International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994

Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial

compressive strength of rock
S. Kahraman*
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, University of Nigde, 5100 Nigde, Turkey
Accepted 13 July 2001

Abstract

Published data on 48 different rocks are used to evaluate the correlations between the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) values
and the corresponding results of point load, Schmidt hammer, sound velocity and impact strength tests. The variability of test results
for each test and each rock type was evaluated by calculating the coefficient of variation. Using the method of least squares
regression, the UCS values were correlated with the other test values. Also, the test methods were evaluated by plotting the estimated
values of compressive strength vs. the measured values of compressive strength for each test. The results indicate that the least
variability is shown in the impact strength test. So, among the test methods included in this study, the impact strength test is the
most reproducible test; but the variability of test results for the other test methods is within acceptable limits for most engineering
purposes. Strong linear relations between the point load strength index values and the UCS values were found for the coal measure
rocks and the other rocks included in this study. The Schmidt hammer and the sound velocity tests exhibit significant non-linear
correlations with the compressive strength of rock. In the sound velocity test, the data points are scattered at higher strength values.
There is no clear relation between the impact strength values and the compressive strength values for the coal measure rocks. A weak
non-linear correlation was found between the impact strength values and the compressive strength values for the other rocks. All
test methods evaluated in this study, except the impact strength, provide reliable estimate of the compressive strength of rock.
However, the prediction equations derived by different researchers are dependent on rock types and test conditions, as they are in
this study. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction compression test, indirect tests are simpler, faster and

Rock engineers widely use the uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) of rock in designing surface and
underground structures. The procedure for measuring
this rock strength has been standardised by both the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) [1]
and the International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM) [2]. Although, the method is relatively simple,
it is time consuming and expensive; also, it requires well
prepared rock cores. Therefore, indirect tests are often
used to predict the UCS, such as Schmidt rebound
number, point load index, impact strength and sound
velocity. These are easier tests to carry out because they
necessitate less or no sample preparation and the testing
equipment is less sophisticated. Also, they can be used
easily in the field. As a result, compared to the uniaxial
more economical.
The main objective of this study is to evaluate these
simple methods of estimating the UCS of rock. The data
in Refs. [3–5] were used to accomplish this objective.
The result of uniaxial compression test carried out on 48
different rocks, of which 26 are coal measures rocks,
were compared with the corresponding results of the
point load, the Schmidt hammer, the sound velocity and
the impact strength tests. To determine the correlation
coefficient and the variability of results for each test, the
data were statistically analysed.
2. Previous investigations
2.1. Point load test

*Tel.: +90-388-225-0115; fax: +90-388-225-0112. The point load test has often been reported as an
E-mail address: kahramans@ttnet.net.tr (S. Kahraman). indirect measure of the compressive or tensile strength

1365-1609/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 5 - 1 6 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 3 9 - 9
982 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994

of rock [6–9]. It has been used widely in practice due to Table 1

its testing ease, simplicity of specimen preparation, and Equations correlating the UCS (qu ) to the point load index (Is )a
field applications. Reference Equation
D’Andrea et al. [6] performed uniaxial compression
D’Andrea et al. [6] qu ¼ 15:3Is50 þ 16:3
tests and the point load tests. They used a linear Broch and Franklin [8] qu ¼ 24Is50
regression model to obtain the correlation between two Bieniawski [9] qu ¼ 23Is50
tests. It should be noted that their point load specimen Hassani et al. [13] qu ¼ 29Is50
diameter was 25 mm, and that size adjustments must be Read et al. [18]
(1) Sedimentary rocks qu ¼ 16Is50
made to use their relation. Broch and Franklin [8] state
(2) Basalts qu ¼ 20Is50
that the compressive strength is approximately equal to Forster (12) qu ¼ 14:5Is50
24 times the point load index (Is ), referred to a standard Gunsallus and Kulhawy [19] qu ¼ 16:5Is50þ 51:0
size of 50 mm. They also developed a size correction ISRM [15] qu ¼ 20y25Is50
chart so that core of various diameters could be used for Chargill and Shakoor [20] qu ¼ 23Is54þ 13
Chou and Wong [17] qu ¼ 12:5Is50
strength determination. Bieniawski [9] showed that the Grasso et al. [21] qu ¼ 9:30Is50þ 20:04
compressive strength is nearly 23 times Is : Pells [10]
a
showed that the index-to-strength conversion factor of qu and Is in MPa.
24 can lead to 20% error in the prediction of
compressive strength for rocks such as dolerite, norite
and pyroxenite. 2.2. Schmidt hammer test
Greminger [11] and Forster [12] also showed that the
conversion factor of 24 cannot be validly applied to The Schmidt hammer has been used for testing the
anisotropic rocks. Hassani et al. [13] studied the point quality of concretes and rocks. Schmidt hammer models
load test using an expended database with tests on large are designed in different levels of impact energy, but the
specimens and revised the size correlation chart com- types L and N are commonly adopted for rock property
monly used to reference point load values from cores determinations. The type L has an impact energy of
with differing diameters to the standard size of 50 mm. 0.735 Nm which is only one third that of the type N:
With this new correction, they found the ratio of Ayday and Goktan . [22] found reliable correlations
compressive strength to Is50 to be approximately 29. between L and N-type hammer rebound values obtained
Brook [14] emphasised the possible sources of error during field testing.
when using point load test, and proposed an analytical There are different Schmidt hammer recording
method of ‘‘size correction’’ to a chosen standard size. It techniques in the literature. Ayday and Goktan. [23]
is stated by ISRM [15] that on average, the compressive statistically compared the three most accepted methods
strength is 20–25 times Is : However, it is also reported (Hucka, Poole and Farmer, and ISRM methods) and
that in tests on many different rock types the range concluded that the ISRM method was different from the
varied between 15 and 50, especially for anisotropic other methods.
rocks. So, errors up to 100% should be expected if an While the Schmidt hammer is widely used for the
arbitrary ratio value is chosen to predict compressive prediction of UCS [24–28], a number of authors
strength from point load tests. Turk. and Dearman [16] have reported its other specific applications. Among
have proposed some improvements in the determination these are: the assessment of rock discontinuities [29],
of point load strength. They proposed a simple method mine roof control [30], roadheader and tunnel boring
for determining standard point load strength Is50 ; from machine performance [31], drilling machine penetration
test results obtained from a number of irregular, and rate [32–35] and joint wall strength [36].
regular prismatic specimens of different diameter using Various empirical equations have been proposed for
log–log plots of Is against diameter. This relation is calculating UCS of rock from Schmidt hammer rebound
usually linear. Chau and Wong [17] proposed a simple number. Most researchers have used similar approaches
analytical formula for the calculation of the UCS based for deriving these equations, four of which are reported
on the point load strength corrected to a specimen by Haramy and DeMarco [27]. Kidybinski (1980)
diameter of 50 mm Is50 ). The index-to strength conver- evaluated the use of Schmidt hammer by testing
sion factor (k) relating UCS to Is50 depends on the different rock types from Northern Silesia. He observed
compressive to tensile strength ratio, the Poisson’s ratio, a correlation between rebound number and UCS for
the length and the diameter of the rock specimen. Their rock and coal, and derived the following equation for
theoretical prediction for k (=14.9) is reasonably close estimating the strength of rock:
to the experimental observation (k ¼ 12:5) for Hong
qu ¼ 0:477 eð0:045Rn þrÞ ; ð1Þ
Kong rocks.
Table 1 lists the available equations correlating the where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the Schmidt hammer
UCS to the point load index. rebound number and r is the rock density (g/cm3).
 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994
Aufmuth (1973) acquired Schmidt hammer data from
approximately 800 core samples, representing 168
geologic formation and 25 lithologic types. Four
rebound readings were taken at different locations along
the centre axis of the core. The following equation
describes the best-fit approximation relating compres-
sive strength to Schmidt hammer rebound number.
qu ¼ 6:910½1:348logðRn rÞ1:325
where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the Schmidt hammer
rebound number and r is the rock density (g/cm3).
Deere and Miller (1966) tested 55 mm diameter core
from 28 different locations. Twelve rebound readings
were recorded along the length of the core for each 901
rotation. The best-fit approximation for compressive
strength is as follows:
qu ¼ 6:910½0:16þ0:0087ðRn rÞ ;
where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the Schmidt hammer
rebound number and r is the rock density (g/cm3).
Beverly et al. (1979) used the same test procedures as
Deere and Miller to obtain additional Schmidt hammer
data from 20 new locations. They combined their data
with that of Deere and Miller and derived the following
relation:
qu ¼ 12:74 e½0:0185ðRn rÞ ;
where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the Schmidt hammer
rebound number and r is the rock density (g/cm3).
Haramy and DeMarco [27] conducted Schmidt
hammer (L-type) test using large coal blocks acquired
from 10 different US locations. They obtained the
following best-fit equation:
qu ¼ 0:094Rn  0:383;
where qu is the UCS (MPa) and Rn is the Schmidt
hammer rebound number.
Sheorey et al. [28] found a reasonable correlation
between the large-scale in situ crushing strength of 0.3 m
cubes of coal and the lower mean of rebound values
(N-type). The following equation is proposed for the
in situ crushing strength of coal:
qu ¼ 0:4RLM  3:6;
where qu is the in situ crushing strength of coal (MPa)
and RLM is the lower mean of rebound values.
Cargill and Shakoor [20] performed the Schmidt
hammer (L type) tests on rock cores (NX) and derived
following equations.
ln qu ¼ 4:3102 ðRn rd Þ þ 1:2 for sandstones;
ln qu ¼ 1:8102 ðRn rd Þ þ 2:9 for carbonates;
where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the Schmidt hammer
rebound number and rd is the dry density (g/cm3).
983
2.3. Sound velocity test
Seismic surveys have been carried out in site and
laboratory investigations. Attempts have been made to
assess grouting, rockbolt reinforcement and blasting
efficiencies in the rock mass by the seismic velocity
determination [37–39]. Researchers [40–46] have exam-
ined the relation between rock properties and sound
ð2Þ
velocity; they found that sound velocity is closely related
with rock properties.
Inoue and Ohomi [47] tested many soft rocks in order
to confirm the relations among uniaxial compressive
strength, propagation velocity of elastic waves and
density. They expressed the following general formula:
qu ¼ krVp2 þ A; ð9Þ
ð3Þ
where qu is the UCS (kg/cm2), r is the rock density
(g/cm3) and Vp is the p-wave velocity (km/s).
.
Goktan [48] derived the following equation for coal
measure rocks:
qu ¼ 0:036Vp  31:18; ð10Þ
where qu is the UCS (MPa) and Vp is the p-wave velocity
(m/s).
ð4Þ
2.4. Impact strength test
The impact strength test was first developed by
Protodyakonov, and then it was used by Evans and
Pomeroy [49] for the classification of coal seams in the
UK. The test was then modified by Paone et al. [50],
ð5Þ Tandanand and Unger [51], and Rabia and Brook [52].
Tandanand and Unger obtained simple relations be-
tween the strength coefficient and compressive strength.
Rabia and Brook used the modified test apparatus to
determine the rock impact hardness number and
developed an empirical equation for predicting drilling
rates for both DTH and drifter drills.
Hobbs [53] applied this test to various rocks and
found the following equation:
ð6Þ
qu ¼ 53ISI  2509; ð11Þ
where qu is the UCS (kg/cm2) and ISI is the impact
strength index.
To estimate the compressive strength from the impact
.
strength index Goktan [48] derived the following
ð7Þ expression:
ln qu ¼ 0:095ISI  3:667; ð12Þ
ð8Þ
where qu is the UCS (MPa) and ISI is the impact
strength index.
984 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994

3. Statistical analysis
The coefficients of variation (CoV) were deter-
mined to evaluate the variability of test results for
each test and each rock type. The CoV is calculated
by dividing the standard deviation by the population
mean and expressing it as a percentage. The higher
the CoV, the more variable are the results of a given
test.
The USC values were correlated with the other test
values using the method of least squares regression. The
equation of the best-fit line, the 95% confidence limits,
and the correlation coefficient (r) were determined for
each regression.

Table 2
Results of the uniaxial compression test [3,4]

Location/panel Rock type Compressive strength (MPa) Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation (%)

Osmaniye/Bahçe Dolomite 68.0 6.01 8.91

Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-1 149.2 1.52 1.02
Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-2 45.2 2.33 5.10
Osmaniye/Bahçe Altered sandstone 20.1 0.92 4.62
Gaziantep/Erikli Limestone 51.3 3.03 5.90
Gaziantep/Erikli Marl 39.5 0.75 1.73
Gaziantep/Erikli Diabase 110.9 6.04 5.41
Gaziantep/Erikli Serpentine 69.1 2.20 3.20
Pozanti Limestone 123.8 3.81 3.10
Pozanti Clayed limestone 45.1 1.71 3.71
Yahyali Hematite 61.8 3.52 5.73
Yahyali Metasandstone 25.7 0.90 3.41
Konya Serpentine 54.3 2.41 4.40
Adana Limestone 15.7 0.53 3.32
Misis Limestone 85.2 2.10 2.51
Emet Sandstone 70.5 1.12 1.60
Emet Limestone 42.1 2.63 6.23
Tarsus Dolomite 96.3 1.10 1.13
Mersin Limestone 49.9 5.44 10.81
Ceyhan Limestone 76.1 1.03 1.30
Ceyhan Gravelled limestone 36.1 0.72 1.92
Yumurtalik Limestone 68.4 0.80 1.13

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar Marl 64.9 0.82 1.21
Soma/Isiklar Limestone 77.5 2.93 3.70
Soma/Kisrakdere Marl 82.4 0.81 1.01
Soma/Elmali Marl 80.2 3.11 3.92
Soma/Sarikaya Marl 69.2 0.92 1.32
Tinaz/Bagyaka Marl 52.1 1.24 2.43
Tinaz/Bagyaka Limestone 66.6 1.12 1.70
Eskihisar Marl 17.9 0.40 2.51
Eskihisar Altered marl 8.0 1.62 2.02
Milas/Sekky Marl 21.6 0.41 1.73
Milas/Ikizky Marl 22.0 0.12 0.71
Tunçbilek/Beke Marl 13.5 1.01 7.10
Tunçbilek/12A Marl 49.3 0.73 1.52
Tunçbilek/12A Siliceous limestone 152.7 2.21 1.53
Tunçbilek/merler 4CD Marl 41.8 0.32 0.65
Tunçbilek/37 Marl 38.7 0.70 1.94
Tunçbilek/36 Marl 21.4 1.22 5.63
Orhaneli Marl 45.5 0.43 0.84
Orhaneli Tuff 10.1 0.51 5.01
Orhaneli Sandy marl banded 40.4 2.10 5.12
with tuff
Keles Clayed marl 10.5 0.22 2.23
Keles Marl-limestone 61.5 1.51 2.51
Keles Limestone 91.2 0.43 0.40
Seyitmer Siliceous marl 4.4 0.52 12.41
Seyitmer Clayed marl 7.9 0.51 6.22
Seyitmer Marl 10.5 0.52 4.73
 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994 985

3.1. Uniaxial compressive strength test
The average values of the UCS are listed in Table 2. It
is reported by both Kahraman [3] and Eskikaya and
Bilgin [4] that uniaxial compression tests were per-
formed on trimmed core samples, which had a diameter
of 33 mm and a length-to-diameter ratio of 2. The UCS
.
values range from 4.4 MPa for the Seyitomer siliceous
marl to 152.7 MPa for the Tunçbilek/12A siliceous
Table 3
Results of the point load test [3,4]
limestone. The CoV ranges from 0.40% for the Keles
.
limestone to 12.41% for the Seyitomer siliceous marl
with an overall average of 3.46%.
3.2. Point load test
The point load strength values are given in Table 3. It
is reported by Kahraman [3] that the diametral point
load test was carried out on the cores having a diameter

Location/Panel Rock type Point load strength (MPa) Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation (%)

Osmaniye/Bahçe Dolomite 4.32 0.68 15.75

Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-1 13.83 0.73 5.29
Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-2 4.57 1.17 21.04
Osmaniye/Bahçe Altered sandstone 1.32 0.31 17.93
Gaziantep/Erikli Limestone 5.61 0.59 10.45
Gaziantep/Erikli Marl 3.35 0.45 13.65
Gaziantep/Erikli Diabase 12.66 0.85 6.74
Gaziantep/Erikli Serpentine 7.14 0.76 10.64
Pozanti Limestone 6.65 1.02 15.39
Pozanti Clayed limestone 5.73 0.76 13.25
Yahyali Hematite 8.26 0.42 5.14
Yahyali Metasandstone 5.25 0.54 10.49
Konya Serpentine 16.21 0.82 5.06
Adana Limestone 1.40 0.38 21.59
Misis Limestone 9.80 1.25 12.70
Emet Sandstone 7.75 0.65 8.43
Emet Limestone 5.44 0.57 10.60
Tarsus Dolomite 12.01 0.43 3.61
Mersin Limestone 3.31 0.40 12.09
Ceyhan Limestone 8.82 0.79 8.98
Ceyhan Gravelled limestone 3.11 0.62 19.78
Yumurtalik Limestone 7.00 0.90 12.89
Coal measure rocks
Soma/Isiklar Marl 3.60 0.50 13.68
Soma/Isiklar Limestone 2.77 1.01 31.59
Soma/Kisrakdere Marl 3.73 0.50 13.40
Soma/Elmali Marl 4.11 0.33 8.03
Soma/Sarikaya Marl 2.95 0.91 23.53
Tinaz/Bagyaka Marl 2.09 0.29 13.75
Tinaz/Bagyaka Limestone 2.06 0.49 18.95
Eskihisar Marl 0.84 0.11 13.26
Eskihisar Altered marl 0.31 0.02 7.43
Milas/Sekkoy. Marl 1.01 0.33 27.99
.
Milas/Ikizkoy Marl 1.07 0.29 22.16
Tunçbilek/Beke Marl 2.13 0.31 14.38
Tunçbilek/12A Marl 1.98 0.27 13.47
Tunçbilek/12A Siiceous limestone 5.66 1.12 19.72
.
Tunçbilek/Omerler 4CD Marl 1.73 0.10 6.05
Tunçbilek/37 Marl 1.05 0.03 2.91
Tunçbilek/36 Marl 1.73 0.10 5.88
Orhaneli Marl 1.66 0.49 24.58
Orhaneli Tuff 1.43 0.13 8.73
Orhaneli Sandy marl banded 1.68 0.54 24.76
with tuff
Keles Clayed marl 0.39 0.05 13.32
Keles Marl-limestone 3.25 0.34 9.90
Keles Limestone 3.79 0.78 20.48
.
Seyitomer Siliceous marl 0.23 0.02 10.00
.
Seyitomer Clayed marl 0.42 0.01 2.92
.
Seyitomer Marl 0.57 0.18 26.40
986 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994

trends, one for the coal measure rocks and another

for the other rocks, are found. The coal measure
rocks follow a more steeply sloped line than the
other rocks. Because the value of Konya serpentine
was in an anomalous position, it was omitted from
the graph of the other rocks. The equations of the two
lines are:
For coal measure rocks:
qu ¼ 23:62IS50  2:69; ð13Þ
r ¼ 0:93:
For the other rocks:
qu ¼ 8:41IS50 þ 9:51; ð14Þ
Fig. 1. Point load strength vs. UCS.
r ¼ 0:85;

of 33 mm and a length of 66 mm. corrected to a
specimen diameter of 50 mm. Eskikaya and Bilgin [4]
reported that they used rectangular samples having a
thickness of 50 mm. The point load strength index
values range from 0.23 MPa for the Seyitomer . siliceous
marl to 16.21 MPa for the Konya Serpentine. The CoV
ranges from 2.91% for the Tunçbilek/37 marl to 31.59%
for the Soma/Isiklar limestone with an overall average
of 13.52%. According to Broch and Franklin [8], the
point load strength test results are less scattered than the
UCS test results. Bieniawski [9] states just the opposite.
In this study, the UCS test results are less scattered than
the point load strength test results, encouraging the
Bieniawski’s statement.
An approximately linear relation between the
point load strength index values and the UCS values
was found (Fig. 1). As it is shown in Fig. 1, two separate
where qu is the UCS (MPa) and Is50 is the point load
index (MPa).
3.3. Schmidt hammer test
N-type Schmidt hammer rebound number values are
given in Table 4. It is reported by both Kahraman [3]
and Eskikaya and Bilgin [4] that the Schmidt hammer
tests were conducted in the field. The Schmidt hammer
was held in a downward position and 10 impacts were
carried out at each point, and the peak rebound value
was recorded. The average Schmidt hammer rebound
number ranges from 15 for the Keles clayed marl to 70
for the Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-1. The CoV ranges
from 0.82% for the Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-1 to
24.78% for the Orhaneli/sandy marl banded with tuff
with an overall average of 5.96% (Table 4).

Table 4
Results of the Schmidt hammer (N-type) test [3,4]

Location/Panel Rock type Rebound number Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation (%)

Osmaniye/Bahçe Dolomite 59 2.08 3.51

Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-1 70 0.58 0.82
Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-2 53 3.05 5.80
Osmaniye/Bahçe Altered sandstone 36 0.58 1.62
Gaziantep/Erikli Limestone 55 0.58 1.06
Gaziantep/Erikli Marl 56 1.73 3.09
Gaziantep/Erikli Diabase 64 1.00 1.56
Gaziantep/Erikli Serpentine 62 2.52 4.08
Pozanti Limestone 61 1.00 1.64
Pozanti Clayed limestone 58 1.15 1.97
Yahyali Hematite 44 3.09 6.69
Yahyali Metasandstone 54 4.32 8.00
Konya Serpentine 59 4.79 8.06
Adana Limestone 42 2.08 4.91
Misis Limestone 68 2.08 2.99
Emet Sandstone 38 1.82 4.80
Emet Limestone 58 3.09 5.36
Tarsus Dolomite 55 0.58 1.04
Mersin Limestone 51 1.82 3.58
 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994 987

Table 4. Continued

Location/Panel Rock type Rebound number Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation (%)

Ceyhan Limestone 58 1.73 3.01

Ceyhan Gravelled limestone 47 1.15 2.47
Yumurtalik Limestone 50 2.06 4.10

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar Marl 60 2.06 3.42
Soma/Isiklar Limestone 62 1.41 2.28
Soma/Kisrakdere Marl 53 6.52 12.39
Soma/Elmali Marl 56 7.02 12.62
Soma/Sarikaya Marl 59 1.50 2.55
Tinaz/Bagyaka Marl 54 1.41 2.57
Tinaz/Bagyaka Limestone 62 2.12 3.51
Eskihisar Marl 42 6.07 14.58
Eskihisar Altered marl 27 0.71 2.67
Milas/Sekkoy. Marl 46 6.53 14.30
.
Milas/Ikizkoy Marl 45 6.43 14.39
Tunçbilek/Beke Marl 52 3.60 6.90
Tunçbilek/12A Marl 54 4.95 9.25
Tunçbilek/12A Siliceous limestone 69 0.58 0.84
.
Tunçbilek/Omerler 4CD Marl 46 1.91 4.21
Tunçbilek/37 Marl 47 1.73 3.68
Tunçbilek/36 Marl 53 1.53 2.90
Orhaneli Marl 34 3.24 9.53
Orhaneli Tuff 35 5.41 15.20
Orhaneli Sandy marl banded 34 8.65 24.78
with tuff
Keles Clayed marl 15 0.71 4.88
Keles Marl-limestone 34 3.46 10.19
Keles Limestone F F F
.
Seyitomer Siliceous marl F F F
.
Seyitomer Clayed marl 29 3.00 10.34
.
Seyitomer Marl 42 4.04 9.8

The values of the Schmidt hammer rebound .

number were multiplied with the respective density
values (Table 5) and then correlated with the corre-
sponding values of the UCS (Fig. 2). Multiplying the
rebound number by the density improves the correlation
with the UCS. The UCS increases exponentially with the
produce of the rebound number and the density. The
equation of the curve is
qu ¼ 6:97 e0:014Rn r ;
r ¼ 0:78;
where qu is the UCS (MPa), Rn is the rebound number
and r is the rock density (g/cm3).
3.4. Sound velocity test
The average values of the sound velocity (p-wave
velocity) are given in Table 6. It is reported by
Kahraman [3] that p-wave velocities were measured on
the rock blocks having an approximate dimension of
13  20  12 cm3. The transducers used in the tests had
a frequency of 54 kHz. The sound velocity values
range from 1.0 km/s for the Seyitomer marl to 6.3 km/s
for the Osmaniye/Bahçe dolomite. The CoV ranges
from 1.79% for the Tarsus dolomite to 12.91% for the
Gaziantep/Erikli Serpentine with an overall average of
6.21%.
There is a non-linear relation between the p-wave
velocity and the UCS (Fig. 3). The higher the strength
the more scattered the data points. The equation of the
curve is
ð15Þ
qu ¼ 9:95Vp1:21 ; ð16Þ
r ¼ 0:83;
where qu is the UCS (MPa) and Vp is the p-wave velocity
(km/s).
3.5. Impact strength test
The impact strength test values are listed in Table 7. It
is reported by both Kahraman [3] and Eskikaya and
Bilgin [4] that the device designed by Evans and
Pomeroy [49] was used in the test The impact strength
index range from 51 for the Eskihisar altered marl to
988 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994

Table 5
Density values for the rock tested [3,5]

Location/Panel Rock type Density (g/cm3)

Osmaniye/Bahçe Dolomite 2.92

Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-1 3.00
Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-2 2.77
Osmaniye/Bahçe Altered sandstone 2.55
Gaziantep/Erikli Limestone 2.74
Gaziantep/Erikli Marl 2.20
Gaziantep/Erikli Diabase 2.96
Gaziantep/Erikli Serpentine 2.88
Pozanti Limestone 2.73
Pozanti Clayed limestone 2.42
Yahyali Hematite 3.61
Yahyali Metasandstone 2.73
Konya Serpentine 2.63 Fig. 2. N-Type Schmidt hammer value X density vs. UCS.
Adana Limestone 1.86
Misis Limestone 2.71
Emet Sandstone 2.56
Emet Limestone 2.71
Tarsus Dolomite 2.98
Mersin Limestone 2.66
Ceyhan Limestone 2.96
Ceyhan Gravelled limestone 2.61
Yumurtalik Limestone 2.81

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar Marl 2.45
Soma/Isiklar Limestone F
Soma/Kisrakdere Marl 2.46
Soma/Elmali Marl 2.42
Soma/Sarikaya Marl F
Tinaz/Bagyaka Marl F
Tinaz/Bagyaka Limestone F
Eskihisar Marl 1.66
Eskihisar Altered marl F Fig. 3. Sound velocity vs. UCS.
Milas/Sekkoy. Marl F
.
Milas/Ikizkoy Marl F
Tunçbilek/Beke Marl 2.03
Tunçbilek/12A Marl F
Tunçbilek/12A Siliceous limestone F
.
Tunçbilek/Omerler 4CD Marl 1.93
Tunçbilek/37 Marl F
Tunçbilek/36 Marl 1.91
Orhaneli Marl 1.92
Orhaneli Tuff 1.85
Orhaneli Sandy marl banded F
with tuff
Keles Clayed marl F
Keles Marl-limestone F
Keles Limestone F
.
Seyitomer Siliceous marl F
.
Seyitomer Clayed marl F
.
Seyitomer Marl 1.83

Fig. 4. Impact strength vs. UCS.

90.3 for the Konya serpentine. The CoV ranges from
0.14% for the Gaziantep/Erikli limestone to 8.70% for
the Tunçbilek/12A marl with an overall average of 1.98%.
The plot of the UCS as a function of the impact
strength index is shown in Fig. 4. There is a non-linear
relation between the UCS and the impact strength index
for the other rocks. A weak correlation (r ¼ 0:45)
was found between the UCS and the impact strength
index for the coal measure rocks. The weak correla-
tion is probably due to the lower elastic modulus of
the coal measure rocks. The rocks with lower
elastic modulus absorb impact energy. The fact that
 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994 989

Table 6
Results of the sound velocity test [3]

Location/Panel Rock type p-wave velocity (km/s) Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation (%)

Osmaniye/Bahçe Dolomite 6.3 0.21 3.29

Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-1 4.6 0.21 4.49
Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-2 4.5 0.12 2.55
Osmaniye/Bahçe Altered sandstone 2.0 0.20 10.00
Gaziantep/Erikli Limestone 5.4 0.38 6.97
Gaziantep/Erikli Marl 3.1 0.06 1.84
Gaziantep/Erikli Diabase 5.2 0.11 2.21
Gaziantep/Erikli Serpentine 2.9 0.38 12.91
Pozanti Limestone 5.3 0.29 5.48
Pozanti Clayed limestone 3.3 0.40 12.12
Yahyali Hematite 2.8 0.36 12.88
Yahyali Metasandstone 5.2 0.49 9.42
Konya Serpentine 5.0 0.21 4.11
Adana Limestone 2.2 0.25 11.61
Misis Limestone 5.5 0.25 4.60
Emet Sandstone 3.7 0.11 3.15
Emet Limestone 4.7 0.21 4.46
Tarsus Dolomite 5.6 0.10 1.79
Mersin Limestone 4.1 0.11 2.84
Ceyhan Limestone 5.6 0.21 3.74
Ceyhan Gravelled limestone 3.3 0.30 9.16
Yumurtalik Limestone 5.0 0.20 4.00

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar Marl 3.4 0.21 6.06
Soma/Isiklar Limestone F F F
Soma/Kisrakdere Marl F F F
Soma/Elmali Marl F F F
Soma/Sarikaya Marl F F F
Tinaz/Bagyaka Marl F F F
Tinaz/Bagyaka Limestone F F F
Eskihisar Marl F F F
Eskihisar Altered marl F F F
Milas/Sekkoy. Marl F F F
.
Milas/Ikizkoy Marl F F F
Tunçbilek/Beke Marl 1.5 0.15 9.96
Tunçbilek/12A Marl F F F
Tunçbilek/12A Siliceous limestone F F F
.
Tunçbilek/Omerler 4CD Marl F F F
Tunçbilek/37 Marl F F F
Tunçbilek/36 Marl 1.9 0.06 2.99
Orhaneli Marl F F F
Orhaneli Tuff 1.2 0.06 4.95
Orhaneli Sandy marl banded F F F
with tuff
Keles Clayed marl F F F
Keles Marl-limestone F F F
Keles Limestone F F F
.
Seyitomer Siliceous marl F F F
.
Seyitomer Clayed marl F F F
.
Seyitomer Marl 1.0 0.10 10.00

the impact strength test was originally developed for For the other rocks:
coal testing explains this situation. The equations of the
two trends are: qu ¼ 41010 ISI5:87 ; ð18Þ
For coal measure rocks:
r ¼ 0:65;
qu ¼ 1:82ISI  74:21; ð17Þ
where qu is the UCS (MPa) and ISI is the impact
r ¼ 0:45: strength index.
990 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994

Table 7
Results of the Impact strength test [3,4]

Location/Panel Rock type Impact strength index Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation (%)

Osmaniye/Bahçe Dolomite 83.4 0.66 0.79

Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-1 87.8 0.32 0.37
Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-2 80.3 0.32 0.40
Osmaniye/Bahçe Altered sandstone 70.4 0.72 1.03
Gaziantep/Erikli Limestone 82.2 0.11 0.14
Gaziantep/Erikli Marl 76.1 0.79 1.04
Gaziantep/Erikli Diabase 89.5 0.60 0.67
Gaziantep/Erikli Serpentine 81.2 0.20 0.25
Pozanti Limestone 82.9 0.17 0.21
Pozanti Clayed limestone 80.5 0.75 0.93
Yahyali Hematite 84.3 0.32 0.38
Yahyali Metasandstone 85.0 0.43 0.51
Konya Serpentine 90.3 0.38 0.42
Adana Limestone 72.5 0.65 0.90
Misis Limestone 84.1 0.11 0.15
Emet Sandstone 75.8 1.07 1.41
Emet Limestone 82.0 1.40 1.71
Tarsus Dolomite 80.6 0.87 1.08
Mersin Limestone 78.9 1.22 1.54
Ceyhan limestone 81.5 1.20 1.47
Ceyhan Gravelled limestone 75.9 0.85 1.12
Yumurtalik Limestone 83.6 0.45 0.54

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar Marl 75.2 0.30 0.41
Soma/Isiklar Limestone 65.0 2.52 3.85
Soma/Kisrakdere Marl 74.0 4.04 5.44
Soma/Elmali Marl 79.0 1.15 1.45
Soma/Sarikaya Marl 76.0 5.30 6.96
Tinaz/Bagyaka Marl 73.0 2.52 3.46
Tinaz/Bagyaka Limestone 71.0 1.53 2.14
Eskihisar Marl F F F
Eskihisar Altered marl 51.0 4.04 7.87
Milas/Sekkoy. Marl 59.0 0.58 0.97
.
Milas/Ikizkoy Marl 57.0 0.58 1.01
Tunçbilek/Beke Marl 70.4 0.81 1.16
Tunçbilek/12A Marl 66.0 5.68 8.70
Tunçbilek/12A Siliceous limestone 76.0 1.53 2.03
.
Tunçbilek/Omerler 4CD Marl 62.0 1.52 2.48
Tunçbilek/37 Marl 65.0 0.58 0.89
Tunçbilek/36 marl 69.9 0.81 1.16
Orhaneli Marl 54.0 5.57 10.31
Orhaneli Tuff 69.3 0.64 0.93
Orhaneli Sandy marl banded 55.0 1.53 2.79
with tuff
Keles Clayed marl F F F
Keles Marl-limestone F F F
Keles Limestone F F F
.
Seyitomer Siliceous marl F F F
.
Seyitomer Clayed marl F F F
.
Seyitomer Marl 78.0 1.73 2.22

4. Evaluation of the test methods
The coefficient of variation values of each rock type
and test method are summarised in Table 8. The impact
strength test yields the most consistent results of the five
methods. Although the other four methods are not as
reproducible as the impact strength test, the variability
of their results is still within acceptable limits for most
engineering purposes. The point load test has the highest
average value of coefficient of variation. The coefficient
of variation for both the Schmidt hammer and sound
velocity tests are rather close that of the UCS test.
The empirical methods used in this study were
evaluated by comparing their results with each other.
 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994 991

Table 8
The average coefficients of variation for each rock type and test method

Location/Panel Rock type Coefficient of variation (%)

UCS Point load Schmidt Sound Impact

(MPa) strength (MPa) hammer velocity (km/s) strength

Osmaniye/Bahçe Dolomite 8.91 15.75 3.51 3.29 0.79

Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-1 1.02 5.29 0.82 4.49 0.37
Osmaniye/Bahçe Sandstone-2 5.10 21.04 5.80 2.55 0.40
Osmaniye/Bahçe Altered sandstone 4.62 17.93 1.62 10.00 1.03
Gaziantep/Erikli Limestone 5.90 10.45 1.06 6.97 0.14
Gaziantep/Erikli Marl 1.73 13.65 3.09 1.84 1.04
Gaziantep/Erikli diabase 5.41 6.74 1.56 2.21 0.67
Gaziantep/Erikli Serpentine 3.20 10.64 4.08 12.91 0.25
Pozanti Limestone 3.10 15.39 1.64 5.48 0.21
Pozanti Clayed limestone 3.71 13.25 1.97 12.12 0.93
Yahyali Hematite 5.73 5.14 6.69 12.88 0.38
Yahyali Metasandstone 3.41 10.49 8.00 9.42 0.51
Konya Serpentine 4.40 5.06 8.06 4.11 0.42
Adana LIMESTONE 3.32 21.59 4.91 11.61 0.90
Misis Limestone 2.51 12.70 2.99 4.60 0.15
Emet Sandstone 1.60 8.43 4.80 3.15 1.41
Emet Limestone 6.23 10.60 5.36 4.46 1.71
Tarsus Dolomite 1.13 3.61 1.04 1.79 1.08
Mersin Limestone 10.81 12.09 3.58 2.84 1.54
Ceyhan Limestone 1.30 8.98 3.01 3.74 1.47
Ceyhan Gravelled limestone 1.92 19.78 2.47 9.16 1.12
Yumurtalik Limestone 1.13 12.89 4.10 4.00 0.54

Coal measure rocks

Soma/Isiklar Marl 1.21 13.68 3.42 6.06 0.41
Soma/Isiklar Limestone 3.70 31.59 2.28 F 3.85
Soma/Kisrakdere Marl 1.01 13.40 12.39 F 5.44
Soma/Elmali Marl 3.92 8.03 12.62 F 1.45
Soma/Sarikaya Marl 1.32 23.53 2.55 F 6.96
Tinaz/Bagyaka Marl 2.43 13.75 2.57 F 3.46
Tinaz/Bagyaka Limestone 1.70 18.95 3.51 F 2.14
Eskihisar Marl 2.51 13.26 14.58 F F
Eskihisar Altered marl 2.02 7.43 2.67 F 7.87
Milas/Sekkoy. Marl 1.73 27.99 14.30 F 0.97
.
Milas/Ikizkoy Marl 0.71 22.16 14.39 F 1.01
Tunçbilek/Beke Marl 7.10 14.38 6.90 9.96 1.16
Tunçbilek/12A Marl 1.52 13.47 9.25 F 8.70
Tunçbilek/12A Siliceous limestone 1.53 19.72 0.84 F 2.03
.
Tunçbilek/Omerler 4CD Marl 0.65 6.05 4.21 F 2.48
Tunçbilek/37 Marl 1.94 2.91 3.68 F 0.89
Tunçbilek/36 Marl 5.63 5.88 2.90 2.99 1.16
Orhaneli Marl 0.84 24.58 9.53 F 10.31
Orhaneli Tuff 5.01 8.73 15.20 4.95 0.93
Orhaneli Sandy marl banded 5.12 24.76 24.78 F 2.79
with tuff
Keles Clayed marl 2.23 13.32 4.88 F F
Keles Marl-limestone 2.51 9.90 10.19 F F
Keles Limestone 0.40 20.48 F F F
.
Seyitomer Siliceous marl 12.41 10.00 F F F
.
Seyitomer Clayed marl 6.22 2.92 10.34 F F
.
Seyitomer Marl 4.73 26.40 9.80 10.00 2.22
Overall average 3.46 13.52 5.96 6.21 1.98

Data from each test were used in the respective empirical
equation to calculate the estimated UCS. The estimated
values of compressive strength were then plotted against
the measured values of compressive strength for each
test, respectively (Figs. 5–8). The error in the estimated
value is represented by the distance that each data point
plots from the 1 : 1 diagonal line. A point lying on the
line indicates an exact estimation. As it is shown in
Figs. 5–7, the point load, the Schmidt hammer and the
sound velocity tests are reliable methods for the
992 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994
Fig. 5. Estimated UCS vs. measured UCS for the point load test.
Fig. 6. Estimated UCS vs. measured UCS for the Schmidt hammer
test.
estimation of the UCS of rocks. For the sound velocity
test, the data points fall closer to the line at low strength
values but become more scattered at higher strength
values. This suggest that the ability to estimate the UCS
of rocks using the sound velocity test is the best at low
strength values, and is less reliable at higher strength
values. Fig. 8 shows that, the impact strength test for
coal measure rocks is not reliable for the prediction of
compressive strength. The impact strength test for the
other rocks is only reliable for at low strength values.
5. Conclusions
The indirect test methods that may be used to predict
the compressive strength of rock are portable and easy
to use, so they can be practically used in the field. Also,
these tests require less or almost no sample preparation.
The point load test exhibits strong linear correlations
with the compressive strength of the coal measure rocks
Fig. 7. Estimated UCS vs. measured UCS for the sound velocity test.
Fig. 8. Estimated UCS vs. measured UCS for the impact strength test.
and the other rocks included in this study, respectively.
Significant non-linear correlation exists between the
compressive strength of rock and the values produced
by the Schmidt hammer rebound number and density
values. The results of the sound velocity test show strong
non-linear correlation with those of the uniaxial
compression test. The data points are scattered at
higher strength values. There is no relation between
the impact strength values and the compressive strength
values for the coal measure rocks. A quite weak
correlation exists between the impact strength values
and the compressive strength values for the other rocks.
All empirical methods evaluated in this study, except
the impact strength, can be used to predict the
compressive strength of rock. However, the prediction
equations derived by different researchers are dependent
on rock types and test conditions. One who wants to use
the prediction equations must not forget this reality.
Further study is required to see how varying the rock
type affects correlations. Additional work is needed to
 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994
check whether the impact strength test can be used to
estimate the compressive strength of high strength rocks.
References
[1] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard test
method for unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core
specimens. Soil and Rock, Building Stones: Annual Book of
ASTM Standards 4.08. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: ASTM, 1984.
[2] ISRM Suggested Methods. In: Brown ET, editor. Rock char-
acterisation testing and monitoring. Oxford: Pergamon Press,
1981.
[3] Kahraman S. The development of a model to obtain suitable
drilling and blasting conditions in open pit mines and quarries.
Ph.D. thesis, Istanbul Technical University, 1997 [in Turkish].
[4] Eskikaya S, Bilgin N. Research into drillability and optimum drill
bit usage for rotary drills in Turkish Coal Enterprises. Final
Report, vol. 2, Istanbul Technical University, 1993.
[5] Karpuz C, Pasamehmeto&glu AG, Dinçer T, Muft . uoglu
. Y.
Drillability studies on the rotary blashole drilling of lignite
overburden series. Int J Surface Min Rec 1990;4:89–93.
[6] D’Andrea DV, Fisher RL, Fogelson DE. Prediction of compres-
sion strength from other rock properties. Colo Sch Mines Q.
1964;59(4B):623–40.
[7] Reichmuth DR. Point load testing of brittle materials to
determine tensile strength, relative brittleness. In: Proceedings
of the 9th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Golden, 1968.
p. 134–59.
[8] Broch E, Franklin JA. Point-load strength test. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1972;9(6):669–97.
[9] Bieniawski ZT. Point load test in geotechnical practice. Eng Geol
1975;9(1):1–11.
[10] Pells PJN. The use of point load test in predicting the compressive
strength of rock material. Aust Geomech 1975;G5(N1):54–6.
[11] Greminger M. Experimental studies of the influence of rock
anisotropy on size and shape effects in point-load testing. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1982;19:241–6.
[12] Forster IR. The influence of core sample geometry on the axial
point-load test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1983;20:291–5.
[13] Hassani FP, Scoble MJ, Whittaker BN. Application of point load
index test to strength determination of rock and proposals for new
size-correction chart. In: Proceedings of the 21st US Symposium
on Rock Mechanics, Rolla, 1980. p. 543–64.
[14] Brook N. Size correction for point load testing. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1980;17:231–5 [Technical note].
[15] ISRM Suggested Methods. Suggested method for determining
point-load strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1985;22:53–60.
. N, Dearman WR. Improvements in the determination of
[16] Turk
point-load strength. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 1985;31:137–42.
[17] Chau KT, Wong RHC. Uniaxial compressive strength and point
load strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1996; 33:183–8 [Technical
note].
[18] Read JRL, Thornten PN, Regan WM. A rational approach to the
point load test. In: Proceedings Aust-N.Z. Geomechanics, vol. 2,
1980. p. 35–9.
[19] Gunsallus KL, Kulhawy FH. A comparative evaluation of rock
strength measures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1984;21:233–48.
[20] Cargill JS, Shakoor A. Evaluation of empirical methods for
measuring the uniaxial compressive strength. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1990;27:495–503.
[21] Grasso P, Xu S, Mahtab A. Problems and promises of index
testing of rocks. In: Tillerson, Wawersik, editors. Rock
Mechanics. Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 9054100451, 1992.
p. 879–88.
993
[22] Ayday C, Goktan. RM. Correlations between L and N-type
Schmidt hammer rebound values obtained during field-testing. In:
Hudson JA, editor. International ISRM Symposium on Rock
Characterization, 1992. p. 47–50.
[23] Ayday C, Goktan . RM. The statistical comparison of the
Schmidt hammer recording techniques. Bull Rock Mech (The
Publication of The Turkish National Society for Rock Mechanics)
1993;9:25–35.
[24] Inoue M, Omi M. Study on the strength of rocks by the
Schmidt hammer test. In: Rock Mechanics in Japan, vol. 1, 1970.
p. 177–9.
[25] Carter PG, Sneddon M. Comparison of the Schmidt hammer,
point load and unconfined compression test in Carboniferous
strata. In: Attewell PB, editor. Proceedings of the Conference on
Rock Engineering, University of New Castle upon Tyne, 1977.
p. 197–210.
[26] Sachpazis CI. Correlating Schmidt hardness with compressive
strength and Young’s Modulus of carbonate rocks. Bull Int Assoc
Eng Geol 1990;42:75–84.
[27] Haramy KY, DeMarco MJ. Use of the Schmidt hammer for rock
and coal testing. In: Aswath JB, Eileen W, editors. 26th US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Rapid City, 1985. p. 549–55.
[28] Sheorey PR, Barat D, Das MN, Mukherjee KP, Singh B. Schmidt
hammer rebound data for estimation of large scale in situ coal
strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1984;21:39–42 [Technical
note].
[29] Young RP. Assessing rock discontinuities. Tunnel Tunnelling
1978;45–8.
[30] Kidybinski A. Rebound number and the quality of mine roof
strata. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1968;5:283–92.
[31] Poole RW, Farmer IW. Geotechnical factors affecting tunnelling
machine performance in coal measures rocks. Tunnel Tunnelling
1978;27–30.
[32] Howart DF, Adamson WR, Berndt JR. Correlation of model
tunnel boring and drilling machine performances with rock
properties. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1986;23:171.
[33] Kahraman S. Rotary and Percussive Drilling Prediction Using
Regression Analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:981–9
[Technical note].
[34] Kahraman S, Balci C, Yazici S, Bilgin N. Prediction of the
penetration rate of rotary blast hole drills using a new drillability
index. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:729–43.
[35] Li X, Rupert G, Summers DA, Santi P, Liu D. Analysis of impact
hammer rebound to estimate rock drillability. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 2000;33(1):1–13.
[36] ISRM Suggested Methods. Suggested method for the quantitative
description of discontinuities in rock masses. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 1978;15:319–68.
[37] Knill TL. The application of seismic methods in the interpretation
of grout take in rock. In: Proceedings of the Conference on in situ
Investigation in Soils and Rocks, British Geotechnical Society,
No. 8, 1970. p. 93–100.
[38] Price DG, Malone AW, Knill TL. The application of seismic
methods in the design of rock bolt system. In: Proceedings of
the First International Congress, International Association of
Engineering Geology, vol. 2, 1970. p. 740–52.
[39] Young RP, Hill TT, Bryan IR, Middleton R. Seismic spectro-
scopy in fracture characterization. Quart J Eng Geol 1985;18:
459–79.
[40] Gardner GHF, Gardner LW, Gregory AR. Formation velocity
and density: the diagnostic basis for stratigraphic. Geophysics
1974;39:770–80.
[41] Youash Y. Dynamic physical properties of rocks: Part 2,
Experimental result. In: Proceedings of the Second Congress of
the International Society of Rock Mechanics, Beograd, vol. 1,
1970. p. 185–95.
994 S. Kahraman / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 981–994
[42] Lama RD, Vutukuri VS. Handbook on mechanical properties of
rocks. Trans Tech Publications, 2 edition, 1978.
[43] Deere DU, Miller RP. Engineering classification and index
properties for intact rock. Air Force Weapons Lab. Tech. Report,
AFWL-TR 65-116, Kirtland Base, New Mexico, 1966.
[44] D’Andrea DV, Fischer RL, Fogelson DE. Prediction of
compressive strength from other rock properties. US Bureau of
Mines Report of Investigations 6702, 1965.
[45] Saito T, Mamoru ABE, Kundri S. Study on weathering of igneous
rocks. In: Rock Mechanics in Japan, vol. 2, 1974. p. 28–30.
[46] Gaviglio P. Longitudinal waves propagation in a limestone: the
relationship between velocity and density. Rock Mech Rock Eng
1989;22:299–306.
[47] Inoue M, Ohomi M. Relation between uniaxial compressive
strength and elastic wave velocity of soft rock. In: Akai K,
Mayashi M, Nishimatsu Y, editors. Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Weak Rock, Tokyo, 1981.
p. 9–13.
[48] .
Goktan RM. Theoretical and practical analysis of rock ripp-
ability. Ph.D. thesis, Istanbul Technical University, 1988.
[49] Evans I, Pomeroy CD. The strength, fracture and workability of
coal. London: Pergamon Press, 1966.
[50] Paone J, Madson D, Bruce WE. Drillability studiesFlaboratory
percussive drilling. USBM RI 7300, 1969.
[51] Tandanand S, Unger HF. Drillability determinationFA drill-
ability index of percussive drills. USBM RI 8073, 1975.
[52] Rabia H, Brook W. An empirical equation for drill performance
prediction. In: Proceedings of the 21st US Symposium on Rock
Mechanics. Univ. Missouri-Rolla, 1980. p. 103–11.
[53] Hobbs DW. Rock compressive strength. Colliery Eng
1964;41:287–92.