ORI GI NAL PAPER

Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength from point load

strength, Schmidt hardness and P-wave velocity
_
Ibrahim C obanoglu Sefer Beran C elik
Received: 22 October 2007 / Accepted: 29 March 2008 / Published online: 15 May 2008
Springer-Verlag 2008
Abstract Uniaxial compressive strength is considered
one of the most important parameters in the characterization
of rock material in rock engineering practice. The study
investigated correlations between uniaxial compressive
strength and point load index, P-wave velocity and Schmidt
hardness rebound number together with the effects of core
diameter size. A total of 150 core samples at ve different
diameters (54, 48, 42, 30 and 21 mm) were obtained from
sandstone, limestone and cement mortar. Ten saturated
samples at each diameter (length:diameter ratio 2:1) were
prepared from each of the three materials. The best corre-
lations were found between uniaxial compressive strength
and point load or Schmidt hammer values. The closest
relationship was observed for the 48 mm diameter cores.
Keywords Uniaxial compressive strength
Point load strength index
Schmidt hammer rebound value Sonic wave velocity
Resume La resistance a` la compression simple est con-
sideree comme lun des parame`tres les plus importants pour
caracteriser la resistance de la matrice rocheuse dans les
applications de la mecanique des roches. Letude sest in-
teressee aux correlations entre la resistance a` la compression
simple et lindice decrasement entre pointes, la vitesse des
ondes P et lindice de rebond au marteau de Schmidt, con-
siderant de plus linuence du diame`tre des carottes testees.
Au total, 150 echantillons de gre`s, calcaires et mortiers de
ciment, dans cinq diame`tres differents (54, 48, 42, 30 et
21 mm) ont ete prepares. Dix echantillons satures ont ete
testes pour les trois types de roche et pour chaque diame`tre
(ratio longueur/diame`tre = 2/1). Les meilleures correla-
tions ont ete trouvees entre la resistance a` la compression
simple et la resistance entre pointes ou lindice de rebond de
Schmidt. Les relations les plus precises ont ete obtenues
pour les echantillons de diame`tre 48 mm.
Mots cles Resistance a` la compression simple
Indice de resistance entre pointes
Indice de rebond de Schmidt
Vitesse de propagation du son
Introduction
Many studies have considered the possibility of a quick and
easy way to estimate the uniaxial compressive strength
(UCS) of rock based on Schmidt hammer rebound (SHR),
point load (Is
(50)
), P-wave velocity (Vp), slake durability
index (SDI) and Shore hardness (SH). Of these parameters,
SHR, Is
50
and Vp tests are the most widely used as they are
comparatively cheap and easy to apply, with the point load
test being the most common for stronger rocks, e.g.
Wiesner and Gillate (1997).
There are various studies in the literature proposing
relationships between Is
50
and UCS (Broch and Franklin
1972; Bieniawski 1975; Pells 1975; Hawkins 1998; Al Jassar
and Hawkins 1979; Hawkins and Olver 1986; Norbury 1986;
Romana 1999; Thuro and Plinninger 2005; Wiesner and
Gillate 1997; Palchik and Hatzor 2004). Tsiambaos and
Sabatakakis (2004) reported that there are many factors
which affect the correlation between UCS and Is
50
and
conrmed that different conversion factors are required for
soft to hard rocks.
_
I. C obanoglu (&) S. B. C elik
Department of Geological Engineering, Pamukkale University,
20017 Knkl Campus, Denizli, Turkey
e-mail: icobanoglu@pau.edu.tr
S. B. C elik
e-mail: scelik@pau.edu.tr
1 3
Bull Eng Geol Environ (2008) 67:491498
DOI 10.1007/s10064-008-0158-x
Palchik and Hatzor (2004) investigated the effect of
porosity on the Brazilian, UCS and Is
50
tests for porous
chalkstones from Israel and determined conversion factors
of between 8 and 18 for relating UCS and Is
(50)
.
A number of authors (Hassani et al. 1980; Forster 1983;
Ghosh and Srivastava 1991) studied the inuence of rock
specimen diameter on Is
(50)
. Ghosh and Srivastava (1991)
considered the ideal diameter for obtaining a result corre-
latable with UCS is 4050 mm.
Materials tested
Blocks of sandstone and limestone were obtained from
quarries and natural outcrops in the areas around
Nigde-Uluksla and Antalya, respectively, and carefully
checked to ensure they were homogeneous and free from
visible weaknesses. As the empirical results could be
affected by the structural characteristics of the rock,
cement mortar samples were also prepared (Fig. 1). This
consisted of Serinhisar sand, with an average grain size
of 1.7 mm, a coefcient of uniformity (C
u
) of 3.45 and a
coefcient of curvature (C
c
) of 0.86, mixed with cement
and water with a ratio of 3:1:0.5. After the cylinders
were cast, the samples were vibrated for 25 s and left
covered for 24 h, after which they stood in a water bath
for 56 days.
A total of 150 cores were prepared from the sandstone,
limestone and cement mortar, with ve different diameters:
54, 48, 42, 30 and 21 mm. The length:diameter ratio of the
cores was 2:1, following ASTM (1984). The ends of the
cores were smoothed to within 0.02 mm and perpendicu-
larity was kept at 0.05 mm. Cut cores may have slight
imperfections hence to ensure the results were comparable,
the lengths and diameters of the cores were checked and an
average of the ten measurements for each diameter size
was used in the calculations. The maximum and minimum
values for unit weight and water content are given in
Table 1.
Thin section investigations
According to the results of the petrographical examina-
tion, the limestone samples were dominantly calcite: the
calcite minerals sporadically showing polysynthetic twin-
ning. In addition to pellets, intraclasts of sand, gravel and
rarely ner grains were present in a matrix of sparry
calcite. The material is classied as ne-grained limestone
(intramicrosparite).
The sandstone samples contained calcite, sub-angular
quartz, chlorite and to a lesser extent plagioclase, musco-
vite and biotite as well as varying amounts of opaque
minerals, some of which showed evidence of oxidation.
The samples also included chert fragments in microcrystal
form. The material is classied as calcareous cemented
ne-grained sandstone (calcarenite).
The mortar samples consisted of sub-rounded or elon-
gate micritic-microsparitic limestone, microspar, calcite
and rounded pellets with a cement matrix.
Fig. 1 The thin sections of the samples: Lne grained limestone;
Scalcerous ne grained sandstone; CCement mortar with
microsparitic limestone grains
Table 1 Some physical properties of the core samples
Code Type Sample diameters (mm) Dry unit weight (kN/m
3
) Saturated unit weight (kN/m
3
) Water content (%)
C Cement mortar 54, 48, 42, 30, 21 21.0121.22 22.7922.99 8.1318.740
S Sandstone 54, 48, 42, 30, 21 26.0226.18 26.2126.35 0.6630.744
L Limestone 54, 48, 42, 30, 21 24.1424.71 24.9425.28 2.4003.273
492
_
I. C obanoglu and S. B. C elik
1 3
Uniaxial compressive tests
Uniaxial compressive strength tests were carried out using
a loading rate of 0.5 MPa/s. Five tests were undertaken for
each core size (54, 48, 42, 30, 21 mm) of each material
type (total 75 samples, see Table 2).
The relationship between the UCS value and the size of
core is indicated in Fig. 2. The highest value for the
limestone (102 MPa) was obtained on the 21 mm sample
and the lowest (68 MPa) on the 54 mm sample, with a
pronounced reduction of 25 MPa between the 48 and
54 mm diameter cores. The highest strength for the sand-
stones (84 MPa) was on the larger diameter cores (54 mm),
and the lowest strength (50 MPa) on the 30 mm samples.
Table 2 Test data of the samples
Sample
name
Core
diameter,
d (mm)
Water
content
(%)
UCS
(MPa)
Point
load
index
I
s-50
(MPa)
Vp
(km/s)
Schmidt
hardness
rebound
value
CA-1 54 8,515 35,277 2,442 3,982 38
CA-2 54 8,233 37,497 2,850 4,031 38
CA-3 54 8,752 37,520 3,150 4,045 40
CA-4 54 8,842 37,841 3,438 4,048 40
CA-5 54 9,009 40,530 3,501 4,054 40
LA-1 54 1,883 62,973 3,594 4,753 43
LA-2 54 2,343 63,695 3,860 4,799 44
LA-3 54 2,506 74,074 3,938 4,866 44
LA-4 54 2,543 74,113 4,050 4,869 45
LA-5 54 2,957 74,931 4,408 5,109 46
SA-1 54 0,605 82,657 7,425 4,911 40
SA-2 54 0,773 85,247 8,500 4,926 42
SA-3 54 0,620 97,941 9,500 4,973 44
SA-4 54 0,628 105,420 11,290 4,979 46
SA-5 54 0,990 105,471 11,356 5,007 48
CB-1 48 7,190 28,785 3,419 4,051
CB-2 48 7,397 33,922 3,419 4,056
CB-3 48 7,727 38,917 3,420 4,065
CB-4 48 7,908 43,209 3,445 4,071
CB-5 48 8,135 43,865 4,297 4,100
LB-1 48 3,050 40,924 4,791 4,627
LB-2 48 2,787 49,306 6,058 4,665
LB-3 48 3,130 54,374 6,300 4,736
LB-4 48 3,209 58,420 6,531 4,748
LB-5 48 4,136 72,760 7,806 4,764
SB-1 48 0,462 76,654 7,416 4,792
SB-2 48 0,505 90,350 8,043 4,811
SB-3 48 0,509 93,380 8,261 4,827
SB-4 48 0,559 103,237 8,682 4,830
SB-5 48 0,589 111,670 9,593 4,846
CC-1 42 7,614 25,357 3,161 3,956
CC-2 42 7,695 32,790 3,322 3,995
CC-3 42 8,157 33,340 3,817 4,013
CC-4 42 8,229 34,132 4,212 4,019
CC-5 42 8,261 44,398 4,540 4,037
LC-1 42 1,639 54,130 5,359 4,693
LC-2 42 2,399 60,611 5,386 4,696
LC-3 42 2,493 65,368 5,628 4,746
LC-4 42 2,811 69,613 8,532 4,795
LC-5 42 2,992 75,410 8,543 4,982
SC-1 42 0,509 71,553 8,694 4,627
SC-2 42 0,517 89,498 8,990 4,716
SC-3 42 0,532 98,364 9,344 4,721
SC-4 42 0,590 103,239 9,656 4,726
SC-5 42 0,738 120,881 9,744 4,746
Table 2 continued
Sample
name
Core
diameter,
d (mm)
Water
content
(%)
UCS
(MPa)
Point
load
index
I
s-50
(MPa)
Vp
(km/s)
Schmidt
hardness
rebound
value
CD-1 30 7,676 38,166 2,805
CD-2 30 7,740 39,127 3,174
CD-3 30 8,008 41,517 3,258
CD-4 30 8,020 43,634 3,703
CD-5 30 8,023 44,659 5,317
LD-1 30 2,829 40,949 5,225
LD-2 30 3,337 50,349 5,366
LD-3 30 3,354 55,036 7,103
LD-4 30 4,010 55,062 7,740
LD-5 30 4,081 57,481 8,205
SD-1 30 0,560 88,293 8,917
SD-2 30 0,593 93,411 9,817
SD-3 30 0,602 103,446 10,272
SD-4 30 0,835 111,039 10,988
SD-5 30 1,130 114,732 11,254
CE-1 21 7,298 32,808 4,345
CE-2 21 7,612 37,216 4,424
CE-3 21 7,633 38,791 4,701
CE-4 21 7,924 40,351 5,113
CE-5 21 7,975 45,611 5,436
LE-1 21 1,956 47,605 4,496
LE-2 21 3,189 55,221 5,354
LE-3 21 3,323 85,709 5,532
LE-4 21 3,602 89,637 6,017
LE-5 21 3,898 91,262 6,021
SE-1 21 0,448 84,012 5,925
SE-2 21 0,514 92,528 11,440
SE-3 21 0,669 96,703 11,878
SE-4 21 1,288 99,894 11,932
SE-5 21 1,491 146,834 13,350
Estimation of UCS from quicker/simpler tests 493
1 3
There was less variation in the strength of the cement
mortar samples which ranged between 36 MPa (42 mm
diameter) and 40 MPa (30 mm). It would appear therefore
that the compressive strength is affected not only by the
core size but also by the lithological characteristics.
Hoek and Brown (1980) reviewed the inuence of the
diameter of a specimen on the measured strength of dif-
ferent types of rocks. They proposed the following
equation (Eq. 1) can be used to relate UCS estimated from
samples with different core diameters.
r
C50

r
C
50
d

0:18
1
where;
r
C50
: UCS value calculated for 50 mm diameter core
sample,
r
C
: UCS value calculated for sample which has a
different core diameter size,
d : sample diameter (mm).
Hawkins (1998) stated that the results of his studies on
sedimentary rocks samples do not support the equation
presented by Hoek and Brown (1980) who used mainly
crystalline (igneous) rocks. Hawkins found the maximum
strength range to be obtained on 3854 mm diameter
samples and that UCS values declined above or below this
range. The present study does not extend the diameters
above 54 mm but the relationship shown by Hawkins is not
apparent in Fig. 3.
Point load tests
As seen in Fig. 4, the point load test results indicate that for
the 2154 mm diameter samples the I
S50
for the limestones
decreased from 10.6 to 3.8 while for the sandstones it
increased from 5.6 to 8.8 (Table 2). In the case of the
cement mortar, there was a slight decrease from 4.8 for the
21 mm cores to 2.8 for the 54 mm cores.
Not all authors who reported point load strength iden-
tied the particular rock types on which the results were
obtained. Al Jassar and Hawkins (1979) investigated the
change in the point load strength index for specimens
having 30, 50 and 76 mm diameters, in ve groups of
limestone and one group of dolomite. They identied a
signicant decrease in the point load strength index with
increase in core size. In this study, similar results were
observed for the limestone and cement mortar specimens
but the sandstone results did not follow this trend.
The relationship between the Is
(50)
and UCS values
obtained in this study for the ve core diameters are given
in Fig. 5. Although there is a very evident spread of values,
equations have been derived relating these two properties
based on a straight-line relationship (Table 3).
DAndrea et al. (1965), using 25 mm diameter speci-
mens, suggested a multiplier of 16 when relating I
S50
to
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
54 48 42 30 21
Core Diameter (mm)
C Group Samples
L Group Samples
S Group Samples
Fig. 2 UCS values of rock types for different core diameters
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
P
o
i
n
t

L
o
a
d

I
n
d
e
x
,

I
s
(
5
0
)

(
M
P
a
)
54 48 42 30 21
Core Diameter (mm)
C Group Samples
L Group Samples
S Group Samples
Fig. 4 Variations of Is
(50)
values with core diameters
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
20
Core Diameter, d (mm)
C Group Samples
L Group Samples
S Group Samples
U
C
S

o
f

s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

o
f

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

d
U
C
S

o
f

5
4
m
m

s
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
25 30 35 40 45 50
Fig. 3 Inuence of specimen size on the strength of investigated core
samples
494
_
I. C obanoglu and S. B. C elik
1 3
UCS. Broch and Franklin (1972) proposed a value of 24 for
38 mm diameter specimens. Hawkins and Olver (1986),
testing rocks from a single site in the Corallian in the UK
found values of 26.5 for limestone, 24.8 for sandstone and
9.3 for siltstone (core diameters corrected to 50 mm).
Ghosh and Srivastava (1991) pointed out that a specimen
size/platen distance of 4050 mm is ideal for point load
testing.
For some rocks, the relationship between the point load
index and the UCS value also depends on whether the
comparison is with the UCS
dry
or UCS
wet
. Clearly, with dry
specimens the cones of the point load machine will create a
brittle fracture without penetration into the rock, whereas
with wet/saturated specimens some penetration of the cone
may occur. Hawkins (1998) reported the UCS strength of
saturated sandstone samples may be only half to three
quarters of that obtained on dry samples. As mentioned
earlier, in this study saturated samples were used in both
the UCS and Is
50
tests. The results are given in Fig. 6
which shows a signicant variation on either side of the
regression line.
Sonic velocity tests
The relationship between uniaxial compressive strength
and sonic velocity (V
p
) was investigated by DAndrea et al.
(1965) and McCann et al. (1990 in Entwisle et al. 2005) for
A
y = 7,18x + 27,78
r
2
= 0,80
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Is
(50)
(MPa)
U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
B
y = 11,78x - 9,17
r
2
= 0,91
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Is
(50)
(MPa)
U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
C
y = 10,73x - 5,50
r
2
= 0,88
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Is
(50)
(MPa)
U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
D
y = 8,87x + 4,11
r
2
= 0,86
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Is
(50)
(MPa)
U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
(21 mm) Group Samples
y = 8,25x + 14,02
r
2
= 0,67
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Is
(50)
(MPa)
U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
E
(54 mm) Group Samples
(48 mm) Group Samples
(42 mm) Group Samples
(30 mm) Group Samples
Fig. 5 The relation between Is
50
and UCS values of samples depend
on core diameters
Table 3 Derived equations with different core diameters
Core diameter (mm) UCSIs
(50)
equation r
2
54 UCS = 7.18 Is
(50)
+ 27.78 0.80
48 UCS = 11.78 Is
(50)
- 9.17 0.91
42 UCS = 10.73 Is
(50)
- 5.50 0.88
30 UCS = 8.87 Is
(50)
+ 4.11 0.86
21 UCS = 8.25 Is
(50)
+ 14.02 0.67
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0
Is-50 (MPa)
U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
C Samples
L Samples
S Samples
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Fig. 6 Correlation of Is
(50)
and UCS values of tested samples
Estimation of UCS from quicker/simpler tests 495
1 3
different rock types. In the present study, a total of 45
samples with a diameter greater than 30 mm were used
(Table 2). The relationship between P-wave velocity and
UCS is depicted in Fig. 7. A comparison of the equations
obtained in this study with the equations of Goktan (1988)
and Kahraman (2001) is shown in Fig. 8.
Schmidt Hammer test
A total of 15 NX sized core samples were tested using the
L-type Schmidt hammer and a rock cradle following ISRM
(1981). The relationship between Schmidt hammer
rebound number and uniaxial compressive strength is given
in Fig. 9. The test data are shown in Table 2.
Various empirical equations have been proposed for
calculating uniaxial compressive strength from Schmidt
hammer rebound number (Singh et al. 1983; ORourke
1989; Sachpazis 1990; Katz et al. 2000; Yasar and
Erdogan 2004), and both linear and exponential functions
have been used by different researchers to correlate these
parameters. In this study, linear function gave the highest
correlation coefcient. The proposed correlation between
SHR and UCS values is only applicable to saturated
samples.
Regression analyses and assessment of the prediction
performance
Initially, simple regression analyses were performed to
dene the type of the relationship between dependent and
independent parameters by considering linear functions.
The results are given in Table 4 with their correlation
coefcients.
Multiple regression analysis is a powerful modelling
technique which can help in the evaluation of the
mechanical properties of rock. Figure 10 shows the results
for ve models. Model 5 explains 98.8% of the total var-
iation in the 15 UCS tests undertaken. To assess the
Table 4 Some statistical
parameters on evaluation of
validity of derived equations
Model no. UCS model (MPa) Std. error r
2
VAF (%) RMSE
1 UCS = 8.66 Is
(50)
+ 10.85 13.63 76.4 76 0.03
2 UCS = 56.71 V
p
- 192.93 15.36 67.0 82 6.16
3 UCS = 6.59 SHR - 212.63 15.06 64.7 75 5.05
4 UCS = 6.24 Is
(50)
+ 25.8 V
p
- 90.3 10.4 85.2 85 0.76
5 UCS = 4.14 Is
(50)
+ 29.8 V
p
+ 0.54 SHR - 116 3.10 98.8 99 1.96
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
3,8
Vp (km/s)
U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
C Samples
L Samples
S Samples
4,0 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5,0 5,2
Fig. 7 Correlation of sonic velocities and UCS values of tested
samples
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
36
Schmidt Hardness Rebound Number
U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
C Samples
L Samples
S Samples
38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Fig. 9 Correlation of SHR and UCS values of tested samples
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
3,8
P-Wave Velocity, Vp (km/s)

U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
Gktan (1988)
Kahraman (2001)
This Study
4,0 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5,0 5,2 5,4
Fig. 8 The comparison of the derived equation with the previous
studies between Vp and UCS
496
_
I. C obanoglu and S. B. C elik
1 3
performance of the multiple regression models, Root Mean
Square Error (RMSE, Eq. 2) and Variance Account (VAF,
Eq. 3) were used:
RMSE

1
N
X
N
i1
y
i
y

i

2
v
u
u
t
2
VAF 1
vary
i
y

i

vary
i

100 3
where y
i
is the measured value, y
i
*
is the estimated value
and N is the number of samples. If the VAF is 100 and
RMSE is 0, the model proposed would be excellent. As can
be seen in Table 4, the VAF values in particular indicate
this is a realistic prediction model.
Conclusions
Indirect methods are widely used to estimate rock
strength parameters. However, empirical studies show
that water content and core size have an enormous impact
on the test results and thus should not be neglected. In
this study, the Is
50
, Vp and SHR have been compared
with the measured UCS of saturated limestone, sandstone
and cement mortar samples. The regression analysis
indicates there is a linear relationship between Is
(50)
, V
p,
SHR and UCS values.
Using all the point load values for the samples reported
in this article and others, the relationship between I
s(50)
and
uniaxial compressive strength is:
UCS 8:66 Is
50
10:85

:
For the samples tested in this study, the relationship
between SHR and UCS is
UCS 6:59 SHR 212:63 :
The correlation between UCS values and Vp is not as
good, but was established as
UCS 56:71 Vp 192:93:
From this study, the lithological properties of the rock
have a greater inuence on the relationship between UCS
and Is
50
values than the core diameter. Not surprisingly, the
two strengths for the cement mortar samples are very
similar for all the core diameter sizes while there is a
signicant variation with the natural samples.
It is important to note that the validity of the proposed
equations is limited by the data range and sample types
which were used to derive the equations. They should
therefore be only used with saturated rocks with similar
lithological characteristics to those reported here.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
Model 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
Model 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
Model 3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
Model 4
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
UCS (MPa)
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

U
C
S

(
M
P
a
)
Model 5
20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fig. 10 Predicted UCS versus actual UCS graphs for 5 models
Estimation of UCS from quicker/simpler tests 497
1 3
References
Al Jassar SH, Hawkins AB (1979) Geotechnical properties of the
Carboniferous Limestone of the Bristol areathe inuence of
petrography and chemistry. In: 4th ISRM Conference, Mont-
reaux, vol 1, pp 314
ASTM (1984) 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, vol 4.08, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Bieniawski ZT (1975) Point load test in geotechnical practice. Eng
Geol 1:111
Broch EM, Franklin JA (1972) The point load strength test. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 9:669697
DAndrea DV, Fischer RL, Fogelson DE (1965) Prediction of
compressive strength from other rock properties. US Bureau of
Mines Report of Investigations 6702
Entwisle DC, Hobbs PRN, Jones LD, Gunn D, Raines MG (2005) The
relation between effective porosity, uniaxial compressive
strength and sonic velocity of intact Borrowdale Volcanic Group
core samples from Sellaeld. Geotechn Geol Eng 23:793809
Forster IR (1983) The inuence of core sample geometry on the axial
point load test. Int Rock Mech Min Sci 20:291295
Ghosh DK, Srivastava M (1991) Point-load strength: an index for
classication of rock material. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 44:27
33
Goktan RM (1988) Theoretical and practical analysis of rock
rippability. PhD Thesis, Istanbul Technical University
Hassani FP, Scoble MJ, Whittacker BN (1980) Application of the
point load index test to strength determination of rock and
proposals for a new size correction chart. In: Proc 21st US Symp.
Rock Mech., Rolla, pp 543553
Hawkins AB (1998) Aspects of rock strength. Bull Eng Geol Env
57:1730
Hawkins AB, Olver JAG (1986) Point load tests: correlation factor
and contractual use. An example from the Corallian at
Weymouth In: Hawkins AB (ed) Site Investigation Practice:
Assessing BS 5930, Geological Society, London, pp 269271
Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock. Inst Min
Metal, London
ISRM (1981) Rock characterization, testing and monitoring, ISRM
suggested methods. Pergamon, Oxford, 211 p
Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
38:981994
Katz O, Reches Z, Roegiers JC (2000) Evaluation of mechanical rock
properties using a Schmidt hammer. Tech Note Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 37:723728
Norbury DR (1986) The point load test. In: Hawkins AB (ed) Site
investigation practice: assessing BS 5930, Geological Society,
pp 325329
ORourke JE (1989) Rock index properties for geo-engineering in
underground development. Min Eng 41:106110
Palchik V, Hatzor YH (2004) The inuence of porosity on tensile and
compressive strength of porous chalks. Rock Mech Rock Eng
37(4):331341
Pells PJN (1975) The use of the point load test in predicting the
compressive strength of rock materials, Aust Geomech J G5, pp
5456
Romana M (1999) Correlation between uniaxial compressive and
point load (Franklin test) strengths for different rock classes. In:
9th ISRM Congress, 1999, vol 1, pp 673676, Paris
Sachpazis CI (1990) Correlating Schmidt hammer rebound number
with compressive strength and Youngs modulus of carbonate
rocks. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 42:7583
Singh RN, Hassani FP, Elkington PAS (1983) The application of
strength and deformation index testing to the stability assessment
of Coal Measures excavations. In: Proceedings of 24th US
symposium on rock mechanics, Texas A&M Univ, AEG, pp
599609
Thuro K, Plinninger RJ (2005) Scale effects in rock properties: Part 2.
Point load test and point load strength index. EUROCK Swets
and Zeitlinger, pp 175180, Lisse
Tsiambaos G, Sabatakakis N (2004) Considerations on strength of
intact sedimentary rocks. Eng Geol 72:261273
Wiesner E, Gillate SJ (1997) An evaluation of the relationship
between unconned compressive strength and point load
strength index. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 56:115118
Yasar E, Erdogan Y (2004) Estimation of rock physicomechanical
properties using hardness methods. Eng Geol 71:281288
498
_
I. C obanoglu and S. B. C elik
1 3