Harmonising Rock Engineering and the Environment – Qian & Zhou (eds)

© 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-80444-8

On the reliability of the uniaxial compressive strength obtained

from the point load index

L.O. Suarez-Burgoa
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil
Faculty of Mines, National University of Colombia, Medellin, Colombia

ABSTRACT: In literature one can find plenty of formulas that relate the point load index with the uniaxial compressive strength
of rock material. In this article it is shown that the uniaxial compressive strength of rock material obtained with these kinds of
empirical formulas may be in most of the cases unreliable. It is finally recommended here avoid the use of the point load index
as a unique tool to assess the uniaxial compressive strength, even though the equipment and the method to obtain it give to the
engineer an economic and in-hand information of one of the most used rock material mechanical value.

Subject: Rock material and rock mass property testing (laboratory and in situ)

Keywords: general, lab testing, rock properties

1 INTRODUCTION
Table 1. Formulas proposed by different authors to correlate σci
The point load test (PLT) is one of the most common indi-
with Is(50) .
rect tests used in rock mechanics, perhaps after the Brazilian
traction test and the Schmidt rebound hammer, this because it Formula Reference
gives information about rock material strength in an easy, fast
and economic manner. σci = 15.3 Is(50) + 16.3 D’Andrea et al. (1964)
This test is presented as one of the ISRM Suggested Method σci = 20.7 Is(50) + 29.6 Deer & Miller (1966)
(Ulusay & Hudson, 2007; originally published by Broch & σci = 16 Is(50) Franklin (1970)
Franklin in 1972) as also is part of the Technical Standards in σci = 24 Is(50) Broch & Franklin (1972)
some countries (e.g. ASTM D5731, 2008). σci = 23 Is(50) Bieniawski (1975)
Along the 40 years upon its implementation, plenty of σci = (14 + 0.175 D) Is(50) Hoek & Brown (1980)§
σci = 29 Is(50) Hassani et al. (1980)
empirical relations between its index (Is(50) : Point Load Index)
σci = 16 Is(50) Read et al. (1980)1
and the Uniaxial Compressive Strength of rock material (σci )
σci = 20 Is(50) Read et al. (1980)2
were presented in literature (Table 1). σci = 18.7 Is(50) − 13.2 Singh (1981)
σci = 14.5 Is(50) Foster (1983)
σci = 16.5 Is(50) + 51.0 Gunsallus & Kulhawy (1984)
2 SIMPLE ANALYSIS σci = {20 to 25} Is(50) Ulusay & Hudson (2007)
σci = 22 Is(50) Brook (1985)
In order to analyze the reliability of σci results obtained from σci = {11 to 14} Is(50) Seshagiri-Rao et al. (1987)
Is(50) with the proposed empirical equations, values of Is(50) σci = {8.6 to 16} Is(50) Vallejo et al. (1989)
ranging between 1 to 20 were used as input values of each σci = 23Is(50) + 13 Cargill & Shakoor (1990)
equation of Table 1. σci = {14 a 82} Is(50) Tsidzi (1991)
The result of the response values of σci is shown in Fig- σci = 16 Is(50) Ghosh & Srivastava (1991)
ure 1. It shows, for example, that for a deterministic value of σci = 19 Is(50) + 12.7 Ulusay et al. (1994)
Is(50) = 7, values of σci may vary from 55 MPa to 210 MPa; σci = 12.5 Is(50) Chau & Wong (1996)
and that for Is(50) = 10, the maximum possible value for σci is σci = 14.3 Is(50) Smith (1997)
σci = 8.41 Is(50) + 9.51
greater than 300 MPa, i.e. out of the values for most common σci = 23.62 Is(50) − 2.69 Kahraman (2001)3
rock materials. σci = 21.43 Is(50) Lashkaripour (2002)4
Similar results can be obtained for other Is(50) values, and σci = 24.4 Is(50) Quane & Russel (2003)5
it can be observed that the uncertain ranges of σci are greater σci = 3.86 Is(50)
2
+ 5.65 Is(50) Quane & Russel (2003)6
when Is(50) approaches to 20. σci = 25.67 Is(50)
0.57
Grasso et al. (2004)
σci = 9.30 Is(50) + 20.04
3 DISCUSSION σci = 7.3 Is(50)
1.71
Tsiambaos & Sabatakakis (2004)
σci = 23 Is(50)
σci = {8 to 18} Is(50) Palchik & Hatzor (2004)
There are references that commented about the unreliability of
σci = 24.83 Is(50) − 39.64 Kahraman et al. (2005)7
the up-to-date empirical formulas between Is(50) and σci (e.g. σci = 10.22 Is(50) + 24.31 Kahraman et al. (2005)8
Greminger, 1982; Seshagiri-Rao et al. 1987; Hanssen, 1988).
They affirm that one can have up to 100% of estimation error. §
D is the distance between the two load points. Correlations for:
Bieniawski (1973) affirmed also, that Is(50) should not be used 1
Sedimentary rocks, 2 Basalts, 3 Coals, 4 Mudstones, 5 Strength
to correlate with σci inclusive for values of the last variable less rock materials, 6Weak rock materials, 7 Rock materials with
than 25 MPa. Also, Guidicini et al. (1973) found that for σci porosities n <1%, and 8 porosities n >1%.

837
Figure 1. Variation of σci with Is(50) (Suárez-Burgoa, 2010).
greater than 150 MPa, the empirical relations must be treated
carefully.
Recently, Hoek (2010) recommended avoid any kind of
indirect estimation if a direct test is available. In this case, uni-
axial compressive tests of rock material can give, apart from
the strength, many other important values as the deformation
modulus, Poisson ratio, critical crack propagation thresholds
and post-peak strength, among others.
Relation between Is(50) and other rock materials variables
are also being proposed, for example with the uniaxial ten-
sile strength (σti ) (Guidicini et al., 1973), the Poisson ratio (ν)
(Wijk, 1978) and the Mode I Fracture Toughness (KIC ) (Bear-
man, 1999); correlations that need to be validated for all types
of rock materials.
4 CONCLUSION
The PLT was intended originally as an index test for the
strength classification of rock material only, and this must
still remain, but avoid use it as an indirect estimator of the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock material.
REFERENCES
ASTM D5731-08, 2008. Standard test method for determination
of the point load strength index of rock and application to rock
strength classifications. Tech. Rep., PA: ASTM International,
Philadelphia.
Bearman, R., 1999. The use of the point load test for the rapid esti-
mation of mode I fracture toughness. Int. J. of Rock Mech. & Min.
Sci. 36(2): 254–263.
Bieniawski, Z., 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock
masses. Trans. South Afr. Inst. Civil Eng. 15(12): 335–344.
838
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1975. The Point Load Test in Geotechnical Practice.
Eng. Geol. 9(1): 1–11.
Broch, E. & Franklin, J., 1972. The point load strength test. Int. J.
Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 9(6): 669–697.
Brook, N., 1985. The equivalent core diameter method of size and
shape correction in point load testing. Int. J. Rock Mech. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. 22(2): 61–70.
Cargill, J.S. & Shakoor,A., 1990. Evaluation of empirical methods for
measuring the uniaxial compressive strength. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 27: 495–503.
Chau, K.T. & Wong, R.H.C., 1996. Uniaxial compressive strength
and point load strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 33: 183–188.
D’Andrea, D.V., Fisher, R.L. & Fogelson, D.E., 1964. Prediction of
compression strength from other rock properties. Col. Sch. Mines
Q. 59(4B): 623–640.
Deere, D.U. & Miller, R.P., 1966. Engineering classifications and
index properties of intact rock. Tech. Report AFWL-TR 65–116,
Univ. Illinois, Urbana.
Foster, I.R., 1983. The influence of core sample geometry on the
axial point-load test. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 20: 291–295.
Franklin, J.A., 1970. Observations and tests for engineering descrip-
tion and mapping of rocks. Proc. 4th ISRM Congress, Belgrad,
6 pp.
Ghosh, D.K. & 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: Tillerson, J.R., Wawersik, W.R.,
(eds.). Proc. 33rd U.S. Symp. Rock Mech. Rotterdam: Balkema:
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. & Geomech. Abstr. 19: 241–246.
Guidicini, G., Nieble, C. & De Cornides, A., 1973. Analise do método
de compressão puntiforme em fragmentos irregulares na caracter-
ização geotécnica preliminar de rochas. Publicação 927, Instituto
de Investigaciones Tecnológicas de São Paulo, São Paulo Brasil.
Gunsallus, K.L. & Kulhawy, F.H., 1984. A comparative evaluation of
rock strength measures. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 21: 233–248.
Hanssen, T., 1988. Rock properties. Norwegian Tunneling Today
(Pub. 5), Norwegian Soil and Rock EngineeringAssociation, Tapir,
pp. 41–44.
Hassani, F.P., Scoble, M.J. & Whittaker, B.N., 1980. Application of
point load index test to strength determination of rock and propos-
als for new size-correction chart. In: Summers, D.A. (ed.). Proc.
21st U.S. Symp. Rock Mech. Rolla: University of Missouri Press:
543–564.
Hoek, E., 2010. Excavations in overstressed rocks. Principal Ses-
sion 1, VII Congreso Sudamericano de Mecánica de Rocas (2 to
4 December), Lima.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T., 1980. Underground excavations in rock.
London: Institution of Mining and Metallurgy.
Kahraman, S., 2001. Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
38: 381–394.
Kahraman, S., Gunaydin, O. & 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.
Lashkaripour, G.R., 2002. Predicting mechanical properties of
mudrock from index parameters. Bull. Eng. Geol. Env. 61: 73–77.
Palchik, V. & Hatzor, Y.H., 2004. The influence of porosity on tensile
and compressive strength of porous chalk. Rock. Mech. & Rock
Eng. 37(4): 331–341.
Quane, S.L., & Russel, J.K., 2003. Rock strength as a metric of weld-
ing intensity in pyroclastic deposits. Eur. J. Mineral 15: 855–864.
Read, J.R.L., Thornten, P.N. & Regan, W.M., 1980. A rational
approach to the point load test. In: Proc. 3th Australian-New
Zealand Geomech. Conf. Vol. 2. Wellington: New Zealand Insti-
tution of Engineers, pp. 35–39.
839
Seshagiri-Rao, K., Venkatappa-Rao, G. & Ramamurthu, T., 1987.
Discussion of paper by K.L. Gunsallus and F.H. Kulhawy – a com-
parative evaluation of rock strength measures. Int. J. Rock Mech. &
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abst. 24(3): 193–196.
Singh, D.P., 1981. Determination of some engineering properties
of weak rocks. In: Akai, K. (ed.), Proc. Int. Symp. Weak Rock.
Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 21–24.
Smith, H.J., 1997. The point load test for weak rock in dredging
applications. Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. 34(3/4): 702.
Suárez-Burgoa, L.O., 2010. Descripción del Macizo Rocoso, First
Edition. Brasília DF: Editorial El Autor.
Tsiambaos, G. & Sabatakakis, N., 2004. Considerations on strength
of intact sedimentary rocks. Eng. Geol. 72: 261–273.
Tsidzi, K.E.N., 1991. Point load uniaxial compressive strength cor-
relation. In: Wittke, W. (ed.). Proc. 7th ISRM Congr. Vol. 1.
Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 637–639.
Ulusay, R. & Hudson, J.A. (eds.), 2007. The complete ISRM sug-
gested methods for rock characterization testing and monitoring:
1974-2006. Ankara: ISRM Turkish National Group.
Ulusay, R., Tureli, K. & Ider, M.H., 1994. Prediction of engi-
neering properties of a selected litharenite sandstone from its
petrographic characteristics using correlation and multivariate
statistical techniques. Eng. Geol. 38: 135–157.
Vallejo, L.E., Welsh, R.A. & Robinson, M.K., 1989. Correlation
between unconfined compressive and point load strength for
Appalachian rocks. In: Khair, A.W. (ed.), Proc. 30th U.S. Symp.
Rock Mech. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 464–468.
Wijk, G., 1978. Some new theoretical aspects of indirect measure-
ments of tensile strength of rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr. 15:149–160.