See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257445176

Predicting the Uniaxial Compressive and Tensile Strengths of Gypsum Rock by

Point Load Testing

Article  in  Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering · March 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s00603-011-0196-8

CITATIONS READS

89 2,662

4 authors, including:

Mojtaba Heidari G. R. Khanlari

Buali Sina University Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
75 PUBLICATIONS   616 CITATIONS    230 PUBLICATIONS   743 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mehdi Torabi-Kaveh
Yazd University
34 PUBLICATIONS   332 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

------- View project

Part of the research done in the form of a doctoral dissertation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by G. R. Khanlari on 22 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rock Mech Rock Eng
DOI 10.1007/s00603-011-0196-8
TECHNICAL NOTE
Predicting the Uniaxial Compressive and Tensile Strengths
of Gypsum Rock by Point Load Testing
M. Heidari • G. R. Khanlari • Mehdi Torabi Kaveh •
S. Kargarian
Received: 25 October 2010 / Accepted: 17 October 2011
Ó Springer-Verlag 2011
Keywords Gypsum rock  Uniaxial compressive strength 
Brazilian tensile strength  Point load strength index
1 Introduction
Uniaxial compressive and tensile strengths are considered
key properties for characterising rock material in engi-
neering practice. They are determined, directly and indi-
rectly, as described by the International Society for Rock
Mechanics (ISRM) (1985) and the American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM) (1986). The point load strength
index (PLSI), an indirect strength test, has been correlated
empirically with both the compressive and tensile strengths
of rock. The point load test (PLT) may be applied to
cylindrical specimens, either along the axis, or the diam-
eter, but as noted by Chau (1998), the diametral PLT is
preferred (Bieniawski 1975). In the PLT, rock specimens
(of cylindrical, prismatic, or irregular form) are loaded
between two platen contact points, and they fail by the
development of one or more extensional planes containing
the line of loading. According to recommendations by
ISRM (1985) and the standards of ASTM (1986), these
types of failure mode are regarded as valid, whereas
deviations from them are treated as invalid.
Although relatively simple, the uniaxial compressive
test is time-consuming and expensive, and it requires well-
prepared cores. For these reasons, indirect tests such as the
PLT, the Schmidt hammer rebound test, and sound velocity
M. Heidari (&)  G. R. Khanlari  M. Torabi Kaveh 
S. Kargarian
Department of Geology, Faculty of Sciences, Bu-Ali Sina
University, Mahdieh Ave., 65175-38695 Hamedan, Iran
e-mail: Heidari_Enggeol@Yahoo.com
measurements (Sonmez et al. 2004, 2006) are often used to
predict the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS). Tensile
strength may be measured directly, but in practice it is
difficult to do so. Instead, the indirect method of Brazilian
testing can be used, as recommended by ISRM (1978).
The Brazilian test measures tensile strength indirectly by
developing tension across the diameter of a rock disc that is
subjected to compression through a vertical load. In prac-
tice, however, the test has limitations, and more experi-
mental data are needed to substantiate the correlation
between the point load index and the UCS.
The objective of this paper is to compare all of the PLT
methods and their usefulness in practical applications. This
study presents the PLSI (Is(50)) (air-dried and saturated
states) obtained by three methods (axial, diametral, and
irregular), and establishes the relationships between them.
We then develop empirical equations relating UCS and
Brazilian tensile strength (BTS) to Is(50) with the aim of
obtaining simple, fast, practical and economical estimates
of the UCS and BTS of gypsum rocks.
2 Geological Setting
The Gachsaran Formation (Early Miocene) of Zagros
Basin, Iran, is an evaporitic interval comprising interbeds
of marl, salt, anhydrite, gypsum, and very thin beds of
dolomitic limestone. Based on lithological variations, the
formation is divided into seven members (Slinger and
Crichton 1959; James and Wynd 1965). The formation was
named in Iran after the Gachsaran oil field, where it is best
developed (Fig. 1). The properties of the rocks of the for-
mation are influenced by mineral composition, texture
(grain-size and shape), fabric, mineral distribution, voids,
and the state of weathering (Irfan 1996). The evaporites
123

Fig. 1 Geological map of study area (modified Gachsaran geological map, 1:100,000, Iranian Oil Operating Companies (IOOC), 1966)
include a wide range of rock types that vary in mineralogy,
petrography, and engineering properties. Large variations
in mechanical properties have been attributed to variations
in the petrographic characteristics of the evaporites.
Petrographical studies using thin sections of the
Gachsaran gypsum rocks indicate that the principal mineral
gypsum is cut by veins of micrite, scattered through the
rocks (Fig. 2b), but mainly developed parallel to stratifi-
cation (Fig. 2a). Most of the rocks are relatively fresh,
although some show a slight discoloration on their surfaces
due to minor weathering.
3 Experimental Procedures
Many rock block samples (40 numbers) were collected
from various locations throughout the study area (southeast
of Gachsaran City, southwest of Iran) (Fig. 1). Tests on the
samples were performed at the Rock Mechanics Labora-
tory of the Engineering Geology Department of Bu-Ali-
Sina University in Hamedan, Iran. Sample preparation, test
methods, and calculations followed the standard practices
described by ASTM (2001a, b, 2010).
123
M. Heidari et al.
Ninety cores (perpendicular to stratification) and irreg-
ular specimens were prepared from the gypsum rocks, and
each sample was subjected to three types of point load
testing (axial, diametral, and irregular). For each test
method, 15 drill cores or irregular samples were prepared
and samples were then subjected to the test. Air-dried and
saturated samples were numbered randomly from G1 to
G15 for each method. Irregular gypsum specimens were
used for point load tests, whilst the preparation steps
described below were followed for specimens undergoing
the compression and Brazilian tests.
Laboratory core drill and saw machines were used to
prepare cylindrical specimens with diameters of 56.70 mm,
but with variable length-to-diameter ratios (L/D). The ends
of the cores were smoothed to within 0.02 mm and per-
pendicularity was kept within 0.05 mm. The UCS tests for
fresh rocks were carried out on cylindrical specimens
(L/D = 2.5) under dry and saturated conditions following
the recommendations of ISRM (1981). For the Brazilian
tests, additional cylindrical core specimens were obtained
by drilling. Disc specimens for the Brazilian test were
obtained from cylindrical cores using the saw. Sample
preparation and test procedures followed the standards
Predicting the Uniaxial Compressive and Tensile Strengths of Gypsum Rock

Fig. 2 a Orientation of micrite veins parallel to the stratification. b Photomicrograph of gypsum rock (XPL)

Table 1 Calculated values of

Specimen Is(50) Is(50) Is(50) UCS BTS
Is(50), UCS and BTS for
no. (MPa, axial) (MPa, diametral) (MPa, irregular) (MPa) (MPa)
gypsum rocks (air-dried state)
G1 1.88 0.92 2.24 31.24 5.47
G2 2.10 1.07 1.64 29.03 5.00
G3 1.91 1.29 3.15 29.63 4.39
G4 1.85 0.76 2.70 31.92 3.78
G5 1.34 1.14 1.02 37.36 4.68
G6 1.87 1.84 1.60 35.54 4.12
G7 1.63 1.34 2.07 32.19 4.68
G8 1.52 1.17 2.58 33.69 3.80
G9 2.01 1.16 2.21 31.71 4.86
G10 1.94 1.02 2.42 31.00 5.14
G11 1.30 0.67 1.83 31.04 4.24
G12 2.47 1.03 2.80 32.41 4.00
G13 2.54 0.86 1.58 31.20 3.99
G14 1.53 1.30 1.62 30.22 4.76
G15 1.39 1.04 1.56 33.13 5.09

proposed by ASTM (2001a, b). The loading rate was
controlled at approximately 200 N/S.
4 Results and Discussion
The results of the uniaxial compression tests under dry and
saturated conditions are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The
values of dry and saturated uniaxial compressive strengths
vary from 31.00 to 33.69 MPa and from 17.44 to
29.84 MPa, respectively. Therefore, according to the ISRM
classification (1981), these rocks belong to the low order of
strength. In axial, diametral, and irregular test methods, the
load was steadily increased until failure occurred, and the
failure load was then recorded. Although the actual stress
distribution under point loading is poorly understood (Irfan
1996), the methods suggested by ASTM (2001a, b) for
determining Is(50) comply completely with the following
equation for the index:
 
P
IS ð50Þ ¼ F 2 ; ð1Þ
De
where P = peak load and De = equivalent core diameter
for diametral and other states (D2e = 4A/p where A = WD,
and W = the smallest specimen width perpendicular to the
loading direction). If the sides of samples are not parallel,
W is calculated as (W1 ? W2)/2, as shown in Fig. 3, and
D = distance between the platens at failure for axial point
load testing, and F = size correction factor, (De/50)0.45
(Fig. 3).
All the data used in this paper were obtained from valid
failure modes. Generally, the PLT is the most commonly

123
 M. Heidari et al.

Table 2 Calculated values of

Specimen Is(50) Is(50) Is(50) UCS BTS
Is(50), UCS and BTS for
no. (MPa, axial) (MPa, diametral) (MPa, irregular) (MPa) (MPa)
gypsum rocks (saturated state)
G1 1.55 1.68 1.18 23.48 3.31
G2 1.55 0.84 1.72 18.66 4.61
G3 1.97 0.97 1.42 17.44 4.20
G4 1.24 0.98 1.30 26.95 3.43
G5 1.62 0.52 1.02 18.02 2.66
G6 1.11 0.97 0.94 17.46 4.55
G7 1.42 0.85 1.60 29.84 3.61
G8 1.23 0.65 1.02 22.69 3.85
G9 1.26 0.65 1.20 23.37 4.22
G10 1.10 0.96 1.21 21.46 5.08
G11 0.76 0.87 1.04 22.82 5.02
G12 1.25 0.84 1.18 24.13 2.34
G13 1.37 0.94 1.14 21.40 5.06
G14 1.14 1.29 1.23 20.93 2.52
G15 1.76 1.14 1.69 21.11 3.32

used test for estimating the UCS of rock specimens in the pronounced in the axial and irregular methods. Therefore,
field. Although the PLSI (Is(50)) is not easily correlated we can conclude that the diametral method of point load
with UCS, it is the quickest and cheapest way of deter- testing is the most convenient for practical purposes.
mining strength parameters in the laboratory and in the Many studies, for all rock types, have shown that there is
field. no single factor relating PLSI to UCS (Palchik and Hatzor
The Brazilian test methods, as described by ISRM 2004; Barla et al. 2006). Most studies found a linear rela-
(1978), were developed to overcome the difficulties asso- tionship between the two mechanical parameters, though
ciated with performing direct uniaxial tensile tests, and we power functions were sometimes observed. All of them
calculated Brazilian tensile strengths for each specimen showed an increase in UCS as PLSI increases.
using these methods and Eq. 2:
2P
rt ¼ ; ð2Þ
pDt
where rt = BTS, P = peak load, D = diameter of the
disc, and t = thickness of the disc. The results for the
gypsum rock specimens are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
The results were analysed using the method of least-
squares regression. The equation of the best-fit line and the
correlation coefficient were determined for each regression.
First, Is(50) values were correlated with the corresponding
UCS values for all methods in the air-dried and saturated
states, yielding a significant relationship (Figs. 4, 5).
As shown in Tables 1 and 2, in both the air-dried and
saturated states for axial, diametral, and irregular PLT
methods, Is(50) shows a good correlation with UCS. The
equations and regressions of these lines are presented in
Table 3. The irregular method shows the weakest correla-
tion (R2 = 0.89) among the three methods, but it is close to
that of the other methods.
Our work also demonstrates that the diametral method is
more convenient and simpler to use than the other two
Fig. 3 Suggested methods for determining equivalent core diameter
methods. Previous work by Broch and Franklin (1972) also in three methods of point load test, a axial method, b diametral
revealed that the size and shape effects are very method, and c irregular method

123
Predicting the Uniaxial Compressive and Tensile Strengths of Gypsum Rock

Fig. 4 Uniaxial compressive strength versus point load strength index (air-dried state). a Axial method, b diametral method, and c irregular
method

Fig. 5 Uniaxial compressive strength versus point load strength index (saturated state). a Axial method, b diametral method, and c irregular
method

Figures 6 and 7 show Is(50) values plotted against The plots indicate a significant correlation between
BTS for all PLT methods in the air-dried and saturated Is(50) and BTS, and the equations and regressions of the
states. linear trends are presented in Table 4.

123

Table 3 Regression equations and determination coefficient (R2)
Parameters to be related
Uniaxial compressive
Strength and point load
Strength index (air-dried state)
Uniaxial compressive
Strength and point load
Strength index (saturated state)
Fig. 6 Brazilian tensile strength versus point load strength index (air-dried state). a Axial method, b diametral method, and c irregular method
For gypsum rocks, the correlation between Is(50) and
BTS values, obtained using the axial and irregular meth-
ods, is significant (R2 [ 0.89). On the other hand, the
diametral method for the air-dried and saturated states
shows lower correlation coefficients (R2 = 0.87 and
R2 = 0.77, respectively).
Inhomogeneities in rocks are due to: (1) mechanical
contrasts between the mineral components, (2) variable
grain shapes and sizes, and (3) the presence of micro-
fractures. The presence of one or more of these factors
almost always ensures that rocks are inhomogeneous
(Valley et al. 2010). In the case of the gypsum rock sam-
ples, the first and second factors clearly play a part. Het-
erogeneities in strength and deformation properties are
thought to play important roles in the failure of rocks. In
the present study, samples failed along micrite veins
(diametral method) (Fig. 8a), not as a result of the rock
fabric (as occurs when using the axial method) (Fig. 8b),
123
M. Heidari et al.
Regression equations R2
(Axial) UCS = 5.58 Is(50) ? 21.92 0.93
(Diametral) UCS = 7.56 Is(50) ? 23.68 0.94
(Irregular) UCS = 3.49 Is(50) ? 24.84 0.89
(Axial) UCS = 10.99 Is(50) ? 7.04 0.92
(Diametral) UCS = 11.96 Is(50) ?10.64 0.94
(Irregular) UCS = 13.92 Is(50) ? 5.25 0.90
and they show exceptionally low values of Is(50) compared
with the axial method.
To index the rock strength of relatively homogeneous
rock material, the diametral PLT is a credible method, but
it has been shown that diametral point load testing is often
not reliable in the case of inhomogeneous rocks with non-
uniform strength characteristics. Read et al. (1980) and
Pells (1975) reported that diametral testing on bedded
rocks, in which failure occurs along bedding planes and not
through the rock fabric, gives an unreasonably low estimate
of UCS normal to bedding. This is very clear in the case of
inhomogeneous rocks where the results of diametral tests
show a scattered distribution because of the planes of
weakness. We found this same situation applied to our tests
when using the diametral method. We conclude, therefore,
that the remarkable reduction in diametral method regres-
sion can be attributed to the role of micrite veins in the
failure of the gypsum samples.
Predicting the Uniaxial Compressive and Tensile Strengths of Gypsum Rock

Fig. 7 Brazilian tensile strength versus point load strength index (saturated state). a Axial method, b diametral method, and c irregular method

Table 4 Regression equations

Parameters to be related Regression equations R2
and determination coefficients
(R2) Brazilian tensile strength (Axial) BTS = 1.36 Is(50) ? 2.06 0.93
and point load strength (Diametral) BTS = 1.77 Is(50) ? 2.57 0.87
index (air-dried stat)
(Irregular) BTS = 0.88 Is(50) ? 2.70 0.95
Brazilian tensile strength and (Axial) BTS = 2.88 Is(50) - 0.07 0.88
point load strength (Diametral) BTS = 2.90 Is(50) ? 1.10 0.77
index (saturated stat)
(Irregular) BTS = 3.47 Is(50) - 0.52 0.86

Test results show that for the diametral method, Is(50)
decreases with an increase of (L/D) for short cylindrical
specimens. Figure 9 shows the relation between Is(50) and
the shape factor (L/D). The earlier numerical and exper-
imental studies of Chau and Wei (2001) also showed that
uniaxial tensile strength decreases drastically with an
increase in L/D for short cylinders (L/D \ 0.4), but
remains roughly constant when L/D is sufficiently long
(L/D [ 0.7), and these experimental observations are,
therefore, consistent and in agreement with the predicted
effects of specimen size and shape on the diametral
method.
5 Conclusions
We have studied the relationships between UCS, BTS, and
Is(50) for 150 gypsum rock specimens, and our conclusions
can be summarised as follows:
1. Point load testing on specimens of the Gachsaran
gypsum rocks using all three methods (diametral,
axial, and irregular) yield significant and strong linear
correlations between Is(50) and UCS.
2. Based on these test results, we conclude that values of
UCS can be obtained with a high degree of confidence
using any of these point load testing methods. Since
the irregular method can be applied in the field and is
simple, fast, and low cost, this is the most useful
method for determining UCS in practice. However,
obtaining reliable results with the irregular method
requires a high degree of precision.
3. Although the diametral method is commonly used for
determining BTS, the results of this study show a
weaker correlation (R2 = 0.87 and R2 = 0.77 for air-
dried and saturated states, respectively) than for other
methods (Figs. 6, 7). The irregular method, given its
advantages detailed above, is, therefore, more suitable
for a preliminary estimation of BTS.

123
 M. Heidari et al.

Fig. 8 Failure types in the

diametral (a) and axial
(b) methods; a the failure plane
followed the micrite vein in
gypsum rock, b the micrite vein
has not any role in the failure
type

Fig. 9 The experimental PLSI (Is(50)) versus the geometric ratio L/D for the gypsum specimen (D = 56.70 mm), a air-dried state, b saturated
state

4. We obtained a predictable relationship between Is(50) represented by these equations. It is particularly

and (L/D). The diametral method is therefore sensitive
to the shape of specimens, and the difficulties of
sample preparation mean that this method is imprac-
ticable for field applications.
5. The weak correlation obtained for the diametral
method, compared with the other methods, reflects
loading along inhomogeneities in the rock that are
parallel to the diameter of rock cores.
6. Is(50) shows a strong correlation with UCS
(R2 = 0.94) for both air-dried and saturated samples
using the diametral method, but under the same
method, Is(50) shows a better correlation with BTS
(R2 = 0.87) in the air-dried state than in the saturated
state (R2 = 0.77). This is due to a reduction of rock
strength in the presence of water.
7. Although we have been able to develop empirical
equations for determining the uniaxial compressive
and tensile strengths of gypsum rocks, additional work
is needed to investigate and verify the relationships
important to note that the equations used are valid
only for gypsum rocks from the Gachsaran Formation,
and they are not recommended for gypsum rocks from
other regions.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the anon-
ymous reviewers for the constructive comments and suggestions
which have significantly improved the quality of the paper. The
authors are grateful Mr. Mirmohammad Miri and Mr. Mehdi Amiri
for the edition of paper language.
References
ASTM (1986) Standard test method of unconfined compressive
strength of intact rock core specimens. D2938
ASTM (2001a) 08 Standard test method for splitting tensile strength
of intact rock core specimens. D3967. 95(a)
ASTM (2001b) Standard method for determination of the point load
strength index of rock. ASTM Standards on Disc 04.08.
Designation D5731

123
Predicting the Uniaxial Compressive and Tensile Strengths of Gypsum Rock
ASTM (2010) Standard test method for compressive strength and
elastic moduli of intact rock core specimens under varying states
of stress and temperatures D7012
Barla M, Camusso M, Aiassa S (2006) Analysis of jacking forces
during microtunnelling in limestone. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol 21:668–683
Bieniawski ZT (1975) The point load test in geotechnical practice.
Eng Geol Sept 11:1–11
Broch E, Franklin JA (1972) The point load strength test. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 28:669–697
Chau KT (1998) Analytic solutions for diametral point load strength
tests. J Eng Mech ASCE 124(8):875–883
Chau KT, Wei XX (2001) A new analytic solution for the diametral
point load strength test on nite solid circular cylinders. Int J
Solids Struct 23:1459–1481
Irfan TY (1996) Mineralogy, fabric properties and classification of
weathered granites in Hong Kong. Q J Eng Geol 29:5–35
ISRM (1981) Rock characterization, testing and monitoring, ISRM
suggested methods. In: Brown ET (ed), Pergamon Press, Oxford
ISRM (1978) Suggested methods for determining tensile strength of
rock materials. Suggested method for determining indirect
tensile strength by Brazilian test. Commission on Standardiza-
tion of Laboratory and Field Tests. Z.T. Bieniawski and I.
Haweks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15:102–103
ISRM (1985) Suggested method for determining point load strength.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22:51–60
James GA, Wynd JG (1965) Stratigraphic nomenclature of Iranian oil
consortium agreement area. Am Assoc Petroleum Geol Bull
49(12):2182–2245
View publication stats
Palchik V, Hatzor YH (2004) The influence of porosity on tensile and
compressive strength of porous chalk. Rock Mech Rock Eng
37(4):331–341
Pells PJN (1975) The use of the point load test in predicting the
compressive strength of rock materials. Aust Geomech J
65(1):54–56
Read JRL, Thornton PN, Regan WM (1980) A rational approach to
the point load test. In: Proc. Aust.-NZ Geomechanics Conf.
Wellington, vol 2, pp 35–39
Setudehnia A, OB-Perry GT (1966) Geological map of Gachsaran,
Iranian Oil Operating Companies (IOOC), 1,100,000
Slinger F, Crichton RC (1959) The geology and development of
Gachsaran field, southwest Iran. In: Proc. Fifth world petroleum
Congo. Sec., vol 18, pp 349–375
Sonmez H, Tuncay E, Gokceoglu C (2004) Models to predict the
uniaxial compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity for
Ankara agglomerate. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci 41(5):717–729
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Medley EW, Tuncay E, Nefeslioglu HA
(2006) Estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of a
volcanic bimrock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(4):554–561
Valley B, Suorineni FT, Kaiser PK (2010) Numerical analyses of the
effect of heterogeneities on rock failure process. In: 44th US
Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th US Canada Symposium,
pp 10–648
123