ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 10071014 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical Note

New considerations on the use of block punch index for predicting the uniaxial compressive strength of rock material
H. Sonmez, C. Tunusluoglu
Applied Geology Division, Department of Geological Engineering, Hacettepe University, 06800 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey Received 28 May 2007; received in revised form 1 November 2007; accepted 6 November 2007 Available online 20 February 2008

1. Introduction Although the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rock material is not used as a design parameter directly, the UCS of the rock material plays a vital role in the design stage of construction of tunnels, high slopes and foundations in/on rock masses as an input parameter of some empirical approaches such as RMR, RMi and the HoekBrown failure criterion [13]. The UCS of the rock materials has been also preferred as an input parameter for prediction of the elastic modulus of the rock material or rock mass by some empirical approaches [39], due to the strong relation between the UCS and the elastic modulus. Therefore, the UCS is indispensable and vital parameter in rock engineering projects. As is well known, the UCS of the rock material is determined by laboratory tests employed on standard cores obtained from rock material in accordance to the ISRM [10]. However, preparation of standard rock material cores from weak heavily jointed and/or thinly bedded rock masses is almost impossible. The point load index test is one of the practical tests that can be directly applied on small irregular-shaped block specimens for determination of the UCS of rock material. Bieniawski [11] indicated that the UCS of the rock material can be estimated by using point load index (IS50) and the average conversion factor of 24. It is obviously known that the conversion factor between the UCS and the IS50 varies between about 10 and 50, depending on the types of the rock material [1120]. Therefore, some additional studies should be performed on the relation between IS50 and UCS, considering the type of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 297 77 00; fax: +90 312 299 20 34. E-mail address: haruns@hacettepe.edu.tr (H. Sonmez).

the rock material, to increase reliability of the conversion factor to be used for indirect determination of the UCS from the IS50. Another index test to be used for predicting of the UCS during eld studies is the Schmidt hammer test. Although the Schmidt hammer test is extremely practical and applicable in the eld, it also includes high prediction error due to the use of compact energy on a small area of rock surface. In addition, it cannot be condently used on thinly bedded and coarse granular or fenocrystalline rocks. The block punch index (BPI) test is a new test in the rock mechanics literature to be used for estimation of the UCS for the rock material. In this study, the conceptual limitations on the use of the BPI for predicting the UCS in its existing form are discussed, and an alternative equation is proposed to overcome these limitations. 2. Historical development of BPI test The initial studies on the use of punch test for the determination of shear strength of disk-shaped rock material were followed by Mazanti and Sowers[21], Vutukuri et al. [22] and Stacey [23], after the rst study performed by Lacharite [24]. The relations between the UCS, the Brazilian tensile strength (BTS) and the BPI were investigated on samples prepared from various rock materials by van der Schrier [25]. The empirical relation proposed by van der Schrier [25] is given by UCS 6:1BPI 3:3. (1) After this initial study on the use of the BPI for determination of the UCS, the rst comprehensive study was started by Gokceoglu [26], and completed by the studies performed by Ulusay and Gokceoglu [27] and Sulukcu and Ulusay [28]. The latest form of the BPI test procedure was accepted as suggested method by the ISRM

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.11.001

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1008 H. Sonmez, C. Tunusluoglu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 10071014

[29]. Gokceoglu [26] investigated the size effect of the disk specimens on the values of the BPI by using 797 BPI data obtained from particularly weak rock materials collected from four different regions. An empirical formulation was produced by Gokceoglu [26] for correction of the BPI value depending on the size of the disk specimen. In addition to the size correction on the BPI, the relation between the corrected BPI (BPIc) and the UCS was also investigated using 127 data pairs by Gokceoglu [26]. The empirical equations proposed by Gokceoglu [26] are given by BPI c 3353D1:3687 t1:157 F t;D , UCS 5:25 BPI c , (2a) (2b)

where D is disk diameter in mm, t is the disk thickness in mm, and F is failure force in kN; the BPI and the UCS are in MPa. Further studies were performed by Ulusay and Gokceoglu [27] using additional data for generalization of the results obtained by Gokceoglu [26]. The numbers of data in the database, which were used for the improvement on the size effect and the relation between the BPI and the UCS, reached about 1900 for the BPI and about 350 for the UCS. The variety of rock types was also increased to 25 by samples obtained from igneous, volcanic, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks [27]. Ulusay and Gokceoglu [27] improved the conversion factor between the UCS and the BPIc (Eq. (3)) without any change in the form of the equation proposed by Gokceoglu [26]: UCS 5:5BPI c . (3)

Finally, Sulukcu and Ulusay [28] and Ulusay et al. [30] modied the equations, which were considered in ISRM [29], by considering additional data obtained from more different rock types (Eqs. (4a and b)). The number of additional BPI and UCS values produced by Sulukcu and Ulusay [28] are 2620 and 234, respectively: BPI c 3499D1:3926 t1:1265 F t;D , UCS 5:1BPI c . (4a) (4b)

Fig. 1. (a) A general view of the BPI test apparatus, (b) a view of the base support with xed specimen, and (c) the BPI testing in point load test device.

As can be seen from the equations given above, although many additional data were included into the database established by Gokceoglu [26], similar conversion factors were obtained by further studies. The main restrictive point of the latest equation is that the same UCS is obtained for two different rock materials when their BPI values are the same, due to the use of a unique conversion factor. The reasons for this limitation are discussed in detail below. 3. The failure mechanism in BPI test To understand the failure mechanism of disk samples under shear loading condition in the BPI test apparatus, the test equipment and method are explained briey herein. Compressive loading is applied on disc sample xed on the

Fig. 2. Schematic illustrations of the BPI test specimens before and after failure.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Sonmez, C. Tunusluoglu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 10071014 1009

base support by clamping bars (Fig. 1). Application of the compression loading within 1060 s as suggested by the ISRM [10] fails the disc sample along two rectangular sides as a result of the shearing force (Fig. 2).

Although the type of loading applied on the disk specimen xed in the BPI test apparatus is compressive, the dominant type of force occurred on two rectangular failure surfaces should be shear as can be seen from the

Fig. 3. (a) An unit element under minor and major stress with pure shear planes, and the representation of Mohr circle for unit element. (b) The orientation of unit element on disc specimen analyzed by FEM [26]. (c) The compression loading direction shown on failed disk specimen. Table 1 List of data including mi parameter calculated by triaxial test results or back analyses Location Limra Afyon Manavgat-antalya Ankara Ankara Soma-Manisa Soma-Manisa Baskoyak (upper zone) Baskoyak (lower zone) Yatagan-Mugla Yatagan- Mugla
a b

Type of rock material Limestone Travertine Limestone Andesite Sandstone Marn Marn Schists Schist Marn Laminated Marn

UCS (MPa) 35.6 35.8 22.0 64.5 46.3 40.2a,b 56.3a,b 5.2b 7.5b 4.5b 4.1b

mi 8.45 11.70 8.32 22.19 15.43 9.04a,b,c 9.38a,b 7.00c,d 7.00c,d 9.87c 9.87c

BPIc (MPa) 9.1 10.8 6.4 10.3 6.1 8.46b 11b 1.05b 2.57b 1.16b 1.03b

cHB (MPa) 7.21 6.29 4.49 8.42 7.17 7.91 10.9 1.14 1.64 0.85 0.78

Sonmez [47]. Gokceoglu [26]. c Sonmez et al. [36]. d Obtained by back analyses of slope failure.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1010 H. Sonmez, C. Tunusluoglu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 10071014

Fig. 4. Comparison between the cHB and the BPIc.

Fig. 5. Explanation shown on the failure envelope for the limitation of the equation having unique conversion factor.

schematic cross-section of the BPI test (Fig. 2). Disc specimens having various thicknesses were investigated by Sulukcu and Ulusay [28] using nite element analysis (FEM) to clarify the failure mechanisms in the BPI test. As is well known from literature, pure shear surfaces are located between major and minor stress with an inclination of 457f/2 within a loaded unit element (Fig. 3a). According to the Sulukcu and Ulusay [28], the dominant stresses developed within a loaded disk specimen are tensile (minor principal stress) and compressive (major principal stress) at the upper and the lower parts of the disc specimen (Fig. 3b). As can be seen from Fig. 3b, when the orientation of minor and major principal stresses occurred within a FEM structure are coincided with the orientation of minor and major principal stresses of an unit element, possible shear failure surfaces of the unit element is obtained as nearly parallel that of in FEM structure. In addition to FEM evaluations, direction of the loading is obtained as parallel with the failure surface of the disc specimen tested by the BPI test procedure (Fig. 3c). This can be evaluated as an additional argument about the dominant failure mechanism of the disc specimen tested in the BPI test apparatus. In this study, the failure mechanism concluded above is also investigated by the relation between instantaneous cohesion (cHB) for zero normal stress obtained from equation of the HoekBrown failure criterion and the BPIc. A series of literature data including the mi parameter of the Hoek and Brown failure criterion, the UCS and the BPIc were complied with data produced by laboratory test employed in this study on ve different rock materials (Table 1). As can be seen from Fig. 4, 80% of the BPIc can be accepted to be about equal to the cHB. In other words, the BPIc can be evaluated as the upper limit for the cHB. By considering whole evaluations given above, it can be concluded that the dominant failure mechanism in the BPI test is dominantly shear, although it is not pure shear.

Fig. 6. The failure envelope showing the high relation between the mi and the UCS, and possible zone of the BPI failure.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Sonmez, C. Tunusluoglu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 10071014 1011

4. Alternative equation considering rock type Although, Sulukcu and Ulusay [28] do not refer the BPI test for determination of accurate shear strength of rock

material, it can be strongly indicated that there is a good correlation between the BPIc and the cHB for zero normal stress (Fig. 4). Although, the BPI test cannot be used to determine accurate shear strength of the rock material, empirically 80% of BPIc value can be used as average value of the cHB.

Fig. 7. The relation between cHB/UCS and the mi based on the Hoek and Brown failure equation for rock material.

Fig. 8. Variation of the conversion factor depending on the mi for Ulusay et al. [30] and this study.

Table 2 Values of the constant mi for intact rock, by rock group [44]
Rock type Class Group Texture Coarse Sedimentary Clastic Conglomerates (2173) Breccias (1975) Non-clastic Carbonates Evaporites Organic Metamorphic Non-foliated Slightly foliated Foliatedb Igneous Plutonic Marble 973 Migmatitie (2973) Gneiss 2875 Light Dark Hypabyssal Volcanic Porphyries (2075) Lava Pyroclastic Agglomerate (1973) Hornfels (1974) Metasandstone (1973) Amphibolites 2676 Schists 1273 Granite 3273 Granodiorite (2973) Gabbro 2773 Norite 2075 Diabase (1575) Rhyolite (2575) Andesite 2575 Breccia (1975) Peridotite (2575) Dacite (2573) Basalt (2575) Tuff (1375) Obsidian (1973) Phyllites (773) Diorite 2575 Diorite (1675) Slates 774 Crystalline Limestone (1273) Sparitic Limestones (1072) Gypsum 872 Quartzites (2073) Micritic Limestones (972) Anhydrite 1272 Chalk 1272
a

Medium Sandstones 1774

Fine Silstones 772 Greywackes (1873)

Very ne Claystones (472) Shales (672) Marls (772) Dolomites (973)

Note that values in parentheses are estimates (Hoek, 2007). a Conglomerates and breccias may present a wide range of mi values depending on the nature of the cementing material and the degree of cementation, so they may range from values similar to sandstone to values used for ne grained sediments. b These values are for intract rock specimens tested normal to bedding or foliation. The value of mi will be signicantly different if failure occurs along a weakness plane.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1012 H. Sonmez, C. Tunusluoglu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 10071014

The instantaneous internal friction angle is obtained as 55.11 for zero normal stress when the equations of cHB 0.8BPIc and UCS 5.1BPIc are considered (Fig. 5). As is well known, the internal friction angle of the rock materials vary depending on the types of the rock materials. This is an important limitation of the existing equation considered in ISRM [30] for determination of the UCS from the BPIc. Two assumptions are accepted in this study to produce an alternative equation for determination of the UCS from the BPIc value by considering rock type. The cHB is assumed equal to 80% of BPIc for the rock material, and the HoekBrown failure criterion is valid for the rock material. During the last quarter century, to overcome some limitations and to improve applicability of the criterion to weak rock masses, some modications were performed by both the originators of the failure criterion and some other researchers [3144]. The latest form of the HoekBrown equation [40] for the rock material is considered in this study.

The general inclination of failure envelope of the HoekBrown failure criterion is mainly controlled by the mi parameter [38,39]. The Mohr circle representing the UCS is highly sensitive to the mi value for the same cHB ($0.8BPIc) of the rock material (Fig. 6). The strength (or type of failure) distribution on a rectangular crosssection of the BPI disks specimen is also schematically shown in Fig. 6. The relations among the cHB, the UCS and the mi parameter are investigated by a database produced from the latest form of the HoekBrown failure criterion [40] for the rock material using Balmers equation [45]. The relation between the mi parameter and the ratio of the cHB to the UCS is given by (Fig. 7) cHB 0:4414m0:3824 . i UCS (5)

By replacing the cHB with the BPIc considering empirical equation of cHB 0.8BPIC given in Fig. 4, the following

Table 3 List of database used in performance evaluations Type of rock material Andesite Andesite Mudstone Mudstone Diabase Granodiorite Greywacke Gypsum Limestone Limestone Limestone Limestone Conglomerate Sandstone Marl Marl Marble Mica-Schists Peridodite Serpantine Siyenite Tuff Tuff Greywacke Limestone Trevertine Limestone Andesite Sandstone Marl Marl Schists Schists Marr Laminated marl UCSlab (MPa) 74.39 77.82 43.67 48.38 105.58 135.38 67.28 22.83 94.44 92.06 93.71 75.51 28.78 30.55 20.44 94.34 22.23 65.03 64.60 54.48 115.69 7.31 10.01 58.5 35.60 35.80 22.00 64.50 46.30 40.20 56.30 5.20 7.50 4.50 4.10 BPIc (MPa) 15.99 15.95 10.30 8.67 23.89 17.88 13.40 3.77 21.76 22.08 26.10 18.28 8.37 6.33 3.54 19.02 6.95 17.48 16.78 18.79 22.25 1.91 2.94 16.5 9.10 10.80 6.40 10.30 6.10 8.46 11.00 1.05 2.57 1.16 1.03 UCS (MPa) predicted by Ulusay et al. [30] 81.55 81.35 52.53 44.22 121.82 91.21 68.35 19.25 110.98 112.59 133.13 93.24 42.67 32.26 18.07 97.00 35.43 89.15 85.57 95.81 113.47 9.73 15.02 84.15 46.41 55.08 32.64 52.53 31.11 43.15 56.10 5.36 13.11 5.92 5.25 UCS (MPa) predicted by this study 99.26 99.01 31.73 26.71 121.97 117.50 73.38 15.15 95.15 96.54 114.14 79.95 48.58 33.88 13.52 72.57 29.18 81.96 104.16 57.87 113.60 9.23 14.23 90.33 37.31 50.21 26.09 61.09 31.49 35.59 46.94 4.01 9.81 5.05 4.48

No.a

Location

mi

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
a

Haymana-Ankara Kargabedir-Ankara Goynuk-Bolu Guvenc-Ankara Karahdr-Krsehir Kaman-Krsehir Soma-Manisa Bala-Ankara Alcikoy-Ankara Goynuk-Bolu Haymana-Ankara Soma-Manisa Guvenc-Ankara Guvenc-Ankara Goynuk-Bolu Soma-Manisa Kaman-Krsehir Muttalip-Eskisehir Mumca-Eskisehir Derekoy-Ankara C ayagz-Ankara Haymana-Ankara Karacasehir-Eskisehir Ankara Limra Afyon Manavgat-Antalya Ankara Ankara Ksrakdere-East Manisa Soma-Manisa Baskoyak (upper zone) Baskoyak (lower zone) Yatagan-Mugla Yatagan-Mugla

25 25 4 4 15 29 18 8 10 10 10 10 21 17 7 7 9 12 25 4 15 13 13 18 8.45 11.74 8.32 22.19 15.43 9.04 9.38 7.00 7.00 9.87 9.87

Data from 1 to 23 are obtained from Sulukcu [46]. Data numbered as 24 is taken from Gokceoglu and Zorlu [48]. Sources of data from 25 to 35 are explained in Table 1.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Sonmez, C. Tunusluoglu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 10071014 1013

alternative equation is produced for determination of the UCS from the BPIc considering the type of rock material by its mi parameter UCS A BPI c , A 0:80 2:266mi 0:3824 (6a) (6b)

where A is the conversion factor, and the mi is the HoekBrown constant for the rock material, which can be selected from Table 2. Although the mi parameter can be precisely determined by using s1s3 data pairs obtained by triaxial test results, the use of practical chart (Table 2) proposed by Hoek [44] increases the practical value of the equations given above. By considering the possible range of the mi parameter, minimum (mi 4 for claystone) and maximum (mi 32 for granite) values of the conversion factor (A) are obtained as about 2 and 7, respectively (Fig. 8). The conversion factors were obtained between 2.9 and 7.6, depending on type of the rock material by Sulukcu and Ulusay [28]. By considering the similarities between the possible ranges of the conversion factor obtained from laboratory results performed by the previous studies and theoretical results of this study, it can be said that an acceptable range of the conversion factor is calculated by the alternative equations (Eqs. (6a and b)) produced in this study. Instead of using a unique value for the conversion factor, variable conversion factor depending on the mi parameter considering the type of rock material seems to be more realistic according to commonly accepted concepts of rock mechanics such as the HoekBrown failure criterion. 5. Performance evaluations Data obtained by Gokceoglu [26], Sulukcu [46] and this study are compiled in a unique database for performance evaluations. The list of the database is given in Table 3. The mi values of data produced by Sulukcu [46] are selected from Table 2 by considering types of the rock material. The cross correlation between predicted and measured UCS values indicated that the prediction performance of the alternative equations (Eqs. (6a and b)) is slightly better than Eq. (4) with regression coefcients of 0.86 and 0.82, respectively (Fig. 9). The alternative equation proposed in this study exhibits better performance, particularly for the rock material having high strength. It should be emphasized that 24 of the 35 data were also used for construction of the empirical equation proposed by Ulusay et al. [30]. However, these data are also predicted with high performance by the alternative equations (Eqs. (6a and b)). 6. Results and conclusion The results and conclusion drawn in this study are summarized as follows. (a) The main restrictive point of the equation considered in ISRM [29] is that the same UCS is obtained for two

Fig. 9. Cross correlation between measured and predicted values of the UCS based on the equations proposed by Ulusay et al. [30] and this study.

different rock materials when their BPIc values are the same due to the use of the unique conversion factor. (b) The dominant failure mechanism in the BPI test is shear, although it is not pure shear. According to the laboratory-based data, the cHB and the BPIc are closely correlated, and the BPIc can be evaluated as the upper limit for the cHB. (c) The instantaneous internal friction angle is obtained as 55.11 for zero normal stress when the equations of cHB 0.8BPIc and UCS 5.1BPIc are considered. However, the internal friction angle of rock materials varies depending on the types of rock materials. This is the main limitation of the existing equation in ISRM [29]. (d) The alternative equation produced in this study, which include the mi parameter as rock type indicator, can be used for determination of the UCS from the BPIc. To increase the practical value of the alternative equation, Table 2 can be used directly for selection of the mi parameter depending on the type of the rock material for determination of conversion factor between the UCS and the BPIc. References
[1] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classications. New York: Wiley; 1989. [2] Palmstrom A. RMia rock mass characterization system for rock engineering purposes. PhD thesis, University of Oslo, 1995. [3] Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B. HoekBrown failure criterion2002 edition. In: Proceeding of the fth North American rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, vol. 1, 2002. p. 26773. [4] Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Medley EW, Tuncay E, Nefeslioglu HA. Estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of a volcanic bimrock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43:55461.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1014 H. Sonmez, C. Tunusluoglu / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 45 (2008) 10071014 [28] Sulukcu S, Ulusay R. Evaluation of the block punch index test with prime consideration on size effect, failure mechanism and its effectiveness in predicting rock strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;38(8):1091111. [29] Ulusay R, Hudson JA, editors. ISRM: the complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 19742006. Ankara: Kozan offset; 2007. [30] Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C, Sulukcu S. Draft ISRM suggested method for determining block punch strength index (BPI). Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2001;38(8):11139. [31] Hoek E, Brown ET. Underground excavations in rock. London: Inst. Min. Metall.; 1980. [32] Hoek E, Brown ET. The Hoek and Brown failure criterion: a 1988 update. In: Curran JC, editor. Rock engineering for underground excavations, Proceedings of the 15th Canadian rock mechanics symposium). University of Toronto; 1988. p. 318. [33] Hoek E, Wood D, Shah S. A modied HoekBrown criterion for jointed rock masses. In: Proc ISRM Symp Eurock92. London: Thomas Telford; 1992. p. 20913. [34] Hoek E, Brown ET. Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(8):116586. [35] Hoek E, Marinos P, Benissi M. Applicability of the geological strength index (GSI) classication for very weak and sheared rock masses: the case of the Athens schist formation. Bull Eng Geol Environ 1998;57:15160. [36] Sonmez H, Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C. A practical procedure for back analysis of slope failures in closely jointed rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1998;35(2):21933. [37] Sonmez H, Ulusay R. Modications to the geological strength index (GSI) and their applicability to stability of slopes. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1999;36:74360. [38] Sonmez H. Investigation of the applicability of the HoekBrown criteria to the failure behavior of the ssured clays. PhD thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara, 2001 [in Turkish]. [39] Sonmez H, Ulusay R. A discussion on the HoekBrown failure criterion and suggested modication to the criterion veried by slope stability case studies. Yerbilimleri (Earthsciences) 2002;26: 7799. [40] Hoek E, Carranza-Torres CT, Corkum B. HoekBrown failure criterion: 2002 edition. In: Proceedings of the North American rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, 2002. p. 16. [41] Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R. An application of fuzzy sets to the Geological Strength Index (GSI) system used in rock engineering. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2003;16(3):25169. [42] Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R. A Mamdani fuzzy inference system for the geological strength index system (GSI) and its use in slope stability assessments. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(5): 84957. [43] Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C. Discussion of the paper by E Hoek and MS Diederichs, Empirical estimation of rock mass modulus. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43:6716. [44] Hoek E. Practical rock engineering. 2007. /http://www.rocscience. com/roc/Hoek/Hoek.htmS. [45] Balmer G. A general analytical solution for Mohrs envelope. Am Soc Test Mater J 1952;52:126971. [46] Sulukcu S. Investigation of size effect and failure mechanism in block punch index test, and comparison of the test with other index tests. MSc thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara, 2001 [in Turkish]. [47] Sonmez H. Assessment of the slope stability of slopes in jointed rock masses at TKI-ELI Soma lignite open pit mines. MSc thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara, 2001 [in Turkish]. [48] Gokceoglu C, Zorlu K. A fuzzy model to predict the uniaxial compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity of a problematic rock. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2004;17(1):6172. [5] Deere DU. In: Stagg KG, Zienkiewicz OC, editors. Rock mechanics in engineering practice. London: Wiley; 1968. [6] Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A. Predicting the deformation moduli of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2003;40(5):70312. [7] Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R. Indirect determination of the modulus of deformation of rock masses based on the GSI system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41(S1):7805. [8] Gokceoglu C, Yesilnacar E, Sonmez H, Kayabasi A. A neuro-fuzzy model for modulus of deformation of jointed rock masses. Comp Geotech 2004;31:37583. [9] Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Kayabasi A, Nefeslioglu HA. Estimation of rock modulus: for intact rocks with an articial neural network and for rock masses with a new empirical equation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43(2):22435. [10] ISRM: International society for rock mechanics suggested methods. In: Brown ET, editor. Rock characterization, testing and monitoring. London: Pergamon; 1981. [11] Bieniawski ZT. The point load test in geotechnical practice. Eng Geol 1975 September 111. [12] Das BM. Evaluation of the point load strength for soft rock classication. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on ground control in mining, Morgantown, WV, 1985. p. 2206. [13] Vallejo LE, Walsh RA, Robinson MK. Correlation between unconned compressive and point load strength for Appalachian rocks. In: Proceedings of the 30th US rock mechanics symposium, 1989. p. 4618. [14] Smith HJ. The point load test for weak rock in dredging applications. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997;34(34):295. [15] Broch E, Franklin JA. The point load strength test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1972;9:66997. [16] ORourke JE. Rock index properties for geoengineering design in underground development. SME reprint 88-48, 1988. [17] Singh VK, Singh DP. Correlation between point load index and compressive strength for quartzite rocks. Geotech Geol Eng 1993;11: 26972. [18] Read JRL, Thornton PN, Regan WM. A regional approach to the point load test. In: Proceeding of the AustNZ geomechanics conference, 1980. p. 359. [19] Rusnak JA. Application of the coal mine roof rating, derived from drill core, in the roof support design of a coal belt conveyor tunnel. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on ground control in mining, Morgantown, WV, 1998. p. 22130. [20] Jermy CA, Bell FG. Coal bearing strata and the stability of coal mines in South Africa. In: Proceedings of the 7th international congress rock Mechanics, Aachen, Germany, 1991. p. 112531. [21] Mazanti BB, Sowers GF. Laboratory testing of rock strength. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on testing techniques for rock mechanics, Seattle, 1965. p. 20727. [22] Vutukuri VS, Lama RD, Saluja SS. Handbook on mechanical properties of rocks. Clausthal: Trans Tech Publications; 1974. [23] Stacey TR. A simple device for the direct shear strength testing of intact rock. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 1980;80(3):12930. [24] Lacharite N. A study to correlate the shearing, bending and compression properties of rock. IR 60/38FMIN, Fuels and Min Pract Div, Mines Branch, Can Dept Mines and Tech Surv, Ottowa, 1960. [25] van der Schrier JS. The block punch index test. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 1988;38:1216. [26] Gokceoglu C. The approaches to overcome the difculties encountered in the engineering classication of clay-bearing densely jointed and weak rock masses. PhD thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara, 1997 [in Turkish]. [27] Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C. The modied block punch index test. Can Geotech J 1997;34:9911001.