International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 1113–1119
Draft ISRM suggested method for determining block punch
strength index (BPI)
R. Ulusay*, C. Gokceoglu, S. Sulukcu
Department of Geological Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Applied Geology Division, Hacettepe University, 06532 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey
Accepted 26 November 2001
1. Introduction
1.1. Rock strength, particularly the uniaxial compres-
sive strength (UCS) is an important parameter in rock
mass classification methods and in various rock
engineering design approaches. Measurement of rock
strength requires testing which must be undertaken on
test specimens of particular sizes in order to fulfill testing
standards. However, there are some shortcomings
associated with these conventional tests. When rock
cores are only divided into small discs, due to the
presence of thin bedding or schistosity planes, the core
length may be too short to allow preparation of the
specimens long enough even for the point load strength
index test.
1.2. To overcome the above-mentioned difficulty, the
possibility of using relatively short samples for a rock
strength or index test has always been attractive. The
block punch strength index (BPI) test apparatus, which
was similar to that used for the measurement of direct
shear strength of a thin plate of rock [1–2], has been
developed in Delft University, The Netherlands, as an
index test in directly assessing UCS by Schrier [3].
However, in the previous studies, rock-disc specimens of
about 40 mm in diameter and 10 mm in thickness were
tested, and the size effect of the test specimens and the
use of the BPI test in rock engineering have not been
considered.
The studies by Ulusay and Gokceoglu [4–6] indicated
that size correction was indispensable in the BPI test and
the use of a generalized size correction factor established
from the experimental data should be used. A consider-
ably important correlation found between UCS and BPI
indicates that BPI tests lead to insignificant errors in
determining UCS when compared to those obtained
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-312-297-7767; fax: +90-312-299-
2034.
E-mail address: resat@hacettepe.edu.tr (R. Ulusay).
1365-1609/01/$ - see front matter r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
PII: S 1 3 6 5 - 1 6 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 7 8 - 8
from point load testing, particularly for laminated weak
rocks [4–7]. It was also suggested that BPI be used as an
alternative input parameter for intact rock strength in
rock mass classification and as a measure of anisotropy
using oriented disc samples [4–7].
1.3. The BPI test described in this suggested method is
applied to the rock-disc specimens, and involves the use
of size correction, and determination of the strength in
the strongest direction where only core samples from
boreholes drilled at any angle to the weakness planes are
available.
1.4. In this suggested method, the apparatus and
operating procedure are described together with data
evaluation. There is an explanation for the presentation
of the results. The empirical relationships to predict
some strength parameters from BPI are also presented
in the last chapter.
2. Scope
2.1. The block punch strength index test is intended as
an index test for the strength classification of rock
materials. It is also be used to predict other strength
parameters with which it is correlated, for example
uniaxial compressive and tensile strength.
2.2. The test measures the size-corrected block punch
strength index ðBPIs Þ of rock specimens, and their
strength index in the strongest direction ðBPIs90 Þ which
is calculated from the multiplication of a strength
anisotropy transformation factor with the BPIs value
of the specimens obtained from cores inclined at any
angle to the weakness planes.
2.3. Rock specimens in the form of thin cylindrical
discs prepared from cores or blocks are placed into an
apparatus which is designed to fit the point load device,
and are broken by the application of load by a
rectangular rigid punching block.
1114 R. Ulusay et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 1113–1119
2.4. The test can be performed with a portable
apparatus and point load device, and so may be
conducted in the laboratory. However, it can also
be performed in the field if the facilities for cutting
the specimen into small discs are available.
3. Apparatus
3.1. There are no published standards for construc-
tion of the apparatus for a block punch index test, and
since this test apparatus is not commercially available, it
has to be designed and fabricated in-house. The end
result of the design and fabrication process is a unit
consisting of two major parts: a lower platen (base
support) and an upper platen (punching block) as can be
seen in Fig. 1a. Both these platens should be machined
from hardened tool steel with a Rockwell hardness of 40
Fig. 1. (a) A general view from the BPI test apparatus consisting of
base support, steel bars and punching block; (b) a plan view from the
base support before clamping of the specimen; (c) a perspective view of
the base support after the specimen is fixed; and (d) a schematic view
from the punching canal of the base support.
Fig. 2. BPI test device fitted into a point load testing frame (PB:
punching block; BS: base support; R: ram).
in order to withstand the high stresses generated during
the test.
3.2. The base support is fitted to the columns of the
point load test frame through the holes (Fig. 1b) at its
both ends and then it is attached to the ram of the frame
by means of a block with a hole at its bottom (Fig. 1c) as
shown in Fig. 2. Because the punching block is designed
to thread into the base support to allow sandwiching of
the rock-disc specimen, the base support should have a
rectangular canal along the centre of its axis through
which the punching block passes (Fig. 1b). The disc
specimen placed on the base support (Fig. 1b) is
clamped from its two ends by means of clamping bars
which are screwed down as shown in Fig. 1c. The
dimensions and tolerances of the base support are not
given here specifically, because they depend on the type
and size of the point load-testing device, particularly
diameter of its reaction rods (columns). However, the
width of the base canal can be taken as 19.75 mm
(Fig. 1c). Some of the information is in Refs. [4–7] and
further information can be obtained from Professor
Ulusay and Asistant Professor Gokceoglu.
3.3. The second part of the device forms
the rectangular rigid punching block, which transfers
the load onto the specimen. It is designed to thread into
the canal along the axis of the base support. Therefore,
it should easily pass between the walls of the canal with
a clearance of approximately 0.25 mm. Several views
from the punching block and its dimensions are shown
 R. Ulusay et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 1113–1119
Fig. 3. Dimensions of the punching block of the BPI apparatus.
in Fig. 3. This part of the apparatus is attached to the
upper rigid block of the point load-testing device by
means of a long screw as can be seen in Figs. 1a and 2.
3.4. The load is provided by a conventional portable
point load-testing device comprising a hydraulic ram
and a manual hydraulic pump equipped with a pressure
gauge. Spherically truncated conical platens of the point
load-testing device are removed during the BPI test. To
apply a load approximately at a given rate, the hydraulic
pump is manually operated while simultaneously both
the pressure gauge and a stopwatch are monitored.
3.5. An instrument, such as caliper is required to
measure diameter D and thickness t of the specimens.
When the test is carried out on cores from boreholes at
any angle to the weakness planes, a device such as a
goniometer should be used to measure the inclination of
the weakness planes.
4. Procedure
4.1. Specimen preparation
4.1. Test specimens should be right cylindrical thin
discs. For the purpose, the cores are cut into discs of
various raw thicknesses ranging between 5 and 15 mm
using a diamond saw perpendicularly to the core axis.
The diameter of the disc specimens should preferably be
not less than BX core size approximately 42 mm.
4.2. Although nearly all of the specimens are prepared
without special treatment, care should be taken to
ensure that the disc faces are as parallel as possible and
the sides of the specimens are smooth and free of abrupt
irregularities. However, if it is required, a surface-
grinding machine can be used to smooth the end faces of
the discs.
1115
4.3. The use of capping material or end surface
treatments between the upper surface of the specimen
and the punching block is not permitted.
4.4. The diameter D of the test specimen should be
measured to the nearest 0.1 mm by averaging two
diameters measured at right angles to each other at
about the mid-height of the specimen. The thickness of
the specimen should also be determined to the nearest
0.1 mm by averaging two thicknesses measured at right
angles to each other. The average values of diameter and
thickness are later used in any subsequent calculations.
4.5. For routine testing and classification, specimens
should be tested either at their natural water content or
air dried. Samples should be stored, for no longer than
30 days, in such a way as to preserve their natural water
content, as far as possible, and tested in that condition.
This moisture content should be reported in accordance
with ‘‘Suggested method for determination of the water
content of a rock sample’’, Method 1, ISRM Committee
on Laboratory Tests [8].
4.6. If the BPI test has to be carried out to measure
the strength anisotropy (i.e. to estimate the strength in
the strongest direction from the specimens obtained
from the cores inclined at any angle to the weakness
planes), the inclination of the weakness plane a should
be measured by a goniometer to the nearest 11.
4.7. The number of specimens tested under a specified
set of conditions shall be governed by practical
considerations, but at least five are preferred.
4.2. Testing
4.8. The base support of the BPI apparatus is
mounted onto the ram of the point load device of which
conical platens have been removed. The punching block
is fixed to the upper block of the device by means of a
1116 R. Ulusay et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 1113–1119

Fig. 5. Schematic illustrations of the BPI test specimen before and

after failure.
Fig. 4. A view from the block punch index testing in point load test
device.

screw. The specimen is then centered on the base

support of the test apparatus (see Fig. 1d) and clamped
to be sure that it does not move and is tightly fixed (see
Fig. 1b). By using the hand pump, the base support is
risen up until the punching block is nearly touching the
specimen.
4.9. The load is then gradually applied to the
specimen at a constant rate such that failure occurs
within 10–60 s as suggested by ISRM [8] for point load
strength (Fig 4). Fracturing is thus forced to take place
along two parallel planes on which the normal stress is
considered to be zero while the tensile stresses caused by
bending are reduced. The load Ft;D which is the load
required for the failure of a specimen of any diameter
and any thickness, is recorded. After failure, theoreti-
cally, the specimen is broken into three parts, the
two ends which are fixed in the apparatus and the
middle part of the specimen which is punched out Fig. 6. Views from the specimens after BPI test, and the failure
patterns for valid and invalid tests.
(Fig. 5). The test should be rejected as invalid if the
parallel fracture planes are either absent or not fully
developed (irregular failure) or cross joints develop as
shown in Fig. 6. where Ft;D is the failure load recorded from the gauge in
4.10. The procedure (4.8) through (4.9) given above is kN (and converted to MN by the multiplication of
repeated for the remaining tests in the sample. 103), and A is the area (in m2) through which the
shearing takes place. The formula quoted below is for
the area
5. Calculations A ¼ 4tðr2  95:1Þ0:5  106 ðm2 Þ; ð2Þ
where t and r are the thickness and radius of a disc
5.1. Uncorrected block punch strength index
specimen (in mm), respectively (Fig. 7).
5.1. The uncorrected block punch strength index BPI
5.2. Size correction
(in MPa) is calculated from the following equation:
103 Ft;D 5.2. BPI varies as a function of D and t [4–7], so that a
BPI ¼ ; ð1Þ
A size correction must be applied to obtain a unique block
 R. Ulusay et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 1113–1119 1117

Fig. 7. Calculation steps of the area ðAÞ of the failure surface in the
BPI test.

punch strength index value for the rock sample and one
that can be used for purposes of rock strength
classification.
5.3. The size-corrected block punch strength index
(BPI10;50 or BPIs ) of a rock specimen is defined as
the value of BPI that would have been calculated from a
failure load converted to a corrected load for a nomi-
nal 50 mm diameter and 10 mm thickness by multiplying
BPI with the constants Kt and KD ; representing
correction factors for thickness and diameter,
respectively.
Because the load at failure is converted to a corrected
BPI value for a equivalent size (D ¼ 50 mm,
t ¼ 10 mm), the area of the surface through which
shearing takes place used in calculation of the corrected
BPI should be expressed in terms of equivalent specimen
dimensions. The equivalent area ðA10;50 Þ is
921  106 m2. When testing single-sized disc specimen
with a diameter and thickness other than 50 mm and
10 mm, respectively, the size correction is accomplished
using the formula
F10;50 Ft;D  103  Kt  KD
BPI10;50 ðBPIs Þ ¼ ¼ ðMPaÞ:
A10;50 921  106
The correction factors Kt and KD can be obtained
from the charts in Fig. 8 or from the expressions:
Kt ¼ 13:741:1265 ðthickness correction factorÞ;
KD ¼ 234:53D1:3926 ðdiameter correction factorÞ:
Alternatively, the following equation derived from the
combination of Eqs. (3), (4a) and (4b) is used to obtain
Fig. 8. Charts for the size correction factors to be used in the
calculation of the corrected BPI [7].
the corrected BPI value without considering the failure
area
BPIc ¼ 3499D1:3926 t1:1265 Ft;D ; ð5Þ
where D and t are in mm and Ft;D is in kN.
5.3. Strength index in the strongest direction
5.4. In the case of a testing, which is carried out on
specimens prepared from cores from boreholes inclined
at any angle to the weakness planes, if determination of
the strength index in the strongest direction (i.e. loading
perpendicular to the weakness plane) is considered, an
ð3Þ additional conversion on BPIs should be done. For the
purpose, a strength anisotropy transformation factor of
Ka was suggested by Ulusay and Gokceoglu [4–6]
ð4aÞ BPIs90
Ka ¼ ; ð6Þ
BPIsa
ð4bÞ
where BPIs90 is the BPIs of the specimens obtained from
boreholes perpendicular to the weakness planes (stron-
gest direction), and BPIsa is the BPIs of the specimens
1118 R. Ulusay et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 1113–1119

from boreholes inclined at any angle to the weakness 6. Presentation of results

planes.
The relationship between the values of Ka and the
angle a (the angle in degrees between the core axis and
the weakness plane) (Fig. 9) is given by the following
expression:
Ka ¼ 4:24e0:0156a :
Corrected BPI value in the strongest direction is
obtained from the expression, which is the combination
of Eqs. (6) and (7)
BPIs90 ¼ 4:24 e0:0156a BPIsa :
6.1. Results for BPI test should be tabulated (see
typical results shown in Fig. 10). The report should
contain at least the following information for each
specimen tested:
(a) Lithologic description of the rock.
ð7Þ
(b) Orientation of the axis of loading with respect to
specimen anisotropy, e.g. bedding planes, foliation,
etc. (angle a).
(c) The sample number, source location and sampling
depth.
(d) Number of specimens tested.
ð8Þ (e) Water content at time of test (air dried, oven dried
or value of water content in per cent).
(f) Date of testing.
(g) Failure pattern.
(h) A tabulation of the values of diameter and thickness
of the specimens, failure load and corrected block
punch strength index, and strength index in the
strongest direction if the angle between the direction
of loading and weakness planes is o901. All BPIc
values should be expressed to three significant
figures.

7. Notes

7.1. When first introduced, the block punch strength

Fig. 9. Strength anisotropy transformation factor ðKa Þ as a function of
the angle ðaÞ between the weakness plane and loading direction in the
BPI test [4].
index test, without application of any size correction,
was used to predict uniaxial compressive strength [3].
Then, it was experimentally shown [4–7] that the BPI
test could be more preferable in the estimation of the
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), because the BPI

Fig. 10. Typical results for the BPI test.

 R. Ulusay et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 1113–1119
Fig. 11. Rating chart of the block punch strength index and uniaxial
compressive strength for RMR and M-RMR rock mass classification
systems [7].
tests lead to insignificant errors in determining UCS
when compared with those obtained from point load
testing which yields a multiplying factor of k to predict
UCS ranging between 15 and 50 depending on rock
type. The following relation between the UCS and the
corrected BPI was obtained by regression analysis with a
statistically significant correlation of 0.90 [7]:
UCS ¼ 5:1BPIs : ð9Þ
7.2. Assuming a mean of UCS=BPIs ; the ratio of 5.1
leads to errors of maximum 20 per cent in estimations of
the UCS from BPIs [7]. This may be sufficiently accurate
for using BPI as an index for intact rock strength in rock
mass classification. Therefore, the BPI can be intro-
duced into rock mass classification systems as an
alternative strength index input parameter, especially
for weak rocks where obtaining a standard specimen
is rather difficult. If the ranges of UCS used in
Bieniawski’s Geomechanical Classification (RMR)
System [9], and M-RMR System [10–11], which is a
modification of RMR, are divided by the strength
conversion factor of 5.1, and decimals are avoided,
perhaps a more realistic scale for BPIs can be obtained.
For this purpose, a combined chart (Fig. 11) which
considers both rock mass classification systems showing
the variation of the rating both for block punch strength
index and UCS, and the BPI classification (Table 1) can
be used.
7.3. BPI is approximately 0.68 times of the indirect
tensile or Brazilian tensile strength [7].
1119
Table 1
Classification of block punch strength index [7]
BPIs (MPa) Strength class
o1 Very weak
1–5 Weak
5–10 Moderate
10–20 Medium
20–50 High
>50 Very high
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the encouragement
and support given by Professor J.A. Hudson of Imperial
College of Science, Technology and Medicine in the UK.
The co-ordinators are also most grateful to Professor K.
Sugawara of Department of Civil Engineering, Kuma-
moto University in Japan for his kind interest at the
beginning of the studies on the suggested method.
References
[1] Mazanti BB, Sowers GF. Laboratory testing of rock strength. In:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Testing Techni-
ques for Rock Mechanics, Seattle, Washington, 1965. p. 207–27.
[2] Stacey TR. A simple device for the direct shear strength testing of
intact rock. J SA Inst Min Metall 1980;80(3):129–30.
[3] Schrier van der JS. The block punch index test. Bull Int Assoc Eng
Geol 1988;38:121–6.
[4] Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C. The modified block punch index test.
Can Geotech J 1997;34:991–1001.
[5] Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C. An experimental study on the size effect
in block punch index test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1998;35(4–
5):628–9 (In: NARMS’98 ISRM International Symposium,
Cancun, Mexico, Paper No. 008).
[6] Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C. A new test procedure for the
determination of the Block Punch Index and its possible uses in
rock engineering. ISRM News J 1999;6(1):50–4.
[7] Sulukcu S, Ulusay R. Evaluation of the block punch index test
with prime consideration on size effect, failure mechanism and its
effectiveness in predicting rock strength. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 2001;38(8):1091–1111.
[8] I.S.R.M. Rock characterization. In: Brown ET, editor. Testing
and monitoringFISRM suggested methods. Oxford, UK: Perga-
mon Press, 1981; 211p.
[9] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classification. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1989. 237p.
[10] Unal E, Ozkan I. Determination of classification parameters for
clay bearing and stratified rock masses. In: Peng S, editor.
Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Ground
Control in Mining, West Virginia University, 1990. p. 250–9.
[11] Ulusay R, Unal E, Ozkan I. Characterization of weak, stratified
and clay-bearing rock masses for engineering applications. In:
Myer LR, Cook NGW, Goodman RE, Tsans CF, editors.
Proceedings of the Conference on Fractured and Jointed Rock
Masses, Lake Tahoe, California, 1995. p. 229–35.