Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

, Volume 51, Issue 7, pp 2289–2297 | Cite as

A Validation Study for the Estimation of Uniaxial Compressive Strength Based on Index Tests

  • F. Kong
  • J. Shang
Technical Note


Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) is one of the crucial parameters controlling the strength of rock masses (Hu et al. 2012). A reliable and direct measurement of this parameter in the laboratory requires well-prepared samples and certified testing apparatus (Heidari et al. 2012). As an indirect method, index tests have been widely used to estimate the UCS of rock, especially in the field. The index tests can be performed using simple equipment such as portable point load testers and Schmidt hammers. Up to now, the relationship between UCS and the results of index tests has been widely discussed (Hoek 1977; Aggistalis et al. 1996; Fener et al. 2005; Karaman and Kesimal 2015). The validity of the index tests, however, remains poorly understood; results of the tests may vary due to lithological heterogeneity mainly arising from geological bedding and schistosity, grain size variation and micro-fractures. For example, point load test results may vary significantly (by a...


Uniaxial compressive strength Point load index Schmidt hammer Regression analysis 



The first author would like to acknowledge Dr. Jared West of the University of Leeds for the valuable suggestions. Mr. Kirk Handley is thanked for help with the test setup.


  1. Aggistalis G, Alivizatos A, Stamoulis D, Stournaras G (1996) Correlating uniaxial compressive strength with Schmidt hammer rebound number, point load index, Young’s modulus, and mineralogy of gabbros and basalts (Northern Greece). Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 54(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allaby M (ed) (2008) A dictionary of earth sciences. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM (1995) Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core specimens. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  4. Aydin A (2009) ISRM suggested method for determination of the Schmidt hammer rebound hardness: revised version. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46(3):627–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aydin A, Basu A (2005) The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization. Eng Geol 81(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azeez O, Ogundare O, Oshodin TE, Olasupo OA, Olunlade BA (2011) Evaluation of the compressive strength of hybrid clay bricks. J Miner Mater Charact Eng 10(7):609–615Google Scholar
  7. Basu A, Aydin A (2006) Predicting uniaxial compressive strength by point load test: significance of cone penetration. Rock Mech Rock Eng 39(5):483–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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(5):823–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bieniawski ΖΤ (1975) The point-load test in geotechnical practice. Eng Geol 9:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broch E (1983) Estimation of strength anisotropy using the point-load test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 20:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broch E, Franklin JA (1972) The point-load strength test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 9:669–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brook N (1980) Size correction for point load testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 17(4):231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruno G, Vessia G, Bobbo L (2013) Statistical method for assessing the uniaxial compressive strength of carbonate rock by Schmidt hammer tests performed on core samples. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(1):199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cargill JS, Shakoor A (1990) Evaluation of empirical methods for measuring the uniaxial strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27(6):495–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Andrea DV, Fisher RL, Fogelson DE (1964) Prediction of compression strength from other rock properties. Colo Sch Min Q 59(4b):623–640Google Scholar
  16. Deere DU, Miller RP (1966) Engineering classification and index properties for intact rock. Technical Report on Air Force Weapons Lab 65-116, New Mexico, No. AFWL-TRGoogle Scholar
  17. 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):329–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frost J (2014) Regression analysis: how to interpret S, the standard error of the regression. The Minitab Blog. Accessed 6 Jan 2017
  19. 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(5):241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawkins AB (1998) Aspects of rock strength. Bull Eng Geol Environ 57:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heidari M, Khanlari GR, Kaveh Mehdi Torabi, Kargarian S (2012) Predicting the uniaxial compressive and tensile strengths of gypsum rock by point load testing. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoek E (1977) Rock mechanics laboratory testing in the context of a consulting engineering organization. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 14:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hu J, Shang J, Lei T (2012) Rock mass quality evaluation of underground engineering based on RS-TOPSIS method. J Cent South Univ Technol 43(11):4412–4419Google Scholar
  24. ISRM (1985) Suggested method for determining point load strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22(2):51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. ISRM Turkish National Group, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  26. ISRM (2015) The ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 2007–2014. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  27. Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38(7):981–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karaman S (2006) Assesment of clay bricks compressive strength using quantitative values of colour components. Constr Build Mater 20(5):348–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karaman K, Kesimal A (2015) A comparative study of Schmidt hammer test methods for estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74(2):507–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karaman K, Kesimal A, Ersoy H (2015) A comparative assessment of indirect methods for estimating the uniaxial compressive and tensile strength of rocks. Arab J Geosci 8:2393–2403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Katz O, Rechesa Z, Roegiersc JC (2000) Evaluation of mechanical rock properties using a Schmidt Hammer. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37(4):723–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kidybinski A (1980) Bursting liability indices of coal. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 17:167–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kılıç A, Teymen A (2008) Determination of mechanical properties of rocks using simple methods. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kοhnο Μ, 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(2):147–157Google Scholar
  35. Li D, Wong LNY (2013) Point load test on meta-sedimentary rocks and correlation to UCS and BTS. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46(4):889–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palchik V, Hatzor YH (2004) The influence of porosity on tensile and compressive strength of porous chalks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 37(4):331–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saptono S, Kramadibratab S, Sulistiantob B (2013) Using the Schmidt hammer on rock mass characteristic in sedimentary rock at Tutupan Coal Mine. Procedia Earth Planet Sci 6:390–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shalabi FI, Cording EJ, Al-Hattamleh OH (2007) Estimation of rock engineering properties using hardness tests. Eng Geol 90(3–4):138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sheorey PR, Barat D, Das MN, Mukherjee KP, Sigh B (1984) Schmidt hammer rebound data for estimation of large scale in situ coal strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 21:39–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singh DP (1981) Determination of some engineering properties of weak rocks. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on weak rock, Tokyo, pp 21–24Google Scholar
  41. 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):259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith HJ (1997) The point load test for weak rock in dredging applications. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:295.e1–295.e13Google Scholar
  43. Tsiambaos G, Sabatakakis N (2004) Considerations on strength of intact sedimentary rocks. Eng Geol 72(3–4):261–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tuğrul A, Zarif IH (1999) Correlation of mineralogical and textural characteristics with engineering properties of selected granitic rocks from Turkey. Eng Geol 51(4):303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ulusay R, Türeli K, Ider MH (1994) Prediction of engineering properties of a selected litharenite sandstone from its petrographic characteristics using correlation and multivariate statistical techniques. Eng Geol 38:135–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang H, Lin H, Cao P (2016) Correlation of UCS rating with Schmidt hammer surfacehardness for rock mass classification. Rock Mech Rock Eng 50:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yagiz S (2009) Predicting uniaxial compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and index properties of rocks using the Schmidt hammer. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68(1):55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yaşar E, Erdoğan Y (2004) Estimation of rock physicomechanical properties using hardness methods. Eng Geol 71:281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yilmaz I, Sendir H (2002) Correlation of Schmidt hardness with unconfined compressive strength and Young’s modulus in gypsum from Sivas (Turkey). Eng Geol 66(3–4):211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yilmaz I, Yuksek G (2009) Prediction of the strength and elasticity modulus of gypsum using multiple regression, ANN, and ANFIS models. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:803–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil EngineeringShandong UniversityJinanChina
  2. 2.Nanyang Centre for Underground Space, School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations