ARMA 16-554

Modified relationship between point loading strength and uniaxial

compressive strength by DEM
Zike Zhang, Guangqing Zhang*, Shiyuan Li, Ruinan Li , Haoran Dong , Xiang Ding
College of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, China
Copyright 2016 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 50th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Houston, Texas, USA, 26-29 June
2016. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be
copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: A number of studies have been conducted to investigate the relationships between point loading strength (PLS) and
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS). The method is widely used in on-site tests because it is convenient and the requirement for
the sample in PLS is not very strict. However, it’s difficult to get an accurate relationship between UCS and PLS in laboratory due
to strong heterogeneity of rocks. Discrete element method (DEM) has been proved to be a great tool to simulate and analyze the
behavior of rock material. In DEM, the particle properties (such as particle contact modulus) can be set to ensure the rock materials
to possess the same properties. So we can get the correct correspondence between PLS and UCS. In this paper 23 sets of data are
simulated which from the laboratory test, and it is found that there are good correspondences. Through further analysis, the authors
also discuss the influence of experimental conditions on the PLS by DEM, which includes indenter radius, aspect ratio and particle
size. By the simulations, we reached three conclusions: 1) the simulated result is higher than that of laboratory test in PLS because
of homogeneity; 2) the larger indenter radius, the higher PLS will be; 3) PLS is nearly a constant when the aspect ratio of samples
is between 0.3 and1. Besides, if the aspect ratio is lower than 0.3, the PLS will increase rapidly.
Deere (1966) found that there is a linear relationship
1. INTRODUCTION
between the point load strength (PLS) and UCS. Along
In rock mechanics, how to describe the mechanical the 40 years upon its implementation, plenty of
properties of rock accurately has been one of the key empirical relations between PLS and the UCS of rock
issues. So far, some methods can be applied to measure material were presented. Baek H. (2013) collected some
the mechanics properties of rock, such as point loading of the results. However, results of these tests are quite
test, uniaxial compression test, conventional tri-axial inaccurate because of the strong heterogeneity of the
compression test, Brazilian disc test, and fracture rock,. Even the rock samples which come from the same
toughness test. The detailed standard specifications for formation, their properties can be quite different.
these experiments are all published (Franklin, 1985;
If the specimen contains some joints or micro-cracks,
Hatheway, 2009). As one of the main properties,
results show apparent scatter. It is necessary to do a
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) can be measured
great number of experiments to get accurate results. For
commonly through uniaxial compression test.
example, in order to get the relationship between UCS
However, uniaxial compression test itself has some and PLS, the numbers of specimens, tested were 1,755
disadvantages. First of all, it is time-consuming and and 2,123 rock specimens for the axial and irregular
expensive to make a high precision sample. The flatness lump PLS tests respectively, and 329 rock specimens for
of specimen ends must be machined to 0.001 mm. The the UCS test in M. Kohno (2012). However, sometimes
side must be smooth and straight and the smoothness of large quantities of specimens are quite difficult to obtain,
all side must reach 0.3 mm (Hatheway, 2009). And then, and small quantities cause less accuracy. The difficulty
some of the rocks are difficult to be processed into makes us use a simulated method to solve the problem.
standard specimens, such as coal, which is featured by
As a new numerical tool, DEM (Discrete element
cleats. On the other hand, point loading test is
Method) has advantages to simulate the point loading
convenient and simple to measure the strength of rock,
test and the uniaxial compression test, which takes rock
because it is not strict with the shape of the specimen,
materials as stacked particles and defines mechanics
and we can get results with any size. Moreover, the point
properties of particles between them (Potyondy, D. O.,
loading test instrument is easy to carry. Point loading
2004). As long as the basic properties of each particle
test has been widely used in the field of engineering
(like particle stiffness) are set, the rock samples which
because of these advantages,.
are simulated by DEM can be confirmed with specific
characteristics. So the DEM eliminates the influence of any natural defect. What’s more, the paper also discusses
heterogeneity, and the more accurately results will be the impact of three factors in PLS test. These factors are,
made. respectively, the indenter radius, the aspect ratio, and the
particle size. The results are as follows, 1) the larger
In this paper, the experiment results of serpentinites by
indenter radius, the higher PLS will be; 2) PLS is nearly
K.Diamantis et.al (2009) are selected. Serpentinites is
a constant when the aspect ratio of samples is 0.3~1,
one of important components of earth curst in some
besides, if the aspect ratio is lower than 0.3, the PLS will
areas like south-eastern Europe, especially in the
increase rapidly.
countries of former Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey etc.
Only few studies have been concentrated on
serpentinites (Nikolas, 2004; Courtier, A. M., et al,
2006; Marinos, P., 2006). K.Diamantis studied the 2. THE PROCESS OF MODEL ESTABLISHING
properties of serpentinites in detail. Based on the AND DATA FITTING
laboratory results and the ISRM standard for both
2.1. Experimental datum
uniaxial compression test and point loading test, we fit
The laboratory data for both point loading test and the
properties such as elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio and
uniaxial compression test has been provided by
UCS for uniaxial compression experiments in laboratory
K.Diamantis. Besides, we can calculate the elastic
results, in order to get the basic properties of each
modulus and Poisson’s ratio from the acoustic data of
particle. Then we use these properties to simulate the
each samples. The results are shown in the Table 1.
point loading test. Finally, we compared the simulation
results with laboratory results in PLS, and we find that Compared with the point loading test, uniaxial
simulation results are higher than laboratory results, and compression test needs higher precision of sample
the correlation is stronger. The authors consider the preparation and more accurate measurements, so fitting
reason of DEM model simulated is homogenous without the particle properties by uniaxial compression test is

Table 1 Comparison between the simulated results by DEM and laboratory results
Lab. Lab. Sim. Lab. Sim. Lab. Sim. Lab. Sim.
ρ ( kg / m3 ) E (GPa) v UCS ( MPa ) PLS ( MPa)
S1 2.61 49.48 49.80 0.31 0.31 54.81 55.80 3.71 4.68
S2 2.59 43.76 44.30 0.33 0.33 28.94 30.64 1.61 1.13
S3 2.60 41.99 40.88 0.32 0.32 45.59 45.21 4.30 4.46
S4 2.67 51.73 51.15 0.31 0.31 66.01 64.51 4.03 6.14
S5 2.67 51.72 52.05 0.31 0.31 58.90 61.62 3.10 6.48
S6 2.61 44.69 45.48 0.32 0.32 31.25 29.60 1.84 2.32
S7 2.65 50.84 48.90 0.30 0.31 52.98 52.44 2.93 5.80
S8 2.58 43.41 45.61 0.32 0.32 37.63 37.39 2.28 4.68
S9 2.62 49.77 48.33 0.31 0.31 78.48 75.83 3.59 7.25
S10 2.61 46.55 47.10 0.32 0.30 77.74 76.10 4.66 7.04
S11 2.56 37.71 37.70 0.33 0.32 32.12 31.60 2.01 2.67
S12 2.60 42.26 42.50 0.33 0.34 39.45 38.80 2.19 6.14
S13 2.53 35.75 36.70 0.33 0.34 19.21 19.20 1.04 1.51
S14 2.61 45.55 44.80 0.31 0.32 37.70 36.90 2.14 1.60
S15 2.68 55.23 55.53 0.30 0.31 76.44 76.26 4.24 7.42
S16 2.68 54.09 53.47 0.31 0.31 76.73 76.53 3.94 6.23
S17 2.59 42.47 42.01 0.32 0.33 43.80 45.25 1.65 4.12
S18 2.61 45.97 43.06 0.32 0.32 51.42 49.18 2.99 4.79
S19 2.67 54.86 55.56 0.30 0.30 77.78 77.34 3.39 6.12
S20 2.68 55.44 55.71 0.30 0.31 88.65 86.72 3.21 6.48
S21 2.59 42.70 41.13 0.32 0.32 46.25 43.35 2.50 5.32
S22 2.64 49.65 50.05 0.31 0.31 81.83 80.30 3.41 6.05

more reliable. Modulus of elasticity, Poisson’s ratio, data fitting process, and in return, we can get the micro
density and UCS, are all taken into considerations for properties for each samples (S1-S23). After the
calibration process, we simulate point loading test with
specific properties, and the results will be more accurate.
2.2. Introduction to DEM
DEM is quite different from FEM (Finite Element
Method). As a numerical calculation method, DEM uses
particle assembly to simulate materials, which allow
particles to separate or combine freely. DEM has unique
advantage to simulate nonlinear elastic materials because
of the features. Besides, bonds, contacts and frictions
can be applied among the particles at the same time. It is
also possible to constrain these particles by setting up
walls. Through introducing these objects above, we can
adjust the DEM models to fit the actual requirements
and match the properties of particles for further
mechanical analysis. Particularly, compared with that in
FEM, stress can be treated as statistical characteristics of
particles in DEM. (Nakashima, et al., 2013; Mito, Y.,
2007; Nabipour, 2010)
2) Fitting the macro parameters of uniaxial compression
experiment by DEM, and the corresponding micro
parameters are obtained;
3) Keeping the microscopic parameters unchanged to
simulate the point loading test by DEM. Because UCS
test and PLS test are using the same micro parameters,
the result can eliminate the impact of the heterogeneity.
4) Comparing PLS simulation results with experimental
results.
Each calculation procedure will be discussed below.
2.3. Simulation on UCS test with DEM
This paper tries to fit the uniaxial compression test by
DEM for macro results, then uses the experimental
results for contrast. We have 23 sets of results from
laboratory data eventually. And the fitted properties of
Sample 1 are as follows in Table 2.
Table 2 Particle properties for S1

Properties Value

Specimen length l (mm) 50

Specimen width w(mm) 25

Particle Density ρc (kg / m3 ) 2610

Radius Ratio rmax / rmin 1.66

Min Radius rmin (mm) 0.1

Contact stiffness kn (GPa) 80

Fig.1 Simplified model in PLS simulation
In this paper, the discrete element 2D model is used to
simulate the 3D experiment. In fact, whether it is a UCS
test or equivalent PLS test, they all have the
characteristics of axial symmetry, which are close to the
stress state of the 2D condition. As shown in Fig.1, the
simplified model can simulate the specimen whose
diameter is 50mm and the height is 25mm. Meanwhile,
using 3D model to improve the simulation accuracy is
limited, and the computation is too large to finish the
simulation by 3D model in the paper. To get more
accurately results, Simulations will be using the 3D
model to avoid the use of 2D model in further research.
PLS test and UCS test can be simulated by DEM. Then
the macro parameters including the UCS, PLS, Elastic
modulus and Poisson's ratio can be calculated. In this
paper, the relationship between PLS and UCS is mainly
studied. In order to eliminate the heterogeneity of rock
on the relationship between PLS and UCS, the following
steps are used:
1) Obtaining the basic uniaxial compression test data,
such as the uniaxial compressive strength, elastic
modulus and Poisson's ratio;
Shear stiffness ks (GPa ) 22.85
Coefficient of friction f 0.4
Shear Bond strength τ c (MPa) 70
Normal Bond strength σ c ( MPa) 45
For simulations, we create specimens of 50mm*25mm
which consist of 18994 particles. The range of particle
radius is from 0.1mm to 0.16mm and it obeys a Gaussian
distribution. The strengths of contact bonds (including
normal bond and shear bond) follow Normal
distribution. The mean value of normal bond strength is
45MPa, and the standard deviation is 12MPa; the mean
value of shear bond strengths is 70MPa, and the standard
deviation is 18MPa.
As is shown in Fig. 2, failure patterns of sample 1 can be
observed from the simulations. Blue lines show micro-
cracks which lead to tensile fractures, while black ones
lead to shear fractures. There are 170 tensile micro-
cracks and 12 shear ones in the sample. Most of cracks
are gathered together to form a band, which can be
considered as a shear zone. The shear zone reveals the
fact that Sample 1 is in the form of shear failure
predominantly. Displacement vectors are shown in
orange.
The fitted properties which obtained from S1 (Table 3)
is similar to the laboratory test, so we consider the fitting
accuracy is assured. We can also fit properties for other
samples in the same way, and the results are shown in
Table 1.
Table 3 Fitting results and laboratory results for S1
Properties ρ (kg / m3 ) E (GPa ) v UCS ( MPa)
Laboratory
2610 49.48 0.310 54.81
test
DEM test 2610 49.8 0.309 55.8

Fig. 4. Simulated point loading test for S16

Fig.2 UCS simulation result for S1
2.4. Simulation on PLS test with DEM
Through the two-dimensional DEM, we can simulate
point loading test of rock materials (Ding, X., 2011;
Schöpfer, 2009). Fig.3 shows the model. According to
the ISRM suggested, the indenter radius is 5mm, and the
particle size in accordance with those in uniaxial test.
The indenter will be moved with a constant velocity
until the specimen is broken.
Fig.3 Point loading model by DEM
The curve of point loading test can be simulated by
DEM. Referring to Fig.4, the abscissa represents time
steps (1Ksteps=1000steps) which are quite different
from the real time steps, influenced by the radius and the
stiffness of particles.
When Sample 16 is taken as an example, the simulation
has a specific time step for 1.336*10-8 s/step. The force
transferring process is guaranteed in the calculation,
which can be regarded as quasi-static one. The final PLS
of Sample 16 reaches 6.23MPa, while it decreases
slightly at 140Ksteps. We find that local cracks emerge
at the 140Ksteps, but the cracks is scattered. The
scattered cracks have finite impact on the rock strength,
because the structure of the specimen is not damaged.
2.5. Results and comparison
According to the method which have been discussed, we
fit the rest 23 sets of data, as follows in the Table 1. The
UCS varies between 19.21MPa and 88.65Mpa, whose
mean value is 55.03MPa, and standard deviation is
20.7650MPa based on the laboratory experiments. While
UCS range from 19.2MPa to 86.72MPa, with the
average of 54.1168MPa, and the standard deviation of
19.9913MPa by DEM. It is obvious that the uniaxial
compression simulating results by DEM are close to the
observed data from experiments, which prove reasonable
for fitting process of samples.
On the other hand, laboratory PLS are between
1.04MPa~4.66MPa.Its mean value is 2.9436MPa and the
standard deviation is 1MPa. However, the simulated
PLS results we get through DEM are relatively higher
and scatter, with the range of 1.13MPa~7.42MPa. The
mean value of PLS is 4.9286MPa, and the standard
deviation is 1.9421MPa.
Laboratory test:
UCS = 16.5339 * Is50 + 6.3956 ( R 2 = 0.6384)
DEM test:
UCS = 8.6495* Is50 + 11.481 ( R 2 = 0.7062)
Finally, we get the linear regression equation based on
the results through both DEM and laboratory tests in Fig
5. Even though the data we obtain from simulation are
scattered and the standard deviation is large, the
correlativity of linear regression is unaffected. It’s
inevitable that the operation errors during the test and
inner defects such as micro-cracks and natural joints in
samples may lead to similar results of PLS even though
our specimen has different rock properties.
16 sets of the UCS test data are simulated in this
procedure. The specimen itself has a certain divergence,
(1)
so it is difficult to ensure that the correlation is 1. On the
other hand, compared with the sample of UCS test, the
sample of PLS test tends to be larger, and internal
(2) defects is easier to exist. Therefore PLS is smaller than
the real value and the results of numerical simulation
also prove this point. From Fig.5, we can see that the
results of PLS simulation are 1 times larger than the
experimental results.

Fig. 5 Relationship between uniaxial compression strength and point load strength index.

loading test. Radial experiment can be performed for

3. THE EFFECTS OF VARIOUS TEST
CONDITIONS
The laboratory point loading test has been widely
applied because of its simplicity. We still need to realize
that the PLS can be quite different when using samples
with same properties but different sizes, or under
different loading conditions. For further investigations
on point loading test, we focus on the differences caused
by loading conditions and the properties of sample. In
this paper, we take 3 parameters into discussion: the
radius of indenters, the aspect ratio, and the particle size,
with Sample 17 as a contrast. PLS changes when we
adjust loading conditions, as Table 4 shows.
3.1. The effect of aspect ratio
Aspect ratio, as one of the parameters which affect the
rock strength, has been standardized by ISRM for point
aspect ratio higher than 1.0, while the axial experiment
with a range of 0.3~1.0. The 2D simulation model can be
considered as an axial experiment. As the aspect ratio
decreased, we can find that the PLS is stable. Only when
the aspect ratio is lower than 0.3, the PLS increased
suddenly.
3.2. The effect of the indenter radius
The indenter radius should also be considered as an
important parameters. In fact, as in sphere shapes, the
surface area between indenter and specimen is less than
the superficial area of indenter. From the results based
on simulations, the final strength increases apparently
with enlarged radius, which reveal that the strength can
be related to the contact areas. According to the ISRM
suggested method, the standard indenter radius is 5mm,
modifications are required if other radius of non-
standard indenter is used. We assumed that there is a 3.3. The effect of the particle size
linear relationship between contact areas and indenter The accuracy of the simulation depends much on the
radius, so the PLS can be modified by the equation as size of particles. The particle size is not consistent with
follows: the size of rock particles. There are several reasons: 1)
'
(3) the rock particles are so small that the simulation needs
Is50 = Is50 *5 / Ri
to cost a lot of time; 2) the shape of rock particle is
Where Ri is indenter radius, mm. The modified results of various, and there are cements between the rock
non-standard indenter with equation (3) are similar to the particles, so the interaction between particles is very
results of standard indenter. As is shown in Fig.7, the complicated. And it is hard to describe the interaction on
modified strength is between 6.5MPa~8.8MPa, which is this micro scale. Therefore, the size of particle would
much better than the initial results. rather be similar to the FEM mesh which is more proper.
The particles should be regarded as a group of rock
particles, whose radii are on an intermediate scale from
Table 4 Simulation parameters in test conditions micro to macro length. Actually, the study of particle
sizes is focused on the DEM accuracy.
aspect ratio indenter radius particle size
T1 1.00 5.00 0.15 As a basic parameter, it is obvious that particle size has a
great impact on the experimental results. However, the
T2 0.71 5.00 0.15
computing speed will be very slow when the particle
Contrast S17 0.50 5.00 0.15
size is less than a certain value because of the limitation
T3 0.38 5.00 0.15 in DEM computing speed and the low efficiency of the
T4 0.31 5.00 0.15 algorithm,. The total computation time is about 10days
T5 0.50 3.00 0.15 in this paper, and the decrease of particle size will lead
Contrast S17 0.50 5.00 0.15 to an exponential increase of computing time. On the
T6 0.50 7.00 0.15 other hand, as is shown in Fig.6, the change of PLS is
T7 9.00 0.15 tiny when the particle diameter is less than 0.15mm. In
T8 0.50 12.00 0.15 this case, we can consider the computational results
T9 0.50 5.00 0.05
tends to be stable. Particle size should not exceed 0.4mm,
otherwise particle size leads to a distortion of
T10 0.50 5.00 0.30
computational results. Thus, for the accuracy of
Contrast S17 0.50 5.00 0.15 simulations, the recommended particle sizes are less than
T11 0.50 5.00 0.40 0.15mm and the number of particles should be at least
T12 0.50 5.00 0.50 3000.

Fig. 6 The effect of various test conditions on point
load strength index
4. CONCLUSIONS
This paper simulates the point loading test and the
uniaxial compression test with DEM in 2D to find
Fig. 7 Modified the effect of indenter radius on
point load strength index
out the correlation between them. DEM provides
superiorities for us to simulate the rock materials
because it can simulate dynamic process of
fracturing and the growth of inner cracks. As DEM
simulation keeps the sample from the inner micro-
cracks of rock, it is more apparent for us to find that,
the simulated PLS is larger than that based on
laboratory experiments. And the fitting curve
between UCS and PLS is calculated by simulation
results, which is better than laboratory results. It is
considered that the curve in simulated can be uesd
to modify the curve in laboratory. On the other hand,
the results are simulated by serpentinites. If other
type of rocks need the results, it is necessary to
simulate the new rock again.
At the end of this paper, three parameters of point
loading test have been discussed respectively. The
aspect ratios, radius of indenters and particle sizes
cannot be neglected for final results. According to
the research, the strength increases steeply with
aspect ratio less than 0.3, while the results tend to
be stable when aspect ratio is from 0.3 to 1.0. So the
axial point loading test should not be lower than 0.3.
Both of the conclusions reflect that the standard of
ISRM tends to be reasonable. As indenter radius
expands, PLS increases obviously.It is caused by
the contact area between indenter and radius
increased. Besides, modified equations have been
provided for a reasonable range of strengths. At last,
the particle diameters are closely related with the
simulation accuracy. For particle sizes under
0.15mm, simulations can be quite accurate. For
accuracy in calculation process, the authors suggest
to use more than 3000 particles and their radii under
0.3mm.
NOMENCLATURE
DEM Discrete Element Method
UCS Uniaxial Compression Strength
PLS Point load strength
Is50 Point loading strength index
ρ Density of rocks
E Elastic Modulus
ν Passion’s ratio
REFERENCES
1. Baek, H., et al. 2013. Correlation between the uniaxial
compressive strength and the point load strength index
of the pungchon limestone. Egu General Assembly, ed.
J. 15.
2. Courtier A. M., D. J. Hart and N. I. Christensen. 2006.
Seismic properties of leg 195 serpentinites and their
geophysical implications 1. Proceedings of the Ocean
Drilling Program Scientific Results.
3. Dey, T. and P. Halleck. 1981. Some aspects of size-
effect in rock failure. Geophys. Res. Lett.; (United
States). 8:7(7), 691-694.
4. Deere, D.U. and R.P. Miller. 1966. Engineering
classifications and index properties of intact rock. Tech.
Report. AFWL-TR 65–116.
5. Diamantis, K., E. Gartzos and G. Migiros. 2009. Study
on uniaxial compressive strength, point load strength
index, dynamic and physical properties of serpentinites
from central greece: test results and empirical relations.
Engineering Geology. 108(3), 199-207.
6. Ding, X. and L. Zhang. 2011. Simulation of rock
fracturing using particle flow modeling: phase i - model
development and calibration. U.s.rock Mechanics.
7. Franklin, J. A. 1985. Suggested method for determining
point load strength. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts. 22(2), 51-60.
8. Hatheway, A. W. 2009. The complete isrm suggested
methods for rock characterization, testing and
monitoring; 1974-2006. Environmental & Engineering
Geoscience. 15(1), 47-48.
9. Marinos, P., E. Hoek and V. Marinos. 2006. Variability
of the engineering properties of rock masses quantified
by the geological strength index: the case of ophiolites
with special emphasis on tunnelling. Bulletin of
Engineering Geology & the Environment. 65(2), 129-
142.
10. Kohno, M., and H. Maeda. 2012. Relationship between
point load strength and uniaxial compressive strength
of hydrothermally altered soft rocks. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 50.
11. Mito, Y., C. S. Chang, K. Aoki, H. Matsui, S. Niunoya,
and Minami, M. 2007. Evaluation of fracturing process
of soft rocks at great depth by AE measurement And
DEM simulation. International Society for Rock
Mechanics.
12. Nabipour, A., et al., 2010. A DEM study on perforation
induced damaged zones and penetration length in
sandstone reservoirs. American Rock Mechanics
Association.
13. Nakashima, et al. 2013. Loading conditions in the
brazilian test simulation by DEM. American Rock
Mechanics Association.
14. Nikolas I. Christensen. 2004. Serpentinites, peridotites,
and seismology. International Geology Review. 46(9),
795-816.
15. Nishimura, T., K. Tsujino and T. Fukuda. 2010. Effects
of model parameters in DEM on slope failure
simulation. International Society for Rock Mechanics.
16. Potyondy, D. O. and P. A. Cundall. 2004. A bonded-
particle model for rock. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences. 41(8), 1329-1364.

17. Schöpfer, M. P. J., S. Abe, C. Childs, and J., Walsh.

2009. The impact of porosity and crack density on the
elasticity, strength and friction of cohesive granular
materials: insights from dem modelling. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. 46(2),
250-261.
18. Smith, H. J. 1997. The point load test for weak rock in
dredging applications. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences. 34(34), 295.e1–
295.e13.
19. Wu, J. B. C. and N. Brown. 1977. The effect of
specimen size on the mechanical behaviour associated
with crazing. Journal of Materials Science. 12(12),
1527-1534.