Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Turk1986 PDF
Turk1986 PDF
Turk1986 PDF
ABSTRACT
Turk, N. and Dearman, W.R., 1986. A correction equation Qn the influence of length-to-
diameter ratio on the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. Eng. Geol., 22: 293--300.
A general equation, derived from three published equations, is proposed for the correc-
tion of uniaxial compressive strength test results to a length-to-diameter ratio of two. In
addition, an equation is given for standardization of test results to a length-to-diameter
ratio of two and 50 mm diameter.
The methods have been tested by analysis of over thirty sets of test data from the
literature. Results for correction to length-to-diameter ratio of two fall within a 10% error
band of the experimental value equivalent to a length-to-diameter ratio of two. The two-
stage correction to a length-to-diameter ratio of two and 50 mm diameter, from a range
of specimen lengths and diameters, gives results which are lower than the direct test values
for specimens with these dimensions.
INTRODUCTION
factors and increase the reliability and repeatability of the test results. These
procedures generally specify the size and shape of the test specimens.
(1) ISRM (1979) requires that the test specimen should be a right circular
cylinder, having a diameter preferably not less than NX core size, approxi-
mately 54 mm, and a height-to-diameter ratio of 2.5 to 3.
(2) ASTM (D 2938-79) specifies that the test specimens shall be circular
cylinders with a diameter of not less than N× wireline core size, approxi-
mately 48 mm, and a length-to-diameter ratio of 2 to 2.5.
C O R R E C T I O N EQUATIONS
O___c= 1
(1)
em 0.848 + 0.304(D/L)
~c_ 1 (2)
Om 0.88 + 0.24(D/L)
o__¢_= 1
(3)
em 0.875 + 0.25(D/L)
where the parmheters are the same as for eq.1.
The plots of the above equations as oc/Om versus D/L are shown in Fig.1.
Even though each curve has a different path, they have a similar trend.
These correction equations are empirical and based on practical experience.
They also represent the experimental results of different countries. The mean
of the above equations could be expected to give a new correction equation
applicable generally:
295
1.2 •
1.1 -'~.~,,~
1.0 ~
O'c] O"m
0.9 - - a ~ ~-~.~
.... b ~'~-.~.
0.8
i
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
D/L
Fig.1. %/o m versus D/L f o r different correction equations: (a) Hobbs ( 1 9 6 4 ) and Szlavin
(1974); (b) ASTM (D2638-79); (C) Protodyakonov (1969).
(~c - 1
am 0.86766 + 0.26466(D/L) (4)
On simplification, eq. 4 becomes:
oc _ 1.15
om - 1 + 0.3(D/L) (5)
where the parameters are the same as in eq.1. The plot of this equation is
shown on Fig.2.
It is worth noting that ISRM (1979) does not give any correction equation
for the uniaxial compressive strength of non-standard size specimens.
Hoek and Brown (1980) have proposed the following correction equation
for standardizing the uniaxial compressive strength of rock specimens to
50 mm diameter specimen strength, based on curve fitting to test results
from the literature:
Oso= (n.~°"s
o, \5-0) (6)
where os0 is the uniaxial compressive strength of a 50 mm diameter rock
specimen, o, is the uniaxial compressive strength of a rock specimen having a
different diameter, and D is the diameter of the specimen.
If eq.4 and 6 are combined then a general correction equation for the uni-
axial compressive strength of rocks is obtained:
05._.00=
DO.iS
om 1.754 + 0.535(D/L) (7)
where the parameters are the same as in eqs.1 and 6.
This proposed new equation would enable the required corrections to be
made to the uniaxial compressive strength of non-standard size specimens
both for a length-to-diameter ratio of 2 and for 50 mm diameter. Additionally,
eq.7 has been plotted in graphic form for practical application in Figs.3
and 4.
296
1.2
1.1
1.0
O"c/ O'm
0.9
0.8
I
0 0.2 014 01.6 0.8' 11.0 112 1.4l 11.6
D/L
Fig.2. %/am versus D/L for the proposed mean correction equation.
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
~d~m
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Fig.3. The plot of aso/o m against D/L for different specimen diameters.
DISCUSSION
D/L
1.2 0.25
0.50
1.1
1.0
0.9
~
~
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
0"5o/O'm 1.75
0.8 ~ 2.00
0.7 t
0.6
//
/
200 Marble
Diameter 50mm
=Experimental r e s u l t s
oCorrected using Eqn.4
o'C [] o I ---'-|-I-
MPa -o-- -- -- I--
I
I i I I
1000 1 2 3 4
Length/Diameter
Fig.5. Relation between experimental test results and corrected values of uniaxial com-
pressive strength and length-to-diameter ratio for 50 mm diameter marble specimens
(Dreyer and Borchert, 1962).
150
Sandstone
Diameter 25.4mm
Experimental values
Corrected using Eqn.4
,~Corrected using Eqn.7
100
500 • ~'
2
I
3 4
i
Length/Diameter
Fig.6. Relation between experimental test results and corrected values of uniaxial com-
pressive strength and length-to-diameter ratio for 25.4 mm diameter specimens of massive
Ormonde Sandstone (Hobbs, 1964).
140
•
10% error band
120
Lm -
100
.............. • ...... & --.-i-- -A' _ ~L.__AL_ - - - - -&
80
~c 60
MPa
4O • Experimental values
Corrected using Eqn.4
20 • Corrected using Eqn.7
% 05
|. 1
| |
1,5 2 2.5
! I
3
Length/Diameter
Fig.7. Relation between experimental test results and corrected values of uniaxial com-
pressive strength and length-to-diameter ratio for 12.7 mm diameter trachyte specimens
(Mogi, 1964).
299
} Experimental v a l u e s ,
with standard deviation
• C o r r e c t e d using Ecln.7
15
d C
lO
MPa
i fi _ _ _
i
5 i i i J
20 30 40 50 60
D i a m e t e r (ram)
Fig.8. Relation between experimental test results and corrected values of uniaxial com-
pressive strength and diameter of a gypsum--plaster mix, for length-to-diameter ratio of 2
(Einstein et al., 1970).
for unconfined compressive strength are uniform and much lower than the
results obtained using eq.4. The chain-link line on Fig.7 passes through the
corrected value at L / D = 2.
(3) Different diameters with a length to diameter ratio o f two
Plaster cylinders, prepared to different diameters but at a standard length-
to-diameter ratio of 2, were tested by Einstein et al. (1970). Test results are
plotted in Fig.8 with the standard deviations given by the authors, and the
results corrected using eq.7. The standard deviation on each of the three
results is about + 2.5%. Corrected values fall within the standard deviation for
50 mm diameter specimens, with the result for the smallest diameter showing
greatest divergence from the mean 50 mm diameter results.
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
ASTM D-2938-79. Standard method of test for unconfined compressive strength of rock
core specimens. In: 1980 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 19, pp.440--443.
Dhir, R.K., Sangha, C.M. and Munday, J.G.L., 1972. Influence of specimen size on uncon-
fined rock strength. Colliery Guardian, Jan. 1972, pp.75--78.
Dreyer, W. and Borchert, H., 1962. Kritische Betrachtung zur PriifkSrperformel von
Gesteinen. Bergbautechnik, 129(5): 265--272.
Einstein, H.H., Baecher, G.B. and Hirschfeld, R.C., 1970. The effect of size on strength of
a brittle rock. Proc. Congr. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., 2nd, Belgrad, Vol. 2(3--5), pp.7--13.
Hobbs, D.W., 1964. Rock compressive strength. Colliery Eng., 41 : 287--292.
Hodgson, K. and Cook, N.G.W., 1970. The effects of size and stress gradient on the
strength of rocks. Proc. 2nd Congr. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., 2nd, Belgrad, Vol. 2(3--5),
pp.31--34.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T., 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock. The Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp.527.
ISRM, 1979. Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and
deformability of rock materials. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomeeh. Abstr., 16:
135--140.
Mogi, K., 1966. Some precise measurements of fracture strength of rocks under uniform
compressive stress. Rock Mech. Eng. Geol., IV: 41--55.
Protodyakonov, M.M., 1969. Method of determining the strength of rocks under uniaxial
compression. In: M.M. Protodyakonov, M.I. Koifman and others, Mechanical Properties
of Rocks. Translated from Russian, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem,
pp.l--8.
Szlavin, J., 1974. Relationships betweea some physical properties of rock determined by
laboratory test. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 11: 57--66.