CORRELATION BETWEEN UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH AND POINT-LOAD INDEX STRENGTH

PARAMESWARY A/P SUNDARA

This project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil Geotechnics)

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

June 2009
 iii

I hereby dedicate my project report to the best father a child could ever ask for,
Mr. S. Sundara, to my lovely mother Madam S. Mageswary,
and to my elder brother Mr. S. Jeevanantham.
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to extend special thanks to my beloved father and
mother, Mr. & Mrs. Sundara, for their continual support and encouragement
throughout the year. You have given me the greatest moral support that I ever had
when I in feeling down. You will always be in my heart.

Secondly, I would like to take this opportunity to record appreciation to my

supervisor, PM Mohd. For bin Mohd Amin. He has provided numerous constructive
suggestions, insightful comments and professional advice regarding my project. My
utmost and sincere gratitude to Mr. Zulkifly bin Abdul Wahid, the technicians of
Geotechnical and Engineering Geology Laboratory for their help and assistances
during laboratory work. I would like to thank Miss Chan for her worthful advices and
knowledge sharing along the project.

Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and course mates for sharing their
knowledge with me. Thank for their encouragements and help for the completion
and success of this study.
 v

ABSTRACT

In verifying the material properties of rock, laboratory test need to be carried

out to ensure a safe design of structures. Among the most common rock properties
verified in laboratory are uniaxial compressive strength test (UCS) and point-load
index strength test (Is50). These two rock properties are often correlated for ease of
evaluating rock properties particularly during preliminary design stage. The focus of
this study is to verify correlation factor between UCS and Is(50) and to compare with
established correlation. Rock types investigated are granite collected from Tumpat,
Kelantan and limestone from Pandan Indah, Kuala Lumpur. The samples of granite
and limestone are in fresh state (grade 1). Literature review shows that the
conversion factor, K for correlating between UCS and Is(50) lies between 16-29.
From this study, verification of laboratory test data shows that there is no clearly
good correlation between UCS and Is(50). Variation on test data has been observed.
This is expected for natural material like rock. The insignificance relationship of
strength signifies that there is possibility of insufficient data of rock samples.
Although there are some trends that correlate UCS and Is50 for the rock types
investigated, however due to significant variation of data and limited number of
samples tested, the correlation obtained is not clearly present good linear relationship
between the two properties. To improve this more samples should be verified for
both properties.
 vi

ABSTRAK

Untuk memerhatikan sifat batu terutamanya kekuatan batu, kajian makmal

perlu dijalankan supaya kualiti rekaan struktur dalam aktiviti pembinaan terjamin.
Laizmnya mampatan satu paksi (UCS) dan beban titik (Is50) adalah antara ujian yang
digunakan untuk mengkaji sifat kekuatan batu. Kedua-dua ujian ini mempunyai
persamaan dan boleh dikaitkan sesama sendiri untuk mengenal pasti kekuatan batu
dengan tujuan untuk memudahkan rekaan awal rancangan pembinaan. Fokus utama
kajian ini adalah untuk mengenal pasti faktor pekali perhubungan di antara UCS dan
Is50 selain membandingkan dengan perhubungan yang sedia ada. Batu yang berlainan
jenis digunakan dalam kajian ini adalah batu granit dari Tumpat, Kelantan dan batu
kapur dari Pandan Indah, Kuala Lumpur. Kesemua sampel batu ini digolongkan
dalam keadaan segar (gred 1). Menurut kajian sebelum ini, faktor pekali itu berubah-
ubah dalam 16-29. Untuk kajian ini, keputusan faktor pekali, K tidak jelas untuk
kedua-dua batu kapur dan granit. Pembezaan hubungkait yang tidak jelas
menunjukkan bahawa perlu ada penambahan data kekuatan dalam batu yang dikaji.
Keputusan ini sudah dijangkakan untuk bahan asli seperti batu. Pada dasarnya,
keputusan yang diperoleh ada bentuk hubungkait antara UCS dan Is50 walaupun
terdapat variasi dalam data sampel yang tidak banyak. Penambahan batu sampel
perlu dibuat supaya hubungkait ini lebih terjawab.
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF SYMBOLS xi
LIST OF APPENDICES xii

1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Problem of statement 2
1.3 Objectives 3
1.4 Scope of study 3
1.5 Significance of the study 4

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Rock type 6
2.2.1 Igneous rock 6
2.2.1.1 Granite 7
 viii

2.2.2 Sedimentary rock 7

2.2.2.1 Limestone 8
2.2.3 Rock mass and rock material 9
2.3 Rocks in Malaysia 9
2.4 Weathering 10
2.5 Rock properties 11
2.5.1 Properties of rock related to strength 11
2.6 Rock strength 12
2.7 Point-load index strength 13
2.8 Uniaxial compressive strength 15
2.9 Correlation between uniaxial compressive strength and 16
point-load index strength
2.10 Previous researcher 17

3 METHODOLOGY 19
3.1 Introduction 19
3.2 Preparation of rock sample for uniaxial compressive strength test 20
3.2.1 Coring 21
3.2.2 Cutting or trimming 22
3.2.3 Lapping 23
3.2.4 Sampling 24
3.3 Tinius Olsen Super L Hydraulic Universal Testing Machine 25

3.3.1 Components of universal testing machine 27

3.3.1.1 Remote handheld controller (Model 602H) 27

3.3.1.2 Loading frame 28

3.3.1.3 Power Pack (Hydraulic Power Unit) 28
3.3.1.4 Load cell 29
3.3.1.5 Spherical seated platen 29
3.3.1.6 Displacement transducer 30

3.3.1.7 Data logger 30

3.3.2 Testing method 30
3.4 Point-load test components 32
3.4.1 Procedures of using point-load test 33
 ix

3.4.2 Sampling for point-load index strength test 34

3.5 Data analysis 35

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 38

4.1 Introduction 38
4.2 Result of point-load index strength test 38
4.3 Result of uniaxial compressive strength test 40
4.4 Correlation factor for limestone and granite 42
4.5 Discussion on test result 44

5 CONCLUSION 48
5.1 Introduction 48
5.2 Conclusion 49
5.3 Recommendations for future study 50
REFERENCES 51-53
Appendix A-B 55-57
 x

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 The ranges of strength for main rocks 13
2.2 The proposed values for the conversion factor K relating the uniaxial 18
compressive strength (UCS) to the point-load index strength (Is50)
reported by various authors
3.1 Dimension of the limestone and granite samples for uniaxial 25
compressive test (UCT)
3.2 Dimension of the limestone and granite for point-load index strength 35
test
4.1 Results of point-load index strength test for limestone 39
4.2 Results of point-load index strength test for granite 40
4.3 Results of uniaxial compressive strength test for limestone 41
4.4 Results of uniaxial compressive strength test for granite 42
 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Classification of rocks on the basis of uniaxial compressive strength 15
2.2 Correlation between UCS and Is 17
3.1 Coring Machine 22
3.2 Rock disc cutter 23
3.3 Lapping machine 24
3.4 Samples of limestone and granite prior to testing of uniaxial
compressive strength 24
3.5 Tinius Olsen Super L Hydraulic Universal Testing Machine 26
Tinius
3.6 Tinius Olsen Remote handheld controller (Model 602H)
and its schematic 27
3.7 Tinius Olsen power pack 28
3.8 Load cell model TML 29
3.9 Spherical plate 29
3.10 Point-load test apparatus and schematic 33
3.11 Samples of limestone and granite prior to testing of point-
load index strength 34
4.1 Correlation for limestone between UCS and Is50 43
4.2 Correlation for granite between UCS and Is50 44
 xii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

kN - Kilo Newton
mm - Milimeter
MPa - Mega Pascal
P - Compressive Force
Is - Point-load index strength
Is50 - Corrected point-load index strength
F - Size correction factor
D - Depth
W - Width
2
mm - Milimeter per squared
2
m - Meter per squared
Ao - Initial cross sectional area
- Compressive stress
De - Equivalent core diameter
 xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

NO.

A Result of point-load index strength test and result of 55

Compressive strength test
B Correlation between UCS and Is(50) 57
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The extent to which the strength properties of a rock mass may coincide with
the result of laboratory tests on samples of rock material is a matter of major concern
in engineering structures. Rock strength is an important property since it requires for
the design of rock engineering structures. The degree of accuracy of rock strength is
often questionable in way of designing structures since it is not always possible to
control the strength and it varies among different types of rock.

A qualitative measurement of rock strength is required at both in-situ and

laboratory. Civil engineer ought to know practical application of rock strength
toward any rock engineering structure. Without a proper understanding of rock
behavior and strength, there is a tendency for rational design of the foundations of
rock engineering structures to collapse.

In reviewing the material properties of rock strength, laboratory test need to

be carry out to ensure a quality design and structures. Among the most essential rock
properties especially in testing of rock strength in laboratory are uniaxial
compressive strength test and point-load index strength test. These two rock
properties are often correlated for ease of evaluating rock properties particularly
during preliminary design stage.
 2

Point-load index strength test is often replacing the uniaxial compressive

strength test because it is reliable in simple manner and quick to measure.
Apparently, a reasonable estimation of the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock
can be obtained by means of the point-load index strength test. This has been tailored
by the previous researcher using an established correlation whereby the correlation
between uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and point-load index strength (Is) can
be obtained by using an equation below and conversion factor, K was 24.

UCS = (K) Is = 24 Is (1.1)

Although the equation relating the Is and UCS was most commonly accepted,
however studies have shown that there is a tendency for the conversion factor, K to
change in subject to different types of rock. To acquire best result in determining of
rock strength, a study has been done on correlation between uniaxial compressive
strength and point-load index strength and find out the suitable conversion factor for
the established correlation above.

1.2 Problem of statement

Point-load index strength test is one of the indirect strength tests in rock
testing. It has been used widely in practice due to its simple nature of testing;
portable, simplicity of specimen preparation and possible of field applications.
However, data collected from this indirect strength test is not suitable for detailed
design purpose. Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) is one of the most fundamental
properties of rock that is required in designing rock engineering structures. However
to determine UCS of rock, it requires complex testing and sample preparation
procedures. It has been a common practice to estimate UCS using point-load index
strength (Is) using established correlation. However, the reliability of the correlation
is depends on the location, weathering grade and specific rock type. This study is to
establish a correlation between UCS and Is for specific rock type and weathering
grade. Such correlation is essential for quick estimation on UCS particularly in area
where the samples of the rock are collected.
 3

1.3 Objectives

This study is geared towards achieving the following objectives:

1. To review the existing correlation between point-load index strength (Is)

and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) for various rock types.

2. To determine the point-load index strength (Is) and uniaxial compressive

strength (UCS) of rock samples namely limestone and granite.

3. To verify correlation between point-load index strength (Is) and uniaxial

compressive strength (UCS) and to establish conversion factor for the
established correlation.

1.4 Scope of study

Basically, the scope of this study will include several aspects as below:

1. The laboratory tests undertaken in the study are point-load index strength
test and uniaxial compressive strength test.

2. The rock samples being studied are granite and limestone of fresh state
(grade 1).

3. Correlation factor between point-load index strength corrected to a

specimen diameter of 50 mm (Is50) and its uniaxial compressive strength
(UCS) are being investigated.

4. Samples of limestone were collected from Pandan Indah, Kuala Lumpur

and samples of granite were collected from Tumpat, Kelantan.
 4

1.5 Significance of the study

Appropriate correlation factor between direct strength and index strength for
specific rock, weathering grade and locality is important in design of rock
engineering structure. The correlation factor enables direct strength (UCS) of rock to
be established using simple index test such as point-load test.
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Basically, the term rock is used to describe all the solid constituent materials
of the earths crust. In its widest sense, rock is a mixture of one or more different
minerals. Rocks as suggested by (Touloukian, 1981), can be define as a natural solid
mineral matter occurring in large masses or fragments. Besides occupy by minerals,
rock is also a natural occurring aggregate of fused or compressed discrete mineral
particles. It is believed that various minerals are combined in such a various
proportions to form a rock. To the civil engineer, the physical and strength properties
of rocks are outmost importance (Alfred, 1983).

In geological classification of rocks, it is often refers to origin, composition

and texture. Civil engineers have to adopt the geological classification of rocks to
apply them in design of rocks engineering structures. Apart of that, the percentage of
dominancy of low or high strength of rock need to be assessed in advance as it may
cause problems in the rocks engineering structures. Among the rock properties, rock
strength is the basic parameter required for designing any engineering structures in
rock.
 6

2.2 Rock type

Rock can be fundamentally classified into three major groups which are
igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic (Ronald, 2005). Igneous rock is formed as
magma rises and cools. It is called extrusive if it is spewed out by volcanoes. On the
other hand, it is called intrusive instead if it solidifies underground. One of the
examples of intrusive rock is granite. This type of rock is known to be very hard due
to the lack of stratification and weakness planes.

Sedimentary rock consists of material derived from destruction of previously

existing rocks. Their most prominent characteristic is bedding or stratification. Once
deposited, the sediments are then lithified or turned into rock mass through processes
such as compaction and cementation. Compaction is a process where the overlaying
of sediment causes decreases in rock volume and compaction is a chemical
precipitation process in pores spaces between grains and gluing the rock particles
together.

On the other hand, metamorphic rock can be of either igneous or sedimentary

origin, which has undergone severe changes in pressure, stresses or temperature. The
changes of this extreme condition may change the original minerals, texture or both,
thus producing different types of rock, namely gneiss (originated from granite),
shale, slate and quartzite (from sedimentary origins).

2.2.1 Igneous rock

Igneous rocks may be defined as those rocks which have solidified from
magmas (Ronald, 2005). These rocks are classified in two ways, firstly by their
chemicals composition and secondly by their grain size. The grain size is largely
dependent on the speed at which the rock has cooled. If the cooling has been very
slow, then the individual crystals will be large and the rock will be coarse grained.
 7

On the other hand, if the cooling has been fast, then the crystals will be small and by
right the rock will be fine grained.

The chemical composition of igneous rocks varies considerably and usually

they contained (SiO2). A rock with high silica content is termed acid and one with
lower silica content is known as basic. These terms apply whether the grain size is
fine or coarse.

2.2.1.1 Granite

Granite comes from igneous family rock. It is usually a coarse grained rock.
Part of granite interpretation is granite being formed in plutons far beneath the
surface of the crust (Ronald, 2005). Granite pluton formed slowly without
displacement of surrounding rocks. It happens to be formed below igneous
confinement level which is due to gravity effect of overburden. These granite plutons
may subsequently after solidifying be exposed to the surface by uplift and erosion.

Granite is usually found throughout continental crust most commonly in

mountainous areas. Fresh boulders and rock columns in matrix completely weathered
material are normally found in granite (Singh et al., 1987). Granite comprises of
chief minerals which include quartz, plagioclase feldspar, orthoclase feldspar, biotite
mica and muscovite mica (Ronald, 2005). Granite exhibits white colour with dark
specks overall but sometimes turns out to be in pink or reddish in colour. Most of
granites have a dense interlocking fabric with only slight directional anisotropy.
Therefore, due to its dense interlocking fabric, granite contributes a good strength.

2.2.2 Sedimentary Rock

Sedimentary rocks were formed at the earth surface at normal atmospheric

temperature. Rock formed from sediments covers 75% to 80% of the Earths land
 8

area (Blatt et al., 1994). There are two main types of sedimentary rock. First is
considered as clastic rocks if those constituent of particles have been transported to
the place of deposition. Second one is known as non-clastic which rocks have been
exposed to mechanical and chemical weathering at the earths surface. The common
type of sedimentary rock includes limestone, chalk, dolostone, sandstone,
conglomerate, breccia and shale.

All rocks will go through weathering process and slowly breaks down to form
in-situ soils. Most of substantial in-situ soils will be eventually transported away
from its sources and finally settle as sediments. This sediment can be either soil
debris, consolidation of mineral and organic material or precipitation of mineral from
solution in water. The travel agents which help to deposit those sediments are air, ice,
wind, gravity and water flows carrying the particles in suspension.

As sediment deposition builds up, the overburden pressure squeezes the

sediment into stratified layered solids. This process is known as lithification (Blatt et.
al., 1994). In other words, lithification can also be termed as the process of rock
formation. This process makes the weak loose sediments into stronger sedimentary
rock. As the results of lithification, the strength of the materials will increase.
Cementation is one of the lithification processes. This cementation involves the
bonding of the sand and chemical agent and fills in at the intergranular pore spaces
after the evaporation of water. Rock strength is largely dependent on the type of
cement, which can be categorized as strongest (i.e. silica) and weakest (i.e. iron,
oxides, calcite or clay) (Waltham, 2002).

2.2.2.1 Limestone

Limestone is a sedimentary rock, mainly composed of mineral calcite which

is known as calcium carbonate (Blatt et al., 1994). Most of limestones are formed by
the deposition and consolidation of the skeletons of marine invertebrates, which a
few originate in chemical precipitation from solution. Limestone deposits are
 9

primarily of great thickness. The texture varies from course to fine. It is ordinarily
white but sometimes may be coloured by impurities, for example iron oxide making
it brown, yellow or red while carbon making it blue, black or gray in colour.

Limestone generally has high porosity, a reflection of the processes of their

formation and the nature of the cementing agent. As a result they are generally low in
rock hardness and their grains are less tightly held together.

2.2.3 Rock Mass and Rock Material

Rock masses can be considered to be a number of measurable parameters

with respect to their geomechanical properties display in massive and actual form.
The properties are determined based on weathering, material strength, stratification
of lithologies, frequency of jointing, discontinuities, bedding, orientation of joints,
infill material and faults. Whereas material properties refer to the nature of rock in a
relatively smaller scale such as mineral composition, grain size, strength and
hardness.

To assess for the strength of rock mass and rock material, test should be
executed either at laboratory or at in-situ. Primarily, the strength of rock mass is
considered to be a residual strength. This is because it is governed by the interlocking
bond of the unit blocks which representing the rock mass. Strength data obtained
from laboratory test on core samples which represent rock material shows that
strength of rock is relatively higher than mass strength of in-situ rock. Therefore,
rock material is usually display higher strength compare with the rock mass strength.

2.3 Rocks in Malaysia

There are many common rocks in Malaysia. Limestone and granite are
preferably the most common rocks in Malaysia since these rocks form in wide
 10

occurrence. In Malaysia, limestone occurs as majestic, precipitous cliffs as well as

extensive bedrock formations. On the other hand, granite mostly found in respect of
bedrock formation and boulders. In this study, limestone and granite are used due to
its simplicity of findings in Malaysia.

2.4 Weathering

Weathering process gives an effect to the rock strength, which will cause
decreasing of strength. There are three types of weathering that usually happen in
tropical climate which are physical, chemical and biological weathering. Strength of
the rock is very much dependent on the degree of weathering that it has undergoes
(Komoo, 1995). The weathered rock has less strength due to the presence of
microfractures and the loosening of the bonding between grains. International
Association of Engineering Geologist (IAEG, 1981) classified weak rock to have a
uniaxial compressive strength from 1.5 50 MPa.

There are 6 grades of weathering profile for tropical region. These grades are
comprises of grade I (fresh rock), grade II (slightly weathered), grade III (moderately
weathered), grade IV (highly weathered), grade V (completely weathered) and grade
VI (soil). Besides qualitative observation, one of the most popular methods in
classifying weathered rock is by its strength (Komoo et al., 1990).

Even the rating system to classify the weathered rock which was introduced
by (Price, 1970) also uses the rock strength as its major parameter. This is because a
comprehensive description of engineering properties of weathered rock is not easy to
attain. However, in reality, the rock mass itself is very complex in its structural
geology, composition and mechanical behaviour especially in tropical region where
most of the rock formations experience intense chemical weathering.
 11

2.5 Rock Properties

Rock properties are essential to be gathered in order to classify the rock

material for designing projects and planning the construction procedures which will
obviously sum up to the total construction cost of the rock engineering structure. The
physical and mechanical properties of rock materials depend largely on the
interaction among the minerals, particles and cementations material of which it is
composed. Rock characteristics especially the strength has been widely used as a
basis for classification of rock material for engineering purposes.

The strength parameter of rock substance is a useful source of information to

predict the performance during pre and post construction of the rock engineering
project. For this study, point-load index strength and uniaxial compressive strength
are selected to represent the strength of rock samples. The properties of rock that
related to the strength are being discussed.

2.5.1 Properties of rock related to strength

Properties such as porosity, density, mineralogy and degree of cementation

are related to the rock strength. In general, porosity is the value represents
intergranular pores filled with air and water in intact rock material. Pore spaces are
largely made up of continuous irregular capillary cracks separating the minerals.

Porosity has a significant effect on the strength of the rock material (Singh,
1987). A report from the study showed that in sedimentary rocks, all strength
properties decrease with increasing porosity. The physical explanation for this is that
high porosity assists the propagation of stress-induced microfractures.

Density can be defined as the space occupied by grains in a rock sample or

rock mass. A study by (Bell, 1992) indicates that strength increase with the
increasing of density. Besides (Bell, 1992), (Hoek, 1977) also suggested that severe
 12

interlocking of grains could occur in sedimentary rocks. Fresh sedimentary rocks

grains have been tightly packed and well cemented which give sign of higher density
value. This would result in a considerable increase in the amount of applied stress
required to propagate grain boundary cracks.

Mineralogy of rocks plays an important role in the characteristics of the

rocks. Mineralogy was the factor that influences the rocks type, colour, strength and
other properties. Anhydrous silicates (feldspars, quartz, hornblende, augite and
olivine) are considerably harder and stronger than most other common minerals and
can affect the strength of a rock. Large amounts of a relatively soft mineral such as
calcite in limestone can result in rapid breakdown due to weathering processes.

Degree of cementation defines as mineralogy of bonding or cementing

material which is an important property that controls strength. Quartz provides the
strongest binding followed by calcite and ferrous minerals. Among published
material, (Bell, 1992) reported that the strength increases proportionally with the
amount of cement. Apart of that, (Shakoor and Bonelli, 1991) have stated that the
correlations they had found between cement and strength were insignificant.
Therefore, rock sample with a good degree of cementation (such with the presence of
quartz or calcite cement) should have higher strength compared with the poorly
bonded ones (such with the presence of clay).

2.6 Rock Strength

One of physical properties of rock is strength. The different rock forming

process in igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks has resulted different nature
of strength, both in rock mass and material properties. The results from laboratory
tests are often used to supplement the field data in order to drive better interpretation.
Conventionally, rock strength can be determined by using point-load index strength
test or uniaxial compressive strength test. The degree of rock strength depends on the
 13

rock type, locality and weathering. Table 2.1 illustrates the ranges of strength for
several types of rocks.

Table 2.1: The ranges of strength for main rocks (Stillborg, 1985)

Rock Class Rock Type Unconfined Point-load

compressive index
strength strength
c (MPa) Is50 (MPa)
Sedimentary Limestone 50-200 0.5-7
Rock Mudstone 5-15 0.1-6
Sandstone 5-150 0.2-7
Siltstone 5-200 6-10
Shale 50-100 -
Metamorphic Gneiss 100-200 2-11
Rock Marble 100-200 2-12
Quiartz 200-400 5-15
Igneous Basalt 100-300 9-14
Rock Gabbro 100-300 6-15
Granite 100-200 5-10

2.7 Point-load index strength

Point-load index strength is used to determine rock strength indexes in

geological practice. The point-load index strength test is one of the accepted rock
mechanics testing procedure to calculate for rock strength index. The rock strength
determined by point-load index strength is actually as an indication of intact rock
strength. In respect to that, the required testing apparatus is usually light and
portable. Therefore the point-load test apparatus and procedure enables economical
testing of core or disc or even irregular rock samples in either at field or laboratory.

According to the International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM, 1985), it

has established the basic procedures for testing and calculation of the point-load
index strength. Basically, there are 3 types of point-load index strength tests which
involve axial, diametral or block and lump. In general, the axial and diametral tests
 14

are tested on rock core or disc samples. In this study, diametral was chosen to carry
out the point-load index strength test. Diametral is selected because it is the most
reproducible test. Apart of that, the core or disc lengths which govern
length/diameter ratio greater than 1.0 are suitable for diametral testing. According to
ISRM standard, the platen should make a contact along a core diameter. This has to
be done to ensure that the distance L between the contact points and the nearest free
end is at least 0.5 times greater than the core or disc diameter.

In spite of that, the point-load index strength test allows the determination of
the uncorrected point-load index strength (Is). It must be corrected to the standard
equivalent diameter (De) of 50 mm. If the core or disc being tested is near 50 mm in
diameter, therefore the correction is not applicable. The value for the Is50 is
determined by the following equation.

Is50 = P/De2 (2.1)

The point-load index strength test is most comparable to a uniaxial

compressive strength test. The point-load index strength test is an attractive
alternative to the uniaxial compressive strength test because it can provide similar
data at a lower cost. The point-load index strength test has been used extensively in
geological analysis for over thirty years (ISRM, 1985). The point-load index strength
test involves the compressing of a rock sample between conical steel platens until
failure occurs.

In regarding to that, the required apparatus for this test consists of a rigid
frame, two point-load platens, a hydraulically activated ram with pressure gauge and
a device for measuring the distance between the loading points. The pressure gauge
should be of the type in which the failure pressure can be recorded. In short, point-
load index strength testing device has a sophisticated pressure reading
instrumentation.
 15

2.8 Uniaxial compressive strength

Apart of point-load index strength test to determine rock strength, there is

also another test method to determine rock strength similar to that of point-load index
strength test. Uniaxial compressive strength is a common method to test fundamental
property of rock that is required in designing rock engineering structures. However,
the requirement apparatus for this uniaxial compressive test is often including huge
machine to handle such as servo-controlled. This conventional machine has been
designed for the purpose of constant rate loading until failure occurs in the examine
rock core samples.

The test is easy to perform but in order to obtain reasonable results, a great
care in its performance is required (ISRM, 1985). Moreover, the tests are expensive,
primarily because of the need to carefully prepare the specimens to ensure that their
ends are perfectly parallel. Figure 2.1 illustrates the classification of rocks on the
basis of uniaxial compressive strength.

Figure 2.1: Classification of rocks on the basis of uniaxial compressive strength

(Deere and Miller, 1966)
 16

As a general rule, the test is made on cylindrical samples of drill-core

obtained during field exploration. However, a precision work in which samples be
more carefully prepared in the laboratory is required. The procedure may involve
cutting cores with a laboratory thin-walled diamond core drill on selected blocks of
rock. The cylindrical surface of each specimen may be finished by lathe grinding
followed by lapping the end surfaces so that they are perfectly smooth and
perpendicular to the specimen axis.

2.9 Correlation between uniaxial compressive strength and point-load index

strength

Rock strength specimen determined by point-load test and uniaxial

compressive test are an indication of intact rock strength. It has been a common
practice to estimate uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) using point-load index
strength (Is) using established correlation. Both UCS and Is are the variables but the
correlation factor K is the conversion for the correlation. Usually, the correlation
factor, K varies between 16 to 29 which depend on specific rock type, weathering
state and locality.

To interpret the strength performed by both point-load index strength test and
uniaxial compressive strength test, a formula has been introduced by Broch and
Franklin (1972).

Early studies (Broch and Franklin, 1972) were conducted on hard, strong
rocks and they found out that relationship between UCS and Is could be expressed
as:

UCS = (K) Is50 = 24 Is50 (2.2)

where K is the conversion factor and UCS and Is50 are the uniaxial compressive
strength for rock specimens with a diameter to length ratio of 1:2 and the point-load
index strength corrected to a specimen diameter of 50 mm, respectively. Local
 17

researcher (Rafek, 2007) found out that uniaxial compressive strength is related to
the point-load index strength by a multiplication factor of 25. The correlation
between point-load index strength and uniaxial compressive strength are shown in
Figure 2.2

Figure 2.2: Correlation between UCS and Is (Franklin et al., 1971)

2.10 Previous researchers

Although this formula has been confirmed by (Bieniawski, 1975), there are
objections to the indiscriminate use of the conversion factor denoted as K=24. In
particular, Pells (1975) showed that conversion factor of 24 can lead to 20% error in
the prediction of uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) for certain types of rocks
including doleite, norite, pyroxenite and sandstone. Researcher (Read et al., 1980)
found that the conversion factor K is 20 and 16 respectively for sedimentary rocks in
Melbourne area.

By compiling all previous data of point-load index strength tests and

including additional test resuts on sedimentary rocks found in U.K, (Hassani et al.,
1980) found that K equals to 29. Greminger (1982) and Foster (1983) also
 18

showedthat the conversion factor of 24 cannot be adequately applied to anisotropic

rocks. Therefore, subsequent studies found that K=24 was not as universal as had
been hoped and that instead there appeared to be a broad range of conversion factors.
Table 2.2 summarises most of the proposed values for conversion factors K.

Table 2.2: The proposed values for the conversion factor K relating the uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) to the point-load index strength (Is50) reported by
various authors

Authors K
Broch and Franklin (1972) 24
Bieniawski (1974) 24
Bieniawski (1975) 22.7
Brook (1980) 24
Hassani, Scoble and whittaker (1980) 29
Read. Thornton and Regan (1980)
(1) Sedimentary rocks 16
(2) Basalts 20
Forster (1983) 14.5
ISRM (1985) 20-25
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The methodology of this study encompasses laboratory test involving point-

load index strength test and uniaxial compressive strength test. The rock samples
required for these test are limestone and granite. The function of these test namely
point-load index strength test and uniaxial compressive strength test are to determine
the rock characteristic especially strength. The strength data obtained from these tests
are then used to verify the correlation between point-load index strength (Is50) and
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and to establish conversion factor for the
established correlation.

UCS = (K) Is50 (3.1)

In order to carry out the tests, normally the laboratory tests can be categorized
into three main sections:

1. Preparation of rock samples (granite and limestone)

2. Testing of rock samples.
3. Analysis of data obtained from laboratory test.

The data collected from the laboratory tests will be analyzed and interpreted.
The determination of rock properties involved strength for both uniaxial compressive
strength test and point-load index strength test. From the determination of strength,
the established conversion factor for the established correlation is determined by
 20

using linear regression. Linear regression is performed from the strength data
analysis using computer application.

3.2 Preparation of rock sample for uniaxial compressive strength test

Proper sampling and preparation of rock specimens require considerable care

and effort. This is to ensure that the samples collected are representing its original
rock properties. In this study, the sample preparation for uniaxial compressive
strength test is executed by referring to ISRM (1985), and the standards of sample
preparation are being listed as below:

1. The sample should be in circular cylindrical of shape with height to diameter

ratio in between 2.0 to 3.0. An approximate diameter of rock should preferably
not less than 50mm.

2. The ends of the specimen shall be flat to 0.02 mm and shall not depart from
perpendicularity to the axis of the specimen by more than 0.001 radian. (3.5
minutes)

3. The sides of the specimen should be smooth and free of abrupt irregularities and
straight to within 0.3 mm over the full length of the specimen.

4. The diameter of the test specimen should be measured to the nearest 0.1 mm by
averaging two diameters measured at right angles to each other close to the top,
the mid-height and the bottom of the specimen. The average diameter will be
used for calculating the cross-sectional area.

5. The height of the specimens shall be measured to the nearest 1.0 mm.

6. The specimens shall be finished on lathe, surface grinder or lapping machine.

 21

7. The maximum load on the specimen shall be recorded in kilonewtons.

8. The number of specimens tested shall be sufficient enough to represent the

strength of rock sample for the use of correlation to that of point-load index
strength test.

To obtain the samples with required size, shape and dimension, processes like
coring, cutting and lapping are required by using appropriate equipment. The
uniaxial compressive strength of the specimen should be calculated by dividing the
maximum load carried by the specimen during the test with original cross-sectional
area.

3.2.1 Coring

Rock coring is a process where a sampler obtained in a form of tube which is

known as core barrel. Coring machine has a cutting bit which is made of diamond bit
cutter. It is used to obtain the core samples from the rock masses as is shown in
Figure 3.1. To obtain the cylindrical core samples, the cutting bit at its lower end cuts
an annular hole in a rock mass. By using this coring machine, the diameter of the
core samples obtained was approximately 52 mm.
 22

Figure 3.1: Coring Machine

3.2.2 Cutting or trimming

The cutting is a process to cut the core samples into specified core with
required dimension of height. Figure 3.2 shows the cutting process consists of disc
cutter can become as a function of trimming the core samples. Deliberate cutting is
needed in regards to obtain samples with height-to-diameter ratio of approximately
2.0.
 23

Figure 3.2: Rock disc cutter

3.2.3 Lapping

After cutting process, lapping will be carried out using lapping machine as is
shown in Figure 3.3. Lapping is a process to ensure the finishing of the specimen
ends are complying with the standards as stated in ISRM (1985). According to
ISRM, the end of the samples surface should be perpendicular to the axis of the
specimen.
 24

Figure 3.3: Lapping machine

3.2.4 Sampling

For the sampling, the finished samples are then recorded its dimension (see
Figure 3.4). The background information of core samples prior to testing is
important. In this study, granite and limestone are tested. About 15 samples of
granite and 15 samples of limestone are tested for uniaxial compressive strength in
comply with ISRM standard accordingly. The granite samples are originated from
Tumpat, Kelantan. On the other hand, limestone originated from MRR2 site, Kuala
Lumpur. Table 3.1 shows the recorded dimension of the limestone and granite
samples prior to testing of uniaxial compressive strength.

Figure 3.4: Samples of limestone and granite prior to testing of uniaxial

compressive strength
 25

Table 3.1: Dimensions of the limestone and granite samples for uniaxial
compressive test (UCT)

Diameter Height Diameter Height

No. Sample No. No. Sample No.
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Jln Tok Bok
S1 P14 AC3
1 52.04 108.5 1 Selinsing (1) 51.81 105.75
Jln Tok Bok
S2 P22 BC1 52 51.8
2 105.00 2 Selinsing (2) 106.28
Jln Tok Bok
S2 P25 BC5 52 51.92
3 105.90 3 Selinsing (3) 106.02
Jln Tok Bok
52 51.84
4 S1 P11 AC2 106.00 4 Selinsing (4) 105.95
Jln Tok Bok
52 51.75
5 S2 P22 BC5 107.38 5 Selinsing (5) 106.15
Jln Tok Bok
6 S1 P16 AC3 52.04 108.5 6 Selinsing (6) 51.88 107.77
Jln Tok Bok
7 S1 P1A C5 51.89 108.02 7 Selinsing (7) 51.90 106.72
Jln Tok Bok
8 S1 P21A C1 52.14 105.56 8 Selinsing (8) 51.68 105.69
S1A BUT- Jln Tok Bok
9 AC5 51.83 106.94 9 Selinsing (9) 51.84 106.45
Jln Tok Bok
10 S1 P13A C5 51.73 109.01 10 Selinsing (10) 51.82 107.46
Jln Tok Bok
11 S3 P14 C2 51.71 110.54 11 Selinsing (11) 51.66 106.6
Jln Tok Bok
12 S1 P13A C1 52.01 105.4 12 Selinsing (12) 51.77 103.81
Jln Tok Bok
52 51.71
13 S1 P11A C3 106.49 13 Selinsing (14) 106.46
Jln Tok Bok
52 51.87
14 S2 P14B C4 105.70 14 Selinsing (15) 106.54
Jln Tok Bok
52 51.69
15 S2 P14B C2 105.76 15 Selinsing (16) 106.49

3.3 Tinius Olsen Super L Hydraulic Universal Testing Machine

Tinius Olsen or its popular name Super L Hydraulic Universal Testing

Machine is a standard machine to carry out uniaxial compressive strength test. It
features a patented dual-pressure hydraulic loading system and a rugged four-column
construction. Apart of that, the unique of this machine is that it features advanced
digital control and capability to support load ranging from 150kN until 3000kN as
indicated in Figure 3.5.
 26

Typically, this Super L has many control options ranging from remote
handheld controller with LCD (Model 602H) that enable positioning of the
adjustable crosshead, instrumentation and signal conditioners for display of position
and strain values and optional closed-loop servo control system with complete
software for PC-based control.

Super L systems are guaranteed to meet ASTM, ISO and other national and
international specifications for accuracy. It has fixed its accuracy within +/- 0.5% of
the indicated load from 0.2% to 100% of capacity. All equipments used to calibrate
the weighing and indicating systems of the Super L are traceable to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Figure 3.5: Tinius Olsen Super L Hydraulic Universal Testing Machine

 27

3.3.1 Components of universal testing machine

Basically, the machine consists of several components including remote

handheld controller (Model 620H), loading frame, power pack, load cell, data logger,
spherical seated plate and displacement transducer.

3.3.1.1 Remote handheld controller (Model 602H)

The handheld controller as can be seen in Figure 3.6 is a digital display which
can be controlled prior to test. It allows positioning of the adjustable crosshead,
opening and closing of the optional hydraulically actuated grips. It consists of a
portion of the 3-line LCD which reads force in lbf, N, or kgf in 10 mm high numbers.

Figure 3.6: Tinius Olsen Remote handheld controller (Model 602H)

and its schematic
 28

3.3.1.2 Loading frame

Loading frame comprises of four loading column which provides exceptional

frame rigidity, crosshead, piston or actuator, platen and load cell. The load frame has
the capability to sustain load which is greater than that of specimen to be tested. By
right, the load frame capacity should exceed the estimate of the strongest specimen to
be tested. Loading can be control by its frame because it has direct connection with
servo-controlled system and thus allowing a faster response time.

3.3.1.3 Power Pack (Hydraulic Power Unit)

A closed-loop hydraulic manifold which occupied accumulators is used to

minimize the response time of hydraulic commands to the loading piston. The
accumulator has many functions. The function of this power pack is to provide the
hydraulic flow to attain in a reasonable fast, short duration, control movement of the
piston due to control the failure rate of brittle specimens. The overall system is as
illustrated in Figure 3.7

Figure 3.7: Tinius Olsen power pack

 29

3.3.1.4 Load Cell

Load cell model TML with 2000kN capacity is used in between the sample
and lower platen of the compression at the lower portion of the compression
machines (Figure 3.8). The function of load cell is to measure the load applied to the
samples. For recording purposes, the load cell is connected to data logger.

Figure 3.8: Load cell model TML

3.3.1.5 Spherical seated platen

A spherical seated platen as is shown in Figure 3.9 is placed at upper loading

plate which is used to compensate for non-parallel bearing surfaces of the
compression specimens. The centre point of the specimen, the platen and the
spherical seat must be coincided. This is to ensure the load is evenly distributed on
the specimen.

Figure 3.9: Spherical plate

 30

3.3.1.6 Displacement transducer

The displacement transducer of model TML is placed at the lower platen

which its holder is attached to the compression machine. This transducer is used to
measure the vertical displacement of the platen and by right to indicate the
displacement of the samples due to loading.

3.3.1.7 Data Logger

The function of the data logger model TML is used to record and establish
printed data of the applied loads and also deformation.

3.3.2 Testing method

The uniaxial compressive strength test was carried out using the Tinius Olsen
Super L Hydraulic Universal Testing Machine. The procedures of operating the
testing machine are listed as below:

1. Apply power to machine and its accessories for testing purpose.

2. The sufficiency of space between the machines components, crosshead, tooling

and required position of equipment are checked prior to test.

3. After starting the pump motor, the 602 Machine home screens will appear. By

right, turn the pump on by pressing the [PUMP] key, and then pressing the

[RETURN] key. The piston should return to its starting position

approximately 12.7 mm above the bottom and the left side of the bottom status
 31

should show the machine in HOLD mode. All tests should be started from this
start position.

4. Press the [MENU] key and select Machine Control to set the closed
position rate control with Speed 1 and Speed 2.

5. Position the lower adjustable crosshead up or down using the motorized

crosshead controls; or . This is to make sure that the distance

between the surfaces of the compression platens is slightly greater than the
overall height of the specimen.

6. Place the specimen on lower platen in order for the specimen to be concentric
with the circular grooves in the platen.

7. Apply a small preload to the specimen in force control. This will help to seat
the specimen to the loading platens and the upper loading platen to the
spherically seated platen.

8. Install the displacement transducer (LVDT) onto the lower platen into the load
frame.

9. Before starting the test, set the machine with zero force and zero position by

pressing the [ZERO FORCE] key and [ZERO POSITION]

key. The screen will show zero in force and position.

10. Press the [TEST/CLEAR] key to place the 602 display into the READY
mode.
 32

11. Pressing the [UP] key once will start the test at the Speed 1 setting, and the

602 display will be in TEST mode. If necessary, press the [UP] key
again will cause the machine advance to the Speed 2 setting. To bring back the

machine to the Speed 1 setting, press the [DOWN] key.

12. Data logger will print out the results of applied load and axial displacement based
on the interval time setting. (i.e. print once every 10seconds)

13. The test is ended by pressing the [STOP] key. The 602 display will then
appear as the HOLD mode and hold that piston position.

14. Press the [RETURN] key when ready to return the piston to it starting
position.

15. The machine should always be left in its Starts Test (Home) Position until the
next test is ready to be started.

16. If any unexpected incident occurs, push the large red EMERGENCY STOP push
button which located on the left side of the hub station. To return the power to the
pumping unit, pull the button OUT.

3.4 Point-load test components

Point-load test comprises of loading system which include loading frame,

pump, ram and platen as is shown in the Figure 3.10. The function of this loading
system is to determine load, P under failure of rock specimen. Basically a rigid
 33

loading frame which is fixed with hydraulic jack provides some load in order to
bring the rock cylinder or disc to become failure in between two conical end platens.
A high pressure is applied to the hydraulic jack so that it permits determination of
failure load at digital display gauge.

Figure 3.10: Point-load test apparatus and schematic

3.4.1 Procedures of using point-load test

Several consideration has been taken before proceed the point-load index
strength test. Primarily, the height and diameter of rock samples are measured before
placed in between two conical platens. There a few steps are listed in pertinent of
using point-load index strength test.

1. After measuring the dimension of rock sample, the rock is now placed on the
lower platen. By using the pump lever, the jack piston is raised until the sample is
in contact with the two conical platens. The contact location depends on the type
of the test. For diametral test, the platen must make contact with the disc along its
diameter.
 34

2. The reference gauge display which was fixed above the loading frame indicates a
zero reading when the 2 conical platens are in contact. If not adjust it.

3. Jack handle is placed in its support and is increased steadily the load apply until
that failure occurs within 10 to 60 seconds. Pressure at peak failure as shown by
the digital gauge is recorded as P. The test is considered invalid if the fracture
surface passes through only one loading point.

4. When the test is over, the plunger is pushed on to its retracted position.

3.4.2 Sampling for point-load index strength test

For sampling, disc samples namely granite and limestone from the same
location are tested. About 15 granite and 15 limestone are tested in comply with
ISRM standard accordingly (see Figure 3.11). Table 3.2 shows the recorded
dimension of the limestone and granite samples prior to testing of point-load index
strength.

Figure 3.11: Samples of limestone and granite prior to testing of point-

load index strength
 35

Table 3.2: Dimensions of the limestone and granite samples for point-load
index strength test

Depth Width,
Depth,D Width,W
No. Sample No. No. Sample No. ,D W
(mm) (mm)
(mm) (mm)
Jln Tok Bok
S1 P14 AC3 24.81 51.73 25.95 51.72
1 1 Selinsing (1)
Jln Tok Bok
S2 P22 BC1
2 26.73 51.74 2 Selinsing (2) 26.40 51.82
Jln Tok Bok
S2 P25 BC5
3 27.37 51.55 3 Selinsing (3) 27.49 51.87
Jln Tok Bok
4 S1 P11 AC2 26.96 51.57 4 Selinsing (4) 27.44 51.96
Jln Tok Bok
5 S2 P22 BC5 26.30 51.71 5 Selinsing (5) 27.07 51.54
Jln Tok Bok
6 S1 P16 AC3 26.73 51.69 6 Selinsing (6) 26.99 51.80
Jln Tok Bok
7 S1 P1A C5 25.18 51.78 7 Selinsing (7) 25.18 51.78
Jln Tok Bok
8 S1 P21A C1 24.89 51.81 8 Selinsing (8) 27.32 51.48
S1A BUT- Jln Tok Bok
9 AC5 24.77 51.37 9 Selinsing (9) 27.55 51.83
Jln Tok Bok
10 S1 P13A C5 24.47 51.50 10 Selinsing (10) 28.84 51.82
Jln Tok Bok
11 S3 P14 C2 24.11 51.77 11 Selinsing (11) 27.70 51.88
Jln Tok Bok
12 S1 P13A C1 25.74 51.92 12 Selinsing (12) 25.60 51.60
Jln Tok Bok
13 S1 P11A C3 27.57 51.83 13 Selinsing (14) 27.14 51.63
Jln Tok Bok
14 S2 P14B C4 23.42 51.83 14 Selinsing (15) 27.06 51.78
Jln Tok Bok
15 S2 P14B C2 26.44 51.65 15 Selinsing (16) 27.30 51.66

3.5 Data Analysis

In this study, the data collected from the uniaxial compressive strength test
and point-load index strength test will be used to establish correlation factor for the
establish correlation. The uniaxial compressive strength is determined by loading the
sample under compression until failure occurs. The compressive strength is
calculated using the equation below:

= P/ Ao (3.2)
 36

where;
= Compressive stress (MPa)
P = Compressive force on the specimen (kN)
Ao = Initial cross-sectional area (m2)

On the other hand, for point-load index strength test, there are a few steps
involves to acquire corrected point-load index strength (Is50). For the first step, the
load at failure, P is determined from the point-load index strength test.

The uncorrected point-load index strength (Is) is calculated using equation

below:

Is = P/De2 (3.3)

where;
Is = point-load index strength in MPa
P = load at failure in kN
De = equivalent core diameter in mm

For diametral test, it is exceptional and therefore there is no corrections for

the diameter, D. Assumption has been made that equivalent core diameter De is as the
same as the original core diameter, D.

De2 = D2 (3.4)

Size Correction Factor, F should be made upon the sample since the
diameter of rock sample is greater than 50mm. Size Correction Factor can be
obtained from the following expression:

F = (De/50)0.45 (3.5)
 37

To obtain corrected point-load index strength (Is50), the corresponding

equation given should be followed:

Is50 = F x Is (3.6)

where;
Is50 = corrected point-load index strength in MPa
F = Size Correction Factor
Is = point-load index strength in MPa
 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, results obtained from the laboratory tests are discussed. As
mentioned in the Chapter 3, the executions of the experiments in the laboratory were
based on physical strength parameters. The results are presented in form of tables
and graphs. In addition, the correlation factor between uniaxial compressive strength
and point-load index strength for two types of rocks (limestone and granite) were
also presented. Analysis are interpreted and discussed wherever necessary.

4.2 Result of point-load index strength test

Table 4.1 summarises the result of point-load index strength test for
limestone which was collected from Pandan Indah, Kuala Lumpur. The number of
samples tested was 15 of them. Before testing, the disc-shaped samples were
measured its diameter and length by using vernier caliper. The disc-shaped was
selected for the test before proceed for the test. Diametral was selected because it is
recommended by ISRM (1985).

For the point-load index strength test, the results obtained were load, P in kN.
Before determining the size correction of the samples (Is50) in MPa, the parameters
load, (P) in kN, equivalent diameter for disc-shaped sample, (De), uncorrected point-
load index strength (Is) in MPa and size correction factor, (F) were determined. For
 39

the different boreholes where samples were collected, different corrected point-load
index strength (Is50) values were observed.

Table 4.1: Results of point-load index strength test for limestone

Depth,D Width,W Load, P De2 Is Is (50)

No. Sample No. F
(mm) (mm) (KN) (mm2) (Mpa) (Mpa)
1 S1 P14 AC3 24.8 51.7 4.4 1633.9 2.7 0.7 2.0
2 S2 P22 BC1 26.7 51.7 4.7 1760.7 2.7 0.8 2.0
3 S2 P25 BC5 27.4 51.6 4.7 1796.2 2.6 0.8 2.0
4 S1 P11 AC2 27.0 51.6 6.8 1770.0 3.8 0.8 2.9
5 S2 P22 BC5 26.3 51.7 4.2 1731.4 2.4 0.8 1.8
6 S1 P16 AC3 26.7 51.7 4.5 1759.0 2.6 0.8 1.9
7 S1 P1A C5 25.2 51.8 3.4 1659.9 2.1 0.7 1.5
8 S1 P21A C1 24.9 51.8 3.5 1641.7 2.1 0.7 1.5
S1A BUT-
1619.9 4.8 0.7 3.5
9 AC5 24.8 51.4 7.8
10 S1 P13A C5 24.5 51.5 4.3 1604.3 2.7 0.7 2.0
11 S3 P14 C2 24.1 51.8 4.9 1589.0 3.1 0.7 2.2
12 S1 P13A C1 25.7 51.9 4.5 1701.4 2.6 0.7 2.0
13 S1 P11A C3 27.6 51.8 3.8 1819.2 2.1 0.8 1.6
14 S2 P14B C4 23.4 51.8 7.5 1545.3 4.8 0.7 3.4
15 S2 P14B C2 26.4 51.7 3.7 1738.5 2.1 0.8 1.6

Table 4.2 summarises the result of point-load index strength test for granite
which was collected from Jalan Tok Bok Selinsing, Kelantan. The number of
samples being tested was 15 of them similar like limestone. The same procedures
goes on for granite and from the observation, there were various values in Is50.
 40

Table 4.2: Results of point-load index strength test for granite

Depth,D Width, Load, P De2 Is Is (50)

No. Sample No. F
(mm) W (mm) (KN) (mm2) (Mpa) (Mpa)
Jln Tok Bok
1 26.0 51.7 4.4 1708.6 2.6 0.7 1.9
Selinsing (1)
Jln Tok Bok
2 26.4 51.8 4.7 1741.6 2.7 0.8 2.0
Selinsing (2)
Jln Tok Bok
3 27.5 51.9 4.7 1815.3 2.6 0.8 2.0
Selinsing (3)
Jln Tok Bok
4 27.4 52.0 6.8 1815.1 3.7 0.8 2.8
Selinsing (4)
Jln Tok Bok
5 27.1 51.5 4.2 1776.2 2.4 0.8 1.8
Selinsing (5)
Jln Tok Bok
6 27.0 51.8 4.5 1779.9 2.5 0.8 1.9
Selinsing (6)
Jln Tok Bok
7 25.2 51.8 3.4 1659.9 2.1 0.7 1.5
Selinsing (7)
Jln Tok Bok
8 27.3 51.5 3.5 1790.5 1.9 0.8 1.5
Selinsing (8)
Jln Tok Bok
9 27.6 51.8 7.8 1817.8 4.3 0.8 3.3
Selinsing (9)
Jln Tok Bok
10 28.8 51.8 4.3 1902.6 2.3 0.8 1.8
Selinsing (10)
Jln Tok Bok
11 27.7 51.9 4.9 1829.5 2.7 0.8 2.1
Selinsing (11)
Jln Tok Bok
12 25.6 51.6 4.5 1681.7 2.7 0.7 2.0
Selinsing (12)
Jln Tok Bok
13 27.1 51.6 3.8 1783.9 2.1 0.8 1.6
Selinsing (14)
Jln Tok Bok
14 27.1 51.8 7.5 1783.8 4.2 0.8 3.2
Selinsing (15)
Jln Tok Bok
15 27.3 51.7 3.7 1795.4 2.1 0.8 1.6
Selinsing (16)

4.3 Result of uniaxial compressive strength test

Table 4.3 lists the results from uniaxial compressive strength test which was
conducted on limestone samples collected from Pandan Indah, Kuala Lumpur. The
result obtained from this test was uniaxial compressive strength in MPa. Before the
tests, diameter and length of samples were measured using vernier caliper. For the
uniaxial compressive test, the length: diameter ratio should be greater than 2 which
were according to ISRM (1985). Specifically, before computing for the compressive
stress, compressive force on samples in kN and initial cross-sectional area in m2 were
obtained. Samples display variations of uniaxial compressive strengths as they were
collected from different boreholes. This is expected for natural material like rock.
 41

Table 4.3: Results of uniaxial compressive strength test for limestone

Compressive
Sample Area Area
No. Diameter Height Compressive Stress,
No. (mm) (m)
(mm) (mm) Force, P (kN) (MPa)
S1 P14
1 52.0 108.5 76.9 2127.3 0.0021 36.2
AC3
S2 P22
2 52.0 105.0 151.9 2124.0 0.0021 71.5
BC1
S2 P25
3 52.0 105.9 148.9 2124.0 0.0021 70.1
BC5
S1 P11
4 52.0 106.0 102.9 2124.0 0.0021 48.5
AC2
S2 P22
5 52.0 107.4 153.9 2124.0 0.0021 72.5
BC5
S1 P16
6 52.0 108.5 115.9 2127.3 0.0021 54.5
AC3
S1 P1A
7 51.9 108.0 58.0 2115.0 0.0021 27.4
C5
S1 P21A
8 52.1 105.6 138.9 2135.4 0.0021 65.0
C1
S1A BUT-
9 51.8 106.9 119.9 2110.1 0.0021 56.8
AC5
S1 P13A
10 51.7 109.0 113.9 2102.0 0.0021 54.2
C5
S3 P14
11 51.7 110.5 184.9 2100.4 0.0021 88.0
C2
S1 P13A
12 52.0 105.4 110.9 2124.8 0.0021 52.2
C1
S1 P11A
13 52.0 106.5 97.9 2124.0 0.0021 46.1
C3
S2 P14B
14 52.0 105.7 110.9 2124.0 0.0021 52.2
C4
S2 P14B
15 52.0 105.8 82.9 2124.0 0.0021 39.0
C2

Table 4.4 shows results from uniaxial compressive strength test which was
conducted on samples from Jalan Tok Bok Selinsing, Kelantan. The number of
samples being tested was 15 of them similar like limestone. The same procedures
goes on for granite and from the observation, there were various values in
compressive strength. The uniaxial compressive strength in MPa for granite displays
bigger values compared to limestone.
 42

Table 4.4: Results of uniaxial compressive strength test for granite

Compressive
No. Sample No. Diameter Height Compressive Area Area Stress,
(mm) (mm) Force, P (kN) (mm) (m) (MPa)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 105.8 187.9 2108.5 0.0021 89.1
1 Selinsing (1)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 106.3 156.4 2107.7 0.0021 74.2
2 Selinsing (2)
Jln Tok Bok
51.9 106.0 162.2 2117.5 0.0021 76.6
3 Selinsing (3)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 106.0 131.9 2110.9 0.0021 62.5
4 Selinsing (4)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 106.2 147.9 2103.6 0.0021 70.3
5 Selinsing (5)
Jln Tok Bok
51.9 107.8 217.8 2114.2 0.0021 103.0
6 Selinsing (6)
Jln Tok Bok
51.9 106.7 162.9 2115.8 0.0021 77.0
7 Selinsing (7)
Jln Tok Bok
51.7 105.7 185.9 2097.9 0.0021 88.6
8 Selinsing (8)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 106.5 201.9 2110.9 0.0021 95.7
9 Selinsing (9)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 107.5 212.5 2109.3 0.0021 100.7
10 Selinsing(10)
Jln Tok Bok
51.7 106.6 134.9 2096.3 0.0021 64.4
11 Selinsing(11)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 103.8 232.7 2105.2 0.0021 110.5
12 Selinsing(12)
Jln Tok Bok
51.7 106.5 242.8 2100.4 0.0021 115.6
13 Selinsing(13)
Jln Tok Bok
51.9 106.5 208.9 2113.4 0.0021 98.9
14 Selinsing(14)
Jln Tok Bok
51.7 106.5 201.6 2098.7 0.0021 96.1
15 Selinsing(15)

4.4 Correlation factor for limestone and granite

The correlation between uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and point-load

index strength (Is50) can be obtained by plotting both values versus each other.
Therefore, graph UCS versus Is50 for limestone are plotted as a way to identify the
pattern of the correlation as shown in Figure 4.1. In Figure 4.1, the values of UCS
and Is50 for 15 samples of limestone have been plotted. It is noted the data is
scattered unevenly for UCS most probably due to difference of mineralogy or texture
that contains in the limestone for example different percentage in calcite content for
various boreholes. Figure 4.1 shows the correlation envelope of limestone base on
point-load index strength and uniaxial compressive strength respectively. Both
 43

graphical plots not clearly classify and verify the equivalent correlation factors of
limestone due to some factors:
i. Data is widely scattered unevenly most probably lack of data samples.
ii. Upper envelope which display in yellow colour shows linear equation,
y = 33.29x + 12.91
iii. Lower envelope which display in blue colour exhibits linear equation as,
y = 12.85x + 8.02

UCS versus Is50

100
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa)

90
y = 33.291x + 12.911
80

70

60

50
y = 12.845x + 8.025
40

30

20

10

0
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Point-Load Index Strength (MPa)

Figure 4.1: Correlation for limestone between UCS and Is(50)

From Figure 4.2 depicted here, it can be inferred that the correlation factors
for granite was not clearly present the statistical significance of the relationship. This
is because granite too has variations on strength namely for UCS for the same
boreholes. It can be interpreted that for variations in strength displayed by UCS and
Is(50) mainly because due to presence of difference minerals composed in granite.
Generally granite comprises of quartz, plagioclase feldspar, orthoclase feldspar,
biotite mica and muscovite mica. Different minerals contribute to different strength
and normally for grade 1 granite exhibit higher in strength due to dense interlocking
fabric presence in the granite. However, insignificant strength for granite and both
 44

graphical plots which not clearly classify and verify the equivalent correlation factors
of 15 samples of granite maybe occurs due to some reasons:
i. Insufficient of data samples.
ii. Upper envelope which display in yellow colour shows linear equation,
y = 9.46x + 73.88
iv. Lower envelope which display in blue colour exhibits linear equation as,
y = 14.16x + 16.50
iii. Possible errors of sampling technique.
iv. Presence of various mineral proportion and orientation.

UCS versus Is50

120
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa)

y = 9.46x + 73.876
100

80

60
y = 14.156x + 16.496

40

20

0
1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5
Point-Load Index Strength (MPa)
Figure 4.2: Correlation for granite between UCS and Is(50)

4.5 Discussion on test result

For strong rocks like granite and limestone, the Is(50) varies between 1.5-3.3
MPa and 1.5-3.5 MPa respectively and UCS varies between 62.5-115.6 MPa and
27.4-88.0 MPa respectively. In order to build the empirical correlation between
point-load index strength and uniaxial compressive strength, the comparison of the
 45

average strength for each of the different rock types have been undertaken. Tests on
15 samples of limestone and granite in this study indicates that correlation factor of
point-load index strength (Is50) to uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) could not be
verified compared with previous authors as reviewed in Chapter 2. For this study, the
correlation between UCS and Is50 is not in very clear state for both limestone and
granite.

Although limestone exhibits variation in UCS and Is50 value, however the
correlation factor obtained by linear regression is not clearly lies within a range of
16-29 for general established of correlation. In this study, the correlation factor K for
limestone is in the boundary of upper envelope and lower envelope. For granite also
implies the similar trend as limestone whereby the correlation factor, K is not
subjected to general established of correlation. The empirical correlation factor of
granite is expressed in the boundary of upper envelope and lower envelope too.

By referring to the studies undertaken by (Broch and Franklin, 1972), there is

a correlation factor between uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and point-load
index strength Is50 for various rock types. The correlation factor, K varies with the
strength of the rock. The trend, therefore, is not clearly classified and verify
multiplication factor, K for both rock samples of fresh state grade 1.

More specifically, it can be inferred that the previous correlation factors

should not be used indiscriminately and should not be treated as universal constant. It
is understood that correlation factor between point-load index strength and uniaxial
compressive strength for the different types of rock are generally varies which are
also implies non-uniform in strength by nature. It can also be recognized that the
inclusion of weathering grade 1 of rock samples for correlation between point-load
index strength and uniaxial compressive strength together with insufficient data
altered the insignificance of correlation.
 46

It should be noted that since the rock samples being tested are fresh rock, the
correlation is not good as predicted in this study and therefore it is not clearly valid
for conversion of Is(50) to UCS for grade 1.

Due to strength variability in the relevant tests, then, this can be explained in
terms of the compactness of mineralogy in sample. Basically, minerals are inorganic
substances with unique fixed chemical compositions. Mineral characteristics
influence the engineering properties of a rock especially when the mineral forms a
significant part of rock. Mineralogy was the factor that influences the rocks type,
colour, strength and other properties. Limestone mainly composed of calcite and
granite has coarser grained with quartz is the main mineral content. The variations of
mineralogy or various proportions of arrangement of mineralogy in rock samples can
affect strength of rock.

Apart of that, degree of cementation defines as mineralogy of bonding or

cementing material which is important property that controls strength. It is believed
that quartz provides the strongest bonding followed by calcite and ferrous minerals.
In this study, provided with improper correlation between UCS and Is(50) for both
rock samples implies that there is some lacking in degree of cementation (such with
the presence of quartz in granite and calcite cement in limestone) which usually
exhibit higher in strength.

To obtain a flow of better strength, micro fissure need to be clarified for the
design of laboratory strength test for grade 1 of both rock samples. Theoretically,
there is no existence of fissures for grade 1 of rock samples. The impact of poor
correlation maybe influenced by minority of rock samples which have been
weathered to a certain degree although early assumption was grade 1 for all rock type
being investigated.

Linearity of equation is expected in this study due to lack of data. Rock

samples namely limestone and granite being investigated are consist of 15 samples
only. Therefore, due to insufficient of rock samples in the laboratory, the possibility
 47

of results in correlation between UCS and Is50 is in the boundary with separate of
strength envelope. Unlike for previous studies, some correlations are in the form of
non-linear due to presence of packed data.
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

5.1 Introduction

Strength tests on limestone and granite using point-load index strength and
uniaxial compressive strength have been carried out in order to obtain correlation
factor between these strengths for the two rock types. Uniaxial compressive strength
is the most fundamental properties of rock strength. However a reasonable estimate
of the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock can be estimated from point-load
index strength test. The conversion factor, K for an establish correlation between
uniaxial compressive strength and point-load index strength for all rock types
generally lies between 16-29.

Based on this study, it is found that different types of rocks exhibits different
value of conversion factor between uniaxial compressive strength and point-load
index strength. Although this study has not clearly fulfilled the main objectives,
some recommendations are highlighted for further verifications and improvement of
the findings obtain at this stage.
 49

5.2 Conclusion

The following conclusions can be inferred as:

1. Point-load index strength and uniaxial compressive strength for limestone and
granite has been successfully carried out. The relevant tests were undertaken
on grade 1 (fresh) rock sample. However the variations in strength for both
rock samples implies that there must be possible errors during sampling
techniques at laboratory.

2. Correlation does not clearly exits between UCS and Is50.

3. From the laboratory investigation, it is not clearly verified K factor for

limestone which was collected from Pandan Indah, Kuala Lumpur is falls in
the envelope of boundary which presence upper envelope with equation of y
= 33.29x + 12.91and for lower envelope is in equation of y = 12.85x + 8.02.

4. Similar trend goes for granite which was collected from Jalan Tok Bok
Selinsing, Kelantan not clearly displays conversion factor, K in the envelope
of boundary which presence upper envelope with equation of y = 9.46x +
73.88 and for lower envelope is in equation of y = 14.16x + 16.50. Although
tests were on fresh rock samples, however a lower K value can be expected if
rocks are weathered to a certain degree.

Weathering will associate with the change of rock strength and result in the
weakening of rock. In this study, both limestone and granite have not clearly in
reasonable of significance relationship and poor correlation due to presence of
insignificant of scattered strength data.
 50

5.3 Recommendations for future study

For further study in this particular field, petrographic examination on rock

samples should be conducted due to well developed nature of foliation plane that
assembles the characteristic of studied rock. In order to build an accurate empirical
relationship of conversion factor between point-load index strength and uniaxial
compressive strength, the types of samples being tested should take into account for
example separating results from axial and diametral of testing. For perfect
correlation, a number of rock samples should be added.
 51

REFERENCES

Alfreds, R. J., (1983). Rock Mechanics Second Edition, pp.13, 14, 45, 169.
Bell, F.G., (1992). Ground Engineers Reference Book. London: Butterworth and Co.
(Publishers) Ltd.
Blatt, H. and Tracy, J. R., (1994). Sedimentary Rock. Petrology: Igneous, Sedimentary
and Metamorphic. United States. Freeman, 2nd Edition.
Broch, E. and Franklin, J. A., (1972). The Point Load Strength Test. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci., vol. 9, pp.669-698.
Brook, N., (1980). Size Correction for Point Load Testing. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.19, pp.231-235.
Bieniawski, Z. T., (1975). The Point Load Test in Geotechnical Practice. Engineering
Geology. 9, pp.1-11.
Deere, D. U. and Miller, R. F., (1966). Engineering Classification and Index
Properties for Intact Rock. New Mexico. Tech. Rept. No. AFWL-TR-65-116.
Air Force Weapons Lab., Kirtland AFB.
Franklin, J. A., Broch, E. and Walton, G., (1971). Logging the mechanical character
of rock. Trans. Inst. Min. Met. London. Vol. 80A, pp. 1-8.
Foster, I. R., (1983). The influence of core sample geometry on the axial point-load
test. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.20, pp.291-295.
Greminger, M., (1982). Experimental studies of the Influence of Rock Anisotropy on
Size and Shape Effects in Point-Load Testing. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. Abstr.19, pp.241-246.
Hassani, F. P., Scoble, M. J. and Whittaker, B. N., (1980). Application of the Point
Load Index Test to Strength Determination of Rock and Proposals for a new
Size-Correction Chart. The State of the Art in Rock Mechanics. U.S.A.
Proceedings of the 21st U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, pp.543-553.
 52

Hamzah, U., Lee, C. R. and Rafek, A. G., (2007). Some Physical and Mechanical
Properties of Coarse Grained Granite of Kuala Kubu Bharu, Selangor. UKM.
Sains Malaysia. Vol, 36 (1).
Hoek, E., (1977). Rock Mechanics Laboratory Testing in the Context of a Consulting
Engineering Organization. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr.14,
pp.93-101.
International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM), (1985). Suggested Methods for
Determining Point Load Strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech.
Abstr. 22, pp.53-90.
International Society of Rock Mechanics (ISRM), (1981). Rock Characterization,
Testing and Monitoring: ISRM Suggested Methods. Oxford. Pergamon Press.
IAEG (1981). Rock and soil description and classification for engineering geological
mapping. Report by IAEG commission on Engineering Geological Mapping).
Bull. IAEG.
Komoo, I., (1995). Weathering as an important factor in assessing engineering
properties of rock materials. Forum on Soil and Rock Properties, Geological
Society Malaysia. Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Pells, P. J. N., (1975). The Use of Point Load Test in Predicting the Compressive
Strength of Rock Materials. Australia. Geomech. J. G5 (N1), pp.54-56.
Price, D. G., (1970). The Application of Seismic Method in the Design of Rock Bolt
System. International Association of Engineering Geology. Volume 2.
Read, J. R. L., Thornton, P. N. and Regan, W. M., (1980). A Rational Approach to the
Point Load Test. Australia-New Zealand. Geomech. Conf.2, pp.35-39.
Ronald, L. B., (2005). Rock and Gem. Great Britain: Darling Kindersley Limited
Company.
Singh, J., Ramamurthy, T., Rao, G. V., (1987). Strength anisotropies in rocks. Indian
Geotech J 19: 147-166.
Shakoor, A., Bonelli, R. E., (1991). Relationship between Petrographic
Characteristics, Engineering Index Properties and Mechanical Properties of
Selected Sandstone. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists.
Stillborg, B., (1985). Professional Users Handbook for Rock Bolting. Federal
Republic of Germany: Trans Tech Publications.
 53

Touloukian, Y. S. and C. Y. Ho, (1981). Physical Properties of Rocks and Mineral

(Vol. 2). United States of America: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Waltham, T., (2002). Foundations of engineering geology. London: Spon Press.
APPENDICES
 55

APPENDIX A

Results of point-load index strength test for limestone

Depth,D Width,W Load, P De2 Is Is (50)

No. Sample No. F
(mm) (mm) (KN) (mm2) (Mpa) (Mpa)
1 S1 P14 AC3 24.8 51.7 4.4 1633.9 2.7 0.7 2.0
2 S2 P22 BC1 26.7 51.7 4.7 1760.7 2.7 0.8 2.0
3 S2 P25 BC5 27.4 51.6 4.7 1796.2 2.6 0.8 2.0
4 S1 P11 AC2 27.0 51.6 6.8 1770.0 3.8 0.8 2.9
5 S2 P22 BC5 26.3 51.7 4.2 1731.4 2.4 0.8 1.8
6 S1 P16 AC3 26.7 51.7 4.5 1759.0 2.6 0.8 1.9
7 S1 P1A C5 25.2 51.8 3.4 1659.9 2.1 0.7 1.5
8 S1 P21A C1 24.9 51.8 3.5 1641.7 2.1 0.7 1.5
S1A BUT-
1619.9 4.8 0.7 3.5
9 AC5 24.8 51.4 7.8
10 S1 P13A C5 24.5 51.5 4.3 1604.3 2.7 0.7 2.0
11 S3 P14 C2 24.1 51.8 4.9 1589.0 3.1 0.7 2.2
12 S1 P13A C1 25.7 51.9 4.5 1701.4 2.6 0.7 2.0
13 S1 P11A C3 27.6 51.8 3.8 1819.2 2.1 0.8 1.6
14 S2 P14B C4 23.4 51.8 7.5 1545.3 4.8 0.7 3.4
15 S2 P14B C2 26.4 51.7 3.7 1738.5 2.1 0.8 1.6

Results of point-load index strength test for granite

Load,
No Depth, Width,W De2 Is (50)
Sample No. P Is (Mpa) F
. D (mm) (mm) (mm2) (Mpa)
(KN)
Jln Tok Bok
1 26.0 51.7 4.4 1708.6 2.6 0.7 1.9
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
2 26.4 51.8 4.7 1741.6 2.7 0.8 2.0
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
3 27.5 51.9 4.7 1815.3 2.6 0.8 2.0
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
4 27.4 52.0 6.8 1815.1 3.7 0.8 2.8
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
5 27.1 51.5 4.2 1776.2 2.4 0.8 1.8
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
6 27.0 51.8 4.5 1779.9 2.5 0.8 1.9
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
7 25.2 51.8 3.4 1659.9 2.1 0.7 1.5
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
8 27.3 51.5 3.5 1790.5 1.9 0.8 1.5
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
9 27.6 51.8 7.8 1817.8 4.3 0.8 3.3
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
10 28.8 51.8 4.3 1902.6 2.3 0.8 1.8
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
11 27.7 51.9 4.9 1829.5 2.7 0.8 2.1
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
12 25.6 51.6 4.5 1681.7 2.7 0.7 2.0
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
13 27.1 51.6 3.8 1783.9 2.1 0.8 1.6
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
14 27.1 51.8 7.5 1783.8 4.2 0.8 3.2
Selinsing
Jln Tok Bok
15 27.3 51.7 3.7 1795.4 2.1 0.8 1.6
Selinsing (16)
 56

Results of uniaxial compressive strength test for limestone

Compressive
Area Area
No. Sample No. Diameter Height Compressive Stress,
(mm) (m)
(mm) (mm) Force, P (kN) (MPa)
1 S1 P14 AC3 52.0 108.5 76.9 2127.3 0.0021 36.2
2 S2 P22 BC1 52.0 105.0 151.9 2124.0 0.0021 71.5
3 S2 P25 BC5 52.0 105.9 148.9 2124.0 0.0021 70.1
4 S1 P11 AC2 52.0 106.0 102.9 2124.0 0.0021 48.5
5 S2 P22 BC5 52.0 107.4 153.9 2124.0 0.0021 72.5
6 S1 P16 AC3 52.0 108.5 115.9 2127.3 0.0021 54.5
7 S1 P1A C5 51.9 108.0 58.0 2115.0 0.0021 27.4
8 S1 P21A C1 52.1 105.6 138.9 2135.4 0.0021 65.0
S1A BUT-
9 51.8 106.9 119.9 2110.1 0.0021 56.8
AC5
10 S1 P13A C5 51.7 109.0 113.9 2102.0 0.0021 54.2
11 S3 P14 C2 51.7 110.5 184.9 2100.4 0.0021 88.0
12 S1 P13A C1 52.0 105.4 110.9 2124.8 0.0021 52.2
13 S1 P11A C3 52.0 106.5 97.9 2124.0 0.0021 46.1
14 S2 P14B C4 52.0 105.7 110.9 2124.0 0.0021 52.2
15 S2 P14B C2 52.0 105.8 82.9 2124.0 0.0021 39.0

Results of uniaxial compressive strength test for granite

Compressive
No. Sample No. Diameter Height Compressive Area Area Stress,
(mm) (mm) Force, P (kN) (mm) (m) (MPa)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 105.8 187.9 2108.5 0.0021 89.1
1 Selinsing (1)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 106.3 156.4 2107.7 0.0021 74.2
2 Selinsing (2)
Jln Tok Bok
51.9 106.0 162.2 2117.5 0.0021 76.6
3 Selinsing (3)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 106.0 131.9 2110.9 0.0021 62.5
4 Selinsing (4)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 106.2 147.9 2103.6 0.0021 70.3
5 Selinsing (5)
Jln Tok Bok
51.9 107.8 217.8 2114.2 0.0021 103.0
6 Selinsing (6)
Jln Tok Bok
51.9 106.7 162.9 2115.8 0.0021 77.0
7 Selinsing (7)
Jln Tok Bok
51.7 105.7 185.9 2097.9 0.0021 88.6
8 Selinsing (8)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 106.5 201.9 2110.9 0.0021 95.7
9 Selinsing (9)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 107.5 212.5 2109.3 0.0021 100.7
10 Selinsing(10)
Jln Tok Bok
51.7 106.6 134.9 2096.3 0.0021 64.4
11 Selinsing(11)
Jln Tok Bok
51.8 103.8 232.7 2105.2 0.0021 110.5
12 Selinsing(12)
Jln Tok Bok
51.7 106.5 242.8 2100.4 0.0021 115.6
13 Selinsing(13)
Jln Tok Bok
51.9 106.5 208.9 2113.4 0.0021 98.9
14 Selinsing(14)
Jln Tok Bok
51.7 106.5 201.6 2098.7 0.0021 96.1
15 Selinsing(15)
 57

APPENDIX B

Correlation for limestone between UCS and Is(50)

UCS versus Is50

Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa) 100

90
y = 33.291x + 12.911
80

70

60

50
y = 12.845x + 8.025
40

30

20

10

0
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
Point-Load Index Strength (MPa)

Correlation for granite between UCS and Is(50)

UCS versus Is50

120
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (MPa)

y = 9.46x + 73.876
100

80

60
y = 14.156x + 16.496

40

20

0
1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5
Point-Load Index Strength (MPa)