PREDICTION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

FROM OTHER ROCK PROPERTIES

By D. V. D'Andrea, R. L. Fischer, and D. E. Fogelson
report of investigations 6702
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF MINES
\965
..
This publication has been cataloged as follows:

D'Andrea, Dennis V
Prediction of compressive strength from other rock proper-
ties, by D. V. D' Andrea, R. L. Fischer, and D. E. Fogelson.
[Washingtonl U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines [1965]
23 p. illus., tables. (U. S. Bureau of Mines. Report of investiga-
tions 6702)
Includes bibliography.
1. Rocks. 2. Rock pressure. I. Title. (Series)
TN23.U7 no. 6702 622.06173
U.S. Dept. of the Int. Library
T
CONTENTS
Abstract ...... . .. .. ... . .. . ... . .... . ................ . . . ........ . . . . . ... ..
Page
1
1
2
2
4
6
6
6
6
8
9
Introduction .... . ............ .. .. . ..... ... . . . . . .... . . . . ..... . ........... .
Acknowledgments . . .... . .... . ... .. .. . .... . . . .. . . . . .. ... . . . . . .......... . .. . .
Rock properties . .... . ... .. ... ... .. . . .. ...... ... .... . . . . . .. .. . . . . ... . .. . .
Experimental data . .... .... .... . . . . ... . ... . ........... . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of data ... . .. . . .. ... .. .... . . . ... ..... ................... . . . .. . . .
Plots of compressive strength versus the other properties . . ..... . ..
Regression analysis .. ... . .. ... . ...... .... .. .. . .. .... ... . . . . . .... . .
Description of program . .. . .. . . . .... . . ... . .... . . . ..... .... . ... . .
Results of linear analysis . . ..................... . ... .. . ..... . .
Results of curvi l inear analysis . . .... . ...... . . . .... . ... .. .. . .. .
Other relationships ... .. . .. . . . . .... . ...... . ........ . ....... ... . . . . .
Summary and conclusions . .. ... . . ...... . .. . . . ... .. .. . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . .... . . .
14
21
22
23
References . . . ... ... .... .... .. . . .... . . . .... . . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . . . .......... .
Appendix . ........................ , . . . . .. . . . .. . ... . ... ... . . . ... ... . ...... .
Fig .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6 .
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13 .
1.
2.
3 .
4.
5 .
6.
7.
A-1.
ILLUSTRATIONS
Point load tensile testing apparatus . ..... . .......... . .... . ..... . .
Plots of compressive strength versus the other properties .. . . .. . .. .
Measured versus predicted compressive strength from equation (1) . . .
M e a s ~ r e d versus predicted compressive strength from equation ( 8) . . .
Measured versus predicted compressive strength from equation of
step 25 . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . .... . . .. ..
Measured versus predicted compressive strength (Judd and Huber) .. . .
Plots of specific gravity versus other properties . . ... . .. . ........ .
Plots of shear velocity versus other properties . . . .. . ..... . ....... .
Plots of Young ' s modulus . .. . .. . . ...... . ...... . . ........ . . . . . .... . .
Plots of modulus of rigidity versus other properties .. . . . ......... .
Plots of bar velocity versus other properties ..... . ............... .
Plots of longitudinal velocity versus other properties . . . . ..... ... .
Plots of point load tensile strength versus other properties ..... .
TABLES
3
7
12
13
14
15
16
16
17
17
18
19
20
Physical property data . . .. . . . . .... .. . .. . . ... .. . .... .. .. . . . . . ..... . . 5
Number of tests and coefficients of variation of the measured
rock properties . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Quantities used in linear analysis ..................... . ........... 8
Simple correlati on coefficients. . ................. . ... .... ..... ... . 8
First and second order terms used in curvilinear analysis ........ . 10
Prediction equation of step 25 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
Multiple correlation coefficients of curvilinear regression
equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Averages, standard deviations, standard errors , and coefficients
of variation of compressive strength and point load tensile
strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
PREDICTION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FROM OTHER ROCK PROPERTIES
by .
D. V. D'Andrea,
1
R. L. Fischer,
2
and D. E. Fogelson
3
ABSTRACT
Nine rock properties were determine d for rocks coming from 49 locations
and having a wide range of compressive strengths . Plots of the nine rock
properties versus each other were prepared . A stepwise multiple linear
regression analysis was performed to obtain several equations for predicting
compress.i ve strength . Both linear and curvilinear relationships \17ere assumed
between compressive strength and the other rock properties . The prediction
equations had multiple correlation coefficients ranging from 0 . 947 for an
e quation with 1 variable (point load tensile strength) to 0.986 for an equa-
tion with 25 variabl es . Of the proper ties tested only point load tensi le
strength could be used a lone to estimate compressive strength with fair
accuracy.
INTRODUCTION
The use of multiple regression analysis to develop pr ediction equations
for rock properties as functions of othe r rock properties is a relatively new
a pproach to the study of the physical properties of rock . The purpose of
these studies is to determine if it is possible to predict particular proper-
ties , such as compr essive strength, from measurements of other more eas ily
measured prope rties. Obviously, for any practical use in engineering problems,
the deviations of the predicted from the actual values must be as small as
possible .
Any analysis of this type has a better chance for success if it uses data
obtained under uniform test conditions. Such data had been taken previously
1
Geophysicist, Minneapolis Mining Research Center, Bureau of Mines,
Minneapolis, Minn .
2
Physicist, Minneapolis Mining Research Center, Bureau of Mines ,
Minneapolis, Minn.
3
Research geophysicist, Minneapolis Mining Research Center, Bureau of Mines,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Work on manuscript completed February 1965 .
I

2
by the Bureau of Mines (1-, 10-1!) .
4
These data we r e used by Judd and Huber
(l) to develop a prediction equation expr essing compressive strength as a
function of impact toughness, scleroscope hardness, and the modulus of rigid-
ity. While the deviation of the predicted from the measured values of com-
pressive strength was too large for most practical applications , their results
suggested that a better prediction equation for compressive strength might
resul t if other physical properties were used in the analys is or if a curvi-
linear r elati onsh i p was assumed .
Dur ing the past 2 years, in conjunction with the deve l opment and study of
new me t hods of measuring rock properties, the Bureau of Mines performed a
simi l ar analysis in an attempt to improve the prediction equa tion for compres-
sive s trength . Bot h l inear and curvilinear relationshi ps tvere assumed in an
a nalysis that included several different properties from t hose u sed by Judd
and Huber.
The properties analyzed in both studies a r e listed below.
Bureau of Mines
Compress i ve strength
Young's modulus (dynamic)
Modulus of rigidity
Bar velocity
Specific gravity
Point load tensile strength
Longitudinal velocity
Shear vel ocity
Poisson ' s ra t io
Judd and Huber
Compressive strength
Young ' s modulus (dynamic)
Modulus of rigidity
Bar velocity
Specific gravity
Porosity
Modulus of rupture
Impact toughness
Scleroscope hardness
Specific damping capacity
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author s a r e indebted to John Shaw, research director, Bureau of Mines
Denver Mining Resear ch Center, for his coopera t ion and the use of the GE 225
computer, and to Miss Pauline Vi r ciglio, mathematician , Bureau of Mines
Minneapolis Mini ng Research Center, for invaluable assistance with the compu-
tations and stat ist ical analysis in this report.
ROCK PROPERTI ES
All rock property tests tvere performed on rock cores having standard
dril l cor e diameters of 1-1/8, 1-5/8, or 2-1/8 inches .
Compressive strengths were determined in the conventional manner by plac-
ing a rock core between the loading heads of a compression testing machine and
loading the specimen to failure . The cores tested had lapped ends and length-
to- diameter ratios of approximate l y 2 to 1.
4
Under lined number s in parentheses refer to items in the bibl iography
at the end of t his report.
and
FIGURE 1.- Point Load Tensile
Testing Apparatus.
Point load tensile strengths were
obtained by applying a compressive point
load to the surface of a cylindrical core
perpendicular to the axis of the core .
Figure 1 shows the geometry of this test.
The point l oad tensile strength is com-
puted from the following expression .
T = 0 . 96

3
where F is the breaking f orce and d is the
core diameter . Thi s test requires no
special core preparation and therefore
can be performed rapidly .
Specific gravity was computed by
dividing the weight of an air-dried spec-
imen by the specimen volume determined
from its exterior dimensions. Longi tud-
inal velocity was obtained by using an
ultrasonic pulse technique . A resonance
method was used to determine bar and
shear velocities. A more complete
description of these test methods is
given by Johnson and Fischer
The modulus of Young ' s
modulus, E, and Poi sson 's ratio, \) ,
computed from the measured velocities and
specific gravity by the following
formulas:

=
k p V/a
[3 (C/V
5
)
2
- 4]
(C/V
5
)
2
1
\) 1/4 [J[l- (V
9
/C)
2
] [ 9- (V
9
/C)
2
]
- [ 1- (VB I c)
2
J J '
p specific gravity,
c longitudinal velocity,
vs
shear velocity,
4
V
8
=bar velocity,
and k =a constant depending on the units used .
Two methods based on different vel ocity measurements were used to compute
Young's modulus . Because they gave different results for many rocks and
because it was not known which method would be most useful for predicting com-
pressive s trength, the two were treated as separate variables in the analysis.
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Rock property measurements were made on rock cores from 49 different
locations . The loca.tions were sel ected so that rocks with a wide range of
properties could be tested . .The 49 locations included 19 rock types, and com-
pressive strengths ranged f rom 1,500 to 45,000 psi . Table 1 gives the physical
proper ty data and the rock types for the 49 l ocat ions . The number of digits
shown in table 1 for each property does not indicate t he errors in the meas-
urements. Each property was determined by averaging several measurements, and
these averages were rounded f or the computer anal ysis .
The number of measurements performed t o determine a property was not the
same for al l l ocations because the amount of core available from each location
varied. The average number of measurements and the average coefficient of
variation for each measured property are listed in tabl e 2 . The coefficient
of variation , C, in percent, for a measured property of a rock from a particu-
lar location is given by
c = 100
X
lmere S is the standard deviation and X is the average value of the measured
property. The measurements of t he breaking strength of the rock , point l oad
tensil e strength, and compress i ve strength have coefficient of variation of
about 20 percent. The coefficients of variation ranged from 4 . 5 to 47 . 8 per-
cent for compressive strength and from 6.6 to 54 .9 percent for point load
tensile strength. Table A-1 (appendix) gives the average, s tandard deviation,
number of measurements , standard error, and coefficient of variation of t he
compressive strength and point l oad t ensi l e strength for each of the 49 loca-
tions . The average of variation for the nondes t ructive tests was
l ess than 6 percent.
TABLE 1. - Physical property data
Rock tvoe Locat ion
l'innt
load
tensile
s trength,
10
3
psi
Speci fic
gravity
Longitudinal
vel ocity,
1cf! fps
Shear
velocity,
10
3
fps
Bar
velocity,
10
3
fos
Granite gneiss .... 1 2.054 2. 65 18.367 11.217 17. 483
Do....... .... 2 1.985 2.80 18. 800 11.267 17 .633
Slate..... . . ...... 3 1.518 2. 71 18.100 10.700 16. 817
Limestone....... . . 4 , 1.:,_31:_4 2. 74 20.928 12.006 18.950
Grani te . ... . ... . . . 5 ,---1'.308 2. 70--[-1-5. 888 --9-:-233
Limes t one 6 1.408 2.71 20.808 11.650 18.612
1 2. 474- 2. 95 - 2o.14o n.s6o 18.4oo
Do...... . .... 8 2.483 3.07 20.071 11.428 18.428
Granite . ......... 9 1.153 2.68 16.571 10. 143 15.367
Do. .......... 10 1.882 2.65 17.200 10.328 15.786
Syenite pegmatite 11 1.582 2.72 19.183 11. 150 17. 283
Granite ... 12 1.688 2. 70 16 . 871 10.314 15. 467
Limestone . 1.340 2. 84 19. 550 11. 567 17.520
Anor t hosite ...... 14 1.. 680-- 2. 64' - 17. 533 - ro.840 [6.375
of
riidity,
10 psi
Young 's
modulus
(El),
10
6
PSi
Young' s
modulus
'
10' psi
Poisson's
ratio
Compressive
strength,
10
3
nsi
4.50 10.93 10 .82 0. 195 30.233
4.80 11.75 11. 70 .217 32.551
4 . 19 10. 35 10. 3 2 . 230 24. 98 9
5.33 13. 28 13. 36;_ , ___ ..... 25;..;8,__. 22 .158
3.1-1-- 6 . 17 .327 27. 02'0-1-
4 .96 .. 12. 67 . 12. 61 .270 21 . 265
5.32 13. 48 13.34 . 249' 36.401
5. 41 14.07 13. 63 .244 33.892
3.72 8.54 8.93 .232 19.153
3.82 8 . 92 9.30 .244 30. 361
4.56 10. 97 11.35 . 263 18.814
3. 88 8. 72 9. 33 . 245 31. 415
5.13 11.77 12.63 . 268 26.022
4.19 - - 9.56 '9-:-97 .223
Limestone .. . ..... 15 .911 2.65 16 .242 9.716 13.933
--sanGStone - .o6o- - 1.88----s :-534 - 2. 923
3.38 6.94 8.26 .303 -----
.u- - . 39 --.57 . 3' 91- j . 4o7
Limestone .:..:...:. 17 .963 2.70 16.300 9. 433 14.650.
Do ........... --r8 - .9'3,- 2.57 -
Do . .......... 19 . 736 2.61 16. 067 9. 450 13.840
Do ...... ... .. 20 .827 2.61 16. 140 9. 333 15.250
Basalt 21 1.552 2. 88 - 17. 150 - 10.075 !).2'50-
R:hyolite porphyry 22 . 987 2.49 13. 583 8.483 12.417
Serpentine .. 23 .740 2.75 17.633 9. 117 14.417
Limestone . . 24 . 708 2. 54 14.183 8 . 533 12.883
olomite . :- --25 2. 51 -- 16.392 -s. 63) 13:'Io7
3.24 7.82 8.09 .266 14.074
2.60 5.65 li'. 24 . 262 16.633
3.15 6.75 7.78 . 300 15.559
3. 07 8 . 19 7.66 . 206 19. 519.--1---
3.95 - 9.CJ4 - '9-:-n- - ---:-2..,.,- - 21.63'o
2. 42 5. 18 5 . 70 .248 13. 934
3.08 7.72 8.12 .333 16. 351
2. 50 5.69 6.08 .255
2.S'2 --- s.87 o .59 . 342- n.796
Limestone. ....... 26 . 670 13. 517 8.291 12. 508
sandstone . i l -:-l:r8r- _ -- 5. 1'33 s:rr.s-
Dolomite . --28 . 366 2. 54 13. 200 7. 250 10. 933
Sandstone . 29 .045 1.86
1
_ 4.088 2.535 3.352
-sv3te ::. .. . . . . . . . 3'o . 92r 2. 64 16. 950 9. 380 16.375
2.35 __

___ 5_. ?_3 .235 13.330:_+-

.36 .68 . 81 . 261 4.334
1. 80 4 . 10 4 . 6 2 . 325 7. 943
. 16 .28 .38 .331 2. 451
3.14 9.56 8 . 03 .167 12.390
Granite gneiss 31 .854 2.62 12.140 7.075 8 . 854
Taconite ... 32 2.317 3.62 16.456 8 . 925 13.525
Limestone 33 .322 2.34 11. 032 6.708 9. 067
Chalk . .... --. fJ-2--1.68 - 8 . 205 1-4:-o-52 --5-:/73
1.77 2.77 4.40 . 381 19.710
3.89 8.94 10. 05 .330 44.201
1.42 2.60 3.43 5 . .;. 11;;1;..--.J--
. 37- .76 . . 99 - . 2.169
Do.......... . 35 .075 1.60 6.472 3.333 4 .567 .24 .45 . 63 .391 2.765
Sandlli!.le . 36 .165 2. 18 6.907 3.616 4 .688
Grani t e ... .. .. ... 37 1.800 2.72 16 .700 10 . 000 14. 600
.38 . 65 1.00 .402 5.925
3.67 7. 83 8.96 . 289 28.400
Do .. . . .. . .... 38 1. 340 2. 67 19. 500 10. 600 16.500 4.05 9.81 10 . 20 .312 19.400
Basalt 39 2. 290 2. 96 21. 700 11. 900 19.100
5. 65 14.58 14.51 . 284 42.349
Limestone 40 . 510 2. 30 13.100 7.480 11. 500
M8 r ble 3. 04 21. 992 - 12.617
1.74 - 4.11 4 . 38 .286 7.680
6.54 15.39 16 . 41 .284 36.40tl -i--
Schist . . 42 1.273 2. 74 18.478 10 . 663 16.488 4 . 21 10. 06 10 . 53 . 272 20.625
Per i dotite ....... 43 .999 3. 30 21.650 12. 533 18.900
Quartzite . . ... . . . 44 1.518 2.59 14.407 9. 343 13.257
Schist . 45 1. 330 2. 85 17.980 10.300 17 . 020
Sandstone . . 4.6 .040 1.87 6. 870 3.907 5.845
Quartzite 47 2. 530 2. 63 16. 049 11.021 14 . 775
Gabbro.. . ...... . . 48 1. 305 3. 10 23. 133 12. 000 18.725
Greenstone . . ..... 49 1. 612 2. 79 20 . 178 11.000 17.857
7. 00 15. 91 17.46 . 291 17. 750
3. 05 6.ll, 6.94 . 241 31. 167
4.08 11. 15 10 . 24 . 203 24 .010
.39 .86 . 98 . 309 1. 540
4.31 7.75 9. 08 .241 45 . 172
6.03 14.66 15. 86 .338 29.047
4.56 12.01 11. 76 . 279 16. 546
6
TABLE 2. - Number of tests and coefficients of variation
of the measured rock properties
Property
Compre ssive strength ......... .
Point load tensile strength .. .
Specific gravity ............. .
Longi tudinal velocity . . ...... .
Bar velocity .... . ....... . .... .
Shear velocity . . .. . .. . . ... ... .
Average number
of tests per
location
11
17
5
7
6
6
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Average coefficient
of variation,
percent
22 . 2
19 . 6
1.9
5 . 4
5 . 8
5 .4
Plots of Compressive Strength Versus the Other Properties
The rock property data were put on standard keypunch cards for computer
analysis . A computer and high-speed printer were used to plot compressive
strength versus each of the other properties. These plots are shown in
figure 2. most of these plots have substantial sea tter, some trends
are apparent. For example figure 2! indicates that a linear relationship
exists between compressive strength and point l oad tensile s trength . The
plots of compressive strength versus s peci fic gravi ty and compressive
strength versus shear vel ocity, shown in figur es and respectively ,
indicate cur vilinear trends .
After examining these plots it was decided to perform a stepwise multiple
linear regression analysis and attempt first to predict compressive strength
as a linear function of the other rock properties and then to see if a better
prediction equation coul d be obtained by assuming a curvilinear relationship .
Regression Analysis
Description of Program
The multipl e linear regression program used was written
6
from a method
outlined in 'Mat hematical Methods for Digital The input data for
this program are a set of observations of several independent variables and a
dependent variable . The progr am output l ists the means and standard devia-
tions of all variables and the s imple correlation coefficients between all
pairs of variables. It then lists a series of pr ediction equations , each one
containing one more independent variable than the last . With this stepwise
procedure a new variabl e is added to the variables of the preceding step until
some fi nal prediction equation is obtained . The new variable sel ected at any
step is the one that resul ts in the prediction equation with t he smallest
error of estimate . I f two variables are very highly correlated, the final
prediction equation will contain only one of them. The addition of a new
5
computer pr ogram was written by D. R. Falconer and P. A. Hunter of the
Southwes t Research I nstitut e .
.
- 40
I
..
0. .. .
"'
2
/
{
~ 30
~
. .
z
I
' / UJ
a:
1- ..
..
V> 20
.. J UJ
>
~ .. 1 ;;,
<ll
/ ~
UJ
l""
a:
-
Cl.
10
::E
.0
0
v.
<..>
I
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0
POINT LOAD TENSILE STRENGTH, 10
3
p$l
-;;; 40
Q.
"'
2
:
1-
30
~
z
w
a:
1-
<ll
w
20
>
<ll
<ll
w
a:
Cl. 10
::E
0
<..>
;;;40
0.
"'
2
:
::; 30
z
w
a:
t;
w20
~
"'
"' w
g: 10
:::E
0
<..>
.. j
.
.
. .
.. .
.
.

.
. .
. . . .
'.
.
, .
..
..

.
.
. ..
0 4 8 12
SHEAR VELOCITY, 10
3
f p s
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.. . .
.
.
0
0 5 10 15
YOUNG'S MOOULUS(
1
), 106p s i

40
..
..
0.
"'
2
:i
...
30
.
1-
C) ..
z

UJ
.
a: ,.
1-
20 <J)
..
UJ ,_
>

<J)
,.
<J)

UJ
10
a:
0. ..
0
:::E

0 .
<..>
.. ,
0 I 2 3
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
-;; 40
~
Q.
"'
..
2
:i
.
.
.
1-
30
. .
C)
z
w
.
a:
.
1-
.
C/)
.
.
20
.
w ..
~
I :
<J)
<I)
'
.
w
a:
0. 10
:::E ..
0
.
0
<..>
.

0 5 10 15
BAR VELOCITY, 103 f p s
;;; 40 f-
a.
"'o
:
::; 30
z
w
a:
1-
(/)
w20
>
;;,
<ll
UJ
g: 10
:::E
0
<..>
.
.
'
,
.
.
.
.
.
0 5 10 15
YOUNG'S MODULUS(
2
), I0
6
p s i
7
- 40
..
0.
"'
2
. .
:i
30
.
1-
..
.
z
.
UJ
a:
1-
en
20
.
UJ ..
,
~ ..
<J) .
<ll ,
.
w

a:
10
...
::E
0
0
<..> .
.. ..
0 5 10 15 20
LONGITUDINAL VELOCITY, 10
3
f ps
~ 40
"' 0
:
1-
~ 30
z
w
a:
1-
<I)
w 20
>
<I)
<I)
w
a:
0. 10
:::E
0
<..>
-:; 40
0.
"'
0
:
::; 30
z
UJ
a:
1-
(/)
w 20
~
(/)
<J)
w
g: 10
::E
8
: .
.
.
.
.
.
. ..
'
..
,
..
.
,
0
.
.
"
I
I
0 2 4 6
MODULUS OF RIGIDITY, I0
6
psl
0
0
. .
. .
.. . . . .
.
.
..
0.1 0.2 0. 3
POISSON$ RATIO
'
0.4
FIGURE 2. Plots of Compressive Strength Versus the Other Propert ies ..
8
variable that is very highly correlated 'vith a variable in the equat ion of the
preceding step will not result in a better prediction equation because the new
variable in this case is only a coded value of a variable already in the
analysis.
Results of Linear Analysis
The firs t step in the regression analysis was to see how well compressive
strength could be predicted from a linear function of the other rock proper-
ties. The quantities included in this analysis are shown in table 3 . The
independent variables will be referred to as first order terms.
TABLE 3 . - Quantities used in linear analysis
Variable Symbol Property Units
Yp c.s. Compressive str ength . . .. . . ... ...
1 0 ~
psi.
xtl) T Point load tensile strength . .. .. 10
3
psi.
X(2) p Specific gravity ............ .... -
X(3) c Longitudinal velocity ...... . ... . 163 fps.
X(4)
vs
Shear ve locity .... ... .. ........ 10
3
fps .
X(5)
Va
Bar velocity . . .. .. . .. .... .. ... 10
3
fps.
X(6)
1-L
Modulus of rigidity ..... . ...... 10
6
psi.
X(7)
El
Young' s modulus (method 1) .. ....
106
psi.
X(8)
Ea
Young's modulus (method 2) .. .. ..
106
psi.
X_{9) \) Poisson' s ratio . .. ..... . ... .. .
-
Simple correlation coefficients between all pairs of variables listed in
table 3 are given in table 4. Compressive strength is most highly correlated
with point l oad t ensile strength and least highly correlated with Poisson's
ratio. Very high correlations exist between the modulus of rigidity and
Young's modulus computed by method 2 and between the two methods of computing
Young's modulus .
TABLE 4. - Simple correlation coefficients
..--l
Cd Q.)
c: 4-1 ........ ........ :>
r-l 0 ..--l N Ul r-l
C) '"d I>. I>. :>-. :>-. -
Ul,.t:
r-l
:>-.
;:I .j.J .j.J .j.J
Ul .j.J Ul(f)'"d Ullll'"d c:
Ul .j.J
4-l.j.J .j.J r-l r-l r-l ;::l r-l
-
;:I
0 - ;:I 0 0
Q.)
bO
r-l r-l r-l (.)
,_.
(.) (.) r--l'"d bO..--l ..t: bO..--l ..t: II) 0 ,_. r::
(.)
:> bOO Cd 0 0 ;:I r-l c: ;:I .j.J C:;::l.j.J Ul r-l P.,Q.)
Q.)
Cd C:r--l Q.)..--l ,_...--l '"d bO ;::l'"d Q.) ;::l'"d Q.) r-l .j.J l:i ,_.
p..,_.
.3
Q.)
..t:
Q.) Cd Q.) 0 r-l o o a
~ ~ s
0 Cd 0 .j.J
C/)
bO :>
C/)
:> j:(l :>
~
,_.
:;... a ......... P-<
,_.
(.)
Ul
Tensile strength.*.' .... 0. 760 0.761 0 . 808 0 . 785 0.813 0 . 784 0. 790 -0.491 0 . 947
Specific gravity .. .... - . 866 .856 . 842 . 864 .841 . 869 - . 361 .761
Longitudinal velocity . . - - . 980 . 985 . 960 .959 .964 -.462 .710
Shear velocity .. . ...... - - - .988 .961 .940 . 951 -.568 .761
Bar velocity . .. ... .. . . . - - - - .955 .961 . 953 -.595 .720
Modulus of rigidity . ... - - - - - .984 . 997 - . 465 .767
Young
1
s modulus
(method 1) . . . .... - - - - - - .990 -.487 . 718
Young's modulus
(method 2) ...... .. .... - - - - - - - - . 431 .742
Poisson's ratio . . . . . ... - - -
- - - - - -. 451
9
The prediction equations obtained in the first four steps of this analy-
sis follow with their standard error s of estimate, SY:
<_
\ .::
c = IE> f. 4- IS
1
3 T
SteE 1
) ........
y "P =
2.374 + 15.295 X(l);
2,4oo + 15 . 3 T
"PS l
(1)
sy = 3 . 744;
( T= PSI)
I<C./c.M 'Z.
c e.) t7o+ 17 . 3 T
SteE 2
( T=
= pott-lT
LOA!) STQ
Y.., =
- 3 . 840 + 14.092 X( l) + 2.924 X(2); (2)
sy = 3 .709;
Step 3
y
p
::::
-9 .989 + 15.200 X(1) + 6.371 X(2) - 0.525 X(7); (3)
sy 3 .561;
Step 4
y p -7 . 442 + 14 . 445 X(l) + 4 . 669 X(2) + 3.877 X(6)- 1.818 X(7); (4)
sy =
3 . 431.
The first variable selected was point load tensile strength, X(l),
followed by s peci fic gravity, X(2), Young ' s modulus (E
1
), X(7), and the
modulus of rigidity, X(6). F tests were performed to determine whether one
of these equat ions was a statistically signi f icant improvement over another.
At the 5-percent significance level , equat ion (2) is not a significant improve -
ment over equation (1) . However, equation (3) is significantly better than
equation (1) , and equation (4) is a s ignificant improvement over equation (3).
Results of Curvilinear Analys is
Figures 2] and 2Q, the plots of compressive strength versus speci f ic
gravity and shear velocity, indicate curvilinear trends. A more accurate pre-
dicti on equation was expected, i f the squares and cross products of the nine
first order terms were also entered as variables. All of the 54 first and
second order terms could not be included , because the computer used had only
an 8,000 word memory, limiting the r egression program to 35 independent vari-
ables. All of the terms could not have been entered even on a larger computer
because there were only 49 measurements of compressive strengt h . However, the
t erms eliminated were highly correlated with others that wer e i ncluded .
Table 5 lists the 35 quant i ties that \olere entered as independent var iables.
10
TABLE 5. - First and second order terms used in curvilinear analysis
Variable Quantity Variable Quantity Variable Quantity
X(l) T X(l3)

X(25) C E
1
X(2) p X(l4) T E
1
X(26)
v2
s
X(3) c X(l5)
p2
X(27)
Vs Va
X(4)
Vs
X(l6) p c X(28)
Vs
X(5)
Ve
X(l7) p
vs
X(29)
Vs El
X(6)

X(l8) p
Va
X(30) \)
X(7)
El
X(l9) p
1-.1.
X(31)
Va !.L
X(8)
T2
X(20)
p El X(32)
VB El
X(9) T p X(21)
c2
X(33)
X(lO) T C X(22) C V
5
X(34)
El
X(ll)
T 'V
5
X(23) C V
8
X(35
Ela
X(l2) T V
8
X(24)
c
In this analysis, point load tensile strength was again the first vari-
able selected, and the prediction equation of step 1 was again equation (1)
from the linear analysis . From step 1 on, other variables were selected
resulting in prediction equations with lower errors of estimate than those
obtained in the linear analysis. The prediction equations for steps 2 through
5
Step 2
y p
=
1.353 + 23 .335 X(l)- 0 . 449 X(l2); (5)
sy
= 3.566;
SteE 3
yp =
2. 010 + 27.718 X(l) - 1.321 X(l2) + 2 . 138 X(13); (6)
s
y
=
3 .351;
SteE 4
y
p
7.849 + 28.994 X(l) - 1. 671 X(l2) + 2.956 X(l3) (7)
- 17.223 X(30);
Sy =
3 . 305;
SteE 5
yp = 1.216 + 26.403 X(l) + 1 .210 X(lO) - 2. 771 X(l2) (8)
+ 2. 542 X(l3) - 31.463 X(30);
sy 3.218 .
In these equa tions
X(l)
=
T,
11
X(lO) = TC,
X(l2) = TV
8
,
X(l3)
=
and X(30) = \).
The analysis continued until 31 steps had been completed . The four vari-
ables that were not selected by the computer were highly correlated with
others already in the prediction equation of step 31 . The equation with the
smallest error of estimate was obtained at step 25. The output of step 25 is
listed in table 6. Point load tensile strength appears by itself or as a
multiplier of another proper ty eight times in this equation.
TABLE 6. - Prediction equation of step 25
Step 25 sy = 2.819 Intercept = 30.231
Variable Coefficient Variable Coefficient
X(l) - 240 . 644 X(l7) -26.974
X(3) - 8.484 X( 20) -34 . 082
X(4) 79 . 227 X(21) 3.538
X(5) - 37.885 X(22) -5.576
X(7) 221 . 605 X(23) -5 . 852
X(8) 5 . 953 X(25) -.604
X(9) 62 . 962 X(26) -4.897
X(lO) 8 . 659 X(27)
9.117
X(ll) 34.419 X(28)
5.290
X(l2) -20. 610 X(30)
-68 . 065
X(l3) -51. 429 X(32)
- 5 . 383
X(l4) 9.101 X(35)
3 . 157
X_(_l6) 10.198
Again F tests were used to compare the prediction equations . There is no
improvement after equation (6) at a significance level of 5 percent. At the
10-percent l evel, equation (8) is an improvement over The equa-
tion of step 25 is an improvement over equation (8) at a significance level of
20 percent.
Figure 3 is a plot of measured versus predicted compressive strength for
equation (1). The prediction of compressive strength from point load tensile
strength alone is sufficiently accurate for some applications involving
compressive strength .
A plot of measured versus predicted compr essive strength from equa tion
(8) is shown in figure 4. This plot shows that a good estimate of compres -
sive strength can be obtained from a simple function of other rock properties.
Figure 5 is a pl ot of measured versus predicted values for the equation
of step 25. For this plot the deviations of the predicted from the measured
12
50
- 4 0
"'
Equa t i on (I)
c.
Sy =3.744
,t)
0

..
. /
I

t-
<!)
"/
z
I.&J
30

a::
I

t-

CJ)


w
I
-/.
>
CJ)
I CJ)
V.

w
20
- ----
a::
,
;, a.

:?!
0
'

u
0
'
w
a::

::::>
10
CJ)
<t
w

::?!
- ~


0 10 20 30 40 50
PREDI CTED COMPRESS IVE ST RENGTH, 10
3
ps I
FIGURE 3. Measured Versus Predicted Compressive Strength From Equation (1) .
values are probably as small as could be expect ed with this set of data , where
the average coefficient of variation of the measured compressive strength
was 22 percent.
These results can be compared with those obtained by Judd and Huber shown
in figure 6. The prediction equa t ion for the plot in f igure 6 is
where
YP = -4. 477 + 0.672 ~ + 0.288 X
5
+ 2.878 X
7
,
Y = compressive strength,
p
(9)
13
50
40 Equo t ion(8)
{I)
Q.
Sy= 3 .218
..,
0
-r."
t-
(!)
z
30
UJ
0:::
t-
(f)
UJ
>

(f)
(f)
UJ
20
a:
a.

:!:

0

u
Q
UJ
a:
::>
(f)
10
<t
w



. /
.,

0 10 20 30 4 0
50
PREDICTED COMPRESSI VE STRENGTH, 10
3
p si
FIGURE 4. Measured Versus Predicted Compressive Strength From Equat ion (8) .
x4 =impact toughness,
X
5
= scl eroscope hardness,
and X
7
= the modulus of rigidity.
Equation (9) was obtained using physical property data from 126 locations
and assuming a linear relationship between compressive strength and the other
rock properties . This equation , developed by Judd and Huber, has a standard

14
50
- 40
en
a.
If)
0
I ~
1-
(!)
z
30
w
Q::
1-
(f)
w
>
(f)
(f)
w
20
a::
Cl.
:E
0
(..)
Cl
w
Q::
::::>
10
(f)
<[
w
:E
0
Equation of step 25
Sy=2.819



-
10 20 30 40
PREDICTED COMPR ESSI VE STRENGTH, 10
3
p si
5 0
FIGURE 5. Measured Versus Predicted Compressive Strength From Equation of Step 25.
error of estimate of 5.615, compared with 3.744 for equation (1) and 2.819
for the equation of step 25.
Table 7 lists the multiple correlation coefficients for the curvilinear
equations of t his report. The multiple correlation coefficients range from
0.947 for equation (1) to 0.986 for the equation of step 25.
Other Relationships
A computer and a high-speed printer were used to plot all of the rock
properties versus each other . The plots involving compressive strength are
15
shown in figure 2 and were discussed earlier. The plots not involving com-
pressive strength are shown in figures 7 t o 13.
Ill
Q.
..,
0
J:
....

z
w
a:
....
(/)
w
>
(/)
(/)
w
a:
0..

0
u
0
w
a:
:::>
(/)
<t
w

90
80
70
60
50
4 0
30
20
10
.
TABLE 7. - Multiple correlation coefficients of
curvilinear regress ion equat ions
Regression equation
(1) . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .
(5) .. . . ... .. .... . . .. .
(6 ) ............ . ....
(7) . . . . . .. .. . . ....
(8) ... ' .. .. . .. . .. ... .
Step 25 .. . .. . . . .. ... .
.
.
.
.
.
. /. ...
. .
. .
.
. . : . .
. /."- ..
.. ,
.. .
' .
. / ..
.
.. .
.. ' .
. :\ .

..
. .
.... ,:. ..
.
.
. .

Number of
variables

1
2
3
4
5
25
Multiple correlati on
coefficient
0 . 947
. 953
. 960
. 962
.964
.986
The plots of
figures 7 to 13 were
examined to determine
whether any of them
indicate relationships
that could be used to
obtain a good estimate
of t he Y-value from the
X- value. As t11as the
case with the plots
involving compress ive
strength, most of the
plots in figures 7 to
13 have substantial
scatter. However, some
trends are a pparent.
Some of t he plots show
definite trends because
the Y-value was der ived
from the X-value .
0 10 20 3 0 4 0 50 60 7 0
PR EDI CTED COMPRESS I V E STRENGT H, 10
3
p sI
F IGURE 6. Measured Versus Pred icted Compress i ve Strength
(Judd and Huber) .
An example of this is
modulus of rigidi ty
versus shear veloci ty-
shown in figure 8A. Of
the plots wi t h definite
trends the Y-
value was not derived
from the X-value , only a
few indicate relat ion-
ships that could be used
to obtain a good esti-
mate of one property
from the measurement of
another .
16
- 6
..
a.
2
,.:
.....
0 4

a:
...
0
til
3 2 .....
:;:)
c
0
:::E
-
.. ,-
....

.
.
-
I
-1
"
0
1
0 4 8 12
SHEAR VELOCI TY,I03 fps
15

til
:;:)
-'
:;:)
a
0
:::E
5
z
:;:)
0
>-
..
.

I
..
.
..
. ..
'
.. ) .
.
....
.. 0
0 4 8 12
SHEAR VELOCITY, 103 f p l
0 .40 .---- -,
.30
0
.....
c
a:
. 20
c
til
!!?
0
a.
.1 0 1-

.
.. ..
.,.

..
I . .
. . '
. . '
. .
0
0 4 8 12
SHEAR VELOCITY, 103 fps
FIGURE 8.- Plots of Shear Velocity Versus Other Properties.
20
Ill
a.
Ul
0
16
.
.....
N
I.LJ
~
(/)
12
::::>
_j
::::>
0
8
0
~
(/)
(!)
4
z
::::>
0
>-
15
Ill
a.
'f:,
.....
l4J 10
(/)
::::>
_J
::::>
0
0
~
(/)
5
.(!)
-:
z
::::>
0
>-
I


...
, ~ , . ..
.:-..
.I



...

0
0 4 8 12 16 20
YOUNG'S MODULUS (
1
), 10
6
psi
17
0.40 ~
I
I






.30

..

t-
-



0





t-



<(
.-

0:


(/)
z .20
....
-

0
(/)

(/)
0
~
. 10 ....
-
0
I _l _l
0 5 10 15
YOUNG'S MODULUS (
1
), I0
6
psi
FIGURE 9. Plots of Young's Modulus.
I I I
0.40
.:
I I I
f-
-











.30




1-
-





-
0



-
r-

-
......

I


<(


'
'
0:


(/)


z .20
....

-



0
(/)

t

(/)
....
-
0
~
-
.10 1-
-

0 0
11"
I I I I
.1
_l
0 3 4 6 0 2 4 6
MODULUS OF RIGIDITY. J0
6
p s i MODULUS OF RIGIDITY, I0
6
psi
FIGURE 10. Plots of Modulus of Rigidity Versus Other Properties.
18
20
Ill
Q.
-
16 .,
0
>
....
12
0
0
_J
w
8
>
0::
<{
w
::r
4
(/)
0
15
"' Q.
4D
0
.
-
1 0
(/)
:::>
_J
:::>
c
0
~
!/)
C)
5
z
:::>
0
>-
0
- 6
"'
Q.
4D
0
>
....
c
4
C)

:-/
, ..
~ < '
~ !I 25
0::
~
0
(/)
:::>
_J
2
:::>
c
0
~
4 8 12 16 20 0
BAR VELOCITY, I0
3
fp s
0 .40 r-




. 30

-
..
0
t
1-

<t


0::
I !/)
.20
-

z

0
(J)
I
(J)
-
0
a..
..
.1 0
f-
\
0
5 10 15
0
BAR VELOCITY, I0
3
f ps


. ..



-
. "
. '


, ....

5 10 15
BAR VELOCITY,I03 fps
;t
I I




.,. .





~



20
-

. '

'


...
. ,

-


-
0
I I I
5 10 15
BAR VELOCilY, I0
3
fps
FIGURE 11. Plots of Bar Velocit y Versus Other Properties.
.
"' Q.

,.,
0
>
!::
u
0
...J
w
>
a:
ct
w
:I:
(/)
20
16
12


8
r
4 .. 25
0
0
4 8 12 16 20 24
LONGITUDINAL VELOCITY,I0
3
f ps
; 6
-
0.

>

!:?4
(!)
0::

0
(/)
3 2
::::>
0
0
::e








-4
I
. L.
.I

0 5 10 15 20
LONGITUDI NAL VELOCITY, I0
3
f ps
0.4 0 .--- -. - ...-.- r- , - -.,-_--,.-,--,
. 30
0

ct
0::
(/)
z .20
0
(/)
(/)
0
0...
. 10

1-
1-
1-




. . ...




, . -
. . ,.
. ... :
. I
....
. -

-
I I I I
0 5 10 15 20
LONGITUDINAL VELOCITY,I0
3
fps
"'
Q.
-
..,
0
>

0
0
_,
w
>
a:
ct
en
"'
0..
fQ
0
20
16
12
8
4
11. 25
0
0
15
4 8 12 16 20 24
LONGITUDINAL VELOCITY, 10
3
f ps






'


:1
,..
-

0 5 10 15 20

LONGITUDINAL VELOCI TY,I0
3
fps
FIGURE 12. Plots of Longitudinal Velocity
Versus Other Properties .
19
20
:!'>
,..
1-
>
<(
~ 2
-
.
... .
0
w
CL
Ul
:of!
.. - .
..
I
..
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
POl NT LOAD TENSILE STRENGTH,IO:!psi
..
...
-
Q
~
15
= 10
u
0
.J
...
>
~ 1-
(1) 5 ~ -
J
.
.
: ..

. :

..
. .
.
. .
..
..
.
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
POINT LOAD TENSI LE STRENGTH,IO:!p sl
~ 20
..
2
~
1-
15
0
0
.J
w
>
.J
10
<
z
0
~
;::)
1-
5 ,
;:;
z io
0
..J


... ,
. .
. . . .

..



. ..
..
. .
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
POINT LOAD TENSILE STRENGTH,I0
3
p$l
-;;6
...
ID
2
~
1-
04
;:;
cr
...
0
Ul
;::)
5 2
C)
0
:IE
~
..
. , .
..
...
....
0
.
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
POINT LOAD TENSILE STRENGTH,I0
3
pal
0.40 1-" I
0
;::
<(
a:
.30
~ .20
0
VI
VI
0
Q.
.10
"
I

I
.....
. .
.
..
..

0
I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
POI NT LOAD TENSILE STRENGTH, IOSpsl
12
..
~
..
2
~ 8
1-
u
g
...
>
a:
c 4
...
X
Ul


:


..
.. '
. . . .

..



0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
POINT LOAD TENSILE STRENGTH,t03psl
..
..

2
15
~ t o
VI
;::)
.J
:::l
C)
0
2
~ 5
z
;::)
0
,..
..
. .
.. .
0
~
I I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
POINT LOAD TENSILE STRENGTH,IO:!psl
FIGURE 13. - Pl ots of Point Load Tensi le Strength Versus Other Properties.
21
The plots of shear velocity versus longitudinal vel ocity, bar velocity
ver sus longitudinal velocity , and shear velocity versus bar velocity, shown in
figures 12]!, and llA, respectively, indicate linear relationships. These
plots could be used to estimat e one velocity from another. However, this
estimat e woul d not be much better than that which would be obtained by assum-
ing Poisson's ratio equal to 0 . 25 and using the follm11ing equations (2_):
vs =
c fljj,
Va
= c
and
vs
=
Va

c longitudinal vel ocity,
Va
= bar ve locity,
and
Vs
shear velocity .
Equations (10), (11) , and (12) were used to cons truct the l ines on figures
12A, and l lA . These lines show that an assumed value of 0 .25 for
Poisson's ratio fits the data very
(10)
(11)
(12)
Some of the plots could be used to obtain estimates of t he dynamic con-
stant s . examples are figure 12g, modulus of rigidity versus longitudinal
velocity , and figur e 12Q, Young ' s modul us versus longitudinal vel oci t y .
Figur e is a plot of Young ' s modulus (E
1
) det er mined by method 1 versus
Young ' s modul us (E
2
) determined by method 2. Although method 2 usual ly yiel ds
a slightly higher value than method 1 , the di fference is not large enough to
be important in most appl ications .
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Measurements of compressive strength, point load t ens ile strength, spe-
cific gravity, longitudinal veloci ty, shear velocity, and bar velocity were
made on rocks having a wide range of compr essive strengths . From these meas-
ured values, Young ' s modulus, the modulus of rigidity, and Poisson ' s ratio
were calculated . Regression analyses were used to obtain equations for pre-
dicting compr essive strength from the other properties. The prediction equa-
tions obtained by assuming a linear relationship between compressive strength
and the other pr operties were improved by assuming a curvilinear relationship
and by using the eight properties with some of their squares and cross pr od-
ucts as independent variables . Point load tensile strength a l one could be
used t o estimate compressive strength with fair accuracy. Equations that
improve this estimate and that contain less than six variables were also found .
Finally a prediction equati on containing 25 variables was obt a ined. The pre-
dicted values from this equation as close to the measured values as could
be expe cted considering the error in the measured values . All of the derived
equations have smaller errors of estimate than t hat of the equation obtained
in an earl ier study by Judd and Huber . These results are encouraging consid-
ering that the measurements were made on a wide variety of rocks including
many that neither homogeneous nor isotropic .
22
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 . Blair , B. E. Physical Properties of Mine Rock, Part III. BuMines Rept.
of I nv . 5130, 1955, p . 5.
2 . _____ Physical Properties of Mine Rock, Par t IV. BuMines Rept . of
I nv. 5244 , 1956, p. 4.
3. Crow, E. L. , F. ~ . Davis, and M. W. Maxfield. Statistics Manual .
Dover Publications Inc . , New York, 1960 , pp . 147-194 .
4 . Efroymson, M. A. Multiple Regression Analysis. Ch. in Mathematical
Methods for Digital Computers, ed . by Anthony Ralston and Herbert Wi l f.
John Wil ey & Sons , Inc., New York , 1960, pp . 191- 203.
5 . Rueter, T. F., and R. H. Bo l t . Sonics . John Wiley & Sons , Inc .,
New York, 1960, pp . 26- 27.
6 . Johnson, J. B., and R. L. Fischer . Effects of Mechanical Properties of
Mater ial s on Cratering: A Laboratory Study. BuMines Rept. of I nv .
6188, 1963, pp. 2- 8 .
7. Judd, W. R. , and C. Huber . Correl ation of Rock Properties by Statistical
Methods. Internat. Symp . Min. Res ., Rolla, Mo . , Feb . 22-25 , 1961 .
Pergamon Press, New York, 1962, p. 62.
8. Obert, L., s . L. Windes, and W. I . Duval l . Standardized Tests for
Determining the Physical Properties of Mine Rock . BuMines Rept . of
Inv. 3891, 1946, p . 67 .
9. Ostle, B. Statistics in Research . I owa St ate College Press, Ames ,
Iowa , 1954, pp. 202-231 .
10. Windes, S. L. Physical Properties of Mine Rock . Part I . BuMines Rept.
of I nv . 4459, 1949, p . 8.
11. Physical Properties of Mine Rock. Part II . BuMines Rept . of
Inv. 4727, 1950, p. 8.
APPENDIX
TABLE A-1. - Averages, standard deviations, standard errors, and coefficients of
variation of compressive strength and point l oad tensile strength
Compressive strength
Point load tensile stren th
23
Standard Standard Coefficient Standard Standard Coefficient
Location Average, deviation, N e r r o r , ~ of Average, deviation N e r r o r , ~
of
10
3
psi 10
3
psi 10
3
psi variati on, 10
3
psi 10
3
psi 10
3
psi variation,
percent
percent
1 30.233 2 . 26 9 0. 75 7.5 2.054 0.177 16 0 .044 8.6
2 32.551 6 . 72 10 2.10 20.6 1 . 985 .501 13 .140 25 . 2
3 24 . 989 7.44 11 2.20 29.8 1.518 .553 17 .130 36 . 4
4 22 . 158 5.54 12 1.60 25.0 1.314 .252 14 .067 19.2
5 27.020 5.15 10 1.60 19.1 1.308 .232 13 .064 17.7
6 21.265 5 . 13 11 1.50 24.1 1 . 408 .234 14 .063 16 . 6
7 36.401 '6 .04 15 1.60 16.6 2.474 .392 29 .073 15.8
8 33 . 892 9 . 77 16 2.40 28.8 2.483 .628 18 .150 25.3
9 19.153 3 . 31 11 1.00 17 . 3 1.153 .214 15 .055 18.6
10 30.361 3.84 12 1.10 12 . 6 1.882 . 124 12 .036 6 . 6
11 18. 814 5 . 32 12 1.50 28.3 1.582 .454 20 .100 28 . 7
12 31.415 7.32 10 2.30 23.3 1.688 .339 15 . 088 20.1
13 26.022 5.16 15 1.30 19.8 1.340 . 195 17 .047 14.6
14 34 . 871 7.37 7 2.80 21.1 1.680 .402 9 .130 23.9
15 16.402 3.03 13 .84 18. 5 .9ll . 312 13 .087 34.2
16 3.407 .32 7 .12 9.4 .060 .014 12 .004 23.3
17 14.074 5.59 6 2.30 39.7 .963 .253 12 .073 26.3
18 16.633 5. 77 9 1.90 34.7 . 937 .158 13 .044 16.9
19 15 . 559 2.33 9 .78 15.0 .736 . 126 11 . 038 17.1
20 19.519 5.92 5 2.60 30.3 .827 . 107 11 .032 12 . 9
21 21.630 10.34 5 4 . 60 47.8 1.552 . 186 13 . 052 12.0
22 13.934 2.66 17 .65 19. 1 .987 .166 18 .039 16.8
23 16.351 6.58 9 2 . 20 40.2 . 740 .245 14 .065 33.1
24 17.030 4.05 11 1.20 23.8 .708 .084 12 . 024 11 . 9
25 11.796 5.10 8 1.80 43.2 .506 .151 11 .046 29.8
26 13.330 5.37 10 1. 70 40.3 .670 .134 14 . 036 20.0
27 4.334 .26 8 .09 6.0 . 086 .020 13 . 005 23.2
28 7.943 2.90 10 .92 36 .5 .366 .201 11 .061 54 . 9
29 2 . 451 .28 13 . 08 11.4 .045 .005 13 .001 11.1
30 12 . 390 5.35 4 2.70 43.2 . 927 .206 7 .078 22.2
31 19.710 3.09 21 .67 15.7 .854 .122 23 .025 14. 3
32 44.201 8.14 6 3.30 18.4 2 . 317 . 542 16 .140 23 . 4
33 5.111 .90 13 .25 17.6 .322 .034 15 . 009 10 . 6
34 2.169 .30 12 .09 13.8 . 132 .019 16 . 005 14.4
35 2 . 765 .13 13 .04 4 . 7 .075 .014 16 .004 18.7
36 5. 925 1.20 14 .32 20.2 .165 .015 18 . 004 9.1
37 28.400 1.27 4 .64 4.5 1.800 .192 100 . 019 10.7
38 19 . 400 3.04 7 1.10 15.7 1.340 .202 28 . 038 15.1
39 42.349 4.32 10 1.40 10.2 2.290 .304 22 . 065 13.3
40 7 . 680 .725 13 .20 9.4 .510 .049 33 .009 9. 6
41 36.400 11.25 9 3 . 70 30 . 9 2.206 .315 15 .081 14.3
42 20.625 4.27 17 1.00 20.7 1.273 .185 17 .045 14. 5
43 17.750 . 4.39
14 1.20 24.7 . 999 . 331 16 .083 33.1
44 31.167 5 . 53 17 1.30 17.7 1.518 .313 17 .076 20.6
45 24 . 010 4.22 14 1.10 17.6 1.330 .255 11 .077 19.2
46
1.540 .29 5 .13 18. 8 .040 .008 11 .002 20.0
47 45 . 172 8.55 26 1. 70 18.9 2.530 .242 27 .047 9.6
48 29 . 047 5.25 6 2.10 18. 1 1.305 .235 14 .063 18.0
49 16. 546 5.89 15 1.50 35.6 1. 612 .450 15 .120 27.9
~ T h e standard error of an average J.s g1ven by S/./N, \vhere S l.S the standard dev1at1on of the
average and N is the number of observations.
INT.- BU.O F MINES,PCH.,PA. 8873