Bull Eng Geol Environ
DOI 10.1007/s10064-015-0721-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Utilizing the strength conversion factor in the estimation
of uniaxial compressive strength from the point load index
Ayberk Kaya • Kadir Karaman
Received: 26 August 2014 / Accepted: 21 January 2015
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Abstract The strength conversion factor (k) is the ratio
between the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and the
point load index (PLI). It has been used to estimate the
UCS from the PLI since the 1960s. Many researchers have
investigated the relationship between UCS and PLI for
various rock types of different geological origins, such as
igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks. In this
study, the k values for subclasses of igneous (pyroclastic,
volcanic, and plutonic), sedimentary (chemical and clas-
tic), and metamorphic (foliated and nonfoliated) rocks were
evaluated. For this purpose, UCS and PLI data for a total of
410 rock samples extracted from literature published
around the world as well as UCS and PLI data obtained in
this work for 80 rock samples taken from the Eastern Black
Sea Region in Turkey were evaluated together to determine
the k values of different rock classes. Strength conversion
factors were obtained using zero-intercept regression ana-
lysis, formulation, and a graphical approach. This study
confirmed that there is no single k value that is applicable
to all rock classes. According to statistical analyses, k var-
ied between 12.98 and 18.55 for the rocks studied. These
findings demonstrate that the k values derived in this work
can be reliably used to estimate the strengths of rock
samples with specific lithologies.
A. Kaya (&)
Department of Geological Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, 53100 Rize, Turkey
e-mail: ayberk.kaya@erdogan.edu.tr
K. Karaman
Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Karadeniz Technical University, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey
e-mail: kadirkaraman@ktu.edu.tr
Keywords Uniaxial compressive strength  Point load
index  Strength conversion factor  Statistical methods
Introduction
The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of a rock ma-
terial is a crucial parameter, as it is employed in rock
mass classification systems and in various aspects of rock
engineering design, such as in tunneling and when
evaluating slope stability. However, the direct determi-
nation of this parameter during the preliminary studies
performed during an engineering project is a relatively
expensive, troublesome, and time-consuming task. It also
requires high-quality core samples, and it is often difficult
to obtain recommended NX-sized core samples, par-
ticularly when there are problematic ground conditions
(thinly bedded, weak, highly fractured rocks, etc.). For
this reason, UCS has largely been replaced by indirect,
simpler, faster, and more economic tests. Since the 1960s,
the point load index (PLI) test—which is easy to apply
because the sample preparation process is relatively sim-
ple, the test is easy to perform, and it can be used in the
field—has become the most common indirect method for
determining UCSs (D’Andrea et al. 1964; Deere and
Miller 1966; Broch and Franklin 1972; Bieniawski 1975;
Hassani et al. 1980; Read et al. 1980; Brook 1985; ISRM
1985; Turk and Dearman 1986; Turk 1989; Vallejo et al.
1989; Cargill and Shakoor 1990; Singh and Singh 1993;
Chau and Wong 1996; Smith 1997; Hawkins 1998; Ro-
mana 1999; Thuro and Plinninger 2001; Kahraman 2001;
Palchik and Hatzor 2004; Fener et al. 2005; Kahraman
et al. 2005; Kiliç and Teymen 2008; Diamantis et al.
2009; Singh et al. 2012; Mishra and Basu 2012, 2013;
Karaman et al. 2014).
123
 A. Kaya, K. Karaman

Fig. 1 Map showing the locations of the block samples taken in the Eastern Black Sea Region (EBSR)

Table 1 Properties of rocks obtained in the Eastern Black Sea Region (EBSR) for statistical analyses
Rock class Rock type Lithology Location Number PLI(50) EBSR (MPa) UCSEBSR (MPa)
of
location Min. Max. Ave. SD Min. Max. Ave. SD

Igneous Pyroclastic Agglomerate, volcanic Trabzon 10 0.8 8.1 3.2 2.1 10.4 157.6 55.5 47.2
breccia, tuff
Volcanic Andesite, basalt, dacite, Artvin, 35 2.7 10.0 5.2 1.8 34.0 197.0 102.2 43.6
rhyodacite Trabzon,
Gumushane
Subvolcanic Diabase, microdiorite Artvin, 2 8.2 15.2 11.7 4.9 168.8 203.3 186.0 24.4
Giresun
Plutonic Granite, granodiorite Artvin, 6 1.8 12.9 8.4 3.8 52.7 221.0 148.9 55.8
Giresun,
Gumushane,
Rize
Sedimentary Chemical Limestone, biomicritic Trabzon, 15 0.9 5.7 3.2 1.8 7.7 120.0 59.1 37.6
limestone, sandy Gumushane
limestone, travertine
Clastic Conglomerate Trabzon 1 – – 1.1 – – – 8.3 –
Evaporites – – – – – – – – – – –
Metamorphic Foliated Schist Giresun 1 – – 17.8 – – – 262.5 –
Nonfoliated Marble, metabasalt Giresun, 11 3.8 17.8 7.9 3.9 66.0 262.5 136.8 68.6
Trabzon
Min. minimum, Max. maximum, Ave. average, SD standard deviation

Many researchers have investigated the relation between
UCS and PLI for different rock types using the UCS/PLI
ratio, which is termed the strength conversion factor (k).
Broch and Franklin (1972) indicated that the UCS was
approximately 24 times the PLI for a standard-size
(50-mm) core. Bieniawski (1975) showed that the UCS
was nearly 23 times the PLI. Pells (1975) stated that using
an index to strength conversion factor of 24 yielded a 20 %
error in the predicted value of the UCS for rocks such as
dolerite, norite, and pyroxenite. Read et al. (1980) showed

123
Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength
Fig. 2 Some core samples from
the EBSR (a, b), as well as
broken samples after UCS (c,
d) or PLI (e, f) tests
that the UCS/PLI ratio varies with both rock type and
weathering grade. Greminger (1982) indicated that a
k value of 24 was not adequate for anisotropic rocks.
Forster (1983) showed that the UCS/PLI ratio varied from
11.8 to 17.6 for samples of dolerite and sandstone. ISRM
(1985) assigned k values of 20–25 based on the UCS/PLI
ratio. Vallejo et al. (1989) indicated that the UCS/PLI ratio
was 12.5 for shales and 17.4 for sandstones. Ghosh and
Srivastava (1991) evaluated the test results for some
granitic rocks from Western Himalaya and derived a UCS/
PLI ratio of 16. Smith (1997) investigated the applicability
of the PLI test to the weak rock materials typical of many
coastal deposits. It was shown that the average UCS/PLI
ratio for three limestone sites was 14.3, which was low
compared to the expected value of 24 derived from hard
rock tests. Tugrul and Zarif (1999) found there to be a very
strong relationship between UCS and PLI for granitic rocks
using zero-intercept equations. Rusnak and Mark (2000)
evaluated the strength test results of sedimentary rocks
(shale, siltstone, sandstone, and limestone) from six states
in the USA. It was shown that the UCS/PLI ratio lies be-
tween 20 and 22, regardless of rock type or geological
origin. Singh et al. (2012) stated that applying a single
k value to all rock types would give erroneous results.
Strength conversion factors of 21–24 should be used for
harder rocks and 14–16 for softer rocks. Karaman et al.
(2014) obtained k values using zero-intercept equations;
these strength conversion factors were 18.2, 16.6, and 18.2
for volcanic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks,
respectively.
Some researchers have used the regression method to
elucidate linear relationships between UCS and PLI
123
 Table 2 Rock properties compiled from the literature and used in the statistical analyses
Rock class Rock type Lithology Location Researchers Number of PLI(50) (MPa) UCS (MPa)
location

123
Min. Max. Ave. SD Min. Max. Ave. SD

Igneous Pyroclastic Agglomerate, volcanic breccia, Japan This study, Kahraman (2014), 85 0.1 13.0 1.6 1.7 2.1 170.8 21.3 28.0
volcanic bomb, tuff Nigeria Gul and Ceylanoglu (2013),
Volcanic Andesite, basalt, dacite, rhyodacite, Gurocak et al. (2008), Kohno 52 1.2 13.2 5.6 2.8 23.7 202.9 101.3 46.4
Turkey
trachyte, trachyandesite and Maeda (2012), Mishra and
USA Basu (2012), Singh et al.
Subvolcanic Diabase, microdiorite 5 5.4 15.2 10.9 4.0 93.9 203.3 136.5 46.8
(2012), Alemdag et al. (2011),
Plutonic Granite, granodiorite, diorite, Adebayo et al. (2010), 88 1.2 14.6 8.4 3.3 20.5 239.0 123.1 47.2
syenite, gabbro, quartz diorite, Kahraman and Gunaydın
quartz monzodiorite, quartz (2009), Kiliç and Teymen
monzonite, quartz syenite, (2008), Karakus and Tutmez
monzonite, tonalite, granite (2006), Kahraman et al. (2005),
monzogranite, monzogranite Quane and Russell (2005),
Sulukcu and Ulusay (2001),
Kahraman (2001), Topal
(2000), Tugrul and Zarif
(1999), Ghosh and Srivastava
(1991), Catallini (1986)
Sedimentary Chemical Limestone, dolomitic limestone, India This study, Gul and Ceylanoglu 85 0.9 9.8 4.4 1.7 7.7 175.0 80.3 37.5
clayey limestone, gravelly Japan (2013), Kohno and Maeda
limestone, biosparitic limestone, (2012), Kahraman and
Turkey
sparitic crystallised limestone, Gunaydın (2009), Mishra and
biomicritic limestone, sandy USA Basu (2012), Singh et al.
sparitic limestone, high porous (2012), Kiliç and Teymen
limestone, biomicritic limestone, (2008), Karakus and Tutmez
sandy limestone, travertine, (2006), Kahraman et al. (2005),
biomicrite, biosparite limestone, Zarif and Tugrul (2003), Grene
pelmicrite limestone, biopelsparite (2001), Kahraman (2001),
limestone, pelsparite limestone, Sulukcu and Ulusay (2001)
micrite limestone, clayey
biomicrite limestone, biomicrite
with quartz clast limestone, clayey
biomicrite with quartz clast
limestone
Clastic Sandstone, altered sandstone, 57 0.2 13.8 3.8 3.3 2.0 172.0 53.7 44.0
greywacke, mudstone,
conglomerate, marl, siltstone,
shale, tuffaceous conglomerate,
tuffaceous sandstone, siltshale,
mudshale, clayshale, claystone
Evaporites Anhydrite, dolomite, rock salt, 11 1.3 12.0 4.2 3.3 14.6 159.4 67.0 50.2
gypsium
A. Kaya, K. Karaman
Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength

43.5

49.9
(D’Andrea et al. 1964; Deere and Miller 1966; Gunsallus

SD
and Kulhawy 1984; O’Rourke 1989; Cargill and Shakoor
Ave. 1990; Kahraman 2001; Fener et al. 2005; Cobanoglu and
64.3

78.9
Celik 2008; Basu and Kamran 2010). Azimian et al.
(2014) and Kiliç and Teymen (2008) obtained a strong
262.5

243.0
Max.
UCS (MPa)

logarithmic relationship between UCS and PLI for marly

rocks and different rock types. Some researchers also
Min.

14.6

22.2
uncovered power relationships between related pa-
rameters (Grasso et al. 1992; Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis
SD

2.9

2.2
2004; Santi 2006). Recently, Azimian et al. (2014) and
Kahraman (2014) published a relatively detailed list
Ave.

4.1

4.8

showing the relationships (zero-intercept, linear, power,

PLI(50) (MPa)

etc.) used to estimate the UCS from the PLI in the

Max.

17.8

9.2

literature.
According to the literature, no single k value is appli-
Min.

cable to the full range of rock material strengths known,

1.0

1.6

and there appear to be a broad range of strength conversion

Number of

factors. Additionally, different rock types/origins (igneous,

location

metamorphic, and sedimentary) have been evaluated to-

gether by many researchers when estimating UCS from PLI
75

37

(Kahraman 2001; Fener et al. 2005; Kiliç and Teymen

(2006), Kahraman et al. (2005),
Kahraman (2001), Sulukcu and
This study, Gul and Ceylanoglu

2008). Recently, Kahraman and Gunaydin (2009) and

(2008), Karakus and Tutmez
(2012), Singh et al. (2012),

Karaman et al. (2014) performed regression analyses be-

(2009), Kiliç and Teymen

Ulusay (2001), Singh and

Kahraman and Gunaydın
(2013), Mishra and Basu

Diamantis et al. (2009),

tween UCS and PLI values for igneous, metamorphic, and

sedimentary rocks.
The main objective of the study described in the present
Singh (1993)

paper was to estimate the UCS from the PLI for various
Researchers

rock classes. For this purpose, the UCS and PLI data
gathered from 410 locations and reported in literature from
around the world, as well as UCS and PLI data obtained in
this work from rock samples taken from 80 locations in the
Location

Eastern Black Sea Region (EBSR) in Turkey, were

Turkey
Greece
India

evaluated together based on their geological origins. The

igneous rocks were categorized into four subclasses: py-
Min. minimum, Max. maximum, Ave. average, SD standard deviation

roclastic, volcanic, subvolcanic, and plutonic. Sedimentary

epidiorite, epidote-amphibolite,

amphibole feldspatic quartzite,

serpantinite, amphibole schist,

rocks were subclassified into chemical and clastic

listwanite, schist, micaschist,
Gnays, micaschist, migmatite,

Marble, metagabro, quartzite,

metasandstone, metabasalt,

sedimentary rocks and evaporites. Furthermore, metamor-

khondalite, amphibolite,

phic rocks were divided into foliated and nonfoliated rocks.

Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the
feldspatic quartzite

strength conversion factors (k) for rocks of various geolo-

gical origins and subclasses.
peridodite
Lithology

Experimental studies
Non-foliated

Sampling location
Rock type

Foliated

In the present study, blocks of igneous, metamorphic, and

Table 2 continued

sedimentary rocks were collected from 80 locations in the

Metamorphic

EBSR in Turkey (Fig. 1; Table 1). Each block sample was

Rock class

inspected for macroscopic defects so that it would provide

standard testing specimens free from fractures, cracks, and
weathering. The core samples (NX: 54.7 mm) used in the

123
 A. Kaya, K. Karaman

Fig. 3 Linear and zero- a 350

intercept regressions between UCS = 14.8 1 PLI (50)
UCS and PLI values for all rock 300 r : 0.83
types (a) and EBSR rock
samples (b) collected in the 250
Literature

UCS (MPa)
Eastern Black Sea Region for
this study 200 EBSR

150 Doğrusal
Zero -intercept
Linear
100 (Literature)
UCS = 12.93 PLI (50) + 13.43 95 % confidence
r : 0.83 limit
50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
PLI (50) (MPa)

b 350
300 UCS EBSR = 17.92 PLI (50) EBSR
r : 0.89
250
UCSEBSR (MPa)

EBSR
200
Linear
150
Zero -intercept
UCS EBSR = 16.4 8 PLI (50) EBSR + 10.27 95 % confidence
100
r : 90 limit
50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
PLI (50) EBSR (MPa)

experimental studies were taken from blocks of the re-
quired dimensions obtained using a core drilling machine.
The ends of the samples were machined flat, ground, and
made parallel to each other. The cut end faces of the cores
were smoothened to maintain a precision of within
±0.02 mm and made perpendicular to within 0.05 mm
with respect to the core axis using a comparator. Following
a macroscopic inspection, only samples that were un-
weathered and free of visible joints were retained. In order
to obtain precise results and allow accurate comparisons,
the experiments were carried out under the same (natural)
conditions. The experimental program included UCS and
PLI tests (Fig. 2a–d).
Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) test
The UCS tests were carried out on fresh rock samples with
length to diameter ratios of 2.5–3 following the recom-
mendations of the ISRM (Ulusay and Hudson 2007). The
tests were performed perpendicular to the planes of ani-
sotropy for the foliated metamorphic rocks collected from
the EBSR. A servo-controlled testing machine with a load
capacity of 300 tons was used. A stress rate of 0.75 MPa/s
was applied during the tests. The mean UCS value was
obtained by averaging the strength values of five tests
performed at the same lithotype/sampling point.
Point load index (PLI) test
In this study, the axial method of PLI testing was applied to
NX-sized core samples in accordance with the ISRM
(Ulusay and Hudson 2007) procedure. A digital test appa-
ratus was used for PLI testing of the rock samples. At least
ten samples were tested for each rock type, and the mean
value was obtained by discarding the two lowest and highest
values and then calculating the mean of the remaining
values. Tests were carried out along the direction perpen-
dicular to the planes of anisotropy for the foliated meta-
morphic rocks. This test allowed the uncorrected PLI to be
determined, so the results were corrected to the standard
equivalent diameter (De) of 50 mm. The value of the
PLI(50) (MPa) was determined using the following equation:
P
PLIð50Þ ¼ F ; ð1Þ
De2
where P is the failure load in kN, F is the size correction
factor ((De/50)0.45), and De is the equivalent core diameter
in mm2 (De2 = 4A/p).

123
Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength

a 300
UCS = 14.58 PLI (50) b 300 UCS EBSR = 18.2 2 PLI (50) EBSR
r : 0.88
r : 0.89
250 250

UCSEBSR (MPa)
200 200 EBSR
UCS (MPa)

Literature
Linear
150 EBSR 150 Zero -intercept
Zero -intercept UCS EBSR = 16.34 PLI (50) EBSR + 13.0 6
r : 0.89 95 % confidence
100 Linear 100 limit
95 % confidence
UCS = 13.53 PLI (50) + 8.84
50 r : 0.8 9
limit 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
PLI (50) (MPa) PLI (50) EBSR (MPa)

c 240
UCS = 15.1 4 PLI (50) d 120
140
r : 0.61
200
UCSEBSR = 19.94 PLI(50) EBSR - 4.84
100 r : 0.92

UCSEBSR (MPa)
160 Literature
UCS (MPa)

EBSR 80 EBSR
120 Linear Linear
60
Zero -intercept Zero-intercept
80
UCS = 11.11 PL I (50) + 23.0 6 95 % confidence 40 95 % confidence
r : 0. 67 limit limit
40 20 UCSEBSR = 18.74 PLI(50) EBSR
r : 0.92
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PLI (50) (MPa) PLI(50) EBSR (MPa)

e 300
UCS = 15.16 PLI (50) f
300 UCSEBSR = 16.96 PLI(50) EBSR
r : 85
r : 0.74
250 250
Literature
UCS EBSR (MPa)

200 200 EBSR

UCS (MPa)

EBSR
Zero-intercept
150 Zero-intercept 150 UCSEBSR = 15.10 PLI(50) EBSR + 17.30 Linear
Linear r : 86
95 % confidence
100 UCS = 12.84 PLI (50) + 13.93 95 % confidence 100 limit
r : 0.76 limit
50 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
PLI (50) (MPa) PLI(50) EBSR (MPa)

Fig. 4 Linear and zero-intercept regressions between UCS and PLI values for a, b igneous, c, d sedimentary, and e, f metamorphic rocks, as
compiled from the literature and samples taken in the EBSR

Analysis of collected data evaporites. However, the subvolcanic rock samples (a total
of 5 locations) and evaporites (a total of 11 locations) were
Paired UCS and PLI data collected from literature pub- too scarce to allow separate statistical analyses to be per-
lished around the world and obtained during this study formed for those rock types. Although subvolcanic rocks
were used for the statistical analyses. The results of UCS and evaporites were not taken into consideration in sepa-
and PLI tests performed on samples taken from 490 dif- rate statistical analyses, they were included in the regres-
ferent locations were evaluated (Tables 1, 2). Studies sion analyses of all rocks and of the igneous and
conducted after 1985 were favored for selection because of sedimentary rock groups (Figs. 3a, 4a, c). Metamorphic
the fact that the ISRM (1985) published a suggested rocks were divided into two subclasses: foliated and non-
method for the PLI test in that year, so studies performed foliated rocks.
after that date employed similar test conditions. Initially, In this study, k values were determined based on three
all data from the 490 locations were evaluated together, methods: zero-intercept regression, formulation, and a
without focusing on any particular geological origin (ig- graphical approach. The procedures followed for these
neous, metamorphic, or sedimentary), as in the common methods are described below.
literature. The data were then grouped into rock types In the first method, regression analyses were done to
(igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary). Igneous rocks investigate the relationship between UCS and PLI (Figs. 3,
were further subdivided into four subclasses: pyroclastic, 4, 5, 6, 7). The relationship between the UCS and PLI
volcanic, subvolcanic, and plutonic. Sedimentary rocks values obtained from the EBSR samples are given in
were individually categorized into chemical, clastic, and Figs. 3b, 4b, d, f. Further, those test data (obtained in this

123
 A. Kaya, K. Karaman

Fig. 5 Linear and zero- 200

intercept regressions between a
UCS and PLI values for UCS = 15.23 PLI(50) - 3.64
a pyroclastic, b volcanic, and 160 r : 0.93
c plutonic rocks, as compiled
from the literature and EBSR Literature

UCS (MPa)
120
EBSR
UCS = 14.16 PLI(50)
r : 0.92 Linear
80
Zero-intercept
95 % confidence
40 limit

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
PLI(50) (MPa)

250
b
UCS = 17.15 PLI(50)
r : 0.77
200
Literature
UCS (MPa)

EBSR
150
Linear
Zero-intercept
100
UCS = 13.42 PLI(50) + 26.09 95 % confidence
r : 0.81 limit
50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
PLI(50) (MPa)

250
c
200
UCS = 10.49 PLI(50) + 35.34 Literature
r : 0.75
EBSR
UCS (MPa)

150
Linear

100 Zero-intercept
95 % confidence
limit
50
UCS = 14.14 PLI(50)
r : 0.70
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
PLI(50) (MPa)

study) were combined with literature data in order to per-
form the regression analyses shown in Figs. 3a, 4a, c, e,
5a–c, 6a, b, and 7a, b. In those figures, the test and the
literature data are distinguished by using symbols with
different colors. The equation for the line of best fit and the
correlation coefficient (r) were determined for each re-
gression. The best relationship between the UCS and PLI
was linear for each rock group analyzed. The validities of
the correlation coefficients and the statistically derived
zero-intercept equations were confirmed to within the 95 %
confidence level (a: 0.05 significance level) using the SPSS
v.15.0 (2006) program. First, the zero-intercept correlation
coefficients (rcal.) of the rock groups were tested. For this
purpose, the calculated correlation coefficients (rcal.) were
compared with the critical Pearson’s correlation coeffi-
cients (rtable) using the null hypothesis. When the value of

123
Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength

Fig. 6 Linear and zero-

intercept regressions between
a 200

UCS and PLI values for

a chemical and b clastic 160
sedimentary rocks, as compiled Literature
UCS = 10.83 PLI (50) + 32.4 4
from the literature and EBSR r : 0.5 0

UCS (MPa)
120 EBSR
Linear
UCS = 17.20 PLI (50) Zero -intercept
80 r : 0.39
95 % confidence
limit
40

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
PLI (50) (MPa)

b 210
UCS = 12.5 9 PLI (50)
180 r : 0.77

150 UCS = 10.51 PLI (50) + 13.82

Literature
UCS(50) (MPa)

r : 0.79
120 EBSR
Linear
90
Zero -intercept
60 95 % confidence
limit
30

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
PLI (50) (MPa)

rcal. was greater than that of rtable, the null hypothesis was
rejected, which meant that r was significant. As shown in
Table 3, the rcal. values are greater than the rtable values for
all of the derived equations, suggesting that they are valid
according to the correlation coefficient test. Second, the
significance of each regression was determined by per-
forming an analysis of variance. When the calculated
F value (Fcal.) was greater than the tabulated F value
(Ftable), the null hypothesis—that there was no relationship
between the dependent and independent variables—was
rejected. Since the Fcal. values were greater than the
tabulated Ftable values for all of the statistically derived
equations, the null hypothesis was rejected in each case
(Table 4). Therefore, it was concluded that all of the
derived equations are valid according to the F test.
In the second method, k values were obtained from the
UCS/PLI ratio and classified using the following equation:
xmax  xmin
h¼ ð2Þ
1 þ 3:322 log N
where h is the amount of space, xmax - xmin is the differ-
ence between the highest and lowest k values, and N is the
number of k values in the data set. The mean k value of the
grouped data sets was found using
" # " #
X
n X
n
x ¼ fi :xi = fi ; ð3Þ
i¼1 i¼1
where x is the mean k value for the grouped data, fi is the
frequency of the interval, and xi is the midpoint of the
interval.
In the third method, k values were determined using a
graphical approach. Cumulative frequency (%) and his-
togram plots were plotted for all of the data sets based on
the frequency values derived via Eq. 2. When all of the
rock groups were combined, the data set showed a normal
distribution (Fig. 8a, b). However, logarithmic distribu-
tions were obtained for igneous, sedimentary, and meta-
morphic rocks when they were analyzed separately
(Fig. 9a–f). The data sets exhibited normal distributions
when igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks were
subclassified into pyroclastic, volcanic, plutonic, chemical,
clastic, foliated, and nonfoliated classes (Figs. 10, 11, 12).
This may be because the UCS and PLI values vary

123
 A. Kaya, K. Karaman

Fig. 7 Linear and zero- a 280

intercept regressions between UCS = 14.3 8 PLI (50)
UCS and PLI values for 240 r : 0.75
a foliated and b nonfoliated Literature
metamorphic rocks, as compiled 200
EBSR
from the literature and EBSR

UCS (MPa)
160 Linear
Zero -intercept
120 UCS = 11.62 PLI (50) + 16.99
95 % confidence
r : 0.79
limit
80

40

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
PLI (50) (MPa)

b 280

240

200
UCS = 16.74 PLI (50) - 0.7 3 Literature
UCS (MPa)

r : 0.74
160 EBSR
Linear
120
Zero -intercept
80 95 % confidence
limit
40 UCS = 16.6 2 PLI (50)
r : 0.74
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PLI (50) (MPa)

according to the geological origin of the rock. Cumulative
frequency (%) and k values were overlaid on normal
probability paper in order to calculate the mean k values for
the normal distributions. The data sets exhibiting
logarithmic distributions were converted into normal dis-
tributions by taking the logarithm in each case. The mean
k values for igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks
were determined using logarithmic probability paper. This
study therefore indicates that it is very important to know
the detailed rock type (i.e., volcanic or plutonic rather than
simply ‘‘igneous;’’ chemical or clastic rather than simply
‘‘sedimentary,’’ etc.) when attempting to estimate rock
strength.
Results and discussion
In order to be able to examine the relationship between
UCS and PLI, regression lines were drawn in Fig. 3 for all
rock types. As can be seen in Fig. 3, zero-intercept and
linear regression analyses were implemented for rock data
obtained from literature published around the world
(Fig. 3a) and for rock data from the EBSR obtained in the
present study (Fig. 3b). No difference between the zero-
intercept and linear regression analyses was found in terms
of their r values. As shown in Fig. 3a, b, there are two
separate trends: one for all of the rock groups combined
and the other for the rocks from the EBSR, with the EBSR
rock data yielding a more steeply sloped line than the rock
data taken from the literature does. Similar analyses were
executed for igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks
(Fig. 4a–f). The linear and zero-intercept lines were very
close to each other for the literature data and the EBSR
data on igneous rocks (Fig. 4a, b). There were reasonable
linear relationships between UCS and PLI for igneous,
sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks but, for sedimentary
and metamorphic rocks, the EBSR rocks showed higher
coefficients of determination (r: 0.85–0.92) than the rocks
described in the literature did (r: 0.61–0.76) (Fig. 4c–f).
Igneous rocks were divided into three subclasses for
estimating UCS from PLI, based on the lithological simi-
larity of the rocks (Fig. 5a–c). Pyroclastic rock data from
the literature gave the highest coefficients of determination
(r [ 0.92) and a steeply sloped line (Fig. 5a). Volcanic and
plutonic rocks presented similar relationships in terms of
the slopes of the regression lines. However, the coefficients

123
Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength

Table 3 Test of the correlation coefficients obtained for each rock class at the significance level of a = 0.05
Rock group Rock class Calculated correlation Critical Pearson correlation Test of the correlation coefficient
coefficient (rcal.) coefficient (rtable)

All rock groups – 0.83 0.195 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation

Igneous – 0.89 0.195 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation
Sedimentary – 0.61 0.195 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation
Metamorphic – 0.74 0.195 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation
Igneous Pyroclastic 0.92 0.208 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation
Igneous Volcanic 0.77 0.273 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation
Igneous Plutonic 0.75 0.205 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation
Sedimentary Chemical 0.39 0.208 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation
Sedimentary Clastic 0.77 0.261 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation
Metamorphic Foliated 0.75 0.227 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation
Metamorphic Nonfoliated 0.74 0.325 H0 rejected Meaningful correlation
H0 hypothesis: there is no zero-intercept correlation between UCS and PLI(50)
H1 hypothesis: there is zero-intercept correlation between UCS and PLI(50)

Table 4 Test of the regression equations obtained for each rock class at the significance level of a = 0.05 using analysis of variance (F test)
Rock group Rock class Regression equation Fcal. Ftable Test of the regression equation

All rock groups – UCS = 14.81 PLI(50) 14.37 1.00 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
Igneous – UCS = 14.58 PLI(50) 24.98 1.00 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
Sedimentary – UCS = 15.14 PLI(50) 3.75 1.00 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
Metamorphic – UCS = 15.16 PLI(50) 5.60 1.00 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
Igneous Pyroclastic UCS = 14.16 PLI(50) 53.32 1.46 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
Igneous Volcanic UCS = 17.15 PLI(50) 6.20 1.66 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
Igneous Plutonic UCS = 14.14 PLI(50) 7.66 1.45 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
Sedimentary Chemical UCS = 17.20 PLI(50) 1.80 1.46 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
Sedimentary Clastic UCS = 12.59 PLI(50) 5.76 1.65 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
Metamorphic Foliated UCS = 14.38 PLI(50) 6.59 1.50 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
Metamorphic Nonfoliated UCS = 16.62 PLI(50) 1.83 1.75 H0 rejected Meaningful regression
H0 hypothesis: there is no zero-intercept relation between UCS and PLI(50)
H1 hypothesis: there is zero-intercept relation between UCS and PLI(50)

of determination were slightly higher for the volcanic rocks
than for the plutonic rocks (Fig. 5b, c). Figure 6a and b
present the relationship between UCS and PLI for chemical
and clastic sedimentary rocks, respectively. Relatively poor
and moderate relationships were obtained for chemical
rocks using zero-intercept and linear regression analyses,
respectively (Fig. 6a). Fairly good relationships (r:
0.77–0.79) were obtained for clastic sedimentary rocks
(Fig. 6b). Similar relationships (r: 0.74–0.79) and line
slopes were noted for foliated and nonfoliated metamor-
phic rocks (Fig. 7a, b).
Average k values were proposed for the various litholo-
gies by averaging the results of the three analyses given in
Table 5 and Fig. 13. The zero-intercept regression method
usually gave lower k values than the graphical and formu-
lation methods. The k values obtained from the three
methods were similar for volcanic rocks. Pyroclastic and
clastic sedimentary rocks had lower average k values than
those of the other rock types. As shown in Table 5, the
average k values were lower than 20 for all rock types except
for metamorphic rocks. According to the literature, reported
k values were generally higher than 20 before 1985, whereas
the values have generally been lower than 20 since 1985. It
is presumed that these deviations are due to variations
among rock types (e.g., in terms of their strengths) and—
especially—differences in the testing methods used by

123
 A. Kaya, K. Karaman

195
200 100
a b

% Cumulative frequency
160 80

116 114
Frequency

120 60

80 40

40 31 20
16
5 6 6
1
0 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
k value k value

Fig. 8 a Histogram and b cumulative frequency plot for all rock groups combined, showing a normal distribution (
x indicates the mean k value)

58
a 60 b 100

% Cumulative frequency
50 48
44 80

40 35
60
Frequency

30
24
40
20
14
20
10
2
0
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
k value k value

50 100
c d
42
% Cumulative frequency

40 80
33

60
Frequency

30 27 26

20 40
13
11
10 20

0 0
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 16 17 18 19 20 21
k value k value

e 70 f 100
63
60
% Cumulative frequency

80
50
60
Frequency

40

30 25 40
20
20
10 8
3 5 5
2 1
0 0
24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52
k value k value

Fig. 9 Histograms and cumulative frequency plots for a, b igneous, c, d sedimentary, and e, f metamorphic rocks, showing logarithmic
distributions (
x indicates the mean k value)

123
Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength

30 100
a b
24

% Cumulative frequency
25
80
20 19 19
Frequency
60
15 14

40
10
6
5 20
1 1 1
0 0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
k value k value
24 100
c d

% Cumulative frequency
20 19
80
16
Frequency

60
12
12 10
40
8
5
4 20
1 1 1 1
0 0
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
k value k value
35 100
e 32 f
30
% Cumulative frequency

80
25 22
60
Frequency

20 17

15
40
9
10
20
5 2
1 1 1
0 0
0 0
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
k value k value

Fig. 10 Histograms and cumulative frequency plots of a, b pyroclastic, c, d volcanic, and e, f plutonic rocks, showing normal distributions (
x
indicates the mean k value)

different researchers. In 1985, the ISRM (1985) defined the k is lower for softer rocks and higher for harder rocks.
standard PLI test conditions for researchers. Indeed, the k values listed in Table 5 are consistent with
A strength conversion factor of 24 was proposed by those found in the literature. Hassani et al. (1980) and
Broch and Franklin (1972), and this value has often been Read et al. (1980) reported k values of 29 and 20, re-
used for the practical estimation of UCS in the literature. spectively, for sedimentary rocks. The present study
However, many researchers (Pells 1975; Greminger confirmed that k varies with rock type, so we evaluated k
1982; Smith 1997; Topal 2000) have stated that a separately for rocks with different geological origins.
strength conversion factor of 24 would give erroneous Since this study has investigated the relationship between
results. Kahraman (2014) pointed out that in tests of UCS and PLI for a great number of rocks and rock
many different rock types, k varied between 15 and 50, types, the k values proposed here for each rock type can
especially for anisotropic rocks. Recent studies (Sa- be reliably used in the preliminary studies performed for
batakakis et al. 2008; Singh et al. 2012) revealed that engineering projects.

123
 A. Kaya, K. Karaman

a 30 b 100
25 24

% Cumulative frequency
80
21
20 18
Frequency

60
15
12
40
10

5 20
3
2 2 2
1
0 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
k value k value

c 25 d 100
21
20

% Cumulative frequency
80
Frequency

15 13
60
10
10
6 40
5 3
2
1 1
0 20
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
k value 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
k value

Fig. 11 Histograms and cumulative frequency plots of a, b chemical and c, d clastic sedimentary rocks, showing normal distributions (
x
indicates the mean k value)

a 24 b 100

20
20
% Cumulative frequency

80

16
Frequency

13 60
12 12
12
9
40
8 6

4 2 20
1 1
0
0
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 0
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
k value
k value

c 12 d 100
10
10
% Cumulative frequency

9 9 80

8
Frequency

60
6 5

4 40

2
2 1 1 20
0 0
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0
k value 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
k value

Fig. 12 Histograms and cumulative frequency plots of a, b foliated and c, d nonfoliated metamorphic rocks, showing normal distributions (
x
indicates the mean k value)

123
Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength

Nonfoliated
25
Metamorphic rocks

16.62
15.81
17.50
16.64
20 18.55
17.68
16.64
15.32
14.26

k value
15
Foliated

12.98 13.51
14.38
11.61
16.80
14.26

NON-FOLIATED
PYROCLASTIC
10

CHEMICAL

FOLIATED
VOLCANIC

PLUTONIC

CLASTIC
Clastic
Sedimentary rocks

12.59
12.85
15.10
13.51
5

0
Chemical

17.20
17.36
21.10
18.55

Igneous Rocks Sedimentary Rocks Metamorphic Rocks

Fig. 13 Histogram showing the mean k values for all rock classes
Plutonic

14.14
14.71
17.10
15.32

Conclusion
Volcanic

The relationship between UCS and PLI was evaluated for

17.15
17.70
18.20
17.68

490 rocks reported in the literature and in the present

study. In contrast to the approach employed in the lit-
Igneous rocks

erature, here we utilized a broad range of rock types with

Pyroclastic

various geological origins in our statistical analyses in

14.16
12.29
12.50
12.98

order to achieve more reliable results. Furthermore, the

rocks used in this study were grouped into classes of
Metamorphic rocks

particular rock types (e.g., pyroclastic, volcanic, or plu-

Table 5 Strength conversion factors determined for each rock class using various statistical methods

tonic, rather than simply ‘‘igneous’’). Similarly,

sedimentary and metamorphic rocks were categorized into
classes according to their geological origins. The strength
15.16
25.63
24.90
21.89

conversion factor (k) was determined for each class (i.e.,

particular geological origin) of rock using three methods:
zero-intercept regression method, formulation, and a gra-
Sedimentary rocks

phical approach.
The following conclusions can drawn from the results
obtained in this study. The geological origin of the rock has
15.14
17.36
17.30
11.60

the greatest influence on the relationship between its UCS

and PLI. The strength conversion factors of igneous rocks
were found to be 12.98, 17.68, and 15.32 for pyroclastic,
Igneous rocks

volcanic, and plutonic rocks, respectively. They were 18.55

and 13.51 for chemical and clastic sedimentary rocks, re-
8.51
14.58

10.80
11.30

spectively. The k values derived for metamorphic rocks

were 14.26 for foliated and 16.64 for nonfoliated rocks.
All rock groups

Therefore, the application of a single strength conversion

factor for all rock types would yield erroneous results. The
present study indicates that the proposed strength conver-
14.81
15.61
17.80
16.07

sion factor values should be used with caution, and that

different values should be used for rocks with different
Zero-intercept regression

geological origins. The k values proposed for different rock

Formulation approach

classes can be reliably used in the preliminary studies

Graphical approach
Statistical method

performed for engineering projects.

Average k value

Acknowledgments The authors would like to express their sincerest

gratitude to the editor and reviewers for their invaluable comments,
and Miss. Brittany Lock from the EF Education First Language
School in the UK for improving the language used in the manuscript.

123

References
Adebayo B, Opafunso ZO, Akande JM (2010) Drillability and
strength characteristics of selected rocks in Nigeria. AU JT
14(1):56–60
Alemdag S, Kaya A, Gurocak Z, Dag S (2011) Excavatability
properties of rock masses having different weathering degrees:
an example of Gumushane granitoid, Gumushane, NE Turkey (in
Turkish). J Eng Geol 35(2):135–152
Azimian A, Ajalloeian R, Fatehi L (2014) An empirical correlation of
uniaxial compressive strength with p-wave velocity and point
load strength index on marly rocks using statistical method.
Geotech Geol Eng 32:205–214
Basu A, Kamran M (2010) Point load test on schistose rocks and its
applicability in predicting uniaxial compressive strength. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 47:823–828
Bieniawski ZT (1975) Point load test in geotechnical practice. Eng
Geol 9(1):1–11
Broch E, Franklin JA (1972) The point-load strength test. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 9(6):669–676
Brook N (1985) The equivalent core diameter method of size and
shape correction ın point load testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 22:61–70
Cargill JS, Shakoor A (1990) Evaluation of empirical methods for
measuring the uniaxial strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 27:495–503
Catallini LE (1986) Rock mass classification for preliminary tunnel
design: Sterrita site. MSc thesis. University of Arizona, Tucson
Chau KT, Wong RHC (1996) Uniaxial compressive strength and
point load strength of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 33(2):183–188
Cobanoglu I, Celik SB (2008) Estimation of uniaxial compressive
strength from point load strength, Schmidt hardness and P-wave
velocity. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:491–498
D’Andrea DV, Fisher RL, Fogelson DE (1964) Prediction of
compression strength from other rock properties. Colo School
Mines Q 59(4b):623–640
Deere DU, Miller RP (1966) Engineering classifications and index
properties of intact rock. Tech Rep AFWL-TR 65-116. Air Force
Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque,
p 300
Diamantis K, Gartzos E, Migros G (2009) Study on uniaxial
compressive strength, point load strength index, dynamic and
physical properties of serpentinites from Central Greece: test
results and empirical relations. Eng Geol 108:199–207
Fener M, Kahraman S, Bilgil A, Gunaydin O (2005) A comparative
evaluation of indirect methods to estimate the compressive
strength of rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 38(4):329–343
Forster IR (1983) The influence of core sample geometry on the axial
point load test. Int J 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
Grasso P, Xu S, Mahtab A (1992) Problems and promises of index
testing of rocks. In: Proc 33rd US Symp Rock Mechanics, Sante
Fe, NM, USA, 3–5 June 1992, pp 879–888
Greminger M (1982) Experimental studies of the influence of rock
anisotropy on size and shape effects in point-load testing. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 19:24–246
Grene BH (2001) Predicting the unconfined compressive strength of
mudrocks for design of structural foundations. PhD thesis. Kent
State University, Kent
Gul Y, Ceylanoglu A (2013) Evaluation of plate loading tests on some
rock formations for assessing the ground bearing capacity. Bull
Eng Geol Environ 72:131–136
123
A. Kaya, K. Karaman
Gunsallus KL, Kulhawy FH (1984) A comparative evaluation of rock
strength measures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 21:233–248
Gurocak Z, Alemdag S, Zaman MM (2008) Rock slope stability and
excavatability assessment of rocks at the Kapikaya Dam site,
Turkey. Eng Geol 96:17–27
Hassani FP, Scoble MJJ, Whittaker BN (1980) Application of point-
load index test to strength determination of rock and proposals
for new size-correction chart. In: Summers DA (ed) Proc 21st
US Symp Rock Mechanics, Rolla, MO, USA, 28–30 May 1980,
pp 543–553
Hawkins AB (1998) Aspect of rock strength. Bull Eng Geol Environ
57:17–30
ISRM (1985) Suggested method for determining point load strength.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22(2):53–60
Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
38:991–994
Kahraman S (2014) The determination of uniaxial compressive
strength from point load strength for pyroclastic rocks. Eng Geol
170:33–42
Kahraman S, Gunaydin Fener M (2005) The effect of porosity on the
relation between uniaxial compressive strength and point load
index. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:584–589
Kahraman S, Gunaydin O (2009) The effect of rock classes on the
relation between uniaxial compressive strength and point load
index. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68:345–353
Karakus M, Tutmez B (2006) Fuzzy and multiple regression
modelling for evaluation of intact rock strength based on point
load, Schmidt hammer and sonic velocity. Rock Mech Rock Eng
39(1):45–57
Karaman K, Kesimal A, Ersoy E (2014) A comparative assessment of
indirect methods for estimating the uniaxial compressive and
tensile strength of rocks. Arab J Geosci. doi:10.1007/s12517-
014-1384-0
Kılıç A, Teymen A (2008) Determination of mechanical properties of
rocks using simple methods. Bull Eng Geol Env 67:237–244
Kohno M, Maeda H (2012) Relationship between point load strength
index and uniaxial compressive strength of hydrothermally
altered soft rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 50:147–157
Mishra DA, Basu A (2012) Use of the block punch test to predict the
compressive and tensile strengths of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 51:119–127
Mishra DA, Basu A (2013) Estimation of uniaxial compressive
strength of rock materials by index tests using regression
analysis and fuzzy inference system. Eng Geol 160:54–68
O’Rourke JE (1989) Rock index properties for geoengineering in
underground development. Min Eng 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 point load test in predicting the compressive
strength of rock material. Aust Geomech G 5(N1):54–56
Quane SL, Russell JK (2005) Ranking welding intensity in pyroclas-
tic deposits. Bull Volcano 67:129–143
Read JRL, Thornten PN, Regan WM (1980) A rational approach to
the point load test. In: Proc 3rd Australian–New Zealand
Geomechanics Conf, Wellington, New Zealand, 12–16 May
1980, 2:35–39
Romana MR (1999) Correlation between uniaxial compressive and
point-load strengths for different rock classes. In: Proc 9th ISRM
Congr, Paris, France, 25–28 August 1999, 2:673–676
Rusnak J, Mark C (2000) Using the point load test to determine the
uniaxial compressive strength of coal measure rock. In: Peng SS,
Mark C (eds) Proc 19th Int Conf on Ground Control in Mining,
Morgantown, WV, USA, 8–10 Aug 2000, pp 362–371
Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength
Sabatakakis N, Koukis G, Tsiambaos G, Papanakli S (2008) Index
properties and strength variation controlled by microstructure for
sedimentary rocks. Eng Geol 97:80–90
Santi PM (2006) Field methods for characterizing weak rock for
engineering. Environ Eng Geosci XII 1:1–11
Singh VK, Singh DP (1993) Correlation between point load index and
compressive strength for quartzite rocks. Geotech Geol Eng
11(4):269–272
Singh TN, Kainthola A, Venkatesh A (2012) Correlation between
point load index and uniaxial compressive strength for different
rock types. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45(2):259–264
Smith HJ (1997) The point load test for weak rock in dredging
applications. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(3–4), Paper 295
SPSS (2006) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS v.15.0
for Windows. SPSS Inc., Chicago
Sulukcu S, Ulusay R (2001) Evaluation of the block punch index test
with particular reference to the size effect, failure mechanism
and its effectiveness in predicting rock strength. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 38:1091–1111
Thuro K, Plinninger RJ (2001) Scale effects in rock strength
properties. Part 2: Point load test and point load strength index.
In: Proc ISRM Reg Symp Eurock 2001, Espoo, Finland, 4–7
June 2001, pp 175–180
Topal T (2000) Problems faced in the applications of the point load
index test (in Turkish). J Geol Eng 24(1):73–86
Tsiambaos G, Sabatakakis N (2004) Considerations on strength of
intact sedimentary rocks. Eng Geol 72:261–273
Tugrul A, Zarif IH (1999) Correlation of mineralogical and textural
characteristics with engineering properties of selected granitic
rocks from Turkey. Eng Geol 51:303–317
Turk N (1989) A new procedure for determination of point load
strength of rocks. Bull Eng Geol 10:25–31
Turk N, Dearman WR (1986) A new procedure for determination of point
load strength in site investigation. Eng Geol Spec Pub 6:405–411
Ulusay R, Hudson JA (eds) (2007) The complete ISRM Suggested
Methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring.
Suggested Methods prepared by the Commission on Testing
Methods, International Society for Rock Mechanics. ISRM
Turkish National Group, Ankara, p 628
Vallejo LE, Welsh RA, Robinson MK (1989) Correlation between
unconfined compressive and point load strength for Appalachian
rocks. In: Proc 30th US Symp Rock Mech, Morgantown, WV,
USA, 19–21 June 1989, pp 461–468
Zarif IH, Tugrul A (2003) Aggregate properties of Devonian
limestones for use in concrete in Istanbul, Turkey. Bull Eng
Geol Env 62:379–388
123