Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative study of Schmidt hammer test methods for estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Schmidt hammer is being widely used for estimating the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rocks because of its simplicity, rapidity and portability. However, determination of the Schmidt hardness (R) in laboratory conditions is sometimes very difficult for weak rocks due to the fact that samples can be broken during the test, as well as sample scarcity. Additionally, some Schmidt hammer test procedures necessitate more readings for obtaining the average R values than others. For these reasons, this study aims to explore more practical and useful Schmidt hammer tests by reducing the rebound readings, especially for the UCS estimation of rock materials. Accordingly, three different trial methods (T 1, T 2 and T 3) were studied on tested rock samples. T 1 is obtained by recording six single impacts and averaging all the values. T 2 is obtained by recording eight single impacts and discarding the lowest and highest value to obtain a mean rebound number. T 3 is obtained by recording ten single impacts and discarding the lowest and highest two values to obtain a mean rebound number. For comparison purposes, Schmidt hardness values were also calculated from four other test procedures (R 1–R 4) recommended in the literature. Forty-seven rock samples were tested in this study, including igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rock origins. Statistical equations were determined for estimating the UCS of rocks by using trial Schmidt hammer test methods and other test procedures. Correlation, ANOVA and percentage error analyses were performed between the measured and estimated UCS values. The UCS of rock materials can be reliably estimated from any of the Schmidt hammer methods (T 1–T 3, R 1–R 4), taking into account the correlation and ANOVA analyses results. This study, however, demonstrated that T 1 is slightly more reliable and simpler to use than the other tested methods, giving a better representation of overall rock hardness, and hence a better prediction of UCS based on the percentage error analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amaral PM, Guerra Rosa L, Cruz Fernandes L (1999) Determination of Schmidt rebound hardness consistency in granite. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:833–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (2001) Standard test method for determination of rock hardness by rebound hammer method. 04.09 (D 5873-00)

  • Aydin A (2009) ISRM Suggested method for determination of the Schmidt hammer rebound hardness: revised version. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:627–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydin A, Basu A (2005) The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization. Eng Geol 81:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilgin N, Seyrek T, Shahriar K (1990) Roadheaders glean valuable tips for Istanbul metro tunnels. Tunnelling Oct 29–32

  • Buyuksagis IS, Goktan RM (2007) The effect of Schmidt hammer type on uniaxial compressive strength prediction of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44:299–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cargill JS, Shakoor A (1990) Evaluation of empirical methods for measuring the uniaxial strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 27:495–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deere DU, Miller RP (1966) Engineering classifications and index properties of intact rock. Technical report no. AFWL-TR 65-116, University of Illinois: p 300

  • Demirdag S, Yavuz H, Altindag R (2009) The effect of sample size on Schmidt rebound hardness value of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:725–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fener M, Kahraman S, Bilgil A, Gunaydin O (2005) A comparative evaluation of indirect methods to estimate the compressive strength of rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng 38(4):329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowell RJ, McFeat Smith I (1976) Factors influencing the cutting performance of a selective tunnelling machine. Tunelling’ 76, In: proceedings of the international symposium IMM, London 301–9

  • GBG structural services: material testing and structural investigations–Rebound Hammer testing. Cambridge, UK

  • Gokceoglu C (1996) Schmidt sertlik çekici kullanılarak tahmin edilen tek eksenli sıkışma dayanımı verilerinin güvenilirliği üzerine bir değerlendirme. Jeoloji Mühendisliği 48:78–81 (in Turkish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gokceoglu C, Aksoy H (2000) New approaches to the characterization of clay-bearing, densely jointed and weak rock masses. Eng Geol 58:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goktan RM, Ayday CA (1993) Suggested improvement to the Schmidt rebound hardness ISRM suggested method with particular reference to rock machineability. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 30:321–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goktan RM, Gunes NA (2005) Comparative study of Schmidt hammer testing procedures with reference to rock cutting machine performance prediction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:466–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haramy KY, De Marco MJ (1985) Use of Schmidt hammer for rock and coal testing. In: Proceedings 26th US symposium rock mechanics, 26–28 June, Rapid City, SD. Rotterdam: Balkema p 549–555

  • Hucka V (1965) A rapid method for determining the strength of rocks in situ. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2:127–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IS: 13311 (1992) Methods of non-destructive testing of concrete-Rebound Hammer, Part-2, BIS, New Delhi

  • ISRM (1978) Suggested methods for determining hardness and abrasiveness of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 15:89–98

    Google Scholar 

  • ISRM (2007) The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. In: Ulusay, Hudson (Eds.), Suggested methods prepared by the commission on testing methods, International Society for Rock Mechanics. ISRM Turkish National Group, Ankara, Turkey p 628

  • Kahraman S, Bilgin N, Feridunoglu C (2003) Dominant rock properties affecting the penetration rate of percussive drills. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 40:711–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karaman K, Kesimal A (2012) Evaluation of point load test methods and porosity for estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks (in Turkish). Madencilik 51(4):3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Karaman K, Kesimal A (2013) Evaluation of the influence of porosity on the engineering properties of volcanic rocks from the Eastern Black Sea Region: NE Turkey. Arab J Geosci. doi:10.1007/s12517-013-1217-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Karaman K, Cihangir F, Ercikdi B, Kesimal A (2011a) A weathering classification of limestone based on water absorption percent by weight (in Turkish). İstanbul Yerbilimleri Dergisi 24(2):119–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Karaman K, Ercikdi B, Cihangir F, Kesimal A (2011b) Examining the Schmidt hammer methods in Estimating of the uniaxial compressive strength (in Turkish). The 22nd international mining congress of Turkey pp 87–94

  • Karpuz C (1990) A classification system for excavation of surface coal measures. Min Sci Technol 11:157–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpuz C, Pasamehmetoglu AG (1977) Field characterization of weathered Ankara andezites. Eng Geol 46:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz O, Reches Z, Roegiers JC (2000) Evaluation of mechanical rock properties using a Schmidt hammer. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 37:723–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazi A, Al-Mansour ZR (1980) Empirical relationship between Los Angeles Abrasion and Schmidt hammer strength tests with application to aggregates around Jeddah. Q J Eng Geol London 13:45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidybinski A (1968) Rebound number and the quality of mine roof strata. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 5:283–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilic A, Teymen A (2008) Determination of mechanical properties of rocks using simple methods. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:237–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke JE (1989) Rock index properties for geoengineering in underground development. Min Eng 41:106–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole RW, Farmer IW (1978) Geotechnical factors affecting tunneling machine performance in coal measures rock. Tunnels tunnelling Dec 27–30

  • Poole RW, Farmer IW (1980) Consistency and repeatability of Schmidt hammer rebound data during field testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 17:167–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachpazis CI (1990) Correlating Schmidt hardness with compressive strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate rocks. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 42:75–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt E (1951) A non-destructive concrete tester. Concrete 59(8):34–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalabi F, Cording EJ, Al-Hattamleh OH (2007) Estimation of rock engineering properties using hardness tests. Eng Geol 90:138–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shorey PR, Barat D, Das MN, Mukherjee KP, Singh B (1984) Schmidt hammer rebound data for estimation of large scale in situ coal strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 21:39–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh RN, Hassani FP, Elkington PAS (1983) The application of strength and deformation index testing to the stability assessment of coal measures excavations. In: Proceedings 24th US symposium on rock mechanics Texas A&M Univ. AEG pp. 599–609

  • Soiltest Inc (1976) Operating instructions—concrete test hammer. Soiltest Inc, Evanston

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner P, Nel W (2002) The effect of rock moisture on Schmidt hammer rebound: tests on rock samples from Marion Island and South Africa. Earth Surf Process Landf 27:1137–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torabi SR, Ataei M, Javanshir M (2010) Application of Schmidt rebound number for estimating rock strength under specific geological conditions. J Min Environ 1(2):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Tugrul A, Zarif IH (1999) Correlation of mineralogical and textural characteristics with engineering properties of selected granitic rocks from Turkey. Eng Geol 51:303–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USBR (1998) Engineering geology field manual. Field İndex Tests 1:111–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Yagiz S (2009) Predicting uniaxial compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and index properties of rocks using the Schmidt hammer. Bull Eng Environ 68:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yasar E, Erdogan Y (2004) Estimation of rock physiomechanical properties using hardness methods. Eng Geol 71:281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz I, Sendir H (2002) Correlation of Schmidt hardness with unconfined compressive strength and young’s modulus in gypsum from Sivas (Turkey). Eng Geol 66:211–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young RP, Fowell RJ (1978) Assesing rock discontinuities. Tunnels Tunnelling 45–48

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Karadeniz Technical University (KTU) for funding this work through research project no: 9706. We would like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to Askale Cement and Energy–Sa Companies for providing help during the study, and, Assist. Prof. Dr. Ferdi Cihangir for the statistical evaluation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mining Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, 61080, Trabzon, Turkey

    Kadir Karaman & Ayhan Kesimal

Authors
  1. Kadir Karaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayhan Kesimal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kadir Karaman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karaman, K., Kesimal, A. A comparative study of Schmidt hammer test methods for estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74, 507–520 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-014-0617-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-014-0617-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation