Paper contribution

Scale effects or statistical misinterpretation: a critical assessment of uniaxial compressive strength data

Proceedings
EUROCK 2026
Pages
361-366
Submitted
28 January 2026
Accepted
15 June 2026
Published
12 August 2026

Summary

Abstract

Despite significant improvements made on measurement techniques, testing capabilities, computer performance, and data acquisition systems, many rock engineering challenges still fall under the designation of “data-limited problems”. This means that, often, the number of tests is limited, compromising statistical representativeness. In contrast to other engineering disciplines, where the exact material can be selected based on the desired mechanical properties, in rock and rock mass engineering, it is the design that adapts to the material. This is why the mechanical characterisation of rocks and rock masses represents a key step for any successful design in the field of rock engineering. In addition to displaying large variability associated with its natural genesis, the mechanical behaviour of rock mass is scale- or size-dependent. Therefore, many researchers have studied the variation of rock properties with specimen size. As uniaxial compressive strength is one of the main design parameters in rock engineering, its scale effect in rock materials has been extensively studied, with several empirical correlations and size-effect laws suggested to date. However, many of these correlations appear not to be statistically sound. Specifically, a systematic reduction in the number of specimens tested with increasing physical specimen size has been detected in several datasets. This is typically due to a larger physical size making it more difficult to obtain suitable material, prepare specimens, and run the tests, leading to increased cost and duration compared to standard size specimens. This leads to varying levels of confidence depending on the physical specimen size, causing the high levels of uncertainty to permit a range of interpretations in addition to the proposed correlations. These shortcomings are analysed from a statistical viewpoint, and a critical assessment of the so-called scale effect is made for various uniaxial compressive strength datasets.

Contributors

Authors

  1. Risto Kiuru Rock Physics Finland Ltd, Vantaa, Finland; Aalto University, School of Engineering, Espoo, Finland
  2. Ignacio Pérez-Rey CINTECX, Universidade de Vigo, GESSMin Group, 36310, Vigo, Spain ORCID 0000-0003-0883-7211
  3. Mauro Muñiz-Menéndez Laboratorio de Geotecnia – CEDEX, Madrid, Spain ORCID 0000-0001-5202-0044
  4. James Woodman Geo-Design Consulting Engineers Ltd, Ringwood, UK

Index terms

Keywords

Full text

Attachments

Works cited

References

  1. Rock type
  2. Shape
  3. Lateral dimension (Number of specimens) Average UCS
  4. [mm]/[-]/[MPa]
  5. Lundborg (1967)
  6. Granite
  7. R
  8. 19 (5) 215
  9. 28 (5) 208
  10. 38 (5) 173
  11. 58 (5) 171
  12. Hoskins & Horino (1969)
  13. Granite
  14. R
  15. 4 (45) 337
  16. 8 (30) 327
  17. 2 (30) 302
  18. Nishimatsu et al. (1969)
  19. Andesite A
  20. R
  21. 24 (11) 108
  22. 35 (14) 112
  23. 50 (11) 99.4
  24. 56 (10) 99.7
  25. 70 (11) 94.9
  26. Andesite B
  27. R
  28. 13 (12) 228
  29. 18 (16) 243
  30. 24 (12) 253
  31. 30 (12) 260
  32. 70 (8) 213
  33. Granite
  34. R
  35. 13 (15) 179
  36. 18 (16) 188
  37. 24 (12) 175
  38. 30 (10) 196
  39. 70 (7) 146
  40. Pratt et al. (1972)
  41. Diorite
  42. R/T
  43. 54 (6) 30.8
  44. 76 (3) 26.6
  45. 203 (4) 24.3
  46. Granodiorite
  47. R/T
  48. 54 (6) 193
  49. 76 (3) 189
  50. 203 (6) 74.5
  51. Bieniawski (1975)
  52. Norite A
  53. R
  54. 5 (20) 255
  55. 42 (20) 257
  56. 54 (45) 250
  57. Norite B
  58. R
  59. 5 (20) 318
  60. 42 (20) 313
  61. 54 (40) 312
  62. Table 1. continued Reviewed data sources for igneous rocks with the lateral dimension, number of specimens and average UCS value for each size group. Shapes: R = right circular cylinder, C = cube and T = equilateral triangular prism.
  63. Abou-Sayed et al. (1976)
  64. Quartz diorite
  65. R
  66. 25 (11) 41.7
  67. 38 (8) 33.3
  68. 63 (2) 34.1
  69. 102 (7) 28.9
  70. 146 (4) 27.4
  71. Jackson & Lau (1990)
  72. Granite
  73. R
  74. 33 (13) 195
  75. 45 (12) 171
  76. 63 (10) 199
  77. 100 (5) 190
  78. 141 (8) 171
  79. 194 (4) 156
  80. 294 (4) 166
  81. 45 (39) 193
  82. Panek & Fannon (1992)
  83. Basalt
  84. R
  85. 21 (27) 191
  86. 70 (9) 171
  87. 145 (8) 161
  88. da Silva & Hennies (1993)
  89. Basalt
  90. C
  91. 5 (20) 278
  92. 5 (15) 279
  93. 10 (5) 205
  94. 15 (10) 198
  95. Thuro et al. (2001)
  96. Granite
  97. R
  98. 52 (4) 130
  99. 70 (4) 134
  100. 80 (4) 125
  101. 112 (4) 128
  102. Masoumi (2013)
  103. Granite A
  104. R
  105. 19 (3) 183
  106. 25 (4) 208
  107. 38 (4) 233
  108. 50 (5) 218
  109. Granite B
  110. R
  111. 19 (4) 203
  112. 25 (2) 183
  113. 38 (5) 255
  114. 50 (4) 251
  115. 65 (5) 253
  116. 96 (2) 267
  117. Quiñones (2017)
  118. Granite
  119. R
  120. 9 (10) 62.4
  121. 3 (10) 84
  122. 6 (6) 122
  123. 6 (2) 112
  124. Walton (2018)
  125. Granite
  126. R
  127. 43 (4) 142
  128. 63 (4) 131
  129. 75 (4) 131
  130. Grenow(2018)
  131. Granite A
  132. R
  133. 2 (5) 65.3
  134. 9 (5) 70.1
  135. 9 (5) 126
  136. Granite B
  137. R
  138. 5 (5) 144
  139. 1 (5) 168
  140. 1 (5) 154
  141. Durmekova et al. (2022)
  142. Andesite
  143. R
  144. 20 (10) 172
  145. 35 (7) 194
  146. 50 (6) 181
  147. Granodiorite
  148. R
  149. 20 (10) 112
  150. 35 (10) 113
  151. 50 (10) 115
  152. Kong et al. (2023)
  153. Granite
  154. C
  155. 10 (5) 288
  156. 15 (5) 260
  157. 20 (5) 234
  158. 25 (5) 188