locations. They obtained the
following best-t equation:
qu 0:094Rn  0:383;

where qu is the UCS (MPa) and Rn is the Schmidt

hammer rebound number.
Sheorey et al. [28] found a reasonable correlation
between the large-scale in situ crushing strength of 0.3 m
cubes of coal and the lower mean of rebound values
(N-type). The following equation is proposed for the
in situ crushing strength of coal:
qu 0:4RLM  3:6;

where qu is the in situ crushing strength of coal (MPa)

and RLM is the lower mean of rebound values.
Cargill and Shakoor [20] performed the Schmidt
hammer (L type) tests on rock cores (NX) and derived
following equations.

983

2.3. Sound velocity test

Seismic surveys have been carried out in site and
laboratory investigations. Attempts have been made to
assess grouting, rockbolt reinforcement and blasting
eciencies in the rock mass by the seismic velocity
determination [3739]. Researchers [4046] have examined the relation between rock properties and sound
velocity; they found that sound velocity is closely related
with rock properties.
Inoue and Ohomi [47] tested many soft rocks in order
to conrm the relations among uniaxial compressive
strength, propagation velocity of elastic waves and
density. They expressed the following general formula:
qu krVp2 A;

where qu is the UCS (kg/cm2), r is the rock density

(g/cm3) and Vp is the p-wave velocity (km/s).
.
Goktan
[48] derived the following equation for coal
measure rocks:
qu 0:036Vp  31:18;

10

where qu is the UCS (MPa) and Vp is the p-wave velocity

(m/s).
2.4. Impact strength test
The impact strength test was rst developed by
Protodyakonov, and then it was used by Evans and
Pomeroy [49] for the classication of coal seams in the
UK. The test was then modied by Paone et al. [50],
Tandanand and Unger [51], and Rabia and Brook [52].
Tandanand and Unger obtained simple relations between the strength coecient and compressive strength.
Rabia and Brook used the modied test apparatus to
determine the rock impact hardness number and
developed an empirical equation for predicting drilling
rates for both DTH and drifter drills.
Hobbs [53] applied this test to various rocks and
found the following equation:
qu 53ISI  2509;

11

ln qu 4:3102 Rn rd 1:2

for sandstones;

where qu is the UCS (kg/cm2) and ISI is the impact

strength index.
To estimate the compressive strength from the impact
.
strength index Goktan
[48] derived the following
expression:

ln qu 1:8102 Rn rd 2:9

for carbonates;

ln qu 0:095ISI  3:667;

where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the Schmidt hammer

rebound number and rd is the dry density (g/cm3).

12

where qu is the UCS (MPa) and ISI is the impact

strength index.

984

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

3. Statistical analysis
The coecients of variation (CoV) were determined to evaluate the variability of test results for
each test and each rock type. The CoV is calculated
by dividing the standard deviation by the population
mean and expressing it as a percentage. The higher

the CoV, the more variable are the results of a given

test.
The USC values were correlated with the other test
values using the method of least squares regression. The
equation of the best-t line, the 95% condence limits,
and the correlation coecient (r) were determined for
each regression.

Table 2
Results of the uniaxial compression test [3,4]
Location/panel

Rock type

Compressive strength (MPa)

Standard deviation (MPa)

Coecient of variation (%)

Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Pozanti
Pozanti
Yahyali
Yahyali
Konya
Adana
Misis
Emet
Emet
Tarsus
Mersin
Ceyhan
Ceyhan
Yumurtalik

Dolomite
Sandstone-1
Sandstone-2
Altered sandstone
Limestone
Marl
Diabase
Serpentine
Limestone
Clayed limestone
Hematite
Metasandstone
Serpentine
Limestone
Limestone
Sandstone
Limestone
Dolomite
Limestone
Limestone
Gravelled limestone
Limestone

68.0
149.2
45.2
20.1
51.3
39.5
110.9
69.1
123.8
45.1
61.8
25.7
54.3
15.7
85.2
70.5
42.1
96.3
49.9
76.1
36.1
68.4

6.01
1.52
2.33
0.92
3.03
0.75
6.04
2.20
3.81
1.71
3.52
0.90
2.41
0.53
2.10
1.12
2.63
1.10
5.44
1.03
0.72
0.80

8.91
1.02
5.10
4.62
5.90
1.73
5.41
3.20
3.10
3.71
5.73
3.41
4.40
3.32
2.51
1.60
6.23
1.13
10.81
1.30
1.92
1.13

Marl
Limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Limestone
Marl
Altered marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Siliceous limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Tu
Sandy marl banded
with tu
Clayed marl
Marl-limestone
Limestone
Siliceous marl
Clayed marl
Marl

64.9
77.5
82.4
80.2
69.2
52.1
66.6
17.9
8.0
21.6
22.0
13.5
49.3
152.7
41.8
38.7
21.4
45.5
10.1
40.4

0.82
2.93
0.81
3.11
0.92
1.24
1.12
0.40
1.62
0.41
0.12
1.01
0.73
2.21
0.32
0.70
1.22
0.43
0.51
2.10

1.21
3.70
1.01
3.92
1.32
2.43
1.70
2.51
2.02
1.73
0.71
7.10
1.52
1.53
0.65
1.94
5.63
0.84
5.01
5.12

10.5
61.5
91.2
4.4
7.9
10.5

0.22
1.51
0.43
0.52
0.51
0.52

2.23
2.51
0.40
12.41
6.22
4.73

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Kisrakdere
Soma/Elmali
Soma/Sarikaya
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Eskihisar
Eskihisar
Milas/Sekky
Milas/Ikizky
Tuncbilek/Beke
Tuncbilek/12A
Tuncbilek/12A
Tuncbilek/merler 4CD
Tuncbilek/37
Tuncbilek/36
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Keles
Keles
Keles
Seyitmer
Seyitmer
Seyitmer

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

3.1. Uniaxial compressive strength test

The average values of the UCS are listed in Table 2. It
is reported by both Kahraman [3] and Eskikaya and
Bilgin [4] that uniaxial compression tests were performed on trimmed core samples, which had a diameter
of 33 mm and a length-to-diameter ratio of 2. The UCS
.
values range from 4.4 MPa for the Seyitomer
siliceous
marl to 152.7 MPa for the Tuncbilek/12A siliceous

985

limestone. The CoV ranges from 0.40% for the Keles

.
limestone to 12.41% for the Seyitomer
siliceous marl
with an overall average of 3.46%.
3.2. Point load test
The point load strength values are given in Table 3. It
is reported by Kahraman [3] that the diametral point
load test was carried out on the cores having a diameter

Table 3
Results of the point load test [3,4]
Location/Panel

Rock type

Point load strength (MPa)

Standard deviation (MPa)

Coecient of variation (%)

Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Pozanti
Pozanti
Yahyali
Yahyali
Konya
Adana
Misis
Emet
Emet
Tarsus
Mersin
Ceyhan
Ceyhan
Yumurtalik

Dolomite
Sandstone-1
Sandstone-2
Altered sandstone
Limestone
Marl
Diabase
Serpentine
Limestone
Clayed limestone
Hematite
Metasandstone
Serpentine
Limestone
Limestone
Sandstone
Limestone
Dolomite
Limestone
Limestone
Gravelled limestone
Limestone

4.32
13.83
4.57
1.32
5.61
3.35
12.66
7.14
6.65
5.73
8.26
5.25
16.21
1.40
9.80
7.75
5.44
12.01
3.31
8.82
3.11
7.00

0.68
0.73
1.17
0.31
0.59
0.45
0.85
0.76
1.02
0.76
0.42
0.54
0.82
0.38
1.25
0.65
0.57
0.43
0.40
0.79
0.62
0.90

15.75
5.29
21.04
17.93
10.45
13.65
6.74
10.64
15.39
13.25
5.14
10.49
5.06
21.59
12.70
8.43
10.60
3.61
12.09
8.98
19.78
12.89

Marl
Limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Limestone
Marl
Altered marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Siiceous limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Tu
Sandy marl banded
with tu
Clayed marl
Marl-limestone
Limestone
Siliceous marl
Clayed marl
Marl

3.60
2.77
3.73
4.11
2.95
2.09
2.06
0.84
0.31
1.01
1.07
2.13
1.98
5.66
1.73
1.05
1.73
1.66
1.43
1.68

0.50
1.01
0.50
0.33
0.91
0.29
0.49
0.11
0.02
0.33
0.29
0.31
0.27
1.12
0.10
0.03
0.10
0.49
0.13
0.54

13.68
31.59
13.40
8.03
23.53
13.75
18.95
13.26
7.43
27.99
22.16
14.38
13.47
19.72
6.05
2.91
5.88
24.58
8.73
24.76

0.39
3.25
3.79
0.23
0.42
0.57

0.05
0.34
0.78
0.02
0.01
0.18

13.32
9.90
20.48
10.00
2.92
26.40

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Kisrakdere
Soma/Elmali
Soma/Sarikaya
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Eskihisar
Eskihisar
.
Milas/Sekkoy
.
Milas/Ikizkoy
Tuncbilek/Beke
Tuncbilek/12A
Tuncbilek/12A
.
Tuncbilek/Omerler
4CD
Tuncbilek/37
Tuncbilek/36
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Keles
Keles
Keles
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer

986

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

trends, one for the coal measure rocks and another

for the other rocks, are found. The coal measure
rocks follow a more steeply sloped line than the
other rocks. Because the value of Konya serpentine
was in an anomalous position, it was omitted from
the graph of the other rocks. The equations of the two
lines are:
For coal measure rocks:
qu 23:62IS50  2:69;

13

r 0:93:
For the other rocks:
qu 8:41IS50 9:51;
Fig. 1. Point load strength vs. UCS.

14

r 0:85;

of 33 mm and a length of 66 mm. corrected to a

specimen diameter of 50 mm. Eskikaya and Bilgin [4]
reported that they used rectangular samples having a
thickness of 50 mm. The point load strength index
.
values range from 0.23 MPa for the Seyitomer
siliceous
marl to 16.21 MPa for the Konya Serpentine. The CoV
ranges from 2.91% for the Tuncbilek/37 marl to 31.59%
for the Soma/Isiklar limestone with an overall average
of 13.52%. According to Broch and Franklin [8], the
point load strength test results are less scattered than the
UCS test results. Bieniawski [9] states just the opposite.
In this study, the UCS test results are less scattered than
the point load strength test results, encouraging the
Bieniawskis statement.
An approximately linear relation between the
point load strength index values and the UCS values
was found (Fig. 1). As it is shown in Fig. 1, two separate

where qu is the UCS (MPa) and Is50 is the point load

index (MPa).
3.3. Schmidt hammer test
N-type Schmidt hammer rebound number values are
given in Table 4. It is reported by both Kahraman [3]
and Eskikaya and Bilgin [4] that the Schmidt hammer
tests were conducted in the eld. The Schmidt hammer
was held in a downward position and 10 impacts were
carried out at each point, and the peak rebound value
was recorded. The average Schmidt hammer rebound
number ranges from 15 for the Keles clayed marl to 70
for the Osmaniye/Bahce Sandstone-1. The CoV ranges
from 0.82% for the Osmaniye/Bahce Sandstone-1 to
24.78% for the Orhaneli/sandy marl banded with tu
with an overall average of 5.96% (Table 4).

Table 4
Results of the Schmidt hammer (N-type) test [3,4]
Location/Panel

Rock type

Rebound number

Standard deviation (MPa)

Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Pozanti
Pozanti
Yahyali
Yahyali
Konya
Adana
Misis
Emet
Emet
Tarsus
Mersin

Dolomite
Sandstone-1
Sandstone-2
Altered sandstone
Limestone
Marl
Diabase
Serpentine
Limestone
Clayed limestone
Hematite
Metasandstone
Serpentine
Limestone
Limestone
Sandstone
Limestone
Dolomite
Limestone

59
70
53
36
55
56
64
62
61
58
44
54
59
42
68
38
58
55
51

2.08
0.58
3.05
0.58
0.58
1.73
1.00
2.52
1.00
1.15
3.09
4.32
4.79
2.08
2.08
1.82
3.09
0.58
1.82

Coecient of variation (%)

3.51
0.82
5.80
1.62
1.06
3.09
1.56
4.08
1.64
1.97
6.69
8.00
8.06
4.91
2.99
4.80
5.36
1.04
3.58

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

987

Table 4. Continued
Location/Panel

Rock type

Rebound number

Standard deviation (MPa)

Ceyhan
Ceyhan
Yumurtalik

Limestone
Gravelled limestone
Limestone

58
47
50

1.73
1.15
2.06

3.01
2.47
4.10

Marl
Limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Limestone
Marl
Altered marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Siliceous limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Tu
Sandy marl banded
with tu
Clayed marl
Marl-limestone
Limestone
Siliceous marl
Clayed marl
Marl

60
62
53
56
59
54
62
42
27
46
45
52
54
69
46
47
53
34
35
34

2.06
1.41
6.52
7.02
1.50
1.41
2.12
6.07
0.71
6.53
6.43
3.60
4.95
0.58
1.91
1.73
1.53
3.24
5.41
8.65

3.42
2.28
12.39
12.62
2.55
2.57
3.51
14.58
2.67
14.30
14.39
6.90
9.25
0.84
4.21
3.68
2.90
9.53
15.20
24.78

15
34
F
F
29
42

0.71
3.46
F
F
3.00
4.04

4.88
10.19
F
F
10.34
9.8

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Kisrakdere
Soma/Elmali
Soma/Sarikaya
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Eskihisar
Eskihisar
.
Milas/Sekkoy
.
Milas/Ikizkoy
Tuncbilek/Beke
Tuncbilek/12A
Tuncbilek/12A
.
Tuncbilek/Omerler
4CD
Tuncbilek/37
Tuncbilek/36
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Keles
Keles
Keles
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer

The values of the Schmidt hammer rebound

number were multiplied with the respective density
values (Table 5) and then correlated with the corresponding values of the UCS (Fig. 2). Multiplying the
rebound number by the density improves the correlation
with the UCS. The UCS increases exponentially with the
produce of the rebound number and the density. The
equation of the curve is
qu 6:97 e0:014Rn r ;

15

r 0:78;
where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the rebound number
and r is the rock density (g/cm3).

Coecient of variation (%)

.
range from 1.0 km/s for the Seyitomer
marl to 6.3 km/s
for the Osmaniye/Bahce dolomite. The CoV ranges
from 1.79% for the Tarsus dolomite to 12.91% for the
Gaziantep/Erikli Serpentine with an overall average of
6.21%.
There is a non-linear relation between the p-wave
velocity and the UCS (Fig. 3). The higher the strength
the more scattered the data points. The equation of the
curve is
qu 9:95Vp1:21 ;

16

r 0:83;
where qu is the UCS (MPa) and Vp is the p-wave velocity
(km/s).

3.4. Sound velocity test

3.5. Impact strength test
The average values of the sound velocity (p-wave
velocity) are given in Table 6. It is reported by
Kahraman [3] that p-wave velocities were measured on
the rock blocks having an approximate dimension of
13  20  12 cm3. The transducers used in the tests had
a frequency of 54 kHz. The sound velocity values

The impact strength test values are listed in Table 7. It

is reported by both Kahraman [3] and Eskikaya and
Bilgin [4] that the device designed by Evans and
Pomeroy [49] was used in the test The impact strength
index range from 51 for the Eskihisar altered marl to

988

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

Table 5
Density values for the rock tested [3,5]
Location/Panel

Rock type

Density (g/cm3)

Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Pozanti
Pozanti
Yahyali
Yahyali
Konya
Adana
Misis
Emet
Emet
Tarsus
Mersin
Ceyhan
Ceyhan
Yumurtalik

Dolomite
Sandstone-1
Sandstone-2
Altered sandstone
Limestone
Marl
Diabase
Serpentine
Limestone
Clayed limestone
Hematite
Metasandstone
Serpentine
Limestone
Limestone
Sandstone
Limestone
Dolomite
Limestone
Limestone
Gravelled limestone
Limestone

2.92
3.00
2.77
2.55
2.74
2.20
2.96
2.88
2.73
2.42
3.61
2.73
2.63
1.86
2.71
2.56
2.71
2.98
2.66
2.96
2.61
2.81

Marl
Limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Limestone
Marl
Altered marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Siliceous limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Tu
Sandy marl banded
with tu
Clayed marl
Marl-limestone
Limestone
Siliceous marl
Clayed marl
Marl

2.45
F
2.46
2.42
F
F
F
1.66
F
F
F
2.03
F
F
1.93
F
1.91
1.92
1.85
F

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Kisrakdere
Soma/Elmali
Soma/Sarikaya
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Eskihisar
Eskihisar
.
Milas/Sekkoy
.
Milas/Ikizkoy
Tuncbilek/Beke
Tuncbilek/12A
Tuncbilek/12A
.
Tuncbilek/Omerler
4CD
Tuncbilek/37
Tuncbilek/36
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Keles
Keles
Keles
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer

Fig. 2. N-Type Schmidt hammer value X density vs. UCS.

Fig. 3. Sound velocity vs. UCS.

F
F
F
F
F
1.83
Fig. 4. Impact strength vs. UCS.

90.3 for the Konya serpentine. The CoV ranges from

0.14% for the Gaziantep/Erikli limestone to 8.70% for
the Tuncbilek/12A marl with an overall average of 1.98%.
The plot of the UCS as a function of the impact
strength index is shown in Fig. 4. There is a non-linear
relation between the UCS and the impact strength index

for the other rocks. A weak correlation (r 0:45)

was found between the UCS and the impact strength
index for the coal measure rocks. The weak correlation is probably due to the lower elastic modulus of
the coal measure rocks. The rocks with lower
elastic modulus absorb impact energy. The fact that

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

989

Table 6
Results of the sound velocity test [3]
Location/Panel

Rock type

p-wave velocity (km/s)

Standard deviation (MPa)

Coecient of variation (%)

Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Pozanti
Pozanti
Yahyali
Yahyali
Konya
Adana
Misis
Emet
Emet
Tarsus
Mersin
Ceyhan
Ceyhan
Yumurtalik

Dolomite
Sandstone-1
Sandstone-2
Altered sandstone
Limestone
Marl
Diabase
Serpentine
Limestone
Clayed limestone
Hematite
Metasandstone
Serpentine
Limestone
Limestone
Sandstone
Limestone
Dolomite
Limestone
Limestone
Gravelled limestone
Limestone

6.3
4.6
4.5
2.0
5.4
3.1
5.2
2.9
5.3
3.3
2.8
5.2
5.0
2.2
5.5
3.7
4.7
5.6
4.1
5.6
3.3
5.0

0.21
0.21
0.12
0.20
0.38
0.06
0.11
0.38
0.29
0.40
0.36
0.49
0.21
0.25
0.25
0.11
0.21
0.10
0.11
0.21
0.30
0.20

3.29
4.49
2.55
10.00
6.97
1.84
2.21
12.91
5.48
12.12
12.88
9.42
4.11
11.61
4.60
3.15
4.46
1.79
2.84
3.74
9.16
4.00

Marl
Limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Limestone
Marl
Altered marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Siliceous limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Tu
Sandy marl banded
with tu
Clayed marl
Marl-limestone
Limestone
Siliceous marl
Clayed marl
Marl

3.4
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
1.5
F
F
F
F
1.9
F
1.2
F

0.21
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
0.15
F
F
F
F
0.06
F
0.06
F

6.06
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
9.96
F
F
F
F
2.99
F
4.95
F

F
F
F
F
F
1.0

F
F
F
F
F
0.10

F
F
F
F
F
10.00

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Kisrakdere
Soma/Elmali
Soma/Sarikaya
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Eskihisar
Eskihisar
.
Milas/Sekkoy
.
Milas/Ikizkoy
Tuncbilek/Beke
Tuncbilek/12A
Tuncbilek/12A
.
Tuncbilek/Omerler
4CD
Tuncbilek/37
Tuncbilek/36
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Keles
Keles
Keles
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer

the impact strength test was originally developed for

coal testing explains this situation. The equations of the
two trends are:
For coal measure rocks:
qu 1:82ISI  74:21;
r 0:45:

17

For the other rocks:

qu 41010 ISI5:87 ;

18

r 0:65;
where qu is the UCS (MPa) and ISI is the impact
strength index.

990

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

Table 7
Results of the Impact strength test [3,4]
Location/Panel

Rock type

Impact strength index

Standard deviation (MPa)

Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Pozanti
Pozanti
Yahyali
Yahyali
Konya
Adana
Misis
Emet
Emet
Tarsus
Mersin
Ceyhan
Ceyhan
Yumurtalik

Dolomite
Sandstone-1
Sandstone-2
Altered sandstone
Limestone
Marl
Diabase
Serpentine
Limestone
Clayed limestone
Hematite
Metasandstone
Serpentine
Limestone
Limestone
Sandstone
Limestone
Dolomite
Limestone
limestone
Gravelled limestone
Limestone

83.4
87.8
80.3
70.4
82.2
76.1
89.5
81.2
82.9
80.5
84.3
85.0
90.3
72.5
84.1
75.8
82.0
80.6
78.9
81.5
75.9
83.6

0.66
0.32
0.32
0.72
0.11
0.79
0.60
0.20
0.17
0.75
0.32
0.43
0.38
0.65
0.11
1.07
1.40
0.87
1.22
1.20
0.85
0.45

0.79
0.37
0.40
1.03
0.14
1.04
0.67
0.25
0.21
0.93
0.38
0.51
0.42
0.90
0.15
1.41
1.71
1.08
1.54
1.47
1.12
0.54

Marl
Limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Limestone
Marl
Altered marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Siliceous limestone
Marl
Marl
marl
Marl
Tu
Sandy marl banded
with tu
Clayed marl
Marl-limestone
Limestone
Siliceous marl
Clayed marl
Marl

75.2
65.0
74.0
79.0
76.0
73.0
71.0
F
51.0
59.0
57.0
70.4
66.0
76.0
62.0
65.0
69.9
54.0
69.3
55.0

0.30
2.52
4.04
1.15
5.30
2.52
1.53
F
4.04
0.58
0.58
0.81
5.68
1.53
1.52
0.58
0.81
5.57
0.64
1.53

0.41
3.85
5.44
1.45
6.96
3.46
2.14
F
7.87
0.97
1.01
1.16
8.70
2.03
2.48
0.89
1.16
10.31
0.93
2.79

F
F
F
F
F
78.0

F
F
F
F
F
1.73

F
F
F
F
F
2.22

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Kisrakdere
Soma/Elmali
Soma/Sarikaya
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Eskihisar
Eskihisar
.
Milas/Sekkoy
.
Milas/Ikizkoy
Tuncbilek/Beke
Tuncbilek/12A
Tuncbilek/12A
.
Tuncbilek/Omerler
4CD
Tuncbilek/37
Tuncbilek/36
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Keles
Keles
Keles
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer

4. Evaluation of the test methods

The coecient of variation values of each rock type
and test method are summarised in Table 8. The impact
strength test yields the most consistent results of the ve
methods. Although the other four methods are not as
reproducible as the impact strength test, the variability

Coecient of variation (%)

of their results is still within acceptable limits for most

engineering purposes. The point load test has the highest
average value of coecient of variation. The coecient
of variation for both the Schmidt hammer and sound
velocity tests are rather close that of the UCS test.
The empirical methods used in this study were
evaluated by comparing their results with each other.

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

991

Table 8
The average coecients of variation for each rock type and test method
Location/Panel

Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Osmaniye/Bahce
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Gaziantep/Erikli
Pozanti
Pozanti
Yahyali
Yahyali
Konya
Adana
Misis
Emet
Emet
Tarsus
Mersin
Ceyhan
Ceyhan
Yumurtalik
Coal measure rocks
Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Isiklar
Soma/Kisrakdere
Soma/Elmali
Soma/Sarikaya
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Tinaz/Bagyaka
Eskihisar
Eskihisar
.
Milas/Sekkoy
.
Milas/Ikizkoy
Tuncbilek/Beke
Tuncbilek/12A
Tuncbilek/12A
.
Tuncbilek/Omerler
4CD
Tuncbilek/37
Tuncbilek/36
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Orhaneli
Keles
Keles
Keles
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer
.
Seyitomer
Overall average

Rock type

Coecient of variation (%)

UCS
(MPa)

Point load
strength (MPa)

Dolomite
Sandstone-1
Sandstone-2
Altered sandstone
Limestone
Marl
diabase
Serpentine
Limestone
Clayed limestone
Hematite
Metasandstone
Serpentine
LIMESTONE
Limestone
Sandstone
Limestone
Dolomite
Limestone
Limestone
Gravelled limestone
Limestone

8.91
1.02
5.10
4.62
5.90
1.73
5.41
3.20
3.10
3.71
5.73
3.41
4.40
3.32
2.51
1.60
6.23
1.13
10.81
1.30
1.92
1.13

15.75
5.29
21.04
17.93
10.45
13.65
6.74
10.64
15.39
13.25
5.14
10.49
5.06
21.59
12.70
8.43
10.60
3.61
12.09
8.98
19.78
12.89

3.51
0.82
5.80
1.62
1.06
3.09
1.56
4.08
1.64
1.97
6.69
8.00
8.06
4.91
2.99
4.80
5.36
1.04
3.58
3.01
2.47
4.10

3.29
4.49
2.55
10.00
6.97
1.84
2.21
12.91
5.48
12.12
12.88
9.42
4.11
11.61
4.60
3.15
4.46
1.79
2.84
3.74
9.16
4.00

0.79
0.37
0.40
1.03
0.14
1.04
0.67
0.25
0.21
0.93
0.38
0.51
0.42
0.90
0.15
1.41
1.71
1.08
1.54
1.47
1.12
0.54

Marl
Limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Limestone
Marl
Altered marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Siliceous limestone
Marl
Marl
Marl
Marl
Tu
Sandy marl banded
with tu
Clayed marl
Marl-limestone
Limestone
Siliceous marl
Clayed marl
Marl

1.21
3.70
1.01
3.92
1.32
2.43
1.70
2.51
2.02
1.73
0.71
7.10
1.52
1.53
0.65
1.94
5.63
0.84
5.01
5.12

13.68
31.59
13.40
8.03
23.53
13.75
18.95
13.26
7.43
27.99
22.16
14.38
13.47
19.72
6.05
2.91
5.88
24.58
8.73
24.76

3.42
2.28
12.39
12.62
2.55
2.57
3.51
14.58
2.67
14.30
14.39
6.90
9.25
0.84
4.21
3.68
2.90
9.53
15.20
24.78

6.06
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
9.96
F
F
F
F
2.99
F
4.95
F

0.41
3.85
5.44
1.45
6.96
3.46
2.14
F
7.87
0.97
1.01
1.16
8.70
2.03
2.48
0.89
1.16
10.31
0.93
2.79

2.23
2.51
0.40
12.41
6.22
4.73
3.46

13.32
9.90
20.48
10.00
2.92
26.40
13.52

4.88
10.19
F
F
10.34
9.80
5.96

F
F
F
F
F
10.00
6.21

F
F
F
F
F
2.22
1.98

Data from each test were used in the respective empirical

equation to calculate the estimated UCS. The estimated
values of compressive strength were then plotted against
the measured values of compressive strength for each
test, respectively (Figs. 58). The error in the estimated

Schmidt
hammer

Sound
velocity (km/s)

Impact
strength

value is represented by the distance that each data point

plots from the 1 : 1 diagonal line. A point lying on the
line indicates an exact estimation. As it is shown in
Figs. 57, the point load, the Schmidt hammer and the
sound velocity tests are reliable methods for the

992

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

Fig. 5. Estimated UCS vs. measured UCS for the point load test.

Fig. 7. Estimated UCS vs. measured UCS for the sound velocity test.

Fig. 6. Estimated UCS vs. measured UCS for the Schmidt hammer
test.

Fig. 8. Estimated UCS vs. measured UCS for the impact strength test.

estimation of the UCS of rocks. For the sound velocity

test, the data points fall closer to the line at low strength
values but become more scattered at higher strength
values. This suggest that the ability to estimate the UCS
of rocks using the sound velocity test is the best at low
strength values, and is less reliable at higher strength
values. Fig. 8 shows that, the impact strength test for
coal measure rocks is not reliable for the prediction of
compressive strength. The impact strength test for the
other rocks is only reliable for at low strength values.

and the other rocks included in this study, respectively.

Signicant non-linear correlation exists between the
compressive strength of rock and the values produced
by the Schmidt hammer rebound number and density
values. The results of the sound velocity test show strong
non-linear correlation with those of the uniaxial
compression test. The data points are scattered at
higher strength values. There is no relation between
the impact strength values and the compressive strength
values for the coal measure rocks. A quite weak
correlation exists between the impact strength values
and the compressive strength values for the other rocks.
All empirical methods evaluated in this study, except
the impact strength, can be used to predict the
compressive strength of rock. However, the prediction
equations derived by dierent researchers are dependent
on rock types and test conditions. One who wants to use
the prediction equations must not forget this reality.
Further study is required to see how varying the rock
type aects correlations. Additional work is needed to

5. Conclusions
The indirect test methods that may be used to predict
the compressive strength of rock are portable and easy
to use, so they can be practically used in the eld. Also,
these tests require less or almost no sample preparation.
The point load test exhibits strong linear correlations
with the compressive strength of the coal measure rocks

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

check whether the impact strength test can be used to

estimate the compressive strength of high strength rocks.

References
[1] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard test
method for unconned compressive strength of intact rock core
specimens. Soil and Rock, Building Stones: Annual Book of
ASTM Standards 4.08. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: ASTM, 1984.
[2] ISRM Suggested Methods. In: Brown ET, editor. Rock characterisation testing and monitoring. Oxford: Pergamon Press,
1981.
[3] Kahraman S. The development of a model to obtain suitable
drilling and blasting conditions in open pit mines and quarries.
Ph.D. thesis, Istanbul Technical University, 1997 [in Turkish].
[4] Eskikaya S, Bilgin N. Research into drillability and optimum drill
bit usage for rotary drills in Turkish Coal Enterprises. Final
Report, vol. 2, Istanbul Technical University, 1993.
. uoglu
.
[5] Karpuz C, Pasamehmeto&glu AG, Dincer T, Muft
Y.
Drillability studies on the rotary blashole drilling of lignite
overburden series. Int J Surface Min Rec 1990;4:8993.
[6] DAndrea DV, Fisher RL, Fogelson DE. Prediction of compression strength from other rock properties. Colo Sch Mines Q.
1964;59(4B):62340.
[7] Reichmuth DR. Point load testing of brittle materials to
determine tensile strength, relative brittleness. In: Proceedings
of the 9th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Golden, 1968.
p. 13459.
[8] Broch E, Franklin JA. Point-load strength test. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1972;9(6):66997.
[9] Bieniawski ZT. Point load test in geotechnical practice. Eng Geol
1975;9(1):111.
[10] Pells PJN. The use of point load test in predicting the compressive
strength of rock material. Aust Geomech 1975;G5(N1):546.
[11] Greminger M. Experimental studies of the inuence of rock
anisotropy on size and shape eects in point-load testing. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1982;19:2416.
[12] Forster IR. The inuence of core sample geometry on the axial
point-load test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1983;20:2915.
[13] Hassani FP, Scoble MJ, Whittaker BN. Application of point load
index test to strength determination of rock and proposals for new
size-correction chart. In: Proceedings of the 21st US Symposium
on Rock Mechanics, Rolla, 1980. p. 54364.
[14] Brook N. Size correction for point load testing. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1980;17:2315 [Technical note].
[15] ISRM Suggested Methods. Suggested method for determining
point-load strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1985;22:5360.
[16] Turk
. N, Dearman WR. Improvements in the determination of
point-load strength. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 1985;31:13742.
[17] Chau KT, Wong RHC. Uniaxial compressive strength and point
load strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1996; 33:1838 [Technical
note].
[18] Read JRL, Thornten PN, Regan WM. A rational approach to the
point load test. In: Proceedings Aust-N.Z. Geomechanics, vol. 2,
1980. p. 359.
[19] Gunsallus KL, Kulhawy FH. A comparative evaluation of rock
strength measures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1984;21:23348.
[20] Cargill JS, Shakoor A. Evaluation of empirical methods for
measuring the uniaxial compressive strength. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1990;27:495503.
[21] Grasso P, Xu S, Mahtab A. Problems and promises of index
testing of rocks. In: Tillerson, Wawersik, editors. Rock
Mechanics. Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 9054100451, 1992.
p. 87988.

993

.
[22] Ayday C, Goktan
RM. Correlations between L and N-type
Schmidt hammer rebound values obtained during eld-testing. In:
Hudson JA, editor. International ISRM Symposium on Rock
Characterization, 1992. p. 4750.
.
[23] Ayday C, Goktan
RM. The statistical comparison of the
Schmidt hammer recording techniques. Bull Rock Mech (The
Publication of The Turkish National Society for Rock Mechanics)
1993;9:2535.
[24] Inoue M, Omi M. Study on the strength of rocks by the
Schmidt hammer test. In: Rock Mechanics in Japan, vol. 1, 1970.
p. 1779.
[25] Carter PG, Sneddon M. Comparison of the Schmidt hammer,
point load and unconned compression test in Carboniferous
strata. In: Attewell PB, editor. Proceedings of the Conference on
Rock Engineering, University of New Castle upon Tyne, 1977.
p. 197210.
[26] Sachpazis CI. Correlating Schmidt hardness with compressive
strength and Youngs Modulus of carbonate rocks. Bull Int Assoc
Eng Geol 1990;42:7584.
[27] Haramy KY, DeMarco MJ. Use of the Schmidt hammer for rock
and coal testing. In: Aswath JB, Eileen W, editors. 26th US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, 1985. p. 54955.
[28] Sheorey PR, Barat D, Das MN, Mukherjee KP, Singh B. Schmidt
hammer rebound data for estimation of large scale in situ coal
strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1984;21:3942 [Technical
note].
[29] Young RP. Assessing rock discontinuities. Tunnel Tunnelling
1978;458.
[30] Kidybinski A. Rebound number and the quality of mine roof
strata. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1968;5:28392.
[31] Poole RW, Farmer IW. Geotechnical factors aecting tunnelling
machine performance in coal measures rocks. Tunnel Tunnelling
1978;2730.
[32] Howart DF, Adamson WR, Berndt JR. Correlation of model
tunnel boring and drilling machine performances with rock
properties. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1986;23:171.
[33] Kahraman S. Rotary and Percussive Drilling Prediction Using
Regression Analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:9819
[Technical note].
[34] Kahraman S, Balci C, Yazici S, Bilgin N. Prediction of the
penetration rate of rotary blast hole drills using a new drillability
index. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:72943.
[35] Li X, Rupert G, Summers DA, Santi P, Liu D. Analysis of impact
hammer rebound to estimate rock drillability. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 2000;33(1):113.
[36] ISRM Suggested Methods. Suggested method for the quantitative
description of discontinuities in rock masses. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1978;15:31968.
[37] Knill TL. The application of seismic methods in the interpretation
of grout take in rock. In: Proceedings of the Conference on in situ
Investigation in Soils and Rocks, British Geotechnical Society,
No. 8, 1970. p. 93100.
[38] Price DG, Malone AW, Knill TL. The application of seismic
methods in the design of rock bolt system. In: Proceedings of
the First International Congress, International Association of
Engineering Geology, vol. 2, 1970. p. 74052.
[39] Young RP, Hill TT, Bryan IR, Middleton R. Seismic spectroscopy in fracture characterization. Quart J Eng Geol 1985;18:
45979.
[40] Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory AR. Formation velocity
and density: the diagnostic basis for stratigraphic. Geophysics
1974;39:77080.
[41] Youash Y. Dynamic physical properties of rocks: Part 2,
Experimental result. In: Proceedings of the Second Congress of
the International Society of Rock Mechanics, Beograd, vol. 1,
1970. p. 18595.

994

S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981994

[42] Lama RD, Vutukuri VS. Handbook on mechanical properties of

rocks. Trans Tech Publications, 2 edition, 1978.
[43] Deere DU, Miller RP. Engineering classication and index
properties for intact rock. Air Force Weapons Lab. Tech. Report,
AFWL-TR 65-116, Kirtland Base, New Mexico, 1966.
[44] DAndrea DV, Fischer RL, Fogelson DE. Prediction of
compressive strength from other rock properties. US Bureau of
Mines Report of Investigations 6702, 1965.
[45] Saito T, Mamoru ABE, Kundri S. Study on weathering of igneous
rocks. In: Rock Mechanics in Japan, vol. 2, 1974. p. 2830.
[46] Gaviglio P. Longitudinal waves propagation in a limestone: the
relationship between velocity and density. Rock Mech Rock Eng
1989;22:299306.
[47] Inoue M, Ohomi M. Relation between uniaxial compressive
strength and elastic wave velocity of soft rock. In: Akai K,
Mayashi M, Nishimatsu Y, editors. Proceedings of

[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]

[53]

the International Symposium on Weak Rock, Tokyo, 1981.

p. 913.
.
Goktan
RM. Theoretical and practical analysis of rock rippability. Ph.D. thesis, Istanbul Technical University, 1988.
Evans I, Pomeroy CD. The strength, fracture and workability of
coal. London: Pergamon Press, 1966.
Paone J, Madson D, Bruce WE. Drillability studiesFlaboratory
percussive drilling. USBM RI 7300, 1969.
Tandanand S, Unger HF. Drillability determinationFA drillability index of percussive drills. USBM RI 8073, 1975.
Rabia H, Brook W. An empirical equation for drill performance
prediction. In: Proceedings of the 21st US Symposium on Rock
Mechanics. Univ. Missouri-Rolla, 1980. p. 10311.
Hobbs DW. Rock compressive strength. Colliery Eng
1964;41:28792.