ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 328–335

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical note

Rock variability and establishing confining pressure levels

for triaxial tests on rocks
M. Saria, C. Karpuzb,
a
Aksaray Engineering Faculty, University of Nigde, Aksaray 68200, Turkey
b
Department of Mining Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara 06531, Turkey
Accepted 30 June 2005
Available online 6 September 2005

1. Introduction suggested methods for the triaxial test, is it mentioned

In teaching rock mechanics, often the theoretical part
of the lectures are demonstrated by laboratory sessions,
which are helpful in supplementing the teaching of rock
mechanics principles to the students. In these laboratory
sessions, an unconfined compressive strength (UCS) test
can be followed by a conventional triaxial compressive
strength (TCS) test on similar rock specimens. The
former test is the one used most in the characterization
of rock strength and in many rock classification systems;
while the latter test has been widely used for the
determination of design parameters such as C and f
because of the equipment simplicity and convenient
specimen preparation and testing procedures. However,
the experience of the authors in conducting such sessions
has shown that problems are encountered while
performing the conventional triaxial compressive
strength tests and these can be misleading to the
students.
The conventional TCS test consists of applying a
hydraulic pressure to the external surface of a cylindrical
rock specimen and at the same time axially loading the
specimen in compression with increasing increments
until failure of the rock. The procedure for measuring
the rock strengths has been standardized by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
[1,2] and the International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM) [3,4]. Neither in the ASTM nor in the ISRM
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 312 210 2655;
fax: +90 312 210 1265.
E-mail address: karpuz@metu.edu.tr (C. Karpuz).
clearly what procedure should be followed to establish
the pre-test confining pressure levels. Terms such as ‘‘the
desired lateral pressure’’, ‘‘the desired value’’, ‘‘the pre-
determined test level’’ and ‘‘the prescribed value’’ are
used. So, the test instructor has to arbitrarily settle these
pressure values by himself/herself based on his/her past
experience.
Ideally, at each increment of the confining pressure
the same rock specimen should be used for the test, but
since rock specimens are broken after each test,
obviously the failed specimen has to be replaced by a
new sample. Thus, some conflicting results may be
obtained due to inherent variability in the failure
characteristics of a substituted rock specimen, e.g.
sometimes the new rock specimen is broken at a lower
axial load for a higher confining pressure applied than
for the previous one. Although Kovari et al. [5,6] have
suggested that in a ‘‘continuous failure state’’ triaxial
test it is possible to determine the failure envelope of a
rock with the aid of a single cylindrical test specimen, it
is still necessary to define a pre-test confining pressure
level for this test and also for the conventional TCS test,
since it is more universal and fundamental for the
students.
In this Technical note, a practical approach will be
introduced for establishment of pre-determined confin-
ing pressure levels for the triaxial test on rocks by
directly using the UCS and TCS test values collected
from past laboratory sessions of a rock mechanics
course. Also, for the purpose of this study, the possible
probability distribution models, which take into account
the uncertainty and variability dictated by the nature of

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.06.010
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Sari, C. Karpuz / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 328–335
the strength of rocks under compression, have been
evaluated and the acceptability of the assumption
about the proposed distribution model can be further
investigated.
2. Uncertainty and variability in rock mechanics
Most engineering problems involve some degree of
uncertainty and variability. The causes of such uncertainty
in an engineering content have been detailed by Bury [7]
and in particular for rock engineering by Duzgun et al. [8].
Bury [7] classifies sources of uncertainty as (1) data
uncertainty; (2) statistical uncertainty; (3) event uncer-
tainty; and (4) model uncertainty.

Data uncertainty is caused mostly by the inherent
variability of a measured quantity. No matter how
carefully one measures such a quantity, variability
among the measured values is unavoidable because it
is an inherent quality.

Statistical uncertainty is due to the limited amount of
information that is typically available for a measur-
able quantity. The more data that are on hand, the
more information on that quantity that is available.
Thus, limited information implies uncertainty about
the true nature of the quantity.

Event uncertainty is a result of little information
available on the occurrences of events, especially rare
events and their probabilities.

Model uncertainty is related to the mathematical
models which the engineer uses in his/her work.
Typically, these models represent only one or a few of
the important characteristics of the physical phenom-
enon in question. Models only represent a restricted
version of reality and, since they are an idealization of
a real problem, they sometimes deviate from the
actual situation.
Duzgun et al. [8] have reviewed and considered the
sources of uncertainties affecting rock properties and
highlighted the three components, namely, inherent
variability, statistical uncertainty and systematic uncer-
tainties.

The inherent variability results from the fact that,
even in a homogenous rock medium, the rock
characteristics exhibit natural variability. The scatter
of the strength values from a series of test specimens
of the same rock material may be considerable. This
is a result of the randomly distributed weak planes,
micro cracks, or flaws in the rock, which influence the
rock strength.

The sample statistics, i.e. mean, standard deviation,
of a rock property are subject to uncertainty because
of limited field sampling and laboratory testing. This
329
type of uncertainty is called statistical and it can be
diminished readily with increasing number of sam-
ples.

The systematic uncertainty comes from the discre-
pancies between the laboratory and in situ condi-
tions, due to factors such as scale, anisotropy and
water content. Supplementary sampling may not
necessarily reduce these systematic discrepancy un-
certainties, since the same test conditions persist and
consistently yield different property values.
If the variables in a process demonstrate uncertainty
and variability, it is certainly necessary to describe the
nature of their uncertainty and variability. This can be
achieved with probability distributions, which give both
the range of values that the variable could take and the
likelihood of occurrence of each value within the range.
Generally, the distribution and its parameters are
initially unknown and need to be estimated from the
available information about the random nature of the
rock variable. The information is usually in the form of
a sample of observed values and there are many
theoretical probability distributions (e.g. over 30 [7])
that can represent the data with various degrees of
success.
The most basic categories of probability distributions
relate to whether they are continuous or discrete. A
discrete distribution may take one of a set of identifiable
values, each of which has a calculable probability of
occurrence. A continuous distribution, on the other
hand, is used to represent a variable that can take
any value within a defined range (domain) [9]. All
distribution types use a set of arguments to specify a
range of actual values and distribution of probabi-
lities. A normal distribution, for example, uses a mean
and standard deviation as its arguments. The mean
defines the value around which ‘‘the bell curve’’ will be
centered and the standard deviation defines the spread
of values around the mean. For a more comprehensive
description and use of probability distributions, the
reader is directed to Bury [7], Evans et al. [10], Johnson
et al. [11,12].
A good example for the expression of inherent
uncertainty and variability in the context of rock
engineering can be given as the values obtained for a
rock material subject to unconfined compressive stress
(UCS). Publication on this subject is limited, but there is
work on the probabilistic strength determination of
brittle materials [13–20]. The first significant contribu-
tion to the investigation of the failure probability of
brittle materials was made by the Swedish physicist
Waloddi Weibull [13], and the two or three parameter
Weibull distribution (named after him) is mostly used to
model the distribution of the failure strength of rocks
and concrete by Li et al. [14], Huang et al. [15], Muro
et al. [16], Ghosh [17], Desayi and Rao [18], Rabie and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
330 M. Sari, C. Karpuz / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 328–335

Meguid [19], Grady and Kipp [20]. Moos et al. [21] have minimum of 32.09 MPa and a maximum of 103.79 MPa
studied the effects of in situ conditions and rock strength values have been obtained during the four-year
properties on wellbore stability predictions and they periods of the tests. The mean value for the samples’
suggested that it was necessary to utilize probabilistic UCS is 68.05 MPa with a standard deviation of
methods to quantify uncertainties caused by in situ 12.44 MPa. Summary statistics for the 103 specimens
stress and rock strength. In their study, the uniaxial are presented in Table 1.
compressive strength of the rocks adjacent to a wellbore
has been modelled by a log normal curve, one member 3.1. Fitting a distribution to the UCS tests
of the asymmetrical distribution family, in an attempt to
specify uncertainties for an input parameter in the Comparison graphs are superimposed on the input
quantitative risk analysis (QRA) approach. data and the fitted distribution curve on the same graph,
Hsu and Nelson [22] have statistically fitted a normal allowing one to visually assess the quality of the fit.
distribution to the UCS of 121 rock samples taken from Also, the frequency distribution of the sample may be
the Eagle Ford shale, which is classified as extremely statistically compared with the hypothetical distribution
weak to weak rock based on the UCS. The average to see if this assumption is really warranted. The
uniaxial compressive strength of the rock was 2.07 MPa frequency histogram of the actual test results is shown
but the UCS ranged from 0.44 to 5.82 MPa. They have in Fig. 1 for the UCS of the 103 rock specimens. As can
found that the assumed normal distribution was be seen from the graph, the unconfined strength of the
acceptable according to the results of the Kolmogor- andesite rock varies considerably for core samples taken
ov–Smirnov goodness-of-fit test (K–S test) at the from the different blocks of the same quarry. The full
specified significance level a, which was 0.01. nature of the UCS for this rock cannot be characterized
in the calculations by a single value, e.g. the mean of all
the observed strengths.
3. Ankara andesite
Table 1
The rock type used in the experiments for the rock Summary statistics for UCS (MPa)
mechanics course taught by the authors is broadly
described as Ankara andesite [23–26]. Andesite is a fine- Mean 68.05
grained igneous, volcanic (extrusive) rock, of intermedi- Median 66.72
Mode 63.80
ate composition, with aphanitic to porphyritic texture. It Standard deviation 12.44
is intermediate because it contains some minerals that Sample variation 154.70
are common to rhyolite and some common to basalt. It Coefficient of variation 18.3%
can appear very much like basalt, but it is usually less Range 71.70
dark or greenish in color. The variability in the Minimum 32.09
Maximum 103.79
characteristics of andesite is considerably more pro- Sum 7009.55
nounced than in the similar igneous rock groups. Count 103
Ozcelik [23] has investigated the effects of the Standard error 1.23
mechanical and physical properties of Ankara andesite Confidence interval (95%) 72.43
on the wearing rate of diamond wire beads. Karpuz and
Pasamehmetoglu [24] have extensively studied the area
where the rock blocks are gathered for the laboratory
work. They have detailed the weathering characteristics 40
of Ankara andesite, both from the engineering geology
and rock mechanics points of view at the quarries within
the vicinity of city of Ankara. For the Golbasi district, 30
they have distinguished three types of andesite, which
Frequency

are (a) brownish gray-to-grayish purple, fine-grained 20

glassy andesite; (b) pale red, fine-grained andesite; and
(c) gray, fine-grained andesite.
Preparation of the cylindrical rock samples was 10
carried out in the laboratory and a diameter of not less
than NX core size, approximately, 2 1/8 in (54 mm) is 0
used in the experiments. The length-to-diameter (L/D) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
ratio of 2–2.5 is applicable to most of the specimens—in UCS (MPa)
accordance with the suggestions of the ISRM [4]. A total Fig. 1. Frequency distribution of UCS of andesite with a hypothetical
of 103 rock specimens were subjected to the UCS test; a normal distribution.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Sari, C. Karpuz / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 328–335 331

A more realistic and rational approach is to include
all the variability in the analysis to reflect the random-
ness exhibited by the available data. This can be
achieved directly by representing the UCS of andesite
with a single probability distribution function. In Fig. 1,
therefore, a fitted normal distribution curve is also
shown.
To find the best fitting distribution type, a statistical
software package, BestFits was used [27]. BestFit
evaluates all statistical distributions in its built-in library
for the given data set, whether discrete or continuous,
and ranks the most appropriate distributions according
to their statistical goodness-of-fit test criteria, chi-square
(w2) or Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests. The output data
generated from the results of BestFit are tabulated in
Table 2 for the available distributions with their
given rank according to w2 criteria. Note that the lower
the w2 value, the higher the p-value, the closer the
theoretical distribution appears to fit the data. The best
distribution type representing the UCS of Ankara
andesite has been found to be normal with the
parameters: mean, m ¼ 68:05 MPa; and standard devia-
tion, s ¼ 12:44 MPa. Details of the distribution fitting
procedure and goodness-of-fit test are demonstrated in
the following section only for the normal distribution.
The probability density function for a normal distribu-
tion with mean m and standard deviation s is given
below
 
1 ðx  mÞ2
f ðxÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  s40; 1oxo þ 1.
2ps2 2s2
(1)
3.2. w2 Goodness-of-Fit to UCS Tests
We can test how well the distribution of sample values
conforms to a theoretical distribution by a test
procedure called the goodness-of-fit or w2. So, in
addition to visual inspection in Fig. 1, a detailed w2
goodness-of-fit test was carried out and Table 3 outlines
results of the w2 test for the 103 UCS values of the rock
samples for the normal distribution. The result of the
goodness-of-fit test suggests that it is a plausible
approximation to represent the observed frequency
distribution of UCS with a normal distribution. In this
method, a test statistic may be devised by dividing a
standard normal distribution into a number of intervals.
The expected frequency of occurrence within each
interval can be compared with the frequency of sample
observations that fall within the intervals. If the number
in each interval deviates significantly from that expected
it seems unlikely that the sample was drawn from a
normal population [28]. The test statistic is calculated by
the equation
Xk
ðOj  E j Þ2
w2 ¼ , (2)
Ej
j¼1
where Oj is the number of actual observations within the
jth class, and Ej is the number of observations expected
in that class. There are k classes or intervals.
In the first column of Table 3, 103 UCS values are
arbitrarily subdivided into 10 classes, each having a
width of 10 MPa. The second column lists the observed
frequencies for each class, while the third column lists
the expected frequencies for each class as a result of the
best fitting normal curve in Fig. 1. The fourth column
then provides the w2 term for each class calculated from
Eq. (2) and the overall w2 statistic is calculated as 4.877,
with 9 degrees of freedom (number of classes –1) at the
bottom of Table 3 (the critical w2 value for the level of
significance a ¼ 0:05 with 9 degrees of freedom is 16.92).
As given in Table 3, a p-value of 0.845 was calculated,
which is a relatively high value. For the w2 test, a higher
p-value will increase the credibility of the null hypothesis
and eventually will lead to acceptance of the statement
that the UCS values of rock samples can be modeled as
coming from a normal population. As a conclusion, at

Table 2
Results of BestFit Table 3
w2 goodness of fit test of 103 rock specimens UCS values
Distribution type Rank w2 test value p-Value
UCS (MPa) range Observed frequency Expected frequency w2
Normal 1 4.88 0.845
Logistic 2 4.98 0.836 20–30 0 0.11 0.110
w2 3 6.42 0.697 30–40 2 1.13 0.670
Extreme value 4 17.79 0.038 40–50 4 6.31 0.846
Erlang 5 346 0.000 50–60 19 19.09 0.000
Lognormal 6 510 0.000 60–70 36 31.26 0.719
Student-T 7 N/A N/A 70–80 23 27.75 0.813
Exponential 8 N/A N/A 80–90 16 13.35 0.526
Pareto 9 N/A N/A 90–100 2 3.47 0.623
Triangular 10 N/A N/A 100–110 1 0.49 0.531
Uniform 11 N/A N/A 110–120 0 0.04 0.040
Weibull 12 N/A N/A
n ¼ 103; Sw2 ¼ 4:877; v ¼ 9; p-value ¼ 0.845.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
332 M. Sari, C. Karpuz / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 328–335

the level of significance a ¼ 0:05 the decision is to not
reject the null hypothesis of goodness-of-fit between
observed frequencies and theoretical frequencies. In
other words, the difference between observed frequen-
cies and theoretical frequencies is not significant. Hence,
not only for practical considerations and simplicity of
working with it, but also because the UCS of rock
specimens can be validly modeled via the normal
distribution in this case, this distribution is used in the
following calculations.
3.3. Deriving the parameters from the triaxial tests
The apparent cohesion (C) and internal friction angel
(f) may be calculated using triaxial compressive
strength test data by constructing a strength envelope
or Mohr’s envelope. The confining pressures and
corresponding TCS values for the different specimens
of the same rock are plotted with the confining pressures
as abscissa and the corresponding strengths as ordinates
in Fig. 2, with the UCS test results. The best linear line
passing through the points is fitted using the least
200
180
160
Axial Stress, σ1 (MPa)
squares technique; the regression equation of this line is
characterized by its gradient (q) and its y-intercept (sc)
as follows:
s1 ¼ 71:51 þ 4:60s3 (3)
2
with r ¼ 0:642, where, s1 and s3 are the axial stress and
confining pressure in MPa, respectively, q ¼ 4:60 and
sc ¼ 71:51 MPa. Using these parameters, f and C may
be calculated using the formulae [3]
f ¼ arc sinððq  1Þ=ðq þ 1ÞÞ
and (4)
C ¼ sc ð1  sin fÞ=2 cos f:
Here, f and C are calculated as 40.01 and 16.7 MPa,
respectively. In the equation, the y-intercept of the best
fitting line is 71.51 MPa; that is the estimated UCS of all
the samples and it is close to the actual calculated mean
UCS of the rock samples in Table 1 (s0 ¼ 68:05 MPa).
One of the first things to do when running a regression
model is to look at how well the model fits to the data.
The necessary model summary statistics, the analysis of
variance (ANOVA) table and regression coefficients are
presented in Table 4. The determination coefficient, r2, is
found as 0.642, which indicates that only 64.2% of the
changes in the TCS of rock specimens are due to
changes in the confining pressure; the remaining 35.8%

unexplained part of the coefficient is attributable to the

140
other factors such as inherent variability in the rock
120
samples.
100
The ANOVA table in Table 4 is used to test the null
80
σ1 = 71.51 + 4.60 x σ3 hypothesis that there is no linear relation between the
60
r2 = 0,642 dependent variable, axial stress, and the independent
40
variable, confining pressure. The test of the null
20
hypothesis is based on the ratio of the regression mean
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 square to the residual mean square. In Table 4, the ratio
Confining Pressure, σ2=σ3 (MPa) of the two mean squares, labeled F, is 359.86. Since the
calculated significance level is less than 0.01, one can
Fig. 2. UCS and TCS plot of Golbasi andesite (strength envelope). reject the null hypothesis that there is no linear relation

Table 4
Model summary statistics and ANOVA table

R R2 Adjusted R2 Std. erorr Count

0.801 0.642 0.640 14.26 203

df SS MS F Significance

Regression 1 73201.48 73201.48 359.86 0.000

Residual 201 40886.96 203.42
Total 202 114088.44

Coefficients Std. error T p-Value Lower %95 Upper %95

Constant, sc 71.51 1.26 56.93 0.000 69.03 73.99

Variable, s3 4.60 0.24 18.97 0.000 4.12 5.08
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Sari, C. Karpuz / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 328–335 333

between the s1 and s3 variables. The linear regression
model is a statistically valid model and it can be used
satisfactorily for prediction purposes at different levels
of confining pressure. In the same table, it has also been
shown that both of the coefficients of the linear model
are statistically significant, confirmed by considerably
higher t values.
The difference between the estimated UCS value from
the strength envelope and the actual one, whether
meaningful or not, can be simply understood by
conducting a t-test. This t-test suggests that, since the
95% confidence interval of the actual UCS mean of
samples in Table 1, which is 68.0572.43 MPa, almost
includes Eq. (3)’s estimated UCS confidence interval of
the lower 95% of 69.03 MPa, it is reasonable to say that
they may come from the same population of rock
samples.
Like UCS, the TCS of rock specimens should be
essentially characterized by a probability distribution
function at each increment of confining pressure. For
instance, if the UCS of rock samples under considera-
tion exhibits a normal distribution, the same rock
specimens under different level of triaxial compression
are theoretically expected to follow a similar normal
distribution with different parameters, whatever confin-
ing pressure is applied to them.
To make it understandable, the frequency distribution
of rock specimens under 2, 4, and 6 MPa lateral stresses
were presented in Fig. 3. Since there is an insufficient
number of observations at each stress level, it is hard to
detect any pattern in the type of distribution of rock
samples under specified confining pressures. After
evaluation of twenty plots of random samples of twenty
values drawn from a normal (100, 10) distribution, Vose
[9] concluded that to establish a reasonable number
from which to draw some inference about the type of
distribution is a challenging task. For this case, provided
that the number of samples at each test level could be
approximately the number of samples used for the
UCS test, it might be reasonable to talk about the type
of distribution for the rock samples under triaxial
loading.

8 σ3= 2 MPa 8 σ3 = 4 MPa

n=15 n=20
6 6
Frequency
Frequency

4 4

2 2

0 0
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
TCS (MPa) TCS (MPa)

8
σ3 = 6 MPa
n = 18
6
Frequency

0
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
TCS (MPa)

Fig. 3. TCS frequency distribution of rock samples at different confining pressures.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
334 M. Sari, C. Karpuz / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 328–335
4. Approach to setting the minimum confining pressure
Since the distribution of UCS (Fig. 1) is fairly
symmetrical in shape and it has been previously
approved by the w2 test that the UCS of samples follows
probability rules for a normal distribution, it is
applicable in the establishment of confining pressures.
This rule formally states that 73 times the standard
deviation from the mean should contain almost all of
the sample values [28,29]. Therefore, a practical and
simple way can be the addition of 3 times the standard
deviation to the mean, so that this new value will be the
highest UCS value observable for rock samples under
consideration. If this value is immediately located in
Eq. (3) in place of s1 and resolving the equation in terms
of s3, it will give us the potential confining pressure that
should be applied to the specimens in an attempt to
remove some of the inherent variability factor.
The maximum observable UCS ¼ 3  Std of UCS+
Mean of UCS ¼ 3  12.44+68.05 ¼ 105.4 MPa. If we
subsequently place this value into Eq. (3)
s1 ¼ 71:51 þ 4:60  s3 ;
105:4 ¼ 71:51 þ 4:60  s3 ;
s3 ¼ 7:4 MPa:
This number can be clarified intuitively as the
necessary minimum confining pressure appropriate for
the rock specimen of Ankara andesite so as to account
for some of the natural variability inherent in the triaxial
compressive strengths of rock samples. A confidence
interval will have been settled between the lower and
the next applicable lateral stress, so that the first
observable maximum failure strength would not be
greater than the expected failure strength of the next
one. Expressed in another way, one is avoiding rock
failure whilst the confining pressure is increased to a
prescribed level; its expected failure load would not be
lower than the maximum observed UCS of the same rock.
Accordingly, by putting 105.4 MPa in Eq. (3) as the
expected sc, and calculating the maximum observable
strength as 3  Std of UCS+105.4 MPa, and then
putting this value in the place of s1, finally resolving
the equation in terms of s3 will produce the next
applicable value for the confining pressure. The same
procedure can be followed for the establishment of other
levels of confining pressure.
If it is desired to express 7.4 MPa for simplicity as a
percentage in a similar notation as used in the coefficient
of variation (CoV), dividing this value by the actual
mean of the UCS will give us a unitless ratio related to
the percentage of observed mean suitable as a minimum
confining pressure on the rock samples. The CoV of this
rock is found to be 18.3% (Table 1) and the pro-
posed minimum confining pressure will be 7.4 MPa/
68.05 MPa ¼ 10.8% of the mean UCS. From here it
may be seen that the necessary minimum confining
pressure percentage applicable for any rock type should
be almost the half of the CoV of the rock samples.
Hence, it can be inferred that 10% of the mean UCS
value of any rock type can be simply suggested as the
initial confining pressure level for TCS testing.
5. Conclusions and recommendations
A probabilistic approach has been explicitly detailed
in this study towards the solution of a testing problem
that can be encountered frequently in rock mechanics.
Because of vague terminology usage in the Suggested
Methods, researchers and students were facing difficul-
ties concerning the pre-setting of confining pressure
levels for a conventional TCS test on rock. This work
reported here aims to solve this problem and some of the
conclusions drawn from this work are as follows:

UCS frequency distribution of rock samples can
exhibit a high variation and, instead of using only one
point estimate, it is more convenient to represent this
value with a probability distribution representing the
natural uncertainty and variability.

Frequency distribution model for the UCS values of
Ankara andesite used in the case study here is
considered to be normal with the parameters,
mean, m ¼ 68:05 MPa and standard deviation,
s ¼ 12:44 MPa.

Additional TCS tests are required on similar rock
specimens to remove some of the statistical uncer-
tainties and to delineate the type of possible
distribution at different levels of confining pressure.

A rough thumb rule may be recommended—the
necessary minimum confining pressure applicable for
any rock type should be around the 10% of the mean
UCS. Another useful approach is to take the half of
the CoV as the percentage of the mean UCS for the
initial confining pressure level.

When this rule is followed, since the randomness in
the failure of rock samples has been taken into
account, there will be much less risk of encountering
situations in which rocks will fail at a lower axial
loading when a higher confining pressure is applied to
them.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following for
their help during the course of this study: Technicians
Nizamettin Aydemir and Hakan Uysal for their kind
help in the preparation of the rock specimens and
conducting the tests; Research Assistants, Sinem Sener
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Sari, C. Karpuz / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 328–335
for providing the UCS test results and Arman Kocal for
providing some components of the TCS test values.
References
[1] American society for testing and materials. Standard test method
for unconfined compressive strength of intact rock core speci-
mens. ASTM Designation D 2938-79, ASTM standards 4.08:
Philadelphia; 1984.
[2] American society for testing and materials. Standard test method
for triaxial compressive strength of undrained rock core speci-
mens without pore pressure measurements. ASTM designation D
2664-67 (reapproved 1974), ASTM standards 4.08: Philadelphia;
1984.
[3] Suggested methods for determining the strength of rock materials
in triaxial compression. In: Brown ET, editor. Rock characteriza-
tion, testing and monitoring—ISRM suggested methods. Oxford:
Pergamon Press; 1981.
[4] Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial compressive
strength and deformability of rock materials. In: Brown ET,
editor. Rock characterization, testing and monitoring—ISRM
suggested methods. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1981.
[5] Kovari K, Tisa A, Einstein HH, Franklin JA. Suggested methods
for determining the strength of rock materials in triaxial
compression—revised version. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1983;20:
283–90.
[6] Kovari K, Tisa A, Attinger RO. The Concept of ‘‘Continuous
Failure State’’ triaxial tests. Rock Mech Rock Eng 1983;16:
117–31.
[7] Bury K. Statistical distributions in engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 1999.
[8] Duzgun HSB, Yucemen MS, Karpuz C. A probabilistic model for
the assessment of uncertainties in the shear strength of rock
discontinuities. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2002;39:743–54.
[9] Vose D. Risk analysis: a quantitative guide. 2nd ed. Chichester:
Wiley; 2000.
[10] Evans E, Hastings N, Peacock B. Statistical distributions. 2nd ed.
New York: Wiley; 1993.
[11] Johnson NL, Kotz K, Kemp AD. Univariate discrete distribu-
tions. New York: Wiley; 1993.
[12] Johnson NL, Kotz K, Balakrishnan N. Continuous univariate
distributions, vol. 1–2. New York: Wiley; 1994–1995.
335
[13] Weibull W. A statistical distribution function of wide applic-
ability. J Appl Mech 1951;18:293–7.
[14] Li QS, Fang JQ, Liu DK, Tang J. Failure probability pre-
diction of concrete components. Cem Concr Res 2003;33:
1631–6.
[15] Huang C, Subhash G, Vitton SJ. A dynamic damage growth
model for uniaxial compressive response of rock aggregates. Mech
Mater 2002;34:267–77.
[16] Muro T, Takegaki Y, Yoshikawa K. Impact cutting property of
rock material using a point attack bit. J Terramech 1997;34:
83–108.
[17] Ghosh A. A FORTRAN program for fitting Weibull distribution
and generating samples. Comput Geosci 1999;25:729–38.
[18] Desayi P, Rao BK. Probabilistic analysis of tensile strength of
ferrocement. Int J Cem Compos Lightweight Concrete 1988;10:
15–25.
[19] Rabie AM, Meguid SA. An evaluation of a probabilistic
engineering approach to the failure prediction of brittle materials.
Eng Fracture Mech 1986;24:243–53.
[20] Grady DE, Kipp ME. Continuum modelling of explosive fracture
in oil shale. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1980;
17:147–57.
[21] Moos D, Peska P, Finkbeiner T, Zoback M. Comprehensive
wellbore stability analysis utilizing Quantitative Risk Assessment.
J Pet SciEng 2003;38:97–109.
[22] Hsu S- C, Nelson PP. Characterization of Eagle Ford shale. Eng
Geol 2002;67:169–83.
[23] Ozcelik Y. Multivariate statistical analysis of wearing on diamond
beads in the cutting of andesitic rocks. Key Eng Mater
2003;250:118–30.
[24] Karpuz C, Pasamehmetoglu AG. Field characterization of
weathered Ankara andesites. Eng Geol 1997;46:1–17.
[25] Ercanoglu M, Aksoy H. Potential instability map for rock slopes
at Ankara Castle and vicinity. Yerbilimleri 2004;29:97–114 (in
Turkish).
[26] Sener S, Tutluoglu L. Fracture toughness analysis of Ankara
andesite. In: Proceedings of 18th international mining congress
and exhibition of Turkey, IMCET; 2003. p. 89–92.
[27] BestFits and @RISK user manual, New York, Palisade Corporation.
2001.
[28] Davis JC. Statistics and data analysis in geology. New York:
Wiley; 1973.
[29] Harnett DL, Horrell JF. Data, statistics, and decision models with
Excel. New York: Wiley; 1997.