Engineering Geology, 22 (1986) 293--300 293

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

A CORRECTION EQUATION ON THE INFLUENCE OF LENGTH-TO-

DIAMETER RATIO ON THE UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
OF ROCKS

N. T U R K and W.R. DEARMAN

Department of Geotechnical Engineering, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle
upon Tyne (Great Britain)
(Received February 28, 1985;accepted after revision October 29, 1985)

ABSTRACT

Turk, N. and Dearman, W.R., 1986. A correction equation Qn the influence of length-to-
diameter ratio on the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. Eng. Geol., 22: 293--300.

A general equation, derived from three published equations, is proposed for the correc-
tion of uniaxial compressive strength test results to a length-to-diameter ratio of two. In
addition, an equation is given for standardization of test results to a length-to-diameter
ratio of two and 50 mm diameter.
The methods have been tested by analysis of over thirty sets of test data from the
literature. Results for correction to length-to-diameter ratio of two fall within a 10% error
band of the experimental value equivalent to a length-to-diameter ratio of two. The two-
stage correction to a length-to-diameter ratio of two and 50 mm diameter, from a range
of specimen lengths and diameters, gives results which are lower than the direct test values
for specimens with these dimensions.

INTRODUCTION

Uniaxial compressive strength is one of the most important mechanical

properties of rocks which is mainly used for the design of structures and
characterization of intact rock materials. In rock engineering, the uniaxial
compressive strength of rocks is generally defined as the failure strength of
an intact rock specimen, having a diameter of 48 or 54 mm and a length-to-
diameter ratio of at least 2, preferably 2.5--3 (ASTM 2983-79; ISRM, 1979).
There are both internal and external factors influencing uniaxial compres-
sive strength. Important internal factors are defects, mineralogy, grain size,
porosity, degree of weathering or alteration and anisotropy. The external
factors are specimen shape and size, type of platen, rate of loading and degree
of saturation. During testing, the influence of these factors should be recog-
nized and results should be interpreted accordingly. Otherwise, the test
results may be misleading or virtually useless or both.
Different authorities have proposed standard methods for uniaxial com-
pressive testing of rock specimens (ASTM 2938-79; ISRM, 1979). One of
these procedures should be followed to eliminate the influence of the external

0013-7952/86/$03.50 1986 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

294

factors and increase the reliability and repeatability of the test results. These
procedures generally specify the size and shape of the test specimens.
(1) ISRM (1979) requires that the test specimen should be a right circular
cylinder, having a diameter preferably not less than NX core size, approxi-
mately 54 mm, and a height-to-diameter ratio of 2.5 to 3.
(2) ASTM (D 2938-79) specifies that the test specimens shall be circular
cylinders with a diameter of not less than N wireline core size, approxi-
mately 48 mm, and a length-to-diameter ratio of 2 to 2.5.

C O R R E C T I O N EQUATIONS

In practice, it is not always possible to obtain test specimens of the required

size. Correction equations have been proposed for standardizing the results
obtained from non-standard specimens. Two types of correction equation
have been proposed in order: (1) to standardize the result for a length-to-
diameter ratio of 2; (2) to standardize for a 50 mm diameter.
Widely accepted correction equations for the former are the following.
(a) Hobbs (1964) and Szlavin (1974} recommended the following equation
for Coal Measures rocks in the U.K.

O___c= 1
(1)
em 0.848 + 0.304(D/L)

where e is the corrected uniaxial compressive strength to a length to diam-

eter ratio of 2, om is the measured uniaxial compressive strength of non-
standard size rock specimens, D is the diameter of the specimen, and L is the
length of the specimen.
(b) ASTM (D2938-79) recommends the following correction formula for
standardizing non-standard size uniaxial compressive strength test results:

~c_ 1 (2)
Om 0.88 + 0.24(D/L)

where the parameters are the same as for eq.1.

(c) Protodyakonov (1969) has recommended the use of the following for-
mula for standardization of non-standard size, uniaxial compressive strength
test results, based on Russian experience:

o___= 1
(3)
em 0.875 + 0.25(D/L)
where the parmheters are the same as for eq.1.
The plots of the above equations as oc/Om versus D/L are shown in Fig.1.
Even though each curve has a different path, they have a similar trend.
These correction equations are empirical and based on practical experience.
They also represent the experimental results of different countries. The mean
of the above equations could be expected to give a new correction equation
applicable generally:
 295

1.2

1.1 -'~.~,,~

1.0 ~
O'c] O"m

0.9 - - a ~ ~-~.~
.... b ~'~-.~.

0.8
i
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
D/L

Fig.1. %/o m versus D/L f o r different correction equations: (a) Hobbs ( 1 9 6 4 ) and Szlavin
(1974); (b) ASTM (D2638-79); (C) Protodyakonov (1969).

(~c - 1
am 0.86766 + 0.26466(D/L) (4)
On simplification, eq. 4 becomes:
oc _ 1.15
om - 1 + 0.3(D/L) (5)
where the parameters are the same as in eq.1. The plot of this equation is
shown on Fig.2.
It is worth noting that ISRM (1979) does not give any correction equation
for the uniaxial compressive strength of non-standard size specimens.
Hoek and Brown (1980) have proposed the following correction equation
for standardizing the uniaxial compressive strength of rock specimens to
50 mm diameter specimen strength, based on curve fitting to test results
from the literature:
Oso= (n.~"s
o, \5-0) (6)
where os0 is the uniaxial compressive strength of a 50 mm diameter rock
specimen, o, is the uniaxial compressive strength of a rock specimen having a
different diameter, and D is the diameter of the specimen.
If eq.4 and 6 are combined then a general correction equation for the uni-
axial compressive strength of rocks is obtained:
05._.00=
DO.iS
om 1.754 + 0.535(D/L) (7)
where the parameters are the same as in eqs.1 and 6.
This proposed new equation would enable the required corrections to be
made to the uniaxial compressive strength of non-standard size specimens
both for a length-to-diameter ratio of 2 and for 50 mm diameter. Additionally,
eq.7 has been plotted in graphic form for practical application in Figs.3
and 4.
296

1.2

1.1

1.0
O"c/ O'm
0.9

0.8
I
0 0.2 014 01.6 0.8' 11.0 112 1.4l 11.6
D/L
Fig.2. %/am versus D/L for the proposed mean correction equation.

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

~d~m
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

D/L

Fig.3. The plot of aso/o m against D/L for different specimen diameters.

DISCUSSION

To explore their limitations, the proposed new correction equations 4 and

7 have been applied to some easily available uniaxial compressive test results
on different sized cores. Available test results can be grouped under the
following three headings.
(1) 50 m m diameter and varying length-to-diameter ratios
Dreyer and Borchert (1962) have published the results o f uniaxial com-
pressive strength determinations on 50 mm diameter marble cylinders with
different length-to-diameter ratios. The test results are plotted in Fig. 5 as
 297

D/L
1.2 0.25
0.50
1.1

1.0

0.9
~
~
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
0"5o/O'm 1.75
0.8 ~ 2.00

0.7 t
0.6
//
/

0"50 2; 4; 610 8=0 1;0

Diameter(ram)
Fig.4. The plot of os0/Om against specimen diameter for different D/L ratios.

200 Marble
Diameter 50mm

=Experimental r e s u l t s
oCorrected using Eqn.4

10% error band

150
o

o'C [] o I ---'-|-I-
MPa -o-- -- -- I--
I

I i I I
1000 1 2 3 4
Length/Diameter
Fig.5. Relation between experimental test results and corrected values of uniaxial com-
pressive strength and length-to-diameter ratio for 50 mm diameter marble specimens
(Dreyer and Borchert, 1962).

original test values and as corrected values, using eq.4, to a length-to-c]iameter

ratio of 2.
The horizontal solid line in Fig.5 represents the original uniaxial compres-
sion strength at L/D = 2. A 10% error band, shown in the figure, covers all
the corrected values, and except for the lowest L/D the error o f the corrected
results is much less than 10%.
298

(2) A diameter other than 50 mm and varying length to diameter ratios

For massive Ormonde Sandstone (Fig.6) specimen diameter was 25.4 mm
and length-to-diameter ratio varied from 0.25 to just under 4 {Hobbs, 1964).
The experimental data have been corrected to a length-to-diameter ratio
of 2 (eq.4) and to 50 mm diameter and length-to-diameter ratio of 2 (eq.7}.
Except for the lowest length-to-diameter ratio, the corrected results to a
L/D of 2 lie within the 10% error band on the diagram. Corrections using
eq.7 show a wider scatter, and the resultant unconfined compressive strength
falls below those for a length-to-diameter ratio of 2 derived from the
uncorrected test results.
For trachyte (Mogi, 1966) low length-to-diameter ratios were not tested
(Fig.7) and the variation of L / D from 1 to 3 is not great. The corrected
results to L/D of 2 using eq.4 are well within a 10% error band, and close to
the original experimental value for L/D of 2. Using eq.7, the corrected results

150
Sandstone
Diameter 25.4mm

Experimental values
Corrected using Eqn.4
,~Corrected using Eqn.7

100

dc 10% error band

MPa []
-b G--
- -

500 ~'
2
I
3 4
i

Length/Diameter

Fig.6. Relation between experimental test results and corrected values of uniaxial com-
pressive strength and length-to-diameter ratio for 25.4 mm diameter specimens of massive
Ormonde Sandstone (Hobbs, 1964).

Trachyte Diameter 12.7mm

140

10% error band
120
Lm -
100
.............. ...... & --.-i-- -A' _ ~L.__AL_ - - - - -&
80

~c 60
MPa
4O Experimental values
Corrected using Eqn.4
20 Corrected using Eqn.7

% 05
|. 1
| |
1,5 2 2.5
! I
3
Length/Diameter

Fig.7. Relation between experimental test results and corrected values of uniaxial com-
pressive strength and length-to-diameter ratio for 12.7 mm diameter trachyte specimens
(Mogi, 1964).
 299

} Experimental v a l u e s ,
with standard deviation
C o r r e c t e d using Ecln.7

15

d C
lO
MPa
i fi _ _ _
i
5 i i i J

20 30 40 50 60
D i a m e t e r (ram)

Fig.8. Relation between experimental test results and corrected values of uniaxial com-
pressive strength and diameter of a gypsum--plaster mix, for length-to-diameter ratio of 2
(Einstein et al., 1970).

for unconfined compressive strength are uniform and much lower than the
results obtained using eq.4. The chain-link line on Fig.7 passes through the
corrected value at L / D = 2.
(3) Different diameters with a length to diameter ratio o f two
Plaster cylinders, prepared to different diameters but at a standard length-
to-diameter ratio of 2, were tested by Einstein et al. (1970). Test results are
plotted in Fig.8 with the standard deviations given by the authors, and the
results corrected using eq.7. The standard deviation on each of the three
results is about + 2.5%. Corrected values fall within the standard deviation for
50 mm diameter specimens, with the result for the smallest diameter showing
greatest divergence from the mean 50 mm diameter results.

CONCLUSIONS

In testing the proposed correction equations, although the analyses of

only four sets of experimental results have been presented (Figs.5, 6, 7, 8),
over thirty examples from the literature have been analysed. Results are
similar to those presented here.
The original test results and their corrected values have been plotted as
graphs on the same diagram by plotting the uniaxial compressive strength
against length to diameter ratios of the specimen. The following general
observations can be made.
(1) The correction equation 4 gives results which are well within what
may be regarded as acceptable error limits for specimens having a length to
diameter ratio between 1 and 4. Within this range, the error is generally less
than 10% (Figs.5, 6, 7). Any specimen tested with a length-to-diameter ratio
less than 1 would have a very complex stress distribution and this would
affect the results. On the other hand, an attempt would not normally be
made to test specimens having length-to-diameter ratios greater than 4.
Instead, it would be wiser to cut such a core and get two test specimens
instead of one.
300

(2) Correction of the test results to 50 mm diameter has given, in general,

lower uniaxial compressive strength values than the direct experimental values
for specimens having diameters less than 50 mm. The reverse is the case for
larger diameter specimens.
It must be pointed out that there are mixed findings on the influence which
the specimen diameter has on the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks.
While data compiled by Hoek and Brown (1980) from the literature clearly
indicate the influence of diameter on the uniaxial compressive strength of
rocks, it is difficult to reach the same conclusion from some other test results
(Hodgson and Cook, 1970). However, as demonstrated here, when the results
of Einstein et al. (1970) on plaster specimens were corrected to 50 mm
diameter, the corrected uniaxial compressive strength values fell well within
the standard deviation of the test values of 50 mm diameter specimens
(Fig.8). As most laboratory testing is done on rock specimens having a diam-
eter less than 50 mm, such a correction would give lower results than the
original values obtained in the laboratory. Thus, if the corrected values are
used in design calculations, this would increase the safety factor.
The general observation is that the smaller the diameter and the smaller
the length-to-diameter ratio of the specimen, the higher is the scatter of the
test results (Figs.5, 6 and 8). However, considering the variability of rock
types and testing conditions, the correction equations 4 and 7 give acceptable
estimates of the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks for a length-to-diameter
length
ratio of 2, and 50 mm diameter, within the limitations 1 < diameter < 4.

REFERENCES

ASTM D-2938-79. Standard method of test for unconfined compressive strength of rock
core specimens. In: 1980 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 19, pp.440--443.
Dhir, R.K., Sangha, C.M. and Munday, J.G.L., 1972. Influence of specimen size on uncon-
fined rock strength. Colliery Guardian, Jan. 1972, pp.75--78.
Dreyer, W. and Borchert, H., 1962. Kritische Betrachtung zur PriifkSrperformel von
Gesteinen. Bergbautechnik, 129(5): 265--272.
Einstein, H.H., Baecher, G.B. and Hirschfeld, R.C., 1970. The effect of size on strength of
a brittle rock. Proc. Congr. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., 2nd, Belgrad, Vol. 2(3--5), pp.7--13.
Hobbs, D.W., 1964. Rock compressive strength. Colliery Eng., 41 : 287--292.
Hodgson, K. and Cook, N.G.W., 1970. The effects of size and stress gradient on the
strength of rocks. Proc. 2nd Congr. Int. Soc. Rock Mech., 2nd, Belgrad, Vol. 2(3--5),
pp.31--34.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T., 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock. The Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp.527.
ISRM, 1979. Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and
deformability of rock materials. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomeeh. Abstr., 16:
135--140.
Mogi, K., 1966. Some precise measurements of fracture strength of rocks under uniform
compressive stress. Rock Mech. Eng. Geol., IV: 41--55.
Protodyakonov, M.M., 1969. Method of determining the strength of rocks under uniaxial
compression. In: M.M. Protodyakonov, M.I. Koifman and others, Mechanical Properties
of Rocks. Translated from Russian, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem,
pp.l--8.
Szlavin, J., 1974. Relationships betweea some physical properties of rock determined by
laboratory test. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 11: 57--66.