Application of Index Test Methods For Intact Rock Strength Assesment

University of Nevada, Reno
Application of Index Test Methods for Intact Rock Strength

Assessment
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Mining Engineering
By
Pedram Roghanchi
Dr. Raj R. Kallu/Thesis Advisor
August, 2013
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
We recommend that the thesis

prepared under our supervision by
PEDRAM ROGHANCHI
entitled
Application of Index Test Mehods for Rock Strength Assessment
be accepted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Dr. Raj R. Kallu, Advisor
Dr. Jaak J. Daemen, Committee Member
Dr. Robert Watters, Graduate School Representative
Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Dean, Graduate School
August, 2013
i
Abstract:
Uniaxial compression strength of intact rock is important for engineering geology and
geotechnics, because it is an important design parameter for mines, tunnels, slopes, and
rock foundations. It is also used as input parameter in most the rock mass classification
systems. The difficulties associated with performing direct compression strength tests on
rock leads to indirect test methods for the rock strength assessment. Indirect test methods
are widely used because they are simple, more economical, less time consuming, and
easily adaptable to the field. The main aim of this study is to define correlations between
direct and indirect test methods for core samples from a gold mine in NV. The indirect
test methods are divided in two groups of (1) destructive indirect test methods and (2)
non-destructive indirect test methods. In the destructive methods, point load index (PLI)
tests, splitting tensile strength (Brazilian) tests, and block punch index (BPI) tests are
conducted. In the non-destructive methods, Schmidt hammer and ultrasonic pulse
velocity tests are performed. The results demonstrate that the block punch index test is
not applicable to these rock types. Eleven correlations between the direct and indirect
compression strength tests are developed using linear and nonlinear regression analysis
methods. To evaluate the performance of each regression equation, coefficient of
correlation (R2), variance accounted for (VAF), root mean square error (RMSE) and
mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated. The results show that the splitting tensile
strength has the best correlation relation with the uniaxial compression strength.
Furthermore, the Poisson‟s ratio has no correlation relation with any of the direct and
indirect test results.

ii
Acknowledgement:
I would like to gratefully thank Dr. Raj R. Kallu, assistant professor at UNR, who
without his support and guidance, this was not possible.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Jaak J. Daemen, professor at UNR,
for all of his advice and help for building this thesis. Without his guidance, advice, and
persistent help this thesis would not have been possible.
I would like to acknowledge Mr. John Leland, development technician at UNR, for his
great ideas and suggestions, and his time. Mr. Leland helped me to build my thesis with
his great ideas about laboratory testing methods. I would like to thank him for his
technical assistance during the laboratory testing.
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Raj R. Kallu, Dr. Jaak J. Daemen, and
Dr. Robert Waters, for their guidance during my Mater‟s studies at UNR.
In addition, I would like to acknowledge Sean N. Warren and Evan Keffeler, PhD
students at UNR, who provided the core specimens for me. I would like to acknowledge
Dr. Siavash Soroushian, PhD at UNR, for his outstanding ideas about data analysis and
data reductions. I would like to thank him for his support and care.
iii
Table Contents
Introduction
1.1. Intact Rock Strength Test Methods:....................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) Test: .................................................................................. 2
1.1.2. Splitting Tensile Strength (Brazilian) Test: .................................................................................... 2
1.1.3. Point Load Index (PLI) Test: .......................................................................................................... 3
1.1.4. Schmidt Rebound Hammer (SRH) Test: ........................................................................................ 4
1.1.5. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test: ...................................................................................................... 4
1.2. Objective and Background:.................................................................................................................... 5
Sample Preparation and Testing Results
2.1. Density, Water content, and Slake Durability Index of the Intact Rock: .......................................... 9
2.1.1. Density: ..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.2. Water (Moisture) Content of the UCS Specimens: ................................................................. 10
2.1.3. Slake Durability Test on the UCS Specimens: ....................................................................... 11
2.2. Index Test Methods: ....................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.1. Non-Destructive Indirect Test Methods:................................................................................. 13
2.2.1.1. Schmidt hammer test: ......................................................................................................... 13
2.2.1.2. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test:........................................................................................... 15
2.2.2. Destructive Indirect Tests: ...................................................................................................... 16
2.2.2.1. Point Load Index Test: ........................................................................................................ 16
2.2.2.1.1. The Point Load Tester .................................................................................................. 17
2.2.2.1.2. Point load test specimen ............................................................................................... 18
2.2.2.2. Splitting Tensile Strength Test:........................................................................................... 21
2.3. Uniaxial Compression strength tests: .............................................................................................. 24
Correlations between Direct and Indirect Test Methods
3.1. Introduction:......................................................................................................................................... 28
3.2. Regression Analysis: ............................................................................................................................ 29
3.2.1. Simple Linear Regression: ............................................................................................................ 29
3.2.2. Nonlinear Regression: ................................................................................................................... 29
3.2.3. Proposed Regression Models Performance: ................................................................................. 30
iv
3.3. Correlations between the Indirect and Direct Compression Strength Test Methods ........................... 31
3.3.1. Ultimate compression strength (UCS) and Young‟s modulus (E): ............................................... 31
3.3.2. Ultimate compression strength (UCS) and Schmidt rebound hammer (SRH) number: ............... 33
3.3.3. Ultimate compression strength (UCS) and splitting tensile strength (BRZ):................................ 34
3.3.4. Ultimate compression strength (UCS) and Ultrasonic Pulse velocity (P-wave):.......................... 35
3.3.5. Ultimate Compression Strength (UCS) and Point Load Index (Is(50)): .......................................... 36
3.3.6. Young‟s Modulus (E) and Point Load Index (Is(50)): ..................................................................... 37
3.3.7. Young‟s Modulus (E) and Splitting Tensile Strength (BRZ): ...................................................... 37
3.3.8. Splitting Tensile Strength (BRZ) and Point Load Index (Is(50)): ................................................... 38
3.3.9. Splitting Tensile Strength (BRZ) and Schmidt Rebound Hammer (SRH) Number: .................... 39
3.3.10. Young‟s Modulus (E) and Schmidt Rebound Hammer (SRH) Number:.................................... 40
3.3.11. Young‟s Modulus from Uniaxial Compression Test (EUCS) and Young‟s Modulus from
Ultrasonic Velocity Test (EP-wave): .......................................................................................................... 41
The Effect of Cylindrical Core Sample Length on Schmidt Rebound Hammer
(SRH) Value
4.1. Introduction:......................................................................................................................................... 43
4.2. Principal of Schmidt hammer test: .............................................................................................. 44
4.3. Hammer type:....................................................................................................................................... 45
4.4. Significant and use: .............................................................................................................................. 46
4.4. Specimen requirements: ....................................................................................................................... 47
Numerical Simulation of Block Punch Index (BPI)
5.1. Block Punch Index Test: ...................................................................................................................... 52

5.2. Block Punch Index Limitations: .......................................................................................................... 56
5.3. Numerical Simulation of Block Punch Index Test: ............................................................................. 57
5.3.1. Compression only support at the bottom of the specimen: ........................................................... 60
5.3.2. Fixed support at bottom and top of the specimen: ........................................................................ 61
Conclusions:................................................................................................................................................ 64
References ................................................................................................................................................... 68
Appendix-1: Specimen Preparation Report ................................................................................................ 72
Appendix-2: Strain Gages Results ............................................................................................................ 104
v
List of Tables:
Table 2.1. Indirect tensile strength and direct compression specimens density ......................................... 10
Table 2.2. Water content of the UCS specimens ........................................................................................ 11
Table 2.3. Slake durability of the UCS specimens ..................................................................................... 13
Table 2.4. Schmidt rebound hammer (SRH) number of the core specimens ............................................. 14
Table 2.5. Results of the ultrasonic pulse velocity tests on the UCS core specimens ................................ 16
Table 2.6. Results of the point load index test on the available samples ................................................... 21
Table 2.7. The results of the splitting tensile strength................................................................................ 24
Table 2.8. The results of the uniaxial compression strength test................................................................ 27
Table 3.1. Performance of the ultimate strength-Young‟s modulus equation ............................................ 32

Table 3.2. Performance of the SRH- ultimate strength equation ............................................................... 33
Table 3.3. Performance of the splitting tensile strength-ultimate strength equation .................................. 34
Table 3.4. Performance of the P-wave-ultimate strength equation ............................................................ 35
Table 3.5. Performance of the point load index-ultimate strength equation .............................................. 36
Table 3.6. Performance of the point load index-Young‟s modulus equation ............................................. 37
Table 3.7. Performance of the splitting tensile strength-Young‟s modulus equation ................................ 38
Table 3.8. Performance of the splitting tensile strength-point load index equation ................................... 39
Table 3.9. Performance of the splitting tensile strength-SRH equation ..................................................... 40
Table 3.10. Performance of the splitting tensile strength-SRH equation ................................................... 41
Table 3.11. Performance of EUCS-EP-wave equation...................................................................................... 42
Table 4.1. Critical core sample length according to ASTM and ISRM standards procedures ................... 51
Table 5.1. Isotropic properties of the specimens for numerical simulation of BPI test ............................. 59
vi
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1. Slake durability testing machine .................................................................................................. 12

Fig. 2.2. Specimen W-5U before test and after the second cycle ............................................................... 13
Fig. 2.3. Point load tester (left) and point load platen (right) ..................................................................... 18
Fig. 2.4. Diamteral point load test on the specimen W-5U......................................................................... 19
Fig. 2.5. Example of invalid point load test (specimen 7U) ....................................................................... 19
Fig. 2.6. Example of valid point load test (specimen 7U) .......................................................................... 20
Fig. 2.7. Prepared specimens for splitting tensile strength test ................................................................... 22
Fig. 2.8. Brazilian specimen after the splitting tensile strength test ........................................................... 23
Fig. 2.9. Specimen W-1U before and after the uniaxial compression test (4 bonded rosettes) .................. 25
Fig. 2.10. Bonded rosettes on the specimens W-1U after the uniaxial compression test ........................... 25
Fig. 2.11. Specimen W-6U before and after the uniaxial compression test (2 bonded rosettes) ................ 26
Fig. 2.12. Specimens W-6U after the uniaxial compression test ................................................................ 26
Fig. 3.1. Specimen 7U (left) and 5U (right) after the failure ...................................................................... 32
Fig. 3.2. Correlation relation between ultimate strength and Young‟s modulus ........................................ 32
Fig. 3.3. Correlation relation between ultimate strength and SRH ............................................................. 33
Fig. 3.4. Correlation relation between ultimate strength and splitting tensile strength .............................. 34
Fig. 3.5. Correlation relation between ultimate strength and P-wave ......................................................... 35
Fig. 3.6. Correlation relation between ultimate strength and point load index ........................................... 36
Fig. 3.7. Correlation relation between Young‟s modulus and point load index ......................................... 37
Fig. 3.8. Correlation relation between Young‟s modulus and splitting tensile strength ............................. 38
Fig. 3.9. Correlation relation between splitting tensile strength and point load index ............................... 39
Fig. 3.10. Correlation relation between splitting tensile strength and SRH ............................................... 40
Fig. 3.11. Correlation relation between splitting tensile strength and SRH ............................................... 41
Fig. 3.12. Correlation relation between EUCS and EP-wave ............................................................................ 42
Fig. 4.1. Required V-shape steel base for Schmidt rebound hammer test .................................................. 45
Fig. 4.2. Schmidt hammer test requirements based on ASTM standard (a) hammer axis is
perpendicular to the surface test surface, (b) specimen is securely clamped to a steel base....................... 49
Fig. 4.3. Core sample length against SRH value based on ASTM standard procedure .............................. 50
Fig. 4.4. Core sample length against SRH value based on ISRM standard procedure ............................... 50
Fig. 4.5. Cylindrical core samples with different length of 3 cm t 20 cm .................................................. 51
Fig. 4.6. The Effect of Cylindrical Core Sample Length on Schmidt Hammer Hardness Value
(Method for critical core sample length determination) ............................................................................. 51
Fig. 5.1. Block Punch Index Machine (Modified GCTS PLI-100 Model) ....................... 52
Fig. 5.2. Prepared specimens for BPI test ......................................................................... 54
Fig. 5.3. Valid (left) and invalid (right) block punch index tests...................................... 57
vii
Fig. 5.4. Many of the block punch index tests were invalid (according to ISRM suggested
method) since the middle part of the specimen which is under compression load was
broken in many parts. ........................................................................................................ 58
Fig. 5.5. Splitting the top and bottom surfaces of the body sketch to model the supports
and loading plate ............................................................................................................... 59
Fig. 5.6. Mesh refinement at the two parallel planes at the top and bottom of the specimen
........................................................................................................................................... 60
Fig. 5.7. Mohr-Coulomb safety factor at the bottom (left) and top (right) for specimen W-
5U at the 2.5 MPa Pressure with compression support at the bottom of the body ........... 61
Fig. 5.8. Maximum principal stresses (MPa) at bottom (left) and top (right) for the
specimen W-5U with compression support at the bottom of the body ............................. 61
Fig. 5.9. Mohr-Coulomb safety factor at the bottom (left) and top (right) for specimen W-
5U at the 2.5 MPa applied stress with fixed supports ....................................................... 62
Fig. 5.10. Maximum principal stresses (MPa) at bottom (left) and top (right) for the
specimen W-5U with fixed supports................................................................................. 62
1
Introduction:
Rock strength measurement is important for the design of structures in rock as well as for
the strength classification of rock materials. By a better understanding of the rock mass
strength, it is possible to reduce stability problems that may occur due to deeper mining.
One of the most common ways of determining the rock mass strength is by a failure
criterion. The rock mass failure criteria are stress dependent and often include one or
several parameters that describe the rock mass properties. These parameters are based on
classification or characterization systems (Edelbro, 2003). Intact rock strength is an
important input in rock mass classification systems. Strength determinations on rock
usually require careful test setup and specimen preparation, and the results are highly
sensitive to the method and style of loading. An index is useful only if the properties are
reproducible from one laboratory to another and can be measured inexpensively. Indirect
test methods such as point load index (PLI), Schmidt hammer, ultrasonic pulse velocity,
and splitting tensile strength (Brazilian) tests are widely used because they are simple,
more economical, less time consuming, and easily adaptable to the field (Aksoy et al.,
2011).
1.1. Intact Rock Strength Test Methods:
Strength characteristics of rock are very important parameters for rock mass classification
and design of the structures in rock. Tests developed to measure rock strength properties,
whether direct or indirect tests are limited by sample availability. In some cases, core
samples having a sufficient height cannot be obtained because of the rock mass
2
properties. For this reason, many testing methods have been proposed for indirect
unconfined strength determination.
1.1.1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) Test:
The UCS is an important input parameter in rock mass classifications. Unconfined
compression is the most frequently used strength test for rocks; however, it is difficult to
perform and results can vary as procedures are varied. The test specimen should be a rock
cylinder of length-to-diameter ratio in the range 2 to 2.5 with flat, smooth, and parallel
ends cut perpendicularly to the cylinder axis. Procedures are given in ASTM D-2938
standard (2010) and by Bieniawski and Bernede (Goodman 1989). Measurement of rock
strength requires testing which must be undertaken on test specimens of particular size in
order to meet testing standards. A standard UCS test requires high quality core samples.
Recommended core samples cannot be obtained particularly from “weak, stratified and
fractured rock.” Often, the drilling process breaks up the weaker core pieces, and they are
too thin or fragmented to be used in either uniaxial compressive or splitting tensile
strength tests (Sulukcu & Ulusay, 2001).
1.1.2. Splitting Tensile Strength (Brazilian) Test:
The Brazilian test, described in the ASTM D-3967 standard (2008), is convenient for
gaining an estimate of the tensile strength of rock. “It has been found that a rock core
about as long as its diameter will split along the diameter and parallel to the cylinder axis
when loaded on its side in a compression machine” (Goodman, 1989). The reason for this
can be demonstrated by examining the stress inside a disk loaded at opposite sides of a
diametric plane (Goodman, 1989). Theoretically, the tensile failure occurs along the
loaded diameter, splitting the disc (or cylinder) into two halves. However, in many cases,
3
the fractures do not go through the center and separate the disc in two halves, as the
simple theory predicts. Also, in many cases, the influence of orientation angle is much
larger than that of foliation-loading angle (Quac et al. 2013).
1.1.3. Point Load Index (PLI) Test:
In the point load test, a rock is loaded between hardened steel cones, causing failure by
the development of tensile cracks parallel to the axis of loading. The test is an outgrowth
of experiments with compression of irregular pieces of rock in which it was found that
the shape and size effects were relatively small and could be accounted for, and in which
the failure usually was caused by induced tension (Goodman 1989).
Tests are done on pieces of drill core at least 1.4 times as long as the diameter. In practice
there is a strength/size effect; so a correction must be made to reduce results to a common
size (Goodman 1989, Schrier 1988). Although shortcomings related to this method have
been reported in many papers, it is being still used to predict UCS (Deere & Miller 1966,
Fener et al. 2005).
Shortcomings, limitations and problems related to the point load index test are as follows:
“(a) tested specimens are generally anisotropic and heterogenic, but tests are applied in
very small area; (b) irregular failures (invalid test results) frequently occur and cause a
requirement of too many rock specimens; (c) the specimen may move during loading;
and (d) micro-fissures may cross the conical platens. The main problem is sourced from
the more or less heterogeneity or anisotropy, thus the point load index test should be
preferably conducted on at least ten tests. If the rock is heterogeneous or anisotropic, the
test number should be more than ten. Modes of failures are also important for a valid test.
If the rock is broken as invalid shape, the test should be rejected” (Yalmiz 2009).
4
1.1.4. Schmidt Rebound Hammer (SRH) Test:
Schmidt hammer has been used worldwide as an index test for a quick rock strength and
deformability characterization due to its rapidity and easiness in execution, simplicity,
portability, low cost and non-destructiveness. The Schmidt hammer was originally
developed for measuring the strength of hardened concrete but it can also be correlated
with rock compressive strength according to Miller (1965) and Barton and Choubey
(1977). The principle of the test is based on the absorption of part of the spring-released
energy through plastic deformation of the rock surface, while the remaining elastic
energy causes the actual rebound of the hammer. The main shortcomings, limitations and
problems related to this testing method are “(a) anisotropy and heterogeneity of the rocks,
very small test conduction area, (b) roughness on the surfaces where the test is applied,
(c) vibration in the rock during test may set the specimen in motion, (d) test direction, and
(e) there have been a number of different empirical equations proposed for different types
of rocks (Yalmiz, 2009).”
1.1.5. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test:
Ultrasonic pulse velocity testing is a useful and reliable nondestructive tool for assessing
the mechanical characteristics of rock, such as the modulus of elasticity and the
compressive strength. The velocity of ultrasonic pulses traveling in a solid material
depends on the density and elastic properties of that material. The quality of some
materials is sometimes related to their elastic stiffness so that measurement of ultrasonic
pulse velocity in such materials can often be used to indicate their quality as well as to
determine elastic properties (Sharma & Singh 2008).

5
1.2. Objective and Background:
The main objective of this study is to develop correlations between the direct and indirect
test methods. Several correlations have been reported by many authors for different rock
types in various conditions. Sharma et al. (2011) established a statistical relationship
between Schmidt hammer rebound numbers with impact strength index (ISI), slake
durability index (SDI) and P-wave velocity. They determined these index properties in
the laboratory. Each index property was correlated with Schmidt hammer rebound values
for granite, basalt, andesite, sandstone, and quartz. Representative rock mass samples
were collected from the site to carry out other tests in the laboratory. During sample
collection, each block was inspected for macroscopic defects so that it would provide test
specimens free from fractures and joints. The equation of the best fit line and the
coefficient of determination (R2) were determined for each set of test results. It was found
that Schmidt hammer rebound numbers show linear relationship with ISI and SDI, but
shows exponential relationship with P-wave velocity. T-test was done to verify the
correlation between rebound values and other rock index properties. The results from the
T-test show higher calculated values, for each relationship, than the tabulated values.
Hence, they all have significantly strong correlation among themselves.
Cobanoglu & Celik (2008) developed a correlation of uniaxial compressive strength test
with indirect strength test methods. They prepared 150 cores from the sandstone,
limestone and cement mortar, with five different diameters: 54, 48, 42, 30 and 21 mm.
For the uniaxial compressive strength test, the tests were carried out using a loading rate
of 0.5 MPa/s. Five tests were undertaken for each core size of each material type. The
study of the relationship between core diameter and the UCS values showed that the
6
highest value for the limestone was obtained on the 21 mm sample and the lowest on the
54 mm sample. A total of 15 core samples were tested using the L-type Schmidt hammer
and a rock cradle following ISRM and the relationship between Schmidt hammer
rebound number and uniaxial compressive strength was found. The relationship between
the Is(50) and UCS values was obtained in this study for the five core diameters. Simple
regression analyses were performed to define type of the relationship between dependent
and independent parameters by considering linear functions. Also, multiple regression
analysis was done to evaluate the UCS of rock based on five index tests which were
performed in this study. The results are summarized as: UCS = 4.14 Is(50) + 29.8 Vp +
0.54 SHR – 116 (SHR stands for Schmidt hammer rebound number and Vp stands for
sonic velocity). The validity of the proposed equations is limited by the data range and
sample types which were used to derive the equations.
Potro and Hurlimann (2009) compared different direct and indirect compression test
methods to evaluate intact rock strength of volcanic rocks. Schmidt hammer, point load
test, and uniaxial compressive strength were performed on the core samples (or in the
field) from a volcanic area in the North Atlantic Ocean. L-type and N-type Schmidt
hammers were used to estimate rock strength in the thirty four different locations in the
area of interest. An error analysis for both Schmidt hammer tests showed they both have
very similar coefficient of variation distributions. Correlations between unit weight and
(N-type rebound number) RN and (L-type rebound number) RL were proposed. RN
provides very good linear correlation with unit weight; however, R L is less sensitive to
variations in unit weights. In this study, 152 point load tests were performed following
ISRM recommended procedure and ASTM standards. Strength values from point load
7
tests failed to give a relation with unit weight. Uniaxial compressive strength results
showed a good logarithmic relation with unit weight.
Kahraman et al. (2005) defined a correlation between uniaxial compressive strength and
point load index. The authors indicated that the derived ratios between UCS and Is exhibit
a very large range; the ratio for the equations using the zero intercept varies between 8.6
to 29. In this study, 38 different rock types were sampled, 11 of which were igneous, 9
were metamorphic, and 18 were sedimentary. The UCS tests were conducted on samples
with 38 mm diameter and L/D ratio of 2. Each test was repeated at least five times for all
the rock types and the average value was recorded as the UCS. The correlation between
UCS and Is values proposed: UCS=10.91Is+27.41 (R2=0.61). The authors studied the
relation between UCS/Is and n (porosity) for the tested rocks. They could not find any
relation between UCS/Is and n. To study the effect of porosity, the authors divided the
tested rock into two groups according to n values: n<1% and n>1%. The equations of the
correlations between UCS and Is proposed for these two groups were: UCS=24.83 Is-
39.64 (n<1%) and UCS=10.22Is+24.31 (n>1%).
The main aim of this study is to develop correlations between the direct and indirect
compression test methods for the core samples available from a gold mine in NV. There
was no information about the RQD (Rock Quality Designation) and depth of the core
samples. The core samples were basalts and rhyolite. Point load index (PLI), splitting
tensile strength (Brazilian Test), block punch index (BPI), Schmidt hammer test, and
ultrasonic pulse velocity test were performed.
In Chapter 2, the sample preparation, testing procedures, and testing results are described.
Indirect tests are divided into two groups, destructive and nondestructive methods. For
8
each indirect test, the number of tests, the number of valid tests and summary of the
results are given.
Chapter 3 presents the correlations between the direct and indirect test results. Simple
regression analysis is used to relate the direct and indirect test methods. To evaluate the
performance of each regression equation, coefficient of correlation (R2), variance
accounted for (VAF), logarithmic standard deviation (β), root mean square error (RMSE),
and mean absolute error (MAE) are calculated.
In Chapter 4, the effect of the core specimen length on the Schmidt rebound hammer
(SRH) is studied. In order to assess the effect of the length on the SRH value, HQ (63.5
mm diameter) core samples having lengths of 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 20 cm, from three
different rocks were prepared. The aim of the study was to validate the results of the
Schmidt hammer number which were used for the correlation relations.
Chapter 5 presents numerical simulation of the block punch index (BPI) test. In this
study, the BPI test was used as an indirect test method. The aim of the chapter is to
simulate the block punch index for moderate to strong intact rock.
Chapter 6 presents the conclusions and recommendations for future work for other
researchers who may wish to investigate the correlation relation between the direct and
indirect test methods.

9
Specimen Preparation and Testing Results:
Samples were prepared from core obtained from a NV gold mine. All attempts were
made to obtain index test specimens right above and/or right below the UCS specimens
for direct comparison. In some cases, one specimen, either indirect tensile strength or
point load strength, was selected either below or above the UCS sample. In some cases,
index test specimens were not available directly above or below the UCS specimen.
However all index specimens were cut from the same core and associated with the closest
UCS specimen. In a few cases, the core samples were not long enough to get enough
specimens for both direct and indirect tests methods. In these cases, the UCS core
samples were not included in the calculations.
2.1. Density, Water content, and Slake Durability Index of the Intact
Rock:
2.1.1. Density:
Prior to the destructive index testing, the density of splitting tensile test specimens and
uniaxial compression strength test specimens was determined. The splitting tensile test
specimens were weighed in an air-dried condition. The average density is considered for
the Brazilian splitting test specimens which came from the same sample ID.
The UCS test specimens were oven-dried to determine the density of the rock. The
volume of the specimen was computed by measuring the diameter of the rock specimen
at three locations and the thickness of the rock specimen at three locations. The average
10
thickness and diameter of the specimen was computed and the volume of the specimen
determined (Table 2.1).
The density of the specimen is simply the weight divided by the volume:
(2.1)
Table 2.1. Indirect tensile strength and direct compression specimens density
Density (g/cm3)
Sample ID UCS specimen Indirect tensile test specimen
2U 2.45 2.08
5U 2.53 2.54
6U 2.35 2.40
7U 2.47 2.55
8U 2.40 2.63
11U 2.25 2.39
W-1U 2.55 2.53
W-2U 2.10 2.08
W-5U 2.07 2.33
W-6U 1.96 2.13
2.1.2. Water (Moisture) Content of the UCS Specimens:
“Water content by mass is the ratio of the mass of water contained in the pore spaces of
soil or rock material, to the solid mass of particles in that material, expressed as a
percentage” (ASTM D2216, 2008). The water content was calculated for all UCS
specimens. The procedure of the water (moisture) content calculation for rock and soil is
described in the ASTM D-2216. For all the specimens, the weights were recorded after
sawing the specimens. The specimens were dried in the oven for at least 12 hours at the
temperature of 105 ± 2 oC. After the drying, weights of the dried specimens were
recorded. This procedure was performed two to three times to get a constant mass for all
the specimens. The water content by mass was recorded to the nearest 1 %. Table 2.2
shows the water content of the UCS specimens. As was expected, the water contents of
11
the UCS specimens were not considerable because the core samples were left in the
laboratory for several days, and most of the specimens were dried in the air-dried
condition.
Table 2.2. Water content of the UCS specimens
Sample ID Moisture content (%)

2U 0.32
5U 0.17
6U 0.79
7U 0.34
8U 0.49
11U 1.67
W-1U 0.67
W-2U 1.91
W-5U 4.34
W-6U 4.14
2.1.3. Slake Durability Test on the UCS Specimens:
The slake durability test, devised by Franklin and Chandra (1972), has proved to be
particularly suitable for evaluating the wide range of rock durability conditions
encountered in the field. (Hoek 1977).
The slake durability test consists of testing ten specimens weighting between 40 g to 60
g. The total test specimen should weigh 450 g to 550 g (ASTM D4644, 2008).
12
Fig. 2.1. Slake durability testing machine
All the specimens for each sample were weighed before the slake durability test, and then
the specimens were placed in a drum made of 2 mm square-mesh. The slake durability
drum rotated at 20 rpm for ten minutes. In the next step, the drum was placed in oven
with temperature of 105 ± 2 oC for 24 hours. The procedure was repeated one more time.
The final oven-dried mass for the second cycle was recorded for each sample. The slake
durability index is calculated as follows:
Id (2) = [(WF – C) / (B – C)] × 100 (2.2)
Where:
Id (2) = slake durability index in the second cycle,
B = Mass of drum plus oven-dried specimen before the first cycle (g),
WF = Mass of drum plus oven-dried specimen retained after the second cycle (g),
C= Mass of drum (g).
Table 2.3 represents the slake durability index for each UCS core samples. As was
expected the slake durability index is not considerable because the specimens are strong.
13
The slake durability test is usually used to estimate the durability of weak rocks. The
procedure of the slake durability index calculation for shale and similar weak rocks is
described in the ASTM D-4644.
Fig. 2.2. Specimen W-5U before test and after the second cycle
Table 2.3. Slake durability of the UCS specimens
Sample ID Slake durability index (%)

2U 99.10
5U 97.39
6U 99.10
7U 97.39
8U 99.51
11U 98.37
W-1U 99.30
W-2U 99.39
W-5U 94.10
W-6U 90.73
2.2. Index Test Methods:
2.2.1. Non-Destructive Indirect Test Methods:
2.2.1.1. Schmidt hammer test:
The Schmidt hammer test is a non-destructive, easy, inexpensive testing method which
can be performed both in the laboratory and in the field. The effects of cylindrical core
sample length on the Schmidt hammer hardness value are comprehensively explained in
14
Chapter 4. The Schmidt hammer tests have been performed on all the UCS core samples.
The test procedure of the Schmidt hammer test is described in the ASTM D-5873 (2005).
The Schmidt Rebound Hammer (SRH) numbers were reduced based on the ASTM D-
5873 standard. A total of 20 readings were recorded from each UCS specimen from
different locations separated by at least the diameter of the piston.
Ten readings were chosen randomly from the total readings. If the difference between a
reading and average of ten reading was more than seven units, that reading was
discarded, and the average of the remaining readings was determined.
Table 2.4 shows the results of the Schmidt hammer tests on the specimens. The SRH
number for specimen 11U seems to be influenced by the weakness plane in this
specimen. The number is relatively high for this specimen as compared with the other
indirect tests and direct compression test. Further, the SRH number for the specimen 5U
is relatively less than the number that was expected.
Table 2.4. Schmidt rebound hammer (SRH) number of the core specimens
Sample ID SRH Number

2U 50
5U 44
6U 46
7U 53
8U 50
11U 48
W-1U 50
W-2U 27
W-5U 18
W-6U 18
15
2.2.1.2. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test:
Compression wave velocity is the dilational wave velocity which is the propagation
velocity of a longitudinal wave in a medium that is effectively infinite in lateral extent
(2008). In this project, the GCTS model ULT-100 was used as an ultrasonic velocity test
system. GCTS recommended using ordinary honey as an acoustic compliant, and this
seems to provide reasonable results. GCTS also recommended applying a slight load to
the platens. There were two NX-size test platens, with dual P- and S- wave capabilities
(CATS Ultrasonic 1.95 User’s Guide and Reference). A steel disc was used which weighs
about 17 lbs. A small amount of honey was applied to a platen as the bottom platen. The
sample was pressed onto the honey, and rotated slightly to spread the honey to a thin
layer. The honey was applied to the free end of the specimen and the other platen onto the
specimen was pressed. The P- and S-wave were measured using the CATS software of
the GCTS Company.
The results from the CATS software usually are not accurate. The first arrival indicator
line was set manually. The selection of the “first arrival time” is slightly different
between the P-wave and the S-wave. For the P-wave, typically the waveform is very
horizontal initially, and then drops off toward a negative peak. For the S-wave the
waveform starts off horizontal as well. However, there are two distinct, very low-
amplitude “wiggles,” before the start of a more substantial peak. The “wiggles” are
apparently artifacts and are not part of the true S-wave signal. For the S-wave, the cursor
should be set beyond the “wiggles” to the start of the first truly distinct peak. Table 2.5
shows the results of ultrasonic velocity test on the UCS specimens.

16
Table 2.5. Results of the ultrasonic pulse velocity tests on the UCS core specimens
Sample ID P-wave (m/s) S-wave (m/s) Poisson’s Ratio Young’s Modulus (Gpa)
2U 5220 2791 -- 54.573
5U 5320 2360 0.38 38.709
6U 4901 2381 0.35 35.839
7U 5089 2696 -- 46.811
8U 4979 2184 0.38 31.812
11U 3812 2100 0.28 25.401
W-1U 4477 2224 0.34 32.581
W-2U 4463 2305 0.32 29.439
W-5U 3134 1758 0.27 16.225
W-6U 3250 1804 0.28 16.322
2.2.2. Destructive Indirect Tests:
2.2.2.1. Point Load Index Test:
The point load test is used as a quick and inexpensive means of obtaining a quantitative
rock strength index while logging core (Hoek, 1977). The point load test was originally
proposed (Broch & Franklin 1972) as a means of providing for destructive strength
testing of hard rock materials with a portable apparatus, such that the tests produced a
field strength index which could be correlated with UCS. Much of the costly laboratory
testing requiring large, stationary machines could be avoided in rock site characterization
(Smith, 1997).
The point load test loading geometry produces a failure mode which closely
approximates a tensile failure, and of course does correlate well with the uniaxial tensile
or the Brazilian tensile test strength (Bieniawski, 1975). Accordingly, correlation of point
load strength with unconfined compressive strength could be expected to closely follow
the tensile strength to unconfined compressive strength correlation for a given material.
17
The advantages of this index test are: (1) Smaller forces are needed so that a small and
portable testing machine may be used. (2) Specimens in the form of core or irregular
lumps are used and require no machining (3) Fragile or broken materials may be tested.
The point load test cannot be used on very soft rocks such as mudstone or claystone or on
soft evaporates. When used on anisotropic rocks such as slate, considerable care has to be
taken to ensure that the loading direction is either parallel to or perpendicular to the
dominant weakness direction. One disadvantage of the point load test, shared with all
other strength tests, is that the core is fractured and this can lead to confusion in
subsequent interpretation of fractures in the core. It is important that photography of the
core and determination of the RQD (Rock Quality Designation which is based upon the
number of intact core pieces of more than 10cm length) be carried out before the core is
used for point load tests (Hoek 1977, Bieniawski 1975, & Broch & Franklin 1972).
2.2.2.1.1. The Point Load Tester
Full description of the point load apparatus is available in the ASTM D5731-08. The
apparatus consists of a loading system typically comprised of a loading frame, platens, a
measuring system for indicating load, P, (required to break the specimen), and a means
for measuring the distance, D, between the two platen contact points. The equipment
should be resistant to shock and vibration so that the accuracy of readings is not
adversely affected by repeated testing. The two platens have 60 degree conical points
with 5 mm point radius. The platens should be of hard material such that they remain
undamaged during testing. A typical load capacity should be more than adequate to fail
the higher strength rocks when testing NX-size (54-mm) core (Smith, 1997; Heidari etal,
2012; Broch & Franklin, 1972).

18
Fig. 2.3. Point load tester (left) and point load platen (right)
2.2.2.1.2. Point load test specimen
In general, four different point load tests can be performed according to specimen shape:
(a) the Diametral Test, (b) the Axial Test, (c) the Block Test, and (d) the Irregular Lump
Test. Usually, core samples are available for laboratory testing; however, block tests can
be performed if such samples are available. “Diametral point load test is the convenient
method of determining the uniaxial compressive strength of rock materials for strength
classification purposes” (Bieniawski, 1975). Previous work by Broch and Franklin (1972)
also revealed that the size and shape effects are very pronounced in the axial and irregular
methods (Heidari et al., 2012). It is recommended that core diameters of less than “BX
size (42 mm diameter) should not be used for point load testing” because for smaller
diameters the loading points cannot be considered as theoretical "points" in relation to the
specimen size (Bieniawski, 1975).
One hundred forty three point load tests have been performed on the core samples to find
out the average point load indexes for the available UCS specimen. The point load test
and the test procedure are comprehensively described in the ASTM D-5731 (2008). In
this work, the specimens were tested in diametral, axial, and irregular configurations.
Forty three diametral, twenty five axial, and one hundred and five irregular point load
19
tests were performed on the different core samples from the available UCS specimens.
The number of point load tests is not the same for all the specimens. For example,
nineteen point load tests were performed on the core sample W-5U. For the specimens
5U and 7U, there is no point load data since the core samples were too strong and the
point load device could not break them.
During the test the load, as applied by the hand pump, is steadily increased such that
failure of the specimen occurs with 10 to 60 seconds. Based on the ASTM D-5731
standard, part of the point load tests were considered as invalid, and rejected. In the end,
the point load tests were reduced to ninety five valid point load tests.
Fig. 2.4. Diamteral point load test on the specimen W-5U
Fig. 2.5. Example of invalid point load test (specimen 7U)

20
Fig. 2.6. Example of valid point load test (specimen 7U)
Broch & Franklin (1972) proposed that the strength index at any available core diameter
should be corrected to a value Is(50) as a reference diameter of 50 mm. This corrected
index is now required by ASTM D-5731 standard.
The uncorrected point load strength is calculated as:
Is= P/De2 (MPa) (2.3)

where:
P = failure load, N,
De = equivalent core diameter:
De2 = D2 for diametral core tests without penetration, mm2,
De2 = 4A/π for axial, block, and lump tests, mm2;
And A=WD (Minimum cross sectional area of a plane through the platen contact points).
Size effects must be taken into account in any strength classification whose function is to
compare test results from a variety of sources. The size correction factor (F) can be
obtained as follows:
F= (De/50)0.45 (2.4)
And the corrected point load strength is:
Is(50)=F×Is (2.5)
21
Table 2.6. Results of the point load index test on the available samples
Sample ID Is(50) (MPa)

2U 1.8
5U --
6U 1.64
7U --
8U 1.99
11U 0.97
W-1U 2.64
W-2U 1.84
W-5U 0.49
W-6U 0.36
2.2.2.2. Splitting Tensile Strength Test:
The Brazilian test is a simple, inexpensive, and desirable alternative test method which
can be used as indirect tensile strength test in rock mechanics studies (Mishra & Basu
2012). Engineers involved in rock mechanics design usually deal with complicated stress
fields, including various combinations of compressive and tensile stress fields. Under
such conditions, “the tensile strength should be obtained with the presence of
compressive stresses to be representative of the field conditions” (Hoek 1977).
The Brazilian strength test (splitting tensile test) is a well-known indirect method of
determining the tensile strength of rocks and other brittle materials using a circular plane
disc under diametral compression. It is widely applied in rock engineering because
specimens are easy to prepare, the test is easy to conduct and uniaxial compression test
machines are quite common.
The contact conditions created under the Brazilian test are the principal means by which
the experimenter exerts an influence on the specimen. The main issue during an
experiment is that it is the contact conditions themselves which determine whether
failure will initiate in the central part of the specimen (in which case the experiment will
22
be valid) or under the loading devices( in which case the experiment should be
considered as invalid) (Andreev 1991).
The Brazilian test method and procedure is described in the ASTM D-3967 (2008). In
this project, An MTS machine is utilized to perform the splitting tensile test on the twenty
two Brazilian specimens from the available core.
Fig. 2.7. Prepared specimens for splitting tensile strength test
Since it is widely used in practice, a uniform load is needed for data to be comparable. A
uniform load is also needed to ensure that the disk specimens break diametrally due to
tensile pulling along the loading diameter. On the other hand, in many cases, the indirect
tensile strength testing was conducted using an apparatus consisting of a hand hydraulic
pump and small load frame. Although the attempt is to apply the load uniformly, the
applied force to the specimen is not completely uniform in comparison with the MTS
machine. The splitting tensile strength test conducted with the MTS machine becomes a
time consuming and a difficult test, since the MTS machine should be set up by an
expert. This reason and the limitations in the core sample length narrow the number of
tests on many of the IDs related to the UCS specimens.
The uniform load is applied to the specimen with a constant rate of 0.16 mm/min for all
the Brazilian specimens. The bottom platen moved upwards under the action of the
23
hydraulic pump. This test method is intended to indirectly measure direct tensile strength
of a rock specimen of regular geometry.
The splitting tensile strength of the specimen is calculated as follows:
σt = 2P/πLD (2.6)
where:
σt = splitting tensile strength (MPa)
P = maximum applied load indicated by the testing machine (N)
L = thickness of the specimen, mm
D = diameter of the specimen, mm
Table 2.7 shows the results of the splitting tensile strength tests. The specimen diameter
and thickness were considered as an average of three measurements.
Fig. 2.8. Brazilian specimen after the splitting tensile strength test
24
Table 2.7. The results of the splitting tensile strength
Sample ID σt (MPa)
2U 14.90
5U 29.35
6U 16.92
7U 22.19
8U 26.00
11U 7.50
W-1U 32.23
W-2U 12.73
W-5U 9.73
W-6U 5.18
2.3. Uniaxial Compression strength tests:
Uniaxial compression strength is one of the key parameters for rock engineering design
and rock mass characterization. On the other hand, ultimate strength, ultimate strain, and
mechanical properties of the intact rock are the most important parameters for numerical
design in many finite element rock mechanics softwares. Uniaxial compression test was
conducted on the ten UCS specimens from the available core samples. The procedures of
the specimen preparation are described in Appendix 1. Specimens 2U and 6U were
shorter than the ASTM D-4543 standard requirement. The ASTM D-7012 requires
specimen length of 2 to 2.5 time of the diameter of the core specimen (L ≥ 2D).
Furthermore, the specimen W-2U did not meet the ASTM D-4543 dimentional
requirement (Side Smoothness and Straightness).
A total of 10 UCS core samples were tested which were divided to three main groups:
 Three core samples with four rosettes (8 strain gages) to assess if the strain gages
(CEA-13-125WT-350 rosettes) are applicable to install on the HQ (63.39 mm)
core samples.
25
 Five core samples with two rosettes to develop correlation relations of the
mechanical properties of the rock with indirect test methods.
 Two core sample without any strain gages.
The results from the strain gage studies are comprehensively explained in the Appendix
2. It was concluded that the CEA-13-125WT-350 rosettes are fairly accurate to apply to
the HQ core specimens.
Fig. 2.9. Specimen W-1U before and after the uniaxial compression test (4 bonded rosettes)
Fig. 2.10. Bonded rosettes on the specimens W-1U after the uniaxial compression test
To calculate the mechanical properties of the intact rock sample (E and ν), the slope of
axial and lateral curves are measured based on the methods suggested by ASTM standard
26
(ASTM D7012, 2010). Two rosettes were bonded to each sample with 180o degree angle
to each other.
Fig. 2.11. Specimen W-6U before and after the uniaxial compression test (2 bonded rosettes)
Fig. 2.12. Specimens W-6U after the uniaxial compression test
The value of the Young‟s modulus and Poisson‟s ration are calculated using three
methods as follow:
 Tangent modulus, at a stress level at 50% of the maximum strength.
 Secant modulus, from 5% of maximum stress to 95% maximum strength.
 Average modulus, slope of the straight line portion of the stress-strain curve (with
the r = 0.95).
27
Comparison between the errors of each method for five different samples indicates that
the “Average Modulus of Linear Portion of Axial Stress-Strain Curve” is the best method
for Young‟s modulus and Poisson‟s ratio calculations.
Furthermore, the recorded deformations with the MTS machine were compared with the
strain gages recorded strain. Comparison between the recorded displacement/strain from
the MTS machine and the strain gages shows that the displacement recorded with the
MTS machine is much larger than the actual strain/displacement from the strain gages.
To find out if there is any (mathematical) relation between the recorded displacement on
the MTS machine and strain gages, the maximum, minimum, and average recorded strain
from the gages are plotted against the maximum, minimum, and average recorded strain
with the MTS machine. A correction factor for the deformation recorded with MTS is
calculated based on the slope of linear curve of all the considered displacements which is
equal to “J = 2.25”. The results of the uniaxial compression strength tests are listed in the
table 2.8.
Table 2.8. The results of the uniaxial compression strength test
Sample ID Number of Ultimate strength Young’s Modulus* Poisson’s Ratio

rosettes (MPa) (GPa)
2U 0 212.89 59.47
5U 4 375.62 62.23 0.24
6U 2 170.68 42.04 0.25
7U 0 199.99 55.39
8U 2 214.67 48.80 0.18
11U 4 91.58 28.81 0.26
W-1U 4 215.39 45.81 0.19
W-2U 2 107.67 28.95 0.20
W-5U 2 39.08 17.40 0.18
W-6U 2 39.59 18.12 0.18
* Young‟s modulus based on “Average Modulus of Linear Portion of Axial Stress-Strain Curve” method
28
Correlations between the Indirect and Direct Compression

Strength Test Methods
3.1. Introduction:
The difficulties associated with performing direct compression strength tests on rock lead
to indirect test methods for the rock strength assessment. Indirect test methods are widely
used because they are simple, more economical, less time consuming, and easily
adaptable to the field. The indirect compression test methods can be divided into two
destructive and non-destructive test methods. There are advantages and disadvantages
when one indirect test method is applied for the intact rock strength assessment. There
are different standards and technical notes on how to use the indirect tests in the project.
Furthermore, there are some uncertainties due to specimen availability, test procedure,
and data analyzing. On top of that, it is very important to study if an indirect test method
is applicable to the rock type and the project. For example, the block punch index (BPI)
test method is an easy and economical test which has been developed as an indirect
strength test. The BPI test is applicable to weak rock in which it is not possible to get a
core specimen long enough for direct compression testing. The point load index (PLI) test
is not applicable to weak rock strength assessment. Furthermore, for very strong rocks,
the point load cannot be used since there is a possibility to damage the point load
machine. A similar problem exists for the Schmidt hammer test; Schmidt hammer is not
recommended to use as an indirect test for evaluation of intact rock strength for weak
rock.
It is important to study how the indirect test methods can be related to the actual strength
of the intact rock. Different correlations have been proposed based on different rock
29
types, test methods or procedures, and/or regression analysis to detect the best correlation
between the uniaxial compression strength (UCS) and indirect test results.
The main aim of this project is to develop correlation relations between the direct
compression strength and elastic properties with the indirect tests methods for basalt and
rhyolite rock. The core samples were received from MINE A in Nevada, USA.
3.2. Regression Analysis:
Regression analysis is a statistical technique for estimating the relationships among
variables. It includes many techniques for modeling and analyzing several variables,
when the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more
independent variables. In general, regression analysis is a statistical tool for the
investigation of relationships between variables. Usually, the investigator seeks to
ascertain the causal effect of one variable upon another (Kenney & Keeping 1962).
3.2.1. Simple Linear Regression:
Simple linear regression fits a straight line through a set of n points in such a way that it
makes the sum of the squared residuals of the model (that is, vertical distances between
the points of the data set and the fitted line) as small as possible (Kenney & Keeping
1962):
(3.1)
3.2.2. Nonlinear Regression:
Nonlinear regression is a form of regression analysis in which observational data are
modeled by a function which is a nonlinear combination of the model parameters and

30
depends on one or more independent variables (Seber et al. 1989). All the non-linear
relations in this study are developed based on the regression power type:
(3.2)
To perform the regression analyses, test data was plotted in two dimensions as a scatter
plot. This format allows visualization/inspection of the data prior to running a regression
analysis. Different curve fitting relationships, such as linear, exponential, logarithmic,
polynomial, and power, can be used to analyze the relationship between a dependent and
independent variable. The curve fitting relationships produce a coefficient of
determination (R2). The coefficient of determination is the measure of the proportion of
variability on one variable that can be accounted for by variability on the other variable
(Sheskin, 2000).
3.2.3. Proposed Regression Models Performance:
To evaluate the performance of each regression equation, coefficient of correlation (R 2),
variance accounted for (VAF), logarithmic standard deviation (β), root mean square error
(RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated (Tzamos & Sofianos, 2006).
The amount of error around the line should be compared to the total amount of variability
in the distribution of the variable to be predicted to figure out whether it is small or large.
That is just the numerator in the equation for the variance. That value gives the total
amount of error (which will always be larger (or at worst equal to) the amount of error
around the regression line. To compare the two errors, the ratio of the amount of error
around the regression line is taken to the total amount of error in the distribution of the
variable to be predicted. Then, by convention, the value of this ratio is subtracted from 1.
We call that value the proportion of variance accounted for and we often refer to it as R-
31
squared. The logarithmic standard deviation (β) and root mean square error (RMSE) are
frequently used to measure the differences between values predicted by a model or an
estimator and the values actually observed. Mean absolute error (MAE) is a quantity used
to measure how close forecasts or predictions are to the eventual outcomes.
( ( )) (3.2)
√ ∑ [ ( )] (3.3)
∑ | | (3.4)
√ ∑ (3.5)
Where Aimeas is the ith measured element, Aipred is the ith predicted element and n is the
number of data set In the equation 3.2, var stands for variance.
3.3. Correlations between the Indirect and Direct Compression Strength
Test Methods
3.3.1. Ultimate compression strength (UCS) and Young’s modulus (E):
The relationship between ultimate strength and Young‟s modulus was calculated based
on the eight uniaxial compression tests. To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed
equation, Young‟s modulus of the specimen 2U and 7U was predicted and compared with
the actual value. It should be noted that the specimen 7U failed along a weakness plane.
The specimen 7U was from the same core as specimen 5U, However the ultimate
strength of specimen 7U is much less than the ultimate strength of specimen 5U.
32
Fig. 3.1. Specimen 7U (left) and 5U (right) after the failure
70
60
E = 2.17(UCS)0.57
Young’s Modulus (GPa)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Ultimate Strength (MPa)
Fig. 3.2. Correlation between ultimate strength and Young‟s modulus
Table 3.1. Performance of the ultimate strength-Young‟s modulus equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.99 0.04 0.99 1.27 1.59
Sample ID UCS (MPa) Young’s modulus Young’s modulus β

(GPa) (GPa)
(actual) (predicted)
2U 213.89 59.47 46.20 0.25
7U 199.99 55.39 44.47 0.22
33
3.3.2. Ultimate compression strength (UCS) and Schmidt rebound hammer (SRH)
number:
The relationship between ultimate strength and SRH was calculated based on seven
uniaxial compression tests and seven averaged SRH numbers. The SRH value for
specimen 11U was not considered in this correlation, since a weakness plane affected the
SRH value. The averaged SRH numbers were calculated based on 20 readings and the
data was reduced based on ASTM D-5873. To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed
equation, Young‟s modulus of the specimens 2U and 7U were predicted and compared
with the actual values.
400
350
300 UCS = 0.25SRH1.77

250
200
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SRH
Fig. 3.3. Correlation between ultimate strength and SRH
Table 3.2. Performance of the SRH- ultimate strength equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.88 0.31 0.58 36.17 81.03
Sample ID SRH UCS (MPa) UCS (MPa) β

2U 50 213.89 254.17 0.17
7U 53 199.99 281.78 0.34
34
3.3.3. Ultimate compression strength (UCS) and splitting tensile strength (BRZ):
The relationship between ultimate strength and splitting tensile strength was calculated
based on eight uniaxial compression tests and eight splitting tensile strength values taken
from twenty two Brazilian tests. To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed equation,
ultimate strengths of the specimens 2U and 7U were predicted and compared with the
actual values.
400
350
300 UCS = 6.75(BRZ)1.08

250
200
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
BRZ (MPa)
Fig. 3.4. Correlation between ultimate strength and splitting tensile strength (BRZ)
Table 3.3. Performance of the splitting tensile strength-ultimate strength equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.80 0.37 0.74 39.07 54.36
Sample ID BRZ UCS UCS (MPa) β

(MPa) (MPa) (predicted)
(actual)
2U 14.90 213.89 124.83 0.54
7U 22.19 199.99 191.93 0.04
35
3.3.4. Ultimate compression strength (UCS) and Ultrasonic Pulse velocity (P-wave):
The relationship between ultimate strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity was calculated
based on the eight uniaxial compression tests and eight ultrasonic velocity tests. To
evaluate the accuracy of the proposed equation, ultimate strengths of the specimens 2U
and 7U were predicted and compared with the actual values.
7.00
6.00
5.00
Ln(UCS (MPa))
4.00
3.00
2.00 ln(UCS) = 3.94*ln(P-wave) - 28.12

1.00
0.00
8.00 8.10 8.20 8.30 8.40 8.50 8.60 8.70
Ln(P-wave velocity (m/s))
Fig. 3.5. Correlation between ultimate strength and P-wave velocity
Table 3.4. Performance of the P-wave-ultimate strength equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.92 0.23 0.84 32.37 42.96
Sample ID P-wave UCS UCS (MPa) β

velocity (m/s) (MPa) (predicted)
(actual)
2U 5220 213.89 272.43 0.24
7U 5089 199.99 246.47 0.21
36
3.3.5. Ultimate Compression Strength (UCS) and Point Load Index (Is(50)):
The relationship between ultimate strength and point load index was calculated based on
seven uniaxial compression tests and seven point load index values from ninety five point
load tests. To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed equation, ultimate strength of the
specimen 2U was predicted and compared with the actual value. There is no point load
result for samples 5U and 7U since the specimens were so strong that the point load
machine could not break them.
250
200 UCS = 90.14(Is(50)) 0.92

UCS (MPa)
150
100
50
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Is(50) (MPa)
Fig. 3.6. Correlation between ultimate strength and point load index
Table 3.5. Performance of the point load index-ultimate strength equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.91 0.22 0.84 20.69 28.05
Sample ID Is (50) (MPa) UCS (MPa) UCS (MPa) β

2U 1.80 213.89 154.8 0.32
37
3.3.6. Young’s Modulus (E) and Point Load Index (Is(50)):
The relationship between Young‟s modulus and point load index was calculated based on
the seven uniaxial compression tests and seven point load index values from ninety five
point load tests. To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed equation, ultimate strength of
the specimen 2U was predicted and compared with the actual value.
4.0
3.8
ln(E) = 0.43(ln(Is(50)))1.06
3.6
3.4
Ln (E) GPa
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
LN (Is(50)) (kPa)
Fig. 3.7. Correlation between Young‟s modulus and point load index
Table 3.6. Performance of the point load index-Young‟s modulus equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.86 0.17 0.79 4.32 5.64
Sample ID Is (50) (MPa) Young’s modulus Young’s modulus β

(GPa) (GPa)
2U 1.80 59.47 37.98 0.44
3.3.7. Young’s Modulus (E) and Splitting Tensile Strength (BRZ):
The relationship between Young‟s modulus and splitting tensile strength was calculated
based on the eight uniaxial compression tests and eight splitting tensile strength values
38
from twenty two Brazilian tests. To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed equation,
Young‟s modulus of the specimens 2U and 7U were predicted and compared with the
actual values.
70
60
50 E = 6.51(BRZ)0.61
40
E (GPa)
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
BRZ (MPa)
Fig. 3.8. Correlation between Young‟s modulus and splitting tensile strength
Table 3.7. Performance of the splitting tensile strength-Young‟s modulus equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.78 0.22 0.79 5.70 6.86
Sample ID BRZ Young’s modulus Young’s modulus β

(MPa) (GPa) (GPa)
2U 14.90 59.47 33.82 0.56
7U 22.19 55.39 43.12 0.25
3.3.8. Splitting Tensile Strength (BRZ) and Point Load Index (Is(50)):
The relationship between splitting tensile strength and point load index was calculated
based on the seven splitting tensile strength number and seven point load index values.
39
To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed equation, ultimate strength of the specimens 2U
were predicted and compared with the actual values.
35
30
BRZ = 11(Is (50))
25
BRZ (MPa)
20
15
10
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Is (50) (MPa)
Fig. 3.9. Correlation between splitting tensile strength and point load index
Table 3.8. Performance of the splitting tensile strength-point load index equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.81 0.37 0.81 3.67 4.19
Sample ID Is (50) (MPa) BRZ (MPa) BRZ (MPa) β

2U 1.80 14.9 19.8 0.28
3.3.9. Splitting Tensile Strength (BRZ) and Schmidt Rebound Hammer (SRH)
Number:
The relationship between splitting tensile strength and SRH was calculated based on the
seven splitting tensile strength tests and seven averaged SRH numbers. As mentioned, the
SRH value for specimen 11U was not considered in this correlation, since a weakness
plane affected the SRH value. To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed equation,
40
Young‟s modulus of the specimens 2U and 7U were predicted and compared with the
actual values.
35
30 BRZ = 0.15SRH1.33
25
BRZ (MPa)
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SRH
Fig. 3.10. Correlation between splitting tensile strength and SRH
Table 3.9. Performance of the splitting tensile strength-SRH equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.83 0.32 0.71 4.52 6.11
Sample ID SRH BRZ BRZ (MPa) β

(MPa) (predicted)
(actual)
2U 50 14.9 27.27 0.60
7U 53 22.19 29.46 0.28
3.3.10. Young’s Modulus (E) and Schmidt Rebound Hammer (SRH) Number:
The relationship between Young‟s modulus and SRH number was calculated based on
seven uniaxial compression tests and seven SRH numbers. To evaluate the accuracy of
the proposed equation, Young‟s moduli of the specimens 2U and 7U were predicted and
compared with the actual values.

41
70
60
E = 32.90ln(SRH) - 77.53
50
E (GPa)
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SRH
Fig. 3.11. Correlation between splitting tensile strength and SRH
Table 3.10. Performance of the splitting tensile strength-SRH equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.82 0.14 0.82 4.37 6.12
Sample ID SRH Young’s modulus (GPa) Young’s modulus (GPa) β

2U 50 59.47 51.17 0.15
7U 53 55.39 53.09 0.04
3.3.11. Young’s Modulus from Uniaxial Compression Test (EUCS) and Young’s
Modulus from Ultrasonic Velocity Test (EP-wave):
The relationship between Young‟s modulus from uniaxial compression test and Young‟s
modulus from ultrasonic velocity test was calculated based on the eight uniaxial
compression tests and eight ultrasonic velocity tests. To evaluate the accuracy of the
proposed equation, the results from the uniaxial compression strength for the specimens
2U and 7U were predicted and compared with the actual values.

42
4.5
4 ln (EUCS) = 1.3*ln(EP-wave) - 0.8
Ln (EUCS) (GPa)
3.5
2.5
2
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Ln (EP-wave) (GPa)
Fig. 3.12. Correlation between EUCS and EP-wave
Table 3.11. Performance of EUCS-EP-wave equation
R2 β VAF MAE RMSE

0.91 0.14 0.87 4.33 5.45
Sample ID EP-wave EUCS EUCS (GPa) β

(GPa) (GPa) (predicted)
(actual)
2U 213.89 59.47 81.40 0.31
7U 199.99 55.39 66.68 0.18
43
The Effect of Cylindrical Core Specimen Length on the

Schmidt Rebound Hammer (SRH) Number
The Schmidt hammer is used for prediction of uniaxial compression strength and
determination of hardness of rock. Different sampling method, test procedure and
calculation are indicated in ASTM standard and ISRM suggested method for
determination of rock hardness by rebound hammer method. This study aims to
investigate the effect of cylindrical core sample length on the value of Schmidt rebound
hardness (SRH). In order to assess the effect of the length on the SRH value, HQ (63.5
mm diameter) core samples having sample lengths of 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 20 cm
from two different rock types have been prepared.
4.1. Introduction:
The Schmidt hammer is a commonly used device for hardness determination and for
prediction of the unconfined compressive strength of concrete and rock. The Schmidt
hammer test is a non-destructive, easy, inexpensive testing method which can be
performed both in laboratory and in the field. The Schmidt hammer test was originally
developed to test the surface rebound hardness of concrete (Schmidt, 1951). The Schmidt
hammer has been used worldwide as an index test for a quick rock strength and
deformability characterization due to its rapidity and easiness in execution, simplicity,
portability, low cost and non-destructiveness (Yilmaz & Sendir 2002). Haase (1962)
proposed a simple method of determining the strength of the surrounding rock and of
44
coal. Hucka (1965) presented Schmidt hammer test as a rapid method of determining the
strength of rock in-situ.
4.2. Principle of Schmidt hammer test:
The Schmidt hammer consists of a spring-loaded piston which is released when the
plunger is pressed against a surface. The impact of the piston onto the plunger transfers
the energy to the material. The extent to which this energy is recovered depends on the
hardness (or impact penetration/damage resistance) of the material, which is expressed as
a percentage of the maximum stretched length of the key spring before the release of the
piston to its length after the rebound (Aydin & Basu, 2005). The distance traveled by the
piston after rebound (expressed as a percentage of the initial extension of the key-spring)
is called the rebound value, which is considered to be an index of surface hardness (Aydin
& Basu, 2005). When the hammer is pressed orthogonally against a surface, the piston is
automatically released onto the plunger.
ASTM (ASTM D-5873, 2005) requires that specimens should be securely clamped to a
steel base and that cylindrical specimens should be placed along a machined slot (with an
arc-shaped cross-section of the same radius) or a V-block. It is essential to ensure that the
hammer axis is perpendicular to the test surface (with 5° of vertical with the bottom of
the piston at right angles to and in firm contact with the surface of the test specimen).
45
Fig. 4.1. Required V-shape steel base for Schmidt rebound hammer test
For tests conducted in situ on a rock mass, the rebound hammer can be used at any
desired orientation provided the plunger strikes perpendicular to the surface tested. The
results are corrected to a horizontal or vertical position using the correction curves
provided by the manufacturer (ASTM D-5873, 2005). It should be noted that in situ
testing may produce a wider scatter due to roughness of natural surfaces, lack of control
for the existence of cracks below the surface, and variations in moisture content (Aydin &
Basu, 2005).
4.3. Hammer type:
The standard L-and N-type Schmidt hammers are built to generate different levels of
impact energy: 0.735 and 2.207 Nm, respectively (Demirdag et al., 2009). ASTM
standard (ASTM D-5873, 2005) does not specify the hammer type; however, the earlier
ISRM suggested method (1978) suggested the use of only the L-type SH. ISRM (2009)
suggested for a given plunger tip diameter and radius of curvature, the impact energy of
the SH determines its range of applicability. The N-type hammer is less sensitive to
surface irregularities, and should be preferred in field applications; while the L-type
46
hammer has greater sensitivity in the lower range and gives better results when testing
weak, porous and weathered rocks (ISRM, 2009).
Potro & Hurlimann (2009) used L-type and N-type Schmidt hammers to estimate rock
strength in the thirty four different locations in the interested area. The rocks from 5
different geotechnical units were tested with both Schmidt hammers, with 20 readings
recorded for each material at each location. An error analysis for both Schmidt hammer
tests showed they both have very similar coefficient of variation distributions. In both
cases, the errors decrease linearly for stronger rocks. A correlation between both Schmidt
hammers was proposed according to available data (RN=1.0642RL+2.5687). The aim of
the study for Schmidt hammer was to determine whether it is valid to use the results from
this test to estimate the uniaxial compressive strength or not (both types). The results
indicated that for both hammers the errors are higher for weaker materials and the R L
values tend to be slightly more precise than the RN values for very weak (σci < 20 MPa)
and for relatively strong and very strong rocks (σci > 90 MPa). This study demonstrated
that RN provides very good linear correlation with unit weight; however, R L is less
sensitive to variations in unit weights.
4.4. Significance and use:
The rebound hardness method provides a means for rapid classification of the hardness of
rock during site characterization for engineering, design, and construction purposes,
geotechnical mapping of large underground openings in rock, or reporting the physical
description of rock core (ASTM D-5873, 2005). The methodology of the Schmidt hammer
test is expected to ensure reliable data acquisition and analysis on site or in the laboratory
(Basu & Aydin, 2006).

47
The hardness values from the laboratory and in-situ testing can be compared. Kahraman
et al. (2002) compared SRH values from core samples and in situ large block. In the
laboratory, core samples or unfractured rock blocks can be tested. In the field, Schmidt
hammer test can be performed on large rock blocks and on fractured rock mass. The
results from tests conducted on fractured rock mass will be different from the other test
results because of the fracturing. In this study, both in situ and laboratory Schmidt
hammer tests were performed on nine different rock types, five of which were igneous,
three of which were metamorphic and one of which was sedimentary. Tests were
performed with N-type hammer having impact energy of 2.207 Nm. Each test was
repeated at least three times on every rock type and the average value was recorded as
rebound number. For the laboratory testing, rock blocks were cored perpendicularly to
any visible bedding plane in the laboratory using an NX size (54 mm) diamond-coring
bit. In order to be able to describe the relationships between in situ and laboratory
Schmidt hammer rebound values of the tested rocks, regression analysis was made. The
authors mentioned that the derived regression equations can practically be used for the
prediction purposes with acceptable accuracy. Since all the testing in this research were
made with the hammer held vertically downward and at right angles to horizontal rock
faces, regression equations derived are valid for this case only (Kahraman et al., 2002).
4.4. Specimen requirements:
The Schmidt hammer is mainly used as index to predict the uniaxial compressive strength
and elastic modulus (Yilmaz & Sendir 2002). Most of the works related to SRH establish
relations between hardness and the other parameters of rocks. Day and Goudie (1977)
showed that the test points should be away from the boundaries to avoid abnormally low
48
values due to strong dissipation of impact energy. ISRM (1978) suggested that “block
specimens should have an edge length of at least 6 cm.” ISRM (2009) stated that length
of cores and surface area of blocks should be large enough to accommodate suggestions
related to dissipation of impact energy in the form of wave scatter or cracking. ASTM
(2005) recommended “drill core specimens shall be NX or larger core of at least 15 cm in
length. Block specimens shall have edge lengths of at least 15 cm.”
Demirdag et al. (2009) studied the optimum sample size based on laboratory and field
investigations. In this study, different approaches have been applied for the Schmidt
Hammer test procedure: ISRM, Hucka, Poole & Farmer, and Fowell & Smith methods.
In order to analyze the effect of sample size on the SRH values, eight different rock types
were studied. Cubic samples with edge dimensions of 6,7,8,10,12, and 15 cm were
sampled from each rock type. By analyzing the Schmidt hardness values of rocks
measured in the laboratory, the optimum edge dimension of cubic samples is found to be
11 cm, based on measurements performed by different methods of Schmidt hardness
tests. Also, in-situ SRH measurements showed that in-situ SRH value is equal to SRH
values obtained from samples with edge dimension larger than 11 cm.
49
Fig. 4.2. Schmidt hammer test requirements based on ASTM standard: hammer axis is
perpendicular to the surface test surface.
The effect of sample size on Schmidt rebound hardness (SRH) value of rocks is
investigated. Core samples having sample lengths of 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 20 cm
from three different rocks have been prepared. In this study, the Schmidt hammer tests
are performed based on both ASTM standard and ISRM suggested method using L-type
Schmidt hammer with impact energy of 0.735 Nm (Aydin & Basu, 2005). The
recommended test procedures used in the study are:
ASTM standard given number (2005): 10 reading at different locations separated by at
least the diameter of the piston and only one test may be taken at any one point. Discard
readings differing from the average of ten readings by more than seven units and
determine the average of the remaining readings.
ISRM suggested method (1978): at least 20 rebound values from single impacts
separated by at least a plunger diameter, averaging the upper 50% values and eliminating
any taken from rock that shows signs of cracking.

50
ASTM Standard
70
60
50
40
SRH
SH-1
30
SH-2
20
SH-3
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Length (cm)
Fig. 4.3. Core sample length against SRH value based on ASTM standard procedure
ISRM Suggested Method

70
60
50
40
SRH
SH-1
30
SH-2
20
SH-3
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Length (cm)
Fig. 4.4. Core sample length against SRH value based on ISRM suggested method procedure
The curves demonstrate that the SRH value initially decreases significantly for the length
of 3 cm to 5 cm. However, the SRH values increase with increasing core sample length
from 5 cm to 12 cm and reach a constant value for the core samples with a length greater
than 12 cm.
51
Fig. 4.5. Cylindrical core samples with lengths of 20 cm to 3 cm
Table 4.1. Critical core sample length according to ASTM standard and ISRM suggested method
procedures
Rock type ASTM (cm) ISRM (cm)
SH-1 12 12.2
SH-2 11.5 11
SH-3 13 13
60
50
SRH
40
30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Sample Length (cm) (SH-2 sample)
Fig. 4.6. The Effect of Cylindrical Core Sample Length on Schmidt Hammer Hardness Value
(Method for critical core sample length determination)
52
Numerical Simulation of Block Punch Index (BPI) Test
5.1. Block Punch Index Test:
The UCS is an important input parameter in rock mass classifications. Often, the drilling
process breaks up the weaker core pieces, and they are too thin or fragmented to be used
in uniaxial compression strength test. Another undesirable aspect of the UCS test is the
amount of time and labor necessary for sample preparation (Sulukcu & Ulusay 2001).
Therefore, a test procedure that would use small segments of the core with minimal
sample preparation to determine directly or indirectly the rock strength has always been
attractive. The block punch index (BPI) test, which requires flat disc specimens without
special treatment, has been developed during the last decade.
Fig. 5.1. Block Punch Index Machine (Modified GCTS PLI-100 Model)
53
Four of the earliest references to a punch test were in the articles by Lacharite, Mazanti
and Sowers, Vutukuri et al., and Stacey where the test was used for determining the direct
shear strength of rock specimens using a simple apparatus (Ulusay et al. 2001). These
studies have been extended in The Netherlands by Taselaar (Schrier 1982) and Schrier,
and have led to the development of the BPI test. Schrier obtained high correlations
between UCS, Brazilian tensile strength and BPI values from a limited number of
specimens of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. But none of these investigators
considered the size effect of the test specimens on BPI and the general usefulness of this
test.
Between 1997 and 1999, Ulusay and Gokceoglu used the BPI test extensively to assess
the size effect, strength anisotropy and its possible use in rock engineering. They
suggested the corrected BPI value by using the size-correction factors, and the strength
anisotropy transformation factor to estimate the strength index in the strongest direction
in conjunction with possible uses of the BPI in rock engineering applications. However,
in these latest works on the BPI test, it was recommended that application of the testing
method should be extended to other rock types; the stress distribution within the rock
discs under BPI test should be considered by means of numerical methods in future
studies; and the rock strength predicted from different index tests including the BPI test
should be experimentally compared to make recommendations regarding the accuracy
and applicability of the results of the BPI test (Sulukcu & Ulusay 2001).
The flat disk shaped specimen is fastened symmetrically in a clamp and the band of rock
between the supports is vertically loaded by a rectangular rigid punch block. Fracturing is
forced to take place along two parallel planes on which the normal stress is considered to
54
be zero while tensile stresses caused by bending are reduced to a minimum. After failure,
the specimen is broken into three parts, the two ends which are fixed in the apparatus and
the band which is punched out. In order to provide a more representative comparison of
the results from different strength and index test, BPI disc specimens cut from the top and
bottom of the core were prepared for UCS, Brazilian, and PLI tests (Ulusay et al. 2001).
Fig. 5.2. Prepared specimens for BPI test
In 2001, Ulusay et al. proposed the draft ISRM suggested method for BPI determination.
In the same year, Sulukcu and Ulusay (2001) presented a study of the BPI test device to
provide new contributions to previous works on size effect in BPI tests using a wide
range of rock types, and also to assess the effectiveness of the test in predicting rock
strength by an experimental way.
The study by Karakul et al. (2011) aimed to investigate the strength anisotropy associated
with discontinuity orientation by performing block punch index (BPI) and uniaxial
compressive strength tests, and to develop some empirical equations for estimating BPI
and UCS in the strongest direction. In the study, for the assessment of the strength
55
anisotropy, a total of 1568 specimens for both UCS and BPI tests were extracted from
rock blocks in varying directions (0o, 30o, 45o, 60o, and 90o) relative to the weakness
planes, using metal wedges manufactured with different surface inclinations. The strength
anisotropy transformation factor proposed in this study is Kσα= σc90/ σcα, where σc90 is the
UCS value at α=90o and σcα is UCS determined at any angle to weakness plane. In terms
of BPI, the following equation was proposed for predicting the BPI value in the strongest
direction (BPIc90): BPIc90=1.47e-0.00496αBPIcα. In order to indirectly estimate the UCS from
BPI, the transformation equation, which was recommended by Ulusay (2001) (σc90=5.1
BPIc90), was modified for assessment of strength anisotropy that can estimate the UCS
from BPI of the specimen at any angle between the loading direction and the weakness
plane: σcα=5.1(1.47e-0.00496αBPIcα)/[1.7exp[(αt-24.7)2/(-1530)]+0.01αt], where αt is the
angle between the loading direction and the weakness plane for the UCS. The finite
difference simulation showed that the numerically estimated BPI values are very close to
experimentally determined values for each angle between the loading direction and
weakness plane involved by the BPI samples.
Mishra and Basu (2012) developed a correlation between BPI and UCS for three rock
types (granite, schist, and sandstone). In the experimental study, correlations of BPI and
point load index (PLI) with UCS were proposed for all three types of rock. The results
demonstrated that: (1) for granite, the UCS is in a better correlation with BPI than PLI;
(2) for schist and sandstone, PLI provides better correlation with UCS rather than PBI.
Also, a new empirical equation was developed by the authors between UCS and BPI
(UCS=4.93BPIc, R2=0.87) and was compared with other equations. The comparison
56
shows the validity of this empirical equation. The same results were given for
correlations of BTS with BPI and PLI.
5.2. Block Punch Index Limitations:
The block punch index (BPI) test is intended as an index test for the strength
classification of rock materials and can be correlated with the UCS (Ulusay et al.
2001). This method is not widely used, and according to available references almost all
the studies have been limited to few authors. There are some shortcomings associated
with this unconventional test; this test can be conducted on very thin specimens only.
Irregular failure (invalid test result) occurrence causes the test to require too many rock
specimens (Yalmiz 2009). Another problem is that there is no ASTM standard available
for this test; also, the ISRM suggested method for BPI is limited to one author and
corrections may not be applicable to various types of rock.
Mishra and Basu (2012) studied the failure patterns in the BPI test when the compression
force is applied to the specimen. When the force gradually increases, the middle part of
the specimen is punched out by the induced double shear failure. In the BPI test, the test
is invalid if parallel vertical fracture planes are either absent or not fully developed.
However, weakness planes are characteristic of anisotropic rocks. The authors believed
that in case of anisotropic rock, the mechanical behavior will be controlled by the planes
under a certain state of stress. So, according to the mechanical behavior of anisotropic
rock, the common shear failure in these rocks may be taken into account as valid tests.
57
5.3. Numerical Simulation of Block Punch Index Test:
In this study, the block punch index (BPI) test was considered as one of the index test
methods for the intact rock strength determination. However, approximately 95% of the
block punch index tests that were performed should be considered as invalid tests. Fig.
5.3 shows the invalid and valid block punch index as it is suggested by ISRM (Ulusay et
al. 2001).
According to Ulusay et al. (2001), the specimen should be broken into three parts: the
two ends which are fixed in the apparatus and the band which is punched out. However,
in many cases the middle part (which is punched out) is broken in many parts. This
happened in many of the BPI tests which were performed on the prepared specimens with
the uniaxial compression strength between 39 MPa to more than 170 MPa.
Fig. 5.3. Valid (left) and invalid (right) block punch index tests
58
Fig. 5.4. Many of the block punch index tests were invalid (according to ISRM suggested
method) since the middle part of the specimen which is under compression load was broken in
many parts.
The problem associated with the middle part of the specimen led to study of the stress
distribution in the block punch index test. The HQ (63.39 mm) core specimen with 10
mm thickness was modeled based on the information from the uniaxial compression
strength and splitting tensile strength tests of specimens 5U, 6U, and W-5U (table 5.1) in
the ANSYS 14. Software.

59
Table 5.1. Isotropic properties of the specimens 5U, 6U, and W-5U for numerical simulation of
BPI test
Sample ID Ultimate compression Ultimate tensile Young’s Poisson’s ratio

strength (MPa) strength (MPa) modulus (GPa)
5U 375.62 29.35 62.23 0.24
6U 170.68 16.92 42.04 0.25
W-5U 39.08 9.37 17.4 0.18
For the block punch index test modeling, top and bottom surfaces of the core sample
were split in three parts to model the fixed supports and loading plate of the machine as
shown in Fig. 5.5. The main reason for splitting the surface, not the body of the sketch, is
to build a model close to the real block punch index test.
Fig. 5.5. Splitting the top and bottom surfaces of the body sketch to model the supports and
loading plate
Since the UNR-ECC Lab has the student license for ANSYS 14., the maximum mesh
nodes that can be utilized is 30000. An attempt was made to refine the mesh at the most
important areas, which are the four splitting lines on the specimen surfaces with a
minimum element size of 1.9 mm. After the refinement, the number of nodes and
elements are equal to 27919 and17375, respectively.

60
Fig. 5.6. Mesh refinement at the two parallel planes at the top and bottom of the specimen
5.3.1. Compression only support at the bottom of the specimen:
Compression only support was applied at the bottom surface of the body. The
compression support was used to fix the body in compression (loading) direction and free
the body in other directions. Maximum principal stress and safety factor- Mohr-Coulomb
were calculated based on the available data from the experiment. The load was increased
to reach the safety factor equal to 1 for Mohr-Coulomb. The results of the modeling for
three core specimen were the same. In this chapter, stress distribution and safety factors
are presented for specimen W-5U.
A stress of 2.5 MPa was applied to the top-middle part of the body. The results show that
the specimen is broken under this load with the safety factor less than one. There are
shear and normal stresses, distributed in the middle part of the body. Particularly when
the specimen is relatively strong, the stress at the middle of the specimen is high, in
respect to stress at two parallel planes. For the specimen W-5U, the stress is distributed
more uniformly in comparison with the other two specimens. As was indicated in the
Table 5.1, specimen W-5U is moderately weak rock.

61
Fig. 5.7. Mohr-Coulomb safety factor at the bottom (left) and top (right) for specimen W-5U at
the 2.5 MPa Pressure with compression support at the bottom of the body
Fig. 5.8. Maximum principal stresses (MPa) at bottom (left) and top (right) for the specimen W-
5U with compression support at the bottom of the body
5.3.2. Fixed support at bottom and top of the specimen:
Fixed support was applied at the bottom and top surfaces of the sample. The fixed
support with the face splitting at the bottom and top of the specimen is the most realistic
model in comparison with experimental block punch index test. The assumption is that
the clamping bars are fixed and there is no bending at the bottom of the specimen.
Maximum principal stress and safety factor- Mohr-Coulomb were calculated based on the
available data from the experiment (Table 5.1). The load was increased to reach the
safety factor of one for either shear or Mohr-Coulomb.

62
Fig. 5.9. Mohr-Coulomb safety factor at the bottom (left) and top (right) for specimen W-5U at
the 2.5 MPa applied stress with fixed supports
Fig. 5.10. Maximum principal stresses (MPa) at bottom (left) and top (right) for the specimen W-
5U with fixed supports
Both models indicate that the Mohr-Coulomb safety factor is less than 1 in 2.5 MPa
pressure. In general, the highest and lowest values for safety factors and stress
distribution are caused by singularity issue. Without considering these extreme values, it
is obvious that the maximum stresses are at the two parallel planes. However, the realistic
model could be a model between these two scenarios. Although the clamping bars can be
adjusted for different diameters, for stronger rock, a very small place is needed for
bending to occur at the bottom-middle part of the specimen. Practically, the load is
increasing using a hydraulic hand pump on a brittle rock. It is going to take a minute to
few minutes until the failure occurs. That means the specimen is under an increasing
compression force and there are increasing forces against the clamping bars at the two
63
part of the specimen, which are fixed on the apparatus. Two extreme cases would be two
scenarios which were defined in this study. Considering the stress distributions in the BPI
specimen, should not the tests which are shown in Fig. 5.1 be considered as valid tests
and not as invalid tests? As far as the two complete shear failures occur at the two
parallel planes, the specimen is broken into three main parts, two ends which are fixed,
and the middle part which is punch out. Secondary failure may occur owing to the fact
that there is tensile stress at the middle part of the specimen caused by bending. In the
splitting tensile strength test, secondary failures occur in the specimen; and the test is not
considered as invalid test.

64
Conclusions
Uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock is important for engineering geology and
geotechnics, because it is major design parameter for mines, tunnels, slopes, and rock
foundations, and it is used as input parameter in many rock mass classification systems.
The difficulties associated with performing direct compression strength tests on rock
leads to development of indirect test methods for the rock strength assessment. Indirect
test methods are widely used because they are simple, more economical, less time
consuming, and easily adaptable to the field. The main aim of this study was to define
correlations between the results of direct and indirect test methods for the core sample
available from Carlin Trend in NV. Eleven correlations between the direct and indirect
compression strength test results were developed, using linear and nonlinear regression
analyses. To evaluate the performance of each regression equation, coefficient of
correlation (R2), variance accounted for (VAF), root mean square error (RMSE) and
mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated. The results show that the uniaxial
compression strength has the best correlation with the splitting tensile strength.
Furthermore, the Poisson‟s ratio has no correlation with any of the direct and indirect test
results.
The validity of the proposed equations is limited by the data range and sample types
which were used to derive the equations. Future work can be focused on increasing the
data of direct and indirect tests for the same types of rock. It is important to consider
specimens which come with RQD and core logging information.
Ten UCS specimens were prepared for the uniaxial compression strength test. The
specimens were divided in three groups: (1) with four strain gages, (2) with two strain
65
gages, and (3) with no strain gage. The results of UCS tests on the prepared specimens
with four bonded rosettes indicate that the size of the rosettes is acceptable to apply to
HQ (63.39 mm) core specimen.
Comparison between the errors of three methods of Young‟s modulus calculation for five
different UCS samples indicate that the “Average Modulus of Linear Portion of Axial
Stress-Strain Curve” is the best method for Young‟s modulus and Poisson‟s ratio
calculations. A correction factor for the deformation recorded with a MTS test machine
is calculated based on the slope of linear curve of all the considered displacements, which
is equal to “J = 2.25”. The core specimens with no rosettes were used for evaluating the
correlation relations performances.
The aim of the study of the cylindrical core specimen length was to assess the effect of
the core sample length, as a dimension factor of rock, on the Schmidt rebound hammer
(SRH) value. The evaluation of the calculated data showed that the SRH value changes
considerably when the length of the specimen is less than 12 cm. For the HQ core
samples, the effect of the specimen length on the SRH values is not significant for the
specimens having a length of more than 12 cm. However, in many cases, a core sample
with length greater than 12 cm is not available. Further studies are needed to investigate
the effect of discontinuities on the SRH values. A reasonable data base is needed to study
to evaluate if the SRH-Length plot acts the same for the length less than 12 cm for
different rock types. If the behavior of the SRH-Length is the same for a variety of rock
types, the SRH15cm can be predicted based on smaller core samples. The curves
demonstrate that the SRH value initially decreases significantly for the lengths 3 cm to 5
cm.
66
The block punch index (BPI) test, which requires flat disc specimens without special
treatment, has been developed during the last decade that can be used as an index test for
the strength classification of rock materials and correlated with the other direct and
indirect test methods. According to the ISRM suggested method for block punch index
test the test should be rejected as invalid if the parallel fracture planes are either absent or
not fully developed, or cross joints develop. The observations indicate that the middle
part of the specimen may be broken into many parts. The numerical simulation
demonstrates that there tensile stress at the bottom-middle part of the specimen,
particularly when the clamping bars cannot hold the specimen fixed (and there is place
for bending). Secondary failures or developed cross joints can be considered as secondary
failures as occur in splitting tensile strength or point load index test. For stronger
specimen secondary failures are likely to occur. As far as the two complete shear failures
occur at the two parallel planes, the specimen is broken into three main parts, two ends
which are fixed, and the middle part which is punch out. Secondary failure may occur
owing to the fact that there is tensile stress at the middle part of the specimen caused by
bending.
One of the interesting subjects on the splitting tensile strength is to study stress
distribution on the standard and flattened specimens. Observations from the experiment
show that the tensile failure does not frequently occur along the loaded diameter. In many
cases, the fractures do not go through the center and separate the disc in two halves.
Flattened specimens may solve this issue, however it would turn the splitting test to a
difficult and time consuming test. Future work can be focused on calculation of tensile
elastic modulus from the splitting test.

67
Recommendations
Indirect test methods are widely used because they are simple, more economical, less
time consuming, and easily adaptable to the field. However, there are a few
considerations for application of indirect test methods for compression strength
determination. The number of tests and the uncertainty associated with validity of the
tests are the most important considerations in the application of the indirect tests.
For an HQ (63.39 mm diameter) specimen, the approximate time for cutting the core
specimen is 10 to 15 minutes. The procedure of cutting the specimens is very time
consuming, especially for the indirect test methods, when multiple tests are needed (such
as block punch index). It is recommended to replace or modify the saw in the UNR-Rock
Mechanics Lab.
Performing a splitting tensile strength test with the MTS machine is time consuming.
First of all, it is not easy to run a test with the MTS machine. Secondly, with the hand
loading device, more tests can be performed on the specimens. It is recommended to
study the importance of the uniform load on the splitting test specimen, as is
recommended by ASTM D-3967. Many of the previous works on the splitting tests were
done using a hand pump loading device. It is also recommended to place a simple hand
pump loading device for performing the splitting tensile strength test.
68
References
Aksoy C.O., Ozacar V., Demirel N., Ozer S.C., and Safak S., (2011), “Determination of instantaneous
breaking rate by geological strength index, block punch index, and power of impact hammer for various
rock mass conditions”, Journal of Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 26, pp. 534-540.
Andreev G.E., (1991) “A Review of Brazilian Test for Tensile Strength Determination. Part 1: Calculation
Formula,” Mining Science and Technology, Vol. 13, pp. 445-456.
ASTM, (2005) “Standard Test Method for Determination of Rock Hardness by Rebound Hammer
Method,” ASTM Stand. D5873 – 00(2005).
ASTM (2008) “Standard Method for Determination of The Point Load Strength Index of Rock”, ASTM
Stand. D5731–08(2008).
ASTM, (2010) “Standard Method for Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core
Specimens under Varying States of Stress and Temperatures,” ASTM Stand. D5873 – 10(2010).
ASTM, (2008) “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens,”
ASTM Stand. D3967 – 08(2008).
ASTM, (2008) “Standard Test Method for Slake Durability of Shales and Similar Weak Rocks,” ASTM
Stand. D4644– 08(2008).
ASTM, (2010) “Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil
and Rock by Mass,” ASTM Stand. D2216– 10(2010).
ASTM, (2008) “Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Pulse Velocities and Ultrasonic
Elastic Constants of Rock,” ASTM Stand. D2845– 08(2008).
ASTM, (2008) “Standard Test Method for Preparing Rock Core as Cylindrical Test Specimens and
Verifying Conformance to Dimensional and Shape Tolerances” ASTM Stand. D4543– 08(2008).
Aydin A., (2009) “ISRM Suggested Method for Determination of the Schmidt Hammer Rebound Hardness:
Revised Version,” International journal of rock mechanics and mining sciences, Vol. 46, pp. 627-634.
Aydin A., Basu A., (2005) “The Schmidt Hammer in Rock Material Characterization,” Engineering
Geology, Vol. 81, pp. 1-14.
Aydin A., (2009) “ISRM Suggested Method for Determination of the Schmidt Hammer Rebound Hardness:
Revised Version,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 46, pp. 627-634.
Barton, N., & Choubey, V. (1977). “The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice,” Rock
mechanics Vol. 10, pp.1-54.
Basu A. and Kamran M., (2010) “Point Load Test on Schistose Rocks and its Applicability in Predicting
Uniaxial Compressive Strength,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 47,
pp. 823–828.
Basu A. and Aydin A., (2006) “Predicting Uniaxial Compressive Strength by Point Load Test: Significance
of Cone Penetration,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 39, pp. 483–490.
Bieniawski Z. T., (1975)“The point-load test in geotechnical practice,” Engineering Geology, vol. 9, pp. 1–
11.
Broch E. and Franklin J. A., (1972) “The point-load strength test,” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol. 9, pp. 669–676.
69
Cobanoglu I. & Celik S.B., (2008), “Estimation of Uniaxial Compressive Strength from Point Load
Strength, Schmidt Hardness and P-wave Velocity,” Journal of Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, Vol. 67, pp. 491-498.
Day MJ, Goudie AS, (1977) “Field Assessment of Rock Hardness using the Schmidt Hammer Test,” Br
Geomorph Res Group Tech Bull, Vol. 18, pp. 19-29.
Dan D., Konietzky H., Herbst M., (2013) “Brazilian tensile strength tests on some anisotropic rocks,”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, Vol. 58, pp. 1-7.
Deere, D. U., & Miller, R. P. (1966). Engineering classification and index properties for intact rock.
ILLINOIS UNIV AT URBANA DEPT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING.
Demirdag S., Yavuz H., and Altindag R., (2009) “The Effect of Sample Size on Schmidt Rebound
Hardness Value of Rocks,” International journal of rock mechanics and mining science, Vol. 46, pp. 725-
730.
Fairhurst, C., (1964) “On the validity of the „Brazilian‟test for brittle materials,” In International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts Vol. 1, pp. 535-546.
Franklin J. A. & Chandra R., (1972) “The Slake Durability Test,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Science, Vol. 9, pp. 325-341.
Fener, M., Kahraman, S., Bilgil, A., & Gunaydin, O. (2005). A comparative evaluation of indirect methods
to estimate the compressive strength of rocks,‟ Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 38, pp. 329-
343.
Goodman, R. E. (1989). “Introduction to rock mechanics”. New York: Wiley, p. 562.
Hack. R & Huisman. M., (2002), “Estimating the Intact Rock Strength of a Rock Mass by Simple Means,”
Proceedings of 9th Congress of the International Association for Engineering Geology and the
Environment. Durban, South Africa, 16 - 20 September 2002 - J. L. van Rooy and C. A. Jermy, editors.
Heidari M., Khanlari G. R., Kaveh M., and Kargarian S., (2012) “Predicting the Uniaxial Compressive and
Tensile Strengths of Gypsum Rock by Point Load Testing,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol.
45, pp. 265–273.
Hoek E., (1977) “Rock Mechanics Laboratory Testing in the Context of a Consulting Engineering
Organization,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
Vol. 14, pp. 93–101.
Hucka V., (1965) “A Rapid Method of Determining the Strength of Rock In-Situ,” International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 2, pp. 127-134.
ISRM (International Society of Rock Mechanics), (1973) “Suggested Methods for Determining the Point
Load Strength Index”, ISRM Commission on Laboratory Tests, pp. 8–12.
Kahraman S., Fener M., Gunaydin O., (2002), “Predicting the Schmidt Hammer Values of In–Situ Intact
Rock from Core Sample Values,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 39,
pp. 385-399.
Kahraman S., Gunaydin O., and Fener M., (2005), “The Effect of Porosity on the Relation between
Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Point Load Index,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, Vol. 42, pp. 584-589.
Karakul H., Ulusay R., and Isik N.S., (2011), “Empirical Models and Numerical Analysis for Assessing
Strength Anisotropy based on Block Punch Index and Uniaxial Compression Strength Tests,” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 47, pp. 657-665.
70
Kenney, J. F. and Keeping, E. S. (1962) "Linear Regression and Correlation." Ch. 15 in Mathematics of
Statistics, Pt. 1, 3rd ed. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, pp. 252-285.
Miller, R.P., (1965) “Engineering Classification and Index Properties for Intact Rock,” Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Illinois.
Mishra D. A. and Basu A., (2012) “Use of the Block Punch Test to Predict the Compressive and Tensile
Strengths of Rocks,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 51, pp. 119–127.
Monjezi M., Rezaei M., Yazdian A., (2010), “Prediction of Back-Break in Open-Pit Blasting using Fuzzy
Set Theory”, Expert Systems with Applications Journal, vol. 37, pp. 2637-2643.
Quac Dan D., Konietzky H., Herbst M., (2013), “Brazilian Tensile Strength Tests on Some Anisotropic
Rocks,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 57, pp. 1-7.
Potro R. and Hurlimann M., (2009), “A Comparison of Different Indirect Techniques to Evaluate Volcanic
Intact Rock Strength”, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Vol. 42, pp. 931-938.
Sabatakakis N., Koukis G., Tsiambaos G., Papanakli S., (2008) “Index Properties and Strength Variation
Controlled by Microstructure for Sedimentary Rocks,” Engineering Geology , Vol. 97, pp. 80-90.
Schrier, J. S. (1988) “The block punch index test,” Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering
Geology-Bulletin de l'Association Internationale de Géologie de l'Ingénieur, Vol. 38, pp. 121-126.
Seber G.A.F and Wild C.J.,(1989) ”Nonlinear Regression”. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Sharma P. K., Khandelwal M., Singh T. N., (2011), “A Correlation between Schmidt Hammer Rebound
Numbers with Impact Strength Index, Slake Durability Index and P-wave Velocity,” International Journal
of Earth Sciences, Vol. 100, pp. 189-195.
Sharma P.K. & Singh T.N., (2008), “A Correlation between P-wave Velocity, Impact Strength Index, Slake
Durability Index, and Uniaxial Compressive Strength,” Journal Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, Vol. 67, pp.17-22.
Sheskin, D.J. (2000). "Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures, 2nd edition",
Chapman & Hall, New York.
Smith H. J., (1997) “The Point Load Test for Weak Rock in Dredging Applications,” International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 34, pp. 295.e1–295.e13.
Sulukcu S. and Ulusay R., (2001) “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, Vol. 38, pp. 1091–1111.
Tzamos S. and Sofianos, A. I., (2006), “Extending the Q System‟s Prediction of support in tunnel
employing Fuzzy logic and extra parameters”, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, Vol. 43, pp. 938-949.
Ulusay, R., Gokceoglu, C., & Sulukcu, S., (2001) “Draft ISRM suggested method for determining block
punch strength index (BPI),” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 38, pp.
1113-1120.
Wijk G., (1978) “Some New Theoretical Sspects of Indirect Measurements of the Tensile Strength of
Rocks,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, Vol.
15, pp. 149–160.
Yilmaz I., (2009) “A new testing method for indirect determination of the unconfined compressive strength
of rocks,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 46, pp. 1349-1357.
71
Yilmaz I, Sendir H, (2002) “Correlation of Schmidt Hardness with Unconfined Compressive Strength and
Young‟s Modulus in Gypsum from Sivas (Turkey),” Engineering Geology, Vol. 97, pp. 80-90.
Yu Y., Zhang J., Zhang J., (2009), “A Modified Brazilian Disc Tension Test”, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 46, pp. 421-425.
72
Appendix-1: Specimen Preparation Report
“Rock is a complex engineering material that can vary greatly as a function of lithology,
stress history, weathering, moisture content and chemistry, and other natural geologic
processes. As such, it is not always possible to obtain or prepare rock core specimens
that satisfy the desirable tolerances given in this practice. Most commonly, this situation
presents itself with weaker, more porous, and poorly cemented rock types and rock types
containing significant or weak (or both) structural features. For these and other rock
types which are difficult to prepare, all reasonable efforts shall be made to prepare a
specimen in accordance with this practice and for the intended test procedure. ASTM D-
4543 specifies procedures for laboratory rock core test specimen preparation of rock
core from drill core and block samples for strength and deformation testing and for
determining the conformance of the test specimen dimensions with tolerances established
by this practice (2010).” There are preparation considerations in the ASTM D-4543
about the unit and the specimen requirements for “compressive strength test” which are
comprehensively described in ASTM D-4543:
1. The dimensional values stated in either inch-pound units or SI units are to be
regarded as standard.
2. Test specimens shall be right circular cylinders within the tolerances specified
herein.
3. The specimen shall have a length-to-diameter ratio (L/D) of 2.0 to 2.5 and a
diameter of not less than 1-7⁄8 in. (47 mm).
4. The larger the internal friction angle of a specimen the more desirable it will be to
have larger L/D ratios so that the specimen can potentially develop a true shear
73
plane that does not pass through either end of the specimen or is not altered by the
specimen size.
5. The cylindrical surfaces of the specimen shall be generally smooth and free of
abrupt irregularities, with all the elements straight to within 0.020 in. (0.50 mm)
over the full length of the specimen.
6. The ends of the specimen shall be cut parallel to each other and at right angles to
the longitudinal axis. The end surfaces shall be surface ground or lapped flat to a
tolerance not to exceed 0.001 in. (25 μm).
7. The ends of the specimen shall not depart from perpendicularity to the axis of the
specimen by more than 0.25o.
8. The parallelism tolerance is the maximum angular difference between the
opposing best-fit straight line on each specimen end.
All the specimens for the uniaxial compression strength tests were prepared based on the
ASTM standard “ASTM D-4543” and “ASTM D-7012”. All the specimens met the
ASTM D-4543 standard requirement, except sample W-2U which did not meet the side
smoothness requirement. For each of the samples, all the information about the specimen
(including diameter, length, weight, unit weight, density, moisture content, and slake
durability index) have been shown in the preparation form. The preparation form also
includes specimen dimension checks.
In the specimen preparation form, the diameter and length calculation were not included.
The diameter was calculated as an “average of two approximately perpendicular
diameters, at top, middle, and bottom of the specimen.” The length was calculated as an
“average of the length of the specimen along three lines at 120o from each other.”
74
Sample 2U
Specimen ID 2U
Source location Mine “A”
Rock type Basalt
Equipment used for sample preparation Drill, Saw, Grinder
Storage condition Room
Moisture condition Oven dried
Specimen length (inch) 4.74
Specimen Diameter (inch) 2.495
Specimen Weight (lbm) 2.054
Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 153.127
Density (g/cm3) 2.453
Moisture content (%) 0.32
Slake durability index (%) 99.06
“T” and “B” stands for top and bottom of the specimen, respectively. There are three
mark points at 120o around periphery of top or bottom.
Checks on the ASTM-D4543 Dimensional Requirements:
1. Side Smoothness and Straightness
Maximum and minimum along each line, and the difference between the maximum and
minimum
Δ0= 0.018 inch Δ120= 0.008 inch Δ240= 0.013 inch
Maximum Difference (DM) = 0.018 inch
Is DM≤0.02 inch? YES

75
2. End Flatness and Parallelism
Readings along two perpendicular diameters on the both top and bottom of the specimen,
at 1/8 inch intervals were taken (see the plots).
ΔT1= 0.003 inch ΔT2= 0.003 inch
ΔB1= 0.003 inch ΔB2= 0.002 inch
3. Perpendicularity
Is Δmax/D ≤ 0.0043? YES
1
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-2
End 1 (TOP), Diameter 1
Is the maximum difference between the smooth curve fit and strain line best fit≤0.001
inch? YES
3
2
1
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-2
-3
76
inch? YES
2.5
2
1.5
1
mils
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-1.5
End 2 (BOTTOM), Diameter 1
inch? YES
1
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
mils
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
inch? YES
77
Sample 5U
Specimen ID 5U
Rock type Rhyolite
minimum
Δ0= 0.008 inch Δ120= 0.009 inch Δ240= 0.009 inch

78
ΔT1= 0.004 inch ΔT2= 0.003 inch
ΔB1= 0.003 inch ΔB2= 0.003 inch
3. Perpendicularity
3
2
1
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-2
-3
inch? YES
79
4
3
2
mils
1
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
inch? YES
1.5
1
0.5
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.5
-1
-1.5
inch? YES
2.5
2
1.5
mils
1
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
inch? YES
80
Sample 6U
Specimen ID 6U
Rock type Basalt
minimum
Δ0= 0.002 inch Δ120= 0.004 inch Δ240= 0.007
inch

81
ΔT1= 0.003 inch ΔT2= 0.003 inch
ΔB1= 0.004 inch ΔB2= 0.002 inch
3. Perpendicularity
2
1
0
mils
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

-1
-2
-3
inch? YES
82
2
1
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
mils
-1
-2
-3
-4
inch? YES
3
2
1
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-2
inch? YES
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
mils
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
inch? YES
83
Sample 7U
Specimen ID 7U
Rock type Rhyolite
minimum
Δ0= 0.008 inch Δ120= 0.006 inch Δ240= 0.008
inch

84
ΔT1= 0.001 inch ΔT2= 0.002 inch
ΔB1= 0.001 inch ΔB2= 0.002 inch
3. Perpendicularity
0.4
0.2
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
mils
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
inch? YES
85
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-2
inch? YES
2
1.5
1
0.5
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-1.5
inch? YES
1.5
1
mils
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.5
inch? YES
86
Sample 8U
Specimen ID 8U
Rock type Rhyolite
minimum
Δ0= 0.004 inch Δ120= 0.004 inch Δ240= 0.008
inch

87
ΔT1= 0.003 inch ΔT2= 0.002 inch
ΔB1= 0.003 inch ΔB2= 0.002 inch
3. Perpendicularity
1.5
1
0.5
0
mils
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
inch? YES
88
2
1.5
1
0.5
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-1.5
inch? YES
2
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
inch? YES
2.5
2
1.5
mils
1
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
inch? YES
89
Sample 11U
Specimen ID 11U
Rock type Rhyolite
minimum
Δ0= 0.011 inch Δ120= 0.008 inch Δ240= 0.006
inch

90
ΔT1= 0.002 inch ΔT2= 0.003 inch
ΔB1= 0.002 inch ΔB2= 0.004 inch
3. Perpendicularity
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
mils
0.4
0.2
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.4
inch? YES
91
1.5
1
0.5
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.5
-1
-1.5
inch? YES
1.5
1
0.5
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-1.5
inch? YES
1
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-2
inch? YES
92
Sample W-1U
Specimen ID W-1U
Rock type Rhyolite
minimum
Δ0= 0.019 inch Δ120= 0.012 inch Δ240= 0.011
inch

93
ΔT1= 0.00 inch ΔT2= 0.00 inch
ΔB1= 0.01 inch ΔB2= 0.008 inch
3. Perpendicularity
1
0.8
0.6
mils
0.4
0.2
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
inch? YES
94
1
0.8
0.6
mils
0.4
0.2
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
inch? YES
6
4
2
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-4
-6
inch? YES
6
4
2
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-4
-6
inch? YES
95
Sample W-2U
Specimen ID W-2U
Rock type Basalt
minimum
Δ0= 0.027 inch Δ120= 0.039 inch Δ240= 0.022
inch
Is DM≤0.02 inch? NO
96
ΔT1= 0.001 inch ΔT2= 0.003 inch
ΔB1= 0.001 inch ΔB2= 0.001 inch
3. Perpendicularity
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
mils
0.4
0.2
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.4
inch? YES
97
2
1
0
mils
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-2
-3
inch? YES
1.5
1
mils
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.5
inch? YES
1.5
1
mils
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.5
inch? YES
98
Sample W-5U
Specimen ID W-5U
Rock type Basalt
minimum
Δ0= 0.011 inch Δ120= 0.009 inch Δ240= 0.011
inch

99
ΔT1= 0.003 inch ΔT2= 0.002 inch
ΔB1= 0.005 inch ΔB2= 0.001 inch
3. Perpendicularity
2.5
2
1.5
1
mils
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-1.5
inch? YES
100
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
mils
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
inch? YES
2.5
2
1.5
1
mils
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
inch? YES
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
mils
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
inch? YES
101
Sample W-6U
Specimen ID W-6U
Rock type Basalt
minimum
Δ0= 0.013 inch Δ120= 0.009 inch Δ240= 0.007
inch

102
ΔT1= 0.001 inch ΔT2= 0.001 inch
ΔB1= 0.001 inch ΔB2= 0.002 inch
3. Perpendicularity
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
mils
0.4
0.2
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
inch? YES
103
1.5
1
0.5
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-1.5
inch? YES
1.5
1
mils
0.5
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-0.5
inch? YES
1.5
1
0.5
mils
0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-1
-1.5
inch? YES
104
Appendix-2: Strain Gages Results
In the design of rock structures such as dam foundations or vertical mineshafts, the
deformation of the rock is of prime importance since excessive deformation may result in
failure of the dam wall in severe misalignment of the shaft steelwork. On the other hand,
the stability of rock structures such as tunnels, open pits or underground excavations is
dependent upon the strength and failure characteristics of the rock. The deformation
characteristics of rock most conveniently studied on cylindrical specimens, subject it to
uniaxial compression. Strain gages, bonded to the rock surface are the most reliable
measuring devices is and the convenience of using gages would normally outweigh the
relatively high cost of the gages. when that deformation characteristics of rocks which
occur in structures subjected to low levels of stress are being studied, great care must be
taken to ensure that the load and strain and measured with sufficient accuracy. Strain
gages are sensors that are used to measure compressive or tensile strain in a part due to an
applied load.
These sensors can be integrated into other types of sensors, such as load cells. Strain
gages are resistive sensors, which mean the output of the sensor is based on the change of
resistance of the gage, which is essentially a variable resistor. A strain gage is essentially
a single wire that has been wound back and forth to form a rectangular matrix. Modern
strain gages are made using semiconductor fabrication methods to ensure quality and
repeatability. When a strain gage is pulled or compressed, each part of the rectangular
matrix extends or compresses, changing the overall length of the wire. As the length
changes, the resistance of the wire changes, and the resistance of the wire is proportional
to the strain induced on the gage.

105
If electrical resistance strain gages are used, the length of the gages over which axial and
circumferential strains are determined should be at least ten grain diameters in magnitude
and the gages should not encroach within D/2 of the specimen ends, where D is the
diameter of the specimen.
When selecting a strain gage for a measurement application, the characteristics of the
selected sensor must match the characteristics of the system or object being measured.
Strain gages are available in many different sizes and configurations, so understanding
the variables will result in proper gage selection.
Alloy
The alloy is the type of material used for the strain gage wire. A variety of alloys are
available for strain gages, depending on the specific application. Constantan is an all-
purpose alloy, which is applicable for most general use applications. Annealed constantan
is useful for high-strain applications. Isoelastic alloys are appropriate for dynamic strain
applications or fatigue cycling. The Karma alloy is most applicable for long-term
monitoring, as it maintains performance well over time.
Gage Factor
The gage factor is the sensitivity of the strain gage, or the relationship between resistance
and strain. The gage factor depends on the specific strain gage wire material. The
majority of strain gages have a gage factor around 2.

106
Gage Length
Gage length is the length of the gage matrix in the direction of strain. Larger gage lengths
are more resistant to localized temperature and strain effects, and are easier to handle due
to their larger size. Smaller gage lengths are appropriate for confined spaces or to
measure very localized strains. Gages with large gage lengths are often less expensive
than gages with small gage lengths.
Resistance
Resistance refers to the electrical resistance of the gage wire, measured in ohms.
Common strain gage resistances are 350 ohms and 120 ohms. If a half-bridge or quarter-
bridge circuit is used, the other arms of the bridge must be filled with dummy or active
gages with the same resistance.
Self-Temperature Compensation (S-T-C)
S-T-C is the ability of the gage to resist environmental thermal changes. The S-T-C
number is related to the coefficient of thermal expansion of the strain gage materials.
Rosette:
A rosette is a configuration of two or more individual gages in one package. Rosettes can
include two gages to measure strain in two perpendicular axes. In this project because of
financial and technical considerations, larger strain gages could not be available to bond
to HQ rock samples. The CEA-13125WT-350 rosettes were used to measure the core
sample deformations under a uniaxial compression load.

107
Table A-2-1: Rosette CEA-13-125WT-350 properties

GAGE PATTERN GAGE DESIGNATION RES. IN OHMS
ES: Each CP: Complete Inch
section pattern
S: Section M: Matrix Millimeter
125WT
Two-element 90o tee stacked rosette. Exposed
solder tab area o.1 × 0.07 in (2.5 × 1.8 mm).
Maximum operating temperature + 150 F (+65o
c)
GAGE OVERALL GRID OVERALWIDTH
LENGTH LENGTH WIDTH CEA-xx- 350±5%
0.125 ES 0.325 CP 0.18 ES 0.325 CP 125WT-350
3.18 ES 8.2 CP 4.57 ES 8.26 CP
MATRIX 0.42L × 0.42 W 10.7L × 10.7 W
SIZE
The operating equation for strain gages is the definition of gage factor (GF), which is
how the gage‟s resistance changes as a function of its change in length as it is strained.
R=ρL/A Equ. A-2.1
In which, R is the resistance, ρ is the resistivity (as a material property of the wire which
is used in the strain gages), L is the length of the wire, and A is the cross sectional area of
the wire. To find out how the resistance changes when the length of the wire changes,
mercury wire is considered as a liquid material which is incompressible (no changes in
the volume). The reason that the mercury is used to carry out the gage factor expression
is the A (area of the wire) is not constant and by changing the length of the wire:
Equ. A-2.2
108
Equ. A-2.3
Equ. A-2.4
⁄
⁄
Equ. A-2.5
From the above calculation, the definition of the gage factor (GF) is as follow:
GF = (ΔR/R0) / (ΔL/L0) Equ. A-2.6
R0 is the initial, unstrained resistance, ΔR is the change in resistance resulting from the
application of the load, and ΔL/L0 (ε) is the strain. The definition of the gage factor may
be re-arranged as:
ε = ((Rstrained-R0)/R0)/GF Equ. A-1.3
For the gages used in this project, the GF=2.12. The unstrained initial resistance (R0) for
each gage was observed from the first few data point recorded in the data file. The
calculations were carried out to 6 decimal places based on the measured resistance
values.
Once an appropriate value for R0 has been determined for each gage, the strain can be
readily calculated from the equation A 1-7, as a function of the applied load. Usually, the
strain values are averaged to reduce the effects due to non-parallel ends and so for. The
procedures of the calculation of the averaged strains are explained in the appendix 1.
Please refer to ASTM D7012 “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength and
Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock Core Specimen under Varying States of Stress and
Temperatures”, section11 and 12, for guidelines on calculating the elastic moduli. The
109
procedure of the Poisson‟s ration and elastic moduli calculations is explained in the
appendix 1.
As it has been shown in the table A-2-1 and from the observations of the core samples,
the rosette which was used in this study is small. Therefore, it is important to ensure that
the load and strain and measure with sufficient accuracy. Three core samples with larger
grain size were considered to evaluate the accuracy of the rosettes. Four rosettes were
bonded to each of the samples: two rosettes next to each other on both sides of the core
samples. The procedure of strain gage rosettes installation is as follow:
1. Choose approximate location for the gages, and use the center finder to draw
marks along the diameter of the core, at the edges.
2. Clean off broad area with alcohol and Kim-wipes, allow drying.
3. Apply a thin coating of Loctite adhesive to an area larger than the gage. Wipe off
excess Loctite with manila card, allow drying for 30 minutes.
4. Sand each “patch” area smooth, and make sure it is large enough for the gage.
5. Wipe the sanded area with alcohol, allow drying.
6. Use the combination square to draw an axial line with segment along one side of
the patch. This is used for alignment of the gage, or its midpoint, is located.
7. Use a piece of scotch tape about 2 ½” long. Position this with sticky side up on
the work table.
8. Use tweezers to position the strain gage on the scotch tape. The copper soldering
tabs should be in contact with the tape.

110
9. Paint a very thin Layer of Loctite on the gage. All the gage should be covered
with Loctite, but with as thin a layer a possible. It is fine to get some of the
Loctite on the tape.
10. Lift the tape off the work table, and very carefully position the gage on the
specimen where the lines have been drawn. Roll the gage on, on edge first, and
pressing any air bubbles out. Press very firmly, and rub the tape onto the
specimen.
11. Allow the Loctite to cure for at least 30 minutes. Then very carefully, peel the
tape off, starting at one end, pulling the tape back at a sharp angle.
A total of 10 UCS core samples were tested that were divided to three main groups:
1- Three core samples with four rosettes (8 strain gages) to assess if the size of the
strain gages is acceptable to install on the HQ core samples.
2- Five core samples with two rosettes to develop correlation relations of the
mechanical properties of the rock with indirect test methods.
3- Two core sample without any strain gages.
1-Study the applicability of CEA-13-125WT-350 rosettes to the HQ core

samples:
Fig. A-2-1: Two rosettes were installed next to each other on both side of the specimens to
evalaute the accuaracy of strain gages.
111
Specimen 5U:
Information about the specimen 5U is available in the appendix 1 “SPECIMEN
PREPRATION REPORT”. To evaluate the performance of the strain gages, four rosettes
were bonded to this specimen, and named rosette 1 to rosette 4. For each two rosettes,
uniaxial compression test was performed using MTS machine load control configuration,
to the displacement of less than 1% of the length of the specimen. Four uniaxial
compression tests were run, three of which with the maximum load of 65 kips. The
specimen was under load of zero kips, one kips, five kips, and the load was increased to
65 kips with increase of 5 kips in each step. The computer records the strain gages
resistance each five seconds. Five resistance numbers were recorded and averaged as
“strain gages resistance” of the each step. The load was decreased under the same pattern
from 65 kips to 5 kips, 1 kips, and zero force to see the strain gages behavior. In the last
run (rosette 2 and 4), the uniaxial compression test were performed using MTS machine
displacement control configuration, with displacement rate of 0.16 mm/min to break the
sample.
The results of the strain gages performance tests on the specimen 5U are as follow. In the
following curves, “R-i” stands for stress and axial strain of the rosette “i”; “R-i-j” shows
two connected rosettes to the computer; and, “Circ Strain” stands for circumferential
strain.
112
Fig. A-2-2: Two rosettes were bonded next to each other to compare the results of the gages.
Fig. A-2-3: Strain gages data is recorded each five seconds using the computer.
113
120
100
R-1 (R-1-2)
80
R-2 (R-1-2)
Stress (MPa)
R-1 (R-1-3)
60
R-3 (R-1-3)
R-4 (R-3-4)
40 R-3 (R-3-4)
R-4 (R-2-4) Final
20 R-2 (R-2-4) Final
0
-0.0025 -0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0
Strain
Fig. A-2-4: Stress-Strain curve based on the data recorded for a total of four runs
0.0007
0.0006
0.0005 R-1 (R-1-2)

R-2 (R-1-2)
Circ Strain
0.0004
R-1 (R-1-3)
R-3 (R-1-3)
0.0003
R-4 (R-3-4)
0.0002 R-3 (R-3-4)
R-4 (R-2-4) Final
0.0001 R-2 (R-2-4) Final
0
-0.0025 -0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0
Axial Strain
114
Fig. A-2-5: Axial strain- circumferential strain curve based on the data recorded for a total of four
runs
100 0.0003
80 0.00025
Stress (MPa)
Circ Strain
0.0002
60
R-1 0.00015
R-1 40 0.0001
20 R-2
R-2 0.00005
0 0
-0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 -0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0
Strain Axial Strain
Fig. A-2-6: Data recorded for Rosettes 1-2
Table A-2-2: Results from the rosettes 1-2 (specimen 5U)
Rosette Number Poisson‟s Average Young‟s Modulus

Ratio (GPa)
1 0.19 66.01
2 0.19 65.88
100 0.0005
80 0.0004
Stress (MPa)
Circ Strain
60 0.0003
R-1 40 0.0002
R-1
R-3 20 R-3 0.0001
0 0
-0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 -0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0
Strain Axial Strain

Ratio (GPa)
1 0.18 65.55
3 0.16 71.00
115
100 0.0003
80 0.00025
Stree (MPa)
Circ Strain
60 0.0002
R-4 0.00015
40 R-4
0.0001
R-3 20 R-3 0.00005
0
0
-0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0
-0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0
Strain Axial Strain

Ratio (GPa)
3 0.22 66.9
4 0.16 70.88
100 0.0007
0.0006
80 R-4
Stress (MPa)
0.0005
Circ Strain
60 R-2 0.0004
40 0.0003
R-4
0.0002
R-2 20 0.0001
0 0
-0.0025 -0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 -0.0025 -0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0
Strain Axial Strain

Ratio (GPa)
1 0.22 65.44
2 0.18 62.90
116
Specimen W-1U:
Information about the specimen W-1U is available in the appendix ()“SPECIMEN
to the displacement of less than 1% of the length of the specimen. Four uniaxial
from 65 kips to 5 kips, 1 kips, and zero force to see the strain gages behavior. In the last
run (rosette 2 and 4), the uniaxial compression test were performed using MTS machine
displacement control configuration, with displacement rate of 0.16 mm/min to break the
sample.
The results of the strain gages performance tests on the specimen W-1U are as follow. In
the following curves, “R-i” stands for stress and axial strain of the rosette “i”; “R-i-j”
shows two connected rosettes to the computer; and, “Circ Strain” stands for
circumferential strain.
117
Fig. A-2-11: Specimen W-1U with four rosettes to evaluate the accuracy of the gages
60
50
R-1 (R-1-2)
40 R-2 (R-1-2)
Stress (MPa)
R1 (R-1-3)
30
R-3 (R-1-3)
20 R-4 (R-3-4)
R-3 (R-3-4)
10 R-4 (R-2-4) Final
R-2 (R-2-4) Final
0
-0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001
Strain
Fig.A-2-12: Stress-Strain curve based on the data recorded for a total of four runs
118
0.00025
0.0002
0.00015
R-1 (R-1-2)
0.0001 R-2 (R-1-2)

R-1 (R-1-3)
Circ Strain
0.00005 R-3 (R-1-3)

R-4 (R-3-4)
0 R-3 (R-3-4)
-0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001
R-4 (R-2-4) Final
-0.00005 R-2 (R-2-4)
-0.0001
-0.00015
Axial Strain
Fig. A-2-13: Axial strain- circumferential strain curve based on the data recorded for a
total of four runs
80 0.00025
0.0002
60
Stress (MPa)
0.00015
Circ Strain
R-1 (R-1-2) 0.0001

40
R-1 (R-1-2) 0.00005
R-2 (R-1-2)
20 0
R-2 (R-1-2) -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005
-0.00005 0 0.0005
0
-0.0001
-0.002 -0.001 0 0.001
Strain Axial Strain
Table A-2-6: Results from the rosettes 1-2 (specimen W-1U)

Ratio (GPa)
1 0.18 45.68
2 0.15 43.15
119
80 0.0002
R-1 (R-1-3) 0.00015
60
Circ Strain
Stress (MPa) 0.0001 R-1 (R-1-3)
R-3 (R-1-3) 0.00005
40
R-3 (R-1-3)
0
20 -0.001 -0.0005
-0.00005 0 0.0005 0.001
-0.0001
0
-0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 -0.00015
Strain Axial Strain

Ratio (Gpa)
1 0.18 48.31
3 0.14 67.39
80 0.00025
70
0.0002
60
Stress (MPa)
50 0.00015
Circ Strain
40
R-4 (R-3-4) 0.0001
R-4 (R-3-4) 30
20 R-3 (R-3-4) 0.00005
R-3 (R-3-4) 10
0 0
-0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0
-0.00005
Strain Axial Strain

Ratio (GPa)
4 0.17 60.81
3 0.14 66.54
120
60
0.00025
50
0.0002
Stress (MPa) 40
Circ Strain
0.00015
30 R-4 (R-2-4) 0.0001
R-4 (R-2- 20
4) 10 R-2 (R-2-4) 0.00005
0
0
-0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005
-0.002 -0.0015 -0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 -0.00005
Strain Axial Strain

Ratio (Gpa)
4 0.17 60.37
2 0.15 47.29
Specimen 11U:
Information about the specimen 11U is available in the appendix ()“SPECIMEN
to the displacement of less than 1% of the length of the specimen. Two uniaxial
from 65 kips to 5 kips, 1 kips, and zero force to see the strain gages behavior. The
121
specimen 11U was broken in the second run. There was an obvious weakness plane
which is shown in the figure A-2-18. The sample was broken through this weakness
plane. The results of the test show nonlinear behavior of the specimen. However, indirect
tests which were performed on this rock from same core indicate the rock was fairly hard.
Consequently, because of existence of an obvious weakness plane and failure which
occurred, the results are not reliable for the further conclusion.
The results of the strain gages performance tests on the specimen 11U are as follow. In
the following curves, “R-i” stands for stress and axial strain of the rosette “i”; “R-i-j”
shows two connected rosettes to the computer; and, “Circ Strain” stands for
circumferential strain.
Fig. A-2-18: Specimen 11U; there is no acceptable results from the specimen because of a
weakness plane in the specimen.
122
100
80
60
Stress (MPa)
R-1 (R-1-2)
40 R-2 (R-1-2)
R-1 (R-1-3)
20 R-3 (R-1-3)
0
-0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001
-20
Strain
Fig. A-2-19: Stress-Strain curve based on the data recorded for a total of four runs
0.0012
0.001
0.0008
R-1 (R-1-2)
Circ Strain
0.0006
R-2 (R-1-2)
0.0004 R-1 (R-1-3)
R-3 (R-1-3)
0.0002
0
-0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001
-0.0002
Axial Strain
Fig. A-2-20: Axial strain- circumferential strain curve based on the data recorded for a total of
four runs
123
100 0.0012
0.001
Stress (MPa) 80
Circ Strain
0.0008
60
0.0006
R-1 (R-1-2) 40 R-1 (R-1-2) 0.0004
20 0.0002
R-2 (R-1-2) R-2 (R-1-2)
0 0
-0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 -0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0
Strain Axial Strain

Ratio (Gpa)
1 0.18 21.20
2 0.26 26.11
100 0.0012
80 0.001
Stress (MPa)
0.0008
Circ Strain
60
R-1 (R-1-3) 0.0006
40 0.0004
R-1 (R-1-3)
20 R-3 (R-1-3) 0.0002
R-3 (R-1-3)
0
0 -0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001
-0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 -0.0002 0 0.001
Strain Axial Strain

Ratio (Gpa)
1 0.20 24.25
3 0.36 33.12
124
2-Calculation of the mechanical properties of intact rock samples with two

rosettes
To calculate the mechanical properties of the intact rock sample (E and ν), the slope of
axial and lateral curves are measured based on the methods which are suggested by
ASTM standard (ASTM-D7012-10). Two rosettes were bonded to each sample with 180o
degree angle to each other. To compare the results, the slopes of axial and lateral curves
for each rosette are calculated. In the next step, the results from rosette 1 and 2 are
averaged, which is shown as “Average” in the following tables.
To find the errors of the strain gages and the calculations, “Strain Average” is calculated
for each rosette as the average of the strain results from the gages. This can be used as a
bench mark for the error calculation (mean of the values).
For each of the samples, table “sample ID-1” shows the results of Young‟s modulus and
Poisson‟s ratio according to the different calculations for the Young‟s Modulus. Table
“Sample ID-2” shows the “logarithmic standard deviation” (equation 1-1) of the each
method using the “Average Strain” as a mean (actual) value.
The Young‟s modulus and Poisson‟s ratio are calculated using three methods, as follows:
 Tangent modulus, at a stress level at 50% of the maximum strength,
 Secant modulus, from 5% of maximum stress to 95% maximum strength,
 Average modulus, slope of the straight line portion of the stress-strain curve (with
the r = 0.95).
Comparison between the errors of each method for five different samples indicates that
the “Average Modulus of Linear Portion of Axial Stress-Strain Curve” is the best method
125
for Young‟s modulus and Poisson‟s ratio calculation. It is important to note that the linear
portion of the stress-strain curve has been identified using an almost complicated and
time consuming method. For each rosette, a very short and perfectly linear portion of the
stress-strain curve has been chosen. Using error calculation, the number of the data has
been increased until to get the r = 0.95.
Although the average modulus calculation is the best method with the least error, the
errors of the all three methods are acceptable and the results are reasonably good. The
error calculation for other rock type, strain gages, or other compression test machines
may be different.
Sample 6U
Table 6U-1: Results from the rosettes based on three Young‟s modulus calculation methods.
Young‟s Modulus Calculation Method Young‟s Modulus Slope of Lateral Poisson‟s
(GPa) Curve (GPa) Ratio
Rosette 1 36.11 156.68 0.23
Tangent modulus Rosette 2 48.39 192.59 0.25
Average 42.25 174.63 0.24
Strain Average 41.36 172.79 0.24
Rosette 1 36.04 130.90 0.28
Secant Modulus Rosette 2 47.41 153.02 0.31
Average 41.73 141.96 0.29
Rosette 1 37.41 152.07 0.25
Average Modulus Rosette 2 48.66 198.63 0.24
Average 43.04 175.35 0.25
Table 6U-2: Error calculation for three Young‟s modulus calculation methods.
Young‟s Modulus Logarithmic Standard Deviation (β)
Calculation Method Young‟s Modulus Slope of Lateral Curve
(GPa) (GPa) Poisson‟s Ratio
Tangent Modulus 0.120 0.085 0.036
Secant Modulus 0.113 0.064 0.049
Average Modulus 0.108 0.110 0.002
126
180
160
140
120
Stress (MPa) 100
80
R-1-Axial
60 R-1-Circ
40 R-2-Circ
20 R-2-Axial
0
-0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Strain
Fig. 6U: Stress-Strain curve for rosette 1 (R-1) and rosette 2 (R-2)
Sample 8U
Table 8U-1: Results from the rosettes based on three Young‟s modulus calculation methods.
Young‟s Modulus Calculation Young‟s Modulus Slope of Lateral Poisson‟s
Method (GPa) Curve (GPa) Ratio
Rosette 1 42.91 200.78 0.21
Average 48.66 293.12 0.17
Rosette 1 40.37 177.06 0.23
Average 47.63 246.43 0.19
Rosette 1 40.99 188.40 0.22
Average 48.80 278.64 0.18
Table 8U-2: Error calculation for three Young‟s modulus calculation methods.
127
250
200
Stress (MPa)
150
100 R-1-Axial
R-1-Circ
50 R-2-Circ
R-2-Axial
0
-0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Strain
Fig. 8U: Stress-Strain curve for rosette 1 (R-1) and rosette 2 (R-2)
Sample W-2U
Table W-2U-1: Results from the rosettes based on three Young‟s modulus calculation methods.
Young‟s Modulus Young‟s Modulus Slope of Lateral Poisson‟s
Calculation Method (GPa) Curve (GPa) Ratio
Rosette 1 23.16 109.93 0.21
Average 26.88 127.40 0.21
Rosette 1 19.94 82.80 0.24
Average 24.48 102.12 0.24
Rosette 1 25.23 125.52 0.20
Average 28.95 147.87 0.20
Table W-2U-2: Error calculation for three Young‟s modulus calculation methods.
Calculation Method Young‟s Modulus Slope of Lateral Curve Poisson‟s
(GPa) (GPa) Ratio
128
120
100
80
Stress (MPa)
60
R-1-Axial
40 R-1-Circ
R-2-Axial
20
R-2-Circ
0
-0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
Strain
Fig. W-2U: Stress-Strain curve for rosette 1 (R-1) and rosette 2 (R-2)
Sample W-5U
Rosette 1 17.14 86.38 0.20
Average 17.88 100.74 0.18
Strain
Average 17.85 98.69 0.18
Rosette 1 16.70 78.15 0.21
Average 17.04 89.28 0.19
Strain
Average 17.04 87.89 0.19
Rosette 1 16.93 83.81 0.20
Average 17.40 94.53 0.18
Strain
Average 17.39 93.32 0.19
129
45
40
35
Stress (MPa) 30
25
20
R-1-Axial
15 R-1-Circ
10 R-2-Circ
5 R-2-Axial
0
-0.001 -0.0005 0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025
Strain
Fig. W-5U: Stress-Strain curve for rosette 1 (R-1) and rosette 2 (R-2)
Sample W-6U
Rosette 1 16.99 79.89 0.21
Average 17.33 91.22 0.19
Rosette 1 18.87 106.54 0.18
Average 19.07 118.18 0.16
Rosette 1 17.36 87.50 0.20
Average 18.12 102.04 0.18
130
3-Comparison between the recorded displacement from MTS machine and

Strain-Gages:
Comparison between the recorded displacement/strain from the MTS machine and the
strain gages shows that the displacement recorded with the MTS machine is much larger
than the actual displacement from the strain gages. In some cases, the measured strain
with the MTS machine is three times more than the measured strain from the strain gages.
One of the causes of this difference is the deflections of the steel plates above and below
the core samples (Fig A-2-23). Another cause is the deformation of the load cell.
Nevertheless, it is important to find out if there is any relation between these two
displacements since, in this project, two of the prepared core samples were not tested
with the strain gages. Moreover, in the future projects, the strain gages may not be pasted
on the core sample because of any sort of consideration. However, the best alternative to
calculate the actual strain is to use the strain gage for all the UCS tests.
Fig. A-2-23: Steel platens above and below the core sample (MTS machine)
131
To find out if there is any (mathematical) relation between the recorded displacement on
the MTS machine and strain gages, the maximum, minimum, and average recorded strain
from the gages are plotted against the maximum, minimum, and average recorded strain
with the MTS machine. Since MTS machine and machine for the strain gages do not
record the data at a same time, it was not possible to plot all the available data. It might
be important to eliminate the time which may cause some sort of uncertainty. Therefore,
the calculations are based on the minimum data possible since the comparison is between
two different recording devices.
Table A-2-13 shows the slope of plotted curves for the strain gages strain against
recorded strain from the MTS machine. A correction factor for the deformation recorded
with MTS is calculated based on average of the slopes of the each figure (for each core
sample) and the slope of linear curve of all the considered displacement which is equal to
2.25 (Fig. A-2-25).
Fig. A-2-24: Displacement data was recorded with both MTS machine and computer.
132
Table A-2-12: Maximum, minimum, and average strain values recorded with MTS machine and
strain gages.
Sample ID Strain MTS machine Strain Gage
Secant Modulus 0.010752146 0.00425293
6U Tangent -8.92167E-06 -1.51776E-06
Modulus
Average 0.005819994 0.001445321
Modulus
Secant Modulus 0.01114397 0.005099604
8U Tangent
Modulus 1.275E-05 -1.07565E-06
Average
Modulus 0.005907099 0.001618576
Secant Modulus 0.006218328 0.002258719
W-5U Tangent
Modulus 0.000123126 -1.41488E-06
Average
Modulus 0.003545903 0.000667455
Secant Modulus 0.005800093 0.002258699
W-6U Tangent
Modulus -2.325E-05 -1.43534E-06
Average
Modulus 0.002983407 0.000667434
Table A-2-13: The slope of the strain gages strain-MTS machine strain curves
Sample ID Slope
6U 2.4242
8U 2.0745
W-5U 2.5122
W-6U 2.4302
Average=2.36
133
0.014
0.012
0.01
MTS Strain
0.008
0.006
0.004
MTS Strain = 2.25 (strain Gauges Strain) + 0.0009
0.002 R² = 0.94
0
-0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006
-0.002
strain gages strain
Fig A-2-25: Calculated J correction factor based on the Table 1 data
To evaluate which of the above slopes (2.36 as average of the slope of each curve for
each of the samples and 2.25 as slope of curve for all the considered data), the Young‟s
modulus of above samples were calculated using both numbers. The results demonstrate
that 2.25 is the better correction factor for the recorded strain with the MTS machine.
Moreover, this comparison confirms that “Average Modulus of Linear Portion of Axial
Stress-Strain Curve” method is the best method to find out the Young‟s modulus and
Poisson‟s ratio of the intact rock (Table A-2-14).

134
Table A-2-14: Comparison between the calculated Young‟s modulus from MTS machine and
strain gages using correction factor J=2.25.
Sample Calculation MTS Machine Strain Gage Young’s β
ID Method Young’s modulus modulus (GPa)
(GPa)
Maximum 43.3 41.8 0.04
6U Minimum 32.7 42.3 0.26
Average 43.9 43.1 0.02
Maximum 50.2 47.6 0.05
8U Minimum 47.5 48.7 0.02
Average 50.1 48.9 0.04
Maximum 17.4 17 0.02
W-5U Minimum 21.3 17.9 0.18
Average 19.2 17.4 0.1
Maximum 13.5 17.3 0.25
W-6U Minimum 14.6 19.1 0.26
Average 16.7 18.1 0.09
To validate the proposed correction factor “J”, aluminum cylindrical sample was tested
under compression with the MTS machine. The maximum force on the aluminum core
was 95 kips (less than 1 percent of strain). Table 4 shows the results of the aluminum
UCS test. The result indicates that the correction factor is fairly acceptable to find the
accurate deformation from the MTS machine.
Table 4. Validation of correction factor “J” based on Aluminum UCA test

Young‟s Modulus of Calculated Young‟s β
Aluminum Modulus
69 GPa 61.3 GPa 0.07

Application of Index Test Methods For Intact Rock Strength Assesment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of Index Test Methods For Intact Rock Strength Assesment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Nevada, Reno

Application of Index Test Methods for Intact Rock Strength

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Dr. Raj R. Kallu/Thesis Advisor

We recommend that the thesis

Application of Index Test Mehods for Rock Strength Assessment

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the

Dr. Raj R. Kallu, Advisor

Dr. Jaak J. Daemen, Committee Member

Dr. Robert Watters, Graduate School Representative

Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Dean, Graduate School

conducted. In the non-destructive methods, Schmidt hammer and ultrasonic pulse

methods. To evaluate the performance of each regression equation, coefficient of

indirect test results.

without his support and guidance, this was not possible.

persistent help this thesis would not have been possible.

technical assistance during the laboratory testing.

1.1. Intact Rock Strength Test Methods:....................................................................................................... 1

Sample Preparation and Testing Results

Correlations between Direct and Indirect Test Methods

The Effect of Cylindrical Core Sample Length on Schmidt Rebound Hammer

Numerical Simulation of Block Punch Index (BPI)

5.1. Block Punch Index Test: ...................................................................................................................... 52

Table 3.1. Performance of the ultimate strength-Young‟s modulus equation ............................................ 32

Fig. 2.1. Slake durability testing machine .................................................................................................. 12

classification or characterization systems (Edelbro, 2003). Intact rock strength is an

important input in rock mass classification systems. Strength determinations on rock

1.1. Intact Rock Strength Test Methods:

unconfined strength determination.

1.1.1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) Test:

The UCS is an important input parameter in rock mass classifications. Unconfined

too thin or fragmented to be used in either uniaxial compressive or splitting tensile

strength tests (Sulukcu & Ulusay, 2001).

1.1.2. Splitting Tensile Strength (Brazilian) Test:

larger than that of foliation-loading angle (Quac et al. 2013).

1.1.3. Point Load Index (PLI) Test:

the failure usually was caused by induced tension (Goodman 1989).

there is a strength/size effect; so a correction must be made to reduce results to a common

Fener et al. 2005).

1.1.4. Schmidt Rebound Hammer (SRH) Test:

deformability characterization due to its rapidity and easiness in execution, simplicity,

of rocks (Yalmiz, 2009).”

1.1.5. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test:

compressive strength. The velocity of ultrasonic pulses traveling in a solid material

materials is sometimes related to their elastic stiffness so that measurement of ultrasonic

determine elastic properties (Sharma & Singh 2008).

1.2. Objective and Background:

types in various conditions. Sharma et al. (2011) established a statistical relationship

Hence, they all have significantly strong correlation among themselves.

and independent parameters by considering linear functions. Also, multiple regression

sample types which were used to derive the equations.

(N-type rebound number) RN and (L-type rebound number) RL were proposed. RN

showed a good logarithmic relation with unit weight.

39.64 (n<1%) and UCS=10.22Is+24.31 (n>1%).

ultrasonic pulse velocity test were performed.

results are given.

performance of each regression equation, coefficient of correlation (R2), variance

and mean absolute error (MAE) are calculated.

indirect test methods.

Specimen Preparation and Testing Results:

samples were not included in the calculations.

determined (Table 2.1).

2.1.2. Water (Moisture) Content of the UCS Specimens: