Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2018) 11: 502

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3847-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks with Schmidt

rebound hardness by considering the sample size
S. Demirdag 1 & N. Sengun 1 & I. Ugur 1 & R. Altindag 1

Received: 28 July 2016 / Accepted: 17 August 2018 / Published online: 1 September 2018
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2018

Abstract
The Schmidt hammer is commonly used for the prediction of unconfined compressive strength and other mechanical properties
of rocks from surface rebound hardness values since it is quick, easy, inexpensive, and non-destructive testing method. In this
study, metamorphic, sedimentary, and igneous rock samples were collected from various locations in Turkey to predict the rock
strength from Schmidt rebound hardness. Schmidt rebound tests were performed on cubic samples with an edge length of 11 cm
and uniaxial compressive strength tests were carried out on cubic samples with an edge length of 5 cm in accordance with ASTM
and EN standards and suggested procedure by ISRM. New relationship coefficients between unconfined compressive strength
and Schmidt rebound hardness values were suggested according to rock type. Finally, some diagrams were developed to be
practically used for estimating the uniaxial compressive strength from Schmidt rebound hardness values by considering the
sample size obtained from the experimental work.

Keywords Schmidt rebound hardness . Uniaxial compressive strength . New coefficient . Sample size

Introduction
The Schmidt rebound hammer, which was originally devel-
oped in the late 1940s to test the surface rebound hardness of
concrete (Schmidt 1951), has been used in rock mechanics
practice since the early 1960s, mainly for estimating the uni-
axial compressive strength (UCS) and Young’s modulus of
rock materials (Aydin and Basu 2005; Aydin 2015). The esti-
mation of rock and concrete strength by nondestructive test
methods is of great interest for both civil and mining engineer-
ing applications and equipments such as excavator,
roadheader, and tunnel boring machine performance, machine
drilling rate, rock rippability, mine-roof control, excavation
classification, in situ strength predictions, assessment of rock
discontinuities, abrasion resistance of rock aggregates, state of
weathering (Kidybinski 1968; Day and Goudie 1977; Young
1978; Kazi and Al-Mansour 1980; Matthews and Shakesby
* N. Sengun
nazmisengun@sdu.edu.tr
1
Mining Engineering Department, Suleyman Demirel University,
32260 Isparta, Turkey
1984; Goktan and Gunes 2005; Buyuksagis and Goktan 2007;
Aydin 2009; Aksoy 2009).
Rock engineers widely use the UCS of rocks in designing
surface and underground structures, since UCS is considered
as one of the key properties in characterization of rock mate-
rials in engineering practices (Basu and Aydin 2006; Palassi
and Pirpanahi 2013). Gurocak and Yalcin (2016) used
Schmidt hardness as input parameter in the excavatability
classifications. Ansari et al. (2015) proposed an empirical
equation based on regression analysis and will be applicable
to calculate the normal coefficient of restitution (Rn) for dif-
ferent rock types from their Schmidt hardness.
UCS test is time consuming, expensive, and difficult to
perform in the field. Therefore, some indirect tests have been
developed for indirect estimation of the UCS (Palassi and
Pirpanahi 2013). Schmidt rebound hardness (SRH) testing is
one of the most commonly used indirect test method to esti-
mate UCS of rocks. Currently, there are two different types of
Schmidt rebound hammers available. L-type Schmidt hammer
is commonly used for testing rocks while N-type Schmidt
hammer is used for testing concrete. The L-type hammer de-
livers smaller rebound values for the same rock samples than
the N-type hammer. Because the ‘L’ type hammer has an
impact energy three times lower than the ‘N’ type (0.735
compared to 2.207 Nm). The N-type hammer is less sensitive
502 Page 2 of 8 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11: 502

to surface irregularities and should be preferred in field appli-
cations, while the L-type hammer has greater sensitivity in the
lower range and gives better results when testing weak, po-
rous, and weathered rocks (Aydin 2009).
There is huge amount of work related to predicting the rock
strength parameters from SRH measurements. The re-
searchers obtained very substantial values of R2 and suggested
different empirical equations between UCS and SRH from all
rock types, which are given in Table 1, as explained by Yasar
and Erdogan (2004), Basarir et al. (2004), Goudie (2006),
Torabi et al. (2010), and Nazir et al. (2013).
There are some advantages and limitations of estimating
the UCS value by using SRH, as explained by Goudie
(2006). The advantages of the SRH are portability, cheapness,
ability to make many in situ readings in the field, lack of
operator variance, simplicity, empirical evidence, and the fact
that its calibration can be achieved easily with a test anvil. On
the other hand, the limitations of the SRH are: being extremely
sensitive to discontinuities in a rock, sensitive to moisture
contents, surface texture, and surface polishing. Moreover,
the other reason that causes some differences in the equations
developed to predict the UCS from SRH values of the rock
samples may be explained by these tests being commonly
performed on different sample size. Therefore, the sample size
should be considered when predicting the UCS from SRH
values.
The aim of this work is to predict the rock strength param-
eters from SRH measurements on 32 sedimentary (20 low-
porous limestone and 12 high-porous travertines and lymra),
17 metamorphic, and 10 igneous rocks. The influence of
different rock types and sample size on the estimated rock
strength was investigated by using measured and calculated
SRH values and some new coefficients were suggested for
each rock type.
Experimental method
In order to predict the strength properties of rocks from SRH
values, a total of 59 various rock types from different origins
were tested. The UCS and open porosity tests were carried out
in accordance with ASTM (2005, 2009) and TS EN (2007)
standards and ISRM (2007, 2015) suggested methods. UCS
tests were performed on at least six cubic samples with edge
lengths of 5 cm for each rock type as specified in the principles
of related standards. A force-controlled hydraulic press ELE

Table 1 Correlation between

SRH and UCS (Yasar and Equation R2 Researcher
Erdogan 2004; Basarir et al. 2004;
Goudie 2006; Torabi et al. 2010; UCS = 6.9 × 10(0.0087γN + 0.16) 0.94 Deere and Miller (1966)
Nazir et al. 2013) UCS = 0.447exp[0.045(N + 3.5)+γ] – Kidybinski (1968)
UCS = 6.9 × 10(1.348log(γN)-1.325) – Aufmuth (1973)
UCS = 12.74exp(0.185γN) – Beverly et al. (1979)
UCS = 2 N 0.72 Singh et al. (1983)
UCS = 0.4NLM-3.6 0.94 Sheorey et al. (1984)
UCS = 0.994N-0.383 0.70 Haramy and DeMarco (1985)
UCS = 0.88N-12.11 0.87 Ghose and Chakraborti (1986)
UCS = 702N-1104 0.77 O’Rourke (1989)
UCS = 4.3 × 10−2(N γd) + 1.2 – Cargill and Shakoor (1990)
UCS = 1.8 × 10−2(N γd) + 2.9 – Cargill and Shakoor (1990)
UCS = 2.22N-47.67 – Aggistalis et al. (1996)
UCS = 4.5 × 10−4(N γd)2.46 0.93 Kahraman (1996)
UCS = 0.0001N3.2658 0.84 Gokceoglu (1996)
UCS = 2.208e0.067N 0.96 Katz et al. (2000)
UCS = 6.97e0.014γN 0.61 Kahraman (2001)
UCS = exp.(0.818 + 0.059N) 0.98 Yilmaz and Sendir (2002)
UCS = 2.75N-36.83 – Dincer et al. (2004)
UCS = 4.72N0.69 0.66 Basarir et al. (2004)
UCS = 4.24exp(0.059N) – Fener et al. (2005)
UCS = 0.0137N2.2721 0.97 Kilic and Teymen (2008)
UCS = 0.0465N2–0.1756N + 27.682 0.86 Torabi et al. (2010)
UCS = 12.83e0.0487N 0.91 Nazir et al. (2013)

UCS uniaxial compressive strength (MPa), N Schmidt Hammer rebound number, γ rock density (g/cm3 )
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11: 502 Page 3 of 8 502

ADR 2000 model having 200 tons of loading capacity at a
constant loading rate of 0.5–1 kN/s was used. The uniaxial
load was applied continuously on the specimen at a constant
stress rate until the failure would occur within 5–10 min of
loading. Open porosity measurements were also determined
using saturation and buoyancy techniques, as recommended
by related standards.
The SRH testing procedures suggested by ISRM re-
quire recording of at least 20 rebound values from single
impacts separated by at least a plunger diameter and
averaging the upper 10 values. All the cubic samples
have a minimum edge dimension of 11 cm as suggested
by Demirdag et al. (2009). Four rock samples were test-
ed for each rock type using L-type Schmidt hammer
having an impact energy of 0.74 Nm by holding verti-
cally downwards (± 5o) on smoothened sample surface.
Each sample surface was smoothened with abrasive of
220 grit size and flat over area covered by the plunger.
Attention was paid to ascertain that all samples were free
from cracks and having natural water content. The test-
ing was carried out on a rigid steel base with a minimum
weight of 20 kg in order to adequately secure the
specimen against vibration and movement during the test
in accordance with ISRM.
Results and discussion
In this research, in order to estimate the true value of
UCS from the SRH values, open porosity, UCS, and
SRH tests were performed on different rock types.
Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 illustrate the values of average
open porosity, UCS, and SRH values of the rock
samples and the means of the constant coefficients
obtained from the UCS/SRH ratio according to each rock
type. UCS and SRH values were obtained from cubic
samples having edge lengths of 5 cm and 11 cm, respec-
tively. Then, SRH values for cubic samples with different
edge lengths of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 cm were calculated
by using Eq. 1 as suggested by Demirdag et al. (2009)
and given in Tables 2–5.
SRH c ¼ 2:6914ð11−EDm Þ þ SRH m ð1Þ

Table 2 Mean values of the UCS, SRH (measured and calculated), and open porosity of low-porous sedimentary rocks

Sample code Cubic sample size (cm)

5 5 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Open porosity (%) UCS (MPa) Measured SRH Calculated SRH from Eq. 1 UCS/SRH

S1 1.60 ± 0.36 145.5 ± 13.5 62.8 ± 0.8 46.6 49.3 52.0 54.7 57.4 60.1 3.12 2.95 2.80 2.66 2.54 2.42 2.32
S2 0.30 ± 0.10 129.9 ± 34.4 60.4 ± 1.1 44.2 46.9 49.6 52.3 55.0 57.7 2.94 2.77 2.62 2.48 2.36 2.25 2.15
S3 0.70 ± 0.27 109.8 ± 6.6 56.8 ± 2.5 40.6 43.3 46.0 48.7 51.4 54.1 2.70 2.54 2.39 2.26 2.14 2.03 1.93
S4 0.30 ± 0.08 119.4 ± 9.7 58.1 ± 1.5 41.9 44.6 47.3 50.0 52.7 55.4 2.85 2.68 2.52 2.39 2.27 2.16 2.06
S5 0.50 ± 0.12 145.9 ± 18.8 60.4 ± 1.4 44.2 46.9 49.6 52.3 55.0 57.7 3.30 3.11 2.94 2.79 2.65 2.53 2.42
S6 0.40 ± 0.03 139.1 ± 7.2 52.5 ± 1.8 36.3 39.0 41.7 44.4 47.1 49.8 3.83 3.56 3.33 3.13 2.95 2.79 2.65
S7 0.35 ± 0.11 130.9 ± 14.8 56.0 ± 1.7 39.8 42.5 45.2 47.9 50.6 53.3 3.29 3.08 2.90 2.73 2.59 2.46 2.34
S8 0.21 ± 0.03 140.0 ± 12.2 54.7 ± 1.4 38.5 41.2 43.9 46.6 49.3 52.0 3.63 3.40 3.19 3.00 2.84 2.69 2.56
S9 0.08 ± 0.01 134.1 ± 14.9 54.0 ± 1.5 37.8 40.5 43.2 45.9 48.6 51.3 3.55 3.31 3.11 2.92 2.76 2.62 2.49
S10 0.14 ± 0.01 132.0 ± 9.3 53.0 ± 1.3 36.8 39.5 42.2 44.9 47.6 50.3 3.59 3.34 3.13 2.94 2.77 2.63 2.49
S11 0.17 ± 0.02 131.7 ± 12.1 57.2 ± 1.5 41.0 43.7 46.4 49.1 51.8 54.5 3.21 3.01 2.84 2.68 2.54 2.42 2.30
S12 0.61 ± 0.03 172.6 ± 23.6 68.8 ± 1.0 52.6 55.3 58.0 60.7 63.4 66.1 3.28 3.12 2.98 2.84 2.72 2.61 2.51
S13 0.42 ± 0.09 142.1 ± 14.7 57.8 ± 1.8 41.6 44.3 47.0 49.7 52.4 55.1 3.42 3.21 3.02 2.86 2.71 2.58 2.46
S14 0.86 ± 0.17 129.8 ± 15.5 54.8 ± 1.1 38.6 41.3 44.0 46.7 49.4 52.1 3.36 3.14 2.95 2.78 2.63 2.49 2.37
S15 0.16 ± 0.02 147.4 ± 14.0 55.0 ± 1.8 38.9 41.5 44.2 46.9 49.6 52.3 3.80 3.55 3.33 3.14 2.97 2.82 2.68
S16 0.27 ± 0.03 133.4 ± 12.0 57.0 ± 1.3 40.9 43.5 46.2 48.9 51.6 54.3 3.27 3.06 2.89 2.73 2.58 2.46 2.34
S17 1.14 ± 0.08 127.2 ± 11.2 56.0 ± 1.2 39.9 42.5 45.2 47.9 50.6 53.3 3.19 2.99 2.81 2.65 2.51 2.39 2.27
S18 0.22 ± 0.03 134.8 ± 15.4 53.0 ± 1.4 36.9 39.5 42.2 44.9 47.6 50.3 3.66 3.41 3.19 3.00 2.83 2.68 2.54
S19 0.33 ± 0.05 121.1 ± 8.9 55.9 ± 1.7 39.7 42.4 45.1 47.8 50.5 53.2 3.05 2.86 2.69 2.53 2.40 2.28 2.17
S20 0.48 ± 0.16 117.6 ± 15.4 56.7 ± 1.5 40.5 43.2 45.9 48.6 51.3 54.0 2.90 2.72 2.56 2.42 2.29 2.18 2.08
Average: 3.30 3.09 2.91 2.75 2.60 2.47 2.36
Std. deviation: 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20
502 Page 4 of 8 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11: 502

Table 3 Mean values of the UCS, SRH (measured and calculated), and open porosity of high-porous sedimentary rocks

Sample name Cubic sample size (cm)

5 5 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Open porosity (%) UCS (MPa) Measured SRH Calculated SRH from Eq. 1 UCS/SRH

Lymra 1 3.62 ± 0.47 66.5 ± 7.7 35.6 ± 1.4 19.4 22.1 24.8 27.5 30.2 32.9 3.42 3.01 2.68 2.42 2.20 2.02 1.87
Lymra 2 8.08 ± 1.20 89.9 ± 7.9 47.1 ± 2.1 30.9 33.6 36.3 39.0 41.7 44.4 2.91 2.68 2.48 2.31 2.16 2.03 1.91
Lymra 3 12.50 ± 1.82 37.8 ± 3.7 29.1 ± 1.8 12.9 15.6 18.3 21.0 23.7 26.4 2.93 2.42 2.07 1.80 1.60 1.43 1.30
Lymra 4 7.71 ± 0.17 65.2 ± 4.0 32.0 ± 1.5 15.9 18.5 21.2 23.9 26.6 29.3 4.11 3.52 3.07 2.73 2.45 2.22 2.04
Lymra 5 11.82 ± 0.40 50.4 ± 5.2 34.0 ± 1.2 17.9 20.5 23.2 25.9 28.6 31.3 2.82 2.45 2.17 1.94 1.76 1.61 1.48
Travertine 1 10.80 ± 1.84 56.0 ± 12.4 39.1 ± 1.7 22.9 25.6 28.3 31.0 33.7 36.4 2.44 2.19 1.98 1.81 1.66 1.54 1.43
Travertine 2 3.13 ± 0.54 55.4 ± 5.7 38.4 ± 1.9 22.2 24.9 27.6 30.3 33.0 35.7 2.50 2.23 2.01 1.83 1.68 1.55 1.45
Travertine 3 2.60 ± 0.16 60.7 ± 15.8 45.4 ± 1.5 29.2 31.9 34.6 37.3 40.0 42.7 2.08 1.90 1.75 1.63 1.52 1.42 1.34
Travertine 4 5.10 ± 1.11 62.5 ± 11.8 43.7 ± 1.3 27.5 30.2 32.9 35.6 38.3 41.0 2.27 2.07 1.90 1.76 1.63 1.53 1.43
Travertine 5 4.09 ± 0.62 71.5 ± 7.2 46.2 ± 2.2 30.0 32.7 35.4 38.1 40.8 43.5 2.38 2.19 2.02 1.88 1.75 1.64 1.55
Travertine 6 3.99 ± 0.56 85.6 ± 9.4 40.8 ± 1.8 24.6 27.3 30.0 32.7 35.4 38.1 3.48 3.13 2.85 2.62 2.42 2.25 2.10
Travertine 7 2.73 ± 0.41 72.6 ± 5.1 40.0 ± 1.1 23.9 26.5 29.2 31.9 34.6 37.3 3.05 2.74 2.49 2.28 2.10 1.95 1.82
Average: 2.87 2.54 2.29 2.08 1.91 1.77 1.64
Std. deviation: 0.59 0.48 0.42 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.28

where SRHc is the estimated consistent SRH value, EDm is the
edge length of tested sample, cm, SRHm is the measured SRH
value of the sample with EDm edge length.
From these analyses, it can be assumed that the average
coefficients to predict the UCS from SRH value vary
between 2.36 and 3.30 for low-porous sedimentary rocks,
1.64 and 2.87 for high-porous sedimentary rocks, 1.82 and
2.81 for metamorphic rocks, and 2.28 and 3.21 for igneous
rocks depending on the sizes of different samples. The re-
sults illustrated in the tables indicate considerable differences

Table 4 Mean values of the UCS, SRH (measured and calculated), and open porosity of metamorphic rocks

Sample code Cubic sample size (cm)

5 5 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Open porosity (%) UCS (MPa) Measured SRH Calculated SRH from Eq. 1 UCS/SRH

M1 0.13 ± 0.01 82.5 ± 4.8 40.3 ± 1.2 24.1 26.8 29.5 32.2 34.9 37.6 3.42 3.08 2.80 2.56 2.36 2.19 2.05
M2 0.13 ± 0.02 102.4 ± 7.4 44.5 ± 1.1 28.3 31.0 33.7 36.4 39.1 41.8 3.62 3.30 3.04 2.81 2.62 2.45 2.30
M3 0.12 ± 0.01 73.9 ± 5.5 44.3 ± 0.9 28.1 30.8 33.5 36.2 38.9 41.6 2.63 2.40 2.21 2.04 1.90 1.78 1.67
M4 0.32 ± 0.03 84.9 ± 5.2 41.9 ± 1.3 25.7 28.4 31.1 33.8 36.5 39.2 3.30 2.99 2.73 2.51 2.33 2.17 2.03
M5 0.30 ± 0.07 74.6 ± 11.9 53.8 ± 1.6 37.6 40.3 43.0 45.7 48.4 51.1 1.98 1.85 1.74 1.63 1.54 1.46 1.39
M6 0.20 ± 0.02 70.3 ± 9.2 49.3 ± 1.4 33.1 35.8 38.5 41.2 43.9 46.6 2.12 1.96 1.83 1.71 1.60 1.51 1.43
M7 0.10 ± 0.02 85.7 ± 3.2 49.8 ± 1.1 33.6 36.3 39.0 41.7 44.4 47.1 2.55 2.36 2.20 2.06 1.93 1.82 1.72
M8 1.65 ± 0.51 90.4 ± 14.1 45.5 ± 1.8 29.3 32.0 34.7 37.4 40.1 42.8 3.08 2.82 2.61 2.42 2.26 2.11 1.99
M9 0.17 ± 0.01 82.0 ± 5.8 47.8 ± 0.9 31.6 34.3 37.0 39.7 42.4 45.1 2.59 2.39 2.22 2.07 1.94 1.82 1.72
M10 0.25 ± 0.02 92.3 ± 12.4 49.8 ± 1.7 33.6 36.3 39.0 41.7 44.4 47.1 2.75 2.54 2.37 2.21 2.08 1.96 1.86
M11 0.20 ± 0.02 110.1 ± 15.6 48.8 ± 0.8 32.6 35.3 38.0 40.7 43.4 46.1 3.38 3.12 2.90 2.71 2.54 2.39 2.26
M12 0.27 ± 0.01 77.0 ± 2.2 48.4 ± 1.0 32.3 35.0 37.7 40.3 43.0 45.7 2.39 2.20 2.05 1.91 1.79 1.68 1.59
M13 0.18 ± 0.01 94.2 ± 8.2 45.4 ± 1.4 29.3 32.0 34.7 37.4 40.1 42.8 3.22 2.95 2.72 2.52 2.35 2.20 2.07
M14 0.22 ± 0.02 82.0 ± 8.5 47.8 ± 1.0 31.7 34.4 37.1 39.8 42.5 45.2 2.59 2.38 2.21 2.06 1.93 1.82 1.71
M15 0.28 ± 0.03 74.8 ± 6.6 50.2 ± 1.2 34.1 36.8 39.5 42.2 44.9 47.6 2.19 2.03 1.89 1.77 1.67 1.57 1.49
M16 0.21 ± 0.02 84.8 ± 9.2 46.4 ± 1.5 30.3 33.0 35.7 38.3 41.0 43.7 2.80 2.57 2.38 2.21 2.07 1.94 1.83
M17 0.14 ± 0.01 69.2 ± 3.5 38.0 ± 2.1 21.8 24.5 27.2 29.9 32.6 35.3 3.17 2.82 2.54 2.31 2.12 1.96 1.82
Average: 2.81 2.58 2.38 2.21 2.06 1.93 1.82
Std. deviation: 0.49 0.43 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.27
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11: 502 Page 5 of 8 502

Table 5 Mean values of the UCS, SRH (measured and calculated), and open porosity of igneous rocks

Sample name Cubic sample size (cm)

5 5 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Open porosity (%) UCS (MPa) Measured SRH Calculated SRH from Eq. 1 UCS/SRH

Andesite 1 6.90 ± 1.52 120.4 ± 26.8 58.7 ± 1.5 42.6 45.3 48.0 50.7 53.4 56.1 2.83 2.66 2.51 2.38 2.26 2.15 2.05
Andesite 2 8.00 ± 1.70 81.1 ± 9.4 51.9 ± 2.8 35.7 38.4 41.1 43.8 46.5 49.2 2.27 2.11 1.97 1.85 1.75 1.65 1.56
Andesite 3 5.94 ± 1.04 114.8 ± 11.1 56.4 ± 2.7 40.2 42.9 45.6 48.3 51.0 53.7 2.85 2.67 2.52 2.38 2.25 2.14 2.04
Basalt 1 4.90 ± 0.44 139.4 ± 27.3 57.0 ± 2.9 40.8 43.5 46.2 48.9 51.6 54.3 3.42 3.20 3.02 2.85 2.70 2.57 2.45
Basalt 2 4.90 ± 0.37 136.0 ± 24.3 50.8 ± 3.0 34.7 37.3 40.0 42.7 45.4 48.1 3.92 3.64 3.40 3.18 2.99 2.83 2.68
Diabase 0.37 ± 0.03 134.7 ± 13.5 54.5 ± 2.0 38.4 41.0 43.7 46.4 49.1 51.8 3.51 3.28 3.08 2.90 2.74 2.60 2.47
Granite 1 1.49 ± 0.23 145.0 ± 17.6 60.1 ± 2.4 43.9 46.6 49.3 52.0 54.7 57.4 3.30 3.11 2.94 2.79 2.65 2.53 2.41
Granite 2 1.09 ± 0.16 135.0 ± 15.3 58.2 ± 2.1 42.1 44.7 47.4 50.1 52.8 55.5 3.21 3.02 2.85 2.69 2.56 2.43 2.32
Obsidian 0.01 ± 0.001 193.4 ± 9.8 58.0 ± 1.0 41.8 44.5 47.2 49.9 52.6 55.3 4.62 4.34 4.10 3.88 3.68 3.50 3.34
Trachyte 10.69 ± 0.23 81.9 ± 3.4 53.9 ± 1.6 37.7 40.4 43.1 45.8 48.5 51.2 2.17 2.03 1.90 1.79 1.69 1.60 1.52
Average: 3.21 3.01 2.83 2.67 2.53 2.40 2.28
Std. deviation: 0.74 0.69 0.65 0.62 0.59 0.56 0.53

in constant coefficients obtained by the analyses depending
on the origin of rock and sample size. The UCS/SRH ratio
of the low-porous sedimentary rocks is found higher than
that of high-porous rock. It was not possible to get reliable
measurements using the Schmidt hammer on the porous
surface, since the thin walls between the pores were broken
when the plunger impacted to the surface. Therefore, the
lower surface area contact with the plunger will absorb the
energy and lower the hardness of porous structure. Hence, it
can be stated that the porosity and matrix structure are of
significant parameters on this ratio. Also, a significant in-
crease was noticed in the coefficient values for the samples
having porosity values lower than 2%. Thus, low-porous
rocks are more sensitive in the prediction of the UCS from
SRH values.
Although porosity is a key parameter to determine the co-
efficients for sedimentary rocks, it does not play an important
role on UCS/SRH ratio for metamorphic and igneous rocks.
This outcome may be explained by considerable influence of
bond structure and crystal size on UCS/SRH ratio for meta-
morphic rocks. In addition, brittle and hard granular minerals
such as quartz and feldspars in igneous rocks have an impor-
tant role than other minerals, as amphibole and pyroxene.
For each rock type, the relation between UCS/SRH ratio
and calculated SRH values for different sample sizes was an-
alyzed and graphically presented in Fig. 1. It can be seen from
the Fig. 1 that UCS/SRH ratio was decreased when the sample
size was increased in different rock types. Therefore, it may be
suggested that the SRH values must be used for the cubic
samples with an edge length of at least 11 cm. The equations
(Fig. 1) obtained from this study are similar to the generalized
expressions suggested by Aydın (2015). In addition, rock type
and sample size were taken into account in these equations
(Eqs. 2–5) with fairly high correlation coefficients.

Fig. 1 Sample size vs. UCS/SRH 3.5

for each rock types y = 6.6333x-0.428 High-porous sedimentary
3.3 R² = 0.996 Low-porous sedimentary
3.1 Metamorphic rocks
2.9 Igneous rocks
UCS / SRH

2.7 y = 6.5288x-0.434
R² = 0.995
2.5
2.3
2.1
y = 6.9364x-0.554
1.9 R² = 0.997
y = 9.0233x-0.708
1.7 R² = 0.999
1.5
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sample size (cm)
502 Page 6 of 8 Arab J Geosci (2018) 11: 502

190 120
180 110
170 100
160
UCS (MPa)

UCS (MPa)
90
150
80
140
70
130
120 60

110 50

100 40
30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60
SRH Value SRH Value
Fig. 2 Diagram for estimating the UCS from SRH values for low porous Fig. 4 Diagram for estimating the UCS from SRH values for
sedimentary rocks metamorphic rocks

For low-porous sedimentary rocks: estimate the true UCS values from the SRH values of different
rock types were plotted in Figs. 2–5 based on the data given in
y ¼ 6:6333x−0:428 ð2Þ the Tables 2–5. In addition, the relationship between the cal-
culated UCS and the measured UCS for different rock types
For high-porous sedimentary rocks:
with a 95% confidence level was also plotted in Fig. 6.
y ¼ 9:0233x−0:708 ð3Þ In the literature, there is huge amount of work related to
predicting the UCS from some index test such as point load
For metamorphic rocks: strength, P wave velocity, and block punch index. In this re-
search, different conversion ratios and correlation coefficient
y ¼ 6:9364x−0:554 ð4Þ are suggested. For example, the conversion ratio between
compressive strength and point load strength has exhibited a
For igneous rocks:
very large range; the ratio for the equations using the zero-
y ¼ 6:5288x−0:434 ð5Þ intercept varies between 8.6 and 29 (Fener et al. 2005; Singh
et al. 2012). Sharma and Singh (2008) stated correlation co-
where y is the UCS/SRH ratio and x is the cubic sample size in efficients between compressive strength and P wave velocity
cm. as 0.53 and 0.90. Mishra and Basu (2012) used of the block
If the use of samples having lower edge length is necessary punch test to predict the UCS of rocks. Based on this study,
for the prediction of the UCS from SRH, the coefficient values they mention that correlation coefficient varies between 0.82
obtained from the Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5 should be used depending and 0.95 with the different equations in the relation between
on the type of rock. Diagrams to be practically used to block punch index and UCS. For these index tests, it is

100 170

90 160

80 150
UCS (MPa)

140
UCS (MPa)

70

60 130

50 120

40 110

30 100

20 90
10 20 30 40 50 30 40 50 60 70
SRH Value SRH Value
Fig. 3 Diagram for estimating the UCS from SRH values for high porous Fig. 5 Diagram for estimating the UCS from SRH values for igneous
sedimentary rocks rocks
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11: 502
Fig. 6 The relationship between
measured and calculated UCS
necessary to prepare samples with different geometries in the
laboratory. For this reason, different predicting models have
been developed due to different sample dimensions and test-
ing methods. There is no clear consensus in the literature
about which is more accurate. With the SRH test used in this
study, experiments can be performed easily in the laboratory
or in the field and accurate UCS estimation can be performed
with high correlation coefficient (Fig. 6). Also in present
study, some coefficients are suggested (Fig. 1) which can be
used to eliminate prediction errors caused by sample size dif-
ference to the prediction UCS of rocks.
Conclusions
In this research, experimental work was carried out and the
findings were analyzed to determine the coefficients to relate
SRH to compressive strength for different rock types. A new
and true coefficient was suggested to predict the UCS from
SRH values based on the sample size. In addition, some dia-
grams were developed to be practically used for estimating the
uniaxial compressive strength from SRH values by consider-
ing the sample size for each rock type. It is seen that when the
sample size increases, the UCS/SRH ratio decreases.
From the analysis of UCS and SRH values of rocks which
have 5 and 11 cm cubic sample, respectively, UCS/SRH ratio
was obtained as 2.36 for low-porous sedimentary rocks, 1.64
for high-porous sedimentary rocks, 1.82 for metamorphic
rocks, and 2.28 for igneous rocks. It can also be concluded
that the porosity has a significant effect on the UCS/SRH ratio
for sedimentary rocks in comparison to metamorphic and ig-
neous rocks. Among the different rock types, the UCS/SRH
ratio of low-porous sedimentary rocks appeared to have
higher values.
Page 7 of 8 502
References
Aggistalis G, Alivizatos S, Stamoulis D, Stournaras G (1996) Correlating
uniaxial compressive strength with Schmidt hardness, point load
index, Young's Modulus, and mineralogy of gabbros and basalts
(northern Greece). Bull Assoc Eng Geol 54:3–11
Aksoy CO (2009) Performance prediction of impact hammers by block
punch index for weak rock masses. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:
1383–1388
Ansari MK, Ahmad M, Singh R, Singh TN (2015) Correlation between
Schmidt hardness and coefficient of restitution of rocks. J Afr Earth
Sci 104:1–5
ASTM (2005) Standard test method for determination of rock hardness
by Rebound Hammer Method 2005:D5873–05
ASTM (2009) Standard test method for compressive strength of dimen-
sion stone. ASTM C170/C170M – 09
Aufmuth RE (1973) A systematic determination of engineering criteria
for rock. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 11:235–245
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
Aydin A (2015) ISRM suggested method for determination of the
Schmidt hammer rebound hardness: revised version. ISRM., 2015.
The ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and
monitoring: 2007–2014, editor: R. Ulusay. Springer Int. Publishing,
Switzerland, pp 24–33
Aydin A, Basu A (2005) The Schmidt hammer in rock material charac-
terization. Eng Geol 81:1–14
Basarir H, Kumral M, Ozsan A (2004) Predicting uniaxial compressive
strength of rocks from simple test methods. Rockmec′2004-VIIth
Regional Rock Mechanics Symposium. Sivas, Turkey
Basu A, Aydin A (2006) Predicting uniaxial compressive strength by
point load test: significance of cone penetration. Rock Mech Rock
Eng 39:483–490
Beverly BE, Schoenwolf DA, Brierly GS (1979) Correlations of rock
index values with engineering properties and the classification of
intact rock. FHWA, Washington, DC
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
Cargill JS, Shakoor A (1990) Evaluation of empirical methods for mea-
suring the uniaxial strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 27:
495–503
502 Page 8 of 8
Day MJ, Goudie AS (1977) Field assessment of rock hardness using the
Schmidt test hammer. Br Geomorph Res Group Tech Bull 18:19–29
Deere DU, Miller RP (1966) Engineering classification and index prop-
erties of intact rock. Tech rep no. AFWL-TR 65-116. Univ Illinois:
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
Dincer I, Acar A, Cobangulu I, Uras Y (2004) Correlation between
Schmidt hardness, uniaxial compressive strength and Young's mod-
ulus for andesites, basalts and tuffs. Bull Eng Geol Environ 63:141–
148
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
Ghose AK, Chakraborti S (1986) Empirical strength indices of Indian
coals: an investigation. Proceedings 27th US Symposium on Rock
Mechanics, Rotterdam: Balkema, 59–61
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]
Goktan RM, Gunes N (2005) A comparative study of Schmidt hammer
testing procedures with reference to rock cutting machine perfor-
mance prediction. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 42:466–472
Goudie AS (2006) The Schmidt hammer in geomorphological research.
Prog Phys Geogr 30(6):703–718
Gurocak Z, Yalcin E (2016) Excavatability and the effect of weathering
degree on the excavatability of rock masses: an example from east-
ern Turkey. J Afr Earth Sci 118:1–11
Haramy KY, De Marco MJ (1985) Use of Schmidt hammer for rock and
coal testing. In: Proc 26th US Symp rock Mech, 26–28 June, Rapid
City, SD. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 549–555
ISRM (2007) The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock
Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 1974–2006, Editors: R.
Ulusay & J.A. Hudson. Compilation Arranged by The ISRM
Turkish National Group, Ankara, Turkey, 628
ISRM (2015) The ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization,
testing and monitoring: 2007–2014, editor: R. Ulusay. Springer
Int. Publishing, Switzerland, p 293
Kahraman S (1996) Basınc direnci tahmininde Schmidt ve nokta yuk
indeksi kullanmanın guvenilirligi. In: Korkmaz, S., ve Akcay, M.
(Eds.), K.T.U. Jeoloji Muhendisligi Bolumu, vol. 30. Yıl Semp.
Bildiriler Kitabi, Trabzon, pp. 362– 369 [in Turkish]
Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uni-
axial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:
981–994
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
Arab J Geosci (2018) 11: 502
Kazi A, Al-Mansour ZR (1980) Empirical relationship between Los
Angeles abrasion and Schmidt hammer strength tests with applica-
tion to aggregates around Jeddah. Q J Eng Geol 13:45–52
Kidybinski A (1968) Rebound number and the quality of mine roof strata.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 5:283–292
Kılıc A, Teymen A (2008) Determination of mechanical properties of
rocks using simple methods. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:237–244
Matthews JA, Shakesby RA (1984) The status of the little ice age in
southern Norway: relative-age dating of Neoglacial moraines with
Schmidt hammer and lichenometry. Boreas 13:333–346
Mishra DA, Basu A (2012) Use of the block punch test to predict the
compressive and tensile strengths of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
51:119–127
Nazir R, Momeni E, Armaghani DJ, Mohd Amin MFM (2013) Prediction
of unconfined compressive strength of limestone rock samples using
L-type Schmidt hammer. EJGE 18(I):1767–1775
O'Rourke JE (1989) Rock index properties for geoengineering, under-
ground development. Min Eng:106–110
Palassi M, Pirpanahi M (2013) Edge load strength test for indirect esti-
mation of unconfined compressive strength. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci 61:111–117
Schmidt E (1951) A non-destructive concrete tester. Concrete 59(8):34–
35
Sharma PK, Singh TN (2008) A correlation between P-wave velocity,
impact strength index, slake durability index and uniaxial compres-
sive strength. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:17–22
Sheorey 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 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. In: Proc 24th US Symp rock Mech, Texas,
a&M University, AEG. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 599–609
Singh TN, Kainthola A, Venkatesh A (2012) Correlation between point
load index and uniaxial compressive strength for different rock
types. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:259–264
Torabi SR, Ataei M, Javanshir M (2010) Application of Schmidt rebound
number for estimating rock strength under specific geological con-
ditions. J Min Environ 1(2):1–8
TS EN 1926 (2007) Natural stone test methods - determination of uniaxial
compressive strength. Institute of Turkish Standards 19
Yasar E, Erdogan Y (2004) Estimation of rock physiomechanical prop-
erties using hardness methods. Eng Geol 71:281–288
Yilmaz I, Sendir H (2002) Correlation of Schmidt hardness with uncon-
fined compressive strength and Young’s modulus in gypsum from
Sivas (Turkey). Eng Geol 66:211–219
Young RP (1978) Assessing rock discontinuities. Tunnels and
Tunnelling:45–48