Correlation between Schmidt
hardness, uniaxial compressive
strength and Young’s modulus
for andesites, basalts and tuffs
Ismail Dinçer Æ Altay Acar Æ Ibrahim Çobanoğlu Æ Yusuf Uras
Abstract Volcanic rocks from the Bodrum
Peninsula have been studied to establish a
relationship between the uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS), Young’s modulus (E) and Schmidt
hammer rebound number (N). Test results obtained
on andesites, basalts and tuffs have been assessed
statistically and the parameters obtained correlated.
Regression equations were established between N, E
and UCS.
The study suggests the following empirical
relationships: UCS=2.75 N)36.83, E=0.17 UCS+
0.28 and E=0.47 N)6.25. The relationships are
somewhat different from the correlations suggested
by previous studies and should therefore be used
only for andesites, basalts and tuffs with degrees of
weathering and mineralogical structure similar to
those used in the present study. The results obtained
using solely the Schmidt hammer test for estimating
mechanical properties of rocks are less accurate than
when a full suite of laboratory tests is carried out but
it is hoped that these empirical equations will help
geotechnical engineers making practical decisions at
a preliminary site investigation stage.
Résumé Les roches volcaniques de la péninsule de
Bodrum ont été étudiées afin d’établir une relation
entre la résistance à la compression simple (UCS), le
module d’Young (E) et l’indice de rebond au
marteau de Schmidt (N). Les résultats obtenus sur
des andésites, des basaltes et des tufs ont fait l’objet
de traitements statistiques. Des corrélations ont été
établies entre les paramètres N, E et UCS.
Received: 20 July 2003 / Accepted: 17 January 2004
Published online: 9 April 2004
ª Springer-Verlag 2004
I. Dinçer (&) Æ A. Acar Æ I. Çobanoğlu Æ Y. Uras
Department of Geological Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering-Architecture,
Çukurova University, 01330 Adana, Turkey
E-mail: idincer@mail.cu.edu.tr
Tel.: 90-322-3386715-15
Fax: 90-322-3386126
L’étude conduit à retenir les relations empiriques
suivantes: UCS=2,75 N)36,38; E=0,17 UCS+0,28 et
E=0,47 N)6,25. Les relations obtenues sont quelque
peu différentes de celles résultant d’études antérie-
ures et, de ce fait, ne doivent être utilisées que pour
des andésites, des basaltes et des tufs, présentant par
ailleurs des compositions minéralogiques et des
degrés d’altération similaires à ceux des roches
considérées dans cette étude. Les résultats obtenus à
partir du seul essai au marteau de Schmidt, pour
estimer les propriétés mécaniques des roches, sont
moins précis que si des essais mécaniques de labo-
ratoire sont réalisés mais on espère que ces relations
empiriques aideront les ingénieurs géotechniciens
pour des décisions pratiques au stade des recon-
naissances préliminaires de site.
Keywords Volcanic rocks Æ Schmidt hammer re-
bound number Æ Uniaxial compressive strength Æ
Young’s modulus Æ Correlation
Mots clés Roches volcaniques Æ Indice de rebond au
marteau de Schmidt Æ Résistance à la compression
simple Æ Module d’Young Æ Corrélations
Introduction
Numerous researchers have attempted to determine the
relationship between the Schmidt hammer rebound
number (N) and the mechanical properties of different
types of rocks, but few of the previous studies have been
related to volcanic rocks.
Determining the engineering properties of rocks (espe-
cially strength and deformation characteristics) has be-
come one of the most important elements of geotechnical
studies. The estimation of some of the basic engineering
properties of rocks, such as their uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) and Young’s modulus (E) requires the
preparation of numerous samples and the use of expensive
laboratory equipment. This study presents an empirical
relationship between uniaxial compressive strength,
Young’s modulus and Schmidt hammer rebound number
(N) for some volcanic rocks—andesites, basalts and tuffs.
DOI 10.1007/s10064-004-0230-0 Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:141–148 141
 I. Dinçer et al.

It is obvious that the determination of these important
properties in an easy and economical way will be of con-
siderable advantage to geotechnical engineers.
It is known that the Schmidt hammer was originally
developed to measure the hardness of concrete (Schmidt,
1951). However, it has subsequently been used to measure
the compressive strength of rocks (Miller, 1965; Barton
and Choubey, 1977). Various studies on the Schmidt
hammer rebound number have revealed that roughness,
void ratio, water content, rock surface properties, position
of the hammer (vertical, horizontal etc.) and position of
cleavage or layer plane have an effect on this number.
Many researchers have investigated the use of the Schmidt
hammer rebound number for different types of rocks
(Table 1). Miller (1965) has put forward a correlation table
for N values. This table generally reflects the relationship
between unit weight, UCS and rebound values. Deere and
Miller (1966) have proposed a correlation chart which
includes rock density, Young’s modulus and rebound
values. Aufmuth (1973) and Beverly et al. (1979), exam-
ining samples of different rocks, have established a high
correlation coefficient between rock density and Young’s
modulus, UCS and N values. Kindybinski (1980) has
suggested an empirical formula, making use of N values
for estimating UCS. ISRM (1981) used N values instead of
routine test equipment for calculating the strength of the
rock at the side of the joint, which is one factor when
considering the stability of a jointed rock mass.
Singh et al. (1983), Shorey et al. (1984) and Haramy and De
Marco (1985) found a reliable correlation coefficient be-
tween Schmidt hammer rebound number and UCS for
different rock types. Ghose and Chakrabarti (1986) have
suggested an empirical relationship between Schmidt re-
Table 1
Emprical findings put forth by previous studies
bound values and UCS for Indian coals. O’Rourke (1989)
carried out similar research on sedimentary rocks and
reported an empirical correlation (UCS=702 N)11040, in
psi), with a regression coefficient (R) of 0.77. Sachpazis
(1990) has put forward formulae relating UCS and Young’s
modulus. Xu et al. (1990) discussed the use of the Schmidt
hammer for estimating the mechanical properties of weak
rocks. Gökçeoğlu (1996) proposed an empirical relation-
ship between N values and UCS for marls. Aggistalis et al
(1996) compared the point load index, N values and E of
gabbros and basalts and suggested an empirical relation-
ship for these rocks. Kahraman (1996) stated UCS values
could be established using the Schmidt hammer rebound
number. Katz et al. (2000) compared the Schmidt rebound
number with the UCS, E and rock density of different types
of rocks.
Within the framework of the present study, rock samples
taken from the western part of the Bodrum Peninsula
(Turkey) have been examined in laboratories and their
unit weight, uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) and
Young’s modulus (E) values calculated. Schmidt hammer
rebound numbers (N) were obtained from the field.
The location and geology
of the study area
In this study, the volcanic rocks found in the western part
of Muğla Province of the Bodrum Peninsula (Turkey) have
been examined (Fig. 1). This area contains predominantly
volcanic rocks such as agglomerates, andesites, basalts and
tuffs.

Source Equation R Rock type

Deere and Miller (1966) UCS=10(0.00014cN+31.6) 0.94 Three base rock types
E=6.95c2N)1.14·106 0.88
Aufmuth (1973) UCS=6.9·10[1.348log(cN)+3.16] 25 Lithological unit
E=6.9·10[1.06log(cN)+1.86]
Beverly et al. (1979) UCS=12.74exp(0.185cN) 20 Lithological unit
E=192(Nc2)12710
Kidybinski (1980) UCS=0.447exp[0.045(N+3.5)+c] Rock coal
Singh et al. (1983) UCS=2N 0.72 30 Sedimentary unit
Shorey et al. (1984) UCS=0.4N)3.6 0.94 20 Lithological unit
Haramy and DeMarco (1985) UCS=0.994N)0.383 0.7 10 Lithological unit
Ghose and Chakraborti (1986) UCS=0.88N)12.11 0.87 Coal
O’ Rourke (1989) UCS=702N)11040 (psi) 0.77 Sandstone, siltstone, limestone and anhydrite
Xu et al. (1990) UCS=exp(aN+b) 0.88 Mica-schist, prasinite,
E=exp(cN+d) 0.96 serpentinite, gabbro, mudstone
a.b.c ve d coefficient depend on rock type
Sachpazıs (1990) N=0.2329UCS+15.7244 0.91 33 Lithological unit (marble, limestone, dolomite)
N=0.5155E+17.4880 0.77
E=0.3752UCS+4.479 0.81
Aggıstalıs (1996) UCS=1.31N)2.52 0.55 Gabbro and basalt
Gökçeoğlu (1996) UCS=0.0001N3.2658 0.84 Marl
Kahraman (1996) UCS=4.5·10-4(Nc)2.46 0.93 10 Lithological unit
Katz et al. (2000) UCS=0.792+0.067N±0.231 0.96 7 Different rock types
E=)8.967+3.091lnN 0.99
Yılmaz and Sendir (2002) UCS=exp(0.818+0.059N) 0.98 Gypsum
Et=exp(1.146+0.054N) 0.91

R regression coefficient, N Schmidt values, UCS unixial compressive strength, E Young’s modulus

142 Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:141–148

 Correlation between Schmidt hardness, uniaxial compressive strength and Young’s modulus for andesites, basalts and tuffs

Fig. 1
Location and geology map of study area

Fig. 2
NX size cored samples and thin section
prepared from basalts andesites and tuffs

During the Tertiary there was a strong calc-alkaline vol- quently different types of andesites, dacites, rhyodacites,
canism in the Bodrum Peninsula (Ercan et al. 1982, 1984) rhyolite, trachyandesites and latite being formed. The calc-
with first tuffs, agglomerates and volcanic ash and subse- alkaline volcanicity (Middle Miocene age) resulted in more

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:141–148 143

 I. Dinçer et al.

Table 2 Examining thin sections of the volcanic rocks, the authors

Findings of the tests made on volcanic rocks observed notable alteration (Fig. 2) with almost all of the
Sample Rock Unit N UCS E plagioclase having been transformed into sericite and ka-
no type weight (MPa) (GPa) olinite (Fig. 2f). In addition, alteration traces have been
(kN/m3) observed in some of the plagioclase, implying its trans-
formation into calcite and epidote. Considerable alteration
1 Basalt 26.50 38.00 65.00 12.03 is seen where the edges of large, crystallized amphiboles
2 Basalt 25.77 35.00 66.68 11.57
3 Andesite 25.13 50.00 104.00 17.99 have been encroached by the matrix (Fig. 2b). Large
4 Andesite 25.08 35.60 70.00 9.33 amounts of plagioclase, in aphanitic, microlithic and
5 Basalt 25.35 53.40 106.30 21.18 amygdaloidal–structured basalts have been observed in the
6 Basalt 25.37 50.90 108.00 19.24 matrix (Fig. 2d).
7 Andesite 19.54 45.00 81.00 13.54
8 Andesite 18.28 42.00 78.00 12.23
9 Andesite 20.95 45.30 82.00 11.58
10 Andesite 19.39 37.00 72.00 12.04
11 Tuff 17.86 27.21 35.00 8.25
12 Tuff 17.45 30.90 38.00 9.08 Material and methodology
13 Andesite 24.75 47.30 99.53 15.09
14 Andesite 25.06 51.20 112.70 17.06
Block rock samples (approx. 0.25·0.25·0.2 m) were ta-
15 Andesite 22.31 42.70 81.21 14.50
16 Andesite 22.77 47.90 98.40 ken from 24 different locations in the volcanic forma-
17.00
17 Andesite 22.31 52.40 98.00 tions of the Bodrum Peninsula. The Schmidt hammer
16.00
18 Andesite 22.10 48.40 94.00 test was carried out in the field on the andesites, basalts
18.25
19 Andesite 23.49 27.90 38.48 7.79
and tuffs following ISRM (1981b). All tests were under-
20 Andesite 24.33 31.20 46.02 8.38
21 Tuff 19.57 24.80 32.93 taken vertically on rock masses with no discontinuities
6.24
22 Tuff 18.02 26.40 43.90 within 300–600 mm. NX-sized rock cores (length/diam-
5.49
23 Tuff 18.67 35.20 52.00 eter 2/1) were prepared for UCS testing (Fig. 2a, c and
5.05
24 Tuff 19.10 31.90 50.00 7.42
e). Young’s modulus and uniaxial compressive tests were
undertaken in accordance with ISRM (1981a). The
alkaline lavas, which formed small, dyke-shaped accumu- correlations between N, UCS and E were assessed
lations of shoshonitic basalt, trachybasalt, trachyte, alka- statistically and compared with the findings of previous
line rhyolite etc. studies.

Table 3
Statistical test results for sam- Maximum Minimum Average Standard
ples tested deviation

Basalt Schmidt hammer rebound 53.40 35.00 44.32 8.38

values (N)
Uniaxial compressive 108.00 65.00 86.48 20.94
strength (MPa)
Young’s modulus (GPa) 21.18 11.57 16.00 4.45
Unit weight (kN/m3) 26.50 25.35 25.74 0.51
Andesite Schmidt hammer rebound 52.40 27.90 43.13 8.14
values (N)
Uniaxial compressive 112.70 38.48 82.52 23.30
strength (MPa)
Young’s modulus (GPa) 18.25 7.79 13.62 3.67
Unit weight (kN/m3) 25.13 18.28 22.53 2.41
Tuff Schmidt hammer rebound 35.20 24.80 29.40 4.05
values (N)
Uniaxial compressive 52.00 32.93 41.97 7.88
strength (MPa)
Young’s modulus (GPa) 9.08 5.05 6.92 1.61
Unit weight (kN/m3) 19.57 17.45 18.44 0.83

Table 4
General statistical results of N, General results Maximum Minimum Average STD
UCS, E and unit weight value
Schmidt hammer 53.40 24.80 39.90 9.23
rebound values (N)
Uniaxial compressive 112.7 32.93 73.05 26.08
strength (MPa)
Young’s modulus (GPa) 5.05 21.18 12.34 4.65
Unit weight (kN/m3) 26.50 17.45 22.04 3.01

144 Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:141–148

 Correlation between Schmidt hardness, uniaxial compressive strength and Young’s modulus for andesites, basalts and tuffs

Test results
Of the 24 block samples taken from the study area, four were
basalt, six were tuff and the remaining fourteen andesite
(Table 2). As seen in Table 3, the unit weight of the basalts
fluctuated between 25.35 and 26.50 kN/m3 while the UCS
values were between 65 and 108 MPa and the E between
11.57 and 21.18 GPa. For the andesite samples, the unit
UCS=104.3ln(N))308.6

weight and UCS values ranged between 18.28 and 25.13 kN/
E=10.44ln(UCS))31.75 m3 and 38.48 and 112.7 MPa respectively with the E values
E=17.44ln(N))51.47
UCS=2.75N)36.83

UCS=13.02e0.0414N

E=0.17UCS+0.28

E=4.04e0.0142UCS fluctuating between 7.79 and 18.25 GPa. The unit weight and
E=2.305e0.040N
E=0.47N)6.25

UCS results for the tuffs ranged between 17.45 and 19.57 kN/
m3 and 32.93 and 52 MPa respectively and the E values
Equation

between 5.05 and 9.08 GPa. The N values for the basalts,
andesites and tuffs varied between 35 and 53.4, 27.90 and
52.40, and 24.80 and 35.20.
Table 4 gives general test results for basalts, andesites and
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
Sig. F

tuffs. The table shows the average N value is 39.9; the

average UCS is 73.05 MPa; the average unit weight is
22.04 kN/m3 and the average E is 12.34 GPa.
418.58
346.68
281.87
127.74
102.96

130.15
96.61

84.77
99.22
F

Correlation of laboratory findings and statistical

analysis
Residual

The statistical analysis technique used to correlate UCS-N,

UCS-E and E-N was the SPSS statistical package program.
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22

The results are given in Table 5. For the basalt samples,

the equation proposed to relate N and UCS gives the
Model

highest multiple R (0.97). Correlating E-N and E-UCS gave

Df

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

a multiple R of 0.92. The average N, UCS and E values

calculated were compared with each other. Figure 3 shows
Residual

35.509
42.434

the plot of the UCS versus N values. This relationship gives

0.011

0.032

0.032
3.33
3.99

3.28
4.67

a high regression coefficient (R=0.95). The relationship

Mean square

between N values and UCS is defined by UCS

(2.75 N)36.83).
14863.59
14711.25

427.117
425.95
411.40

396.43
Model

Figure 4 presents the relationship between N and E. This

3.368

3.177
3.16

relationship is characterized by a regression coefficient of

0.85 and is represented by E=0.47 N)6.25.
The relationship between UCS and E is shown in Fig. 5,
which gives a regression coefficient of 0.85 and is repre-
Standard

sented by E=0.17 UCS+0.28.

Error

5.95
6.51
0.10
1.82
1.99
0.18
1.81
2.16
0.17

In this study, the best fit relationships were found to be

linear for UCS-N, E-N and E-UCS with correlation coeffi-
cients (R) of 0.97, 0.92 and 0.92, respectively.
Multiple R
Statistical analysis results of investigated rocks

0.97
0.96
0.96
0.92
0.90
0.90
0.92
0.89
0.90

Discussion and results

There are considerable differences among the empirical
relationships proposed for estimating UCS and E using N.
0.95
0.94
0.92
0.85
0.82
0.81
0.85
0.79
0.81

When similar estimates have been made for volcanic

R2

rocks, large discrepancies have been observed between

empirical relationships and laboratory findings. In con-
Type of

Linear

Linear

Linear
model

trast to previous approaches, the estimates of the present

Exp

Exp

Exp
Log

Log

Log

study have given average values. As can be seen from

Table 5

Fig. 6, when UCS<60, the values obtained by the authors

were similar to those previously published but when
UCS-N
Source

E-UCS

UCS>60, different values were obtained in the present

E-N

study.

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:141–148 145

 I. Dinçer et al.

Fig. 3
Relationship between Schmidt hardness (N)
and UCS values

Fig. 4
Relationship between Schmidt hardness (N) and
E values

There are also discrepancies between the empirical esti-the following empirical relationships: UCS=2.75 N)36.83
mates for E suggested by previous approaches (notably, and E=0.47 N)6.25.
Yilmaz and Sendir 2002) and the findings of the present The formulae provide more accurate results when used
study (Fig. 7). with samples of volcanic rocks that have the same
weathering state and similar mineralogical structure as
those reported in this study.
The mechanical properties estimated by using the
Conclusions Schmidt hammer rebound number provide approximate
results only and it should be appreciated that other
The evidence presented in this paper indicates that for types of rocks may produce different and less accurate
volcanic rocks the UCS and E can be estimated using values.

146 Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:141–148

 Correlation between Schmidt hardness, uniaxial compressive strength and Young’s modulus for andesites, basalts and tuffs

Fig. 5
Relationship between unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) and E values

Fig. 6
Comparison of the UCS estimates of the present study with those
suggested by previous approaches

Fig. 7
Comparison of E values by using
estimated values and laboratory
values

Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:141–148 147

 I. Dinçer et al.
References
Aggıstalıs G, Alıvızatos A, Stamoulıs D, Stournaras G (1996)
Correlating uniaxial compressive strength with Schmidt ham-
mer rebound number, point load index, Young’s modulus, and
mineralogy of gabbros and basalts (Northern Greece). Bull Eng
Geol 54:3–11
Aufmuth ER (1973) A systematic determination of engineering
criteria for rocks. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 11:235–245
Barton N, Choubey V (1977) The shear strength of rock joints in
theory and practice. Rock Mech 10:1–54
Beverly BE, Schoenwolf DA, Brierly GS (1979) Correlations of
rocks index values with engineering properties and the classi-
fication of intact rocks.
Deere DU, Miller RP (1966) Engineering classification and index
properties for intact rocks. Tech Rep Air Force Weapons Lab,
New Mexico, no AFNL-TR, pp 65–116
Ercan T, Türkecan A, ve Günay E (1982) Bodrum Yarımadasının
Jeolojisi Maden Tetkik Arama Enst Derg 97/98:21–32
Ercan T, Erdoğdu G, Türkecan A (1984) Bodrum Yar-
ımadasındaki Mağmatik Kayaçların Petrolojisi ve Kökensel
Yorumu. Türkiye Jeoloji Kurumu Bülteni 27:85–89
Ghose AK, Chakraborti S (1986) Empirical strength indices of
Indian coals—an investigation. Proceedings of 27th US sym-
posium on rock mechanics, Balkema, Rotherdam, pp 59–61
Gökçeoğlu C (1996) Schmidt sertlik çekici kullanılarak tahmin
edilen tek eksenli basınç dayanımı verilerinin güvenirliği üzer-
ine bir değerlendirme. Jeol Müh 48:78–81
Haramy KY, DeMarco MJ (1985) Use of Schmidt hammer for rock
and coal testing. Proceedings of 26th US symposium on rock
mechanics, 26–28 June, Rapid City, pp 549–555
ISRM (1981a) Suggested methods for determining the uniaxial
compressive strength and deformability of rock materials.
International society for rock mech. Commission on stan-
dardisation of laboratory and field tests, pp 111–116
148 Bull Eng Geol Env (2004) 63:141–148
ISRM (1981b) Suggested methods for determining hardness and
abrasiveness of rocks, part 3. Commission on standardisation of
laboratory and field tests, pp 101–102
Kahraman S (1996) Basınç direnci tahmininde schmidt ve nokta
yük indeksi kullanmanın güvenirliği. In: Korkmaz ve S, Akçay
M (eds) KTÜ Jeoloji Mühendisliği Bölümü 30. Yıl Sempozyumu
Bildiriler Kitabı, Trabzon, pp 362–369
Kindybinski A (1980) Bursting liability indices of coal. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 17:167–161
Katz O, Reches Z, Roegiers JC (2000) Evaluation of mechanical
rock properties using a Schmidt hammer. Tech Note Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 37:723–728
Miller RP (1965) Engineering classification and index properties
for intact rock. PhD thesis, University of Illinois
O’Rourke JE (1989) Rock index properties for geo-engineering in
underground development. Min Eng 106–110
Sachpazis CI (1990) Correlating Schmidt hammer rebound
number with compressive strength and Young’s modulus of
carbonate rocks. Bull Int Assoc Eng Geol 42:75–83
Schmidt E (1951) A non-destructive concrete tester. Concrete
59(8):34–35
Shorey PR, Barat D, Das MN, Mukherjee KP, Singh B (1984)
Schmidt hammer rebound data for estimation of large scale
in-situ coal strength. Tech Note Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Geomech Abstr 21:39–42
Singh RN, Hassani FP, Elkington PAS (1983) The application of
strength and deformation index testing to the stability assessment
of coal measures excavations. Proceedings of 24th US symposium
on rock mechanics, Texas A&M Univ, AEG, pp 599–609
Xu S, Grasso P, Mahtab A (1990) Use of Schmidt hammer for
estimating mechanical properties of weak rock. 6th Int IAEG
Congress Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 511–519
Yılmaz I, Sendir H (2002) Correlation of Schmidt hammer re-
bound number with unconfined compressive strength and
Young’s modulus in gypsum from Sivas (Turkey). Eng Geol
66:211–219