Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment

, Volume 78, Issue 7, pp 5301–5310 | Cite as

Uniaxial compressive strength measurements of limestone plugs and cores: a size comparison and X-ray CT study

  • Jeroen F. Van StappenEmail author
  • Tim De Kock
  • Geert De Schutter
  • Veerle Cnudde
Original Paper


In many geo-engineering fields, the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of a rock material is the parameter most commonly used to define a rock’s mechanical strength. Several international standards have been developed for determining this value, which require the tested material to have certain minimum dimensions and shapes. In many applications, however, sample material is limited. Therefore, this study investigates the possibility of determining the UCS on rock plugs smaller than the minimum dimensions in the most common standards. The materials investigated are four different depositional limestones from the Paris Basin which are often used as building material in France and Belgium. Results from UCS tests in a small-scale uniaxial compressive device are compared to standard-sized tests according to the governing international standards. The results show that the strength determined on the small-scale plugs is very similar to the UCS determined on standard-sized cores. Using high-resolution X-ray computed tomography, it was possible to investigate the failure modes of the small-scale plugs and link them to their internal rock fabric. Obtaining a three-dimensional visualization provides valuable insights into the origin of the variability in the UCS measurements in small-scale plugs.

Graphical Abstract


Uniaxial compressive strength High-resolution X-ray tomography Building stones Downsizing Failure modes Limestone 



The Special Research Fund (BOF) at Ghent University is acknowledged for the finalizing PhD grant 01DI1316 for Jeroen Van Stappen. Tim De Kock is a postdoctoral fellow of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO) and acknowledges its support. FWO is also acknowledged for funding project G.0041.15 N which allowed the purchase of the uniaxial compressive device. For this, the Faculty Commission for Scientific Research (FCWO) at Ghent University is also acknowledged for its support.

Supplementary material

10064_2018_1448_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. Al-rkaby AHJ, Alafandi ZMS (2015) Size effect on the unconfined compressive strength and Modulus of elasticity of limestone rock. Electron J Geotech Eng 20:5143–5149Google Scholar
  2. ASTM C170/C170M-16 (2016) Standard test method for compressive strength of dimension stone. In: Book of ASTM standards, volume 04.07. West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu A, Mishra DA, Roychowdhury K (2013) Rock failure modes under uniaxial compression, Brazilian, and point load tests. Bull Eng Geol Environ 72:457–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benavente D, Garcı́a del Cura MA, Fort R, Ordóñez S (2004) Durability estimation of porous building stones from pore structure and strength. Eng Geol 74:113–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bieniawski ZT, Bernede MJ (1979) Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and deformability of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 16:137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. C170/C170M-16 (2016) Standard test method for compressive strength of dimension stone. West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang C, Zoback MD, Khaksar A (2006) Empirical relations between rock strength and physical properties in sedimentary rocks. J Pet Sci Eng 51:223–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cnudde V, Boone MN (2013) High-resolution X-ray computed tomography in geosciences: a review of the current technology and applications. Earth-Sci Rev 123:1–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Derluyn H, Dewanckele J, Boone MN et al (2014) Crystallization of hydrated and anhydrous salts in porous limestone resolved by synchrotron X-ray microtomography. Nucl Inst Methods Phys Res Sect B Beam Interact Mater Atoms 324:102–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dierick M, Van Loo D, Masschaele B et al (2014) Recent micro-CT scanner developments at UGCT. Nucl Inst Methods Phys Res Sect B Beam Interact Mater Atoms 324:35–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunham RJ (1962) Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional texture. Am Assoc Pet Geol Mem 1:108–121Google Scholar
  12. Eberhardt E, Stead D, Stimpson B (1999) Quantifying progressive pre-peak brittle fracture damage in rock during uniaxial compression. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:361–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fronteau G, Moreau C, Thomachot-Schneider C, Barbin V (2010) Variability of some Lutetian building stones from the Paris Basin, from characterisation to conservation. Eng Geol 115:158–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawkins AB (1998) Aspects of rock strength. Bull Eng Geol Environ 57:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock. Institution of Mining & MetallurgyGoogle Scholar
  16. Ji Y, Baud P, Vajdova V, Wong T -f (2012) Characterization of pore geometry of Indiana limestone in relation to mechanical compaction. Oil Gas Sci Technol – Rev IFP Energies Nouv 67:753–775. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:981–994. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liang CY, Zhang QB, Li X, Xin P (2016) The effect of specimen shape and strain rate on uniaxial compressive behavior of rock material. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:1669–1681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lockner D (1993) The role of acoustic emission in the study of rock fracture. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 30:883–899. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Makhloufi Y, Collin PY, Bergerat F et al (2013) Impact of sedimentology and diagenesis on the petrophysical properties of a tight oolitic carbonate reservoir. The case of the Oolithe Blanche formation (Bathonian, Paris Basin, France). Mar Pet Geol 48:323–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Masschaele BC, Cnudde V, Dierick M et al (2007) UGCT: new X-ray radiography and tomography facility. Nucl Inst Methods Phys Res Sect A Accel Spectrometers, Detect Assoc Equip 580:266–269. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paterson MS, Wong T (2005) Experimental rock deformation-the brittle field. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  23. Roels S, Elsen J, Carmeliet J, Hens H (2001) Characterisation of pore structure by combining mercury porosimetry and micrography. Mater Struct Constr 34:76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Siegesmund S, Dürrast H (2011) Physical and Mechanical Properties of Rocks. In: Stone in Architecture - Properties, Durability. pp 97–224Google Scholar
  25. Szwedzicki T, Shamu W (1999) The effect of discontinuities on strength of rock samples. Proc Aust Inst Min Metall 304:23–28Google Scholar
  26. Thuro K, Plinninger RJ, Zäh S, Schütz S (2001) Scale effects in rock strength properties. Part 1: unconfined compressive test and Brazilian test. In: Särkkä E (ed) ISRM regional symposium Eurorock. Espoo, Finland, pp 169–174Google Scholar
  27. Tuncay E, Hasancebi N (2009) The effect of length to diameter ratio of test specimens on the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68:491–497. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. UNE-EN 1926 (2007) NBN EN 1926:2007 Natural stone test methods - Determination of uniaxial compressive strength. Eur Comm StandGoogle Scholar
  29. UNE-EN 1936 (2006) NBN EN 1936: Natural stone test method. Determination of Real Density and Apparent Density, and of Total and Open Porosity. Eur Comm Stand 3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PProGRess – UGCT, Department of Geology, Faculty of SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.High Pressure and Temperature Laboratory, Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Magnel Laboratory for Concrete Research, Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations