Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.

321-322, 1993 0148-9062/93 $6.00 + 0.00

Printedin GreatBritain.All rights reserved Copyright© 1993PergamonPressLtd

Technical Note
A Suggested Improvement to the Schmidt Rebound
Hardness ISRM Suggested Method with Particular Reference
to Rock Machineability
R. M. G O K T A N t
C. AYDAYI"

INTRODUCTION In the common practice of Schmidt hammer testing,

the argument for using peak values is that, whilst it
The Schmidt hammer has been widely used for over
is easy to obtain a low value with a Schmidt hammer,
30 yr as an index of rock hardness. However, some
it is mechanically impossible to obtain a high value [3].
confusion still exists concerning the appropriate use of
Crushing of loose grains due to the state of the rock face,
this instrument. Various techniques of recording
block movement in closely jointed rock and the physical
Schmidt hammer rebound numbers have been proposed
state of the test instrument are some of the reasons f o r
in the literature, as reviewed briefly by Poole and Farmer
low rebound numbers obtained during field testing.
[1].
However, the low values cannot be solely attributed to
This paper discusses the Schmidt hammer recording
these factors. Considering that perfectly homogeneous
technique suggested by the International Society for
rock formations are not available, such variations en-
Rock Mechanics, ISRM [2] from the standpoint of its
countered in rebound testing should inevitably include
use in rock excavation, such as machine performance
variations inherent within a particular formation.
monitoring. After reviewing the work under con-
Rock hardness is a function of the mineral compo-
sideration, a recording technique which is thought to
sition and the competency, strength and bonding
give a better representation of average rock hardness is
capacity of the matrix material. Variations in these
proposed.
factors would be expected to affect the performance
of excavating or drilling machinery. Therefore, it is of
DISCUSSION OF THE ISRM RECORDING TECHNIQUE prime importance that such variations should be accu-
rately reflected in rebound testing readings. This point is
The Schmidt hammer recording technique suggested
particularly important in the testing of rock faces which
by the ISRM stipulates at least 20 rebound values from
show non-uniform hardness properties.
single impacts separated by at least a plunger diameter,
Erroneous readings which may be caused by the state
averaging the upper 50% values and eliminating any
of the tested rock surface may be avoided if the rock
taken from rock that show signs of cracking [2].
surface is cut with a chisel and ground by hand with a
To the knowledge of the authors, there does not exist
carborundum wheel. Unexpectedly low readings can also
any published material statistically justifying the selec-
be avoided if rebound tests are conducted on points free
tion of the upper 50% of values in order to arrive to an
from discontinuities. Therefore, the problem in practice
average value. Therefore, it seems that this figure, the
reduces to finding a means of elmininating those erro-
mean of the top 50% of observations, was somewhat
neous readings which may be caused by the improper
arbitrarily decided as being representative of the Schmidt
functioning of the hammer. The solution lies with some
hardness for any particular rock face. The recording
objective method of eliminating those observations
technique suggested by the ISRM must inevitably suffer
which do not belong to the required population, rather
from the disadvantage that only the harder portion of a
than eliminating a certain portion of the observations
rock face is characterized, and the relatively weaker
subjectively or arbitrarily.
portion of the spectrum of rebound values are dis-
regarded. This could be a misleading approach for
the characterization of rock for excavating machine REJECTION OF OUTLIER OBSERVATIONS
performance analyses, where consideration of only the
higher portion of rebound values would naturally be Sample statistics deal with relations existing between
inappropriate. a population and samples drawn from the population.
In order that conclusions of sampling theory and
?Mining Engineering Department, Anadolu University,26030Badem- statistical inference be valid, samples must be chosen so
lik, Eski~ehir, Turkey. as to be representative of a population. In statistics, the
321
322 GOKTAN and AYDAY: TECHNICAL NOTE

Table 1. Sample size vs p-values [4] Since the observation 37 is to the left of the mean, this
n p n p n p n p ratio correctly has a minus sign in front of it, although
2 1.15 7 1.80 15 2.13 50 2.58 its absolute value is of interest for the analysis. For 20
3 1.38 8 1.86 20 2.24 100 2.81 observations the tabulated value o f p in Table 1 is 2.24.
4 1.54 9 1.91 25 2.33 250 3.09
5 1.65 10 1.96 30 2.40 500 3.29 Since this is smaller than the ratio of the deviation to
6 1.73 12 2.04 35 2.45 1000 3.48 the standard deviation, the observation 37 should be
rejected. Therefore, the best value for the test would then
be the mean of the remaining 19 observations.
Chauvenet's criterion, a special case of the t-distribution,
is used for choosing the observations which belong to a
population, and rejecting the outlier observations. The CONCLUDING REMARKS
criterion states, "An observation in a sample of size N In the general field of rock excavation there is a need
is rejected if it has a deviation from the mean greater for establishing more exact relations between mechanical
than that corresponding to a 1/2 N probability. The properties of the rock and performance of cutting
criterion is discussed in some detail elsewhere [4], and machines. This goal can be best achieved if adequate
rules for the use of the criterion are given below: rock testing methods and data recording techniques are
1. Compute the mean and the standard deviation of used.
all observations. The Schmidt hammer recording technique as de-
2. Determine the ratio of the "suspiciously" large scribed by ISRM has gained widespread acceptance as
deviation divided by the standard deviation. Deter- a strength index for rock materials and as a means of
mine the limiting value p of this ratio from Table estimating the uniaxial compressive strength. However,
1, for the corresponding number of determinations since only the upper rebound values are considered in
N. this technique, it is felt that such a recording technique
3. If the observed ratio is greater than the value found might not accurately reflect the strength variations on
in the table, the observation may be rejected. rock faces.
In this Technical Note, a statistical method which
Example. Let us consider a set of actual Schmidt allows the integration of scattered data obtained during
hammer test results obtained by a calibrated L-hammer. Schmidt hammer testing is brought to the attention of
The test surface was inspected for microscopic defects
those researchers and engineers who work in the area of
and was made sufficiently smooth to take reliable read- rock excavation. It is thought that such an integration
ings with the hammer. Twenty single impacts separated method will have the advantage of objectively recording
by at least 30 mm approximately were taken. Arranging the characteristic variations in rock texture and micro-
the recorded data in rank order, we have: structure which predominantly affect the performance of
37,40,40,41,41,42,42,43,44,44,44,45,45,45,46,46,47. excavating machinery. However, it is emphasized that
there is a need for further research work involving case
It can be noticed that the distribution of these rebound studies in order to check its practical validity.
values is normal about a mean value of 43.15. In order
to arrive to an average value reflecting the hardness Accepted for publication 21 December 1992.
characteristics of this population, we have to discard
those observations which do not belong to the popu-
lation. Due to the aforementioned reasons, we are REFERENCES
particularly interested with the rejection of lower re- 1. Poole R. W. and Farmer I. W. Consistency and repeatability of
bound values. Therefore, in this case we want to know Schmidt hammer rebound data during field testing. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 17, 167-171 (1980).
if the rebound value 37 is representative of this popu- 2. ISRM. Suggested Methods for determining hardness and abrasive-
lation or not. ness of rocks. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. 15,
The mean of 20 rebound values is 43.15 and the 89-98 (1978).
3. Poole R. W. and Farmer I. W. Oeotechnicat factors affecting
standard deviation of all values is 2.41. The ratio of the tunnelling machine performance in Coal Measures rocks. Tunnels
suspected deviation to the standard deviation is: Tunnelling 10, 27-30 (1978).
4. Mann L. Applied Engineering Statistics for Practicing Engineers,
(37 - 43.15)/2.41 = -2.55. p. 175. Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York (1970).