Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

DOI 10.1007/s12665-012-1783-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of carbonate rocks

using artificial neural networks
Nurcihan Ceryan Umut Okkan Ayhan Kesimal

Received: 7 August 2011 / Accepted: 14 June 2012 / Published online: 3 July 2012
 Springer-Verlag 2012

Abstract The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of

intact rocks is an important geotechnical parameter for
engineering applications. Determining UCS using standard
laboratory tests is a difficult, expensive and time consuming task. This is particularly true for thinly bedded, highly
fractured, foliated, highly porous and weak rocks. Consequently, prediction models become an attractive alternative
for engineering geologists. The objective of study is to
select the explanatory variables (predictors) from a subset
of mineralogical and index properties of the samples, based
on all possible regression technique, and to prepare a
prediction model of UCS using artificial neural networks
(ANN). As a result of all possible regression, the total
porosity and P-wave velocity in the solid part of the sample
were determined as the inputs for the LevenbergMarquardt algorithm based ANN (LM-ANN). The performance
of the LM-ANN model was compared with the multiple
linear regression (REG) model. When training and testing
results of the outputs of the LM-ANN and REG models
were examined in terms of the favorite statistical criteria,
which are the determination coefficient, adjusted determination coefficient, root mean square error and variance
N. Ceryan (&)
Department of Geological Engineering,
Balkesir University, Balikesir, Turkey
e-mail: nceryan@balikesir.edu.tr
U. Okkan
Department of Civil Engineering,
Balkesir University, Balikesir, Turkey
e-mail: umutokkan@balikesir.edu.tr
A. Kesimal
Department of Mining Engineering,
Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey
e-mail: kesimal@ktu.edu.tr

account factor, the results of LM-ANN model were more

accurate. In addition to these statistical criteria, the nonparametric MannWhitney U test, as an alternative to the
Students t test, was used for comparing the homogeneities
of predicted values. When all the statistics had been
investigated, it was seen that the LM-ANN that has been
developed, was a successful tool which was capable of
UCS prediction.
Keywords Carbonate rock  Unconfined compressive
strength  Porosity  Wave velocity  All possible
regression  Artificial neural networks 
LevenbergMarquardt algorithm

Introduction
One of the important rock mechanic parameters for engineering geologists, geotechnical engineers and mining
engineers is the determination of the unconfined compressive strength of rocks (UCS), which is considered by
many researchers to be the most essential rock material
property (Bieniawski 1974). This parameter has great
importance in rock mechanic applications such as tunnel
and dam design, rock blasting and drilling, mechanical
rock excavation and slope stability. There are basically two
methods for assessing the UCS of rocks. One, known as the
direct method, is to test the specimens in the laboratory, the
other, known as the indirect method, is to use previously
derived empirical equations from the literature (Baykasoglu et al. 2008). Testing procedures for the direct method
have been standardized by both the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) and International Society
for Rock Mechanics (ISRM). High-quality core specimens
are needed for direct determination of UCS in a laboratory.

123

808

However, high quality cores in sufficient quantities cannot

always be extracted from weak, highly fractured, weathered and thinly bedded rocks. In addition, careful execution
of this test is very difficult, time consuming, and expensive
and involves destructive tests (Gokceoglu and Zorlu 2004;
Baykasoglu et al. 2008). To overcome these difficulties, the
indirect method considering simple index parameters and/
or mineralogical analyses and basic mechanical tests of the
physical properties, were developed, including the P-wave
velocity, Schmidt hammer, Point load index (e.g., Kahraman 2001; Chang et al. 2006; Ceryan et al. 2008; Oyler
et al. 2010), block punch test (Ulusay et al. 2001; Altindag
et al. 2004) and core strangle test (Yilmaz 2010). For some
of these studies, rock fabric, mineralogic and petrographic
kesson
properties were obtained using image analysis (A

et al. 2001; Lindqvist and Akesson 2001; Jensen et al.

2010). This is because these tests and analyses have smaller
samples and are simpler, faster and more economical (Bell
1978; Fahy and Guccione 1979; Brooks 1985; Doberenier
and De Freitas 1986; Hawkins and McConnell 1990;
Shakoor and Bonelli 1991; Ulusay et al. 1994; Romana
1999; Alvarez Grima and Babuska 1999; Singh et al. 2001;
Gokceoglu 2002; Gokceoglu and Zorlu 2004; Sonmez et al.
2004; Chang et al. 2006; Oyler et al. 2010). Indirect
methods for UCS prediction are generally preferred, particularly when there are limited laboratory facilities
(Baykasoglu et al. 2008).
The statistical methods used in rock engineering, for
example the simple and multiple regression techniques, are
conversional predictive models for estimating the
mechanical properties of rock materials including UCS. In
addition to these conventional methods, new techniques
such as artificial neural networks, fuzzy inference systems,
genetic programming, and regression trees are also gaining
considerable attention for estimating UCS (Meulenkamp
1997; Alvarez Grima and Babuska 1999; Meulenkamp and
Alvarez Grima 1999; Singh et al. 2001; Kahraman and
Alber 2006; Baykasoglu et al. 2008; Yilmaz and Yuksek
2009; Sarkar et al. 2010; Yagiz et al. 2012). Since the
1990 s, ANN have recently become more popular, especially where fewer correlation coefficients of regression
equations with more input variables are required to completely define rock characteristics and the more flexible
operations between input and output variables (Garret
1994; Huang and Wanstedt 1998; Baykasoglu et al. 2008).
It is a form of nonlinear analysis which is based on the
understanding of the brain and nervous system (Ghabousi
et al. 1991; Ham and Kostanic 2001). Furthermore, it is a
fundamentally different approach that has to learn and
generalize interactions between many variables. Consequently, ANN has great potential for modeling material
behavior from experimental data (Ghabousi et al. 1991;
Ellis et al. 1992). One of the major advantages of ANN is

123

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

its efficient handling of highly non-linear relationships in

data, even when the exact nature of such relationships is
unknown (Dehghan et al. 2010). ANN models are well
suited for UCS predictions, because of the complex nature
of the interrelationships between the various quality
parameters, composition and processing conditions (Dehghan et al. 2010). In the last few years, artificial neural
networks (ANN) have generally been used to established
predictive models of UCS for rock engineering applications (Meulenkamp and Alvarez Grima 1999; Singh and
Dubey 2000; Kahraman and Alber 2006; Zorlu et al. 2008;
Yilmaz and Yuksek 2008; Sarkar et al. 2010; Cevik et al.
2011; Yagiz et al. 2012). The performance of the ANN
models was also compared with other statistical methods
(e.g., regression analysis). These studies demonstrated that
the results of ANN were more precise than the conventional statistical approaches (Nie and Zhang 1994; Tiryaki
2008; Baykasoglu et al. 2008; Dehghan et al. 2010; Yagiz
et al. 2012).
The mechanical strength of carbonate rocks such as
limestone is predominantly governed by five parameters:
porosity, cleavage properties, crystal size, lithification and
micro cracks (Chang et al. 2006, Jensen et al. 2010).
However, porosity in many studies has been considered a
basic input parameter when estimating the UCS of carbonate rocks. (Mohd 2009; Asef and Farrokhrouz 2010;
Jensen et al. 2010). Furthermore, ultrasonic wave velocity
has often been used in estimation models as a nondestructive method that is portable, cheap and easy to use.
(e.g., DAndrea et al. 1965; Youash 1970; Saito et al. 1974;
Lama and Vutukuri 1978; Gaviglio 1989; Baykasoglu et al.
2008; Diamantis et al. 2009; Yilmaz and Yuksek 2009;
Ameen et al. 2009; Moradian and Behnia 2009; Kahraman
et al. 2009; Dehghan et al. 2010, Sarkar et al. 2010; Yagiz
et al. 2012). However, some significant rock indices such
as the P-wave velocity in the solid parts of rock materials
have not yet been considered in building predictive models
for the UCS of sedimentary rocks.
In this study, the aim is to establish predictive models
for the UCS of carbonate rocks formed from various facies
exposed in the Tasonu quarry, Trabzon, NE Turkey, used
in rock engineering applications. The fabric and its components (calcite, clay and, rock and mineral fragments) of
carbonate rocks in the field of study are highly variable due
to the development of different facies. They are mostly
hollow macro- and micro-cracks. The surface structure has
pitted, pitted to vuggy and vuggy shapes. For these reasons,
the rocks studied are known as a group of problematic
rocks such as clay and much-fractured rocks. Consequently, the use of estimation methods was seen to be
useful in determining the UCS. The objective in this study
is to select the explanatory variables (predictors) from a
subset of mineralogical and index properties of the

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

samples, based on an all possible regression technique, and

to prepare a prediction model of UCS using ANN. ANN
method was preferred because the main advantage of it
over conventional methods is that it does not require
detailed information about the complex nature of the
underlying process under consideration to be explicitly
described in mathematical form. Some extensive application and reviews of such models proposed for the prediction of geological variables were reported (Nie and Zhang
1994; Yilmaz and Yuksek 2008, 2009; Yagiz et al. 2012).
The LevenbergMarquardt algorithm based ANN model
was used as the prediction method in this study. The
advantages of LevenbergMarquardt algorithm are that it is
usually faster and more reliable than any other back
propagation algorithms (Hagan and Menhaj 1994). Thus it
can handle situations when the relationship between input
and output variables is nonlinear. The performance of LMANN was also compared with the conventional method of
multiple linear regression (REG).

Material and testing procedures

The carbonate rocks samples developed in different facies
and were taken from the Tasonu Quarry, Trabzon, northeast Turkey (Fig. 1). These rocks are used as the raw
materials by Trabzon Askale Cement Factory. They are
part of the Kirechane Formation, which developed in the
Campanian (Fig. 2).
The mineralogical composition of the samples from the
Kirechane Formation was studied using X-ray diffraction
(XRD) at Hacettepe University. Semi-quantitative percentages of the minerals are calculated by the method
developed by Gundogdu (1982). Details of the method can
be found in Temel and Gundogdu (1996). The some samples from the quarry were 100 % CaCO3. In other samples,
there were significant variations in other components (clay,
feldspar, biotite and opaque minerals; Table 1). In Table 1,

809

L8b

L0

L4b

18

L0

L2

L5

15

L3a

L1

20

L8b

L8b
L4b
L3b

25

L8c
L7

18

L2
L1 L6

L8c

L3a

15
11

15

L8b

L8b
L5

21

L8a

L0

13
16

L4b

12

L2

L3a

12 L3a

L4a

L8b

L0

584800

585000

15

L4b

23
15

100 m

585200

Fig. 2 Geological map of Tasonu quarry (L0 basalt, andesit and their
piroklastic, L1 volcanic pebbly red tuff, L2 red tuff alternate with
white limestone, L3 common macro shelly karstic voided limestone
(a), intercalated with red tuff (b), L4 fine grained karstic voided
carbonate mudstone (a) that overlie red sandy clayey limestone (b),
L5 alternate with sandy limestone clayey limestone and marl, L6
volcanic tuff intercalate with clayey limestone and mar, L7 sandy
pebbly limestone, L8 carbonate cemented sandstone intercalated with
clayey limestone and marl (b). Lower part of the sandstone contain
silicified level (a), Interbedded common macro fossiliferous with
biotite tuffacous carbonate cemented sandstone and sandy limestone

the result of XRD analysis, index and strength properties of

the samples examined are given.
In this study, 56 groups of block samples, each sample
having the approximate dimensions of 30 9 30 9 30 cm,
were collected in the field for the rock mechanics tests
using core drilling machine of the Rock Mechanics Laboratory in the Engineering Faculty of Karadeniz Technical
University. Core samples were prepared from the rock
blocks: they were 50 mm in diameter, and the edges of the
specimens were cut parallel and smooth (ISRM 2007;
Fig. 3). Some tests, such as specific density, unit weight,
porosity, effective porosity, P-wave velocity, slake durability, aggregate impact value and UCS, were carried out in
the laboratory. The physical property and UCS tests were
performed on 15 samples for each sample group. The slake
durability and aggregate impact value test were performed
on three samples for each group. ISRM (1981) suggests
two cycles slake durability. However, Gokceoglu et al.
(2000) proposed four cycles. Similarly, four cycles slake
durability index were used in this study.
The total porosity (n) and effective porosity of the rock
were estimated from the following equations:
q
n1 s
1
qd
ne

Fig. 1 Location of Tasonu quarry (Trabzon, NE Turkey)

L0

20

L0

Ws  Wd
qw V

where qs is the dry density, qd the density of solid particles,

qw the water density, Wd the weight of the sample in the

123

810

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

Table 1 Mineralogical, index and strength properties of the samples examined

Smpl

Clt

Cly

Fld

Qrz

Qq

Bi

ne

Id

Vp

Vm

UCS

1a

82

18

16.5

12.9

91.2

3,202

4,245

14.50

1b

72

19

16.7

13.4

91.5

3,299

4,458

16.12

2a1

69

26

17.3

14.8

2,449

3,475

8.98

2a2

71

20

20.3

16.1

88.4

2,650

3,903

13.90

2b1

54

46

18.8

11.8

84.4

2,455

2,834

8.85

2b2

55

45

20.8

13.5

85.2

2,354

2,631

7.77

3a1

95

17.9

14.9

3,672

5,418

17.05

18.2

15.6

3,517

5,507

16.72

25.6

22.7

85.9

2,293

3,255

11.34

3a2

93

3b1

66

34

3b2

60

36

25.9

22.5

87.9

2,286

3,249

13.48

3c
4a

62
68

31
23

5
8

1
1

18.7
25.0

14.4
17.4

89.5
92.5

2,159
2,991

3,061
4,458

9.51
15.37

4b

67

20

10

26.8

21.7

90.3

2,875

4,422

14.13

4c

51

43

21.3

12.3

91.3

2,492

2,941

12.79

j1a

56

42

11.38

j1b

43

51

j2

82

12

j3

76

12

7.4

j4

34

31

24

24.7

j5

77

22

9.6

5.8

92.8

2,913

3,589

11.92

j6a

63

18

11

15.8

16.8

93.0

2,780

4,391

13.62

j6b

68

11

17.6

12.5

92.9

3,263

4,762

14.32

j6c

56

34

11.8

9.1

92.9

2,652

3,579

12.47

j7

73

15

14

10.5

9.4

95.6

3,259

4,641

17.40

jtb8a

43

45

31.2

27.6

83.3

2,466

3,353

8.31

j8bc

87

13

26.6

23.2

85.4

2,522

3,858

9.86

j9a
j9bc

50
75

38
10

12.3
16.7

9.8
11.9

91.2
93.6

2,836
3,329

3,440
4,746

12.34
13.71

j9d

86

j10a

83

j10bc

38

22

j11a

100

j11b

67

j12

100

20

0
5

2
11

5
4

25.0

21.6

86.5

2,200

3,362

33.9

30.9

83.5

1,963

2,739

9.63

15.2

11.6

93.5

3,379

4,648

14.97

5.0

0.0

3,787

5,391

22.69

19.7

93.9

3,074

3,914

13.12

14

8.0

6.2

95.9

3,574

5,216

17.92

16.3

14.3

91.6

3,035

4,689

15.49

16

21

9
2

10

j13

13.9

93.3

3,002

4,424

13.80

10.7

96.3

3,634

5,279

18.62

8.0

7.3

93.6

3,528

4,851

18.21

7.4

4.7

95.2

3,649

5,321

20.76

17.3

14.8

0.0

2,449

8.98

j14

53

19

10

25.2

19.9

0.0

3,286

4,946

13.16

j15

87

11.5

10.6

93.0

3,527

5,763

15.84

j16

10

69

16

33.2

31.6

80.3

1,319

1,401

7.32

j17

90

9.7

7.2

94.1

3,576

5,168

18.87

15.8
12.3

j18

10.9

7.5

3,124

4,439

11.70

j19

31

46

23

16.6

13.8

2,736

2,973

10.61

j20
j21

86
82

14
13

11.9
22.1

9.4
16.5

3,350
2,883

4,965
53.9

15.41
13.42

j22

82

18

17.4

13.7

93.5

3,232

57.6

14.04

j23

87

11

17.8

15.5

92.6

2,965

53.3

13.18

j2527

34

41

18.1

17.3

89.4

1,902

41.5

12.21

j26a

95

37.8

j26b

90

123

14
5

90.8
91.3

9.2

6.7

96.0

4,259

12.4

8.6

95.0

3,521

21.02
21.42

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

811

Table 1 continued
Smpl
j28

Clt
83

Cly

Fld

Qrz

Qq

Bi

j29

ne

Id

Vp

6.8

3.7

97.4

3,980

10.3

6.7

95.7

36,827
2,072

j30

12

49

16

22

21.3

19.7

80.5

j31

56

26

10

18.2

13.9

88.3

j33a

53

41

9.7

7.2

j33b

88

4.9

3.5

j33d

82

15.8

13.7

Vm

UCS
31.6

15.24
19.22

68.3

9.75

3,081

45.7

12.63

2,700

36.1

12.49

96.3

3,825

21.1

24.06

92.5

3,440

37.4

14.57

Clt (%), calsite; Cly (%), clay; Qrt (%), quartz; Qq (%), opacue; Bi (%), biotite; G, spesific density; ck (kN/m ), dry unit weight; n (%), total
porosity; ne (%), effective porosity; Id (%), slake durability index (fourth cycle); Vp (m/s), P-wave velocity in dry samples; Vm (m/s), P-wave
velocity in solid part of the sample; UCS (MPa), unconfined compressive strength

dried condition, Ws the weight of the sample in the saturated condition, and V the volume of the sample.
In this study, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) tests were
conducted using the first method suggested in ISRM
(1981). UPV measurements were performed on the samples in the both dried and saturated conditions. The pulse
was generated by a source-transducer: it was transmitted
through the sample and registered by a receiver-transducer.
Using an epoxy polymer between the transducers and the
test sample produced an improvement in the energy
transmission. After measurements, velocity of P-wave of
the V-wave, Vp, was calculated from measured travel time
and the distance between the transmitter and receiver. In
addition to P-wave velocity in the rock samples that lacked
pores and fissures, Vm, were calculated by employing the
Eq. 3 (from Barton 2007):
1
/ 1/

Vp Vfl
Vm

where Vp is the P-wave velocity in the sample, Vfl the

velocity in the fluid, / the ratio of the path length in
the fluid to the total path length (i.e., the porosity), and Vm
the P-wave velocity in rock samples lacking pores and
fissures (in other words, P-wave in the solid). In this study,
to calculate the Vm value, Vp was used for the P-wave
velocity measured in saturated samples, Vfl for the P-wave
velocity measured in the fluid, and / for effective porosity.
UCS tests were carried out according to International
Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (2007). Core samples
were prepared in 2.5:1 height/diameter ratio, with a
diameter of 50 mm and height of 125 mm. Experiments
were performed on 15 samples in dried condition for each
group. During the test, samples were loaded to be broken in
10 and 15 min.
Aggregate impact tests are included in British Standards
for measurement of the mechanical properties of crushed
rock aggregate, including the aggregate impact value (AIV)
tests (BS 812 1990). In the test, samples ranging in size
from 10 to 14 mm are subjected to shock and static load.

The proportion of material passing BS 2.36-mm sieve after

loading is calculated as a percentage of the original sample
weight, and expressed as the aggregate impact and aggregate crushing values for shock and static loading,
respectively.

Method
Selection of explanatory predictors
The selection of the model inputs depends on the dependent variables generally. Any type of input can be used in
modeling as long as they have acceptable correlation or
determination with the dependent variables. But, the large
number of the predictors may not produce in better results.
Hence, principal component analysis (PCA) and canonical
correlation have been used in some studies to reduce the
dimension in the relationship. These types, involve a procedure that transforms a number of possibly correlated
variables into a smaller number of uncorrelated variables in
order to reduce the number of predictors (Singh and Harrison 1985; Sharma 1996).
There are several ways of selecting predictors if a large
number is available. One common method is a detailed
search in which all possible regressions are tried and one is
selected as the most appropriate predictor according to
statistical performance criteria (Neter et al. 1996). Maximum adjusted determination coefficient (Adj R2), or minimum Mallows Cp values can be used as such performance
criteria (McQuarrie and Tsai 1998).
R2 (Eq. 4) describes the proportion of the variation in
the dependent variable as explained by the predictors in
the model. R2 increases with the increase in the number of
parameters in the model. Thus, it does not by itself
indicate the correct regression model. Adj R2 (Eq. 5) is
the modified version of R2 that has been adjusted for the
number of predictors in the model. Adj R2 is generally
considered a more accurate goodness-of-fit measure than

123

812

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

Fig. 3 Test samples with 50 mm diameter

R2. If Adj R2 is a criterion to select the explanatory

variables, it should only be used for the models with the
same number of parameters. If the selection of explanatory parameters is based on R2 and/or Adj R2, then the
problem of collinear variables in the model may arise.
This problem reduces the estimation capability of the
regression model in the verification stage (Hinnes and
Montgomery 1990). An alternative criteria proposed by
Mallows (1973) is useful to correlate the predictor set and
to compare the models which have different number of
parameters.
Mallows Cp (Eq. 6) is a measure of the error in the best
subset model, relative to the error incorporating all variables. Adequate models are those for which Cp is roughly
equal to the number of parameters in the model (Mallows
1973).

123

R2 1 

MSEi
r2

Adj R2 1 

n  1
1  R2
n  i  1

Cp n  k

MSEi
 n  2i  1
MSEF

where R2 is determination coefficient, Adj R2 is adjusted

determination coefficient, Cp is Mallows Cp, MSEi is
mean of residual squares in the model with j parameter,
MSEF is mean of residual squares in the full model with
k parameter, r2 is variance of the dependent variable, n is
the number of data, i is the number of parameters in the
model and k is the number of parameters in the full
model.

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

Weight matrix for layer 1
W (1)

x R nx1

813

Artificial neural networks (ANN)

Weight matrix for layer 2

W (2)

Hidden layer
h neurons

Ouput layer
m neurons

x R mx1

Fig. 4 ANN structure

Table 2 Summary of all possible regression analyses

Number of
Inputs

R2

Adj R2

0.744

0.738

5.8

0.704

0.697

13.0

0.777

0.767

1.7

0.769

0.758

3.2

0.783

0.767

2.7

0.779

0.762

3.4

0.786

0.765

4.1

0.783

0.761

4.7

0.786

0.759

6.0

Cp

ne

ld

Vp

Vm

The basic concept of the ANN is that they are typically

made up of neurons. And in ANN, the neurons are organized in the form of layers (Fig. 4).
The first and last layer of ANN is called the input and
the output layers, respectively. The input layer does not
perform any computations, but only serves to feed the input
data to the hidden layer which is between the input and
output layers.
In general, there can be any number of hidden layers in
the ANN structures, however, from practical applications,
only one or two hidden layers are used. In addition to this,
the number of hidden layers and also the number of neurons of hidden layers can be determined by the trial and
error (Ham and Kostanic 2001).
There are also three important components of an ANN
structure: weights, summing function and activation function. The importance and functionality of the inputs on
ANN models are obtained with weights (W). So the success
of the model depends on the precise and correct determination of weight values. The summing function (net) acts
to add all outputs; that is each neuron input is multiplied by
the weights and then summed. After computing the sum of
weighted inputs for all neurons, the activation function f (.)
serves to limit the amplitude of these values. The activation
functions are usually continuous, non-decreasing and
bounded functions. Various types of the activation function
are possible but generally log-sigmoid function is preferred
in applications (Ham and Kostanic 2001). This activation
function generates outputs between 0 and 1 as the input
signal goes from negative to positive infinity.

Table 3 LM-ANN and REG performances for the training and testing periods
Models

R2

Model structures

Adj R2

Training

Testing

Training

VAF
Testing

Training

RMSE (MPa)
Testing

Training

Testing

LM-ANN

n = 2; h = 4; m = 1

0.8837

0.8126

0.8751

0.7814

87.64

81.02

1.1079

1.8970

REG

rc = 5.77 ? 0.00225Vm - 0.132n

0.7950

0.7406

0.7798

0.6974

79.21

73.75

1.4298

2.2189

Table 4 Measured and LMANN descriptive statistics for

the training and testing periods

Mean (MPa)

Standard
deviation (MPa)

Measured

13.52

3.19

LM-ANN

13.41

REG

13.54

Measured

15.27

LM-ANN

15.46

REG

15.22

Skewness

Maximum
(MPa)

Minimum
(MPa)

0.18

20.76

7.77

2.73

0.40

19.74

8.88

2.63

-0.01

18.94

8.28

4.48

0.38

24.06

7.32

4.26

-0.48

21.06

7.39

4.10

-1.28

19.58

4.97

Training

Testing

123

814

f :

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

1
1 e:

In addition to the structure and its components of ANN, the

running procedure is also important which involves typically
two phases; forward computing and backward computing.
In forward computing, each layer uses a weight matrix
[W(v), for v = 1, 2] associated with all the connections
made from the previous layer to the next layer (Fig. 4). The
hidden layer has the weight matrix W 1 2 Rhn , the output
layers weight matrix is W 2 2 Rmh . Given the network
input vector x 2 Rn1 , the output of the hidden layer
xout;1 2 Rh1 can be written as
xout;1 f 1 net1  f 1 W 1 x

which is the input to the output layer. The output of the

output layer, which is the response (output) of the network
y xout;2 2 Rm1 , can be written as
y xout;2 f 2 net2  f 2 W 2 xout;1 

Substituting (Eq. 8) into (Eq. 9) for xout,1 gives the final

output y = xout,2 of the network as
y f 2 W 2 f 1 W 1 x

10

After the phase of forward computing, backward

computing which depending on the algorithms to adjust
weights is used in the ANN. The process of adjusting these
weights to minimize the differences between the actual and
the desired output values is called training or learning
the network. If these differences (error) are higher than the
desired values, the errors are passed backwards through the
weights of the network. In ANN terminology, this phase is
also called the back-propagation. Once the comparison
error is reduced to an acceptable level for the whole
training set, the training period ends, and the network is
also tested for another known input and output data set in
order to evaluate the generalization capability of the ANN
(Ham and Kostanic 2001).
Depending on the techniques to train ANN models,
different back propagation algorithms have been used for
modeling of UCS. These modeling studies generally
include the standard feed forward back propagation (FFBP)
algorithms such as gradient-descent (Yilmaz and Yuksek
2008; Sarkar et al. 2010), gradient-descent with momentum
rate (Singh et al. 2001; Kahraman et al. 2010; Yilmaz and
Yuksek 2009), conjugate gradient (Canakci and Pala 2007)
etc. As the standard FFBP algorithms have some disadvantages relating to the time requirement and slow convergency in training, LevenbergMarquardt algorithms,
which are alternative approaches to standard FFBP algorithms, were also used in some engineering applications
(Meulenkamp and Alvarez Grima 1999; Tiryaki 2008;
Fistikoglu and Okkan 2011; Okkan 2011).

123

In this study LevenbergMarquardt algorithm was used

for training. This algorithm is a second order nonlinear
optimization technique that is usually faster and more
reliable than any other standard back propagation techniques (Meulenkamp and Alvarez Grima 1999; Tiryaki
2008; Fistikoglu and Okkan 2011; Okkan 2011, Okkan and
Dalkilic 2011). It represents a simplified version of Newtons method (Marquardt 1963) applied to the training
ANN (Hagan and Menhaj 1994).
Consider ANN structure shown in Fig. 4, the running of
the network training can be viewed as finding a set of
weights that minimized the error (ep) for all samples in the
training set (Q). If the performances function is a sum of
squares of the errors as
P
P
1X
1X
EW
dp  yp 2
ep 2 ; P mQ
11
2 p1
2 p1
where Q is the total number of training samples, m is the
number of output layer neurons, W represents the vector
containing all the weights in the network, yp is the actual
network output, and dp is the desired output.
When training with the LevenbergMarquardt optimization algorithm, the changing of weights DW can be
computed as follows

1
DW  JkT Jk lk I JkT ek
12
where J is the Jacobian matrix, I is the identify matrix, l is
the Marquardt parameter which is to be updated using the
decay rate b depending on the outcome. In particular, l is
multiplied by the decay rate b (0 \ b \ 1) whenever E(W)
decreases, while l is divided by b whenever E(W)
increases in a new step (k).
The LM-ANN training process can be illustrated in the
following pseudo-codes,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Initialize the weights and l (l = 0.001 is appropriate).

Compute the sum of squared errors over all inputs, E(W).
Compute the Jacobian matrix J.
Solve Eq. 12 to obtain the changing of weights DW.
Recompute the sum of squared errors E(W) using

1
Wk 1 Wk  JkT Jk JkT ek as the trial W, and
judge

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

815

calculated as in Table 2. Performance of the model with

n and Vm is nearly the same as that of the full model with
five variables; that is, the explained variance of UCS using
the two effective variables is nearly equal to the variance
explained using the full model. On the other hand, Mallows Cp decreases rapidly with up to two variables (n and
Vm) and then increases with every addition of a variable.
Fig. 5 Determination of number of neurons in hidden layer for the
testing period

Modeling of UCS using ANN

Results

As a result of the Mallows Cp based all possible regression

analyses, the total porosity (n) and P-wave velocity in the
solid part of the sample (Vm), which are the explanatory
predictor variables of UCS, were selected as inputs for the
LevenbergMarquardt algorithm based ANN model (LMANN). In the implementation of the LM-ANN, MATLAB
code was used. To compare the generalization capabilities
of the LM-ANN model, the inputoutput data were divided
into training and testing in the proportions of 2/3 and 1/3.
Before presenting the inputoutput data to the LMANN, all data sets were scaled to the range of 01 so that
the different input signals had the same numerical range.
The training and testing subsets were scaled to the range of

Explanatory predictors of UCS

To evaluate the strength and direction of the relationships
between the input and output, all possible regression results
of five predictor variables: n (%) total porosity, ne (%)
effective porosity, Id (%) slake durability index (fourth
cycle), Vp (m/s) (P-wave velocity in dry samples), and Vm
(m/s) (P-wave velocity in solid parts of the sample), and
UCS are given in Table 2.
Once the explanatory predictor variables are selected,
based on the Mallows Cp coefficient, the AdjR2 values are
21

25

19

c = 5.77 + 0.00255 vm -0.132 n

c = 5.77 + 0.00255 vm -0.132 n

Training
17
15
13
11
9
y = 0,7468x + 3,4416
R = 0,795

7
5

Test

23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9

y = 0,7883x + 3,1954
R = 0,7406

7
5

11

13

15

17

19

21

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

Measured (Mpa)

Measured (Mpa)
21

25

Training
LM-ANN (2,4, 1) (Mpa)

17
15
13
11
9
7

Test

23

19

LM-ANN (2,4, 1) (Mpa)

Fig. 6 Scatter plots of REG

and LM-ANN models for the
training and testing period

y = 0,8032x + 2,5519
R = 0,8837

21
19
17
15
13
11
9

y = 0,8564x + 2,3911
R = 0,8126

5
5

11

13

15

Measured (Mpa)

17

19

21

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

Measured (Mpa)

123

816

members of the first group is R1 and of the second group is

R2. The U values can then be calculated using
Ui N1 N2

Ni Ni 1
 Ri ;
2

i 1; 2

15

After the calculation for i = 1 and i = 2, U1 and U2 are

obtained, and the larger is chosen (U*) to determine the test
statistics.
U   N12N2

z q

16

N1 N2 N1 N2 1
12

21
Measured (Mpa)

19

Training

LM-ANN (2,4, 1) (Mpa)

17
15
c

13
11
9
7
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

01 using the equation zt = (xt - xmin)/(xmax - xmin),

where xt is the unscaled data, zt is the scaled data, and xmax
and xmin are the maximum and minimum values of the
unscaled data. The output values of the LM-ANN model,
which were in the range of 01, were then transformed to
real-scaled values using the equation xt = zt (xmax xmin) ? xmin. In this study, three widely used transfer
functions, namely tangent sigmoid, linear, and log-sigmoid
are evaluated in LM-ANN structure trials. The best results
are achieved by using the log-sigmoid function which
described in Eq. (7). Otherwise, the number of the neurons
in the hidden layer, the initial Marquardt parameter (l0)
and decay rate (b) of the LM-ANN model, were also
determined by trial and error. The suitable network structure provided the best training result in terms of minimum
E(W) or root of mean E(W). The root mean square error
(RMSE), variance account factor (VAF) and the maximum
determination coefficient value (R2) were also employed in
the testing. RMSE and VAF are calculated as follows:
s
n
1X
RMSE
13
di  yi 2
n i1


1  vardi  yi
VAF
100
14
vardi

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

Data Points

123

25

Testing

Measured (Mpa)

23

LM-ANN (2,4, 1) (Mpa)

21
19
17
c

15
13
11
9
7
45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

5
31

where n is the number of training or testing samples, yi is the

actual network output, and di is the measured (desired) data.
A model denoted as LM-ANN (n, h, m) (with
l0 = 0.01; b = 0.10; k = 20 iterations) in Tables 3 and 4
comprises n = 2 neurons in the input layer, h = 4 neurons
in the hidden layer and m = 1 neuron in the output layer.
The number of neurons in the hidden layer was determined after trying various values (h = 220) for the
selected two input variables (Fig. 5).
When the scatter plots of the training and testing data
sets for the LM-ANN and REG are examined, it is
observed that the standard deviations around the y = x line
are much lower in the LM-ANN model. The LM-ANN
results for the training and testing periods were compared
with the desired UCS values (Figs. 6, 7)
In addition to these preferred statistical criteria, homogeneities of the model predictions were also examined with
the MannWhitney U (MW) test to present more evidence
on the acceptable application and success of the LM-ANN
model. This non-parametric statistical test is used to analyze two comparison groups to identify whether they have
the same distribution or not (Mann and Whitney 1947).
MW is based on the bringing together and arranging of
two groups (e.g., predicted and measured values). When
these group members are lined up, a line number is
assigned to each member. The membership status of these
members (to which group they belong) is ignored. These
line numbers are then summed up. The sum of the

Data Points
Fig. 7 LM-ANN results with the data points for the training and
testing period

Table 5 MW statistics of LM-ANN and REG models for training

and testing periods
MW test statistics

MannWhitney U

LM-ANN

REG

Training

Testing

Training

Testing

440

104

439

102

0.148

0.353

0.163

0.436

Asymptotic. Sig.
(2-tailed)

0.882

0.744

0.871

0.683

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

where N1 and N2 are the quantities of data for the groups

compared.
The z value is compared with a 0.05 significance level
(zcr = 1.96). For the values of z \ 1.96, there is no significant difference between the measured data and model
predictions. The asymptotic significance of the z test statistics was also used when making a comparison (Table 5).
When MW statistics were examined, it was shown that
both LM-ANN and REG predictions have homogeneities
for the training and testing set. When the z statistics and
asymptotic significance values are taken as a basis, LMANN again has the best performance.

Conclusions
In this study, a model was developed to estimate, by considering the index properties, the unconfined compressive
strength value of carbonate rocks formed at the different
facies. The mineralogical and index properties of the
samples were used for modeling the UCS. The explanatory
predictors from these measured samples were selected by
performing a comprehensive all possible regression analysis, in which best parameters were determined using the
Mallows Cp value and the UCS was considered as the
dependent variable. As a result of all the possible regression analyses, total porosity (n) and P-wave velocity in the
solid part of the sample (Vm) were selected as the inputs for
the LevenbergMarquardt algorithm based ANN model
(LM-ANN).
In previous studies, elastic wave velocity measured in
dried samples, and seismic attenuation or P-wave velocity
ratio measured in dried and fluid conditions were used to
estimate the strength and deformation of the rocks.
P-wave velocity used for determining the mineralogical
composition in the solid part of the rock, namely Vm, was
used as an initial parameter for estimating the UCS value
in this study.
When the model training and testing outputs were
investigated, in terms of the statistics (R2, Adj R2, RMSE,
VAF, descriptive statistics) of the measured and the predicted values, LM-ANN results fitted well. In addition to
these, the non-parametric MannWhitney U test was also
used for comparing the homogeneities of predicted values.
When all the statistics were investigated, it was seen that
the LM-ANN that was developed, was a successful ANN
algorithm that was capable of UCS modeling. The authors
also suggest that this approach can be used for the prediction of other geotechnical parameters where rapid
assessment and robustness are essential.

817

References
kesson U, Lindqvist JE, Goransson M, Stigh J (2001) Relationship
A
between texture and mechanical properties of granites, central
Sweden, by use of image-analysing techniques. Bull Eng Geol
Environ 60:277284
Altindag R, Alyildiz IS, Onargan T (2004) Technical note: mechanical property degradation of ignimbrite subjected to recurrent
freeze-thaw cycles. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 41:10231028
Alvarez Grima M, Babuska R (1999) Fuzzy model for the prediction
of unconfined compressive strength of rock samples. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 36:339349
Ameen MS, Smart BGD, Somerville JMC, Hammilton S, Naji NA
(2009) Predicting rock mechanical properties of carbonates from
wireline logs (A case study: Arab-D reservoir, Ghawar field,
Saudi Arabia). Mar Petrol Geol 26:430434
Asef MR, Farrokhrouz M (2010) Governing parameters for approximation of carbonates UCS. Electron J Geotech Eng
15:15811592
Barton N (2007) Fracture-induced seismic anisotropy when sharing is
induced in production from fractured reservoirs. J Seism Explor
16:115143
Baykasoglu A, Gullu H, Canakc H, Ozbakr L (2008) Predicting of
compressive and tensile strength of limestone via genetic
programming. Expert Syst Appl 35:111123
Bell FG (1978) The physical and mechanical properties of Fell
sandstones, North-Umberland, England. Eng Geol 12:129
Bieniawski ZT (1974) Estimating the strength of rock materials. J S
Afr Inst Min Metall 74:312320
Brooks N (1985) The equivalent core diameter method of size and
shape correction in point load test. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomechan Abstr 22:6170
Canakci H, Pala M (2007) Tensile strength of basalt from a neural
network. Eng Geol 94:1018
Ceryan S, Tudes S, Ceryan N (2008) A new quantitative weathering
classification for igneous rocks. Environ Geol 55:13191336
Cevik A, Sezer EA, Cabalar AF, Gokceoglu C (2011) Modeling of the
unconfined compressive strength of some clay-bearing rocks
using neural network. Appl Soft Comput 11:25872594
Chang C, Zoback MD, Khaksar A (2006) Empirical relations between
rock strength and physical properties in sedimentary rocks.
J Petrol Sci Eng 51:223237
DAndrea DV, Fisher RL, Fogelsen DE (1965) Prediction of rock
strength from other rock properties. US Bur Min Rep Invest,
Washington DC, 6702:545
Dehghan S, Sattar GH, Chehreh CS, Aliabadi MA (2010) Prediction
of unconfined compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for
Travertine samples using regression and artificial neural. Netw
Min Sci Technol 20:00410046
Diamantis K, Gartzos E, Migiros G (2009) Study on uniaxial
compressive strength, point load strength index, dynamic and
physical properties of serpentinites from Central Greece: test
results and empirical relations. Eng Geol 108:199207
Doberenier L, De Freitas MH (1986) Geotechnical properties of weak
sandstones. Geotechnique 36:7994
Ellis GW, Yao C, Zhao R (1992) Neural network modelling of the
mechanical behaviour of sand. In: Proceedings of Ninth
Conference ASCE Engng Mech. ASCE New York, pp 421424
Fahy MP, Guccione MJ (1979) Estimating strength of sandstone using
petrographic thin-section data. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 16:467485
Fistikoglu O, Okkan U (2011) Statistical downscaling of monthly
precipitation using NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data for Tahtali
River basin in Turkey. ASCE J Hydrol Eng 16(2):157164

123

818
Garret JH Jr (1994) Where and why artificial neural networks are
applicable in civil engineering. J Comput Civil Eng ASCE
8(2):129130
Gaviglio P (1989) Longitudinal waves propagation in a limestone: the
relationship between velocity and density. Rock Mech Rock Eng
22:299306
Ghabousi J, Garret JH, Wu X (1991) Knowledge based modeling of
material behavior with neural networks. ASCE J Eng Mech
171(1):132153
Gokceoglu C (2002) A fuzzy triangular chart to predict the
unconfined compressive strength of the Ankara agglomerates
from their petrographic composition. Eng Geol 66:3951
Gokceoglu C, Zorlu K (2004) A fuzzy model to predict the
unconfined compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of a
problematic rock. Eng Appl Artif Intell 17:6172
Gokceoglu C, Ulusay R, Sonmez H (2000) Factors affecting
durability of the weak and clay-bearing rocks selected from
Turkey with particular emphasis on the influence of the number
of drying and wetting of cycles. Eng Geol 57(34):215237
Gundogdu N (1982) Geological, mineralogical and geochemical
analysis of Bigadic sedimentary basin aged Neojen. PhD thesis,
Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish)
Hagan MT, Menhaj MB (1994) Training feed forward techniques
with the Marquardt algorithm. IEEE Trans Neural Netw
5(6):989993
Ham F, Kostanic I (2001) Principles of neurocomputing for science
and engineering. Mcgraw-Hill, USA
Hawkins A, McConnell BJ (1990) Influence of geology on geomechanical properties of sandstones. In: 7th International congress
on rock mechanics, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 257260
Hinnes WW, Montgomery DC (1990) Probability and statistics in
engineering and management science. John Wiley & Sons,
Singapore
Huang Y, Wanstedt S (1998) The introduction of neural network
system and its applications in rock engineering. Eng Geol
4:253260
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (1981) In rock
characterization, testing and monitoringISRM suggested
methods. In: Brown ET (ed), Oxford Pergamon, p 211
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (2007) The
complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization,
testing and monitoring: 19742006. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA
(eds) Suggested methods prepared by the commission on testing
methods, International Society for Rock Mechanics. ISRM
Turkish National Group. Ankara, Turkey
Jensen LRD, Friis H, Fundal E, Mller P, Jespersen M (2010)
Analysis of limestone micromechanical properties by optical
microscopy. Eng Geol 110(34):4350
Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the
unconfined compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 38:981984
Kahraman S, Alber M (2006) Estimating the unconfined compressive
strength and elastic modulus of a fault breccia mixture of weak
rocks and strong matrix. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43:12771287
Kahraman S, Gunaydin O, Alber M, Fener M (2009) Evaluating the
strength and deformability properties of Misis fault breccia using
artificial neural networks. Expert Syst Appl 36:68746878
Kahraman S, Alber M, Fener M, Gunaydin O (2010) The usability of
Cerchar abrasivity index for the prediction of UCS and E of
Misis fault breccia: regression and artificial neural networks
analysis. Expert Syst Appl 37:87508756
Lama RD, Vutukuri V (1978) Handbook on mechanical properties of
rocks. Vol 2, Trans Tech Publication. ISBN-13:9780878490233
kesson U (2001) Image analysis applied to engineerLindqvist JE, A
ing geology, a literature review. Bull Eng Geol Environ
60:117122

123

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

Mallows CL (1973) Some comments on Cp. Technometrics
15(4):661675
Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two
random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann
Math Stat 18:5060
Marquardt D (1963) An algorithm for least squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. J Soc Ind Appl Math 11(2):431441
McQuarrie AD, Tsai C (1998) Regression and time series model
selection. World Scientific Publishing Co., Pte. Ltd, River Edge
Meulenkamp F (1997) Improving the prediction of the UCS by
Equotip readings using statistical and neural network models.
Memoirs of the centre for engineering geology in the Netherlands, vol 162, p 127
Meulenkamp F, Alvarez Grima M (1999) Application of neural
networks for the prediction of the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) from Equotip hardness. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
36:2939
Mohd BK (2009) Compressive strength of vuggy oolitic limestones
as a function of their porosity and sound propagation. Jordan J
Earth Environ Sci 2:1825
Moradian Z, Behnia M (2009) Predicting the unconfined compressive
strength and static youngs modulus of intact sedimentary rocks
using the ultrasonic tests. Int J Geomech ASCE 9:114
Neter J, Kutner M, Nachtsheim C, Wasserman W (1996) Applied
linear statistical models. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, NY
Nie X, Zhang Q (1994) Prediction of rock mechanical behaviour by
artificial neural network. A comparison with traditional method.
In: IV CSMR, Integral Approach to Applied Rock Mechanics.
Santiago, Chile
Okkan U (2011) Application of Levenberg-Marquardt optimization
algorithm based multilayer neural networks for hydrological
time series modeling. An Int J Optim Control Theor Appl
1(1):5363
Okkan U, Dalkilic HY (2011) Reservoir inflows modeling with
artificial neural networks: the case of Kemer Dam in Turkey.
Fresenius Environ Bull 20(12):31103119
Oyler DC, Mark C, Melinda GM (2010) In situ estimation of roof
rock strength using sonic logging. Int J Coal Geol 83:484490
Romana M (1999) Correlation between unconfined compressive and
point-load (Franklin tests) strengths for different rock classes. In:
9th ISRM Congress, 1. Balkema, Paris, pp 673676
Saito T, Mamoru ABE, Kundri S (1974) Study on weathering of
igneous rock. Rock Mech Jpn 2:2830
Sarkar K, Tiwary A, Singh TN (2010) Estimation of strength
parameters of rock using artificial neural networks. Bull Eng
Geol Environ 69:599606
Shakoor A, Bonelli R (1991) Relationship between petrographic
characteristics, engineering index properties and mechanical
properties of selected sandstones. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 28:5571
Sharma S (1996) Applied multivariate techniques. John Willey &
Sons, Inc, Canada
Singh TN, Dubey R (2000) A study of transmission velocity of
primary wave (P-Wave) in Coal Measures sandstone. J Sci Ind
Res India 59:482486
Singh A, Harrison A (1985) Standardized principal components. Int J
Remote Sens 6:883896
Singh VK, Singh D, Singh TN (2001) Prediction of strength properties
of some schistose rocks from petrographic properties using
artificial neural networks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:269284
Sonmez H, Tuncay E, Gokceoglu C (2004) Models to predict the
unconfined compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity
for Ankara Agglomerate. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
41(5):717729
Temel A, Gundogdu MN (1996) Zeolite occurrences and the erionite
mesothelioma relationship in Cappadocia, Central Anatolia,
Turkey. Miner Deposita 31:539547

Environ Earth Sci (2013) 68:807819

Tiryaki B (2008) Predicting intact rock strength for mechanical
excavation using multivariate statistics, artificial neural networks
and regression trees. Eng Geol 99(12):5160
Ulusay R, Tureli K, Ider MH (1994) Prediction of engineering
properties of a selected litharenite sandstone from its petrographic characteristics using correlation and multivariate statistical techniques. Eng Geol 37:135157
Ulusay R, Gokceoglu C, Sulukcu S (2001) ISRM suggested method
for determining block punch index (BPI). Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 38:11131119
Yagiz S, Sezer EA, Gokceoglu C (2012) Artificial neural networks
and nonlinear regression techniques to assess the influence of
slake durability cycles on the prediction of uniaxial compressive
strength and modulus of elasticity for carbonate rocks. I J Numer
Anal Method Geomech. doi:10.1002/nag.1066

819
Yilmaz I (2010) Use of the core strangle test for tensile strength
estimation and rock mass classification. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
47(5):845850
Yilmaz I, Yuksek AG (2008) An example of artificial neural network
(ANN) application for indirect estimation of rock parameters.
Rock Mech Rock Eng 41(5):781795
Yilmaz I, Yuksek AG (2009) Prediction of the strength and elasticity
modulus of gypsum using multiple regression, ANN and ANFIS
models. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46(4):803810
Youash Y (1970) Dynamic, physical properties of rocks: Part 2.
Experimental result. Proc 2nd Congr Int Soc Rock Mech
Beograd 1:185195
Zorlu K, Gokceoglu C, Ocakoglu F, Nefeslioglu HA, Acikalin S
(2008) Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of sandstones using petrography-based models. Eng Geol 96:141158

123