See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262889804

Estimation of rock physicomechanical properties using hardness

methods

Article  in  Engineering Geology · February 2004

DOI: 10.1016/S0013-7952(03)00141-8

CITATIONS READS
205 6,388

2 authors:

Ergul Yasar Yasin Erdogan

İskenderun Technical University, Turkey Iskenderun Technical University
49 PUBLICATIONS   1,723 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   759 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

lightweight building materials View project

Kayranlık konglomerası View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yasin Erdogan on 09 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Engineering Geology 71 (2004) 281 – 288
www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Estimation of rock physicomechanical properties using

hardness methods
E. Yasßar *, Y. Erdoğan
Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Cßukurova University, 01330 Balcalı, Adana, Turkey
Received 19 December 2002; accepted 2 June 2003

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the statistical relationship between hardness value and physicomechanical
properties of constructional and cover rocks. The definition, measurement of hardness and classification of the rocks used are
very important in construction sector. From this point of view, rock hardness is one of the most important parameters for the
determination of rock properties. In this study, the determination of hardness and the physicomechanical properties of
constructional and cover rocks in Cßukurova region was accomplished using various methods in the laboratory. Statistical
relations between physicomechanical properties and hardness of rocks were also determined. High correlations were found
between the hardness methods (Shore Scleroscope, Schmidt hammer hardness), which are cheap and easy to use, and other
physical and mechanical properties. It was found that physicomechanical properties can be estimated using hardness methods
and compared with the calculated value from different empirical equations.
D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hardness; Physicomechanical properties; Shore Scleroscope; Schmidt hammer; Uniaxial compressive strength; Statistical
relationship

1. Introduction such as Schmidt rebound number, point load index

The physicomechanical properties of rocks are the
most important parameters in the design of ground
workings and in the classification of rocks for engi-
neering purposes. The measurement of rock strength
has been standardised by both the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 1984) and the
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM,
1981a). Standard sample preparation is time consum-
ing and expensive. For these reasons, indirect tests
* Corresponding author. Fax: +90-322-3386126.
E-mail address: eyasar@cukurova.edu.tr (E. Yasßar).
and Shore Scleroscope hardness can be used to
estimate rock strength. The indices and methods are
easy tests to conduct because they need no sample
preparation and the testing equipment used is less
sophisticated and is also portable. The determination
of all physical and mechanical properties of rock by
using the Schmidt hammer and Shore Scleroscope
tests are very important. In addition, determination
mechanical properties are essential for classification
of rock materials and judgement about their suitability
for various construction purposes. Both Schmidt ham-
mer hardness and Shore Scleroscope tests would be
very valuable for at least the preliminary stage of
designing a structure.

0013-7952/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0013-7952(03)00141-8
282 E. Yasßar, Y. Erdoğan / Engineering Geology 71 (2004) 281–288

Six different rock samples were collected from

southern Turkey and tested in this study. The main
objective is to express the relationships between
Schmidt rebound number (N) and Shore Scleroscope
hardness values (SSH) with unit volume weight (c),
porosity ( P), strength to blow (SB), strength to bending
(SBE), average abrasion strength (AAS) and uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS) of the rocks by empirical
equations. Although various researchers have studied
the relations between UCS –E and N –SSH, this study
consists of empirical relationships between UCS –c –
P– SB – SBE – AAS and N – SSH (Table 1). Fig. 1. Measure positions using Schmidt hammer.
The data were statistically analysed to determine
the best-fit correlation and variability of result for and physicomechanical properties. Empirical methods
each test. Test results were correlated and regression were developed for estimating the physical and me-
equations were evaluated among hardness methods
chanical properties of rocks by using the Schmidt and
Shore Scleroscope rebound numbers.
Table 1
In the study area, rocks hardness was determined
Correlation between Schmidt hammer hardness with uniaxial using Schmidt hammer type-L and Shore Sclero-
compressive strength (UCS) and Young’s modulus (E) scope type C-2. The Schmidt hammer was originally
Equation R2 Researcher developed for testing the quality of hardened con-
UCS = 6.9  10[0.0087cN + 0.16] 0.94 Deere and crete and rocks (Schmidt, 1951). It is designed for
Miller (1966) different levels of impact energy, but L and N types
E = 6.95c2N 1.14  106 0.88 are commonly used for rock hardness determinations
UCS = 6.9  10[1.348 log(cN) 1.325]
– Aufmuth (1973) (Fig. 1). The type L has impact energy of 0.735 Nm,
E = 6.9  10[1.06 log(cN) + 1.86] –
UCS = 12.74exp(0.185cN) – Beverly et al.
(1979)
E = 192(Nc2)12710 –
UCS = 0.447exp[0.045(N + 3.5) + c] – Kidybinski (1980)
UCS = 2N 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(Ncd) + 1.2 – Cargill and
for sandstones Shakoor (1990)
UCS = 1.8  10 2(Ncd) + 2.9 –
for carbonates
UCS = 4.5  10 4(Nc)2.46 0.93 Kahraman (1996)
UCS = 0.0001N3.2658 0.84 Gökcßeoğlu (1996)
UCS = 2.208e0.067N 0.96 Katz et al. (2000)
E = 0.00013.N3.09074 0.99
UCS = exp(0.818 + 0.059N) 0.98 Yılmaz and
Sendir (2002)
E = exp(1.146 + 0.054N) 0.91
UCS: uniaxial compressive strength (MPa), E: Young’s modu-
lus (MPa), N: Schmidt hammer rebound number, c: rock density
(g/cm3). Fig. 2. Shore Scleroscope hardness machine (C-2).
 E. Yasßar, Y. Erdoğan / Engineering Geology 71 (2004) 281–288 283

Table 2 (1966), Aufmuth (1973), Beverly et al. (1979),

Correlation between Shore Scleroscope hardness and uniaxial Kidybinski (1980), Singh et al. (1983), Sheorey et
compressive strength (UCS)
al. (1984), Haramy and DeMarco (1985), Ghose and
Equations Explanation Researcher
Chakraborti (1986), O’ Rourke (1989), Cargill and
UCS = 2.1SSH (MPa) as a lower limit Wuerker Shakoor (1990), Sachpazis (1990), Ayday and Gök-
(1953)
tan (1993), Kahraman (1996), Gökcßeoğlu (1996),
UCS = 2.8SSH (MPa) as an average value
UCS = 3.4SSH (MPa) as an upper limit Katz et al. (2000), Yılmaz and Sendir (2002). Var-
UCS = 3.54(SSH 12) – Atkinson ious empirical equations have been proposed for
(MPa) (1993) estimating UCS of rock from Schmidt hammer
UCS = 895SHIave + – Koncagül and rebound number (Table 1).
41977 (kPa) Santi (1999)
The Shore Scleroscope hardness was designed for
UCS: uniaxial compressive strength, SSH: Shore Scleroscope use on metals. It measures the relative rebound of a
hardness value.
diamond-tipped hammer that drops freely from a fixed
height onto the surface of a specimen. The ISRM
which is only one third that of the type N. Ayday (1981b) details a method for Shore hardness testing of
and Göktan (1993) found reliable correlations be- rocks using model C-2 (Fig. 2) and this model was
tween L- and N-type hammer rebound values used in this study.
obtained during field testing. There are different Nine specimens of each rock type were prepared
Schmidt hammer recording techniques in the litera- and 20 readings were obtained for each specimen. The
ture. A number of studies on the investigation of purpose of this study is to report findings of a series of
usefulness of the Schmidt hammer test on different hardness tests carried out on a range of rock types.
rock types have been made by Deere and Miller Special attention was given to the test procedures.

Fig. 3. Location map of the study area.

284 E. Yasßar, Y. Erdoğan / Engineering Geology 71 (2004) 281–288

Table 3
Physical and mechanical properties of rocks
Tests Ceyhan Barbaros Antique cream Osmaniye Handere Toprakkale
limestone marble limestone marble sandstone basalt
Schmidt hammer 53.25 F 3.16 54.80 F 2.71 51.55 F 3.19 47.42 F 3.34 44.50 F 2.69 52.40 F 2.26
hardness values
Shore Scleroscope 60.16 F 7.54 62.21 F 5.62 58.76 F 3.19 57.83 F 7.85 53.05 F 5.13 63.09 F 7.26
hardness values
Unit volume 2.66 F 0.03 2.70 F 0.02 2.71 F 0.01 2.58 F 0.01 2.52 F 0.02 2.72 F 0.03
weight (g/cm3)
Porosity (%) 0.26 F 0.04 0.32 F 0.04 0.42 F 0.13 1.88 F 0.93 2.26 F 0.41 1.37 F 0.91
Strength to 0.36 F 0.20 0.36 F 0.20 0.44 F 0.20 0.28 F 0.18 0.28 F 0.20 1.52 F 0.43
blow (MPa)
Strength to 18.80 F 2.37 18.27 F 2.05 17.02 F 2.78 14.25 F 3.33 13.48. F 2.04 15.33 F 2.22
bending (MPa)
Average abrasion 18.70 F 5.46 19.28 F 5.58 23.20 F 8.82 28.25 F 10.65 26.20 F 4.58 13.25 F 3.25
strength (cm3/50 cm2)
Uniaxial compressive 82.12 F 11.16 83.98 F 16.87 89.17 F 12.67 52.46 F 18.04 40.10 F 7.26 111.51 F 15.44
strength (MPa)

Several other tests were carried out on the samples,
including determinations of their compressive strength
(UCS). The compressive strength was successfully
correlated with Shore hardness (Table 2) by Wuerker
(1953), Deere and Miller (1966), Rabia and Brook
(1979), Atkinson (1993), Koncagül and Santi (1999),
among others.
2. The rock units
The samples were obtained from the Cß ukurova
Basin in south-central Turkey. These are Ceyhan
limestone (Ceyhan), Barbaros marble (Silifke), An-
tique Cream limestone (Tarsus), Osmaniye marble
(Osmaniye), Toprakkale Basalts (Osmaniye) and Han-
dere sandstone (Adana) in Fig. 3. The geological pro-
perties of these rocks were determined.
Tertiary Ceyhan limestone is dolomite limestone.
Tension fractures due to the folding are apparent in
many limestone layers. Fractures are generally not
continuous, are rarely parallel and are filled by sec-
ondary calcite minerals. Under the microscope, con-
centrated ferric oxide (Fe2O3) was found along the
fracture length.
Barbaros marble, aged Middle Jurassic –Early Cre-
taceous, appear over the consists of micritic calcite that
has grain size smaller than 5 Am. Fractures and pores in

Table 4
Statistical relationships between hardness and physical and mechanical properties using rocks
(*) General statistical equation of rocks
Shore Scleroscope hardness Schmidt hammer hardness
2
Equation R Equation R2
c c = 1.1623 ln(SSH) 2.0925 0.80 c = 0.9377 ln(N) 1.0299 0.84
P P = 9.0601 ln(SSH) + 38.042 0.41 P = 0.1999(N) + 11.21 0.80
SB SB = 0.0051e0.1142SSH 0.42 SB = 0.0151e0.0664N 0.17
SBE SBE = 0.3754 SSH 6.0196 0.39 SBE = 0.0383N1.5398 0.80
AAS AAS = 1.2363SSH + 94.648 0.66 AAS = 243.1e 0.0485N 0.47
UCS UCS = 1E 08SSH5.555 0.83 UCS = 4E 06N4.2917 0.80
N N = 56.883 ln(SSH) 181.38 0.82 – –
(*) c: unit volume weight (g/cm3), P: porosity (%), SB: strength to blow (MPa), SBE: strength to bending (MPa), AAS: average abrasion
strength (cm3/50 cm2), UCS: uniaxial compressive strength (MPa), N: Schmidt hammer hardness, SSH: Shore Scleroscope hardness.
 E. Yasßar, Y. Erdoğan / Engineering Geology 71 (2004) 281–288 285

the marble were generally filled by secondary calcite

minerals which are larger than primary calcite crystals.
Antique cream limestone, aged Middle Jurassic –
Early Cretaceous, consists of micritic calcite which
is partly rounded, recrystalised by carbonate intra-
clastic materials and made up of fossil fragments.
Crystal grains are connected with small-grained
sparite cement.
Osmaniye marble is formed in an ophiolitic com-
plex. It consists of serpentine, which is alterated from
ophiolitic rocks, and calcite that is fractured. The
fractures are filled with serpentine and pyroxene min-
erals and are clearly seen as a mark on the outside of the Fig. 5. The relationship between Shore Scleroscope and unit volume
fractures. This marble is purple in colour, fine grained weight.
and recrystallised. The marble is cracked and split due
to tectonised and alterated ophiolitic rocks. It is mainly The intergranular substance consists of matrix (18%),
composed of serpentine and pyroxene minerals and cement (4%), mica fragments (2%) and traces of coal
shows low strength due to alteration. However, it is fragments, altered feldspar and rock fragments. The
preferred for charming. The direction and inclination of size of the grains varies from 10 to 20 Am. There were
layers are mainly N40E and 60NW, respectively. no signs of weathering on the sandstone specimens.
The quaternary Toprakkale basalt is outcrops in The samples were taken from the more uniformly
Erzin and Iskenderun Gulf district area of 115 km2. It laminated sections.
is hard, massive and generally has high density, is
black-grey coloured, with coarse-small and angled
blocks. Toprakkale basalt consists of three different 3. Results and discussions
units from bottom to top: basaltic, porous and colum-
nar. In this study, the columnar basalts were used. Nine samples of each rock type and 20 tests for
The Handere sandstone, aged Upper Miocene – each sample were made in Mining Engineering Lab-
Pliocene, is whitish, yellowish and grey in colour. oratory of Çukurova University to determine the
The clastic grains consist predominantly of quartz Schmidt hammer rebound number and Shore Sclero-
(42%), rock fragments (22%) and feldspar (10%). scope hardness values. These testing methods sug-
gested by International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM) were applied to each rock type. The physical

Fig. 4. The relationship between Shore Scleroscope and Schmidt

hammer (horizontal and vertical error bars indicate standard Fig. 6. The relationship between Shore Scleroscope hardness and
deviations). average abrasion strength.
286 E. Yasßar, Y. Erdoğan / Engineering Geology 71 (2004) 281–288
Fig. 7. The relationship between Schmidt hammer hardness and unit
volume weight.
and mechanical properties of the samples were also
determined. A minimum of nine samples were used
for each test. Unit volume weight, porosity, strength to
blow, strength to bending, average abrasion strength
and uniaxial compressive strength of six different rock
types were determined (Table 3).
Relations between hardness and the physicome-
chanical properties were evaluated using regression
analysis (Figs. 4 –11 and Table 4). The equation of the
best-fit line at the 95% confidence limit and the
correlation factor (R2) were determined for each using
least squares regressions. Good relations were gener-
ally found between hardness and physicomechanical
properties of these rocks using this method. The
material properties can be estimated from the best
empirical correlations with rock hardness. The empir-
ical equation between Shore Scleroscope and Schmidt
hammer hardness is shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 8. The relationship between Schmidt hammer hardness and
strength to bending.
Fig. 9. The relationship between Schmidt hammer hardness and
porosity.
High correlation values were found between Shore
Scleroscope and unit volume weight of R2 = 0.80 (Fig.
5); average abrasive strength of R2 = 0.66 (Fig. 6);
uniaxial compressive strength of R2 = 0.83 (Fig. 10);
strength to blow of R2 = 0.42; porosity of R2 = 0.41;
and strength to bending of R2 = 0.39.
High correlation values were found between
Schmidt Hammer hardness and unit volume weight
of R2 = 0.84 (Fig. 7); strength to bending of R2 = 0.80
(Fig. 8); porosity of R2 = 0.80 (Fig. 9); uniaxial
compressive strength of R2 = 0.80 (Fig. 11); strength
to blow of R2 = 0.17; and average abrasive strength
of R2 = 0.47. As seen in Table 4, the correlation fit
lines of average abrasion strength and strength to
blow values for Schmidt hardness and strength to
blow, porosity and strength to bending values for
Shore Scleroscope hardness are low, but this does
not mean statistical relation with rock hardness
values. These relations show that the rock structure
Fig. 10. The relationship between Shore hardness and UCS.
 E. Yasßar, Y. Erdoğan / Engineering Geology 71 (2004) 281–288
Fig. 11. The relationship between Schmidt hammer hardness and
UCS.
has some porosity and poor texture between the
mineral crystals.
Fig. 9 shows that the porosity increases with
decreasing hardness values and strength of the rocks.
As can be seen in Fig. 10, within the range of 40–
65 of Shore Scleroscope hardness, this study data
show good relations between Shore Scleroscope and
UCS (R2 = 0.83). It was determined that Shore Scle-
roscope values increase with increasing UCS. In this
study, the best-fit relation was found exponentially
and compared with others studies. Other researchers,
such as Koncagül and Santi (1999), Atkinson (1993)
and Wuerker (1953), generally found different empir-
ical equations.
In Fig. 11, Schmidt hammer results within the
range of 30 – 65 show a good correlation with UCS.
These results were compared with other studies. The
results of this relation were found concordance with
Katz et al. (2000).
4. Conclusions
In this study, firstly, Schmidt hammer rebound
number, Shore Scleroscope hardness values, unit
volume weight, porosity, strength to blow, strength
to bending, average abrasion strength and uniaxial
compressive strength values of the rocks were
determined for six different rock types in laboratory
conditions. Secondly, the regression analyses of
the obtained parameters were correlated and regres-
sion equations were established among the studied
properties.
287
In conclusion, the hardness methods show good
statistical relations with the rock properties due to
high correlation coefficients. This study indicates
that rock properties can be estimated by determining
Schmidt hammer and Shore Scleroscope hardness
values, which are simple, practical and economical
methods. The suggestion is that Schmidt hammer
and Shore Scleroscope hardness may be used most
confidently for UCS and unit volume weight esti-
mation. General restrictions on the application of the
methods seem largely to involve grain size, porosity
and homogeneity. These effects were clearly seen
with respect to porous rock. It is suggested that the
experimental investigation should be repeated on a
number of additional rock types in order to deter-
mine these statistical relations. Further study is
required to see how varying the rock type affects
correlations.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Cßukurova University
Scientific Research Centre for the financial support.
References
ASTM, 1984. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Standard test method for unconfined compressive strength
of intact rock core specimens. Soil and Rock, Building
Stones: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 4.08. Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania.
Atkinson, R.H., 1993. Hardness tests for rock characterisation. In:
Hudson, J.A. (Ed.), Rock Testing and Site Characterization-
Compressive Rock Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 105 – 117.
Aufmuth, R.E., 1973. A systematic determination of engineering
criteria for rocks. Bull. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 11, 235 – 245.
Ayday, C., Göktan, R.M., 1993. The statistical comparison of the
Schmidt hammer recording techniques. Bull. Rock Mech. 9,
25 – 35 (The Publication of The Turkish National Society for
Rock Mechanics).
Beverly, B.E., Schoenwolf, D.A., Brierly, G.S., 1979. Correlations
of rock index values with engineering properties and the clas-
sification of intact rock.
Cargill, J.S., Shakoor, A., 1990. Evaluation of empirical methods
for measuring the uniaxial compressive strength. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. 27, 495 – 503.
Deere, D.U., Miller, R.P., 1966. Engineering classification and in-
dex properties for intact rocks. Tech. Report. Air Force Weapons
Lab., New Mexico, No., AFNL-TR, pp. 65 – 116. Kirtland.
288 E. Yasßar, Y. Erdoğan / Engineering Geology 71 (2004) 281–288
Ghose, A.K., Chakraborti, S., 1986. Empirical strength indices of
Indian coals an investigation. Proceedings of 27th US Symp. on
Rock Mechanics. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 59 – 61.
Gökcßeoğlu, C., 1996. Schmidt sertlik ßcekici kullanılarak tahmin
edilen tek eksenli basıncß dayanımı verilerinin güvenilirliği üzer-
ine bir değerlendirme. Jeol. Mühendis. 48, 78 – 81.
Haramy, K.Y., DeMarco, M.J., 1985. Use of Schmidt hammer for
rock and coal testing. 26th US Symp. on Rock Mechanics, 26 –
28 June, Rapid City, pp. 549 – 555.
ISRM, 1981a. Rock Characterization Testing and Monitoring,
ISRM Suggested Methods. International Society for Rock Me-
chanics. 211 pp.
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. Basıncß direnci tahmininde Schmidt ve nokta
yük indeksi kullanmanın güvenilirliği. In: Korkmaz, S., ve
Akcßay, M. (Eds.), K.T.U. Jeoloji Mühendisliği Bölümü, vol.
30. Yıl Sempozyumu. Bildiriler Kitabı, Trabzon, pp. 362 – 369.
Katz, O., Reches, Z., Roegiers, J.C., 2000. Evaluation of mechan-
ical rock properties using a Schmidt hammer. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 37, 723 – 728.
Kidybinski, A., 1980. Bursting liability indices of coal. Int. J. Rock.
Mech. Min. Sci., Geomech. Abstr. 17, 167 – 171.
Koncagül, E.C., Santi, P.M., 1999. Predicting the unconfined com-
View publication stats
pressive strength of the Breathitt shale using slake durability,
shore hardness and rock structural properties. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci., 139 – 153.
O’ Rourke, J.E., 1989. Rock index properties for geoengineering
underground development. Min. Eng., 106 – 110.
Rabia, H., Brook, N., 1979. The shore hardness of rock. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci., Geomech. Abstr. 16 (6), 335 – 336.
Sachpazis, C.I., 1990. Correlating Schmidt hardness with compres-
sive 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.
Sheorey, P.R., Barat, D., Das, M.N., Mukherjee, K.P., 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, R.N., Hassani, F.P., Elkington, P.A.S., 1983. The application
of strength and deformation index testing to the stability assess-
ment of coal measures excavations. Proc. 24th US Symp. On
Rock Mech., Texas A&M Univ., AEG, pp. 599 – 609.
Wuerker, R.G., 1953. The status of testing strength of rocks. Trans.
Min. Eng. AIME, 1108 – 1113.
Yılmaz, I., Sendir, H., 2002. Correlation of Schmidt hardness with
unconfined compressive strength and Young’s modulus in gyp-
sum from Sivas (Turkey). Eng. Geol. 66, 211 – 219.