Journal Pre-proof

Evaluation of empirical estimation of uniaxial compressive strength of rock using

measurements from index and physical tests

Adeyemi Emman Aladejare

PII: S1674-7755(19)30722-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.08.001
Reference: JRMGE 606

To appear in: Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

Received Date: 15 March 2019

Revised Date: 5 June 2019
Accepted Date: 6 August 2019

Please cite this article as: Aladejare AE, Evaluation of empirical estimation of uniaxial compressive
strength of rock using measurements from index and physical tests, Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2019.08.001.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Full Length Article

Evaluation of empirical estimation of uniaxial compressive strength of rock using

measurements from index and physical tests

Adeyemi Emman Aladejare

Oulu Mining School, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran katu 1, Oulu, 90014, Finland
Received 15 March 2019; received in revised form 5 June 2019; accepted 6 August 2019

Abstract: The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rock is an important parameter required for design and analysis of rock structures, and rock mass
classification. Uniaxial compression tests are a direct means to obtain the UCS values. However, these tests are generally tedious, time-consuming,
expensive, and sometimes impossible to perform due to difficult rock conditions. Therefore, several empirical equations have been developed to
estimate the UCS from results of index and physical tests of rock. Nevertheless, numerous empirical models available in the literature often make it
difficult for mining engineers to decide which empirical equation provides the most reliable estimate of UCS. This study evaluates estimation of UCS of
rocks from several empirical equations. The study uses data of point load strength (Is(50)), Schmidt rebound hardness (SRH), block punch index (BPI),
effective porosity (n) and density (ρ) as inputs to empirically estimate the UCS. The estimated UCS values from empirical equations are compared with
experimentally obtained or measured UCS values, using statistical analyses. It shows that the reliability of UCS estimated from empirical equations
depends on the quality of data used to develop the equations, type of input data used in the equations, and the quality of input data from index or
physical tests. The results show that the point load strength (Is(50)) is the most reliable index for estimating UCS among the five types of tests evaluated.
Because of type-specific nature of rock, restricting the use of empirical equations to the similar rock types for which they are developed is one of the
measures to ensure satisfactory prediction performance of empirical equations.
Keywords: uniaxial compressive strength (UCS); empirical equation; index test; physical test; uniaxial compression test; statistical analysis

1. Introduction
The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rock is one of the most
frequently used rock properties in civil and mining engineering practices.
Bieniawski (1976) reported that mining engineers request for UCS more
often than any other rock material properties. The UCS is required as an
input in most rock and mining engineering designs. The UCS is also
needed in prediction of deformation modulus (Sonmez et al., 2006) and
major rock mass classifications, like the rock mass rating (RMR) system
(Bieniawski, 1974; Aladejare and Wang, 2019a), rock mass index (RMi)
(Palmstrøm, 1996), and among others. In addition, the Hoek–Brown
failure criterion (Hoek et al., 2002) for predicting the strength parameters
of rock masses also requires the UCS of intact rock as one of the inputs
(Aladejare and Wang, 2019b). From surface to underground mining
practice, UCS is a critical rock property when considering a variety of
issues encountered during drilling, blasting, and support construction of
open pit slope or underground excavations and tunnels (Adebayo and
Aladejare, 2013). As UCS is important for most mining engineering
designs, inadequate information about rock’s UCS may lead to unexpected
failure of mining engineering structures. Therefore, determination of UCS
is not only important but also strategic to the overall success of mining
engineering designs and practices.
The direct laboratory method for determining UCS of rock (i.e. using
uniaxial compression test) was proposed and standardised by the
International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering (ISRM)
(Ulusay and Hudson, 2007). The direct laboratory determination of UCS
requires high-quality cores or cut samples. Nevertheless, obtaining
high-quality cores or cut samples from some rocks is rather difficult, even
impossible. For example, it is difficult to extract cores or cut samples to
the required sizes from weak or highly weathered and thin bedded rocks.
In addition, direct laboratory test is complicated and time-consuming
(Palchik, 2007; Mishra and Basu, 2013; Wang and Aladejare, 2015, 2016;
Aladejare, 2016). Furthermore, setting up of the equipment required for
laboratory determination of UCS is often tedious. For small to
medium-size rock engineering projects, engineers often consider that it is
time-consuming to set up such equipment for relatively small number of
laboratory tests. For this, researchers developed different methods for
indirect estimation of UCS using empirical relationship between UCS and
other index and physical properties of rock which are less difficult to be
measured (Sachpazis, 1990; Tuğrul and Gürpinar, 1997; Chatterjee and
Mukhopadhyay, 2002; Gokceoglu and Zorlu, 2004; Diamantis et al., 2009;
Basu and Kamran, 2010). These tests offer estimation of UCS at low cost
associated with less experimental effort.
These advantages have led to an increasing popularity of the use of
various indirect tests to estimate UCS. The possibility of little or no
specimen preparation by some of the tests used to indirectly estimate UCS
through empirical equations makes them more attractive (Gunsallus and
Kulhawy, 1984; Ghosh and Srivastava, 1991; Singh and Singh, 1993;
Ulusay et al., 1994; Chau and Wong, 1996; Tuğrul and Zarif, 1999;
Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay, 2002; Gokceoglu and Zorlu, 2004;
Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis, 2004; Aydin and Basu, 2005; Kahraman and
Gunaydin, 2009; Basu and Kamran, 2010; Aliyu et al., 2019). Results of
some index and physical tests have been recommended for indirect
estimation of UCS. Numerous studies of empirical equations developed for
indirect estimation of UCS in the literature generally include those using

E-mail address: adeyemi.aladejare@oulu.fi

point load strength (Is(50)), Schmidt rebound hardness (SRH), block
punch index (BPI), effective porosity (n), and density (ρ) as inputs.
The indirect estimation of UCS helps mining engineers to overcome
the difficulty in using the direct laboratory tests for estimation of UCS.
However, using empirical equations may lead to underestimation or
overestimation of site-specific UCS. Apart from type-specific nature of
rock, rock properties are also site-specific which may vary within the
same deposit or differ from deposit to deposit (Wang and Aladejare, 2015,
2016; Aladejare and Wang, 2017, 2018; Aladejare and Akeju, 2019).
Phoon and Kulhawy (1999) suggested that some degree of uncertainty
will be introduced when empirical equations are used to estimate
geotechnical properties, because the empirical equations are basically
obtained by data fitting. There may be disparity between a directly
measured and an indirectly estimated UCS, which can result from
imperfect representation of reality. This may be caused by simplifications
and idealisations that have been used or due to lack of knowledge during
the development of such empirical equations (Ditlevsen, 1981). It can also
be due to the site-specific nature of rock properties and empirical
equations. It is noted that the empirical equations developed using some
site-specific data may be unsuitable when they are used to estimate UCS in
another location or deposit, especially in the area with different geological
histories. In addition to simple regression equations available in the
literature, some researchers have developed multiple regression
equations using soft computing techniques, such as artificial neural
network (ANN), adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS), particle
swarm optimisation (PSO), and genetic programming (GP) (Yılmaz and
Yuksek, 2008; Khandelwal and Singh, 2009; Singh et al., 2012a,b; Mishra
and Basu, 2013; Armaghani et al., 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018; Momeni et al.,
2015a,b). Tables 1 and 2 present the simple and multiple regression
equations available in the literature, respectively. Goodman (1995)
explained that when dealing with natural rocks, the only thing known
with certainty is that this material will never be known with certainty.
Due to the difference in rock nature which varies from place to place, the
reliability of regression models should be studied. Therefore, evaluating
how index and physical properties perform in empirical estimation of UCS
is important, since they are available and frequently used in estimation of
UCS.
When mining engineers and practitioners request the use of
empirical equations, only data of a specific type of rock test may be
available. Therefore, use of simple regression is important in mining
engineering. This paper investigates the performance of empirical
equations when estimating UCS of rock by measurements of index and
physical tests. The approach proposed in this study is to investigate those
empirical equations which use results of specific test type (i.e. simple
regression). Firstly, this study reviews the index and physical tests as well
as empirical equations commonly used in indirect estimation of UCS.
Then, the estimations of UCS based on the results of index and physical
tests on three rock types, e.g. granite, schist, and sandstone from India, are
carried out. Finally, statistical analyses are conducted to compare the
performances of empirical equations and assess the suitability of index
and physical tests to produce satisfactory estimations of UCS.
2. Existing empirical equations for estimating uniaxial compressive
strength
Results of different index and physical tests have been tried to
estimate the UCS, as the index and physical tests are generally less
expensive and simpler to perform than the uniaxial compression tests
(Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay, 2002; Gokceoglu and Zorlu, 2004; Aydin
and Basu, 2005; Kahraman and Gunaydin, 2009). Index and physical tests
require little or no specimen preparation. Therefore, developing empirical
equations to correlate the results of index or physical tests with UCS is
promising. Empirical equations are developed for estimating UCS when
UCS is not available and there is a possibility of performing index or
physical tests. In the literature, there are various empirical equations for
estimating UCS using the results of index and physical tests such as Is(50),
SRH, BPI, n and ρ, as inputs. Thus, this study uses test data of Is(50), SRH,
BPI, n and ρ to estimate UCS. This is to ensure that the input data can be
easily obtained in laboratory without requiring elaborate machining and
sample preparation. The major advantage of using empirical equation to
estimate UCS is that it is relatively easy to obtain UCS values when
laboratory test is difficult or infeasible. Therefore, it is logical that the
properties used to estimate UCS should be those that can be obtained with
relative ease.
Table 3 presents some empirical equations for estimating UCS based
on input data and rock types. A total of 27 empirical equations are listed in
Table 1 and named as Models 1–27. Models 1–12, Models 13–20, Model
21, Models 22–24, and Models 25–27 use Is(50), SRH, BPI, n and ρ as
inputs, respectively. This study classifies the empirical equations based on
rock types, e.g. igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary rocks. Since the
geological processes through which rocks are formed are different, it is
important that empirical equations be used for the rock types which are
like the one used in developing them. Therefore, Table 3 only includes
those empirical equations obtained from a specific rock type using a single
type of input data. Empirical equations developed from more than one
rock type and those with multiple types of input data have been excluded.
The point load strength index (Is(50)) obtained from point load
strength test is used as an index for strength classification of rock
materials. The test involves loading rock specimens in forms of core
(diametral and axial tests), cut block (block test), or irregular lump
(irregular lump test) between a pair of spherically truncated, conical
platens. As the test requires little or no specimen preparation, it is a fast
test. The test can be easily performed with portable equipment or using a
laboratory testing machine and can also be conducted in field. Is(50) is
widely used in rock mechanics ranging from being used to indirectly
estimate UCS (Gunsallus and Kulhawy, 1984; Singh and Singh, 1993;
Ulusay et al.,1994; Smith, 1997; Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis, 2004;
Kahraman and Gunaydin, 2009; Basu and Kamran, 2010; Aliyu et al.,
2019) to being an input when UCS is not available in rock mass
classification system, such as RMR (Bieniawski, 1989). Researchers have
tried to compile a comprehensive list of empirical equations between
Is(50) and UCS available in the literature (Basu, 2008; Wang and
Aladejare, 2015). The compilations show that there are many empirical
equations for predicting UCS from Is(50), which range from those
developed by using a specific rock type data to those with several rock
types data.
The SRH is obtained from SRH test, which is a semi-non-destructive
test used to provide an index for estimating UCS. The SRH test makes use
of a Schmidt hammer consisting of a spring-loaded mass inside a piston
that is released when the hammer is pressed orthogonally onto a rock
surface. The rebound height of the piston gives an indication of the
strength of the tested material (Basu and Aydin, 2004; Mishra and Basu,
2013). Many researchers have worked on the relationship between SRH
and UCS, and proposed several empirical equations between these two
properties (Tuğrul and Zarif, 1999; Yılmaz and Sendır, 2002; Aydin and
Basu, 2005; Gupta, 2009).
The BPI obtained from block punch strength index test is also
intended as an index for strength classification of rock materials. Rock
specimens of thin cylindrical discs prepared from cores or blocks are
placed into an apparatus designed to fit the point load device. Then, the
rock specimens are broken by applied load through a rectangular rigid
punching block (Ulusay et al., 2001). Unlike point load strength test and
SRH test, block punch test has been less explored. Another setback is that
most of the studies that developed empirical equations between BPI and
UCS used several rock types (Ulusay and Gokceoglu, 1997; Gokceoglu and
Aksoy, 2000; Sulukcu and Ulusay, 2001; Ulusay et al., 2001), making most
of the equations unsuitable for use when there is a strict compliance with
type-specific nature of rock. However, the efficiency of using BPI to
estimate UCS has been found to be acceptable (Ulusay and Gokceoglu,
1997; Sulukcu and Ulusay, 2001; Ulusay et al., 2001; Mishra and Basu,
2012).
Effective porosity (n) and density ( ρ) are physical properties
obtained through physical tests on rock specimens. Effective porosity and
density can be determined in laboratory by a couple of techniques
including saturation and caliper techniques, saturation and buoyancy
techniques, mercury displacement and grain specific

Table 1
Simple regression equations for estimating UCS.
Input data Source Equation Rock type
Is(50) Broch and Franklin (1972) UCS = 23.7Is(50) Several
Bieniawski (1975) UCS = 23Is(50) Several
Gunsallus and Kulhawy (1984) UCS = 16.5Is(50) + 51 Sedimentary
Ghosh and Srivastava (1991) UCS = 16Is(50) Igneous
Singh and Singh (1993) UCS = 23.37Is(50) Metamorphic
Ulusay et al. (1994) UCS = 19Is(50) + 12.7 Sedimentary
Chau and Wong (1996) UCS = 12.5Is(50) Igneous
Smith (1997) UCS = 14.3Is(50) Sedimentary
Tuğrul and Zarif (1999) UCS = 15.25Is(50) Igneous
Kahraman (2001) UCS = 8.41Is(50) + 9.51 Several
Sulukcu and Ulusay (2001) UCS = 15.31Is(50) Several
Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis (2004) UCS = 23Is(50) Sedimentary
Fener et al. (2005) UCS = 9.08Is(50) + 39.32 Several
Kahraman et al. (2005) UCS = 10.22Is(50) + 24.31 Several
Agustawijaya (2007) UCS = 13.4Is(50) Several
Kahraman and Gunaydin (2009) UCS = 8.2Is(50) + 36.43 Igneous
UCS = 18.45Is(50) − 13.63 Metamorphic
UCS = 29.77Is(50) − 51.49 Sedimentary
UCS = 10.92Is(50) + 24.24 Several
Basu and Kamran (2010) UCS = 11.103Is(50) + 37.659 Metamorphic
Kohno and Maeda (2012) UCS = 16.4Is(50) Several
Mishra and Basu (2012) UCS = 14.63Is(50) Several
Aliyu et al. (2019) UCS = 17.6Is(50) + 13.5 Sedimentary
SRH Haramy and DeMarco (1985) UCS = 0.99SRH − 0.38 Sedimentary
O’Rourke (1989) UCS = 4.85SRH − 76.18 Sedimentary
Sachpazis (1990) UCS = 4.29SRH − 67.52 Sedimentary
Gökçeoglu (1996) UCS = 0.0001SRH3.2658 Sedimentary
Tuğrul and Zarif (1999) UCS = 8.36SRH − 416 Igneous
Katz et al. (2000) ln(UCS)=0.792 + 0.067SRH ± 0.231 Several
Yılmaz and Sendır (2002) UCS = exp(0.818 + 0.059SRH) Sedimentary
Aydin and Basu (2005) UCS = 1.45e0.07SRH Igneous
Kılıç and Teymen (2008) UCS =0.0137SRH2.2721 Several
Gupta (2009) UCS = 0.64SRH + 37.5 Metamorphic
BPI Van der Schrier (1988) UCS = 6.1BPI − 3.3 Several
Ulusay and Gokceoglu (1997) UCS = 5.5BPI Several
Gokceoglu and Aksoy (2000) UCS = 5.25BPI Several
Sulukcu and Ulusay (2001) UCS = 5.1BPI Several
Gokceoglu and Zorlu (2004) UCS = 2.72BPI + 13.7 Sedimentary
Mishra and Basu (2012) UCS = 4.93BPI Several
n Al-Harthi et al. (1999) UCS = 274 − 8.51n, n < 20%; UCS = 104 − 1.01n, n > 20% Igneous
Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay (2002) UCS = 34.44e−0.044n Sedimentary
Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay (2002) UCS = 64.23e−0.085n Sedimentary
ρ Deere and Miller (1966) UCS =(28812.5ρ − 52.586) × 0.0069 Several
Tuğrul and Gürpinar (1997) UCS = 10−5ρ16.7 Igneous
Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay (2002) UCS = 37.34ρ − 63.11 Sedimentary
Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay (2002) UCS = 55.57ρ − 100.75 Sedimentary

Table 2
Multiple regression equations for estimating UCS.
Source Technique Input data
Grima and Babuška (1999) FIS ρ, L, n
Meulenkamp and Grima (1999) ANN L, n, ρ, d
Singh et al. (2001) ANN PSV
Gokceoglu and Zorlu (2004) FIS Is(50), BPI, Vp, BTS
Yılmaz and Yuksek (2008) ANFIS Vp, Is(50), SRH, WC
Dehghan et al. (2010) ANN Vp, Is(50), SRH, n
Jahanbakhshi et al. (2011) ANN ρ, n, Vp
Monjezi et al. (2012) ANN-GA SRH, ρ, n
Rabbani et al. (2012) ANN n, BD, Sw
Yagiz et al. (2012) ANN Vp, n, SRH, Id, γd
Beiki et al. (2013) GA ρ, n, Vp
Mishra and Basu (2013) FIS Vp, Is(50), BPI, SRH
Yesiloglu-Gultekin et al. (2013) ANFIS BTS, Vp
Armaghani et al. (2014) ANFIS Vp, ρ, PSV
Rezaei et al. (2014) FIS SRH, ρ, n
Armaghani et al. (2015) ANN-ANFIS Vp, SRH, Is(50)
Momeni et al. (2015a) PSO-ANN SRH, Vp, Is(50), ρ
Mohamad et al. (2015) ANN-PSO Is(50), BD, Vp, BTS
Torabi-Kaveh et al. (2015) ANN Vp, ρ, n
Armaghani et al. (2016) ICA-ANN n, Vp, SRH, Is(50)
Madhubabu et al. (2016) ANN Vp, n, ρ, Is(50), µ
Armaghani et al. (2018) GEP DD, Id, BTS
Note: BD: bulk density; DD: dry density; BTS: Brazilian tensile strength; d: grain size; FIS: fuzzy inference system; GA: genetic algorithm; GEP: gene expression programming;
ICA: imperialist competitive algorithm; Id: slake durability index; L: Equotip value; n: porosity; PSV: petrography study values; Sw: water saturation; Vm: P-wave velocity in solid
part of the sample; Vp: P-wave velocity ; WC: water content; γd: dry unit weight; µ: Poisson’s ratio.

gravity techniques, mercury displacement and Boyle's law techniques
(Franklin, 1979). Mishra and Basu (2013) reported that effective porosity
and density are widely used in engineering geological investigations for
characterising various physico-mechanical parameters of rock materials.
Empirical equations between UCS and effective porosity and those
between UCS and density have been also reported (Al-Harthi et al., 1999,
Palchik, 1999; Tuğrul and Zarif, 1999; Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay,
2002).
3. Rock data and performance indicators
To evaluate empirical estimation of UCS of rock, index and physical
test measurements of three types of rocks are used. Also, three different
performance indicators are employed to compare the estimated UCS from
different empirical equations with measured UCS. Details of the database
of rock data and performance indicators are discussed in subsequent
subsections.
3.2. Performance indicators for the evaluation of empirical equations
The technique employed to evaluate estimation of UCS from index
and physical tests results using empirical models is to compare the
estimated UCS values with the measured (i.e. experimental) UCS values
reported for the same rock type. The trend, statistics and probability
distribution of estimated UCS are compared with measured UCS. Then,
three performance indicators are used in this study to evaluate the
prediction performance of the empirical equations. Absolute average
relative error percentage (AAREP), root mean square error (RMSE) and
variance accounted for (VAF) are adopted as indicators to assess the UCS
prediction.
AAREP is a measure of prediction accuracy of estimation method in
statistics. Shen and Karakus (2014) explained that AAREP is useful for
evaluating a group of data. They used AAREP in their study to evaluate the
reliability of Hoek-Brown constant (mi) values calculated by different
methods. AAREP is calculated as

= ∑
× 100% (1)
3.1. Rock data

where is the number of rock data used in analysis; and

To investigate the effectiveness of empirical equations for estimation
are the UCS values obtained from laboratory testing and
of UCS, three rock types, i.e. granite, schist and sandstone belonging to
empirical estimation, respectively. The smaller the value of AAREP, the
igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks, respectively, were
more
considered in the present evaluation. The rock samples were collected
from Malanjkhand Copper Project, Malanjkhand (in the state of Madhya
Pradesh, Central India), UCIL mine at Jaduguda (in the state of Jharkhand,
Eastern India), and Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem,
Khammam (in the state of Andhra Pradesh, South India), respectively
(Mishra and Basu, 2013). Table 4 presents the results of index, physical
and uniaxial compression tests carried out on the rock samples by Mishra
and Basu (2013). The tests were used to determine Is(50), SRH, BPI, n, ρ
and UCS. Note that only Is(50), SRH, BPI, n, and ρ will be used in empirical
equations to estimate UCS. The measured UCS test values in Table 4 are
included for comparison with estimated UCS from empirical equations. As
it can be seen from Table 4, the results are grouped as per rocks of granite,
schist and sandstone representing igneous, metamorphic and
sedimentary rocks, respectively, and will be used in empirical equations
developed for similar rock types.
Table 3
Classification of empirical equations for estimating UCS based on input data and rock type.
Input data Source Equation Rock type Model
Is(50) Ghosh and Srivastava (1991) UCS = 16Is(50) Igneous Model 1
Chau and Wong (1996) UCS = 12.5Is(50) Igneous Model 2
Tuğrul and Zarif (1999) UCS = 15.25Is(50) Igneous Model 3
Kahraman and Gunaydin (2009) UCS = 8.2Is(50) + 36.43 Igneous Model 4
Singh and Singh (1993) UCS = 23.37Is(50) Metamorphic Model 5
Basu and Kamran (2010) UCS = 11.103Is(50) + 37.659 Metamorphic Model 6
Kahraman and Gunaydin (2009) UCS = 18.45Is(50) − 13.63 Metamorphic Model 7
Aliyu et al. (2019) UCS = 17.6Is(50) + 13.5 Sedimentary Model 8
Gunsallus and Kulhawy (1984) UCS = 16.5Is(50) + 51 Sedimentary Model 9
Ulusay et al. (1994) UCS = 19Is(50) + 12.7 Sedimentary Model 10
Smith (1997) UCS = 14.3Is(50) Sedimentary Model 11
Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis (2004) UCS = 23Is(50) Sedimentary Model 12
SRH Tuğrul and Zarif (1999) UCS = 8.36SRH − 416 Igneous Model 13
Aydin and Basu (2005) UCS = 1.45e0.07SRH Igneous Model 14
Gupta (2009) UCS = 0.64SRH + 37.5 Metamorphic Model 15
Haramy and DeMarco (1985) UCS = 0.99SRH − 0.38 Sedimentary Model 16
O’Rourke (1989) UCS = 4.85SRH − 76.18 Sedimentary Model 17
Sachpazis (1990) UCS = 4.29SRH − 67.52 Sedimentary Model 18
Gökçeoglu (1996) UCS = 0.0001SRH3.2658 Sedimentary Model 19
Yılmaz and Sendır (2002) UCS = exp(0.818 + 0.059SRH) Sedimentary Model 20
BPI Gokceoglu and Zorlu (2004) UCS = 2.72BPI + 13.7 Sedimentary Model 21
n Al-Harthi et al. (1999) UCS = 274 − 8.51n, n < 20%; UCS = 104 − 1.01n, n > 20% Igneous Model 22
Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay (2002) UCS = 34.44e−0.044n Sedimentary Model 23
Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay (2002) UCS = 64.23e−0.085n Sedimentary Model 24
ρ Tuğrul and Gürpinar (1997) UCS = 10−5ρ16.7 Igneous Model 25
Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay (2002) UCS = 37.34ρ − 63.11 Sedimentary Model 26
Chatterjee and Mukhopadhyay (2002) UCS = 55.57ρ − 100.75 Sedimentary Model 27
Table 4
Laboratory test results of different rocks collected in India (after Mishra and Basu, 2013).
Sample ID Is(50) (MPa) SRH (%) BPI (MPa) Effective porosity, n (%) Density, ρ (g/cm3) UCS (MPa)
G1 8.35 55.38 23.77 0.28 2.72 139.04
G2 10.85 65.38 35.36 0.21 2.73 177.37
G3 10.02 64.43 31.39 0.15 2.75 167.17
G4 9.92 66.51 33.51 0.15 2.73 176.75
G5 11.73 65.57 30.93 0.18 2.74 160.82
G6 14.13 67.07 Invalid 0.12 2.77 198.15
G7 10.63 60.48 31.29 0.19 2.75 148.34
G8 6.93 56.7 15.99 0.25 2.71 117.95
G9 8.49 58.59 23.2 0.22 2.74 134.76
G10 7.87 58.59 24.37 0.31 2.71 124.89
G11 8.41 57.64 Invalid 0.27 2.72 138.22
G12 7.85 55.76 28.04 0.35 2.71 130.06
G13 5.99 57.64 25.27 0.28 2.72 122.74
G14 Invalid 67.64 38.98 0.09 2.77 201.73
G15 7.29 No sample Invalid 0.23 2.73 153.55
G16 11.36 65.38 35.03 0.06 2.75 182.33
G17 9.23 61.8 Invalid 0.14 2.74 150.42
G18 6.92 60.48 25.59 0.28 2.72 127.47
G19 9.72 57.64 23.69 0.22 2.74 158.69
G20 5.66 52.92 17.21 0.4 2.7 91.48
S1 3.93 46.3 7.6 0.4 2.84 37.97
S2 2.8 No sample Invalid 0.37 2.84 43.97
S3 3.58 45.36 4.61 0.28 2.9 47.05
S4 4.49 52.55 19.31 0.25 2.86 49.22
S5 4.03 52.17 15.49 0.4 2.78 47.05
S6 3.17 43.46 7.89 0.42 2.75 26.55
S7 3.48 46.3 9.37 0.46 2.76 33.31
S8 1.52 37.76 7.74 0.5 2.74 22.83
S9 3.07 45.36 11.44 0.54 2.82 32.07
S10 3.27 43.46 Invalid 0.53 2.78 39.06
S11 2.45 31.66 Invalid 0.5 2.81 42.38
S12 7.42 58.59 27.05 0.2 2.91 95.14
S13 3.47 41.25 Invalid 0.42 2.79 35.57
S14 4.85 54.18 17.69 0.35 2.85 60.82
S15 2.96 49.14 14.41 0.43 2.84 49.08
S16 1.15 33.95 5.57 0.5 2.76 21.36
S17 6.06 46.3 20.07 0.29 2.88 70.47
S18 4.25 43.08 Invalid 0.31 2.82 42.95
S19 3.24 35.67 Invalid 0.32 2.84 49.33
S20 6.63 55.76 18.16 0.24 2.9 84.44
SS1 5.8 51.22 10.97 8.39 2.38 53.63
SS2 4.5 35.86 3.17 12.14 2.25 19.66
SS3 8.38 55.95 Invalid 3.84 2.48 110.66
SS4 1.25 30.32 5.02 10.69 2.3 22.04
SS5 Invalid 27.24 Invalid 15.54 2.25 12.80
SS6 2.99 33.38 2.64 14.67 2.18 17.55
SS7 6.75 51.79 12.63 2.89 2.52 96.26
SS8 Invalid No sample Invalid 8.15 2.37 56.82
SS9 6.21 49.14 Invalid 8.35 2.37 63.78
SS10 4.47 52.29 5.25 8.44 2.39 44.05
SS11 3.31 46.3 11.3 7.23 2.38 51.29
SS12 1.98 30.89 5.11 14.5 2.28 21.75
SS13 2.57 42.51 3.15 14.75 2.17 39.54
SS14 1.33 25.89 2.53 15.35 2.19 19.22
SS15 2.76 36.05 2.79 14.64 2.18 40.05
SS16 9.08 58.59 20.79 3.08 2.48 124.13
SS17 4.36 51.03 4.5 8.72 2.29 60.79
SS18 11.49 No sample Invalid No sample 2.6 172.03
SS19 3.7 41.09 10.39 10.94 2.27 39.24
SS20 9.59 54.18 14.52 4.52 2.49 83.54
Note: G, S and SS denote the granite, schist and sandstone, respectively.

reliable the estimation. This assertion is consistent with the results of

=! ∑ " − $%
Shen and Karakus (2014) and Bahaaddini and Moghadam (2019).
(2)
RMSE measures the deviation of predicted or estimated values from
the observed or measured values. RMSE is calculated as
 Hyndman and Koehler (2006) explained that RMSE is a measure of
accuracy, to compare forecasting errors of different models for dataset.
RMSE is always non-negative, and a value of 0 indicates a perfect fit of a
model to the data. In general, low RMSE value indicates high prediction
ability of empirical model and input data. Willmott et al. (2006) explained
that RMSE is the square root of the average of squared errors, and the
effect of each error on RMSE is proportional to the size of the squared
error. Therefore, larger errors have a disproportionately greater effect on
RMSE.
VAF is another statistical method used to measure preciseness of
prediction methods. High VAF denotes high prediction performance for a
given dataset (Bahaaddini and Moghadam, 2019). VAF is calculated as
follows:
measured UCS and underestimates the UCS compared with the measured
UCS. Note that the estimated UCS has not been presented for igneous and
metamorphic rocks in Fig. 3 and metamorphic rock in Figs. 4 and 5. This is
because most of the other models available in the literature are developed
from several rock types and this study is restricted to specific rock types.
4.2. Statistics and probability distribution of UCS
Visual examination is not enough to evaluate the estimated UCS from
the empirical models and input data. Hence, statistics and probability
distribution of estimated UCS are presented and compared with those of
measured UCS in this section. Table 5 presents the statistics of the
estimated UCS from different models including measured UCS. As rock is

)*+" $
type-specific in nature, Table 5 divides the results into those of igneous,
& ' = (1 −
, × 100% "3$
)*+" $ metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. The minimum values, maximum
values, means and standard deviations of UCS are estimated and
where Var" $ is the variance.
presented. For igneous rock, Models 1 and 3 produce the results close to
The VAF method is often used to verify the correctness of a model, by
the measured UCS in terms of their minimum, maximum and mean values.
comparing the observed or measured values with the predicted or
Many of the models for igneous rock produce estimates with standard
estimated values of the model. If the two values that are the same, the VAF
deviations being relatively close to that of measured UCS, while the mean
is 100%. If not, the VAF will be lower. The higher the difference between
values are significantly different. Therefore, Models 1 and 3 using Is(50)
measured and estimated values, the lower the VAF, and vice versa.
can be taken as satisfactory models in this category. For metamorphic
rock, the estimated UCS values from the models do not provide
4. Evaluation of UCS estimation from empirical models
satisfactory statistics compared with measured UCS values. Although the
estimated UCS from Model 7 using Is(50) produces a mean value relatively
4.1. Trend of UCS
close to the mean of measured UCS, other statistics like minimum,
maximum and standard deviation values are significantly different from
Empirical models 1–27 were used to estimate UCS from their
those of the measured UCS. This again indicates the possibility to
respective input data. The estimated UCS values are plotted with
underestimate or overestimate UCS when UCS is obtained through
measured UCS values in Figs. 1–5, which are used to compare the
empirical models. For sedimentary rock, the estimated UCS values from
measured UCS with estimated UCS from inputs of Is(50), SRH, BPI, n, and
empirical models do not provide satisfactory statistics compared with
ρ, respectively. From Fig. 1, it seems that the Is(50) data and empirical
measured one. The physical tests (i.e. n and ρ) and BPI values lead to
models used provide satisfactory estimation of UCS values. Based on
underestimation of UCS; Is(50) values lead to overestimation of UCS
visual judgement of the performance of the empirical models, the
compared with measured one, whilst SRH values lead to underestimation
estimated UCS from Models 1, 3, 7 and 11 seems to be close to the
and overestimation of UCS.
measured one. In Fig. 1, not all estimated UCS values are close to the
Figs. 6–8 present cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of UCS for
measured ones, but they have the same trend. From Fig. 2, the estimated
igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. In Fig. 6, the CDFs of
UCS values from empirical models and SRH data do not provide a
estimated UCS from Models 1 and 3 are close to that of measured UCS.
satisfactory characterisation of UCS at the site. For all the cases plotted in
This fair agreement suggests that the information contained in the
Fig. 2, the estimated UCS plot far away from the measured UCS. In
estimated UCS using Models 1 and 3 is consistent with that obtained from
addition, there are disparities in the trends of the estimated and measured
the measured UCS. The CDFs of the estimated UCS obtained from other
UCS values, unlike those presented in Fig. 1. Fig. 3 presents the plots of
models are not close to that of measured UCS. This further confirms the
estimated UCS values of sedimentary rock from a model using BPI as input
statistical results of the estimated UCS, indicating that Models 1 and 3
data. Although, the empirical model and BPI data underestimate the UCS
provide better estimates than other models. In Fig. 7, the CDFs of the
values, the estimated UCS has a similar trend with the measured UCS. Fig.
estimated UCS generally plot away from that of the measured UCS.
4 presents the estimated UCS values of igneous and sedimentary rocks
Although, the CDF of estimated UCS from Model 7 is slightly close to the
from empirical models using effective porosity (n) as input data. For both
CDF of measured UCS, it is still far away when compared with the
rock types, the estimated UCS values have different trends from the
closeness of the CDFs of UCS from Models 1 and 3 as indicated in Fig. 6.
measured UCS values. Averagely, Model 22 overestimates UCS for igneous
Like Fig. 7, Fig. 8 shows that the CDFs of estimated UCS plot away from the
rock while Models 23 and 24 underestimate UCS for sedimentary rock.
CDF of measured UCS. Although the CDF of estimated UCS from Model 11
Fig. 5 presents the estimated UCS values of igneous and sedimentary rocks
follows the pattern and trend of the CDF of measured UCS, it plots away
from empirical models using density (ρ) as input data. For igneous rock,
from the CDF of estimated UCS. The other CDFs of estimated UCS do not
the estimated UCS has a similar trend with measured one but displays an
follow the pattern or trend of the CDF of measured UCS, and they plot far
overestimation of UCS compared with the measured UCS in the same
away.
figure. For sedimentary rock, the estimated UCS has a different trend from
 300 300

Uniaxial compressive strength,

Measured UCS

Uniaxial compressive strength,

270 270 Measured UCS
Estimated UCS from Model 1 Estimated UCS from Model 13
240 Estimated UCS from Model 2 240 Estimated UCS from Model 14
UCS (MPa) 210 Estimated UCS from Model 3 210
Estimated UCS from Model 4

UCS (MPa)
180 180
150 150
120 120
90 90
60 60
30 30
0 0

G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12
G13
G14
G16
G17
G18
G19
G20
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12
G13
G15
G16
G17
G18
G19
G20
Sample ID Sample ID

(a) (a)

300 300

Uniaxial compressive strength,

Uniaxial compressive strength,

270 Measured UCS 270

Estimated UCS from Model 5 Measured UCS
240 240
Estimated UCS from Model 6 Estimated UCS from Model 15
210 Estimated UCS from Model 7 210

UCS (MPa)
UCS (MPa)

180 180
150 150
120 120
90 90
60 60
30 30
0 0
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20

S1
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
Sample ID Sample ID

(b) (b)

300 300
Measured UCS Measured UCS
Uniaxial compressive strength,

Uniaxial compressive strength,

270 Estimated UCS from Model 8 270 Estimated UCS from Model 16
240 Estimated UCS from Model 9 240 Estimated UCS from Model 17
Estimated UCS from Model 10 Estimated UCS from Model 18
210 Estimated UCS from Model 11 210 Estimated UCS from Model 19
UCS (MPa)

UCS (MPa)

180 Estimated UCS from Model 12 180 Estimated UCS from Model 20
150 150
120 120
90 90
60 60
30 30
0 0
SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
SS6
SS7
SS9
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
SS14
SS15
SS16
SS17
SS18
SS19
SS20

SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS7
SS9
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
SS14
SS15
SS16
SS17
SS19
SS20
Sample ID Sample ID

(c) (c)
Fig. 1. Comparison of the estimated UCS from different models using Fig. 2. Comparison of the estimated UCS from different models using SRH
Is(50) as input data: (a) Igneous rock; (b) metamorphic rock; and (c) as input data: (a) Igneous rock; (b) metamorphic rock; and (c)
sedimentary rock. sedimentary rock.

4.3. Comparison of prediction performance of the empirical models

300
Uniaxial compressive strength,

270 Measured UCS

240 AAREP, RMSE and VAF are used to statistically analyse the
Estimated UCS from Model 21
210 performance of each regression equation when estimating UCS. Table 6
UCS (MPa)

180 presents the results of the analyses. Comparison of the results indicates
150 that the prediction performance of empirical equations varies with
120
performance indicators. In this study, the best three prediction
90
60 performances are identified for each of the performance indicators. For
30 AAREP, Models 1, 3 and 2 have the best performances at 7.56%, 10.25%
0 and 23.99%, respectively, because the lower the AAREP, the better the
SS1
SS2
SS4
SS6
SS7
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
SS14
SS15
SS16
SS17
SS19
SS20

empirical equation’s performance. It is interesting that all the three

Sample ID models are empirical models developed for igneous rocks using Is(50) as
input. For RMSE, Models 1, 7 and 3 have the best performances at 15.99
Fig. 3. Comparison of the estimated UCS of sedimentary rock from a MPa, 16.46 MPa and 17.67 MPa, respectively. Like AAREP, the lower the
RMSE, the better the performance of an empirical equation. Like the
model using BPI as input data.
regression models with best performances under AAREP, the three
models with the best performances under RMSE are also using Is(50) as
input. The slight difference from the case of AAREP is that two of three
models
 Uniaxial compressive strength, 300 300

Uniaxial compressive strength,

270 270 Measured UCS
240 240 Estimated UCS from Model 23
210 210 Estimated UCS from Model 24

UCS (MPa)
UCS (MPa)

180 180
150 150
120 120
90 90
60 Measured UCS 60
30 Estimated UCS from Model 22 30
0 0

SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS7
SS8
SS9
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
SS14
SS15
SS16
SS17
SS19
SS20
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12
G13
G14
G15
G16
G17
G18
G19
G20
Sample ID Sample ID

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Comparison of the estimated UCS from different models using effective porosity (n) as data input: (a) Igneous rock; and (b) sedimentary rock.

300 300

Uniaxial compressive strength,

Measured UCS
Uniaxial compressive strength,

270 270 Measured UCS

Estimated UCS from Model 25 Estimated UCS from Model 26
240 240
Estimated UCS from Model 27
210 210

UCS (MPa)
UCS (MPa)

180 180
150 150
120 120
90
90
60
60
30
30
0
0
SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS7
SS8
SS9
SS10
SS11
SS12
SS13
SS14
SS15
SS16
SS17
SS18
SS19
SS20
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12
G13
G14
G15
G16
G17
G18
G19
G20

Sample ID Sample ID

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Comparison of the estimated UCS from different models using density (ρ) as data input: (a) Igneous rock; and (b) sedimentary rock.

are for estimating igneous rocks while the other is for metamorphic rocks.
For VAF, Models 6, 11 and 2 have the best performances at 83.62%,
82.88% and 78.01%, respectively. Unlike AAREP and RMSE, the higher the
VAF, the better the performance of an empirical equation. In a similar
fashion to the regression models with best performances under AAREP
and RMSE, the three models with the best performances under VAF are
those with Is(50) as input. The difference from the cases of AAREP and
RMSE is that each of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks has
one model each out of the three models, with best prediction
performances.
From the statistical analyses using AAREP, RMSE and VAF as
prediction indicators, no model emerges as the best in all three analyses.
However, Models 1, 2 and 3 each has two best performances from the
three statistical analyses. In addition, Model 1 has the best prediction
performance in both AAREP and RMSE analyses. From the three statistical
analyses performed in this study, the models with the best prediction
performance are the empirical equations using Is(50) as input. The point
load strength (Is(50)) appears to be the best proxy for UCS, which is
consistent with previous studies on estimated UCS (Brook, 1985; Cargill
and Shakoor, 1990; Ghosh and Srivastava, 1991; Tuğrul and Zarif, 1999;
Mishra and Basu, 2013).
5. Conclusions
The UCS is one of the basic inputs required for designs and analyses
of most mining engineering projects. Uniaxial compression tests are
tedious, time-consuming and expensive when they are used to obtain UCS
of rocks. However, at the early stage of many practical applications, and in
many small to medium-sized projects, UCS may not be available. Hence, it
is necessary to estimate UCS without having uniaxial compression test
data. In the absence of measured UCS, mining engineers often estimate
rock UCS based on empirical equations and results from index and
physical tests. However, using empirical equations comes with the
possibility of overestimation or underestimation of UCS caused by
site-specific nature of rock properties, type-specific nature of rock and
data that are used to develop empirical equations.
Therefore, this study evaluates the prediction performance of 27
empirical equations in estimating UCS. There are 60 data of uniaxial
compression tests in total from three project sites in India, with 20 data
each for igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks. The prediction
performances of the empirical equations in estimating UCS from index and
physical test results are evaluated using statistical analyses. It is found
that the empirical equations can underestimate or overestimate UCS. Only
about 5 out

Table 5
Statistics of estimated UCS of rocks using different empirical models and input data.
 Model Rock type Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation
Measured UCS of igneous rock 91.48 201.73 150.10 28.31
Model Rock type (igneous)
1 UCS = 16Is(50) 90.56 226.08 144.29 34.41
2 UCS = 12.5Is(50) 70.75 176.63 112.73 26.88
3 UCS = 15.25Is(50) 86.32 215.48 137.53 32.80
4 UCS = 8.2Is(50) + 36.43 82.84 152.30 110.38 17.63
13 UCS = 8.36SRH − 416 26.41 149.47 92.46 37.96
14 UCS = 1.45e(0.07SRH) 58.91 165.07 107.42 34.05
22 UCS = 274 − 8.51n, n < 20%; UCS = 104 − 1.01n, n>20% 103.60 271.49 170.57 84.00
25 UCS = 10−5ρ16.7 159.87 245.14 196.48 23.77
Measured UCS of metamorphic rock 21.36 95.14 46.53 19.01
Model Rock type (metamorphic)
5 UCS = 23.37Is(50) 27.26 175.85 89.85 36.72
6 UCS = 11.103Is(50) + 37.659 50.43 120.04 79.75 17.2
7 UCS = 18.45Is(50) − 13.63 7.59 123.27 56.31 28.58
15 UCS = 0.64SRH + 37.5 57.76 75.00 66.55 4.71
Measured UCS of sedimentary rock 12.8 172.03 57.44 41.57
Model Rock type (sedimentary)
8 UCS = 17.6Is(50) + 13.5 35.5 215.72 102.01 52.89
9 UCS =16.5Is(50) + 51.0 71.63 240.59 133.98 49.58
10 UCS =19Is(50) + 12.7 36.45 231.01 108.25 57.10
11 UCS = 14.3Is(50) 17.88 164.31 71.91 42.97
12 UCS = 23Is(50) 28.75 264.27 115.66 69.12
16 UCS =0.99SRH − 0.38 25.25 57.62 42.17 10.53
17 UCS =4.85SRH − 76.18 49.39 207.98 132.29 51.60
18 UCS = 4.29SRH − 67.52 43.55 183.83 116.88 45.64
19 UCS = 0.0001SRH3.2658 4.12 59.34 26.12 17.62
20 UCS = exp(0.818 + 0.059SRH) 8.27 42.41 22.04 10.73
21 UCS = 2.72BPI + 13.7 20.58 70.25 34.51 14.91
23 UCS = 34.44e−0.044n 17.38 30.33 22.73 4.38
24 UCS = 64.23e−0.085n 17.14 50.24 29.70 11.10
26 UCS = 37.34ρ − 63.11 17.92 33.97 24.30 4.70
27 UCS = 55.57ρ − 100.75 19.84 43.73 29.34 6.99

1
Measured UCS
Estimated UCS from Model 1 (Is(50) data)
0.9 Estimated UCS from Model 2 (Is(50) data)
Estimated UCS from Model 3 (Is(50) data)
Estimated UCS from Model 4 (Is(50) data)
0.8 Estimated UCS from Model 13 (SRH data)
Estimated UCS from Model 14 (SRH data)
Estimated UCS from Model 22 (n data)
0.7 Estimated UCS from Model 25 (ρ data)
Cumulative distribution function

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Uniaxial compressive strength, UCS (MPa)

Fig. 6. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of UCS of igneous rock. [Please change comma in y-axle number into dot. For example, change 0,1 into 0.1]
 1

0.9

0.8
Cumulative distribution function

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 Measured UCS

Estimated UCS from Model 5 (Is(50) data)

0.2 Estimated UCS from Model 6 (Is(50) data)

Estimated UCS from Model 7 (Is(50) data)

0.1
Estimated UCS from Model 15 (SRH data)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Uniaxial compressive strength, UCS (MPa)

Fig. 7. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of UCS of metamorphic rock.

1.00

0.90

0.80
Measured UCS
Estimated UCS from Model 8 (Is(50) data)
Cumulative distribution function

0.70
Estimated UCS from Model 9 (Is(50) data)
Estimated UCS from Model 10 (Is(50) data)
0.60
Estimated UCS from Model 11 (Is(50) data)
Estimated UCS from Model 12 (Is(50) data)
0.50
Estimated UCS from Model 16 (SRH data)
Estimated UCS from Model 17 (SRH data)
0.40
Estimated UCS from Model 18 (SRH data)
Estimated UCS from Model 19 (SRH data)
0.30 Estimated UCS from Model 20 (SRH data)
Estimated UCS from Model 21 (PBI data)
0.20 Estimated UCS from Model 23 (n data)
Estimated UCS from Model 24 (n data)
0.10 Estimated UCS from Model 26 (ρ data)
Estimated UCS from Model 27 (ρ data)
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Uniaxial compressive strength, UCS (MPa)

Fig. 8. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) of UCS of sedimentary rock.

Table 6
Prediction performance of empirical models and input data in estimation of UCS. Models with the best performance in each statistical approach are
shown in boldface.
Model and Rock type AAREP (%) RMSE (MPa) VAF (%)
Model Rock type (Igneous)
1 UCS = 16Is(50) 7.56 15.99 62.33
2 UCS = 12.5Is(50) 23.91 36.66 78.01
3 UCS = 15.25Is(50) 10.25 17.67 67.07
4 UCS = 8.2Is(50) + 36.43 24.55 39.16 74.80
13 UCS = 8.36SRH − 416 40.43 59.85 64.83
14 UCS = 1.45e(0.07SRH) 29.51 44.78 75.08
22 UCS = 274 − 8.51n, n < 20%; UCS =104 − 1.01n, n > 20% 37.21 69.20 23.82
25 UCS =10−5ρ16.7 33.12 48.52 73.41
Model Rock type (metamorphic)
5 UCS = 23.37Is(50) 95.10 47.83 19.85
6 UCS = 11.103Is(50) + 37.659 84.73 34.06 83.62
7 UCS = 18.45Is(50) − 13.63 34.44 16.46 48.89
15 UCS =0.64SRH + 37.5 66.90 25.61 27.79
Model Rock type (sedimentary)
8 UCS = 17.6Is(50) + 13.5 99.96 47.22 72.99
9 UCS = 16.5Is(50) + 51.0 186.57 76.57 77.49
10 UCS = 19Is(50) + 12.7 111.03 54.05 65.50
11 UCS = 14.3Is(50) 38.64 20.86 82.88
12 UCS = 23Is(50) 115.72 65.13 33.33
16 UCS = 0.99SRH − 0.38 36.69 25.60 45.41
17 UCS = 4.85SRH − 76.18 207.04 85.44 32.71
18 UCS = 4.29SRH − 67.52 171.19 69.42 53.29
19 UCS = 0.0001SRH3.2658 50.44 30.77 69.48
20 UCS = exp(0.818 + 0.059SRH) 51.57 37.20 48.96
21 UCS = 2.72BPI + 13.7 29.59 23.82 60.49
23 UCS = 34.44e−0.044n 44.35 39.91 23.01
24 UCS = 64.23e−0.085n 36.78 30.83 52.08
26 UCS = 37.34ρ − 63.11 45.91 49.37 18.42
27 UCS = 55.57ρ − 100.75 45.02 44.68 26.49

of the 27 investigated empirical equations produce satisfactory

performances in estimating UCS. Also, point load strength (Is(50)) is the Conflicts of interest
most reliable index for estimating UCS among the five types of test results
evaluated. Some of the main sources of inaccuracy in empirical estimation
The author wishes to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
of UCS are related to the data used for developing the empirical equations,
interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant
site-specific nature of rock properties and type-specific nature of rock.
financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
Rocks are formed under different geological conditions, which may lead to
misleading estimation when empirical equations developed from such
References
rock data are used for rocks with different geological histories. Another
source of disparity between estimated UCS and measured UCS may arise
Adebayo B, Aladejare AE. Effect of rock properties on excavation-loading
from limited number and small range of data used to develop some of the
operation in selected quarries. Advanced Materials Research
empirical equations reported in the literature. There is a disparity when
2013;824;86–90.
such empirical equations are used to estimate UCS beyond the range for
Agustawijaya DS. The uniaxial compressive strength of soft rock. Civil
which they have been developed.
Engineering Dimension 2007;9(1):9–14.
It is suggested that experiments to obtain rock data for development
Aladejare AE. Development of Bayesian probabilistic approaches for rock
of empirical equations should be performed with utmost care and
property characterization. PhD Thesis. Hong Kong, China: City
precaution. This will reduce experimental and measurement errors that
University of Hong Kong; 2016.
will propagate from the data to the empirical equations. The data for
Aladejare AE, Akeju VO. Design and Sensitivity Analysis of Rock Slope
development of empirical equations should cover a wide range of rock
Using Monte Carlo Simulation. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering
data, so that the disparity is minimised when it is used for a wide range of
2019; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-01048-z.
rock data. In addition, mining engineers and practitioners should restrict
Aladejare AE, Wang Y. Evaluation of rock property variability. Georisk:
the use of empirical equations to similar rock types from which they are
Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and
developed. For instance, using empirical equations developed from
Geohazards 2017;11(1):22–41.
igneous rock data to estimate UCS of igneous rock reduces some
Aladejare AE, Wang Y. Influence of rock property correlation on reliability
uncertainties which may occur when they are used to estimate UCS of
analysis of rock slope stability: From property characterization to
metamorphic or sedimentary rock. Also, the use of machine learning and
reliability analysis. Geoscience Frontiers 2018;9(6):1639–48.
soft computing techniques is recommended when multiple types of input
Aladejare AE, Wang Y. Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus
data are available at rock or project site, and when there is a need for use
using indirect information from multiple sources. Tunnelling and
of multiple regressions to estimate UCS.
Underground Space Technology 2019a;85:76–83.
Aladejare AE, Wang Y. Probabilistic characterization of Hoek–Brown
constant mi of rock using Hoek’s guideline chart, regression model and
uniaxial compression test. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering
2019b; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-019-00961-7.
Al-Harthi AA, Al-Amri RM, Shehata WM. The porosity and engineering
properties of vesicular basalt in Saudi Arabia. Engineering Geology
1999;54(3–4):313–20.
Aliyu MM, Shang J, Murphy W, Lawrence JA, Collier R, Kong F, Zhao Z.
Assessing the uniaxial compressive strength of extremely hard
cryptocrystalline flint. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 2019;113:310–21.
Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Bejarbaneh BY, Marto A, Mohamad ET.
Indirect measure of shale shear strength parameters by means of rock
index tests through an optimized artificial neural network.
Measurement 2014;55:487–98.
Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET, Momeni E, Narayanasamy MS. An adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system for predicting unconfined compressive
strength and Young’s modulus: A study on Main Range granite. Bulletin
of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2015;74(4):1301–19.
Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET, Hajihassani M, Yagiz S, Motaghedi H.
Application of several non-linear prediction tools for estimating
uniaxial compressive strength of granitic rocks and comparison of their
performances. Engineering with Computers 2016;32(2):189–206.
Armaghani DJ, Safari V, Fahimifar A, Monjezi M, Mohammadi MA. Uniaxial
compressive strength prediction through a new technique based on
gene expression programming. Neural Computing and Applications
2018;30(11):3523–32.
Aydin A, Basu A. The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization.
Engineering Geology 2005;81(1):1–14.
Bahaaddini M, Moghadam EH. Evaluation of empirical approaches in
estimating the deformation modulus of rock masses. Bulletin of
Engineering Geology and the Environment 2019;78(5):3493–507.
Basu A, Aydin A. A method for normalization of Schmidt hammer rebound
values. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2004;41(7):1211–14.
Basu A. The point load test in rock material characterization. Journal of
Engineering Geology 2008;35:379–87.
Basu A, Kamran M. Point load test on schistose rocks and its applicability
in predicting uniaxial compressive strength. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2010;5(47):823–8.
Beiki M, Majdi A, Givshad AD. Application of genetic programming to
predict the uniaxial compressive strength and elastic modulus of
carbonate rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 2013;63:159–69.
Bieniawski ZT. Estimating the strength of rock materials. Journal of the
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 1974;74(8):312–
20.
Bieniawski ZT. The point-load test in geotechnical practice. Engineering
Geology 1975;9(1):1–11.
Bieniawski ZT. Rock mass classification in rock engineering applications.
In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Exploration in Rock Engineering.
vol. 12; 1976. p. 97–106.
Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classifications: A complete manual
for engineers and geologists in mining, civil, and petroleum engineering.
New York, USA: Wiley; 1989.
Broch E, Franklin JA. The point-load strength test. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
1972;9(6):669–76.
Brook N. The equivalent core diameter method of size and shape
correction in point load testing. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts 1985;22(2):61–70.
Cargill JS, Shakoor A. Evaluation of empirical methods for measuring the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Science & Geomechanics Abstracts
1990;27(6):495–503.
Chatterjee R, Mukhopadhyay M. Petrophysical and geomechanical
properties of rocks from the oilfields of the Krishna–Godavari and
Cauvery Basins, India. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment 2002;61(2):169–78.
Chau KT, Wong RHC. Uniaxial compressive strength and point load
strength. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science &
Geomechanics Abstracts 1996;33(2):183–8.
Deere DU, Miller RP. Engineering classification and index properties for
intact rock. Technical Report AFNL-TR-65-116. Albuquerque, USA: Air
Force Weapon Laboratory; 1966.
Dehghan S, Sattari GH, Chelgani SC, Aliabadi MA. Prediction of uniaxial
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for Travertine samples
using regression and artificial neural networks. Mining Science and
Technology (China) 2010;20(1):41–6.
Diamantis K, Gartzos E, Migiros G. Study on uniaxial compressive strength,
point load strength index, dynamic and physical properties of
serpentinites from Central Greece: Test results and empirical relations.
Engineering Geology 2009;108(3–4):199–207.
Ditlevsen O. Uncertainty modeling with applications to multidimensional
civil engineering systems. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill; 1981.
Fener M, Kahraman S, Bilgil A, Gunaydin O. A comparative evaluation of
indirect methods to estimate the compressive strength of rocks. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2005;38(4):329–43.
Franklin JA. Suggested methods for determining water-content, porosity,
density, absorption and related properties and swelling and
slake-durability index properties. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1979;16(2):143–51.
Goodman RE. Block theory and its application. In: Daemen JJK, Schultz RA.
Proceedings of 35th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics. 1995. p. 3–15.
Gökçeoglu C. Schmidt sertlik cekici kullamlarak tahmin edilen tek eksenli
basinc dayanini verilerinin güvenirligi üzerine bir degerlendirme. Jeol
Müh 1996;48:78–81 (in Turkish).
Gokceoglu C, Aksoy H. New approaches to the characterization of
clay-bearing, densely jointed and weak rock masses. Engineering
Geology 2000;58(1):1–23.
Gokceoglu C, Zorlu K. A fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial compressive
strength and the modulus of elasticity of a problematic rock.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 2004;17(1):61–72.
Ghosh DK, Srivastava M. Point-load strength: an index for classification of
rock material. Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering
Geology 1991;44(1): 27–33.
Grima MA, Babuška R. Fuzzy model for the prediction of unconfined
compressive strength of rock samples. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1999;36(3):339–49.
Gunsallus KL, Kulhawy FH. A comparative evaluation of rock strength
measures. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
& Geomechanics Abstracts 1984;21(5):233–48.
Gupta V. Non-destructive testing of some Higher Himalayan rocks in the
Satluj Valley. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment
2009;68(3):409–16.
Haramy KY, DeMarco MJ. Use of the Schmidt hammer for rock and coal
testing. In: Proceedings of the 26th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics
(USRMS). American Rock Mechanics Association (ARMA); 1985.
Hoek E, Carranza-Torres C, Corkum B. Hoek-Brown failure
criterion—2002 Edition. In: Proceedings of 5th North American Rock
Mechanics Symposium and the 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada
Conference (NARMS-TAC); 2002. p. 267–73.
Hyndman RJ, Koehler AB. Another look at measures of forecast accuracy.
International Journal of Forecasting 2006;22(4):679–88.
Jahanbakhshi R, Keshavarzi R, Azinfar MJ. Intelligent prediction of uniaxial
compressive strength for sandstone. In: Proceedings of the 45th US
Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. ARMA; 2011.
Kahraman S. Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial
compressive strength of rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 2001;38(7):981–94.
Kahraman S, Gunaydin O, Fener M. The effect of porosity on the relation
between uniaxial compressive strength and point load index.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2005;4(42): 584–9.
Kahraman S, Gunaydin O. The effect of rock classes on the relation
between uniaxial compressive strength and point load index. Bulletin of
Engineering Geology and the Environment 2009;68(3):345–53.
Katz O, Reches Z, Roegiers JC. Evaluation of mechanical rock properties
using a Schmidt Hammer. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences 2000;37(4):723–8.
Khandelwal M, Singh TN. Correlating static properties of coal measures
rocks with P-wave velocity. International Journal of Coal Geology
2009;79(1–2):55–60.
Kılıç A, Teymen A. Determination of mechanical properties of rocks using
simple methods. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment
2008;67(2):237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-008-0128-3
Kohno M, Maeda H. Relationship between point load strength index and
uniaxial compressive strength of hydrothermally altered soft rocks.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2012;50:147–57.
Madhubabu N, Singh PK, Kainthola A, Mahanta B, Tripathy A, Singh TN.
Prediction of compressive strength and elastic modulus of carbonate
rocks. Measurement 2016;88:202–13.
Meulenkamp F, Grima MA. Application of neural networks for the
prediction of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) from Equotip
hardness. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
1999;36(1):29–39.
Mishra DA, Basu A. Use of the block punch test to predict the compressive
and tensile strengths of rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 2012;51:119–27.
Mishra DA, Basu A. Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength of rock
materials by index tests using regression analysis and fuzzy inference
system. Engineering Geology 2013;160:54–68.
Mohamad ET, Armaghani DJ, Momeni E, Abad SVANK. Prediction of the
unconfined compressive strength of soft rocks: A PSO-based ANN
approach. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment
2015;74(3):745–57.
Momeni E, Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Amin MFM. Prediction of uniaxial
compressive strength of rock samples using hybrid particle swarm
optimization-based artificial neural networks. Measurement
2015a;60:50–63.
Momeni E, Nazir R, Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET. Prediction of unconfined
compressive strength of rocks: A review paper. Jurnal Teknologi
2015b;77(11). https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6393.
Monjezi M, Khoshalan HA, Razifard M. A neuro-genetic network for
predicting uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering 2012; 30(4):1053–62.
O'Rourke JE. Rock index properties for geoengineering in underground
development. Mining Engineering 1989;41(2):106–9.
Palchik V. Influence of porosity and elastic modulus on uniaxial
compressive strength in soft brittle porous sandstones. Rock Mechanics
and Rock Engineering 1999;32(4):303–9.
Palchik V. Use of stress-strain model based on Haldane's distribution
function for prediction of elastic modulus. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2007;44(4):514–24.
Palmstrøm A. Characterizing rock masses by the RMi for use in practical
rock engineering: Part 1: The development of the Rock Mass index
(RMi). Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 1996;11(2):175–
86.
Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH. Evaluation of geotechnical property variability.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1999;36(4):625-39.
Rabbani E, Sharif F, Salooki MK, Moradzadeh A. Application of neural
network technique for prediction of uniaxial compressive strength
using reservoir formation properties. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2012;56:100–11.
Rezaei M, Majdi A, Monjezi M. An intelligent approach to predict
unconfined compressive strength of rock surrounding access tunnels in
longwall coal mining. Neural Computing and Applications
2014;24(1):233–41.
Sachpazis CI. Correlating Schmidt hardness with compressive strength
and Young’s modulus of carbonate rocks. Bulletin of the International
Association of Engineering Geology 1990;42(1):75–83.
Shen J, Karakus M. Simplified method for estimating the Hoek-Brown
constant for intact rocks. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 2014;140(6).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001116.
Singh VK, Singh DP. Correlation between point load index and
compressive strength for quartzite rocks. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering 1993;11(4):269–72.
Singh VK, Singh D, Singh TN. Prediction of strength properties of some
schistose rocks from petrographic properties using artificial neural
networks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2001;38(2):269–84.
Singh R, Kainthola A, Singh TN. Estimation of elastic constant of rocks
using an ANFIS approach. Applied Soft Computing 2012a;12(1):40–5.
Singh TN, Kainthola A, Venkatesh A. Correlation between point load index
and uniaxial compressive strength for different rock types. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering 2012b;45(2):259–64.
Smith HJ. The point load test for weak rock in dredging applications.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
1997;34(3–4):295.e1–295.e13.
Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Kayabasi A. Estimation of rock
modulus: for intact rocks with an artificial neural network and for rock
masses with a new empirical equation. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2006;43(2):224–35.
Sulukcu S, Ulusay R. Evaluation of the block punch index test with
particular reference to the size effect, failure mechanism and its
effectiveness in predicting rock strength. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2001;38(8):1091–111.
Torabi-Kaveh M, Naseri F, Saneie S, Sarshari B. Application of artificial
neural networks and multivariate statistics to predict UCS and E using
physical properties of Asmari limestones. Arabian Journal of
Geosciences 2015;8(5):2889–97.
Tsiambaos G, Sabatakakis N. Considerations on strength of intact
sedimentary rocks. Engineering Geology 2004;72(3–4):261–73.
Tuğrul, A, Gürpinar, O. A proposed weathering classification for basalts
and their engineering properties (Turkey). Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment 1997;55(1):139–149.
Tugrul A, Zarif IH. Correlation of mineralogical and textural characteristics
with engineering properties of selected granitic rocks from Turkey.
Engineering Geology 1999;51(4):303–17.
Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C. The modified block punch index test. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 1997;34(6):991–1001.
Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C, Sulukcu S. Draft ISRM suggested method for
determining block punch strength index (BPI). International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2001:38(8):1113–9.
Ulusay R, Hudson JA. The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock
characterisation, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. ISRM and Turkish
National Group of ISRM; 2007.
Ulusay R. Türeli K, Ider MH. Prediction of engineering properties of a
selected litharenite sandstone from its petrographic characteristics
using correlation and multivariate statistical techniques. Engineering
Geology 1994; 38(1–2):135–57.
Van der Schrier JS. The block punch index test. Bulletin of the
International Association of Engineering Geology 1988;38(1):121–6.
Wang Y, Aladejare AE. Selection of site-specific regression model for
characterization of uniaxial compressive strength of rock. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2015;75:73-81.
Dr. Adeyemi Aladejare is a Senior Lecturer at University of Oulu, Finland.
He obtained his B.Eng. (First Class Honours) in Mining Engineering and
M.Eng. in Underground Mining Engineering from Federal University of
Technology Akure, Nigeria in 2008 and 2012, respectively, and his PhD in
Rock Mechanics from the City University of Hong Kong, in 2016. His
research interests include rock property characterisation for mining
engineering projects, slope stability, and probability-based design of
surface and underground mines. Dr. Aladejare is a reviewer for top
international journals in the field. He is actively involved in national and
international research and educational activities related to mining
engineering.
Wang Y, Aladejare AE. Bayesian characterization of correlation between
uniaxial compressive strength and Young's modulus of rock.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
2016;85:10–9.
Willmott CJ, Matsuura K. On the use of dimensioned measures of error to
evaluate the performance of spatial interpolators. International Journal
of Geographical Information Science 2006;20(1):89–102.
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. International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 2012;36(14):1636–50.
Yesiloglu-Gultekin N, Gokceoglu C, Sezer EA. Prediction of uniaxial
compressive strength of granitic rocks by various nonlinear tools and
comparison of their performances. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 2013;62:113–22.
Yılmaz I, Sendır H. Correlation of Schmidt hardness with unconfined
compressive strength and Young's modulus in gypsum from Sivas
(Turkey). Engineering Geology 2002;66(3–4):211–9.
Yılmaz I, Yuksek AG. An example of artificial neural network (ANN)
application for indirect estimation of rock parameters. Rock Mechanics
and Rock Engineering 2008;41(5):781–95.