Engineering Geology, 9(197 5) 1--11

© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

Research Papers

THE POINT-LOAD TEST IN G E O T E C H N I C A L PRACTICE

Z. T. BIENIAWSKI
Geomechanics Division, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria
(South Africa)
(Received May 31, 1974; revision accepted December 3, 1974)

ABSTRACT

Bieniawski, Z. T., 1975. The point-load test in geotechnical practice. Eng. Geol., 9: 1--11.

The point-load test is evaluated for practical applications in engineering geology. The
three variations of the test, i.e., diametral, axial and irregular lump are assessed and it is
found that the diametral point-load test is most convenient and reliable in use. The
relationships between the uniaxial compressive strength and the point-load index
separately for NX, BX and EX core diameters are established and a simple size correlation
graph is compiled. Practical applications of the point-load test in geotechnical practice
are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Recent publications by Broch and Franklin (1972), Guidicini et al. (1973)

and Bieniawski (1974) have aroused renewed interest in the point-load test
as a convenient method for strength classification of rock materials. In
particular, the comprehensive investigation by Broch and Franklin (1972)
has proved this m e t h o d to be of such potential in rock mechanics and
engineering geology that steps have been taken to standardize the testing
procedures by the International Society for R o c k Mechanics (ISRM, 1973).
At the same time Broch and Franklin have felt that experience in using
the test was still limited and more experimental data were needed to substan-
tiate the correlation between the point-load index and the uniaxial compress-
ive strength. Furthermore, the so-called size-effect in the point-load test
needed clarification.
The purpose of this paper is to answer these questions and to evaluate the
point-load test on the basis of a study involving over 1,000 tests. The results
are presented from the point of view of practical applications in engineering
geology and rock mechanics. For detailed reviews of the literature on the
historical development and the theoretical basis of the point-load test, the
interested reader is referred to papers by Broch and Franklin (1972) and by
Guidicini et al. (1973).
PRINCIPLES OF THE TEST

The point-load test is conducted in the field on unprepared rock specimens

using simple portable equipment. In essence, this test involves compressing a
piece of rock between two points, as illustrated in Fig.la. As shown in this
figure the point-load index is calculated as the ratio of the applied load P to
the square of the distance D between the loading points. The dimensions of
the loading " p o i n t s " are standardized and given in Fig.lb.
As illustrated in Fig.la, the point-load test has a number of variations such
as the diametral test, the axial test and the irregular lump test. These varia-
tions should not be confused with the Brazilian disc test depicted in Fig.lc.
The point-load index may be correlated with the tensile strength as well
as with the compressive strength of rock. Because of the predominance of
compressive stress in rock mechanics problems, the relationship between the
point-load index and the uniaxial compressive strength has been given most
attention (D'Andrea et al, 1965; Broch and Franklin, 1972).

PRESENT STUDY

The testing procedures and equipment used in the present study conformed
strictly to the requirements of the "Suggested m e t h o d for determining the
point-load strength i n d e x " (ISRM, 1973).
Two series of tests were conducted. The first series aimed at establishing
which of the three point-load tests, i.e., diametral, axial or irregular lump, is
most practical. The second series of tests aimed at determining the relation-
ship between the point-load index and the uniaxial compressive strength
with particular emphasis on the size effect.
The results from the first test series are given in Table I. It will be seen
from this table that the irregular lump test is the least accurate of the three
tests but the results so obtained are nevertheless of the same order of magni-
tude as those from the diametral or axial test. This study also demonstrated
that the diametral test is more convenient and simpler to use than the other
two tests. This is so because the geometrical specifications for the axial and
irregular lump test -- given in Fig.la --require preparation of the specimens
in the case of the axial test (cutting cores to required length) and are
difficult to attain in the case of the irregular lump test {trimming specimens
to required shape). Previous studies by Broch and Franklin {1972) also
revealed that in the axial test and in the irregular lump test the size and
shape effects are very pronounced.
It is, therefore, concluded that the diametral test is the most convenient
point-load test for practical purposes.
In Table II the results are given of the uniaxial compressive and diametral
point-load tests conducted on rock specimens of three different sizes.
The data from Table II for NX core (54 mm diameter} are presented in
Fig.2 together with the results by D'Andrea et al. (1965} and Broch and
Franklin (1972). In Figs.3 and 4 the data for BX (42 ram) and EX (21.5 mm)
core sizes are plotted.
 P
POINT LOAD INDEX Is= '-D2
L_ L ._j

I_ L ..2 ql--

t
D--- 50 mm
L~0,70 D
-- = 1,1 ~: O,OS D
L ~= 1,0 to 1,L
L

DIAMETRAL TEST AXIAL I"EST IRREGULAR LUMP TEST

a)

tl ~ P

I I

b} c~

F i g . 1 . Details of index tests, a, point-load tests; b, standard loading cone for point-load
tests; c, Brazilian disc test.

It will be seen from Fig.2 that the results yield a straight-line correlation,
the slope of which represents the ratio between the uniaxial compressive
strength and the point-load index. This slope is found to be 23.5 and is
rounded off to 24. This value confirms a similar finding by Broch and
Franklin for 50 mm core obtained from extrapolating test results from
specimens with a diameter of 38 mm.
Figures 3 and 4 show that the index to strength conversion factor for BX
TABLE I

Results of point-load testing*

Rock Type of test Specimens Point-load index

material tested
Mean Standard
(MPa) deviation

MPa %

Sandstone Diametral 30 2.34 0.37 15.7

Axial 31 2.62 0.14 5.5
Irregular lump 33 2.13 0.41 19.2

Belfast Diametral 30 12.97 1.56 12.0

norite Axial 32 14.59 1.88 12.9
Irregular lump 33 16.08 4.12 25.6

*All the specimens tested were of comparable sizes having D ~ 54 mm as defined in Fig.la

TABLE II

Comparison of results from uniaxial compressive and point-load testing

Rock Uniaxial compressive strength Core Point-load index in diametral test

material size
No. of Mean Standard No. of Mean Standard
specimens (MPa) deviation specimens (MPa) deviation

MPa % MPa %

Sandstone 40 55.1 3.02 5.5 NX 70 2.33 0.22 9.8

20 56.4 4.07 7.2 BX 65 2.56 0.23 8.8
25 56.1 3.58 6.4 EX 70 2.83 0.22 9.8

Quartzite 40 182.6 24.59 13.5 NX 45 8.30 1.35 16.2

20 180.3 15.45 8.7 BX 40 9.47 2.10 22.4
20 187.8 28.77 15.3 EX 40 10.37 1.82 17.5

Marikana 45 250.5 2.90 1.2 NX 40 10.84 1.57 14.5

norite 20 257.4 9.10 3.5 BX 20 11.16 2.19 19.6
20 254.9 6.34 2.5 EX 20 13.05 1.16 8.9

Belfast 40 312.3 4.73 1.5 NX 70 13.13 1.21 9.2

norite 20 312.9 5.21 1.7 BX 35 13.77 2.10 15.2
20 318.2 8.18 2.6 EX 40 15.92 0.86 5.4

c o r e ( 4 2 m m d i a m e t e r ) is 21 w h i l e t h a t f o r E X c o r e ( 2 1 . 5 m m d i a m e t e r ) is
18. N o c o m p a r i s o n s c a n b e m a d e f o r t h e s e c o r e sizes w i t h s i m i l a r r e s u l t s o f
o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s b e c a u s e t h i s is t h e f i r s t s t u d y i n v o l v i n g size e f f e c t s in b o t h
u n i a x i a l c o m p r e s s i o n a n d in p o i n t - l o a d t e s t i n g f o r N X as w e l l as B X a n d E X
c o r e sizes. D ' A n d r e a e t al. { 1 9 6 5 ) d i d n o t i n v e s t i g a t e t h e size e f f e c t w h i l e
 2O
L~0,7 ~ P

Xd'Andrea et at, ~965

OBroch c~nd FronkLin,1972 ~ X

MARIKANA
~I~This Study NORITE X
X
X
Q 10
o T I -

x i~' x A,,s~ I " o x

x x
x X
o

SANDSTONE Oo o "Tx !

. ~-~Ox x x ]

0 50 100 t50 20(] 250 300 350

UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH O'c, MPo

Fig.2. Relationship between point-load index and uniaxial compressive strength for NX
core (54 ram).

BELFAST
NORITE

MARIKANA
NORIIE
QUARTZITE

c~
z_

O
J

%x Ik
21 IBX
SANDSTONE

S0 100 150 200 250 300 350

UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH dBx , MPa

Fig. 3. Relationship between point-load index and uniaxial compressive strength for BX
core (42 ram).
 ,5 f "
i
MARPKANA
NORITE
QUART

dEX :, 18 |EX
l

0 50 100 150 200 25O 300 ' ' ' 350

UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH GEX , MPct

Fig.4. Relationship between point-load index and uniaxial compressive strength for EX
core (21.5 mm).

Broch and Franklin (1972) did not take into account the size effects in
uniaxial compression ( t he y were only c o n c e r n e d with the size effect in point-
load testing). Guidicini et al. (1973) dealt with the irregular lump test only.

Size correlation

In order to estimate the conversion factors for core sizes o t h e r than NX,
BX and EX, a plot is given in Fig.5 depicting the index-to-strength conversion
factor versus the core diameter. A straight line correlation is apparent. Figure 5
may serve as a simple size correlation guide.
It may be m e n t i o n e d that Broch and Franklin (1972) also proposed a size
correlation chart for the point-load index which is r e p r o d u c e d in Fig.6.
Problems, however, may be experienced with this chart if accurate read-outs
are required. For example, as shown in Fig.6, if a core of 35 mm in diameter
gives an index o f 5, then a curve parallel to the nearest one on the chart will
yield a reference index for 50 m m core of 4.0. This value of the reference
point-load index is next used for strength classification purposes. It is
believed that Fig.5 is more convenient for size correlation purposes.
It is r e c o m m e n d e d t hat core diameters o f less than BX size (42 m m
diameter} should n o t be used for point-load testing because for smaller
diameters the loading points -- see F i g . l b -- cannot be considered as
theoretical " p o i n t s " in relation to the specimen size.
It should be r e m e m b e r e d in this c o n n e c t i o n t hat the internationally recom-
m e n d e d core size for site investigation drilling is NX, t hat is, 54 mm diameter.
L)

g
a:
w
>

20 ~ / Broch and Fr0,nklin 1972 i

==

o
(:Ic = k l s
0' AndreQ ~ o[ 1965
o
_z []

20 30 ~0 50 60

CORE DIAMETER. mm

Fig.5. Size correlation graph for index-to-strength conversion.

REFERENCE
DIAMETER

20

15

i~ ~'~ q-~
I0 ~L ~ ' ~ ~ ~"~ ~ . _ ~

~ ~,~ -"'- - - - . ~ .

30 ~0 50 60 70
CORE DIAMETER D, mm
Fig.6. Size correlation chart for point-load index proposed by Broch and Franklin ( 1 9 7 2 )

Core of this size is used for standard rock quality designation (RQD)
determinations (Deere, 1968) as well as for standard rock strength tests
(ASTM, 1971; ISRM, 1973). Consequently, the point-load index should
preferably be obtained on NX cores. Although Broch and Franklin (1972)
recommend 50 mm diameter as a reference core for size correlation
purposes, it is considered that the NX core size would be a better standard
and size correlation should be discouraged.
Finally, an interesting point concerning the size effect may be observed
from Table II. It will be seen that there is a pronounced size effect in the
point-load test while this is not the case in the uniaxial compression test.
The reason for this lies in the tensile nature of the failure in the point-load
test. The size effect is greater in tension ~han in compression because in
tension cracks open and give rise to large strength reductions while in com-
pression, when cracks close, the disturbances are much reduced. Obert and
Duvall (1967, p.332) reported that for cylindrical specimens the effect of
specimen size is less than the normal intergroup variation, provided that the
specimen length-to-diameter ratio is kept constant. The results in Table II
support this conclusion.

ADVANTAGES OF POINT-LOAD TESTING

When Broch and Franklin (1972) proposed the point-load test as a

replacement for the uniaxial compression test, they gave the following
comparison of the two tests:
Advantages o f the point-load test:
(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} more tests may be made for the same cost;
(4) fragile or broken materials may be tested;
(5) results show less scatter than those for the uniaxial compression test;
(6) measurement of strength anisotropy is simplified.
Advantages o f the uniaxial compression test:
(1) the testing procedure is better known and evaluated;
(2) results are available for a wide variety of rock types, together with
experience in linking these results to field performance.
Item 5 is not supported by the present study (see Table II) which has
shown that the point-load test gives higher standard deviations than the
uniaxial compression test. Nevertheless, the results from the point-load test
are acceptable for practical engineering purposes having, on the average, a
standard deviation of a b o u t 15%.
Another important point is that the precision of the index is at best a b o u t
0.25 MPa as is evident from Table II, for sandstone. Consequently, the
usefulness of the index is limited for rock materials with a uniaxial compres-
sive strength below 25 MPa (point-load index below 1 MPa). In applications
involving these materials, such as in foundation problems, the use of the
conventional uniaxial compression test is preferred.
APPLICATIONS OF THE POINT-LOAD TEST

The point-load test is particularly useful for strength classification of rock

materials. Although many classifications have been proposed, it is believed
that a classification based on a proposal by Deere and Miller (1966) is
particularly realistic and convenient for use in the field of geomechanics.
Such a classification is given in Table III which includes modifications intro-
duced by Bieniawski (1973) to conform to the round values of the SI
metric units and to include the corresponding ranges of the point-load index.
The value of the index-to-strength conversion factor of 24 is rounded off to
25 which is acceptable for classification purposes.
When using the point-load test for strength classification purposes, the
author recommends that rock materials should be classified for strength on
the basis of their uniaxial compressive strength rather than the index itself.
This is preferable because the strength ranges in Table III are internationally
recognised while those of the index are not since different authors use
different designations and problems arise with the size correlation. Thus,
from the point-load test one should first calculate the uniaxial compressive
strength and only then classify the rock material for strength.

TABLE III

Strength classification for rock materials

Description Uniaxial compressive Point-load index

strength (MPa)
(MPa)

Very high strength > 200 > 8

High strength 100--200 4--8
Medium strength 50--100 2--4
Low strength 25--50 1--2
Very low strength < 25 < 1

It is also recommended that engineering geologists apply the point-load

test as a matter of routine when logging borehole cores. A log sheet should
include an entry on rock strength classified in accordance with Table III and
determined from a point-load test. Such an entry would replace the currently
used descriptive terms as " h a r d " or " s o f t " rock which are often erroneously
confused with the strength of the rock. Thus, for example, the uniaxial
compressive strength of a so-called " h a r d " quartzite may be over 200 MPa
while that of a so-called " h a r d " sandstone only 50 MPa. Furthermore, the
geological " h a m m e r and p e n k n i f e " scratch test gives very subjective results
while a point-load test m e a s u r e s the actual strength in quite a convenient
manner and t h a t also in the field.
Finally, the practical value of rock material strength classification is
evident in Fig.7 from which, on the basis of the uniaxial compressive strength
and RQD or spacing of joints, it is possible to estimate the workability of
10

:E

i=o

c)

;~5 P 50 ~" 75 G 90 v~$ 100 %

ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION RQD('/.)

v~

H BLAST
I
BLAST
I_!
- TO -TO
M FRACTURE LOOSEN

RIP /
vL

I I I I I I I I I I I I J I 1 I I I I I IJliJ
10m $ 3m M ~m BI$ 300ram F 50ram ¢ 5mm

SPACING OF JOINTS

Fig.7. Diagrams for workability of rock.

C o m p i l e d f r o m : a, M u i r W o o d ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; b, F r a n k l i n e t al. ( 1 9 7 1 ) .
VH -- very high strength VG -- very good quality S -- solid (almost no joints)
H -- high strength G -- good quality M -- massive
M -- medium strength F -- fair quality B/S -- blocky/seamy
L -- low strength P -- poor quality F -- fractured
VL -- very low strength VP -- very poor quality C -- crushed

rock. Since such estimates are often needed on site, the determination of the
uniaxial compressive strength from the point-load index in the field has great
practical potential.
 11

CONCLUSIONS

It is c o n c l u d e d t h a t :
(1} T h e d i a m e t r a l p o i n t - l o a d test is a c o n v e n i e n t m e t h o d o f d e t e r m i n i n g ,
in the field, the uniaxial compressive s t r e n g t h o f r o c k materials f o r s t r e n g t h
classification p u r p o s e s (Table III).
(2) The p o i n t - l o a d i n d e x s h o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d o n N X cores (54 m m
d i a m e t e r ) as a s t a n d a r d size.
(3) T h e r e is a c o n v e n i e n t c o r r e l a t i o n (Fig.5) b e t w e e n the i n d e x - t o - s t r e n g t h
c o n v e r s i o n f a c t o r and the core d i a m e t e r if the p r o p o s e d N X s t a n d a r d cores
are n o t used.
(4) T o avoid c o n f u s i o n s t r e n g t h classification o f r o c k materials s h o u l d be
based o n t h e uniaxial compressive s t r e n g t h and n o t o n i n d e x strength.
(5) Engineering geologists s h o u l d e m p l o y the p o i n t - l o a d test on a r o u t i n e
basis w h e n logging b o r e h o l e cores and s h o u l d t h e r e f r o m include an e n t r y o n
r o c k strength. This w o u l d r e m o v e t h e n e e d f o r an e n t r y o n r o c k hardness.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The a u t h o r wishes t o t h a n k Messrs. U. W. Vogler, K. Herza, R. Maschek,

S. C o e t z e r a n d L. Botha, all o f t h e G e o m e c h a n i c s Division o f the C S I R , f o r
their assistance in c a r r y i n g o u t the tests.

REFERENCES

ASTM, 1971. Standard method of test for unconfined compressive strength of rock core
specimens. ASTM Book of Standards, 30, Sect. D2938-71, pp.918--919.
Bieniawski, Z. T., 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans. S. Afr.
Inst. Civil Eng., 15: 335--343.
Bieniawski, Z. T., 1974. Estimating the strength of rock materials. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min.
Metall., 74: 312--320.
Broch, E. and Franklin, J. A., 1972. The point-load strength test. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci., 9: 669--697.
D'Andrea, D. V., Fisher, R. L. and Fogelson, D. E., 1965. Prediction of compressive
strength of rock from other rock properties. U.S. Bur. Mines Rep. Invest., 6702.
Deere, D. U., 1968. Geological considerations. In: K. G. Stagg and O. C. Zienkiewicz
(Editors), Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice. Wiley, London, pp.l--20.
Deere, D. U. and Miller, R. P., 1966. Engineering classification and index properties for
intact rock, U.S. Air Force Weapons Lab., Techn. Rep., AFNL-TR-65-116.
Franklin, J. A., Broch, E. and Walton, G., 1971. Logging the mechanical character of
rock. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. (Sect. A), 70: A1--A9.
Guidicini, G., Nieble, C. M. and Cornides, A. T., 1973. Analysis of point load test as a
method for preliminary geotechnical classification of rocks. Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng.
Geol., 7 : 37--52.
ISRM, 1973. Suggested method for determining the point-load strength index. ISRM
Committee on Laboratory Tests, Document, 1: 8--12.
Muir Wood, A. M., 1972. Tunnels for roads and motorways. Q. J. Eng. Geol., 5:111--126
Obert, L. and Duvall, W. I., 1967. Rock Mechanics and the Design of Structures in Rock.
Wiley, New York, N.Y., 650 p.