International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

The usability of Cerchar abrasivity index for the estimation of mechanical

rock properties
Ahmet Teymen
Department of Mining Engineering, Ni�gde Omer
€ Halisdemir University, 51240, Ni�gde, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: One of the most commonly used methods of determining the rock abrasivity is Cerchar Abrasiveness Index (CAI).
Cerchar The basic parameters affecting abrasiveness are density, cementation degree, strength properties and the number
Abrasivity of abrasive minerals in the rock. In this study, 20 different tests were carried out on 80 different rocks, mainly
Multiple regression
Young’s modulus (E), uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and CAI. The main aim of the study is to estimate the
Rock properties
Performance index
basic mechanical rock properties which are difficult to determine and time-consuming with the help of CAI
values. In addition to simple equations, multiple regression equations were developed using CAI and other test
methods (11 tests). Among the obtained equations, the most reliable ones were determined with the help of a
developed performance index (PIat1). The results of the study show that there are significant relationships be­
tween basic mechanical rock properties and CAI.

1. Introduction
In mining operations, either drilling-blasting or mechanized exca­
vations methods (roadheaders, tunnel boring machines, dragline, and
excavator) are performed. All the tools used in the mentioned methods
interact with the rock. This interaction does not only leads to frag­
mentation or deformation of the rock, but also abrasion of the used tools.
Increased advancement rate of the tunnel or increased production rates,
especially in mining operations, require more knowledge of rock abra­
sivity. It is important to know or predict the interaction of rock cutting
tools with changing rock types and geological formations. The unpre­
dictability of rock abrasiveness leads to unexpected high cutting tool
wear rates, which greatly affects the project budget.1 Generally, abra­
sion can be defined as the tearing or wearing away of particles from the
material surface. Abrasion in the excavation tool can be defined as the
loss of tool material when interacting with the rock. Rock abrasivity
plays an important role in the characterizing of a rock material for
excavation purposes. Rock abrasiveness is a function of the amount of
quartz and similar abrasive minerals in the rock, average quartz grain
size, cementation, and cement type.
The resistance of tool wear when in contact with rock is the most
common principle for measuring rock abrasivity. The Cerchar Abrasivity
Test is a method for determining the index of abrasiveness of rock called
the Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI) and has great popularity in academic
research as well as in industry. The CAI test method is highly preferred
because of its quick and simple applicability and the use of small
amounts of rock samples. CAI testing has been recommended by the
International Society of Rock Mechanics ISRM2 as a rock mechanics
testing method. CAI testing is one of the most commonly used testing
procedures in the UK and France coal mining industry to estimate tool
life and determine tool cost.3–6,17 The test was originally developed by
the Laboratoire du Centre d’E0 tudes et Recherches des Charbonnages
(Cerchar) de France for coal mining applications.7 Three standards exist
for this test method: the AFNOR NF P 94-430-1,8 ASTM D7625-10.9 and
ISRM.10 The test is widely used in research and practice. There are two
basic test apparatus designs, the original design developed at the Cer­
char Center11 and modified by West.12
Suana and Peters13 used the equivalent quartz content obtained from
thin section analyzes prepared to estimate CAI. They also emphasized
that other parameters, such as matrix properties and grain size, played
an important role in the CAI estimation. They determined that the
abrasiveness of Quartz mineral, which has a very high abrasive char­
acter, had a 100% equivalent quartz content and was equivalent to six
(6) CAI. West14 in his study on coal-measures sedimentary rocks (31
rocks), determined the directly proportional relationship between CAI
rock abrasiveness and quartz content, Mohs hardness value. Johson and
Fowell15 using in-situ measurements, showed that the cutter consump­
tion used in excavation machines was directly related to the CAI values
of the rocks. They also stated that in addition to abrasive minerals and
cementing properties, strength properties had an effect on the CAI.

E-mail address: ateymen@ohu.edu.tr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104258
Received 7 October 2019; Received in revised form 11 February 2020; Accepted 11 February 2020
Available online 28 February 2020
1365-1609/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Teymen
Al-Ameen and Wallner16 investigated the relationship between CAI and
rock strength. They determined that some high strength rocks contain­
ing low abrasive minerals may have a high abrasive index, and some low
strength rocks with high abrasive minerals may have a low abrasive
index. They reported that cementing and strength properties with cor­
rosive mineral content had an effect on CAI. Plinninger et al.,17 in their
study on 109 rock samples, demonstrated test conditions and geo­
mechanical properties that affect the CAI value. They proposed a
correction (CAI ¼ 0.99CAIs þ 0.48) for CAI values obtained from
saw-cut rock samples. Also, they conducted some standard tests, such as
UCS, E, and BTS; as well as petrographic thin section analysis, grain size
analysis, and density. Finally, they compared the results of their study
with West’s12 results. They have indicated that the equivalent quartz
content (Qeq) alone is not suitable for interpreting CAI values. Plin­
ninger et al.18 presented the correlations between CAI and other
abrasivity-related parameters (elastic modulus and equivalent quartz
content). In their comprehensive study, they compared the CAI values
obtained from rough and smooth rock surfaces. Effects of test length on
the CAI were shown, the non-existent relationship between CAI and
equivalent Quartz content was discussed and a possible dependence of
CAI to the modulus of elasticity was discussed. In summary, the CAI test
has been successfully applied in the exploration process of rock engi­
neering. Yaralı and Akçın19 studied some rock properties in the Zon­
guldak Hard Coal Basin. They determined the hardness of rocks by drill
bits with two different tip angles and investigated the effect of drill bit
angle on CAI values. Finally, they identified correlations between the
CAI and mechanical properties. Michalakopoulos et al.20 examined the
influence of the steel hardness on the CAI value. Lassnig et al.21 studied
different testing instructions on the influence of the grain size on the
CAI. The main purpose of their work was to verify the influence of grain
size on the number of required single examinations per sample. They
performed grain size analyses to obtain the total curves of each tested
rock sample and calculated the median and interquartile range of par­
ticle sizes from the grain size data. After 5 and 10 scratch tests, they
compared the CAI values with the median and grain size qu range.
Alber22 demonstrated that the CAI was stress-dependent. A novel test
procedure in which the CAI tests were conducted on samples in a triaxial
cell shows the stress dependency for various rock types by higher CAI
values upon confining pressure. Kahraman et al.23 focused on the pre­
dictability of Misis Fault Breccia’s E and UCS values from some indirect
methods such as CAI, UPV, density using artificial neural network
analysis and regression analysis. The CAI was included in the best
regression model presented for UCS estimation but was not used in
estimating the E. In conclusion, the CAI was found to be more useful in
estimating UCS of Misis Fault Breccia and the ANN model was more
reliable than the regression model. In Deliormanlı’s study,24 it was used
simple and multiple regression methods to determine the strength values
of rocks such as UCS, direct shear (DSS) and abrasion properties such as
BSA, Wide-Wheel (WW) with CAI. According to the results of the study
using 15 commonly used marbles, two new converter charts were
developed. The first chart represents the relationship between
CAI–UCS–DSS, while the second chart displays the relationship between
CAI–BA–WW. The researcher stated that these charts can be used
practically by engineers and academicians who study on construction
and building materials to estimate their strength and abrasion values
using the CAI of marbles. Dipova25 tested Texas tunnel rock samples and
investigated the relationship between the CAI data and the strength
characteristics of weak limestones. Considering the abrasion of the rock
and pin together, it has measured and correlated the wear on the pin and
indentation on the rock. The researcher stated that the CAI method used
for estimating the digger life in hard rocks can be used to estimate the
strength properties of weak rocks. As a result of statistical studies, it was
determined that there is a relationship between the CAI and UCS, BTS
values. It was found that there was a relationship between the CAI and
indentation depth (ID) and between ID and UCS, BTS values. The re­
lationships between mechanical properties and the abrasiveness of coal
2
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258
measures rocks in the Zonguldak Hard Coal Basin were investigated by
Yaralı.26 For this purpose, CAI, (SSH, and Is50) and strength (UCS and
BTS) tests were conducted on sedimentary rocks. Then, relationships
among strength and CAI, index test values were evaluated using
regression analysis. As a result, positive linear relationships were found
among CAI and UCS, BTS, SSH, and Is50. Moradizadeh et al.27 investi­
gated the correlations between the CAI and quartz content (EQC), Is50,
slake durability index, and percentage of water absorption of 36
different rock samples using simple and multivariate regression. Er and
Tugrul28-29 developed empirical relationships between the chemical,
mineralogical, petrographical and physico-mechanical properties and
CAI values of 12 different granitic rock samples using the simple
regression analysis. Majeed and Abu Bakar30 tested the characteristics of
CAI, UCS, BTS, PG, Vp of a large number of rocks from different regions
of Pakistan and evaluated the CAI measurement methods. They also
carried out petrographic thin section analyses to determine the abrasion
factors such as Schimazek’s F value and Rock Abrasivity Index in some
of the rocks. Ko et al.31 emphasized that a single independent variable is
not sufficient when estimating the CAI value. Also, they showed the
positive effect of UCS and brittleness index for magmatic rocks and UCS
and BTS for metamorphic rocks in the models. Yaralı32 tested some
index properties (CHI, SSH, SHH, and Is50) and strength (UCS and BTS)
properties of 29 sedimentary coal measure rocks in Zonguldak hard coal
basin and determined linear relationships between CHI and UCS, SHH,
power relationships between CHI and SSH, Is50 using statistical
methods. The author also showed that there was an excellent linear
relationship between the test results made with bits having 99 and 125�
tip angles. In the study of Ozdog �an et al.,33 the relationship between
SSH, PG, UCS and CAI values of building stones were examined using
simple and multiple regression analysis. In particular, they found a
strong relationship between SSH and CAI. They emphasized that if the
CAI value is greater than one, the coefficient of determination can be
higher. Kadhodaei et al.34 created a data set using experimental results
from several studies in the literature. They trained and tested this data
set with the Gene expression programming (GEP) approach. They used
the abrasivity index (RAI) and BTS parameters in the GEP model to es­
timate CAI values. They also compared the model with multiple
regression and other existing models in the literature.
The main purpose of this study is to estimate the basic rock prop­
erties which are carried out using samples prepared in specific sizes with
the CAI test which is widely and practically used in the determination of
rock abrasiveness. Based on this idea, firstly the relationships between
UCS, E, BTS, Is50, BSA, ROP, BPI, KIC tests and CAI were determined. In
addition to the correlation studies using all 80 rocks, the data set
grouped using various classification systems were evaluated in detail.
Besides, multiple regression studies were performed for the eight
different tests listed above. Multiple regression studies were performed
using two, three and four independent variables, one of which was CAI
values. Multiple regression equations were compared with the help of
various statistical tools. The most reliable equations were determined by
using the performance index criterion proposed in this study. According
to the detailed analyses, the CAI test is very successful for estimating the
basic engineering properties.
2. Sampling and test procedure
The different originated rocks used in this study were collected from
the factories, outcrops and natural stone quarries in different locations
of Turkey. Tests were carried out on blocks or pieces taken from fresh
parts of 80 rocks. The rocks tested are composed of volcanic (20),
plutonic (13), pyroclastic (10), subvolcanic (7), sedimentary (18) and
metamorphic (12) rocks. The rock samples were macroscopically
inspected and samples were used that did not have any alters and dis­
continuities. The Brillant 250 wet abrasive cut-off machine was used for
sizing and smoothing the core samples. During the sample preparation
phase, standard laboratory test procedures were used ISRM.35 A
A. Teymen
classification of CAI proposed by ISRM10 is given in Table 1. When CAI
ranges from 0 to 2.0, rock abrasiveness changes from slight to medium.
For CAI of 4–6, rock is defined as very to extremely abrasive.
According to the classification in Table 1; seven of rocks are very low
abrasive (8.8%), twenty-three are low abrasive (28.8%), nineteen are
medium abrasive (23.8%), nineteen are high abrasive (23.8%), eleven
are very high abrasive (13.8%), and one is extremely high abrasive
(1.3%) rock class.
3. Experimental studies
By the aim of the study, a total of 20 different tests were applied to 80
rocks with the CAI test. These tests; Uniaxial compressive strength
(UCS), Young’s modulus (E), Brazilian tensile strength (BTS), Point load
index (Is50), Bohme surface abrasion (BSA), Rate of penetration (ROP),
Block punch index (BPI), Fracture toughness (KIC), Cerchar Abrasive­
ness Index (CAI), P-wave velocity (UPV), Shore Schlerescope hardness
(SSH), Schmidt hammer hardness (SHH), Brinell hardness (HB), Vickers
hardness (HV), Water absorption by the weight (WA), Effective porosity
(PG), Impact strength index (ISI), Coefficient of rock strength (CRS),
Crushability index (CI) and Protodyakonov index (f). The CAI tests were
performed using the original Cerchar apparatus by scratching pins of
HRC 54–56. CAI apparatus features a vice holding the rock specimen, a
rack for the steel stylus, a deadweight of 70 N and a hand crank with
which the specimen is moved underneath the steel pin. The tests were
carried out on the disc specimens having 42 mm diameter, 30–50 mm
thickness. The disc samples were manually moved by the hand crank
with 1 mm/s for a length of 10 mm. This was repeated for a total of five
pins. An apparatus was prepared using a high-resolution camera to
visualize the amount of wear occurring at the steel pins in a standard
way. Measurements on the photographs were performed utilizing a
calibrated digital caliper software (Digimizer) (Fig. 1). A wear surface of
1/10 mm at the steel pin is considered a unit of Cerchar abrasivity index
and is used without units Eq. (1).
CAI ¼ 10ðd=cÞ (1)
CAI: Cerchar abrasivity index
d: Diameter of wear flatness (mm)
c: Unit correction factor (c ¼ 1 mm).
The UCS and E tests were performed on cylindrical rock specimens
having a 42 mm diameter and a length-to-diameter ratio of 2–2.5. The
ends of the cores cut off from the main rock, were cut parallel to each
other, and then the surfaces of the cores were smoothed to make sure so
that there were no sudden irregularities. The compression machine
(ELE-3000 kN) was used for the determination of the UCS. Stress ratio
was applied uniformly until the rock was completely deformed and this
ratio remained between 1-1.2 MPa/s. For determining the E, strain
gauges were used. The displacements were recorded using strain gauges
during axial loading. The E of rock was derived from the slope of the
axial stress-axial strain curves at a stress level equals to 50% of the ul­
timate UCS. The mean UCS and E values were calculated by taking the
average of the five test values.
Table 1
Classification of CAI.10
Classification Mean CAI
Extremely High
�5
Very High 4.0–4.9
High 3.0–3.9
Medium 2.0–2.9
Low 1.0–1.9
Very Low 0.5–0.9
Extremely Low 0.1–0.4
3
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258
Fig. 1. Measurement of abrasivity on the steel pin by a computer program
(screen caliper).
BTS test apparatus was used to determine the tensile strength of
rocks. For each rock type, at least seven core samples with a diameter of
54 mm and a thickness of about 27 mm were used and the test was
carried out following the ISRM35 standard. The load on the rock samples
was continuously applied at a constant stress rate such that failure took
place within 5 min. The point load test (Is50) is considered an indirect
measure of the rock strength. The point load tool is widely used in
practice because no special sample is needed and can be used at the field
application. The diametric method was preferred for the Is50 test. Ac­
cording to this method, the ratio of the length of the sample to the
diameter (54 mm) should be between 1.0 and 1.4. For each rock type,
samples ranging in number from seven to ten were tested and the
average values obtained from this test were given in Table 2.
The breakage of particles by mechanical impacts such as friction and
impact from the building stone surface can be described as the abrasion
resistance (BSA). The problem of abrasion in rocks develops due to the
load and movement between the surfaces. BSA is an effective feature for
determining the resistance of stones used in engineering projects and is
an important indicator of the availability of stone in higher movement
areas. To determine the abrasion behavior of rocks, cubic samples with a
71 mm side (50 cm2 surface areas) were dimensioned for the abrasion
test. For this purpose, the Bohme apparatus described in detail at36-37
was used. In compliance with the standards, the abrasion system has a
steel disc, which has a diameter of 750 mm and a rotating speed of 30 �
1 cycle/min, a counter and a lever, which could apply load on the
specimen. The samples placed on the disc were exposed to 440 cycles
under 300 N load using 20 g of abrasion dust (crystalline Al2O3) each
time. BSA was calculated from the differences in dimensions before and
after the testing of the specimen.
Laboratory type core drilling machine and 22 mm diameter diamond
core were used to determine the rate of penetration (ROP). For the test,
54 mm core samples with a length/diameter ratio of approximately one
were prepared. The rocks were cut by the weight of the drill without
applying any compressive force. The ROP was calculated by dividing the
progression distance via the progression time. The BPI test apparatus
used in this study is a test apparatus, which is described in detail by
Ulusay et al.38 and can be mounted on a manually loaded point load
device. The BPI apparatus consists of base support and a hardened steel
punching block. Smoothness disc rock specimens having 10 mm thick­
ness were installed at the center of the BPI test apparatus. The load was
increased manually so that the failure occurred at a maximum of 60 s. In
the calculations, test samples, which are regularly broken into three
sections were used. At least seven test samples were used for each rock
type.
A. Teymen International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258

Table 2
Ranges of experimental data.
Parameter N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis

CAI (*) 80 4.8 0.5 5.3 2.6 � 0.1 1 1.3 0.16 � 0.27 0.92 � 0.53
UCS (MPa) 80 297.0 6.6 303.7 102.1 � 7.5 67 4462.1 0.82 � 0.27 0.22 � 0.53
E (GPa) 80 57.8 1.0 58.8 18.9 � 1.3 12 133.2 0.67 � 0.27 0.67 � 0.53
BTS (MPa) 80 20.3 1.0 21.3 8.2 � 0.5 4 20.1 0.64 � 0.27 0.08 � 0.53
Is50 (MPa) 80 14.6 1.2 15.7 5.4 � 0.4 3 9.9 0.94 � 0.27 0.61 � 0.53
BSA (cm3/50 cm2) 80 134.1 5.0 139.1 28.7 � 3.0 27 737.6 2.31 � 0.27 5.61 � 0.53
ROP (mm/sec) 80 235.9 0.4 236.3 23.4 � 5.0 45 2026.4 3.24 � 0.27 11.0 � 0.53
BPI (MPa) 80 41.0 1.2 42.2 14.5 � 1.0 9 77.9 0.87 � 0.27 0.58 � 0.53
KIC (MN/m3/2) 80 3.5 0.1 3.6 1.4 � 0.1 1 0.8 0.80 � 0.27 0.10 � 0.53
UPV (km/sec) 80 5.8 0.9 6.7 4.6 � 0.2 1 2.0 0.82 � 0.27 0.11 � 0.53
SSH (rebound) 80 91.8 7.2 99.0 58.9 � 2.6 23 521.8 0.28 � 0.27 0.65 � 0.53
SHH (rebound) 80 48.3 16.9 65.1 46.5 � 1.3 12 135.1 1.00 � 0.27 0.31 � 0.53
HB (kg/mm2) 80 813.0 1.9 814.9 156.7 � 16.9 151 22879.5 1.90 � 0.27 4.62 � 0.53
HV (kg/mm2) 80 573.4 7.5 580.8 123.2 � 13.5 121 14684.4 1.87 � 0.27 3.53 � 0.53
WA (%) 80 39.7 0.0 39.7 3.4 � 0.8 7 47.6 3.16 � 0.27 11.2 � 0.53
PG (%) 80 49.0 0.0 49.0 5.7 � 1.1 10 94.8 2.50 � 0.27 6.15 � 0.53
ISI (%) 80 53.6 39.3 92.8 74.9 � 1.4 13 156.6 0.85 � 0.27 0.39 � 0.53
CRS (%) 80 6.7 0.3 7.0 2.1 � 0.2 2 2.4 1.29 � 0.27 1.20 � 0.53
CI (%) 80 41.7 51.6 93.2 72.4 � 1.1 10 97.3 0.05 � 0.27 0.46 � 0.53
f (*) 80 320.0 6.0 326.0 88.7 � 8.5 76 5784.7 1.55 � 0.27 2.19 � 0.53

Fracture toughness can be defined as the ability of the rock to resist simplicity of the test comes from the fact that the calculations are in­
the fracturing and propagation of pre-existing cracks. In this study, the dependent of the dimension of the indenter and the hardness of the
semi-circular bend method proposed by Chong and Kuruppu39 was used. applied material is insignificant. The HV test device, which is used for
Semi-circular core samples with a 20 mm radius (r), 10 mm thickness (t) different rocks and has wide scales. Loads ranging from 1 to 50 kg were
and 10 mm crack length (a) were used for the test. KIC values were applied to prepare rock samples for 10–15 s. The two diagonal values of
calculated using the following equation. the indenter’s mark remaining on the rock surface were measured with a
pffiffiffiffiffiffi microscope and the average of these two values was calculated. The
Pmax π:a
KIC ¼ :YI (2) sloping surface area of the indentation was calculated. The HV value was
obtained by dividing the load (kg) by the calculated area (mm2).
2:r:t

where; KIC: fracture toughness (MN/m3/2), Pmax: maximum load (MN),
a: crack length (m), r: disc radius (m), t: disc thickness (m) ve YI:
dimensionless stress intensity factor.
For the SHH, an N-type Schmidt hammer was used. Before coring
operations, the test was conducted on a flat rock block surfaces. The
Schmidt hammer was pointed perpendicularly and touched the surface
of the rock. ISRM35 suggested the method was followed in the tests. In
order to determine the SHH value of the rocks, 20 strokes were applied
to the smooth surfaces of the block-shaped rocks and the average of the
highest 10 values was calculated. A correction factor (standard anvil
value/average of 10 readings taken over anvil) was used to correct the
measured SHH values. To measure the SSH of the rocks used in this
study, the C-2 model non-destructive measuring instrument was used in
accordance with the rules specified in the ISRM35 standard. The test was
performed on placed rock samples, which have a 14 square centimeter
area and 2 cm thickness inside the cradle. Upper areas of cores were
polished with emery. The diamond-tipped hammer of the SSH test de­
vice was fallen vertically from 30 cm height on the surface of the rock
specimen. Measurements were repeated 20 times at a spacing of a
minimum of 5 mm to represent the complete surface of the sample. The
average of the top ten measurement results was calculated and this value
was taken as the SSH value of related rock.
HB is a widely used test method for metals, but it is generally not
preferred for rocks because of its brittle nature. It is a measure of the
rock resistance to indentation and has a direct correlation to rock
strength. The ends of the cores having a thickness of 30 and a diameter of
42 mm were cut and flattened parallel to each other. The HB tests were
performed by a 10 mm diameter spherical steel ball that was in contact
with the rock sample. Testing loads of 50 kg–3000 kg were applied for
30 s standard time on the rocks surfaces. The diameter of the indentation
area was measured and the applied load recorded. The hardness value
was determined from the ratio of applied load to the surface area of the
indentation and was expressed as kg/mm2. HB values were calculated
using the average of three tests. The HV test, which is easier than other
hardness tests, developed as an alternative to the HB method. The
Drilling speed should be predicted for the drilling plan. A factor of
rock in drilling is a drillability, which is quantified by CRS. The test was
carried out using two aggregate pieces having a grain size of between
25.4 mm and 19.1 mm. A hammer having 2.4 kg weight was dropped
from a height of 63.5 cm on the selected aggregates and this operation
was repeated 5 times with new test samples and different drop numbers.
The crushed aggregate pieces were sieved from 0.5 mm sieve. The
smallest value obtained by calculations among the five tests was
accepted as the CRS value.
For the CI test, 500 g of dry aggregate was used between 10 mm and
5 mm. For the test, 500 gr dried aggregate having 10 þ 5 mm grain size
was used. Crushed test aggregates were fed to a laboratory type jaw
crusher having 5 mm outlet opening, then the crushed aggregates were
sieved from a 5 mm sieve. The ratio of the weight of the aggregate under
the sieve to the 500 gr weight was defined as CI value. The ISI test used
for classifying coal seams was developed by Protodyakonov for the first
time. The test was then modified by several researchers.40–42 The ISI test
was carried out using 100 gr aggregate ( 9.525 þ 3.175 mm) placed in a
42.86 mm diameter cylinder. The specimens were crushed by dropping a
1.8 kg hammer from a height of 30.48 cm (20 times). The aggregate
weight on the 3.175 mm sieve was used as the ISI value of the aggregates
(repeated 3 times).
One of the non-destructive experiments used for predictability of the
mechanical properties of rocks and concretes are the UPV test and
designed for measuring the dynamic properties of these materials. This
test is a non-destructive test and conducted by measuring the pulse ve­
locity between the transducer of the receiver and emitter. For the test,
both ends were parallel and polished cylinder rock samples were used.
The samples for this test had a cylindrical shape with a 42 mm diameter
and 85 mm length. The gel was used to ensure full contact between the
sample and the transducers (receiver and transmitter). After this pro­
cedure, the travel time of longitudinal P-wave was recorded in micro­
seconds. The UPV was calculated by dividing the sample length via the
travel time of P-wave.
Five samples from each rock were prepared. Each sample weighed

4
A. Teymen
between 50 to 75 gr and consisted of rock pieces greater than 15 mm in
size. The sample was poured into the cylinder and a drop weight of 2.4
kg was allowed to fall 5 times from a fixed height of 640 mm. Then, the
crushed aggregate was removed and the next sample was put in the
cylinder, the process was repeated. After all the 5 samples were crushed,
the broken material was put on a 0.5 mm (30 mesh) sieve. Fines passed
through the sieve were poured into the tube of the volume meter. The
height of the dust in the tube was noted after tapping it gently ten times
on the table. The Protodyakonov index was calculated by:
Fig. 2. Relationship between CAI and basic mechanical tests a) UCS b) E c) BTS d) Is50 e) BSA f) ROP g) BPI and h) KIC.
5
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258
103
f ¼ (3)
I
where f is the Protodyakonov index, I is the height of dust in the vol­
umemeter tube.
Saturation techniques were used for testing such as PG and WA tests.
The water absorptions by the weight were calculated as the ratio of the
weight difference of the saturated-surface-dry weight and the dry weight
of the sample to the weight of the dry sample. The pore volumes were
determined from the weight difference of the saturated weight (surface
dry) and the dry weight, and the PG values were calculated as the ratio
A. Teymen International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258

of pore volumes to bulk sample volume.
4. Statistical analysis and results
One of the frequently used methods to obtain estimation models
between rock properties is the regression analysis, in which both simple
and multiple regression analyses were used. Both methods have been
used in this study. SPSS v.17.0. computer package was used for all sta­
tistical analyses including Anova, F-tests, and t-tests. Firstly, simple
regression analyses were performed using the linear, power, logarithmic
and exponential curve fitting approximations (Fig. 2 and Table 3) then, a
series of multiple regression analyses summarized in Table 4 were per­
formed. The equations obtained from multiple regressions for the esti­
mation of basic mechanical parameters were given in Table 4 (Eqs. (1.2)
- (8.4)). Some relations between the measured and predicted values
were shown in Figs. 3–10, respectively.
For the simple regression analysis, the least-squares technique was
used and the details of the obtained models were given in Table 3. To be
able to show the relationships between the main properties of rocks and
CAI, regression curves were drawn. In Fig. 2, correlation graphs between
UCS, E, BTS, Is50, KIC, BSA, ROP, BPI, and CAI tests are given. It is seen
that the mentioned rock mechanic tests give a very significant correla­
tion with the basic strength parameters. These experimental methods
which are specifically developed to define a rock were used as depen­
dent variables in simple and multiple regression studies. Correlation
coefficients obtained from the best equations related CAI vary between
0.655 and 0.804. The weakest correlation between these eight tests was
obtained in the KIC test (Eq. 8.1). In the correlation studies using the CAI
test, the strongest relationships were obtained by UCS, Is50 and BPI tests,
respectively.
95% confidence interval values were calculated for the validity of the
equations. The t-test was used to determine the significance level of the
correlation coefficients of the equations and it was seen that the ob­
tained t-values were greater than the tabulated t-values. It was also
observed that the significance of the t-values (p-value) was <0.05 value.
Regression analysis of variance was used to determine the importance of
regressions. It has been seen that F-values of all equations have
considerably high values than the tabulated F-values. Derived equations
that were proven to be reliable with F and t-tests can be reliably used,
especially for predictive purposes.
Multiple regression analyses were performed using two, three and
four independent variables with the condition that one of the indepen­
dent variables was a CAI test. For multiple regression analysis, some
physical and index test methods (UVP, HB, HV, SHH, SSH, CRS, CI, f, P,
and WA) that can be easily applied using simple test instruments and
very few samples were used as independent variables with the CAI test.
For estimating the main properties, the most reliable and meaningful
multiple regression equations that could be obtained by the statistical
analysis were summarized in Table 4. In addition to F and t-tests, it was
also examined whether there is a multicollinearity problem (VIF) to
make a stronger validation in multiple regression equations (Table 4).
Scatter plots (Figs. 3–10) of measured and estimated values were plotted
to see the predictability of some multiple equations. The scatter plots
contain the maximum and minimum confidence interval lines as well as
the maximum and minimum prediction lines calculated for the 95%
confidence interval. The scatter diagrams shown in Figs. 3–10 represents
the main rock properties, respectively. When the figures are examined in
detail, it will be seen that multiple prediction models are more reliable
than simple regression equations.
All multiple regressions revealed in this study were successful at a
95% confidence level for the F test. When the equations obtained from
multiple regression analyses and their reliability analyses are examined
in detail, it is seen that the most reliable results and high correlation
coefficients can be obtained with UCS, BTS, E and BPI experiments.
Following these, the most reliable results were obtained with the ROP
test. Among the eight different tests, the least reliable results belong to
KIC, BSA, and Is50 tests, respectively.
When Table 4 is examined in detail, it is clear that multiple equations
can be used for more accurate and strong estimations. Because multiple
models include more than two independent variables, the correlation
coefficients, and estimation capabilities are higher than the simple
models. In Figs. 3–10, the measured and predicted values were corre­
lated, respectively. As can be seen in these figures, good predictions
were obtained using multiple regression models. Correlation coefficients
range from 0.72 to 0.96.
In addition to the statistical studies in which all the data were used,
some classification methods, which are detailed in Table 5, were used.
To distinguish variability due to properties such as data set, material
inhomogeneity and measurement reproducibility, main rock properties
are grouped according to the same nominal values. Thus, the measure­
ment capability of each method was tried to be understood. Existing
classification systems have been re-adapted to form nominal groups
containing sufficient rocks from the data set.
Classification 1: The rocks were divided into two main groups based
on the CAI classification in Table 1, which is greater than medium
abrasive (>3.0) and lower than medium abrasive (<3.0).
Classification 2: The porosity classification, which is divided into six
categories (very compact < 1%; low porous, 1–2.5%; medium porous,
2.5–5%; highly porous, 5–10%; very porous, 10–20%; very high porous,
> 20%), is used as three categories in this study. The first is compact
rocks (<1 %), the second is low porosity rocks (1–2.5 %) and the third is
porous rocks (>2.5 %).
Classification 3: The UPV classification, which is divided into five
categories (very low < 2.5 km/s; low, 2.5–3.5 km/s; medium, 3.5–4 km/
s; high, 4–5 km/s; very high, > 5 km/s), is used as three categories in this
study. The first is low-medium velocity (<4 km/s), the second is high
velocity (4–5 km/s) and the third is very high velocity (>5 km/s).
Classification 4: Another classification applied is rock origin classifi­
cation. The rocks are divided into three main groups as igneous
(plutonic þ subvolcanic þ volcanic þ pyroclastic), metamorphic, and
sedimentary.
The most important finding to be mentioned in the evaluation ac­
cording to the CAI classification is the rather low correlation coefficient
of the equation obtained from the ROP method applied to high abrasive
rocks. This is the presence of many rocks with different origin and
strength characteristics with the same CAI value in the high abrasive

Table 3
Validation of the derived simple models of rocks (F-test and t-test).
Equations no Independent variable Simple equations Best fit model F value |t | independent p |t | constant p R2
value value

Eq. 1.1 UCS UCS ¼ 51.82CAI-31.58 Linear 319 17.87 0.00 3.86 0.00 0.80
Eq. 2.1 E E ¼ 4.84CAI1.32 Power 159 12.59 0.00 9.72 0.00 0.67
Eq. 3.1 BTS BTS ¼ 2.8CAI1.086 Power 221 14.85 0.00 13.97 0.00 0.74
Eq. 4.1 Is50 Is50 ¼ 0.475e1.33CAI Exponential 310 17.62 0.00 13.14 0.00 0.80
Eq. 5.1 BSA BSA ¼ 55.2CAI 1.16 Power 162 12.71 0.00 11.21 0.00 0.67
Eq. 6.1 ROP ROP ¼ 57.12CAI 2.49 Power 203 14.23 0.00 5.85 0.00 0.72
Eq. 7.1 BPI BPI ¼ 6.59CAI-2.54 Linear 227 15.05 0.00 2.06 0.04 0.74
Eq. 8.1 KIC KIC ¼ 0.38CAI1.24 Power 148 12.17 0.00 9.99 0.00 0.66

6
A. Teymen International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258

Table 4
Validation of the derived multiple models of rocks.
Eqs. no Multiple equations Adj. R2 Fvalue Ftabulated VIFmax ttabulated |t|min. sig|t|min. Durbin-Watson

Eq. 1.2 UCS ¼ 11.31CAI þ0.18HV þ 0.97SHH þ16.51CRS - 27.72 0.96 433 2.49 5.39 1.9921 3.77 0.00 2.15
Eq. 1.3 UCS ¼ 16.55CAI þ0.99SHH þ25.55CRS - 39.1 0.95 394 2.73 4.38 1.9917 4.60 0.00 2.22
Eq. 1.4 UCS ¼ 24.04CAI þ25.96CRS - 13.17 0.93 501 3.12 2.85 1.9913 2.52 0.01 2.32

Eq. 2.2 E ¼ 1.04CAI þ0.03HV þ 3.09UPV þ2.06CRS - 5.88 0.89 163 2.49 5.39 1.9921 1.51 0.14 2.26
Eq. 2.3 E ¼ 1.59CAI þ0.05HV þ 3.34UPV - 6.34 0.88 191 2.73 3.27 1.9917 2.25 0.03 1.99
Eq. 2.4 E ¼ 5.23CAI þ3.9UPV - 12.42 0.80 157 3.12 1.60 1.9913 6.23 0.00 1.60

Eq. 3.2 BTS ¼ 0.81CAI þ0.01HB - 0.08P þ 1.1CRS þ2.87 0.90 174 2.49 5.03 1.9921 3.02 0.00 1.97
Eq. 3.3 BTS ¼ 1.19CAI þ0.01HB þ 1.05CRS þ1.48 0.88 190 2.73 5.01 1.9917 3.06 0.00 1.69
Eq. 3.4 BTS ¼ 1.58CAI þ0.02HB þ 1.53 0.85 230 3.12 2.81 1.9913 2.88 0.01 1.49

Eq. 4.2 Is50 ¼ 0.86CAI þ0.01HV - 0.04ISI þ0.35CRS - 1.43 0.86 120 2.49 5.77 1.9921 1.40 0.17 1.53
Eq. 4.3 Is50 ¼ 0.90CAI þ0.01HV þ 0.05ISI – 1.91 0.85 155 2.73 4.22 1.9917 1.94 0.06 1.48
Eq. 4.4 Is50 ¼ 1.25CAI þ0.01HV þ 0.55 0.84 212 3.12 3.00 1.9913 1.39 0.17 1.44

Eq. 5.2 BSA ¼ 1.31CAI þ2.03WA - 0.29ISI - 0.73SHH þ80.62 0.84 104 2.49 4.57 1.9921 0.68 0.50 2.13
Eq. 5.3 BSA ¼ 2.62CAI þ2.18WA - 0.81SHH þ65.58 0.84 136 2.73 4.35 1.9917 1.47 0.15 2.14
Eq. 5.4 BSA ¼ 7.20CAI þ2.77WA þ 37.94 0.81 170 3.12 1.38 1.9913 5.31 0.00 2.17

Eq. 6.2 ROP ¼ 1.22CAI þ5.68WA - 0.94ISI þ5.7UPV þ51.82 0.88 146 2.49 3.89 1.9921 0.52 0.61 1.66
Eq. 6.3 ROP ¼ 0.96CAI þ5.12WA - 0.67ISI þ59.09 0.87 182 2.73 3.24 1.9917 0.40 0.69 1.54
Eq. 6.4 ROP ¼ 5.06CAI þ5.59WA þ 17.59 0.86 251 3.12 1.38 1.9913 2.66 0.01 1.52

Eq. 7.2 BPI ¼ 1.89CAI þ0.02HB þ 0.11ISI þ1.7CRS - 5.3 0.87 138 2.49 5.47 1.9921 1.97 0.05 1.73
Eq. 7.3 BPI ¼ 0.89CAI þ0.02HB þ 2.08CRS þ0.89 0.87 170 2.73 5.01 1.9917 0.88 0.38 1.74
Eq. 7.4 BPI ¼ 3.18CAI þ3.19CRS - 0.28 0.85 223 3.12 2.85 1.9913 0.28 0.78 2.04

Eq. 8.2 KIC ¼ 0.14CAI þ0.09UPV - 0.03CI þ 0.004f þ 2.68 0.76 64 2.49 4.97 1.9921 1.61 0.11 1.90
Eq. 8.3 KIC ¼ 0.14CAI - 0.04CI þ 0.004f þ 3.56 0.76 82 2.73 4.42 1.9917 1.65 0.10 1.91
Eq. 8.4 KIC ¼ 0.21CAI - 0.06CI þ 4.88 0.72 102 3.12 3.62 1.9913 2.37 0.02 1.78

Fig. 3. Comparison of UCSP and UCSM values for Eq. 1.2. Fig. 4. Comparison of EP and EM values for Eq. 2.2.

rocks category according to the CAI classification (Fig. 11b). Further­
more, the ROP value of the rocks in this group varies within a very
narrow range due to the presence of quartz minerals in the rocks. In
rocks with low abrasive, the effect of the origin difference on the drilling
progression is not observed much (Fig. 11a). The rocks in this group
have a wide range of ROP and UCS values. In the group with a narrow
range according to the UPV classification (high velocity, 4–5 km/s), the
low correlation coefficient for Bohme surface abrasion (BSA) is notice­
able (Fig. 11d). While 20 rocks in this group show very wide scale
strength values, they have BSA and UPV values in a narrower range.
When the correlation coefficients obtained from the correlation
studies based on rock origin are examined, it is seen that the best results
belong to the group of igneous rocks consisting of 50 rocks (Fig. 11f). All
main rock properties show a strong relationship with the CAI. The cor­
relation coefficients obtained for metamorphic rocks are also rather high
and there is a linear relationship. However, the fact that there is almost
no metamorphic rock between 100 MPa and 200 MPa reduces the reli­
ability of the derived equations. However, the graph is essentially
combining two clusters of points; for two quartzites with a strength
value higher than 200 MPa and ten rocks with a strength value of less
than 100 MPa (Fig. 11e). Correlation coefficients of sedimentary rocks
are relatively low. The main reason for this is the very low presence of
corrosive minerals in sedimentary rocks. Two rocks with very different
strengths CAI values can be the same.
5. Comparisons of the performance of derived models
The estimation values obtained from multiple regression analyses
and whether the measured values have normal distribution were
examined. Five parameters are taken into consideration when deciding
the normal distribution. These include the coefficients of variation,
histogram graph, detrended Q-Q plots, Kurtosis-Skewness, and
Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test. As a result of evaluating a total of
five parameters, one of them is the measured value, it is observed that
most of the equations have a normal distribution and very few have a-
normal distribution. This procedure was repeated for eight main rock

7
A. Teymen
Fig. 5. Comparison of BTSP and BTSM values for Eq. 3.2.
Fig. 6. Comparison of Is50P and Is50M values for Eq. 4.4.
Fig. 7. Comparison of BSAP and BSAM values for Eq. 5.2.
properties. After the normal distribution examination, the data set was
analyzed using parametric and nonparametric methods.
Assuming the normal distribution of data; the homogeneity of the
variations of the measured and estimated values was tested by the Anova
method (Table 6). There was no difference between the mean values (F
statistical significance level of 0.97–1.00) in all groups (Table 7). The
significance level approaching 1.0 indicates that variance homogeneity
8
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258
Fig. 8. Comparison of ROPP and ROPM values for Eq. 6.2.
Fig. 9. Comparison of BPIP and BPIM values for Eq. 7.2.
Fig. 10. Comparison of KICP and KICM values for Eq. 8.2.
is close to perfect.
Assuming the a-normal distribution of data; the Welch Anova
method was used for the nonparametric test. Tamhane’s T2 test (post-
hoc) was used for comparison of multiple tests to investigate the re­
lationships between the measured and estimated values. The variations
of these values were also tested using one-way analysis of variance
(Welch Anova) and were seen to be homogeneous (Welch statistic
A. Teymen International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258

Table 5
Classification systems and correlation coefficients according to categories.
Classification All rocks CAI Rock porosity (%) UPV (km/sec) Rock origin

Parameters <3.0 >3.0 <1.0 1–2.5 >2.5 <4 4–5 >5 Metamorphic Sedimentary Igneous

low high low-med. medium high low-med. high very high

Rock Number 80 49 31 28 23 29 22 20 29 12 18 50
% 100 61.25 38.75 35 28.75 36.25 27.5 25 47.5 15 22.5 62.5
Nominal value * (CAI-I) (CAI-II) (P–I) (P-II) (P-III) (UPV–I) (UPV-II) (UPV-III) (O–I) (O-II) (O-III)

UCS 0.80LN 0.66PW 0.64LN 0.83LN 0.76PW 0.72LN 0.69LN 0.70EX 0.81EX 0.91LN 0.60PW 0.86PW
E 0.67PW 0.53PW 0.50LN 0.73LN 0.68PW 0.64PW 0.53EX 0.27EX 0.65EX 0.75LN 0.40PW 0.86PW
BTS 0.74PW 0.61PW 0.62LN 0.81EX 0.79PW 0.62PW 0.60PW 0.50LN 0.68LN 0.86LN 0.40PW 0.85PW
Is50 0.80EX 0.62EX 0.40PW 0.80EX 0.75LN 0.81EX 0.61LN 0.68EX 0.77EX 0.84LN 0.62LN 0.86EX
BSA 0.67PW 0.53LG 0.26EX 0.67EX 0.45LN 0.64PW 0.64PW 0.19EX 0.56EX 0.92EX 0.43PW 0.84EX
ROP 0.72PW 0.65PW 0.16EX 0.74LG 0.71EX 0.70EX 0.57EX 0.62LG 0.77LG 0.81EX 0.48LG 0.76PW
BPI 0.74LN 0.61PW 0.61LN 0.84LN 0.70PW 0.63PW 0.50PW 0.43EX 0.77EX 0.84LN 0.34PW 0.82PW
KIC 0.65PW 0.47PW 0.36PW 0.66LN 0.58PW 0.62PW 0.40PW 0.32EX 0.63EX 0.81LN 0.28PW 0.79PW

LN: linear, PW: power, LG: logarithmic, EX: exponential.

Fig. 11. Comparison of some simple equations according to classification systems a) CAI-I, b) CAI-II, c) UPV-I, d) UPV-II, e) O–I and f) O-III

significance levels change between 0.91-1.00). According to Tamhane’s 1 for all equations) > 0.005, ie the groups were homogeneously
T2 test (post-hoc) test results, it can be said that there is no significant distributed (Table 6).
difference between the groups because the significance values (equal to Dunnett’s two-sided T-test (post-hoc) was used to determine the

9
A. Teymen International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258

Table 6
Homogeneity of variances and Welch Anova test.
Parameters Test of homogeneity of variances Robust tests of equality of means

LEVENE STATISTICS WELCH ANOVA

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

UCS 0.024 4 395 0.999 0.000 4 197.4 1.000

E 0.346 4 395 0.847 0.000 4 197.2 1.000
BTS 0.147 4 395 0.964 0.000 4 197.4 1.000
IS50 0.722 4 395 0.577 0.003 4 197.4 1.000
BSA 0.603 4 395 0.660 0.023 4 196.9 0.999
ROP 1.028 4 395 0.392 0.243 4 195.6 0.914
BPI 0.224 4 395 0.925 0.000 4 197.4 1.000
KIC 0.692 4 395 0.598 0.001 4 197.3 1.000
a
Asymptotically F distributed.

Table 7
Anova test.
Parameters Sum of Squares df Mean Square F sig.

UCS Between Groups 0 4 0 0.000 1.000

Within Groups 1632188 395 4132
Total 1632188 399

E Between Groups 0 4 0 0.000 1.000

Within Groups 44686 395 113
Total 44686 399

BTS Between Groups 0 4 0 0.000 1.000

Within Groups 6979 395 18
Total 6979 399

Is50 Between Groups 0 4 0 0.003 1.000

Within Groups 3371 395 9
Total 3371 399

BSA Between Groups 42 4 11 0.018 0.999

Within Groups 236063 395 598
Total 236106 399

ROP Between Groups 1003 4 251 0.153 0.961

Within Groups 646035 395 1636
Total 647038 399

BPI Between Groups 0 4 0 0.000 1.000

Within Groups 26765 395 68
Total 26765 399

KIC Between Groups 0 4 0 0.001 1.000

Within Groups 252 395 1
Total 252 399

relationships between estimation and measurement values. The
measured values (J) were taken as the control group for each main rock
properties used in the study (Table 8; Fig. 12). The significance value to
be used in the post hoc tests should be revised according to the total
number of compared groups. The new significance value can be calcu­
lated using the following equation:
0:05
NSV ¼ � � (4)
n:ðn 1Þ
2
where NSV is the new sig. value, 0.05 is the 95% confidence interval
value, n is the number of compared groups. This value is calculated as
0.005 for all properties.
According to the Dunnett test, each pair of data had very close
average differences, equal standard error, and significance levels. One
can infer from the findings that the main properties of rock materials can
be reliably estimated from any equations considering the correlation and
Anova analysis results.
Percentage error analysis was performed after correlation and Anova
analyses (Table 9). These are relative errors and expressed as
percentages. The relative error is calculated as the absolute error divided
by the magnitude of the measured value. The absolute error is the
magnitude of the difference between the measurement and the estimate.
According to the percentage error analysis, the best equations for each
rock feature are; Eq. (1.3), Eq. (2.2), Eq. (3.2), Eq. (4.4) Eq. (5.3), Eq.
(6.4), Eq. (7.4) and Eq. (8.3). Among the eight equations given above,
the equation with the lowest error rate is the one developed for the UCS
test, while the equation with the highest error rate is related to ROP. As
can be seen from Table 8, Eq. (1.3) has an error value of less than 10%
for 38 samples (47.5% of 80 samples), while Eq. (6.4) has an error value
of less than ten percent for 14 samples (17.5% of 80 samples).
To check the capacity performance of all predictive models, some
statistical performance indices (the root mean square error to observa­
tion’s standard deviation ratio-RSR; weighted mean absolute percentage
error-WMAPE; the variance accounted for-VAF; adjusted determination
coefficient-Adj.R2) were calculated for each model according to the
formulas given below.
� � � �
VAF
PIat1 ¼ Adj:R2 þ RSR WMAPE (5)
100

10
A. Teymen International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258

Table 8
Multiple comparisons of the measured and predicted test values.
Multiple Comparisons Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Dunnett t (2-sided)a

Eqs. No (I) Groups (J) Groups sig. 99.5% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Eq. 1.1 UCSP UCSM 0.0008 10.16 1.000 32.84 32.84

Eq. 1.2 UCSP UCSM 0.0018 10.16 1.000 32.84 32.84
Eq. 1.3 UCSP UCSM 0.0058 10.16 1.000 32.84 32.83
Eq. 1.4 UCSP UCSM 0.0020 10.16 1.000 32.84 32.84

Eq. 2.1 EP EM 0.0011 1.68 1.000 5.44 5.43

Eq. 2.2 EP EM 0.0014 1.68 1.000 5.43 5.44
Eq. 2.3 EP EM 0.0001 1.68 1.000 5.43 5.43
Eq. 2.4 EP EM 0.0026 1.68 1.000 5.43 5.44

Eq. 3.1 BTSP BTSM 0.0000 0.66 1.000 2.15 2.15

Eq. 3.2 BTSP BTSM 0.0037 0.66 1.000 2.15 2.14
Eq. 3.3 BTSP BTSM 0.0012 0.66 1.000 2.15 2.15
Eq. 3.4 BTSP BTSM 0.0025 0.66 1.000 2.15 2.15

Eq. 4.1 Is50P Is50M 0.0393 0.46 1.000 1.45 1.53

Eq. 4.2 Is50P Is50M 0.0018 0.46 1.000 1.49 1.49
Eq. 4.3 Is50P Is50M 0.0033 0.46 1.000 1.50 1.49
Eq. 4.4 Is50P Is50M 0.0008 0.46 1.000 1.49 1.49

Eq. 5.1 BSAP BSAM 0.8186 3.87 0.999 11.67 13.31

Eq. 5.2 BSAP BSAM 0.0049 3.87 1.000 12.48 12.49
Eq. 5.3 BSAP BSAM 0.0224 3.87 1.000 12.47 12.51
Eq. 5.4 BSAP BSAM 0.0039 3.87 1.000 12.49 12.48

Eq. 6.1 ROPP ROPM 3.9579 6.39 0.927 16.70 24.62

Eq. 6.2 ROPP ROPM 0.0034 6.39 1.000 20.66 20.66
Eq. 6.3 ROPP ROPM 0.0016 6.39 1.000 20.66 20.66
Eq. 6.4 ROPP ROPM 0.0004 6.39 1.000 20.66 20.66

Eq. 7.1 BPIP BPIM 0.0046 1.30 1.000 4.20 4.21

Eq. 7.2 BPIP BPIM 0.0004 1.30 1.000 4.21 4.21
Eq. 7.3 BPIP BPIM 0.0034 1.30 1.000 4.20 4.21
Eq. 7.4 BPIP BPIM 0.0041 1.30 1.000 4.21 4.20

Eq. 8.1 KICP KICM 0.0014 0.13 1.000 0.41 0.41

Eq. 8.2 KICP KICM 0.0001 0.13 1.000 0.41 0.41
Eq. 8.3 KICP KICM 0.0051 0.13 1.000 0.40 0.41
Eq. 8.4 KICP KICM 0.0026 0.13 1.000 0.41 0.41
a
Dunnett t-tests treat one group as a control, and compare all other groups against it.

Fig. 12. Comparison of the mean values of the main mechanical tests obtained from different methods.

ðn 1Þ � � �
Adj:R2 ¼ 1 1 R2 (6) Pn ��ti oi ��
ðn p 1Þ i¼1 � ti �
WMAPE ¼ Pn (8)
� � i¼1 ti
varðti oi Þ
VAF ¼ 1 :100 (7)
varðti Þ

11
A. Teymen International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258

Table 9
Percentage error and PIat1 values for predicted methods.
Eqs. number Percentage error �10 % Differences between Differences PIat1

Number of samples Percent of samples (%) Best Eq. and other Eqs. (%)

Eq. 1.1 20 25.0 (Eq. 1.3-Eq. 1.1) 22.5 1.16

Eq. 1.2 36 45.0 (Eq. 1.3-Eq. 1.2) 2.5 1.71
Eq. 1.3 38 47.5 (Eq. 1.3-Eq. 1.3) 0.0 1.63
Eq. 1.4 33 41.3 (Eq. 1.3-Eq. 1.4) 6.3 1.59

Eq. 2.1 10 12.5 (Eq. 2.2-Eq. 2.1) 27.5 0.71

Eq. 2.2 32 40.0 (Eq. 2.2-Eq. 2.2) 0.0 1.45
Eq. 2.3 29 36.3 (Eq. 2.2-Eq. 2.3) 3.8 1.40
Eq. 2.4 21 26.3 (Eq. 2.2-Eq. 2.4) 13.8 1.14

Eq. 3.1 24 30.0 (Eq. 3.2-Eq. 3.1) 8.8 0.94

Eq. 3.2 31 38.8 (Eq. 3.2-Eq. 3.2) 0.0 1.47
Eq. 3.3 29 36.3 (Eq. 3.2-Eq. 3.3) 2.5 1.39
Eq. 3.4 30 37.5 (Eq. 3.2-Eq. 3.4) 1.3 1.30

Eq. 4.1 20 25.0 (Eq. 4.4-Eq. 4.1) 11.3 0.98

Eq. 4.2 25 31.3 (Eq. 4.4-Eq. 4.2) 5.0 1.26
Eq. 4.3 26 32.5 (Eq. 4.4-Eq. 4.3) 3.8 1.30
Eq. 4.4 29 36.3 (Eq. 4.4-Eq. 4.4) 0.0 1.32

Eq. 5.1 14 17.5 (Eq. 5.3-Eq. 5.1) 16.3 0.58

Eq. 5.2 22 27.5 (Eq. 5.3-Eq. 5.2) 6.3 1.29
Eq. 5.3 27 33.8 (Eq. 5.3-Eq. 5.3) 0.0 1.27
Eq. 5.4 17 21.3 (Eq. 5.3-Eq. 5.4) 12.5 1.18

Eq. 6.1 1 1.3 (Eq. 6.4-Eq. 6.1) 16.3 0.17

Eq. 6.2 12 15.0 (Eq. 6.4-Eq. 6.2) 2.5 1.35
Eq. 6.3 8 10.0 (Eq. 6.4-Eq. 6.3) 7.5 1.31
Eq. 6.4 14 17.5 (Eq. 6.4-Eq. 6.4) 0.0 1.31

Eq. 7.1 22 27.5 (Eq. 7.4-Eq. 6.1) 5.0 0.96

Eq. 7.2 25 31.3 (Eq. 7.4-Eq. 6.2) 1.3 1.39
Eq. 7.3 20 25.0 (Eq. 7.4-Eq. 6.3) 7.5 1.36
Eq. 7.4 26 32.5 (Eq. 7.4-Eq. 6.4) 0.0 1.30

Eq. 8.1 12 15.0 (Eq. 8.3-Eq. 8.1) 10.0 0.30

Eq. 8.2 19 23.8 (Eq. 8.3-Eq. 8.2) 1.3 0.82
Eq. 8.3 20 25.0 (Eq. 8.3-Eq. 8.3) 0.0 0.81
Eq. 8.4 18 22.5 (Eq. 8.3-Eq. 8.4) 2.5 0.64

RMSE follows; Eq. (1.2) (1.71-UCS); Eq. (2.2) (1.45-E); Eq. (3.2) (1.47-BTS);
RSR ¼ qffiffiP
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (9)
1 n 2 Eq. (4.4) (1.32-Is50); Eq. (5.2) (1.29-BSA); Eq. (6.2) (1.35-ROP); Eq.
i¼1 ðti ti Þ
n
(7.2) (1.39-BPI); Eq. (8.2) (0.82-KIC).
Table 9 shows the calculated PIat1 values for the equations developed
where; t is the target value obtained from the experimental studies. o is
using one, two, three, and four independent variables for each main rock
the output value of models. ti is the arithmetic mean of target variables
property. In principle, the comparison of PIat1 values of these four
obtained from the formulas. oi is the arithmetic mean of model vari­
equations was made according to the arithmetic mean. According to this
ables. var is variance. and n is the number of experimental study data. p
criterion, the most reliable correlations with the CAI were obtained from
denotes the model input quantity. PIat1 is the performance index value
UCS (1.52), BTS (1.27), and BPI (1.25) tests, while the lowest-
developed by author in this study based on the PI value recommended
performing tests were KIC (0.5), ROP (1.04), and BSA (1.08),
by Yagiz et all.43 VAF is the variance account factor. WMAPE measures
respectively.
the weighted mean absolute percentage error of the prediction. Adj.R2 is
the adjusted determination coefficient. RSR incorporates the benefits of
6. Conclusions
error index statistics and includes a scaling/normalization factor so that
the resulting statistic and reported values can apply to various constit­
In this study, a series of statistical studies have been carried out to
uents. The optimal value of RSR is zero.
estimate the basic rock mechanics test results carried out using samples
It is rather difficult to select a more accurate model for predicting the
prepared in specific sizes with the CAI test which is practiced in rock
independent variables. Essentially, the accuracy of models can be
wear.
examined separately using performance indices such as WMAPE, VAF,
In addition to presenting the relationship between some commonly
RMSE, RSR, and R2, but one of these indices is not superior to the others.
known parameters (UCS, E, BTS, and Is50) and CAI, it is aimed to
Four of these performance indices were combined in the same formula
contribute to the literature the practical equations concerning some
and the performance index given in Eq. (5) was calculated to compare
parameters (BSA, ROP, BPI, and KIC) which the researchers do not work
the performance of the developed models. Theoretically, for a model to
a lot.
be considered excellent, the Adj. R2 value must be “1”, the VAF value
In addition to the correlation studies using 80 rocks, the data set
“100”, the WMAPE value “0” and the RSR value must be “0”. Theoret­
grouped using various classification systems were evaluated in detail.
ically, the PIat1 value of excellent prediction models is equal to 2 as
The results from multiple and simple regression analysis performed with
expected. Therefore, the model with the highest average PIat1 value
test results were summarized in the following items.
should be the most reliable and accurate one. The most reliable and
In the simple regression analysis, the weakest correlation between
accurate equations according to the PIat1 values given in Table 9 are as
these eight tests was obtained from the KIC test (Eq. 8.1). In the

12
A. Teymen
correlation studies using the CAI test, the strongest relationships were
obtained by UCS, Is50 and BPI tests, respectively.
Equations obtained from multiple regression analyzes have higher
predictive power and determination coefficient than simple equations.
Simple equations are reliable and sufficiently practical when used
especially estimation purposes. However, if more than one independent
variable is obtained, multiple equations can be used for more precise
estimation. Several multiple regression equations have been developed
for the estimation of main rock properties. According to the determi­
nation coefficients, all equations have high prediction performance.
Only some aggregate pieces are used in a part of the tests while very
small samples are needed in some of the tests used in the estimation of
main properties. Equations with high correlation coefficients presented
in this study can be reliably used for rocks in situations where it is not
possible to determine an important mechanical parameter such as UCS.
It is clear that the estimation equations with two independent vari­
ables are more reliable than the others in multiple regression studies.
Declaration of competing interest
The author declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
1 Deketh HJR. Wear of Rock Cutting Tools Laboratory Experiments on the Abrasivity of
Rock. Rotterdam, Netherlands: AA Balkema; 1995:143.
2 ISRM. Suggested methods for determining hardness and abrasiveness of rocks. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr. 1978;15:89–97.
3 McFeat-Smith I, Fowell RJ, Babtie S, Babtie M. Correlation of rock properties and the
cutting performance of tunnelling machines. In: Proceedings Rock Eng. University of
Newcastle Upon Tyne; 1977:581–602.
4 West G. A review of rock abrasiveness testing for tunnelling. In: Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Weak Rock. 1. 1981:585–594. Tokyo.
5 Evenden M. Methods of Determining Rock Hardness and Abrasivity. PhD Thesis.
Institute of Technology and Science, Univ. of Notthingham; 1983:134.
6 Atkinson T, Cassapy VB, Singh I. Assessment of abrasive wear resistance potential in
rock excavation machinery. Int J Min Geol Eng. 1986;3:151–163. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF01560672.
7 The Cerchar Abrasivity Index. Verneuil: Centre d’E’ tudes et des Recherches des
Charbonnages de France; 1986.
8 AFNOR. NF P 94-430-1. Determination du pouvoir abrasif d’une roche-Partie 1: Essai de
rayure avec une pointe. 2000. Paris.
9 ASTM D7625-10. Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Abrasiveness of
Rock Using the CERCHAR Method. West Conshohocken. PA: ASTM International;
2010. https://doi.org/10.1520/D7625-10.
10 ISRM. Suggested Method for Determining the Abrasivity of Rock by the Cerchar
Abrasivity Test. The ISRM Suggested Method for Rock Characterization, Testing and
Monitoring: 2007-2014. In: Ulusay R, ed. USA: Springer; 2015:101–106.
11 Valantin A. Examen des diffe’rents proce’de’s classiques de de’termination de la nocivite’
des roches vis-a-vis de l’abattage me’canique. Expose Presente’ Aux Journe’es
d’information Techniques de Creusement, les 28–29 Novembre. Luxemburg. 1974:
133–140.
12 West G. Rock abrasiveness testing for tunnelling. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1989;26:
151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(89)90003-X.
13 Suana M, Peters T. The Cerchar Abrasivity Index and its relation to rock mineralogy
and petrography. Rock Mech. Felsmech. Mecanique Des. Roches. 1982;15(1):1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01239473.
14 West G. A relation between abrasiveness and quartz content for some coal measures
sediments. Int J Min Geol Eng. 1986;4:73–78. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp3049982.
15 Johnson ST, Fowell RJ. Compressive strength is not enough (assessing pick wear for
drag tool-equipped machines). In: Proceedings of the 27th US Symp Rock Mechanics.
Alabama, USA: Tuscaloosa; 1986:840–845.
16 Al-Ameen SI, Waller MD. The influence of rock strength and abrasive mineral content
on the Cerchar Abrasive Index. Eng Geol. 1994;36:293–301. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0013-7952(94)90010-8.
17 Plinninger R, Kasling H, Thuro K, Spaun G. Testing conditions and geomechanical
properties influencing the Cerchar abrasiveness index (CAI) value. Technical note. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2003;40(2):259–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(02)
00140-5.
13
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 128 (2020) 104258
18 Plinninger R, Kasling H, Thuro K. Wear prediction in hardrock excavation using the
Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI). In: Schubert, ed. Proc. EUROCK 2004 and 5rd
Geomechanics Colloquium VGE. Germany: Essen; 2004:599–604.
19 Yaralı O, Akçın NA. Investigation of relationships between Cerchar hardness index
values and strength properties. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Mining
Congress and Fair of Turkey (IMCET2005). Izmir,
_ Turkey. 2005:271–281, 09-12 June.
20 Michalakopoulos T, Anagnostou VG, Bassanou ME, Panagiotou GN. The influence of
steel styli hardness on the Cerchar abrasiveness index value. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
2006;43:321–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.06.009.
21 Lassnig K, Latal C, Klima K. Impact of grain size on the cerchar abrasiveness. Test.
Geomech. Tunn.. 2008:71–76 https://doi.org/10.1002/geot.200800008.
22 Alber M. Stress dependency of the Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) and its effects on
wear of selected rock cutting tools. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2008;23(4):351–359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2007.05.008.
23 Kahraman S, Alber M, Fener M, Gunaydin O. The usability of Cerchar abrasivity
index for the prediction of UCS and E of Misis Fault Breccia: regression and artificial
neural networks analysis. Expert Syst Appl. 2010;37:8750–8756. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.039.
24 Deliormanli AH. Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) and its relation to strength and
abrasion test methods for marble stones. Construct Build Mater. 2012;30. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.023.
25 Dipova N. Investigation of the relationships between abrasiveness and strength
properties of weak limestones along a tunnel route. Geol. Eng. 2012;36(1):23–34.
26 Yaralı O. Investigation of the effect into mechanical properties of rocks on Cerchar
Abrasivity Index. Karaelmas Fen ve Müh. Derg. 2016;6(1):218–229.
27 Moradizadeh M, Cheshomi A, Ghafoori M, TrighAzali S. Correlation of equivalent
quartz content, Slake durability index and Is50 with Cerchar abrasiveness index for
different types of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2016;86:42–47. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.04.003.
28 Er S, Tu� grul A. Estimation of Cerchar abrasivity index of granitic rocks in Turkey by
geological properties using regression analysis. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2016;75(3):
1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0853-y.
29 Er S, Tu� grul A. Correlation of physico-mechanical properties of granitic rocks with
Cerchar Abrasivity Index in Turkey. Measurement. 2016;91:114–123. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.05.034.
30 Majeed Y, Abu Bakar MZ. Statistical evaluation of CERCHAR Abrasivity Index (CAI)
measurement methods and dependence on petrographic and mechanical properties
of selected rocks of Pakistan. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2016;75(3):1341–1360. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10064-015-0799-5.
31 Ko TY, Kim TK, Son Y, Jeon S. Effect of geomechanical properties on Cerchar
Abrasivity Index (CAI) and its application to TBM tunneling. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol. 2016;57:99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.02.006.
32 Yaralı O. Investigation into relationships between Cerchar hardness index and some
mechanical properties of coal measure rocks. Geotech Geol Eng. 2017;35:1605–1614.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0195-y.
33 Ozdogan MV, Deliormanli AH, Yenice H. The correlations between the Cerchar
abrasivity index and the geomechanical properties of building stones. Arab. J. Geosci.
2018;11(20):604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3958-8.
34 Kadkhodaei MH, Ghasemi E. Development of a GEP model to assess CERCHAR
abrasivity index of rocks based on geomechanical properties. J. Min. Environ. 2019;
10(4):917–928. https://doi.org/10.22044/jme.2019.8141.1684.
35 ISRM. Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring – Commission on Standardization
Laboratory and Field Results. Suggested Methods for Determining Hardness and
Abrasiveness of Rocks. Oxford: Pergamon; 1981:102–103. Part 4.
36 TSE 699. Methods of Testing for Natural Building Stones. Ankara, Turkey: Institute of
Turkish Standards (TSE); 1987.
37 ASTM C 241-90. Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Stone Subjected to
Foot Traffic. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Ame. Soc. Testing Mater. (ASTM);
1990.
38 Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C, Sulukcu S. Draft ISRM suggested method for determining
block punch strength index (BPI). Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2001;38(8):1113–1199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1365-1609(01)00078-8.
39 Chong KP, Kuruppu MD. New specimen for fracture toughness determination for
rock and other materials. Int J Fract. 1984;26:59–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF01157555.
40 Paone J, Madson D, Bruce WE. Drillability studies: laboratory percussive drilling.
USBM RI. 1969;7300.
41 Tandanand S, Unger HF. Drillability determination: a drillability index of percussive
drills. 1975. USBM RI 8073.
42 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:
103.
43 Yagiz S, Sezer EA, Gokceoglu C. Artificial neural networks and nonlinear regression
techniques to assess the influence of slake durability cycles on the prediction of
uniaxial compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for carbonate rocks. Int J
Numer Anal Methods GeoMech. 2012;36:1636–1650. https://doi.org/10.1002/
nag.1066.