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

net/publication/238395411

Predicting the Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Static Young’s Modulus of

Intact Sedimentary Rocks Using the Ultrasonic Test

Article in International Journal of Geomechanics · January 2009

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2009)9:1(14)

CITATIONS READS

124 3,058

2 authors:

Omid Z Moradian Mahmoud Behnia

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Isfahan University of Technology
36 PUBLICATIONS 727 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 423 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Dam Safety View project

Close-range Photogrammetry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Omid Z Moradian on 21 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Predicting the Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Static
Young’s Modulus of Intact Sedimentary Rocks Using
the Ultrasonic Test
Z. A. Moradian1 and M. Behnia2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on 03/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The uniaxial compressive strength and static Young’s modulus 共Es兲 of intact rocks are the most important geotechnical
parameters for stability analysis of surface and underground structures. These parameters are obtained by the uniaxial compressive test.
Although this test is simple, the preparation of the samples, especially of soft rocks, is a hard and time consuming task. By using a
nondestructive method such as the ultrasonic test, one can indirectly predict the mentioned parameters. The uniaxial compressive and the
ultrasonic tests were carried out on 64 samples of sedimentary rocks and, after regression analysis of the test results; best fit equations for
predicting the uniaxial compressive strength and static Young’s modulus of these samples are proposed. Thus, in comparison with other
proposed equations, these equations have larger value of accuracy and correlation coefficient 共R2兲. The equations are practical, simple, and
accurate enough to apply and can be used in practice for the prediction purposes with acceptable accuracy.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1532-3641共2009兲9:1共14兲
CE Database subject headings: Compressive strength; Nondestructive tests; Velocity; Rocks; Ultrasonic methods.

Introduction composition, rock texture and structure, grain size and shape,
density, porosity, anisotropy, pore water, confining pressure, tem-
The uniaxial compressive test is the most conventional laboratory perature, weathering and alteration zones, bedding planes, and
test for determining the elastic parameters of intact rock. It is joint properties 共roughness, filling material, water, dip and strike,
carried out as the basic test in most of geotechnical engineering etc.兲 共Yasar and Erdogan 2004兲.
projects. It occurs occasionally that this test is not needed for These data were helpful for verifying odd velocity values for
stability analysis of such projects. The procedure for this test has some specimens. For example, a weak output signal could be
been standardized by both the American Society for Testing and attributed to large grain size or visible fracturing. In addition,
Materials 共ASTM 1984兲 and the International Society for Rock strongly varying velocities within the same data set 共i.e., within
Mechanics 共ISRM 1981兲. Although the procedure is simple, with the same rock type or quarry兲 could be related to local changes in
respect to the required high accuracy and dependency of this test mineral composition, which, in turn, could be related to color
on the shape and dimension of samples, carrying out this test is a changes 共Starzec 1999兲.
hard and time-consuming task. Ultrasonic techniques have been used for many years in geo-
The ultrasonic method offers the possibility of obtaining these technical practice and mining science. They are employed in the
parameters without changing the internal structure of the sample field for geophysical investigations and in the laboratory for the
and at relatively low operational costs; therefore, it is simpler, determination of dynamic properties of rocks. A number of re-
faster, and cheaper than the static testing. searchers, including Birch 共1960, 1961兲, Deere and Miller 共1966兲,
P-wave velocity measurements can be performed through Inoue and Ohomi 共1981兲, Babuska and Pras 共1984兲, Gaviglio
three different methods in the laboratory: the direct method, se- 共1989兲, Kern 共1993兲, Barruol and Kern 共1996兲, Karpuz and Pa-
midirect method, and indirect method 共Kahraman 2002兲. In this Samehmetoglu 共1997兲, Kahraman 共2001兲, and Yasar and Erdogan
study, sound velocity tests were carried out through the direct 共2004兲, have studied the relations between rock properties and
method. ISRM 共1981兲 describes three methods of measurement: sound velocity. They have found that the sound velocity is closely
the high and low frequency ultrasonic pulse techniques and the related to rock properties.
resonant method. In the present study, the high frequency ultra- Inoue and Ohomi共1981兲 tested many soft rocks in order to
sonic pulse technique was used. confirm the relations among uniaxial compressive strength,
The important influential factors are rock type, mineralogical p-wave velocity, and density. They expressed the following gen-
eral formula:
1
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Sherbrooke,
Sherbrooke, Canada. E-mail: zគ[email protected]
2
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Mining Engineering, Tarbiat Modarres Univ., UCS = k␳V2p + A 共1兲
Tehran, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]
Note. Discussion open until July 1, 2009. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper was where UCS= uniaxial compressive strength 共kg/ cm2兲; ␳ = rock
submitted for review and possible publication on November 13, 2007; density 共g / cm3兲; and V p = P-wave velocity 共km/ s兲.
approved on May 20, 2008. This paper is part of the International Jour- Starzec 共1999兲 proposed the following relation between dy-
nal of Geomechanics, Vol. 9, No. 1, February 1, 2009. ©ASCE, ISSN namic and static Young’s modulus for 300 crystalline rocks from
1532-3641/2009/1-14–19/$25.00. southwest Sweden:

14 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(1): 14-19

 Es = 0.48Ed − 3.26 共2兲
where Es and Ed = static and dynamic Young’s modulus 共GPa兲,
respectively.
Yasar and Erdogan 共2004兲 carried out the uniaxial compressive
and ultrasonic tests on 13 samples of various carbonate rock types
around Ankara/Turkey and expressed that uniaxial compressive
strength, static Young’s modulus and density of these rocks can be
estimated from their sound velocity values using simple linear
mathematical relations. The correlation equations are as follows:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on 03/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

V p = 0.0317UCS + 2.0195 共3兲

Fig. 1. A schematic diagram of ultrasonic equipment
V p = 0.0937Es + 1.7528 共4兲
where V p = P-wave velocity 共km/ s兲; UCS= uniaxial compressive measured travel time and the distance between the transmitter and
strength 共kg/ cm2兲; and Es = static Young’s modulus 共GPa兲. the receiver. The measured travel time was, in fact, the sum of the
Kahraman 共2001兲 proposed the following nonlinear equation real time interval through a specimen plus the time delay due to
for 27 various rock types: the electronic components, transducer and bonds. Thus, before
measurement of travel time, the time delay was determined sepa-
UCS = 9.95V1.21
p 共5兲 rately for P and S wave, either by means of a standard 共e.g.,
aluminum specimen of known velocity兲 or a face-to-face method
where UCS= uniaxial compressive strength 共MPa兲 and
共Starzec 1999兲.
V p⫽P-wave velocity 共km/ s兲.
To reduce scattering and poorly defined first arrivals at the
In this study, the uniaxial compressive and ultrasonic tests
receiver, the transmitter was designed to generate wavelengths at
were conducted on 64 core samples of three sedimentary rock
least three times the average grain size of the rock. Wavelength is
types 共limestone, marlstone, and sandstone兲. After analysis of the
the wave velocity in the rock specimen divided by the resonant
test results, a good empirical equation for predicting the uniaxial
frequency of the transducer. Commonly used frequencies range
compressive strength and static Young’s modulus from other pa-
from 75 kHz to 3 MHz 共ASTM 1984兲. In the measurements, the
rameters was found.
PUNDIT and two transducers 共a transmitter and a receiver兲 hav-
ing a frequency of 1 MHz were used. Fig. 1 shows a schematic
diagram of the ultrasonic equipment.
Rock Properties and Testing Procedure In order to improve the signal to noise ratio, a constant stress
of about 10 N / cm2 in the axial direction was applied to the speci-
The samples tested in the study were 44 samples of limestone, 12
mens 共ISRM 1981兲. The samples were tested in dry conditions
samples of sandstone, and 8 samples of marlstone. They were
and at room temperature. Additionally, an ultrasonic couplant was
cylindrical cores obtained from drilled exploratory boreholes in
used to improve surface contact between the transducers and test
various dam sites in Iran. During sampling, rock types with no
samples, resulting in a significant improvement in the signal to
bedding planes were selected to eliminate any anisotropic effects
noise ratio 共Starzec 1999兲. The dynamic Young’s modulus was
on the measurements.
calculated using
The standard proposed by ISRM 共1981兲 was applied in prepar-
ing the proposed samples for the present research. The diameter 共3V2p − 4Vs2兲
of the prepared samples was 54 mm, and their length-to-diameter Ed = k␳Vs2 共6兲
共V2p − Vs2兲
ratio was between 2 and 3.
The P-wave velocity was measured using the Pundit appara- where Ed = dynamic Young’s modulus 共GPa兲; ␳ = density 共g / cm3兲;
tus. The velocities of the P and S waves were calculated from the Vs = S-wave velocity 共m/s兲; V p = P-wave velocity 共m/s兲; and

Table 1. Properties and Test Results of Marlstone Samples

Density Vp Vs Es Ed UCS
Number Location 共g / cm3兲 共m/s兲 共m/s兲 共GPa兲 共GPa兲 共MPa兲
1 Sarni Dam 2.22 2,500 1,500 3.24 12.18 11.37
2 Sarni Dam 2.31 2,351 1,293 3.41 9.91 11.31
3 Sarni Dam 2.31 2,338 1,241 4.19 9.28 23.87
4 Sarni Dam 2.35 2,515 1,532 5.04 13.29 20.16
5 Mamlo Dam 2.35 2,163 1,327 5.28 9.92 48.73
6 Mamlo Dam 2.38 2,425 1,354 4.72 11.11 39.28
7 Mamlo Dam 2.34 2,674 1,426 4.01 12.38 29.31
8 Mamlo Dam 2.38 2,104 1,200 6.43 8.63 44.22
9 Mamlo Dam 2.34 2,537 1,417 4.31 11.97 23.87
10 Mamlo Dam 2.38 2,597 1,333 4.05 11.17 17.29
11 Mamlo Dam 2.44 2,069 1,242 7.77 9.17 32.84
12 Mamlo Dam 2.33 1,840 1,104 5.54 6.92 20.19

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009 / 15

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(1): 14-19

 Table 2. Properties and Test Results of Sandstone Samples
Density Vp Vs Es Ed UCS
Number Location 共g / cm3兲 共m/s兲 共m/s兲 共GPa兲 共GPa兲 共MPa兲
1 Siabisheh Dam 2.18 2,854 1,522 2.38 13.14 20.47
2 Siabisheh Dam 2.15 2,948 1,646 3.93 14.84 35.14
3 Siabisheh Dam 2.32 3,238 1,813 4.89 19.39 25.51
4 Siabisheh Dam 2.04 2,451 1,358 3.09 9.62 15.2
5 Siabisheh Dam 2.09 2,668 1,407 3.18 10.82 27.3
6 Siabisheh Dam 2.32 3,893 2,044 9.25 25.39 44.21
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on 03/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7 Siabisheh Dam 2.26 2,474 1,314 0.77 10.17 10.37

8 Siabisheh Dam 2.22 2,761 1,480 2.05 12.63 17.06

Table 3. Properties and Test Results of Limestone Samples

Density Vp Vs Es Ed UCS
Number Location 共g / cm3兲 共m/s兲 共m/s兲 共GPa兲 共GPa兲 共MPa兲
1 Harasan Dam 2.37 3,345 1,873 22.67 21.15 39.84
2 Harasan Dam 2.56 4,074 2,444 23.26 37.28 64.83
3 Tang sorkh Dam 2.54 4,195 2,307 21.89 34.69 53.42
4 Tang sorkh Dam 2.1 3,262 1,431 5.44 11.88 14.18
5 Tang sorkh Dam 2.42 3,334 1,509 4.19 15.11 29.98
6 Tang sorkh Dam 2.92 5,719 3,203 53.26 76.18 52.74
7 Tang sorkh Dam 2.41 3,221 1,649 4.21 17.33 23.4
8 Tang sorkh Dam 2.64 4,111 2,258 25.93 34.57 43.67
9 Tang sorkh Dam 2.26 1,929 900 1.36 4.98 10.24
10 Tang sorkh Dam 2.64 5,236 3,098 44.53 62.37 82.67
11 Tang sorkh Dam 2.24 1,826 1,034 1.09 6.05 13.74
12 Meymeh Dam 2.6 5,549 2,960 72.71 59.28 80.83
13 Meymeh Dam 2.7 6,209 3,302 63.03 76.71 68.18
14 Meymeh Dam 2.73 6,113 3,282 79.47 76.31 99.07
15 Meymeh Dam 2.49 4,448 2,530 28.29 40.19 83.65
16 Meymeh Dam 2.51 2,776 1,571 6.59 15.67 53.92
17 Meymeh Dam 2.41 3,363 2,018 11.82 23.92 46.11
18 Ghareh Tikan 2.72 6,317 3,369 82.65 80.35 66.77
19 Ghareh Tikan 2.71 6,094 3,174 64.3 71.74 67.42
20 Ghareh Tikan 2.66 5,291 3,002 41.3 60.54 76.37
21 Ghareh Tikan 2.7 6,273 3,203 75.42 73.33 142.33
22 Ghareh Tikan 2.73 5,969 3,261 67.29 74.74 75.89
23 Ghareh Tikan 2.7 6,019 3,178 70.15 71.27 88.8
24 Ghareh Tikan 2.7 5,829 3,248 61.31 72.62 77.41
25 Ghareh Tikan 2.72 5,560 2,957 37.93 61.97 98.02
26 Ghareh Tikan 2.7 5,780 3,192 67.89 70.46 136.63
27 Ghareh Tikan 2.72 6,392 3,260 90.49 76.56 64.04
28 Ghareh Tikan 2.72 6,079 3,258 77.05 74.98 143.09
29 Ghareh Tikan 2.7 6,158 3,237 67.29 74.07 73.54
30 Ghareh Tikan 2.68 6,539 3,100 44.7 69.80 83.6
31 Ghareh Tikan 2.67 5,154 2,671 33.61 50.15 113.5
32 Ghareh Tikan 2.77 6,345 3,419 65.48 83.89 66.09
33 Ghareh Tikan 2.72 6,505 3,420 66.35 83.29 75.67
34 Ghareh Tikan 2.64 4,583 2,652 23.55 46.36 65.47
35 Ghareh Tikan 2.63 2,737 1,563 24.39 16.17 56.31
36 Ghareh Tikan 2.69 5,451 3,005 55.12 62.27 75.4
37 Ghareh Tikan 2.66 1,988 1,055 17.34 7.72 66.14
38 Ghareh Tikan 2.62 2,503 1,426 21.58 13.42 74.7
39 Ghareh Tikan 2.64 2,971 1,548 26.1 16.62 73.89
40 Ghareh Tikan 2.65 2,975 1,935 17.13 22.49 81.24
41 Ghareh Tikan 2.69 5,519 2,953 55.68 60.96 97.39
42 Ghareh Tikan 2.68 5,534 3,012 36.05 62.71 91.4
43 Ghareh Tikan 2.64 3,811 2,122 17.31 30.32 46.51
44 Ghareh Tikan 2.73 1,838 951 13.74 6.50 40.68

16 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(1): 14-19

 Table 4. The Statistical Analysis of the Test Results
Density Vp Vs UCS Es Ed
Parameter 共g / cm3兲 共m/s兲 共m/s兲 共MPa兲 共GPa兲 共GPa兲
Sample number 64 64 64 64 64 64
Maximum value 2.92 6,539 3,420 143.09 90.49 83.89
Minimum value 2.04 1,826 900 10.24 0.77 4.98
Average 2.51 4,005.06 2,173.33 56.19 29.35 36.73
Standard deviation 0.21 1,611.82 846.79 33.04 27.57 27.84
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on 03/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

k = constant, depending on units used. In this study k = 1. The data from each test were used in the respective empirical
Tables 1–3 show the properties and the test results of sand- equation to calculate the estimated UCS. The estimated values of
stone, marlstone, and limestone samples, respectively. compressive strength were then plotted against the measured val-
ues of compressive strength for each test 共Figs. 7–9兲. The error in
the estimated value is represented by the distance that each data
Evaluation of the Test Results point plots from the 1: 1 diagonal line. A point lying on the line
indicates an exact estimation 共Kahraman 2001兲.
The UCS and static Young’s modulus values were correlated with As shown in Figs. 7–9, the estimated and measured values of
the other test values, using the method of least-squares regression.
compressive strength are approximately distributed around 1:1
The equation of the best fit line, the 95% confidence limits, and
diagonal line with an equal distance. For UCS values higher than
the correlation coefficient 共R2兲 were determined for each regres-
sion. Table 4 shows the statistical analysis of the test results.
The UCS and static Young’s modulus 共Es兲 values of the rocks
were correlated with the density 共␳兲, P-wave velocity 共V p兲, and
dynamic Young’s modulus 共Ed兲. A good relation was found be-
tween UCS and Es and other properties of the rocks.
An exponential relation between the uniaxial compressive
strength values and V p values was found 共Fig. 2兲. Also a nonlinear
relation between UCS values and dynamic Young’s modulus val-
ues was found 共Fig. 3兲. The relation between static Young’s
modulus and both V p and dynamic Young’s modulus was expo-
nential 共Figs. 4 and 5兲
In order to obtain a better correlation coefficient between UCS
and V p, the V p values were multiplied by density values. Then, the
UCS values were correlated with ␳ ⫻ V p values. As shown in Fig.
6, the correlation coefficient was improved from R2 = 70 共for UCS Fig. 3. Uniaxial compressive strength versus dynamic Young’s
versus V p兲 to R2 = 75 共for UCS versus ␳ ⫻ V p兲. This procedure was modulus
done for the other parameters, but the results did not change. The
proposed equations for predicting UCS and static Young’s modu-
lus are presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
The dynamic Young’s modulus 共Ed兲, multiple of density with
P-wave velocity 共␳ ⫻ V p兲, and P-wave velocity 共V p兲 exhibited
strong linear correlations with the compressive strength of rocks
with R2 = 77, 75, and 70, respectively.
According to Table 3, dynamic Young’s modulus 共Ed兲 and
P-wave velocity 共V p兲 showed strong correlation with the highest
correlation coefficient 共R2 = 92兲 for predicting the static Young’s
modulus compared with UCS.

Fig. 4. Static Young’s modulus versus P-wave velocity

Fig. 2. Uniaxial compressive strength versus P-wave velocity Fig. 5. Static Young’s modulus versus dynamic Young’s modulus

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009 / 17

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(1): 14-19

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on 03/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Uniaxial compressive strength versus multiple of P-wave

velocity and density

80 MPa, the points are under the 1:1 diagonal line, indicating that Fig. 8. Estimated UCS versus measured UCS from multiplying den-
sity and P-wave velocity
for UCS values higher than 80 MPa, the estimated UCS values
are smaller than the measured UCS values. In Figs. 10 and 11, the
estimated values of the static Young’s modulus are plotted and
compared against the measured values, using the 1:1 diagonal
line.
For the static Young’s modulus, the data points fall closer to
the line at lower values but become more scattered at higher
values, suggesting that the ability to estimate the static Young’s
modulus of rocks using density, p-wave velocity, and dynamic
Young’s modulus is the best at lower values, and is less reliable at
higher values.

Table 5. Proposed Equations for Predicting Uniaxial Compressive

Strength
Parameters Equations a b R2
UCS, V p UCS= a exp共b / V p兲 165.05 −4,451.07 0.70
UCS, V p UCS= a exp共b / 共␳V p兲兲 142.47 −9,560.57 0.75
density
Fig. 9. Estimated UCS versus measured UCS from dynamic Young’s
UCS, Ed UCS= aEd / 共b + Ed兲 122.11 39.37 0.77
modulus
Table 6. Proposed Equations for Predicting Static Young’s Modulus
Parameters Equations a b R2
E s, V p Es = aVbp 2.06 2.78 0.92
E s, E d Es = aEbd 0.25 1.29 0.92

Fig. 10. Estimated static Young’s modulus versus measured static

Fig. 7. Estimated UCS versus measured UCS from P-wave velocity Young’s modulus from P-wave velocity

18 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009

Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(1): 14-19

 References

ASTM. 共1984兲. Annual book of ASTM standards 4.08, Philadelphia.

Babuska, V., and Pros, Z. 共1984兲. “Velocity anisotropy in granodiorite and
quartzite due to the distribution of microcracks.” Geophys. J. R. As-
tron. Soc., 76共1兲, 121–127.
Barruol, G., and Kern, H. 共1996兲. “Seismic anisotropy and shear-wave
splitting in lower-crustal and upper mantle rocks from the Ivrea zone
experimental and calculated data.” Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 95共3–
4兲, 175–194.
Birch, F. 共1960兲. “The velocity of compressional waves in rocks 10 kbars:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on 03/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Part 1.” J. Geophys. Res., 65, 1083–1102.

Birch, F. 共1961兲. “The velocity of compressional waves in rocks 10 kbars:
Part 2.” J. Geophys. Res., 66, 2199–2224.
Deere, D. U., and Miller, R. P. 共1966兲. “Engineering classification and
index properties for intact rock.” Technical Rep. No. AFWL-TR 65-
116, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland Base, N.M.
Fig. 11. Estimated static Young’s modulus versus measured static Gaviglio, P. 共1989兲. “Longitudinal waves propagation in a limestone: The
Young’s modulus from dynamic Young’s modulus relationship between velocity and density.” Rock Mech. Rock Eng.,
22, 299–306.
Inoue, M., and Ohomi, M. 共1981兲. “Relation between uniaxial compres-
Conclusions sive strength and elastic wave velocity of soft rock.” Proc., Int. Symp.
on Weak Rock, Tokyo, Japan, Balkema, Rotterdam, 9–13.
International Society for Rock Mechanics 共ISRM兲. 共1981兲. “Suggested
In this study, the writers proposed some useful equations for pre-
methods.” Rock characterization testing and monitoring, E. T. Brown,
dicting the uniaxial compressive strength and static Young’s
ed., Pergamon, Oxford, U.K.
modulus of intact sedimentary rocks. These equations can be used
Kahraman, S. 共2001兲. “Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the
by researchers who want insights into the relation between ultra- uniaxial compressive strength of rock.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.,
sonic and elastic parameters of sedimentary rocks. 38共7兲, 981–94.
Results of the analysis indicated that the proposed equations Kahraman, S. 共2002兲. “Estimating the direct P-wave velocity value of
for predicting static Young’s modulus with higher correlation co- intact rock from indirect laboratory measurements.” Int. J. Rock
efficient have greater accuracy than the proposed equations for Mech. Min. Sci., 39共1兲, 101–104.
predicting UCS. In some cases it is possible to improve the accu- Karpuz, C., and Pa-Samehmetoglu, A. G. 共1997兲. “Field characterization
racy of equations by applying mathematical operations between of weathered Ankara andesites.” Eng. Geol. (Amsterdam), 46共1兲,
the parameters. In this study, by multiplying density with P-wave 1–17.
velocity, the writers improved the correlation coefficient of the Kern, H. 共1993兲. “P and S wave anisotropy and shear-wave splitting at
pressure and temperature in possible mantle rocks and their relation to
proposed equation for predicting UCS. However, the prediction
the rock fabric.” Phys. Earth Planet. Inter., 78共3–4兲, 245–256.
equations derived by the writers and other researches are depen- Starzec, P. 共1999兲. “Dynamic elastic properties of crystalline rocks from
dent on the rock types and test conditions. In order to use the south-west Sweden.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 36共2兲, 265–272.
prediction equations, one must not forget this reality. Accordingly, Yasar, E., and Erdogan, Y. 共2004兲. “Correlating sound velocity with the
the proposed equations are valid only for sedimentary rocks lo- density, compressive strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate
cated in the area of sampling or close to it. rocks.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 41共5兲, 871–875.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2009 / 19

View publication stats Int. J. Geomech., 2009, 9(1): 14-19