See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257928231

An Empirical Correlation of Uniaxial Compressive Strength with P-wave

Velocity and Point Load Strength Index on Marly Rocks Using Statistical
Method

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · September 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-013-9703-x

CITATIONS READS

52 4,344

3 authors:

Abdolazim Azimian Rassoul Ajalloeian

Ferdowsi University Of Mashhad University of Isfahan
22 PUBLICATIONS   181 CITATIONS    82 PUBLICATIONS   802 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Leila Fatehi
Tarbiat Modares University
5 PUBLICATIONS   54 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Koohrang tunnel View project

Ajichay project in northwest Iran View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leila Fatehi on 24 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:205–214
DOI 10.1007/s10706-013-9703-x
TECHNICAL NOTE
An Empirical Correlation of Uniaxial Compressive Strength
with P-wave Velocity and Point Load Strength Index
on Marly Rocks Using Statistical Method
Abdolazim Azimian • Rassoul Ajalloeian •
Leila Fatehi
Received: 5 May 2013 / Accepted: 3 October 2013 / Published online: 13 October 2013
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
1 Introduction
Estimation of rock mechanical properties is consid-
ered among the most important components in any
engineering project. In this regard, one of the most
commonly used and fundamental mechanical param-
eter is uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) (Bruno
et al. 2012; Minaeian and Ahangari 2011). UCS (rc) is
also one the key mechanical properties of rocks as its
assessment is necessary in various rock engineering
projects. It has a large number of applications
including assessment of rock mass rating (RMR),
assessment of failure criterion of intact rock and rock
mass under triaxial stresses, estimation of the pillar
strength in underground mines, assessment of rock
fragmentation in blasting operations, estimating the
penetration rate of tunnel boring machine (TBM),
determination of drillability of rock, and assessment of
A. Azimian (&)
Department of Environmental Engineering, Science and
Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bushehr, Iran
e-mail: azim.azimian1366@gmail.com;
azim_azimian@aol.com
R. Ajalloeian
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science,
The University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
L. Fatehi
Department of Geology, Faculty of Science,
Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
bearing capacity of rock foundations (Moomivand
2011). There are basically two methods for assessing
the UCS of rocks. One, known as the direct method, is
to test the specimens in the laboratory, the other,
known as the indirect method, is to use previously
derived empirical equations from the literature (Bayk-
asoglu et al. 2008). Testing procedures for the direct
method have been standardized by both the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM).
High-quality core specimens are needed for direct
determination of UCS in a laboratory (Ceryan et al.
2012). However, high quality cores in sufficient
quantities cannot always be extracted from weak,
highly fractured, weathered, and thinly bedded rocks.
Besides, the careful execution of this test is very
difficult, time consuming, and expensive and involves
destructive tests (Gokceoglu and Zorlu 2004; Bayk-
asoglu et al. 2008). To overcome these difficulties,
indirect tests such as the determination of the point
load strength index (PLSI) and P-wave velocity are
widely used and accepted for estimation of the UCS
value. The index-to-strength conversion factors have
been proposed by a number of researchers and have
been found to be rock-dependent (Akram and Bakar
2007). However, there are few equations in this regard
for Eocene Marly rocks. Considering the vast distri-
bution of Marly formations around the world and
especially in Iran, there is a shortage in knowledge
concerning the behavior of this type of material. The
aim of this technical note is to evaluate the indirect
123
206
methods such as P-wave velocity and PLSI to estimate
the UCS by using statistical method. The detailed
petrographic study of marly rock used in present study
has been carried out. Mineralogy of the analyzed
samples was determined by X-ray diffraction (XRD)
method. According to the XRD results, the marl
samples mainly consist of clay minerals (illite, chlo-
rite), quartz, calcite, and dolomite. The studied rock
samples were collected from the southwestern part of
Iran. Regression analysis was applied to define the
relation among the UCS with P-wave velocities and
PLSI. The determination coefficients (R2) and the
equations of the fitted lines were calculated.
2 Experimental Work
Forty large blocky rock samples were extracted from
the study area, southwest part of Shiraz, Iran. In order
to reduce the uncertainty regarding the influence of the
sample size on the measured properties and especially
on strength (Hoek and Brown 1980; Hawkins 1998),
cylindrical specimens with length between 110 and
115 mm and diameter of 54 mm (ASTM 2001, ASTM
2010; ISRM 2007) were prepared. The two ends of the
specimens were ground and lapped parallel to accom-
plish an accuracy of ± 0.2 mm and both end surfaces
were polished. The cylindrical sides were made
straight with an accuracy of ± 0.3 mm over the full
length of each specimen. The physical properties of
the specimens such as porosity, water absorption and
density were determined in accordance with ISRM
(2007).The UCS of the marly rock was determined
using a uniaxial compression testing machine accord-
ing to the ASTM (1986) standards using the prepared
core samples. The point load tests were carried out on
NX-size cores as well as lumps of these rock samples
using a point load testing machine according to the
ISRM (1985) standard. The P-wave velocities (Vp)
were determined from the measured travel time and
the distance between transmitter and receiver in
accordance with ASTM test designations (1983).The
PUNDIT 6 Pulse Generator Unit controls and two
transducer (with diameter of 50 mm and a frequency
of 0.5 MHz) were used in this study. It must be noted
that the frequency of 0.5 MHz corresponds to a
0.3 mm wave length. The ends of the core specimens
were polished and covered with a stiff grease to create
a good coupling. To test the accuracy of the obtained
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:205–214
velocities, measurements were conducted along the
axis of the core samples for several times using two
instruments. The average value of ultrasonic pulse
velocity (UPV) measurement results obtained from
two instruments was considered. In this regard, the
average of two ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)
obtained from two instruments was used for the
analyses. Each specimen was inspected for macro-
scopic defects as such it would provide isotropic,
homogeneous, unweathered (or slightly weathered)
specimens free from fractures, partings or alteration
zones. Based on the obtained result, the UCS values of
the samples ranged between 15.34 and 88.90 MPa,
with an average value of 47.88 MPa, while the
average value of Vp was 2,621.16 m/sand values
varied from 1,145.67 to 3,959.18 m/s. As shown in
Table 1, PLI values varied between 1.21 and
4.15 MPa with an average value of 2.38.
2.1 Sonic Velocity Tests
The relationship between UCS and P-wave velocity
(Vp) was investigated by many researchers such as
Mccann et al. (1990), Kahraman (2001), Yasar and
Erdogan (2004a, b), Entwisle et al. (2005), Sharma
and Singh (2008), Cobanglu and Celik (2008), Mora-
dian and Behnia (2009), Khandelwal and Singh
(2009), Diamantis et al. (2009), Dehghan et al.
(2010), Kurtulus et al. (2011), Khandelwal and Ranjith
(2010), Yagiz (2011), Sharma et al. (2011) and
Martı́nez-Martı́nez et al. (2012), Altindag (2012),
Khandelwal (2013). Table 2 lists some of the equa-
tions correlating the UCS to Vp. The velocity of
ultrasonic pulses travelling in a solid material depends
on the density and elastic properties of the material.
The quality of some materials may be related to their
elastic stiffness, such that the measurement of ultra-
sonic pulse velocity can be used to indicate their
quality elastic properties. To determine a comparable
P-wave velocity of marly rocks and also to estimate
UCS, 40 NX sized samples were used. For sonic
velocity tests, linear function shows the highest
correlation coefficients.
2.2 Point Load Strength Index (Is50)
The point load test has been considered among the
cheap and useful testing method for estimation of the
strengths of rocks because of its ease of testing,
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:205–214 207

Table 1 Statistics parameters

UCS (MPa) Vp (m/s) PLI (MPa) Density (g/cm3) Porosity (%) Water absorption (%)

N 40 40 40 40 40 40
SD 19.65 721.25 0.77 0.13 6.79 3.72
Variance 386.20 520,203.63 0.604 0.0169 46.12 13.86
Minimum 15.34 1,145.67 1.21 2.09 6.3 2.23
Average 47.88 2,621.17 2.37 2.38 17.27 8.01
Maximum 88.90 3,959.18 4.15 2.62 33.7 16.92

Table 2 Equations correlating the UCS to P-wave velocity
References
Freyburg (1972)
Militzer and Stoll (1973)
Golubev and Rabinovich
(1976)
McNally (1987)
Goktan (1988)
Turgrul and Zarif (1999)
Kahraman (2001)
Yasar and Erdogan (2004a)
Sousa et al. (2005)
Kiliç and Teymen (2008)
Sharma and Singh (2008)
Cobanglu and Celik (2008)
Diamantis et al. (2009)
Khandelwal and Singh (2009)
Sharma and Singh (2010)
Diamantis et al. (2011)
Kurtulus et al. (2011)
Yagiz (2011)
Sarkar et al. (2012)
Altindag (2012)
diametrically, cut blocks, or irregular lumps [Brook
Emperical relation
1985; International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM) 1985; American Society for Testing and
UCS = 35.0 Vp - 31.5 Materials (ASTM) 2008]. In this research, only axial
UCS = 2.45 V1.92
p point load tests were carried out on the samples. The
log UCS = 0.358 Vp - 0.283 PLSI (IS50) refers to a standard size of 50 mm. The test
can be used to assess both strong and weak rocks
UCS ¼ 1277e117=Vp (Hardy 1997; Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis 2004;
UCS = 36.0 Vp - 31.2 Kahraman et al. 2005; Kahraman and Gunaydin2009;
UCS = 35.54 Vp - 55 Heidari et al. 2012). Establishing a proper correlation
UCS = 9.95 V1.21
p between the UCS and PLSI (Is50) is one of the most
UCS = 31.5 Vp - 63.7 critical concerns in applying the point load test on
UCS = 22.032 V1.247
p various rock types. In this regard, several empirical
UCS = 2.304 V2.4315
p equations have been proposed for calculating UCS
UCS = 64.2 Vp - 117.99 from PLSI (Broch and Franklin 1972: Bieniawski
UCS = 56.71 Vp - 192.93 1975; Hassani et al. 1980; Read et al. 1980; ISRM
UCS = 110 Vp - 515.56 1985; Hawkins and Olver1986; O’Rourke 1988;
UCS = 133.3 Vp - 227.19 Vallejo et al. 1989; Singh and Singh 1993; Das
UCS = 36 Vp - 45.37 1985; Smith 1997; Rusnak and Mark 1999; Kahraman
UCS = 0.14 Vp - 899.33 2001; Thuro and Plinninger 2001; Kahraman et al.
UCS = 0.0675 Vp - 245.13 2005; Karakus and Tutmez 2008; Cobanglu and Celik
UCS = 0.0188 Vp - 71.054 2008; Sengun et al. 2011; Singh et al. 2012; Li et al.
UCS = 49.4 Vp - 167 2012; Heidari et al. 2012). Linear, power, and
UCS = 12.746 V3.543
p
exponential functions have been used by different
UCS = 0.038 Vp - 50 researchers to correlate these parameters. Some of the
UCS = 0.258 V1.194 equations correlating the UCS to the PLSI are
p

Khandelwal (2013) UCS = 0.033 Vp - 34.83 summarized in Table 3. As shown in Table 4, loga-
rithmic function gave the highest R2 for PLSI.

simplicity of specimen preparation, and potential field

applications (Broch and Franklin 1972; Bieniawski
1975; Kahraman and Gunaydin 2009; Basu and
Kamran 2010). It is also frequently referred as an
indirect measure of the compressive or tensile strength
of rocks (Chau and Wong 1996; Fener et al. 2005;
Cobanglu and Celik 2008; Heidari et al. 2012; Singh
et al. 2012; Li et al. 2012). Samples can be of various
shapes, including cut cylindrical cores tested axially or
3 Regression Analyses and Assessment
of the Prediction Performance
3.1 Simple Regression Model
The raw dataset was subjected to least squares
regression analysis. Linear (y = ax ? b), logarithmic
(y = a ? lnx), exponential (y = aex), and power

123
208 Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:205–214

Table 3 Equations correlating the UCS to Point load Strength
Index
References
D’Andrea et al. (1965)
Deere and Miller (1966)
Broch and Franklin (1972)
Bieniawski (1975)
Al-Jassar and Hawkins (1979)
Hassani et al. (1980)
Read et al. (1980)
Emperical relation
UCS = 15.3 Is(50) ? 16.3
UCS = 20.7 Is(50) ? 29.6
UCS = 24 Is(50)
UCS = 23 Is(50)
UCS = (10–29)Is(50)
UCS = 29 Is(50)
UCS = 16 Is(50)
Table 3 continued
References
Cobanglu and Celik (2008)
Yilmaz and Yuksek (2008)
Diamantis et al. (2009)
Emperical relation
UCS = 7.18 Is(50) ? 27.78
UCS = 11.78 Is(50) - 9.17
UCS = 10.73 Is(50) - 5.50
UCS = 8.87 Is(50) ? 4.11
UCS = 8.25 Is(50) ? 14.02
UCS = 12.4 Is(50) - 9.08
UCS = 17.81 Is(50)1.06
UCS = 16.45 exp0.39 Is(50)

UCS = 20 Is(50) UCS = 21.54 Is(50) - 6.02

Singh (1981)
Forster (1983)
Gunsallus and Kulhawy
(1984)
ISRM (1985)
Hawkins and Olver (1986)
Norbury (1986)
Vallejo et al. (1989)
Cargill and Shakoor (1990)
Tsidzi (1991)
Ghosh and Srivastava (1991)
Grasso et al. (1992)
Singh and Singh (1993)
Ulusay et al. (1994)
Chau and Wong (1996)
Smith (1997)
Turgrul and Zarif (1999)
Kahraman (2001)
Lashkaripour (2002)
Quane and Russel (2003)
Palchik and Hatzor (2004)
Tsiambaos and Sabatakakis
(2004)
Kahraman et al. (2005)
Fener et al. (2005)
Basu and Aydin (2006)
Agustawijaya (2007)
UCS = 18.7 Is(50) - 13.2
UCS = 14.5 Is(50)
UCS = 16.5 Is(50) ? 51.0
UCS = (20–25) Is(50)
UCS = (9–27) Is(50)
UCS = (8–54) Is(50)
UCS = (8.6–16) Is(50)
UCS = 23 Is(50) ? 13
UCS = (14 to 82) Is(50)
UCS = 16 Is(50)
UCS = 9.3 Is(50) ? 20.0
UCS = 25.67 Is(50)0.57
UCS = 23.37 Is(50)
UCS = 19 Is(50) ? 12.7
UCS = 12.5 Is(50)
UCS = 14.3 Is(50)
UCS = 15.25 Is(50)
UCS = 23.6 Is(50) - 2.7
UCS = 8.4 Is(50) ? 9.5
UCS = 21.4 Is(50)
UCS = 24.4 Is(50)
UCS = 3.86 Is(50)2 ? 5.65
Is(50)
UCS = (8–18) Is(50)
UCS = 23 Is(50)
UCS = 7.3 Is(50)1.71
UCS = 10.9 Is(50) ? 27.4
UCS = 24.8 Is(50) - 39.6
UCS = 10.2 Is(50) ? 23.4
UCS = 9.08 Is(50) ? 39.32
UCS = 18 Is(50)
UCS = 13.4 Is(50)
UCS = 19.79 Is(50)
Basu and Kamran (2010) UCS = 11.103
Is(50) ? 37.659
Kohno and Maeda (2012) UCS = 16.4 Is(50)
UCS = 16.5 Is(50)
Singh et al. (2012) UCS = 14–16 Is(50)
UCS = 21–24 Is(50)
Heidari et al. (2012) UCS = 5.575 Is(50) ? 21.92
UCS = 5.557 Is(50) ? 23.68
UCS = 3.495 Is(50) ? 24.84
UCS = 10.99 Is(50) ? 7.042
UCS = 11.96 Is(50) ? 10.64
UCS = 13.29 Is(50) ? 5.251
(y = axb) curve fitting approximations were executed
and the approximation equations with highest R2 were
determined for each regression. Table 4 indicates the
results of the regression analyses and their correlation
coefficients (R2), performed using the statistical
software package of SPSS version 21.0. The relation-
ships were determined as statistically significant
according to the Student’s t test with 95 % safety.
The relationship between P-wave velocity and UCS
is depicted in Fig. 1a. In addition, Fig. 1b shows the
plot of the UCS versus the PLSI for marly samples.
The predicted values of P-wave velocity, PLSI, and
UCS values were then plotted versus the measured
values by using a 1:1 slope line, as shown in Figs. 2
and 3. A point located on the 1:1 slope line indicates an
exact correlation. These figures indicate that P-wave
velocity and PLSI are reliable values for estimating
UCS, avoiding the cumbersome and time-consuming
test methods carried out in the preliminary studies.

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:205–214 209

Table 4 Predictive models for assessing the UCS from P-wave velocity and point strength load index
Equation no. Equation type Predictive models R2 Sig level

1 Linear UCS = 0.026 Vp - 20.207 0.909 0.000

2 Logarithmic UCS = 59.59 ln(Vp) - 418.67 0.85 0.000
3 Power UCS = 0.0004 V1.4812
p 0.902 0.000
4 Exponential 0:0006Vp 0.88 0.000
UCS ¼ 8:5078e
5 Linear UCS = 24.2 Is(50) - 9.584 0.91 0.000
6 Logarithmic UCS = 56.939 ln(Is(50)) - 1.6551 0.929 0.000
7 Power UCS = 14.416 Is(50)1.357 0.90 0.000
0.5552Is(50)
8 Exponential UCS = 11.608 e 0.82 0.000
2
R correlation coefficients

Fig. 2 Cross-correlation of predicted and observed values of

UCS from Vp

Fig. 1 The relation between UCS with Vp (a) and PLSI

(b) obtained from simple regression

Fig. 3 Cross-correlation of predicted and observed values of

2
UCS from Is(50)
Also, the R value between the measured and  
predicted values is a good indicator to check the var ðy  y0 Þ
VAF ¼ 1   100 ð1Þ
performance of the proposed relationship. It must var ð yÞ
be noted that the values for VAF and root mean vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u N
square error(RMSE) indices were also calculated to u1 X
RMSE ¼ t ðy  y0 Þ2 ð2Þ
control the performance of the prediction models n i¼1
developed in this work, as previously employed by
Cobanglu and Celik (2008) and Yilmaz and Yuksek where y and y0 are the measured and predicted values,
(2008). N is the number of samples, and var is the variance.

123
210
Table 5 Performance indices (RMSE, VAF) for simple
regression models
Predicted parameter Independent VAF % RMSE
parameter
UCS (linear model) Vp 91.06 0.290
UCS (logarithmic Is(50) 91.84 0.643
model)
RMSE root mean square error, VAF % value account for
The calculated indices are given in Table 5. The higher
values of VAF show an improvement of the prediction
capability, while the lower values of RMSE indicate a
better performance of the model. If the VAF is 100 and
RMSE is 0, then, the model performs excellently. The
obtained values of VAF and RMSE, given in Table 5,
indicate high prediction performances.
3.2 Multiple Regression Models
As the second stage of the regression analyses, a series
of multiple regression analyses were conducted. It is
not always possible to predict the rock strength from a
particular rock index test only, due to the fact that rock
strength parameters are a function of physical,
textural, and mineralogical properties of the rock.
Multiple regressions (MR) is a time-honored tech-
nique that was used in 1908 by Pearson. It is employed
to account for the variance in interval-dependent,
based on linear combinations of interval, dichoto-
mous, or dummy-independent variables. The purpose
of MR is to learn more about the relationship between
a number of independents or variables and adependent
or criterion variable. The MR equation is in the form of
y = b1x1 ? b2x2 ?  ?bnxn ? c, where b1, b2, … bn
are the regression coefficients. The parameter c is a
constant representing the value of y when all the
independent variables are zero. The standardized
versions of coefficients are beta weights. The ratio of
the beta coefficients is the ratio of the relative
predictive power of the independent variables. The
major conceptual limitation of all regression tech-
niques is that one can only ascertain relationships, but
never be sure about underlying causal mechanisms.
Multiple linear regression analysis was also under-
taken, including UCS, PLSI, and P-wave velocity
values in the model. Cross-correlation of the predicted
and observed values of UCS for multivariate
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:205–214
Fig. 4 Cross-correlation of predicted and observed values of
UCS for multivariate regression mode
regression mode is shown in Fig. 4. Moreover, the
UCS values obtained from this method are summa-
rized in Table 6 while Table 7 presents VAF, RMSE,
and R2 values of the multiple regression. The result
obtained from these analyses illustrates reliability of
the multiple regressions.
4 Comparative Studies with Previous Works
A comparative study with the previous works was
done to verify the limitations of the earlier equations
proposed by various researchers. Here, we have put
our observed P-wave velocity and point load strength
index in the different equations proposed by different
researchers and plotted it against observed UCS. There
are appreciable differences between the predicted data
and our observed data in each case.
UCS predicted from P-wave velocity using empir-
ical equations from the four previous research works
were plotted in Fig. 5a. As illustrated in Fig. 5a, there
are meaningful differences of predicted UCS from
P-wave velocity by Kahraman (2001), Cobanglu and
Celik (2008), Sharma and Singh (2008) and Sarkar
et al. (2012) with the observed dataset. This is
probably due to limited rock types of origin, whereas
the proposed correlation is applicable for marly rocks
but other equations proposed by different researchers
are related to rocks with difference origin.
The equation given by Kahraman (2001), Cobanglu
and Celik (2008), Sharma and Singh (2008) and Sarkar
et al. (2012) are only applicable for a lower range of
P-wave velocity to predict UCS. For high values, it
provides unacceptable results (Fig. 5a). On the other
hand, correlation proposed in this study holds good for
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:205–214 211

Table 6 Summary of the multiple regression model to predict UCS

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Correlations Collinearity statistics
coefficients coefficients
B SE Beta Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF

(Constant) -16.987 2.842 -5.977 0.000

P-wave (m/s) 13.244 2.517 0.524 5.262 0.000 0.958 0.654 0.197 0.142 7.051
PLSI (MPa) 0.013 0.003 0.468 4.699 0.000 0.953 0.611 0.176 0.142 7.051

Table 7 Performance indices (RMSE, VAF, and R2) for
regression model
Predicted parameter
UCS
RMSE root mean square error, VAF % value account for, R2
correlation coefficients
fails in the lower velocity (\ 1,500 m/s) and higher
velocity ([ 2,500 m/s) domain.
R2 VAF % RMSE Figure 5b shows predicted UCS from PLSI by
Grasso et al. (1992), Kahraman (2001), Kahraman
94.80 96.42 3.984
et al. (2005) and Kahraman and Gunaydin (2009) with
the observed dataset. The PLSI values have fluctuated
between 1.21 and 4.15 MPa. The equation proposed
for UCS from PLSI in this research has meaningful
differences with other equations proposed by different
researchers by Grasso et al. (1992); Kahraman (2001)
and Kahraman et al. (2005) except Kahraman and
Gunaydin (2009) where are very close to the observed
UCS in the PLSI range about 1–5 MPa. As shown in
the Fig. 5b, the derived equations approximately fall
in the middle area of the range of previous equations.
The kind and origin rocks are main reason for
difference between results of this work with previous
study for predicting UCS from PLSI because this study
only concentrated on the marly rocks.

5 Conclusions

To describe, the relationships between UCS with PLSI

Fig. 5 The comparison of the derived equations with the
previous equations used to predict UCS from P-wave velocity
(a) and point load strength index (b)
the range between 1,145.67 and 3,959.18 m/s. The
results of Kahraman (2001), Cobanglu and Celik (2008),
Sharma and Singh (2008) and Sarkar et al. (2012) are
very close to the observed UCS in the P-wave velocity
range between 1,500 and 2,500 m/s. But their equation
and P-wave velocity of the marly rocks, regression
analyses have been conducted and empirical equations
have been developed. The results of simple regression
analyses may suggest significance of the relationships
between UCS with P-wave velocity and PLSI values.
The appropriate equation and the coefficient of
determination (R2) were determined for each test
results. The plot of the UCS as a function of P-wave
velocity is demonstrated. There was found a linear
relation between P-wave velocity and UCS. The
following equation is obtained with R2 value of 0.90.
UCS ¼ 0:026Vp  20:207 ð3Þ
The logarithmic relationship has also been
observed between PLSI and UCS with R2 value of

123
212
0.92 for all tested marly rocks. The relationship
between these two parameters is as follows:
UCS ¼ 56:939 lnðIsð50ÞÞ  1:6551 ð4Þ
An equation with high prediction performance
(R2 = 0.94) was developed by multiple regression
analysis for the prediction of UCS:
UCS ¼ 13:244 Isð50Þ þ 0:13 Vp  16:987 ð5Þ
Under certain conditions, it may be difficult and
complicated to measure the UCS of rocks. Accord-
ingly, the use of empirical relationships to estimate the
UCS of rock can be more practical and economical. It
must be added that the proposed experimental equa-
tions can only be applied to marly formation of a
similar geological characteristics. Further research is
necessary to check the validity of the derived equa-
tions for the other marly rocks. However, these
equations can help researchers to have a good
estimation of UCS properties of marl.
Contrasting results of this research with previous
works, shows that UCS predicated from Vp and PLSI
in this study has meaningful difference with results
obtained from pervious researches because this study
only concentrated on the marly rocks.
The authors of this work believes that the geological
origins and kind of rocks (Mineralogical Composition)
should be taken into account separately in statistical
analysis when seeking for the relationships between
P-wave velocity, Point load Strength Index and UCS of
rocks.
References
Agustawijaya DS (2007) The uniaxial compressive strength of
soft rock. Civ Eng Dimens 9(1):9–14
Akram M, Bakar ZA (2007) Correlation between uniaxial
compressive strength and point load index for salt-range
rocks. Pak J Eng Appl Sci 1(1):1–8
Al-Jassar SH, Hawkins AB (1979) Geotechnical properties of
the carboniferous limestone of the Bristol area—the
influence of petrography and chemistry. In: 4th ISRM
conference, vol 1. Montreau, pp 3–14
Altindag R (2012) Correlation between P-wave velocity and
some mechanical properties for sedimentary rocks. J South
Afr Inst Min Metall 112:229–237
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2008)
Standard test method for determination of the point load
strength index of rock and application to rock strength
classifications. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, D5731-08
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:205–214
ASTM (1983) Test methods for ultra violet velocities determi-
nation. Am Soc Test Mater D2845
ASTM (1986) Standard test method of unconfined compressive
strength of intact rock core specimens D2938
ASTM (2001) Standard practice for preparing rock core speci-
mens and determining dimensional and shape tolerances.
Am Soc Test Mater D4543
ASTM (2010) ASTM D7012-10, standard test method for
compressive strength and elastic moduli of intact rock core
specimens under varying states of stress and temperatures
Basu A, Aydin A (2006) Predicting uniaxial compressive
strength by point load test: significance of cone penetra-
tion. Rock Mech Rock Eng 39(5):483–490. doi:10.1007/
s00603-006-0082-y
Basu A, Kamran M (2010) Point load test on schistose rocks and
its applicability in predicting uniaxial compressive
strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 47(5):823–828. doi:10.
1016/j.ijrmms.2010.04.006
Baykasoğlu A, Güllü H, Çanakçı H, Özbakır L (2008) Predict-
ing of compressive and tensile strength of limestone via
genetic programming. Expert Syst Appl 35:111–112
Bieniawski ZT (1975) The point-load test in geotechnical
practice. Eng Geol 9(1):1–11. doi:10.1016/0013-
7952(75)90024-1
Broch E, Franklin JA (1972) The point-load strength test. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 9(6):669–676. doi:10.
1016/0148-9062(72)90030-7
Brook N (1985) The equivalent core diameter method of size
and shape correction in point load testing. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22(2):61–70. doi:10.1016/0148-
9062(85)92328-9
Bruno G, Vessia G, Bobbo L (2012) Statistical method
for assessing the uniaxial compressive strength of car-
bonate rock by Schmidt hammer tests performed on core
samples. Rock Mech Rock Eng. doi:10.1007/s00603-012-
0230-5
Cargill JS, Shakoor A (1990) Evaluation of empirical methods
for measuring the uniaxial compressive strength. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 27:495–503
Ceryan N, Okkan U, Kesimal A (2012) Prediction of unconfined
compressive strength of carbonate rocks using artificial
neural networks. Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-
012-1783-z
Chau KT, Wong RHC (1996) Uniaxial compressive strength and
point load strength of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geo-
mech Abst 33(2):183–188. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(95)
00056-9
Cobanglu I, Celik S (2008) Estimation of uniaxial compressive
strength from point load strength, Schmidt hardness and
P-wave velocity. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:491–498
D’Andrea DV, Fischer RL, Fogelson DE (1965) Prediction of
compressive strength from other rock properties. US B M
Report of Investigations 6702
Das BM (1985) Evaluation of the point load strength for soft
rock classification. In: Proceedings of the fourth interna-
tional conference ground control in mining. Morgantown,
WV, pp 220–226
Deere DU, Miller RP (1966) Engineering classification and
index properties for intact rock. Air Force Weapons Lab.
Technical Report, AFWL-TR 65–116, Kirtland Base, New
Mexico
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:205–214
Dehghan S, Sattari GH, Chehre Chelgani S, Aliabadi MA (2010)
Prediction of uniaxial compressive and modulus of elas-
ticity for travertine sample using regression and artificial
neural networks. Min Sci Technol 20:41–46
Diamantis K, Gartzos E, Migiros G (2009) Study on uniaxial
compressive strength, point load strength index, dynamic
and physical properties of serpentinites from Central
Greece: test results and empirical relations. Eng Geol
108:199–207
Diamantis K, Bellas S, Migiros G, Gartzos E (2011) Correlating
wave velocities with physical, mechanical properties and
petrographic characteristics of peridotites from the central
Greece. Geotech Geol Eng 29(6):1049–1062
Entwisle DC, Hobbs PRN, Jones LD, Gunn D, Raines MG
(2005) The relationship between effective porosity, uni-
axial compressive strength and sonic velocity of intact
Borrowdale Volcanic Group core samples from Sellafield.
Geotech Geol Eng 23:793–809
Fener M, Kahraman S, Bilgil A, Gunaydin O (2005) A com-
parative evaluation of indirect methods to estimate the
compressive strength of rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng
38(4):329–343. doi:10.1007/s00603-005-0061-8
Forster IR (1983) The influence of core sample geometry on the
axial point-load test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 20:291–295
Freyburg E (1972) Der untere trod mittlere Buntsandstein SW-
Thiiringens in seinen gesteinstechnischen Eigenschatten.
Ber Dte Ges Geol Wiss A 17:911–919
Ghosh DK, Srivastava M (1991) Point-load strength: an index
for classification of rock material. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol
44:27–33
Gokceoglu C, Zorlu K (2004) A fuzzy model to predict the
unconfined compressive strength and modulus of elasticity
of a problematic rock. Eng Appl Artif Intell 17:61–72
Goktan RM (1988) Theoretical and practical analysis of rock
rippability, Ph.D. Thesis. Istanbul Technical University
Golubev A, Rabinovich GJ (1976) Resultaty primenenia appa-
ratury akusticeskogo karotasa dlja predelenia procnostych
svoistv gornych porod na mestorosdeniach tverdych isk-
opaemych. Prikladnaja Geofizika Moskva 73:109–116
Grasso P, Xu S, Mahtab A (1992) Problems and promises of
index testing of rocks. Rock Mechanics, Balkema, Rot-
terdam, pp 879–888
Gunsallus KL, Kulhawy FH (1984) A comparative evaluation of
rock strength measures. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr 21:233–248
Hardy JS (1997) The point load test for weak rock in dredging
applications. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(3–4):
295.e1–295.e13. doi:10.1016/s1365-1609(97)00063-4
Hassani FP, Scoble MJ, Whittaker BN (1980) Application of
point load index test to strength determination of rock and
proposals for new size-correction chart. In: Summers DA
(ed) Proceedings of the 21st US symposium on rock
mechanics. University of Missouri Press, Rolla, pp 543–
564
Hawkins AB (1998) Aspects of rock strength. Bull Eng Geol
Environ 57:17–30
Hawkins AB, Olver JAG (1986) Point load tests: correlation factor
and contractual use. An example from the Corallian at
Weymouth. In: Hawkins AB (ed) Site investigation practice:
assessing BS 5930. Geological Society, London, pp 269–271
213
Heidari M, Khanlari G, Torabi-Kaveh M, Kargarian S (2012)
Predicting the uniaxial compressive and tensile strengths of
gypsum rock by point load testing. Rock Mech Rock Eng
45(2):265–273. doi:10.1007/s00603-011-0196-8
Hoek E, Brown ET (1980) Underground excavations in rock.
Inst Min Metal, London
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (1985) Sug-
gested method for determining point load strength: ISRM
Common testing methods. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 22(4):112. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(85)
92985-7
ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock
characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In:
Ulusay, Hudson (eds) Suggested methods prepared by the
commission on testing methods. International Society for
Rock Mechanics. ISRM Turkish National Group, Ankara,
Turkey, p 628
Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing
the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 38:981–994
Kahraman S, Gunaydin O (2009) The effect of rock classes on
the relation between uniaxial compressive strength and
point load index. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68(3):345–353.
doi:10.1007/s10064-009-0195-0
Kahraman S, Gunaydin O, Fener M (2005) The effect of
porosity on the relation between uniaxial compressive
strength and point load index. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
42(4):584–589. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.02.004
Karakus M, Tutmez B (2008) Fuzzy and multiple regression
modelling for evaluation of intact rock strength based on
point load, schmidt Hammer and sonic velocity. Rock
Mech Rock Eng 39(1):45–57. doi:10.1007/s00603-005-
0050-y
Khandelwal M (2013) Correlating P-wave velocity with the
physico-mechanical properties of different rocks. Pure
Appl Geophys. doi:10.1007/s00024-012-0556-7
Khandelwal M, Ranjith PG (2010) Correlating index properties
of rocks with P-wave measurements. J Appl Geophys
71:1–5
Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2009) Correlating static properties of
coal measures rocks with p-wave velocity. Int J Coal Geol
79:55–60
Kılıç A, Teymen A (2008) Determination of mechanical prop-
erties of rocks using simple methods. Bull Eng Geol
Environ 67(2):237–244. doi:10.1007/s10064-008-0128-3
Kohno M, Maeda H (2012) Relationship between point load
strength index and uniaxial compressive strength of
hydrothermally altered soft rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
50:147–157
Kurtulus G, Irmak T, Sertcelik I (2011) Physical and mechanical
properties of Gokcseda: Imbros (NE Aegean Sea) Island
and esites. Bull Eng Geol Environ 69:321–324
Lashkaripour GR (2002) Predicting mechanical properties of
mudroek from index parameters. Bull Eng Geol Environ
61:73–77
Li D, Wong LNY (2012) Point load test on meta-sedimentary
rocks and correlation to UCS and BTS. Rock Mech Rock
Eng. doi:10.1007/s00603-012-0299-x
Martı́nez-Martı́nez J, Benavente D, Garcı́a-del-Cura MA (2012)
Comparison of the static and dynamic elastic modulus in
carbonate rocks. Bull Eng Geol Environ 71:263–268
123
214
Mccann DM, Culshaw MG, Northmore KJ (1990) Rock mass
assessment from seismic measurements. In: Culshaw B,
Coffey C (eds) Fields testing in engineering geology. Geol
Soc Eng Pub No 6, pp 257–266
McNally GH (1987) Estimation of coal measures rock strength
using sonic and neutron logs. Geoexploration 24:381–395
Militzer H, Stoll R (1973) Einige Beitraige der Geophysik zur
primadatenerfassung im Bergbau. Neue Bergbautechnik
3:21–25
Minaeian B, Ahangari K (2011) Estimation of uniaxial com-
pressive strength based on P-wave and Schmidt hammer
rebound using statistical method. Arab J Geosci. doi:10.
1007/s12517-011-0460-y
Moomivand H (2011) Development of a new method for esti-
mating the indirect uniaxial compressive strength of rock
using Schmidt hammer. BHM 156(4):142–146. doi:10.
1007/s00501-011-0644-5
Moradian ZA, Behnia M (2009) Predicting the uniaxial com-
pressive strength and static Young’s modulus of intact
sedimentary rocks using the ultrasonic test. Int J Geomech
9:1–14
Norbury DR (1986) The point load test. In: Hawkins AB (eds)
Site investigation practice: assessing BS 5930. Geological
Society, London, pp 325–329
O’Rourke JE (1988) Rock index properties for geo engineering
design in underground development. SME preprint 88–48,
5p
Palchik V, Hatzor YH (2004) Influence of porosity on tensile
and compressive strength of porous chalks. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 37:331–341
Quane SL, Russel JK (2003) Rock strength as a metric of
welding intensity in pyroclastic deposits. Eur J Mineral
15:855–864
Read JRL, Thornton PN, Regan WM (1980) A rational approach
to the point load test. Proc. Aust-N.Z. Geomech Conf
2:35–39
Rusnak JA, Mark C (1999) Using the point load test to deter-
mine the uniaxial compressive strength of coal measure
rock. In: Proceedings of 19th international conference on
ground control in mining, pp 362–371
Sarkar K, Vishal V, Singh TN (2012) An Empirical Correlation
of Index Geomechanical Parameters with the Compres-
sional Wave Velocity. Geotech Geol Eng. doi:10.1007/
s10706-011-9481-2
Sengun N, Altindag R, Demirdag S, Yavuz H (2011) P-wave
velocity and Schmidt rebound hardness value of rocks
under uniaxial compressional loading. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 48:693–696
Sharma PK, Singh TN (2008) A correlation between P-wave
velocity, impact strength index, slake durability index and
uniaxial compressive strength. Bull Eng Geol Environ
67:17–22
Sharma PK, Singh TN (2010) Reply to discussion by N Arıoglu,
G Kurt and E Arıoglu. doi:10.1007/s10064-0100261-7 on
the paper entitled ‘‘A correlation between P-wave velocity,
impact strength index, slake durability index and uniaxial
compressive strength’’ by PK Sharma, TN Singh, Bull Eng
Geol Environ
123
View publication stats
Geotech Geol Eng (2014) 32:205–214
Sharma PK, Khandelwal M, Singh TN (2011) A correlation
between Schmidt hammer rebound numbers with impact
strength index, slake durability index and P-wave velocity.
Int J Earth Sci (Geol Rundsch) 100:189–195
Singh DP (1981) Determination of some engineering properties
of weak rocks. In: IAkai K (ed) Proceedings of the inter-
national symposium weak rock. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp 21–24
Singh VK, Singh DP (1993) Correlation between point load
index and compressive strength for quartzite rocks. Geo-
tech Geol Eng 11:269–272
Singh TN, Kainthola A, Venkatesh A (2012) A Correlation
Between Point Load Index and Uniaxial Compressive
Strength for Different Rock Types. Rock Mech Rock Eng
45:259–264. doi:10.1007/s00603-011-0192-z
Smith HJ (1997) The point load test for weak rock in dredging
applications. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34:702
Sousa LMO, Del Rio LMS, Calleja L, de Argandona VGR, Rey
AR (2005) Influence of microfraetures and porosity on the
physieo-meehanieal properties and weathering of orna-
mental granites. Eng Geol 77:153–168
Thuro K, Plinninger RJ (2001) Scale effects in rock strength
properties. Part 2: point load test and point load strength
index. In: Särkkä P, Eloranta P (eds) Rock mechanics—a
challenge for society—881 p. Proceedings of the ISRM
regional symposium Eurock 2001, Espoo, Finland, 4–7
June 2001, Lisse (Balkema/Swets & Zeitlinger),
pp 175–180
Tsiambaos G, Sabatakakis N (2004) Considerations on strength
of intact sedimentary rocks. Eng Geol 72(3–4):261–273.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2003.10.001
Tsidzi KEN (1991) Point load-uniaxial compressive strength
correlation. In: Wittke W, Balkema (eds) Proceedings of
the 7th ISRM congress, vol 1. Rotterdam, pp 637–639
Turgrul A, Zarif IH (1999) Correlation of mineralogical and
textural characteristics with engineering properties of
selected granitic rocks from Turkey. Eng Geol 51:303–317
Ulusay R, Tureli K, IderM H (1994) Prediction of engineering
properties of a selected litharenite sandstone from its pet-
rographic characteristics using correlation and multivariate
statistical techniques. Eng Geol 38:135–157
Vallejo LE, Welsh RA, Robinson MK (1989) Correlation
between unconfined compressive and point load strength
for Appalachian rocks. In: Khair AW, Balkema (eds)
Proceedings of the 30th US symposium on rock mechanics.
Rotterdam, pp 461–468
Yagiz S (2011) P-wave velocity test for assessment of geo-
technical properties of some rock materials. Bull Mater Sci
34(4):947–953
Yasar E, Erdogan Y (2004a) Correlating sound velocity with the
density, compressive strength and young’s modulus of
carbonate rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:871–875
Yasar E, Erdogan Y (2004b) Estimation of rock physicome-
chanical properties using hardness methods. Eng Geol
71:281–288
Yilmaz I, Yuksek AG (2008) An example of artificial neural
network application for indirect estimation of rock
parameters. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 5(41):781–795