Predicting the uniaxial compressive strength and elasticity modulus of sandstones from physical and mechanical
Davood Fereidooni1, Matloob Hejazifar1
1School of Earth Sciences, Damghan University, Damghan, Semnan, Iran.
Abstract:
This study develops predictive models for the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and elasticity modulus (E) of sandstones by integrating statistical analyses with artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. Comprehensive laboratory tests were performed on 20 sandstone samples from four Iranian formations, measuring key physical (dry unit weight γₐ = 23.34-26.10 kN/m³, porosity nₑ = 2.07-10.16%) and mechanical properties (UCS = 55.46-104.16 MPa, E = 39.86-57.03 GPa). Statistical analyses revealed strong correlations, with dry unit weight showing the highest Pearson correlation to UCS (R = 0.947) and E (R = 0.971), while porosity exhibited significant negative relationships (R = -0.918 and -0.916 respectively). Among the evaluated AI models, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) demonstrated superior predictive capability, achieving the highest accuracy for both UCS and E predictions (e.g., UCS-Hs: R² = 0.992, RMSE = 1.562; E-Hs: R² = 0.947). In contrast, Random Forest (RF) and K-Nearest Neighbors (kNN) models provided acceptable but comparatively lower performance, with their best models attaining R² values of 0.909 and 0.906, respectively. Sensitivity analysis identified Schmidt hammer rebound (H₅) as the most influential predictor (Univariate Regression score = 3406.678), followed by point load index (PLI). The PDH formation demonstrated superior mechanical properties (UCS = 97.21 MPa, E = 54.82 GPa) linked to its high density (γₐ = 25.52-25.99 kN/m³) and low porosity (nₑ = 2.48-4.84%), while the HZD formation showed the weakest performance (UCS = 60.25 MPa) due to high porosity (nₑ = 8.02-10.16%). These findings provide a robust framework for predicting sandstone mechanical properties using non-destructive methods, offering significant advantages for geotechnical applications where direct testing is impractical.
More Related Videos
08:58Atomic Force Microscopy Cantilever-Based Nanoindentation: Mechanical Property Measurements at the Nanoscale in Air and Fluid
Published on: December 2, 2022
05:38Production and Analysis of Sporosarcina pasteurii Biocement Bricks Using Custom 3D-Printed Molds for Unconfined Compression Tests
Published on: March 7, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Elasticity in Concrete
Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete
The sonic test is a common method to determine the dynamic modulus. In this test, a concrete beam, sized either 6 x 6 x 30 inches or 4 x 4 x 20 inches, is clamped at its center. Vibrations are initiated at one end of the beam by an electromagnetic exciter unit powered by a...
Strength of Cement
For compressive strength tests, ASTM C 109-05 standards prescribe a cement-sand mix ratio of 1:2.75 and a water/cement ratio of 0.485 for making 2-inch cubes. These cubes are mixed, cast, and cured in saturated lime water at 23°C until testing. Flexural strength testing, outlined in ASTM C...
Relation Between Tensile Strength and Compressive Strength of Concrete
Behavior of Concrete Under Compressive Load
As the concrete specimen fractures under...
Fineness Modulus
Consider performing sieve analysis on sand through a set of ASTM sieves. The weight of aggregate retained in each sieve and pan placed at the bottom is recorded, as given in Column B of Table 1.
To determine the fineness modulus of...
