ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1211–1214

Technical Note
A method for normalization of Schmidt hammer rebound values
A. Basu, A. Aydin*
Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, James Lee Science Bldg. Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong SAR, China
Accepted 6 May 2004

Available online 19 June 2004

1. Introduction automatically released onto the plunger (Fig. 2) and the

rebound height of the piston is considered to be an index
The Schmidt hammer (also known as the rebound or of surface hardness.
impact hammer) test is considered as a non-destructive In the horizontal impact direction, energy released by
method widely used for evaluation of rock quality in the key spring is equal to the kinetic energy of the piston
terms of surface rebound hardness that is related to the with which it is released onto the plunger:
uniaxial compressive strength. Being quick, cheap and
0:5kx21 ¼ 0:5MV12 ; ð1Þ
non-destructive, the Schmidt hammer test is an im-
portant index test for rock material characterization. where k is the key spring constant, x1 the maximum
Therefore, the methodology of the Schmidt hammer test stretch of the spring (when it is fully loaded), M the
is expected to ensure reliable data acquisition and mass of the piston and V1 the velocity of the piston
analysis on site or in the laboratory. when it touches the plunger (while firing). Similarly, the
Schmidt hammer rebound values obtained in non- kinetic energy of the piston at the instant rebound starts
horizontal impact directions are influenced by gravita- must be equal to the energy of the key spring stretched
tional forces to varying degrees. In order to account for by x2 at maximum rebound position:
this effect, the non-horizontal rebound values must be
normalized with reference to the horizontal direction. 0:5MV22 ¼ 0:5kx22 ; ð2Þ
Both ISRM [1] and ASTM [2] stipulate that the rebound
values should be normalized using the correction curves where V2 is the initial rebound velocity of the piston.
provided by the manufacturer. However, such correc- Combining Eqs. (1) and (2),
tion curves are not always accurate in normalizing
x2 V2
rebound values from different rock surfaces (to be ¼ : ð3Þ
discussed in detail) and are often limited to two or four x1 V1
impact directions (745
and 790
); whereas, in a field The ratio x2 =x1 expressed in percentage form is called
situation, the direction of application can vary. This the rebound number
paper presents a theoretical normalization procedure x2
and an experimental study demonstrating its validity in Rh ¼  100: ð4Þ
x1
the characterization of a wide range of rock materials.

2. Operational principle of the Schmidt hammer
The Schmidt hammer consists of a spring-loaded
piston (of a steel mass) (Fig. 1). When the hammer is
pressed orthogonally against a surface, the piston is
*Corresponding author. Fax: 852-2517-6912.
E-mail address: aaydin@hku.hk (A. Aydin).
3. Normalization of rebound values with reference to the
horizontal impact direction
When the impact direction is at an angle y with
respect to the horizontal direction (Fig. 3), the energy
balance equation at first piston-plunger contact becomes
0:5kx21 þ Mgx1 cosð90  yÞ ¼ 0:5MV1ðyÞ
2
: ð5Þ

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.05.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1212 A. Basu, A. Aydin / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1211–1214

Fig. 1. Components of Proceqr Schmidt hammers (LR & ND types).

Vertically upward
ο

=-90

-

Horizontal

+

ο

=+90

Vertically downward
Fig. 3. Defining impact direction with respect to horizontal.

Fig. 2. Working principle of a Schmidt hammer [3].

Therefore, the equivalent rebound value in the

Similarly, at maximum rebound, the energy balance horizontal direction is
could be written as sffiffiffiffiffiffi
2
V22
0:5MV2ðyÞ ¼ 0:5kx22ðyÞ þ Mgx2ðyÞ cosð90  yÞ: ð6Þ Rh ¼  100: ð8Þ
V12
As k; x1 ; M and y are known and x2ðyÞ =x1 is measured,
2
the square of initial rebound velocity V2ðyÞ can be
obtained from Eq. (6). As this velocity is produced by
the impact energy (Eq. (5)), its equivalent in the 4. Verification of the applicability of the proposed
horizontal direction (Eq. (1)) would be formulation
2
V2ðyÞ ð0:5kx21 Þ
V22 ¼ : ð7Þ In order to test the applicability of the proposed
0:5kx21 þ Mgx1 cosð90  yÞ formulation, LR (L-type) and ND (N-type digital)
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Basu, A. Aydin / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1211–1214 1213

Proceqr Schmidt hammers (Fig. 1) were used whose
impact energies ðEÞ are 0.735 and 2.207 N m, respec-
tively. Performances of these hammers were checked by
a calibration anvil, and the maximum stretch ðx1 Þ of the
key-spring in the fully loaded situation and the
maximum compression ðxÞ of the spring due to the
weight of the piston were accurately measured. The
spring constant ðkÞ; and the square of the impact
velocity V12 of the piston when it touches the plunger
(while firing in the horizontal direction) were calculated
from the energy balance condition; whereas, the piston
mass M was obtained from the force balance condition
(Table 1).
The L hammer was fired on the test anvil horizontally
ðy ¼ 0
Þ; vertically downwards ðy ¼ þ90
Þ and verti-
cally upwards ðy ¼ 90
Þ: The vertical rebound values
were normalized with reference to the horizontal
direction (Eq. (8)) and compared with the measured
horizontal value (Table 2). The normalized values match
well with the measured horizontal value.
impact directions were input as horizontal, so that no
normalization was performed by the system (Table 2).
Then the measurements were repeated in the same
directions inputting the actual hammer impact direc-
tions. Comparison of the normalized rebound values
shows that the theoretical method gave almost identical
results at y ¼ þ90
and slightly better at y ¼ 90

than the empirical approach for the calibration anvil
(Table 2).
The formulation is based on the assumption that the
square of the rebound velocity is proportional to the
impact energy. It should be noted that this assumption
may not be appropriate in weak and weathered rocks, as
the energy absorbance of the tested surface may change
noticeably with impact energy level. In order to
85
80

= +90˚
75
70
= -90˚

Digital Schmidt hammers (e.g. ND Proceqr hammer) 65

= +45˚
have inbuilt (empirical) conversion curves according to 60

which rebound values are automatically normalized. To 55
= -45˚

R (Corrected)

50
check the accuracy of the inbuilt curves, the N hammer
45
was first applied on the calibration anvil in three
40
different directions, as for the L hammer, while all
35
30
25
Table 1
20
Constants for LR and ND Proceqr hammers
15
Hammer E (N m) x1 (m) ka (N/m) xb (m) Mc (kg) (V21)d (m/s)2 10
type 5
L 0.735 0.073 275.85 0.005 0.1406 10.4556 0
N 2.207 0.076 764.2 0.005 0.3895 11.3325 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

a R (Measured) L hammer
From E ¼ 0:5kx21 :
b
Maximum compression under the sole weight of the piston.
c 90
From Mg ¼ kx:
d
From E ¼ 0:5MV12 : 85

= +90˚
80
75

= -90˚
70
Table 2 65
= +45˚
Comparison between measured and normalized rebound values 60

= -45˚
R (Corrected)

55
Test Hammer Measured Normalized
50
surface type (R) (Rh)
45
y ¼ 0
y ¼ þ90
y ¼ 90
y ¼ þ90
y ¼ 90
40
35
Anvil L 76 74 77.5 75.6 75.7
30
N 81 79 83 80.2 81.7
25
(80)a (83)a
20
15
Plaster L 21 17 28 21.4 21.5
N 33.5 30 39 33.8 34.1 10
(33)a (39)a 5
0
Note: Reproducibility of the data presented here has been checked 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
with repeated measurements. R (Measured)
a N hammer
Normalized according to the inbuilt conversion chart of the ND
hammer. Fig. 4. Normalization curves with reference to horizontal direction.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1214 A. Basu, A. Aydin / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 41 (2004) 1211–1214

investigate the applicability of the formulation for soft * is valid for various rock surfaces (from fresh to
surfaces, cylindrical specimens (D=62.6 mm, weathered) and
L=130 mm) were prepared by mixing plaster and water * proves to be more accurate than the inbuilt normal-
(4:1 by weight). Weathered rock specimens were not ization curves for a digital Schmidt hammer.
used for this purpose to avoid uncertainties due to
microfabric heterogeneity. Similar tests, as carried out
After long-term use of the hammer, if the key spring
on the test anvil, were performed on the plaster moulds
strength is changed (determined from the calibration
(Table 2). It should be noted that the theoretical
anvil), the required spring strength can be regained by
normalization gives slightly higher rebound values for
connecting the spring end to a different adjustment hole
very soft surfaces. Therefore, given the low impact
(Fig. 1). At the same time, relative changes in the
energy differences between two extreme cases (i.e.
hammer constants can also be determined following the
horizontal and vertical) for the used hammers (0.1 and
stated procedure and be incorporated in the formula-
0.3 N m for L and N hammers, respectively), the
tion.
proposed method can be used for a wide range of
Normalization curves for different impact directions
materials with different properties. Because the empiri-
could be prepared as an external or in-built reference for
cal curves used in digital hammers were derived for a
a particular Schmidt hammer.
certain material (mostly concrete) with a relatively
narrow range of mechanical properties, the empirical
normalization is not accurate.
Acknowledgements
It was demonstrated that the mathematical formula-
tion presented in this paper serves as a reliable method
This work was funded by The University of Hong
to normalize Schmidt hammer rebound values with
Kong.
reference to the horizontal direction in determining
rebound hardness of a wide range of materials.
Theoretical normalization curves in four different
References
directions for both L and N hammers used in this study
are presented in Fig. 4. [1] ISRM (International Society for Rock Mechanics). Suggested
methods for determining hardness and abrasiveness of rocks. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 1978;15:89–97.
5. Conclusions [2] ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). Standard
test method for determination of rock hardness by rebound
hammer, Designation D 5873–00. ASTM Standards on Disc, 2001:
The proposed normalization procedure: 04.08.
[3] McCarroll D. The Schmidt hammer as a measure of degree of rock
* is simple and general that could be used for any type surface weathering and terrain age. In: Beck C, editor. Dating in
of Schmidt hammer with the same nominal design exposed and surface contexts. Mexico: University of New Mexico
fired in any direction, Press; 1994. p. 29–45.