Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261 – 273

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Considerations on strength of intact sedimentary rocks

G. Tsiambaos a,*, N. Sabatakakis b
a
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece, 9 Polytechniou Street 15780 Zografou,
Athens, Greece
b
Department of Geology, Patras University, Patras, Greece

Received 23 December 2002; accepted 20 October 2003

Abstract

This study presents the results of laboratory testing of sedimentary rocks under point loading as well as in uniaxial and
triaxial compression. From the statistical analysis of the data, different conversion factors relating uniaxial compressive and
point loading strength were determined for soft to strong rocks. Additionally, the material constant mi, an input parameter for the
Hoek and Brown failure criterion, was also estimated for different limestone samples by analysing the results from a series of
triaxial compression tests under different confining pressures. The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of intact rocks, as
estimated from the point load index using conversion factors, together with the Hoek – Brown constant mi, and the Geological
Strength Index (GSI) constitute the parameters for the calculation of the strength and deformability of rock masses.
D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rock strength; Uniaxial compressive strength; Triaxial compressive strength; Point load strength; Rock laboratory testing; Intact
rock

1. Introduction
For many years the uniaxial compression test has
been the main quantitative method for determining the
strength of intact rock materials. The results of this
test are directly applicable to studies concerning
tunneling, slope excavation, drilling, and crushing
and blasting. Test results are also indirectly applicable
to estimation of the behaviour of the rock mass, since
the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) is included
as a main input parameter for rock mass characteriza-
tion and classification, as well as for consideration of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30-210-7723748; fax: +30-210-
7723428.
E-mail address: gktsiamb@central.ntua.gr (G. Tsiambaos).
failure criteria for intact rock and rock masses. Al-
though UCS testing constitutes the basis for intact
rock strength measurement and has been standardized
by the International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM, 1981) and the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM, 1986a), it is often replaced by
the simpler, faster and cheaper point load testing.
The need to establish a relation between the point
load index and UCS dates back to the period immedi-
ately after development of the point loading method by
Broch and Franklin (1972). Different studies have
shown, however, that there is no single factor relating
the point load test to UCS for all rock types (Brook,
1985; Chau and Wong, 1996; Hawkins, 1998; Romana,
1999) and research is still continuing for certain rocks
(Kahraman, 2001; Thuro and Plinninger, 2001).

0013-7952/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2003.10.001
262 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273
The triaxial compression test is a unique method
for determining the shear strength parameters of intact
rock. Detailed procedures for performing such labo-
ratory tests are available as ISRM suggested methods
(1981) or as ASTM standards (1986b). The strength
and deformation characteristics of intact rock are
controlled by many factors including anisotropy,
moisture content, and confining pressure. The data
from this test can be used as input parameters for
estimating both intact rock and rock mass strength
using either the Mohr – Coulomb or Hoek – Brown
(1980, 1988) failure criteria. The latter criterion is
virtually the only nonlinear empirical criterion applied
worldwide in tunneling and slope excavation design.
The rock material constant, mi, is a significant input
parameter for the aforementioned criterion for intact
rock and this can be obtained from the analysis of
triaxial test data (Hoek and Brown, 1980, 1997;
Marinos and Hoek, 2000, 2001).
The main objective of this study is to determine
conversion factors relating point load strength and
uniaxial compressive strength, as well as to obtain
values of the Hoek – Brown constant mi for the most
common sedimentary rocks in Greece. The conver-
sion factors are determined by evaluating results
obtained from laboratory testing in uniaxial compres-
sion and point loading for a great number of specially
prepared rock samples. The variation of the mi mate-
rial constant has been also determined from the
analysis of triaxial test results for several types of
limestones and the values are compared with those
recently proposed by Marinos and Hoek (2000, 2001).
2. Test procedure
Rock samples used in this study were obtained
from exploratory sampling boreholes and trial pits.
Table 1
Data from laboratory testing of sedimentary rocks
Rock type Location – description
Limestone Athens, Tripoli, Levadia,
Amfissa, Tempi, Kakia Skala, Revithoussa
Marlstone – Marly limestone Athens, Piraeus, Crete, Peloponesse
Sandstone
Calcareous-marly Rodos, Kassos
Quartzitic-greywacke Athens, Larissa
The sampling locations were widely distributed
around the Greek territory where major engineering
project (railways, motorways, ports, etc.) are under
construction. The samples were mainly sedimentary
carbonate rocks (limestones, marly limestones, sand-
stones and marlstones), since this type of sedimentary
rocks is the most common one in Greece, comprising
almost the 25% of the outcrops. Laboratory core drill
and saw machines were used to cut the samples and
end faces were ground in order to provide specimens
with size, shape and ends geometries according to
ISRM (1981) requirements.
The influence of the sample size upon UCS has
been widely discussed (e.g., Hoek and Brown, 1980;
Hawkins, 1998) and it is generally assumed that there
is a significant reduction in strength with increasing
sample size, with a constant ratio of height to diameter
of the cylindrical rock cores. Hoek and Brown (1980)
reviewed this influence using data mainly from igne-
ous rocks and they proposed the following formula for
the conversion of the results obtained for different
diameter specimens:
rc
rc50 ¼
0:18 ð1Þ
50
d
where: rc50 is the calculated uniaxial compressive
strength of a 50-mm diameter sample, rc is the
uniaxial compressive strength of the specimen, and
d is the diameter of the specimen in mm.
Hawkins (1998), using test data from sedimentary
rock samples with different diameters, showed results
that do not support the formula proposed by Hoek and
Brown. Hawkins found maximum strength values for
samples ranging from 38 to 54 mm in diameter. The
UCS values decrease with either reducing or increas-
ing the diameter.
Number of samples rc (MPa) Is(50) (MPa)
93 24 – 214 2.15 – 7.00
49 6 – 73 0.50 – 3.76
46 2.1 – 254 0.37 – 6.90
26 2.1 – 41 0.37 – 3.80
20 75 – 254 3.49 – 6.90
 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273 263

Fig. 1. Linear and power function relationship between point loading and uniaxial compressive strength.

In this study, we used cylindrical samples confined
to NX (54-mm diameter) size with a length-to-diam-
eter ratio of 2.0 to 2.5, to avoid any uncertainties
regarding the influence of the sample size on the
measured strength. The diametrical point load test
was carried out on the cores having a diameter of
about 50 mm and a length of about 110 mm.
The rock samples examined in this study were
prepared and tested in uniaxial compression and point
loading with the loading axis perpendicular to any
visible plane of weakness. The fracture created by the
point load test was always fresh and through the rock
material, not following any discontinuity surface,
otherwise the test was unacceptable.
The execution of laboratory tests on intact rock
material, as well as the determination of the strength
parameters was in accordance with ISRM suggested
methods (1981, 1985) and ASTM standards (D 2938-
86 and D2664-86, 1986). More specifically, the
parameters of rock specimens determined by tests

Fig. 2. Conversion factors correlating point loading and uniaxial compressive strength for soft to strong sedimentary rocks.
264 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273
carried out in the laboratory, in dry conditions for a
better comparison of the results, were as follows:
uniaxial compressive strength—UCS—(rc), point
loading index (Is(50)), and principal stresses values at
failure (r1, r3) under triaxial compression.
3. Point load test and uniaxial compressive
strength
The point load strength test apparatus was devel-
oped at Imperial College, London, as an aid to core
logging. However, this technique has been used
extensively, in slightly different form, as a laboratory
research tool and also as a convenient method for
field index testing. The results are, however, suffi-
ciently related to other design parameters, such as
uniaxial compressive strength to allow this test to
give an index of rock material strength. The general
sense (Hawkins, 1998; Hawkins and Olver, 1986;
BS, 1981) is that the point load index is not easily
co-relatable with USC values, but is only ‘‘quick
and cheap laboratory and field indicator strength
test, useful to core logging’’ (Table 5 in BS,
1981). The results are considered as an input pa-
rameter for rock classification rather than as a means
of predicting the uniaxial compressive strength of
rocks.
Broch and Franklin (1972), who initially devel-
oped the method, suggested that the UCS is approx-
imately equal to 24 times the point load index (Is(50))
referred to a standard size of 50 mm. Bieniawski
(1974, 1975) proposed a conversion factor as function
of specimen diameter in the order of 24 for NX (54
mm) core samples.
The conversion factor relating point load index and
uniaxial compressive strength is influenced by testing
procedures and may differ significantly due to the
variations of the origin, composition, texture, and
diagenesis of the rocks. For a specific rock type,
using a certain conversion factor could lead to large
and unacceptable errors in the derived compressive
strength.
To avoid such errors, the most appropriate ap-
proach would be that suggested by Hawkins (1998).
He presents a tentative, very simplified table of site-
specific conversion factors for core samples of sedi-
mentary rocks (in dry and wet conditions), and
proposes an increasing value of the conversion factor
with increasing point load index, Is(50).
Al Jassar and Hawkins (1979) found conversion
factors varying between 10 and 29 for carboniferous
limestones in the Bristol area. Hawkins and Olver
(1986) estimated conversion factors varying from 9
for siltstones to 27 for limestones at Weymouth.
Norbury (1986) assessed data available in the litera-
ture and found reported values varied from 8 to 54 for
several rock types (chalk, limestones, sandstones,
siltstones mudstones). Romana (1999), presenting
published data and his own data for sedimentary
rocks, showed a variation of the conversion factor
for limestones from 14.5 to 27, for sandstones 12 to
24, for siltstones and mudstones 10 to 15, and for
chalk and porous limestones 5 to 10.
Thuro and Plinninger (2001), using a regression
analysis of a series of test results for Insbruck
quartzphyllite, estimated a conversion factor equal
to 19.9. Finally, Kahraman (2001), proposed the
following linear relationships between UCS (rc)
and Is(50):
rc ¼ 23:62 Isð50Þ  2:69; for coal measure rock
ð2Þ
rc ¼ 8:41 Isð50Þ þ 9:51; for other rocks ð3Þ
The values of UCS and Is(50) for the 188 sedimen-
tary rock samples which we tested are given in Table
1. These are limestones, marly limestones, marlstones
and sandstones. The UCS values ranged from 0.70
MPa for the calcareous-marly sandstones to 254 MPa
for the quartzitic sandstones, representing extremely
weak to extremely strong rock materials (ISRM,
1981). The point load strength index values ranged
from 0.37 MPa for the calcareous-marly sandstones to
7 MPa for the limestones.
Table 2
Conversion factors between uniaxial compressive strength (UCS,
rc) and point load index Is(50) for sedimentary rocks
Class Point load strength Conversion
(Is(50)) (MPa) factor
I <2 13
II 2–5 20
III >5 28
 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273 265

Table 3 Table 3 (continued)

Data from triaxial testing of limestone specimens
Site/sample description r3(MPa) r1(MPa) mI
Site/sample description r3(MPa) r1(MPa) mI
MEGARA/Oolitic 30.0 292, 268
REVITHOUSSA/ 4.0 116 limestones 40.0 307
Dolomitic biomicritic 4.5 168 PELASGIA/ 0.0 152, 125, 208
limestones 6.0 151, 177 Recrystallized 12.0 242, 170, 254
6.5 149 micro-sparitic 24.0 291, 299 13.2
9.0 245, 188, 294 25 limestones 36.0 321, 352
12.0 176, 205, 222 48.0 382, 429
18.0 261, 323 All limestone types Total number of 24.58
24.0 277, 276, 305, 387 specimens
48.0 443, 423
ANO LIOSSIA/ 5.0 83, 112, 124, 144
Microcrystalline 10.0 131, 181, 166, 215 18.4 Regression analysis was applied to define the
limestones 20.0 179, 230, 207, 240 relation among UCS and point load test data. The
RAPSOMATI/Micritic 0.0 60, 40 regression procedure is to fit a line through the points,
limestones 5.0 90, 82 22.1
which is computed so that the squared deviations of
10.0 129, 107
20.0 180, 159 the measured points from that line are minimized. The
TEMPI/Crystalline 5.0 124, 111, 161, 115, line in a two-variable space is defined by the relevant
bituminous limestones 142, 147, 122, 141, equation, whereas the value of coefficient of determi-
141, 134 nation or R-square value is also determined. The R-
8.0 165, 142, 189, 172, 18.3
square value is an indicator of how well the model fits
160, 211, 184, 182,
151, 189 the data.
16.0 199, 194, 237, 201, As shown in Fig. 1, two trends are found relating
214, 239, 210, 191, point load index and UCS values, namely an approx-
226, 206 imately linear and a power function. The equations for
DELFI/Microcrystalline 0.0 147, 167
the two regression curves are:
limestones 15.0 221, 234 27.2
20.0 297, 310 rc ¼ 23 Isð50Þ ðR2 ¼ 0:75Þ ð4Þ
25.0 329, 383
35.0 398, 407 and
KAKIA SKALA/ 0.0 94, 165, 93, 132,
1:71
Biomicritic to sparitic 134, 154, 100, 78, rc ¼ 7:3 Isð50Þ ðR2 ¼ 0:82Þ ð5Þ
limestones 191, 148, 121
10.0 188, 230, 241, 197,
177, 247, 181, 287, Linear regression models relating the strength values
207, 223 obtained from these tests are the ones commonly
12.0 228 reported in the literature. The estimated conversion
20.0 255, 282, 319, 317, 15.6 factor of 23 is quite similar to that initially proposed
269, 285, 292, 359,
for all rock types by Bieniawski (1974, 1975) and by
329, 252
24.0 288 ISRM (1985).
30.0 289, 321, 397, 332, Two separate segments appear to characterize the
336, 298, 349, 398, line involving the linear relation of Fig. 1. The
336, 281 majority of data in that scatterplot, for point load
36.0 320
strength values up to about 3.50 MPa, lie beneath the
38.0 364
40.0 368, 360, 423, 363, best-fit line, whereas the data are generally above this
378, 350, 431, 368, line for higher point load strengths.
329 Although the linear model gives a rather high R-
48.0 384 square value (0.75), we do not suggest a unique factor
MEGARA/Oolitic 0.0 89
to correlate UCS and Is(50) for the whole range of
limestones 10.0 190, 196
20.0 231, 222 13.1 rocks from weak to very strong. The power function
relationship, as shown in Fig. 1, seems to fit the data
266 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273

Fig. 3. Intact rock strength envelopes and mi estimation for Revithoussa limestones.

Fig. 4. Intact rock strength envelopes and mi estimation for Ano Liossia limestones.
 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273 267

better, exhibiting a R-square value equal to 0.82. The the data points around the fitted regression line of data
good fit of the power regression, shown in Fig. 1, is rather normal and uniform.
suggests also that there is no single conversion factor Using this technique, the equations for the three
applicable to the full range of strength in rock regression lines concerning the relevant rock strength
materials. classes are:
The general acceptance of a linear regression
model relating the strength values of intact rock led rc ¼ 13 Isð50Þ ðR2 ¼ 0:45Þ ð6Þ
us to evaluate relevant conversion factors for specific
point load strength ranges that could provide a more for rocks with a Is(50) value less than or equal to 2
realistic estimation of uniaxial compressive strength MPa (class I)
for different groups of rocks.
As shown in Fig. 2, point load strength can be rc ¼ 20 Isð50Þ ðR2 ¼ 0:40Þ ð7Þ
divided into three separate classes (classes I to III) and
different conversion factors using linear regression, for rocks with a Is(50) value between 2 and 5 MPa
passing through the origin, could be established for (class II), and
each class. The class designation is merely a means of
categorizing the rock material strength where less data rc ¼ 28 Isð50Þ ðR2 ¼ 0:55Þ ð8Þ
scatter is observed. Although the linear model used to
obtain the best-fit curve for each class gives R-square for rocks with a Is(50) value greater than 5 MPa (class
values from 0.40 to 0.55, the substantial variation of III).

Fig. 5. Intact rock strength envelopes and mi estimation for Rapsomati limestones.
268 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273

Fig. 6. Intact rock strength envelopes and mi estimation for Tempi limestones.

Fig. 7. Intact rock strength envelopes and mi estimation for Delfi limestones.
 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273
These estimated factors, as shown in Table 2, are
generally close to those suggested by Hawkins (1998)
and Romana (1999) for sedimentary rocks. The values
suggested by Kahraman (2001), for rocks other than
coal measure rocks (see Eq. (3)), on the other hand,
are considered to be very low. For example, for values
of Is(50) close to 6 MPa the estimated UCS, using
Kahraman’s Eq. (3), is 60 MPa instead of a value of
168 MPa (according to our study) and 150 MPa
(according to Hawkins, 1998).
It must be noted that in the present study, even the
very low values of Is(50) (less than 1.5 MPa) have been
taken into account, since it is common practice in
Greece to use point load testing even for weak and
very weak rocks.
4. Estimation of Hoek – Brown material constant,
mi
Triaxial compression refers to a test where com-
pression and axisymmetric confining pressure are
applied simultaneously to a rock cylinder. This pro-
Fig. 8. Intact rock strength envelopes and mi estimation for Kakia Skala limestones.
269
vides the values necessary to determine the strength
envelope, the value of internal friction angle, u, and
the ‘‘apparent’’ cohesion, c (ISRM, 1981). Hoek and
Brown (1980, 1988) introduced a failure criterion for
intact rock and rock mass in an attempt to provide
data for the analysis required for the design of
underground and slope excavations. This criterion
was presented in a new edition by Hoek et al.
(2002). For intact rock, the Hoek – Brown failure
criterion is as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
r1 ¼ r3 þ rc  r3  mi þ r2c ð9Þ
where: r1 is the axial stress; r2, the confining pres-
sure; rc, the uniaxial compressive strength; and mi, a
rock material constant.
The constant mi can only be determined by triaxial
testing on intact rock cores. When it is not possible to
carry out triaxial tests, an estimate of mi can be
obtained using the more recent version of mi values
for different types of rocks published by Marinos and
Hoek (2000, 2001). This material constant is related
to the frictional properties of the intact rock and has a
270 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273
significant influence on strength characteristics. The
value of mi with the uniaxial compressive strength of
the intact rock and the Geological Strength Index
(GSI) constitute the three parameters that are required
to apply the Hoek –Brown failure criterion for differ-
ent rock masses (Hoek, 1994; Hoek and Brown,
1980, 1997; Hoek et al., 1998; Marinos and Hoek,
2000, 2001).
The triaxial test data for limestone samples
obtained from different sites in Greece sites are
shown in Table 3. Values of principal stresses at
failure (r1, r3) are listed. The mi value for each
limestone has been determined from the fit of Eq. (9)
to triaxial test data by using the Rockdata program
(1991 – 2001).
Figs. 3– 11 show the best fit of the data (r1, r3 at
failure) for the different limestone samples and the
estimated values of rc and mi.
The computed values of mi, as shown in Table 3,
generally range from 13 to 27, whereas the interpre-
Fig. 9. Intact rock strength envelopes and mi estimation for Megara limestones.
tation of available values of principal stresses at
failure for all types of limestones give a ‘‘mean’’
value of mi of about 24.
Considering previous works on intact limestone
strength, Alber and Heiland (2001) reported a value
of mi equal to 7.2 for Rüdersdorf limestone in Germany,
and Ramamurthy (2001) estimated a mean value of mi
for Indiana limestone equal to 3.75, values which are
very low compared with those estimated in the present
study.
The values of the constant mi proposed by Mar-
inos and Hoek (2000, 2001) for limestones are also
lower than these estimated in the present study, i.e.,
for crystalline and sparitic limestones, the proposed
values are 12 F 3 and 10 F 2, respectively, instead of
the estimated values of 18.4 to 27.2 and 13.2 to
15.6.
It must be noted that the limestone samples tested
in the present study could not classified as ‘‘very hard
brittle rocks’’ for which a reduction of major princi-
 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273 271

Fig. 10. Intact rock strength envelopes and mi estimation for Pelasgia limestones.

Fig. 11. Intact rock strength envelopes and estimation of the mean value of mi for the total number of limestones tested.
272 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273
pal stress at failure to 70% of measured values is
suggested by Hoek (2000).
5. Conclusions
From a series of point load and uniaxial compres-
sion tests carried out on sedimentary rocks (limestones,
marly limestones, sandstones and marlstones), with the
loading axis perpendicular to any planes of weakness,
different conversion factors were determined depend-
ing on the rock strength. So, the conversion factor
between point load and uniaxial compressive strength
varies from 13 for soft sedimentary rocks exhibiting a
value of Is(50) < 2 MPa to 28 for harder rocks with
values of Is(50) greater than 5 MPa.
Furthermore, the rock material constant mi, which
constitutes an important input parameter for Hoek
and Brown failure criterion, was determined for
various types of limestones by testing specimens in
triaxial compression under different confining pres-
sures. The estimated values of mi range from 13 to
27, whereas the ‘‘mean’’ value, considering all types
of limestones tested, is about 24, a value which is
higher than the average values proposed by Marinos
and Hoek (2000, 2001) for different types of lime-
stones and used worldwide when specific triaxial test
results are not available.
References
Al Jassar, S.H., Hawkins, A.B., 1979. Geotechnical properties of
the carboniferous limestone of the Bristol area—the influence of
petrography and chemistry. 4th ISRM Conference, Montreau,
vol. 1, pp. 3 – 14.
Alber, M., Heiland, J., 2001. Investigation of a limestone Pillar
failure: Part 1. Geology, laboratory testing and numerical mo-
deling. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 34 (3), 167 – 186.
ASTM, 1986a. Standard test method of unconfined compressive
strength of intact rock core specimens, D2938.
ASTM, 1986b. Standard test method for triaxial compressive
strength of undrained rock core specimens without pore pressure
measurement, D2664.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1974. Estimating the strength of rock materials.
J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 74, 312 – 320.
Bieniawski, Z.T., 1975. Point load test in geotechnical practice.
Engineering Geology (1). Elsevier, pp. 1 – 11.
British Standard Institution, (BS), 1981. Code of Practice for Site
Investigations. BS 5930 HMSO, London.
Broch, E.M., Franklin, J.A., 1972. The point load strength test. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 9, 669 – 697.
Brook, N., 1985. The equivalent core diameter method of size and
shape correction in point load test. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 22, 61 – 70.
Chau, K.T., Wong, R.H.C., 1996. Uniaxial compressive strength
and point load strength of rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
Geomech. Abstr. 33, 183 – 188.
Hawkins, A.B., 1998. Aspects of rock strength. Bull. Eng. Geol.
Environ., vol. 57. Springer, Berlin, pp. 17 – 30.
Hawkins, A.B., Olver, J.A.G., 1986. Point load tests: correlation
factor and contractual use. An example from the Corallian at
Weymouth. In: Hawkins, A.B. (Ed.), Site Investigation Practice:
Assessing BS 5930. Geological Society, London, pp. 269 – 271.
Hoek, E., 1994. Strength of rock masses. ISRM News J. (2), 4 – 16.
Hoek, E., 2000. Practical Rock Engineering (course notes available
at the internet site: http://www.rocscience.com).
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1980. Underground excavations in rock.
Inst. Min. Metall., London.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1988. The Hoek – Brown failure criterion—
a 1988 update. In: Curran, J.C. (Ed.), Proc. 15th Canadian Rock
Mech. Symp. University of Toronto, Toronto, pp. 31 – 38.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1997. Practical estimates or rock mass
strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 34 (8),
1165 – 1186.
Hoek, E., Marinos, P., Benissi, M., 1998. Applicability of the
Geological Strength Index (GSI) classification for very weak
and sheared rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist For-
mationBull. Eng. Geol. Environ., vol. 57 (2). Springer, Berlin,
pp. 151 – 160.
Hoek, E., Carranza Torres, C., Corkum, B., 2002. The Hoek –
Brown failure criterion—a 2002 edition. Proc. 5th North Amer-
ican Rock Mechanics Symposium and 17th Tunneling Associ-
ation of Canada Conference: NARMS-TAC. University of
Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, pp. 267 – 271.
ISRM Suggested Methods, 1981. In: Brown, E.T. (Ed.), Rock
Characterization Testing and Monitoring. Pergamon, Oxford,
pp. 113 – 116 and 123 – 127.
ISRM Suggested Methods, 1985. Suggested method for deter-
mining point-load strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geo-
mech. Abstr. 22, 53 – 60.
Kahraman, S., 2001. Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 38, 981 – 994.
Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2000. GSI—a geologically friendly tool for
rock mass strength estimation. Proc. GeoEng2000 Conference,
Melbourne. Invited Papers, vol. 1. Technomic Publishing Co.,
Inc., Pennsylvania, pp. 1422 – 1440.
Marinos, P., Hoek, E., 2001. Estimating the geotechnical properties
of heterogeneous rock masses such as flysch. Bull. Int. Assoc.
Eng. Geol. 60, 85 – 92.
Norbury, D.R., 1986. The point load test. In: Hawkins, A.B. (Ed.),
Site Investigation Practice: Assessing BS 5930. Geological So-
ciety, London, pp. 325 – 329.
Ramamurthy, T., 2001. Shear strength response of some geological
materials in triaxial compression. Int. J. Mech. Min. Sci. 38,
683 – 697.
 G. Tsiambaos, N. Sabatakakis / Engineering Geology 72 (2004) 261–273 273

Rockdata, P., 1991 – 2001. Analysis of Laboratory Strength Data.
Rocscience, Inc., Toronto, Canada (software program).
Romana, M., 1999. Correlation between uniaxial compressive and
point-load (Franklin test) strengths for different rock classes. 9th
ISRM Congress, vol. 1. Balkema, Paris, pp. 673 – 676.
Thuro, K., Plinninger, R.J., 2001. Scale effects in rock properties:
Part 2. Point load test and point load strength index. In: Sarkka,
P., Eloranta, P. (Eds.), EUROCK Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse,
pp. 175 – 180.